What's Wrong with the Big Bang??

[Tim Thompson]

Here I am starting trouble again. So far I have asked about observational weaknesses in standard cosmology and the redshift distance relationship. Most seem to agree that there is a redshift distance relationship, but debate what it looks like (how much "intrinsic" and how much "cosmological" redshifts). The request for observational weaknesses simply drew a blank. There don't appear to be any.

Note that any observation is subject to interpretation; indeed, that's how we make sense of observations. So, any observation can be interpreted as being consistent with more than just one theory. To me, an observational weakness is an observation that cannot be made consistent with the theory, at least not without fundamentally unreasonable assumptions being involved.

There are plenty of alternative theory interpretations of observation, some better than others, and some more serious than others, and they are all hashed out (more or less) in the various threads.

So now I am motivated to move on to a new question: What's wrong with Big Bang cosmology? What is it about the idea that so many people just don't like it, even when they can't think of a concrete reason for rejecting it? Are objections based on some philosophical point? What's going on?

Cheers.

[AstroMike]

Here is the Crank.net page on the Big Bang.

http://www.crank.net/bigbang.html

[D J]

Lets see what the -Bad guys- have to say about that:
The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang.

http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Chip]

On 2002-12-11 19:20, Tim Thompson wrote:
"....So now I am motivated to move on to a new question: What's wrong with Big Bang cosmology? What is it about the idea that so many people just don't like it, even when they can't think of a concrete reason for rejecting it? Are objections based on some philosophical point? What's going on? Cheers.

Run for cover! The John Kierein Cavalry is mustering up their forces, and galloping in!

But seriously, I think the reasons some people (maybe not John Kierein) are irked by Big Bang cosmology begins within the non-scientific realm. (As Tim Thompson implied: philosophical.) I think some folks seem to find the idea of an ultimate origin for all that we see disturbing. Other reasons could be religious, or psychological, or a combination. The point is, a non-scientific origin usually remains in the background as a motivation for the quest to justify scientifically either an alternate theory, or to find fault with, and undermine Big Bang cosmology. This motivation seems to take place before an actual observation of data is seen on face value. The motivation precedes the objection, rather than a more open minded review of data and acceptance of how the cosmos on the grand scale can be understood.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-12-12 13:56 ]</font>

[ToSeek]

On 2002-12-11 19:47, Orion38 wrote:
Lets see what the -Bad guys- have to say about that:
The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang.

http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

JS Princeton addresses those "problems" here

[ToSeek]

There does seem to be an almost universal disdain among "cranks" for the Big Bang theory. Any of them with "original" ideas in physics seem to start with refuting the Big Bang (relativity seems to run second). I have no idea why.

[ljbrs]

There does seem to be an almost universal disdain among "cranks" for the Big Bang theory. Any of them with "original" ideas in physics seem to start with refuting the Big Bang (relativity seems to run second). I have no idea why.

They have a need to discredit all of the possible proofs for the Big Bang, thereby rendering the Big Bang meaningless to their friends who agree with their position. In order to dislodge the position that the Big Bang has in astrophysics/cosmology, one has to discredit the science underlying the theory.

I do not think that the Big Bang deniers have been very successful, except with the true believers of the alternate theories. Yawn...

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[Tim Thompson]

Orion suggests the "Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang (available as a PDF file from the Aperion archives; or just setttle for the webpage that enshrines the Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang).

Well, I hardly have time to exhaustively go over all 30 here and now. So lets just talk about problem number 1.

Number one problem with the Big Bang (at least according to Tom Van Flandern): Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models. Static universe models match most observations with no adjustable parameters. The Big Bang can match each of the critical observations, but only with adjustable parameters, one of which (the cosmic deceleration parameter) requires mutually exclusive values to match different tests. Without ad hoc theorizing, this point alone falsifies the Big Bang. Even if the discrepancy could be explained, Occam's razor favors the model with fewer adjustable parameters - the static universe model.

There are only two references given as justification for this paragraph. One is Tom Van Flandern's book Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets (1999), and his article from Apeiron (1995), "Did the Universe Have a Beginning?.

So, what are the questions that sort of naturally come about, from reading this paragraph? Here are a few I can think of.

1) Is the central thesis correct? Do observations really fit a static universe better?

2) Does the deceleration parameter require mutually exclusive criteria to pass different tests?

3) Does Occam's razor favor the model with fewer adjustable parameters?

And here's my shot at some answers.

Question 1: I don't have the book, so I can only refer to the article. In the article, Van Flandern outlines 7 tests that he says favor a static universe. Tests number 5 (Supernova lightcurves) & 6 (The ages of globular clusters and of superclusters of galaxies) are the easiest to dismiss. Contrary to Van Flandern's outdated critique, supoernova light curves are observed to follow the relativistic expectation of time dilation, which he says is expected in an expanding universe, and not expected in a static universe (Effects of relativistic expansion on late-time supernova light curves, K. Iwamoto, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 54(4): L63-L67, 2002; Time dilation from spectral feature age measurements of Type Ia supernovae, A.G. Riess et al.,, Astronomical Journal 114(2): 722-729, August 1997). The ages of globular clusters once appeared to be marginally inconsistent with a younger age derived for the universe, but that discrepancy has vanished in the presence of better data & better models (Setting new constraints on the age of the Universe, I. Ferreras, A. Melchiorri & J. Silk, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 327(4): L47-L51, November 11, 2001; The age of globular clusters in light of hipparcos: Resolving the age problem?, B. Chaboyer et al., Astrophysical Journal 494(1): 96-110, Part 1, February 10, 1998). Van Flandern's criticism based on galactic cluster formation is dismissed because he bases his critique on a model that is not incorporated in Big Bang cosmologies.

Test number 2 is a claim that galaxy number counts are inconsistent with an expanding universe. It is based on a 1986 paper by P.A. LaVoilette, who favors a tired light cosmology, and uses his paper to exclude a static Euclidean universe (Is the universe really expanding?, Astrophysical Journal 301: 544-553, February 15, 1986). But more recent publications, nased on far larger numbers of galaxies, do not support LaViolette's conclusions (Galaxy number counts in the Subaru Deep Field: Multiband analysis in a hierarchical galaxy formation model, M. Nagashima et al., Astrophysal Journal 578(2): 675-688, Part 1, October 20, 2002; Galaxy number counts from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey commissioning data, N. Yasuda et al., Astronomical Journal 122(3): 1104-1124, September 2001).

And tests 3 (Surface brightness versus redshift for galaxies) & 7 (Galaxy evolution) are by Van Flandern's own criteria, consistent with expanding universe cosmologies.

That's 5 of his 7 tests. I don't have time to proceed with the others, but I trust my point is at least made. The content of the statement, claiming that static universe models are a better fit, appears weak at best, and is most likely false.

Question 2: I don't know where the claim for inconsistency in the deceleration parameter comes from, unles perhaps from Van Flandern's article again. My brief review of the literature implies not so much inconsistency as confusion. There are indeed a number of conflicting reports, but the deceleration is harder than most to measure, and is not a fundamental parameter anyway (or so it seems to me), being dependent on the geometry (i.e., you cannot derive from observation a model independent deceleration parameter). This implies to me that the criticism from Van Flandern is weak, and relies on an overestimation of the ability to derive a deceleration parameter directly from observational data.

Question 3: I think it is a mistake to interpret "adjustable parameters" for the unnecessary complications that Occam warns against. Rather, Occam's razor should apply to the extra baggage of unneccesary fundamental assumptions. An "adjustable parameter" is only a numerical tool to scale observation & theory, but is not a fundamental concept. In truth, an expanding universe cosmology is very simple, and requires only one fundamental theoretical assumption (that general relativity is a valid theory of space-time), and one fundamental observational interpretation (that galactic redshifts imply expansion). Everything else derives from these. So the real cosmology is far simpler than implied by counting up relatively meaningless adjustable parameters. I do not accept the criticism offerred on bhalf of Occam.

Of course, I'm out of time. At least I hope i have properly indicated that the number 1 criticism of Big Bang cosmology, in the list of 30, does not amount to much of a criticism.

Cheers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Thompson on 2002-12-11 22:23 ]</font>

[D J]

On 2002-12-11 22:21, Tim Thompson wrote:

Well, I hardly have time to exhaustively go over all 30 here and now. So lets just talk about problem number 1...
....
Of course, I'm out of time. At least I hope i have properly indicated that the number 1 criticism of Big Bang cosmology, in the list of 30, does not amount to much of a criticism.

Cheers.

I dont expect passing through all those 30 problems in one day.I am sure others will also try with another part,but there is surely some problems who will be more difficult to solve.And that will be a pretty good test for the Big Bang theory /Vs other model.Thanks for your time.

http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Cheers.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-12 01:05 ]</font>

[JS Princeton]

I suppose my answers aren't good enough for you then, Orion? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]

[D J]

On 2002-12-12 06:34, JS Princeton wrote:
I suppose my answers aren't good enough for you then, Orion? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]

Quote you wrote:
9) ""This "fact" is not true. The most distant objects known are now
lensed galaxies that are at *nearly the same redshift as the most distant
quasars*. The record holders go back and forth between the two
objects. Galaxies and quasars are parts of the similar objects, after all.
We expect to find them both back to those redshifts at least.""

Your rebuttal about number 9 doesn`t match with observation from Photometric Redshifts in the HDF North -Hubble Deep Field North-

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level...dfn/index.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-12 13:27 ]</font>

[JS Princeton]

HDF is a statisically insignificant sampling compared to Sloan and 2DF which really do a consistent survey. Going deep has its uses, but coming up with statistics on distributions is manifestly NOT one of them. Anyone who argues that such is a valid argument clearly doesn't understand or just chooses NOT to understand what statistical astronomy has become in the last 10 years or so.

[D J]

But that survey is at least valid to compare objects in the deep space field isn`t it?I hope you understand that.Why that survey is not valid for you this is what I don`t understand?
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level...dfn/index.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-12 13:33 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-12 13:37 ]</font>

[D J]

I think this is more appropriate to continuate the discussion here.
JS Princeton wrote:
Quote:
HDF doesn't say a rooster's egg about the distribution of quasar redshifts across the sky.
Isolated incidents of coincidence are just a stupid way to think you have discovered a "fact" about the universe. The "fact" is that sky surveys have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that we live in a uniformly distributed universe in both angular and redshift space. End of story.
__________________________

Maybe this is the heart of the problem that uniformly distributed universe in both angular and "redshift" space.Could difficult be produce by an explosive event.But I know the secret of that uniformity is causing by the Dark matter /or Dark Energie causing the expansion of the universe.What a fayrie tale!!!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-12 14:02 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-12 14:12 ]</font>

[David Hall]

On 2002-12-12 13:32, Orion38 wrote:
But that survey is at least valid to compare objects in the deep space field isn`t it?I hope you understand that.Why that survey is not valid for you this is what I don`t understand?
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level...dfn/index.html

It's not just what data you have, it's also knowing when the data is useful and appropriate and when it's not.

The Hubble Deep Field images only cover a couple of thousand galaxies in very very small areas of the sky. They are like core samples, good for determining what types of galaxies exist at what depths (distances), and giving us a *glimpse* of what's there at the farthest reaches. But they are almost absolutely useless as references for overall statistical use due to their small size, both angularly and numerically.

So, it's ok to compare the morphology and spectrography of individual galaxies with those in other surveys, but it is not proper to use the HDF's in reference to the distribution of galaxies.

BTW, according to the HDF site, photometric redshifts are not very useful overall. You need spectrographic redshifts to do any real comparative work:
http://astrowww.phys.uvic.ca/grads/gwyn/pz/index.html

_________________
...And that, my leige, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

<font size="-1">(corrected spelling error)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-12-13 07:06 ]</font>

[John Kierein]

How does the big bang explain the brightness of the sky at 144 and 500 meters wavelength? Corresponds to millions of degrees black body temperature. Clearly extragalactic.
Many problems of the big bang are found in Bill Mitchell's book "Bye Bye Big Bang, Hello Reality".
How does the big bang explain the cosmic rays of energies exceeding the cutoff? See my website for some links.
My objections to the big bang are not philosophical or religious; in fact, I used to think it was a pretty good speculative theory, but rather it just doesn't match observations.
I'm sure you've looked at my website.
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html

[AgoraBasta]

On 2002-12-13 08:40, John Kierein wrote:
How does the big bang explain the brightness of the sky at 144 and 500 meters wavelength?

John,
They don't care. They generally don't care to explain whatever doesn't fit into their fairy tale cosmology.
The most likely source of those signals is just plain synchrotron. But then they have to admit existence of huge intergalactic magnetic fields and even greater intensity signals/backrounds at yet lower frequencies. But such deduction promptly leads to inconsistency of all Einsteinian cosmology, since gravity turns out mostly insignificant at cosmological scale; which, in turn, means that universe can't expand without continuous violation of conservation laws.

And, btw, they like to forget that the "cosmological redshift" is easily explained as a gravitational phenomenon.

[michael cyrek]

On 2002-12-11 19:20, Tim Thompson wrote:
Here I am starting trouble again. So far I have asked about observational weaknesses in standard cosmology and the redshift distance relationship. Most seem to agree that there is a redshift distance relationship, but debate what it looks like (how much "intrinsic" and how much "cosmological" redshifts). The request for observational weaknesses simply drew a blank. There don't appear to be any.

Note that any observation is subject to interpretation; indeed, that's how we make sense of observations. So, any observation can be interpreted as being consistent with more than just one theory. To me, an observational weakness is an observation that cannot be made consistent with the theory, at least not without fundamentally unreasonable assumptions being involved.

There are plenty of alternative theory interpretations of observation, some better than others, and some more serious than others, and they are all hashed out (more or less) in the various threads.

So now I am motivated to move on to a new question: What's wrong with Big Bang cosmology? What is it about the idea that so many people just don't like it, even when they can't think of a concrete reason for rejecting it? Are objections based on some philosophical point? What's going on?

Cheers.

The trouble with the big bang is that there are too many unanswered questions. No consensus as to how it all started or the nature of the spark that started it all.
No solution as to the nature of the mysterious dark matter that has enhanced the total gravity of the galaxies that Zwicky discovered.
No reason given for the cosmological dark energy that is supposed to be contributing to the expansion of space.
A confusing 'raisin bread' analogy that sounds unrealistic.
An evolving Universe that does not seem to be realistic when you study the Hubble Deep Field North that appears to be similar to our local environment.

[SAMU]

I think that the resistance to the Big Bang is based on the desire to belive that the universe has infinite potential rather than limited (albeit enourmous) potential. Should a breakthrough occur that gives us easy access to all the universe, the infinite universe has more value than the limited universe.

[ljbrs]

I think that the resistance to the Big Bang is based on the desire to belive that the universe has infinite potential rather than limited (albeit enourmous) potential. Should a breakthrough occur that gives us easy access to all the universe, the infinite universe has more value than the limited universe.

However, an incorrect theory about the universe has absolutely no value at all. With the CMBR being recorded at many wavelengths of the elecromagnetic spectrum, it is difficult to select a model which is not consistent with the CMBR. So far, the Big Bang seems to be the sole contender.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[D J]

On 2002-12-15 14:26, ljbrs wrote:
However, an incorrect theory about the universe has absolutely no value at all. With the CMBR being recorded at many wavelengths of the elecromagnetic spectrum, it is difficult to select a model which is not consistent with the CMBR. So far, the Big Bang seems to be the sole contender.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

But what you gone do if the observation suggest another explaination for the CMBR than the Big Bang.
Observation:
The absolute zero in the vaccuum of space is -273° C The background radiation is 2.73 K There is definitively an action caused by the vaccum of space here.
So it could be possible than the CMBR is the residual value of all the energetic activity produce since the universe exist and dissipated trough the "Quantum Medium" of space.See the Dr. Puthoff experiment about the -Quantum Medium- of space here:
http://ascension2000.com/DivineCosmos/01.htm

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2002-12-15 14:51 ]</font>

[AgoraBasta]

I wonder what new tales will the BB'ers chant when NGST delivers little evidence of universe evolution...
(They may be preparing some refuges and denials by now as we chat)

[Silas]

On 2002-12-16 17:54, AgoraBasta wrote:
I wonder what new tales will the BB'ers chant when NGST delivers little evidence of universe evolution...
(They may be preparing some refuges and denials by now as we chat)

Why?

Why would we bother? What does the BB do for us that any other theory couldn't do?

If we're all a bunch of dishonest crooks and liars, gathering at night to make up fairy tales to deceive the great unwashed...why? Why would we bother?

Does the Big Bang theory give us a lot of money? Power? Admiration? Do you really think that we want the Nobel Prize so badly that we'd lie, cheat, and steal to get it?

What conceivable reason would we have?

Isn't it enough to seek (hello, To Seek!) for the truth, in the spirit of exploration?

And...is it really necessary for you to make such accusations of immorality? Again, why? What do you gain from being rude? What is your purpose?

Silas

[The Bad Astronomer]

On 2002-12-16 17:54, AgoraBasta wrote:
I wonder what new tales will the BB'ers chant when NGST delivers little evidence of universe evolution...

Your post has no content. You could replace the "BBers" with "creationists" or "Steady Staters" and have said just as much.

Anyway, MAP will be releasing its results far sooner: as early as next January, in fact. What will you say if the results support the Big Bang? I know what astronomers will say if it doesn't; they'll be very excited, as a matter of fact. We'll have to wait and see.

[Tim Thompson]

JK: How does the big bang explain the brightness of the sky at 144 and 500 meters wavelength? Corresponds to millions of degrees black body temperature. Clearly extragalactic.

Big Bang cosmology does not directly explain it, nor should it be expected to, since no part of the theory is directly connected to such emission. Surely you don't think that the Big Bang cosmology suggests that only thermal background should be seen at all wavelengths?

The emission at those wavelengths is explained by astrophysics. My guess would be synchrotron emission from charged particles in galactic or extragalactic magnetic fields, but I have not looked into this in any detail.

JK: How does the big bang explain the cosmic rays of energies exceeding the cutoff?

Those cosmic rays create intolerable conflicts only if we stick to the assumption that they must traverse extreme cosmological distances, where we would expect them to scatter off of the CMB (the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin or GZK cutoff). However, if they don't have to cross such distances, then they are not such a problem.

Ultra high energy cosmic rays
J.W. Cronin
Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 97: 3-9, April 2001
ABSTRACT: The evidence for the existence of cosmic rays with energies in excess of 10(20) eV is now overwhelming. There is so far no indication of the GZK cutoff in the energy spectrum at 5 x 10(19) eV. This conclusion is not firm for lack of statistics. A cutoff would be expected if the sources of the cosmic rays were distributed uniformly throughout the cosmos. The sources of cosmic rays with energy above the GZK cutoff must be at a distance less than or equal to 100 Mpc, and if they are protons they are very likely to point to these sources. There are no easy explanations how known astrophysical objects can accelerate protons (or atomic nuclei) to these energies. The fluxes of these cosmic rays is very low and large instruments are required to observe them even with modest statistics. One such instrument, the Pierre Auger Observatory, is described. It is designed for all-sky coverage and the construction of its southern site in Argentina has begun.

Note that anything closer than 100,000,000 parsecs (326,000,000 light years) can produce ultra high energy cosmic rays without worrying over the GZK effect. That's a lot of territory. There were suggestions of such possibilities some years ago.

Centaurus A as a source of extragalactic cosmic rays with arrival energies well beyond the GZK cutoff
G.E. Romero, et al.
Astroparticle Physics 5(3-4): 279-283, October 1996
ABSTRACT: The ultra-high energy cosmic rays recently detected by several air shower experiments could have an extragalactic origin. In this case, the nearest active galaxy Centaurus A might be the source of the most energetic particles ever detected on Earth. We have used recent radio observations in order to estimate the arrival energy of the protons accelerated by strong shock fronts in the outer parts of this southern radio source. We expect detections corresponding to particles with energies up to similar to 2.2 x 10(21) eV and an arrival direction of (l approximate to 310 degrees, b approximate to 20 degrees) in galactic coordinates. The future Southern Hemisphere Pierre Auger Observatory might provide a decisive test for extragalactic models of the origin of the ultra-high energy cosmic rays.

Whether or not there are sources of such ultra high energy cosmic rays (UHECRs) within 100 Mpc remains to be determined. However, until some observation or theory rules it out, it is a perfectly reasonable and physical hypothesis.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Thompson on 2002-12-16 20:34 ]</font>

[Tim Thompson]

cyrek: An evolving Universe that does not seem to be realistic when you study the Hubble Deep Field North that appears to be similar to our local environment.

How do you figure that the HDF-N "appears to be similar to our local environment"? Do you just look at the picture and guess by eyeball? It takes a bit more attention to detail. Studies of both HDF images clearly show the effects of galactic evolution, in the images.

The easiest place to see this is in The Hubble Deep Fields, H.C. Ferguson, M. Dickinson & R. Williams, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 38: 667-715, 2000. The paper discusses all manner of galactic evolution visible in both HDF-N and HDF-S. Number counts, morphology, brightness, and more, all vary as a function of redshift, showing clear signs of evolution.

Or consider this.

When did the Hubble sequence appear?: Morphology, color, and number-density evolution of the galaxies in the Hubble deep field north
M. Kajisawa & T. Yamada
Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan 53(5): 833-852, 2001
ABSTRACT: Using the HST WFPC2/NICMOS archival data of the Hubble Deep Field North, we constructed a nearly complete sample of the M-V < -20 (similar to L* + 1) galaxies to z = 2, and investigate when the Hubble sequence appeared, namely, the evolution of the morphology, colors, and the comoving number density of the sample. Even if taking into account the uncertainty of the photometric redshift technique, the number density of relatively bright bulge-dominated galaxies in the HDF-N decreases significantly at z > 1, and their rest-frame U - V color distribution is wide-spread over 0.5 < z < 2. On the other hand, while the number density of both disk-dominated and irregular galaxies does not show a significant change at 0.5 < z < 2, their distribution of the rest-frame U - V color alters at z similar to 1.5; there is no relatively red (rest U - V greater than or similar to 0.3) galaxies at z > 1.5, while a significant fraction of these red disk-dominated or irregular galaxies exist at z < 1.5. These results suggest that the significant evolution of the Hubble sequence, which is seen in the present Universe, occurs at 1 < z < 2.

There is quite a bit of literature available, besides just these two papers, on observational galaxy evolution in general, and specifically in the Hubble Deep Fields. They do not appear to be similar to the local environment. Both HDF images show clear & obvious signs of evolution, but you do need to know enough about astronomy to appreciate the significance of what you see.

[Tim Thompson]

cyrek: The trouble with the big bang is that there are too many unanswered questions.

But that is a purely subjective observation. What constitutes "too many"? One? Ten? A hundred? And how do you distinguish between the hundred or so questions that are merely matters of detail, and of little significance, and the questions that are really important? I don't see this as much of an objection, yet.

cyrek: No consensus as to how it all started or the nature of the spark that started it all.

And there never will be any such consensus, no matter the cosmological theory. This is one of those questions which I would say does not matter. Big Bang cosmology is a system designed to explain how the universe behave after the apparent beginning, but classically has nothing to say about how it began.

In recent years, this attitude amongst cosmologists has changed, and there is a considerable interest in pre Big Bang cosmology, as a result of advances in the theory of quantum gravity & string theory. So, at this point, even if there is no consensus, there certainly are several attractive possibilities open for going beyond the singularity of pure general relativity, to see (perhaps) what happened before the Bang.

cyrek: No solution as to the nature of the mysterious dark matter that has enhanced the total gravity of the galaxies that Zwicky discovered.

No solution, but since when are theories expected to offer definitive solutions on demand for all questions? The real question is whether or not there are reasonable hypotheses, within the confines of the theory, top solve the problem?

In that case, the answer is yes. There are two perfectly good avenues of approach. One is that there is no a-priori restriction on matter that requires it to be baryonic (i.e., coupled to photons). So it is not much of a stretch to simply assume that there is some extra matter out there that we haven't been able to see yet, because we haven't figured out how to look for it. That solution works, even if it lacks the satisfaction of direct observation of the dark matter.

Another, more esoteric possibility, is the multi dimensional approach that comes from string theory. In a universe of say 5 dimensions (as opposed to the typical 4 dimensional GR space-time), gravity from the 5th dimension is detectable in the 4-D universe, and looks much like dark matter. If the universe is 10 or 11 dimensions (as in M-theory), the effect is even more pronounced.

These are both theoretical constructions, of course, but they are self-consistent, and at least so far, consistent with observation (especially the simple non-baryonic dark matter model). This may not satisfy you, but it satisfies a large community of scientists who study cosmology & astrophysics in detail.

cyrek: No reason given for the cosmological dark energy that is supposed to be contributing to the expansion of space.

Sure there is. In qunitessence theory, "dark energy" is simply another guage field hidden inside the stress-energy tensor in Einstein's equations. In standard cosmology, it becomes the cosmological constant, essentially an outward pressure built into space-time.

Both of these are "existential" solutions, in that they explain what is happening, but not "why" in a deeper sense. but, then again, the deeper sense of "why" eventually falls outside the realm of science (as in "the universe expands because Gos want's it to"). All that any scientific theory has to do is explain the working of the mechanism. Both of these approaches, both prevalent in the literature, do exactly that.

cyrek: A confusing 'raisin bread' analogy that sounds unrealistic.

That's because it is unrealistic. That's why it's an analogy. It only goes so far. The strong point of the analogy is that the bread between the raisins expands, but the raisins themselves do not. And so it is in the cosmos, where galaxies & galaxy clusters do not share in the cosmological expansion. Only the space between them expands.

Furthermore, if you went for a ride on one of those raisins, in a large enough loaf, you would see the raisins behave as we see galaxies behave. The more distant raisins would be moving away from you faster than the nearer raisins (because there is more expanding bread in the way).

So, while the analogy may have its weaknesses, it has its strengths too. It is not confusing to me.

[ljbrs]

Tim Thompson:

Your threads are so very interesting. I seldom read the (source) posts which you are challenging (except as you quote them in your threads), because I do not want to get my science wrong. I feel very secure reading the posts of the truly knowledgeable writers, such as you (and, of course, others here on Bad Astronomy). I would like you to realize that you (and the other knowledgeable people who post here) have a loyal AUDIENCE. I spend most of my time trolling around looking for the great posts on Bad Astronomy. I learn from your (and their) clear explanations. Fascinating!

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[AgoraBasta]

On 2002-12-16 18:56, Silas wrote:
What does the BB do for us that any other theory couldn't do?

The answer is simple - money and recognition. You don't get any funds working against mainstream dogmas, and you get your name tarnished all over - go ask Arp or TVF.

If we're all a bunch of dishonest crooks and liars, gathering at night to make up fairy tales to deceive the great unwashed...why? Why would we bother?

I wouldn't paint all the BB'ers in such nasty epithets, I'd say that they are just selling their product - the BB "science", and they do that for profit.

Does the Big Bang theory give us a lot of money? Power? Admiration?

Not really a lot - just enough to stay in business.

Do you really think that we want the Nobel Prize so badly that we'd lie, cheat, and steal to get it?

Yes.

What conceivable reason would we have?

Just normal humanly reasons, same old stuff...

Isn't it enough to seek (hello, To Seek!) for the truth, in the spirit of exploration?

It would be enough if they spent their own funds. With the third-party financing, all's different.

And...is it really necessary for you to make such accusations of immorality? Again, why? What do you gain from being rude? What is your purpose?

My purpose is public awareness.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AgoraBasta on 2002-12-17 07:00 ]</font>

[AgoraBasta]

On 2002-12-16 19:33, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
Your post has no content. You could replace the "BBers" with "creationists" or "Steady Staters" and have said just as much.

BB'ers and Creationists do fit here interchangeably, Steady-Staters don't - that's one part of the content.

Anyway, MAP will be releasing its results far sooner: as early as next January, in fact. What will you say if the results support the Big Bang?

If everyone expects them to support it, they sure will - at first, at least. Then some debunking will happen. We'll see...
Personally, I'm open to truth and impenetrable to brainwashing (ok, not impenetrable - just tough).

I know what astronomers will say if it doesn't; they'll be very excited, as a matter of fact. We'll have to wait and see.

I know (I have a personal impression) that there's enough of underground resenting of BB among astrophysicists. Many of them are ready to wash the BB stuff off on a good occasion. Would you say the same of astronomers?