Why Can't We Compromise?

[Squashed]

I've read a little bit about the Arp theory: The Big Bang Never Happened, copyright 1991, by Eric J. Lerner; and it is an interesting theory. What I find most interesting is the rabid reaction from the big bang supporters.

When I was reading the book, my mind went back to the big bang and I thought that maybe this plasma pinching is a viable explanation of how the proto-galaxies formed. After all, wasn't the big bang a plasma flow, for a period, when only protons and electrons existed?

Plasma pinching would easily account for the large-scale structure of the universe, which came from such a homogenous beginning. All the velocity of the plasma was outward away from the cosmic kernel, which would be “fairly” parallel and susceptible to the plasma effects.

I don't know if I can believe that plasma physics still plays a role in today's universe but I can surely envision it in the proto-universe times.

Is compromise possible?

[Peter Wilson]

Lerner's model is "truistic," in a sense: we live in a universe shaped by electromagnetic forces. Nobody can argue with that. Nonetheless, the laws of EM describe how EM systems evolve...that is all. Lerner's criticisms of BBT are good, but as he readily admits in his book, EM theory does not provide a source of expansion energy. I argure in my thread on Dark Enegy that gravitational energy is the source of expansion energy.

[Nereid]

I've read a little bit about the Arp theory: The Big Bang Never Happened, copyright 1991, by Eric J. Lerner; and it is an interesting theory. What I find most interesting is the rabid reaction from the big bang supporters.

When I was reading the book, my mind went back to the big bang and I thought that maybe this plasma pinching is a viable explanation of how the proto-galaxies formed. After all, wasn't the big bang a plasma flow, for a period, when only protons and electrons existed?

If you're talking about the concordance model of modern cosmology, then your question can be answered with a resounding NO!

If we limit our consideration to regimes in which the universe is essentially transparent to neutrinos (i.e. when the temperature and density fell low enough, in the Big Bang model), then electromagnetic radiation was the dominant factor in the evolution of the universe ... until the surface of last scattering (which we know today as the CMB). I think if you do the math, you'll find that 'only protons and electrons' played little part in what happened during this time, other than as 'ballast'.

Or, if you'd like a deeper answer, then since we have so little understanding of DM (and DE), especially the extent to which DM might have been coupled with the radiation field, via gravitational interaction with the baryonic matter, we can't rule out an important role for 'only protons and electrons', but whatever such a role is, it must include a great deal more than just 'plasma pinching'.

Plasma pinching would easily account for the large-scale structure of the universe, which came from such a homogenous beginning. All the velocity of the plasma was outward away from the cosmic kernel, which would be “fairly” parallel and susceptible to the plasma effects.

Really? Did Lerner (or Arp) derive P(k) from an analysis of 'plasma pinching'? If so, how well does that derived ('predicted') curve match the one derived from observations?

I don't know if I can believe that plasma physics still plays a role in today's universe but I can surely envision it in the proto-universe times.

Is compromise possible?

Show us how!

Other than P(k), you could also show how their ideas are consistent with the following:
-> large-scale polarisation observed in the CMB
-> the CMB acoustic power spectrum
-> the integrated Sachs-Wolf effect (a good test - it hasn't been observed yet, so predictions of what will be observed, any day now, would be good)

[Cougar]

Plasma pinching would easily account for the large-scale structure of the universe, which came from such a homogenous beginning.

It seems sort of plausible in such a dense soup of elementary particles, but no, as Nereid alluded to, this soup is infused with radiation -- high energy photons that constantly bombard the soup into thermal equilibrium. So whatever pinching may or may not be going on would be quickly knocked smooth.

Is compromise possible?

In life, sure. In science.... I don't think so.

[czeslaw]

The Arp theory appeared because a strange movement of some Quasars and large structures of galaxy clusters. It is difficult to explain by a simple Big Bang as space recession from a point singularity.
The mainstream suffers some limitations :
1. They reject an energy supplied from outside of our Observable Universe but believe in a mysterious Dark Energy.
2. They accept a freely space recession as a property of the space alone and lose the space decompression because the energy supply.
3. They lose a weight of relativistic mass.
4. They lose effects of z-pinch caused by EM force in early dense Universe and energy supplied from outside driving this rotations.

[iantresman]

I don't know if I can believe that plasma physics still plays a role in today's universe but I can surely envision it in the proto-universe times.

All the stars and our Sun are made of 100% plasma. Interplanetary space is about 99% plasma in our Solar System and others. Intergalactic space, depending on you believe is 100% plasma, or a proportion of so-called invisible dark matter.

So if it's nearly all made of plasma and looks like a plasma, it surely behaves like a plasma, and plays a significant role. Even Homer Simpson could answer this one.

The alternative is the Emporer's new Dark Matter. Invisible, inferred, hypothetical, not directly observed, not seen in the laboratory, nor the Solar System, and arguably only seen in the minds of those who wonder whether plasma plays a part in the Universe.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[Nereid]

The topic of this thread is Lerner's alternative ideas re the origin of the universe, how such ideas relate to Arp's (on cosmology), and the extent to which the 'plasma pinching' contained within these are consistent with modern mainstream cosmological models.

Specifically, we are considering the proposal (claim?), by Squashed, that 'plasma pinching is a viable explanation of how the proto-galaxies formed'.

Please do NOT use this thread to promote any other ATM ideas (that is against the BAUT rules).

Please do NOT use this thread to present your own views on the shortcomings of mainstream cosmology (that is also hijacking an ATM thread, and also against the BAUT rules).

If you wish to present a defence of Lerner's ideas concerning plasma pinching as a way to form proto-galaxies, please go right ahead.

If you wish to question that idea, or challenge it, then please also go right ahead.

[nutant gene 71]

What I find most interesting is the rabid reaction from the big bang supporters.

Because it is just human nature. Question any religious belief and you will evoke a 'rabid' response. There's no compromise here.

What is essentially speculations on why we observe redshift of distant cosmic light has led to incredible hypotheses skating awfully close to the Judeo-Christian neo-Creationist beliefs of the Big Bang. It never happened. We just don't as yet know why cosmic light redshifts, and don't want to admit our ignorance. So, expect rabid response from those who had come to believe the Big Bang, and expanding space, as true Astrophysics. It can be like that, where the unexplainable is explained with still wilder unexplainables. Expanding into what? Some proto-space time? What is it expanding into? It's all nonsense.

That said, I most wholeheartedly enjoy reading the wild speculations here and elsewhere posing as science. But I'm just human.

[Cougar]

Question any religious belief and.... etc., etc.

There is so much wrong with this post, it's hard to know where to begin. Your expressed view is a fantasy, a drastic misconception. School, college, reading, study can correct this, but that takes work.

[iantresman]

Plasma pinching would easily account for the large-scale structure of the universe, which came from such a homogenous beginning. All the velocity of the plasma was outward away from the cosmic kernel, which would be “fairly” parallel and susceptible to the plasma effects.

Hannes Alfvénn and Per Carlqvist suggest how the Bennett Pinch may also aid in ''star'' formation, which is several orders of magnitude between what is known about z-pinches in the laboratory, and galaxy formation. See:

• Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars, Alfven, H.; Carlqvist, P. [Full text available]

Anthony L. Perratt goes one stage further, and indeed suggests that pinches may aid galaxy formation, without the need for dark matter, see:

• Electric space : evolution of the plasma universe, Peratt, A. L. (Full text available)
• Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies [Abstract | Full text (PDF)]

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[nutant gene 71]

Your expressed view is a fantasy, a drastic misconception.

No, dear Cougar, with all due respect, but it is the other way around. We are speculating on pure fanatasy, because we just don't know why light redshifts over cosmic distances. The inventions that follow our unadmissible igorance is the stuff they now teach in school, pure bunk. There is no 'space expansion' or galaxies would never merge.

Hey, but they're happy, so why worry?

Ps: Anyone have an answer to this, my question above: "Expanding into what? Some proto-space time? What is it expanding into?"

I am genuinely curious as to what others think about this.

[Gillianren]

Ps: Anyone have an answer to this, my question above: "Expanding into what? Some proto-space time? What is it expanding into?"

I am genuinely curious as to what others think about this.

I'm not an astrophysicist, but my understanding is that it's an essentially meaningless question. It isn't expanding into anything; it's just expanding.

Do I really understand what that means? No, not in the slightest. It's not a concept I truly grasp. However, they didn't really cover it a lot in the classes I took in college, because those were mostly literature and history classes. I'm betting it would take an awful lot more study than I've done to really understand it, which is frankly true for me of most science.

[tusenfem]

words words words, show me a calculation of the pinch, creating a proto galaxy. How much mass in the proto galaxy, how much current must flow to compress it (use a Bennett pinch, which the EU people seem to like) at a temperature of ???K. And do not forget that the current also has to be driven, so you have to come up with e driver too.
Until then it is just word salat.

[Nereid]

No, dear Cougar, with all due respect, but it is the other way around. We are speculating on pure fanatasy, because we just don't know why light redshifts over cosmic distances. The inventions that follow our unadmissible igorance is the stuff they now teach in school, pure bunk. There is no 'space expansion' or galaxies would never merge.

Hey, but they're happy, so why worry?

Ps: Anyone have an answer to this, my question above: "Expanding into what? Some proto-space time? What is it expanding into?"

I am genuinely curious as to what others think about this.

I suggest that you start a thread, in the Q&A or Astronomy sections, with these questions.

In the meantime, please do not hijack this ATM thread, for the purposes of discussing your own ideas. You have been warned.

[nutant gene 71]

I'm not an astrophysicist, but my understanding is that it's an essentially meaningless question. It isn't expanding into anything; it's just expanding.

Well, of course!

That's the whole point, that it is so absurd a notion that to even ask the question "how is space expanding, into what?" becomes a meaningless question. Where else can someone ask a question of a meaningless idea and come up with the question being meaningless, for even asking it? So the answer "it's just exanding" is enough to stop the question?

No, it's a perfectly valid question, one which demands an answer, if the space expansion idea is to hold together. Otherwise, it flies apart.

[Metricyard]

Well, of course!

That's the whole point, that it is so absurd a notion that to even ask the question "how is space expanding, into what?" becomes a meaningless question. Where else can someone ask a question of a meaningless idea and come up with the question being meaningless, for even asking it? So the answer "it's just exanding" is enough to stop the question?

No, it's a perfectly valid question, one which demands an answer, if the space expansion idea is to hold together. Otherwise, it flies apart.

I don't see where the problem is. Why should space have to expand into something else?

If I blow up a balloon it expands. I don't expect it to exand into something else, I just get an expanded balloon.

[nutant gene 71]

I suggest that you start a thread, in the Q&A or Astronomy sections, with these questions.

In the meantime, please do not hijack this ATM thread, for the purposes of discussing your own ideas. You have been warned.

How am I 'hijacking' this thread, by asking an obvious question? What specifically is 'my idea' being presented by me here?

Is this not a thread about 'compromise' of astrophysical ideas regarding the Big Bang, that it never happened? I have absolutely no intention of presenting my ideas here. But I hope I have the right to ask a question without violating BAUT forum rules. Is this permissible, on the ATM thread?

[iantresman]

I don't see where the problem is. Why should space have to expand into something else?

If I blow up a balloon it expands. I don't expect it to exand into something else, I just get an expanded balloon.

While a balloon is sometimes used as an analogy for the an expanding Universe, in reality, the balloon does indeed expand into its surroundings.

And that's why anything that expands, should expand into something else.... it's what we see in the laboratory and in life, over and over again.

Common sense (whatever that is) tells us that "pre-expanded" space-time and "expanded" space-time is (a) not only indistinguable in every measurable way (b) that there is "nothing" onto which to affect such a change.

I can't test it either, so I can't provide a shread of physical evidence either way. Of course mathematically, I can do anything (if only I could do maths) such as describing 4-dimensional hypercube, but it doesn't mean they exist.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[nutant gene 71]

I don't see where the problem is. Why should space have to expand into something else?

If I blow up a balloon it expands. I don't expect it to exand into something else, I just get an expanded balloon.

I can see a problem here, because the balloon expands into something, the space around it. Perhaps this is not a very good analogy. But the answers I'm hearing are in essence: "it's just expanding" because it is expanding. That's one of those "because" answers, the kind that don't fully satisfy.

Any other ideas? I don't want to push this too much, however, since it then may evoke a "rabid" response, I'd like to avoid.

[tusenfem]

the balloon analogy is only a reduction of 1 dimension. you see the 2 dimensional surface of the ballon expand into a 3 dimensional space. if you would be a flatlander (wonderful book, flatland, I would recommend reading it) you would not understand the expansion, because you would not have an idea what the 3rd dimension is. similarly we cannot envision a 4th dimension (and now I do not mean time as 4th dimension) and therefore have trouble thinking about space expanding.

[Tensor]

Any other ideas? I don't want to push this too much, however, since it then may evoke a "rabid" response, I'd like to avoid.

It's a philosophical question, not a science question That's why you see it said it's a meaningless question, it's meaningless in terms of science, since we currently can't know, scientifically, what's outside the universe. Whether what is outside the universe is nothing, a sea of Gallium, or the universe is expanding into the atmosphere of some creature's kitchen for a birthday party, is open to a lot of speculation, depending on your philosophy, but not observation.

[nutant gene 71]

Thanks tusenfem, Tensor, iantresman, Metricyard, Gillianren, Cougar, for your responses to "what is space expanding into?"

There seems to be no verifiable explanation for this, what is space expanding into, at least nothing with which we can falsifiably test the hypothesis. This is why I find it puzzling that it gets such credence in astrophysical circles, since it must per force remain a speculation until we can test it. By tests, I mean something more than verifying the hypothesis of redshift using the hypothesis of why it redshifts (space expansion), since that would be circular.

However, please take all my above as an editorial comment, the questions and the opinion that we believe in things because it is in our human nature to believe, in something. The error I find regrettable is that we do not have a superior explanation for cosmic light redshift so we must default to the explanation we do have, which is space expansion, and its inevitable Big Bang origin. I find this a weak argument, since it would be better to simply say we don't know, and not have to accept a theory that may in fact not even be at the theory stage, but speculations based on the little bit we do know: light redshifts over cosmic distances. That's about it. Anything else, as Tensor points, it's philosophy.

I like the birthday party idea! Cheers.

[Cougar]

The error I find regrettable is that we do not have a superior explanation for cosmic light redshift so we must default to the explanation we do have, which is space expansion, and its inevitable Big Bang origin. I find this a weak argument, since it would be better to simply say we don't know, and not have to accept a theory that may in fact not even be at the theory stage, but speculations based on the little bit we do know: light redshifts over cosmic distances. That's about it. Anything else, as Tensor points, it's philosophy.

This is one of the errors I hassled you about before. When you label the current theory regarding cosmological redshift as mere speculation, this is just wrong. It is a well developed theory based on observational evidence. Not only does light redshift over cosmic distances, it redshifts twice as much when the distance is doubled. This is observationally verified. The question is, why? We know from earth-bound experiment that light is redshifted when emitter and observer are moving away from each other. Alternative theories such as tired light do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. The evidence that we have essentially forces us to conclude that space is expanding.

"what is space expanding into?".... There seems to be no verifiable explanation for this, what is space expanding into, at least nothing with which we can falsifiably test the hypothesis. This is why I find it puzzling that it gets such credence in astrophysical circles, since it must per force remain a speculation until we can test it.

As Tensor says, it is not really known if space is expanding into anything or not. But there are perfectly valid logical reasons why the big bang theory takes the position that it does, i.e., that space is not expanding into anything. For one thing, we're talking about the UNIVERSE here. The Universe is all that there is. Everything. There cannot be anything "outside" the Universe by definition. The current view of the big bang is that everything resulted from this one event, and that includes all the matter, all the energy, all the space, even time began at that point. The theory logically asserts that there was no space or time until the big bang went off. Space is an integral result of the big bang. What the theorists are trying to get away from is saying that the big bang was like an explosion in existing space since this immediately contradicts the definition that the Universe is all there is.

To investigate and understand where current scientific research is on this question, one must dive into the deep pools of non-Euclidian geometry and topology. But be careful; in these subjects, preconceptions like "if it's expanding, it must be expanding INTO something" will not allow you to stay afloat.

[Cougar]

However, please take all my above as an editorial comment... the opinion that we believe in things because it is in our human nature to believe, in something.

Funny you should say that. A scientist friend of mine - a working astrophysicist - recently told me, "I am completely agnostic on any theory - I don't believe in anything; I go where the preponderance of evidence takes me."

I think that's an excellent outlook. I wonder if Arp, Burbidge, et al. can say that.

[nutant gene 71]

To investigate and understand where current scientific research is on this question, one must dive into the deep pools of non-Euclidian geometry and topology. But be careful; in these subjects, preconceptions like "if it's expanding, it must be expanding INTO something" will not allow you to stay afloat.

Cougar, are you sure you want to word it this way? Is this not betraying your personal "belief" on the matter?

I personally agree with your astrophysicist friend's belief, believe in nothing except where the evidence takes you (not modeled math formalisms) and then investigate from there. I guess my "belief" system is basically agnostic.

[nutant gene 71]

In closing, let me say this, as it applies to Squashed's original post on Why can't we compromise?

I think it is totally natural for all of us to believe in something, even if that belief is that we have no belief. Hence, I would not argue with an atheist, nor a Hindu, nor a Muslim or anybody else on their belief. That is an internal matter. But how we believe, even us agnostics, leads to what choices we make, and therefore how we approach reality. The point of my bringing up this contentious idea (what is the universe expanding into?), is to show that we will defend vociferously what we believe, even if we don't think we believe this. Sometimes we are blind to our own beliefs, just human nature. Can we compromise on our beliefs regarding the Big Bang, whether or not it ever happened? I suspect we cannot compromise, not until other evidence proves our belief, whether or not we call it that, is proven otherwise, or plain wrong.

As more evidence comes in from observations of space, especially if these observations do not fit the patterns we expected from our modeling, then it is right to question what we had, often unwittingly, come to believe. I have reason to think the Big Bang never happened, and as time goes on, I think this will be borne out. However, neither do I wish to make this into my belief system. In fact, I am an apostate who believed in the Big Bang once, and now do not. I hope this clarifies what I had hoped to say, without offense to anyone. (Especially true believers! )

Carry on, sorry if I intruded.

[Celestial Mechanic]

What I find most interesting is the rabid reaction from the big bang supporters.

Because it is just human nature. Question any religious belief and you will evoke a 'rabid' response. There's no compromise here.

Strange, some of the most rabid responses I have seen here have been from certain ATM types here when their theories were questioned. When Stanley Kornowski or Michael Mozina got wound up you could practically see the foam issuing from their mouths! Even on my worst days I don't come anywhere close to that for rabidity!

That said, I most wholeheartedly enjoy reading the wild speculations here and elsewhere posing as science. But I'm just human.

Yes, I enjoy(ed) the speculations of Kornowski, Mozina, Moshe Thezion (remember him?) and even yours, but only for the entertainment provided. The only scientific value lies in refuting these second-rate speculations masquerading as scientific theories.

Oh, and lest anyone thinks I paint too broadly with the rabid brush, I just want to point out the responses of snowflakeuniverse and Reciprocal, which are anything but rabid.

[RussT]

The current view of the big bang is that everything resulted from this one event,

Cougar, what 'event' would this be???

[Fram]

Nutant gene, it doesn't matter if the universe is expanding, stable, or contracting, it still has to be (in your view) "in something", and we don't know and can't know what that is. But that is no argument for or against the Big Bang, as it is a) outside of its scope and b) (more importantly) the same for every theory and speculation I know of.

[iantresman]

Funny you should say that. A scientist friend of mine - a working astrophysicist - recently told me, "I am completely agnostic on any theory - I don't believe in anything; I go where the preponderance of evidence takes me."

I think that's an excellent outlook. I wonder if Arp, Burbidge, et al. can say that.

All new evidence is outweighted by a prepondance of older evidence.

• "Don't go where the path leads. Rather go where there is no path and leave a trail." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson.
• "All progress resulted from people who took unpopular positions." -- Adlai Stevenson
• "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it" -- Max Planck

Regards,
Ian Tresman