Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 145

Thread: Is it time to move on from Big Bang to new Theories?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641

    Is it time to move on from Big Bang to new Theories?

    In the beginning, when theorists where trying to explain the universe in mathematical terminologies, they ran into quite a few problems. I want to explain this history and why today we have better models to explain our universe than resorting to the big bang.

    The first problem, or inconsistency if you wish, was that there was not enough time to start the universe. We began it about the size of a blood cell, with a finite radius but as small as this was, it was not small enough. This caused for us to look at the universe much smaller - because if we had not, it would not allow enough time for light to reach all four corners of the universe. However, as they universe expanded, we still had this problem they found, so enter the Inflationary model.

    This allowed the universe to expand faster than light for a very short amount of time and by doing so allowed light to get where it needed to be in a homogeneous sheet of radiation. Even though this seemed to smooth out the problem, other problems still persisted.

    Static Universe models actually predicted phenomena much better than the Big Bang did. A few examples was, that the microwave background temperatures actually could be explained in better terms by saying it was the limiting temperature of starlight. Would make sense - note it is not completely homogeneous either. There is aboutr 10,000th degree of error in any direction we look.

    We also required many adjustable parameters to make nucleosynthesis work. Interestingly, the man who created it was Fred Hoyle, one of the biggest proponents against the Big Bang. The age of supergalaxies are also said to require an age exceeding the universe itself, two scientists who were recognized stating this is Lerner and Einstein. And the average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in such a fine tuned way that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

    These are just some problems with the Big Bang.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    9,076
    Well, there are two big issues you will have to grappled with if you want to believe in a static universe. One is the redshift. Why would that happen? And the second is, why haven't all the stars burnt out? Why hasn't all the hydrogen been changed into helium?
    As above, so below

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Static Universe models actually predicted phenomena much better than the Big Bang did. A few examples was, that the microwave background temperatures actually could be explained in better terms by saying it was the limiting temperature of starlight. Would make sense - note it is not completely homogeneous either. There is aboutr 10,000th degree of error in any direction we look.
    Actually, starlight isn't such a good example of a Blackbody Radiation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    We also required many adjustable parameters to make nucleosynthesis work.
    Can you produce a link for this? Only one parameter (density of bayronic matter) is needed to get a good fit on nucleosysnthesis. I'd like to see where this claim comes from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Interestingly, the man who created it was Fred Hoyle, one of the biggest proponents against the Big Bang.
    Well, this may be your problem then. The latest papers are from 1999 and 2004 and are based on Big Bang nucleosysnthesis, not Solar nucleosysthesis, which was Hoyle's field.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    The age of supergalaxies are also said to require an age exceeding the universe itself,
    Perhaps you mean superclusters?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    two scientists who were recognized stating this is Lerner and Einstein.
    Well, considering that by the time Einstein died in 1955, there wasn't a real good handle on the age of the universe, I'm not sure he's such a good source. As for Lerner, see below.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    And the average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in such a fine tuned way that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

    These are just some problems with the Big Bang.
    All of which have been brought up before and have been refuted. For Lerner specific questions look here . For the others, just check around Ned Wright's page.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Actually, starlight isn't such a good example of a Blackbody Radiation.



    Can you produce a link for this? Only one parameter (density of bayronic matter) is needed to get a good fit on nucleosysnthesis. I'd like to see where this claim comes from.



    Well, this may be your problem then. The latest papers are from 1999 and 2004 and are based on Big Bang nucleosysnthesis, not Solar nucleosysthesis, which was Hoyle's field.



    Perhaps you mean superclusters?



    Well, considering that by the time Einstein died in 1955, there wasn't a real good handle on the age of the universe, I'm not sure he's such a good source. As for Lerner, see below.



    All of which have been brought up before and have been refuted. For Lerner specific questions look here . For the others, just check around Ned Wright's page.

    Can you produce a link for this? Only one parameter (density of bayronic matter) is needed to get a good fit on nucleosysnthesis. I'd like to see where this claim comes from.


    http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Well, there are two big issues you will have to grappled with if you want to believe in a static universe. One is the redshift. Why would that happen? And the second is, why haven't all the stars burnt out? Why hasn't all the hydrogen been changed into helium?
    Sure. I can argue that things move in a static universe - it's like having a container with atoms which possess momentum inside of the container, which is not being shook and without true boundaries.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    I see people raise the question of redshift all the time and it puzzles me why people don't realize you can still have bodies moving away from each other. Andromeda is actually moving towards us, so surely this is an evidence?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,367
    Are you asking a question or making a statement? I mean, you start with this topic:

    Is it time to move on from Big Bang to new Theories?
    But then you say:

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    I want to explain this history and why today we have better models to explain our universe than resorting to the big bang.
    which is a statement, but I don't see where you present any better models. And to the question you started with, my answer would be: Not until and unless there really is something that is substantially different and does have a substantially better fit to the evidence.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,457
    I see people raise the question of redshift all the time and it puzzles me why people don't realize you can still have bodies moving away from each other. Andromeda is actually moving towards us, so surely this is an evidence?
    Well, it is an issue because you need to explain the strong correlation of average recessional velocity/redshift with distance.

    Do you have any references to any papers explaining the proposed CMBR mechanism works? Only ones I have ever seen require some implausibly black objects scattered all over the place in a fairly precise distribution to account for it.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Are you asking a question or making a statement? I mean, you start with this topic:



    But then you say:



    which is a statement, but I don't see where you present any better models. And to the question you started with, my answer would be: Not until and unless there really is something that is substantially different and does have a substantially better fit to the evidence.
    That's because I had to post it and I was going to post more later. But hey ho, I believe that the static model could work out better - it resolves a many issues, like the problem of the beginning of time and singularities.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Well, it is an issue because you need to explain the strong correlation of average recessional velocity/redshift with distance.

    Do you have any references to any papers explaining the proposed CMBR mechanism works? Only ones I have ever seen require some implausibly black objects scattered all over the place in a fairly precise distribution to account for it.
    Yes, I gave a reference. The background temperatures seem more likely as a limiting temperature of the stars.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    I don't find the idea of a limiting temperature implausible. In fact, it should be expected.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    I see people raise the question of redshift all the time and it puzzles me why people don't realize you can still have bodies moving away from each other.
    Why do you think they don't realize this?

    Andromeda is actually moving towards us, so surely this is an evidence?
    Evidence for what?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Why do you think they don't realize this?



    Evidence for what?
    Evidence that not everything is really rushing away from. The idea is that space is expanding between objects, which should necesserily mean all objects are rushing away from each other, which in respect of Andromeda, it is not - this could be evidence we live in a static universe where simply objects are moving inside of it.

    And I really don't know why this was overlooked.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    That's because I had to post it and I was going to post more later. But hey ho, I believe that the static model could work out better - it resolves a many issues, like the problem of the beginning of time and singularities.
    I'm not sure why those are problems, or why you need a static model to fix those. The real issue is that BBT fits the evidence better.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    That's because I had to post it and I was going to post more later. But hey ho, I believe that the static model could work out better - it resolves a many issues, like the problem of the beginning of time and singularities.
    Well the current mainstream view of the Big Bang isn't so much that it was "something from nothing" but more a unfolding from a pre-existing state. So there is the point that there is something before the big bang and there is no issue of "beginning of time" and there is no issue with singularities.

    A static universe as it is normally presented has fatal flaws like Jens pointed out in post #2 which I notice you've ignored. IE while the big bang models still leave questions to be answered it has far less holes then the static models. This is the reason it became the main stream view and replaced static models.

    Just like evolution doesn't address the formation of the first life, abiogenesis, the big bang no longer seems to try to incorporate T0

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Evidence that not everything is really rushing away from. The idea is that space is expanding between objects, which should necesserily mean all objects are rushing away from each other, which in respect of Andromeda, it is not - this could be evidence we live in a static universe where simply objects are moving inside of it.

    And I really don't know why this was overlooked.
    It never was overlooked. You're just assuming it was, which suggests that you need to study more before you make statements about this. Here's a short discussion about distinguishing between cosmological redshift and local effects on wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshif..._local_effects

    Cosmological redshift is isotropic and it increases with distance - which fits expansion. Worse, it fits an *accelerating* expansion.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    I'm not sure why those are problems, or why you need a static model to fix those. The real issue is that BBT fits the evidence better.
    They are problems when you try and reconcile quantum mechanics with GR - as one deals with the world of the small, our theories often try and contend with dealing with a massive degree of uncertainty at the beginning of time - in short, quantum mechanics will not allow you to squeeze matter into a fine point - but General Relativity will.

    The problem of time also is that the universe arose with no geometry in the first place, so how can time be fundamental?

    Ironically, I wrote up a theory in the alternative theory catagory on ''why did spacetime expand''. You will see that I made use of the uncertainty principle and make a speculation on whether we can ignore a violation if it happened for a very short time but also explaining why spacetime expanded between objects in the first place.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    It never was overlooked. You're just assuming it was, which suggests that you need to study more before you make statements about this. Here's a short discussion about distinguishing between cosmological redshift and local effects on wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshif..._local_effects

    Cosmological redshift is isotropic and it increases with distance - which fits expansion. Worse, it fits an *accelerating* expansion.
    You've lost me. What is this attempting to explain exactly?

    My question was why we haven't assumed that that objects are simply moving about. There is also the Hubble law, the further an object is the faster it will receed. My forte is quantum mechanics, but perhaps you could explain to me why the most distant of galaxies are simply just obeying this rule, rather than extrapolating idea's that the universe itself is now expanding faster than light?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    Well the current mainstream view of the Big Bang isn't so much that it was "something from nothing" but more a unfolding from a pre-existing state. So there is the point that there is something before the big bang and there is no issue of "beginning of time" and there is no issue with singularities.

    A static universe as it is normally presented has fatal flaws like Jens pointed out in post #2 which I notice you've ignored. IE while the big bang models still leave questions to be answered it has far less holes then the static models. This is the reason it became the main stream view and replaced static models.

    Just like evolution doesn't address the formation of the first life, abiogenesis, the big bang no longer seems to try to incorporate T0
    hmmm... Penrose is weilding the idea of a Cyclic Universe... but not everyone in mainstream is taking it too seriously. As far as I am aware, the mainstream does not believe (or the majority) do not believe anything existed before big bang: That is paradox in the eye's of GR.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Though needless to say, if I was to believe in the big bang, I'd believe for sure that there must have been some pre-existing state. I have already speculated that the singularity itself was something that existed only for a short while - perhaps on the time scale of a virtual fluctuation, and if something existed before this, it could have existed for eons.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Sure. I can argue that things move in a static universe - it's like having a container with atoms which possess momentum inside of the container, which is not being shook and without true boundaries.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    I see people raise the question of redshift all the time and it puzzles me why people don't realize you can still have bodies moving away from each other. Andromeda is actually moving towards us, so surely this is an evidence?
    I don't know anyone, that understands the main stream models, that doesn't think that all galaxies have some proper motion to them. The problem is saying cosmological red shift can be accounted by proper motion unless you want to enlighten us how you can a galaxies to have proper motions at speed > c

    We have plenty of observations of various galaxies that have red shifts that would indicate that they are travelling away from us faster then the speed of light. We can't get a proton to the speed of light. What force can you come up with that can accellerate 1.01012M☉, over 1x1042kg, 1x1069 times a proton to speeds in excess of c?

    So now you have to throw out special relativity in the process then some how explain, if GR and SR are wrong, how they come up with such accurate predictions while being so fundamentally flawed.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    I don't know anyone, that understands the main stream models, that doesn't think that all galaxies have some proper motion to them. The problem is saying cosmological red shift can be accounted by proper motion unless you want to enlighten us how you can a galaxies to have proper motions at speed > c

    We have plenty of observations of various galaxies that have red shifts that would indicate that they are travelling away from us faster then the speed of light. We can't get a proton to the speed of light. What force can you come up with that can accellerate 1.01012M☉, over 1x1042kg, 1x1069 times a proton to speeds in excess of c?

    So now you have to throw out special relativity in the process then some how explain, if GR and SR are wrong, how they come up with such accurate predictions while being so fundamentally flawed.
    Actually, I am under the impression that only the most distant observable galaxies are ''appearing'' to move away faster than light. In light of this, I ask why then we don't use the Hubble law of recession, that the more distant away an object is, the faster it appears to move. What if these most distant galaxies are that bit further than what we think? Surely then we have an explanation for the apparant recession of spacetime at superluminal speeds?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    And it isn't that matter is supposed to be moving at superluminal speeds. It's supposed to be the spacetime dragging it.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    hmmm... Penrose is weilding the idea of a Cyclic Universe... but not everyone in mainstream is taking it too seriously. As far as I am aware, the mainstream does not believe (or the majority) do not believe anything existed before big bang: That is paradox in the eye's of GR.
    There are many new models coming out that try to explain our universe in terms of some larger pre-existing universe. Most of the ones I've read/heard about aren't even cyclic but try to explain our universe as bubbling off from a larger bulk. All the models still follow the big bang from about 1x10-43 - 1x10-36 on and that before then its part of a pre existing bulk.

    I just had this discussion with snp.gupta. He/she was putting forth an idea about red shift being in terms of proper motion and wouldn't accept that if you don't understand the existing model you can't really come up with a model to replace it. This is because you'll fixate on problems that aren't there. And all to often you cling onto various ideas even when fatal flaws are exposed. Now you might say that the flaws are based on things like GR & SR which could be wrong and most of us would probably agree that there could and probably is a better model out there but that better model I bet will look a lot like GR & SR just like GR & SR looks a lot like Newtonian gravity and motion at non relativistic speeds. The problem is we've measured SR predictions at very high speeds/energies and observations match predictions to a high degree of precision. So any model that replaces it will probably look a lot like it.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    You've lost me. What is this attempting to explain exactly?
    That velocity of objects in space was never overlooked, as you suggested, and that only appears to cause significant deviations in what we measure for objects relatively close in the universe.

    My question was why we haven't assumed that that objects are simply moving about.
    With no expansion or accelerating expansion? How would you make that fit the observations?

    There is also the Hubble law, the further an object is the faster it will receed. My forte is quantum mechanics, but perhaps you could explain to me why the most distant of galaxies are simply just obeying this rule, rather than extrapolating idea's that the universe itself is now expanding faster than light?
    Well, given the Hubble "law", more distant galaxies would be receding faster than light.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Actually, I am under the impression that only the most distant observable galaxies are ''appearing'' to move away faster than light. In light of this, I ask why then we don't use the Hubble law of recession, that the more distant away an object is, the faster it appears to move. What if these most distant galaxies are that bit further than what we think? Surely then we have an explanation for the apparant recession of spacetime at superluminal speeds?
    Do you understand how the red shift calculations are made? It isn't that the galaxies could be further away and thus dimmer causing a larger red shift. It is strictly a Doppler effect. Let me give you an example.

    Observer is standing still.
    A fire engine is travelling away at 60km/hr from the observer
    The fire engine's siren will sound like it is at a lower pitch then it really is because the fire engine is travelling away at 60km/hr effectively lowering the pitch by stretching the sound wave out.
    It doesn't matter if the fire engine is 100m away and travelling at 60km/hr or 1km away and travelling at 60km/hr. The pitch change is purely a function of the radial speed away from the observer. The change in distance only effects volume in ideal conditions.

    In terms of galaxies the red shift is the radial speed away from us. Increasing the distance, in the big bang model, implies a higher recessional velocity because more space is present to expand.
    In a static universe where you try to explain red shift in terms of proper motion the problem is placing a galaxy 2x further away doesn't mean red shift is 2x as much. It just means you receive 1/4th the amount of photons making the object dimmer.

    In the big bang model the galaxies are not moving through space aside from their relatively low proper motions. But they can be receding faster then light. This removes the SR restrictions since they are not being moved.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    And it isn't that matter is supposed to be moving at superluminal speeds. It's supposed to be the spacetime dragging it.
    Correct. This is the big bang model. A static model can't claim this. So how, in your static model, do you explain red shifts indicating recession rates > c?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,367
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    As far as I am aware, the mainstream does not believe (or the majority) do not believe anything existed before big bang
    I think the bigger issue is how you would determine if there was something "before" the universe, or if that question even makes sense scientifically.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    Do you understand how the red shift calculations are made? It isn't that the galaxies could be further away and thus dimmer causing a larger red shift. It is strictly a Doppler effect. Let me give you an example.

    Observer is standing still.
    A fire engine is travelling away at 60km/hr from the observer
    The fire engine's siren will sound like it is at a lower pitch then it really is because the fire engine is travelling away at 60km/hr effectively lowering the pitch by stretching the sound wave out.
    It doesn't matter if the fire engine is 100m away and travelling at 60km/hr or 1km away and travelling at 60km/hr. The pitch change is purely a function of the radial speed away from the observer. The change in distance only effects volume in ideal conditions.

    In terms of galaxies the red shift is the radial speed away from us. Increasing the distance, in the big bang model, implies a higher recessional velocity because more space is present to expand.
    In a static universe where you try to explain red shift in terms of proper motion the problem is placing a galaxy 2x further away doesn't mean red shift is 2x as much. It just means you receive 1/4th the amount of photons making the object dimmer.

    In the big bang model the galaxies are not moving through space aside from their relatively low proper motions. But they can be receding faster then light. This removes the SR restrictions since they are not being moved.
    Sure, it is objects moving away from us - its like a sound wave - the wave depends on the direction motion. All its says is that objects moving away appear red-shifted and objects moving toward us blue...

    .. I don't see how any of this makes what I have asserted innacurate in any way? Perhaps I am missing something?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    Correct. This is the big bang model. A static model can't claim this. So how, in your static model, do you explain red shifts indicating recession rates > c?
    red shift just means an objects is moving away from us. Now, there is somewhat of an ilusion going with hubble recession. The more distant an object is, the faster it will appear to move. I would imagine the technical reason is because it takes more time for signals to reach us. (If I am wrong here, correct me please).

    I would imagine one way to explain this in static terms, is that recession rates appearing to move faster than light is just that: an illusion, brought about the Hubble law of recession for distant objects. The more distant an object is the faster it will appear to move and not only that, but to explain this, there may not be a limit on how fast an ''object appears'' to move at.

Similar Threads

  1. Is it time to move on from Big Bang to new Theories?
    By Aethelwulf in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 2012-May-01, 12:36 PM
  2. Wow, is it time to move or time to stay?
    By BigDon in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 2007-Aug-31, 04:00 PM
  3. Big (bang) Theories and even Bigger ignorance.
    By Christian.Muys in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 2006-Dec-20, 06:24 PM
  4. Big bang Theories
    By sfarq1 in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2005-Nov-07, 06:18 AM
  5. Are there intelligent non big bang theories
    By glen chapman in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 2003-Sep-12, 10:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: