Is the current big bang model wrong?

Maybe the weak interaction model is wrong ?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
<br />If things look essentially the same at "every scale" then that means "scale" has gradations. At some point a star, or a galaxy, or a cluster, etc., is going to "play the role" of an atom (using Tom's phrase). My question is what is this point? What is the point, or gradation, where the next scale (relative to an atom) occurs?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I must not understand your point because an "atom" is no more fundamental than a molecule, asteroid, moon, planet, star, globular cluster, galaxy, supercluster, or Great Wall. They are all just different forms, and one can point to multiplicities of forms on any scale whatever.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Our entire visible universe may very well not be large enough to play the role of an atom. And if that's the case, how can the MM ever be verified?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Dimensions are infinite, which arises from logic, not observation. It should be readily apparent that we can never observe that space, time, or scale are infinite in extent. But we can reason to that conclusion by excluding the converse. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by EBTX</i>
<br />The parity violation of the weak interaction is not a statistical fluke ... it is the embodiment of a law of nature. But such a violation (predictable in every repetition of appropriate experiments), cannot be statistical else experiments would result in equally probable left-right results.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The statement just made is clearly invalid. Just look at isotopic ratios for oxygen, for example. They all lie along the same fractionation line for all the rocks of a given planet, yet have a different fractionation line for another planet. Look how like molecules tend to cluster, as in air and oceans. Why would it be the least bit remarkable in an infinite universe if left-handed molecules tended to dominate regions as large as a meta-planet orders of magnitude bigger than our visible universe? Then right-handed molecules might dominate elsewhere. We merely need this property of affinity to explain why parity, whatever it means physically, might tend to occur in "large" (to us) clusters.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the choice of left over right is necessarily acausal because there is no quantitative difference between left and right upon which to base a "choice".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This appears to be unjustified also because it assumes something about the physical nature of parity that may not be true. You cannot adopt a standard model interpretation and use that to argue against MM.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Hence, one must postulate another universe to balance out our ingrained requirement for causality ... or ... we may postulate another part of this universe where the phenomena are reversed so as to yield the balancing results.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Or simply another scale. -|Tom|-

Or perhaps another time ...

Do any of you happen to know where the cosmic background radiation is coming from?

Is this a continuous radiation? If so, what is emitting it?

Can I ask what a "fractionation line" is?