How good are the best alternatives to the Big Bang theories?

[Nereid]

This ATM section of BAUT has a number of threads, and many posts, presenting opinions, feelings, analyses, commentary, critiques, and more of one or more aspect of the class of cosmological theories called Big Bang theories.

There is also a (much smaller) number on alternatives to these BB theories.

The intention of this thread is to see what BAUT members consider to be the strongest (ATM) alternative(s) these theories, from a quite specific perspective - ability to match several sets of good observational results.

The observations that are within the scope of this thread are the following:

1) observations of the CMB, particularly those from WMAP, but also from the observations of the CMB such as summarised here.

2) observations underlying the Hubble relationship, especially wrt galaxies.

3) observations of the abundance of elements and nuclides.

4) observations that were used to determine the large scale structure of the universe, such as those referenced here.

5) observations that the night sky is dark - that the upper limits on diffuse background EM radiation, in all bands is {X} (the CMB excepted, of course).

I am stressing observations, not interpretations. For example, in an alternative cosmology, the CMB may not have a distant origin, or the observed redshifts for galaxies, in the Hubble relationship, may arise from quite different mechanisms.

Once again, this thread is NOT about how well, or how poorly, any BB theory does, or does not, match the five sets of observations. This thread is about which alternative cosmological theory fits these observations best.

While speculation is interesting (e.g. "I reckon that {Y} theory can account for all the data very well, but I've neither read any papers showing the match, nor done any work myself to check"), I am really interested only in demonstrable matches. So, if you think {Y} ATM cosmological theory can match the WMAP data well, then be prepared to either show that yourself, or point to a paper (or similar) which can.

[antoniseb]

This is a very interesting challenge. It will be interesting to see if any of the theories can be used to make specific statements about any of these except (2) the Hubble relationship.

[Tim Thompson]

I would say that the alternative that gets the best scientific support has to be the Quasi Steady State Cosmology (QSSC) developed by Fred Hoyle and his students, out of the old & untenable steady state cosmology from the 50's (which was also essentially Hoyle's baby).

1. On searches for gravitational waves from mini-creation events by laser interferometric detectors, Sarmah, et al., MNRAS, June 2006
2. Inhomogeneities in the Microwave Background Radiation Interpreted within the Framework of the Quasi-Steady State Cosmology, Narlikar, et al., ApJ, 2003
3. Action at a Distance Cosmology: A Historical Perspective, Jayant Narlikar, ARA&A, 2003
4. Interpretations of the Accelerating Universe, Narlikar, Vishwakarma & Burbidge, PASP, 2002
5. Standard Cosmology and Alternatives: A Critical Appraisal, Narlikar & Padmanabhan, ARA&A, 2001
6. Structure Formation in the Quasi-Steady State Cosmology, Narlikar, GReGr, 2000
7. Structure Formation in the Quasi-Steady State Cosmology: A Toy Model, Nayeri, et al., ApJ, 1999

There are more references out there, but an exhaustive list is unnecessary. The point is that serious scientists are seriously working on this cosmological model. Narlikar himself, in his 2001 ARA&A review admits that standard big bang cosmolgy is a better fit to observation, but feels that the alternative viewpoint should always be presented as best it can be.

My opinion is that the QSSC is the only serious alternative to standard big bang cosmology, and all the rest are of no serious value. I also suspect that it was Nereid's intention, perhaps, that the alternative cosmologies be presented by adherents of same. I do not support the QSSC, and I think that standard big bang cosmology is now, and will remain, the most appropriate class of cosmological models. But I have much respect for Narlikar, and his co-authors, for maintaining high standards of scientific inquiry.

[bigsplit]

I would say that the alternative that gets the best scientific support has to be the Quasi Steady State Cosmology (QSSC) developed by Fred Hoyle and his students, out of the old & untenable steady state cosmology from the 50's (which was also essentially Hoyle's baby).

1. On searches for gravitational waves from mini-creation events by laser interferometric detectors, Sarmah, et al., MNRAS, June 2006
2. Inhomogeneities in the Microwave Background Radiation Interpreted within the Framework of the Quasi-Steady State Cosmology, Narlikar, et al., ApJ, 2003
3. Action at a Distance Cosmology: A Historical Perspective, Jayant Narlikar, ARA&A, 2003
4. Interpretations of the Accelerating Universe, Narlikar, Vishwakarma & Burbidge, PASP, 2002
5. Standard Cosmology and Alternatives: A Critical Appraisal, Narlikar & Padmanabhan, ARA&A, 2001
6. Structure Formation in the Quasi-Steady State Cosmology, Narlikar, GReGr, 2000
7. Structure Formation in the Quasi-Steady State Cosmology: A Toy Model, Nayeri, et al., ApJ, 1999

There are more references out there, but an exhaustive list is unnecessary. The point is that serious scientists are seriously working on this cosmological model. Narlikar himself, in his 2001 ARA&A review admits that standard big bang cosmolgy is a better fit to observation, but feels that the alternative viewpoint should always be presented as best it can be.

My opinion is that the QSSC is the only serious alternative to standard big bang cosmology, and all the rest are of no serious value. I also suspect that it was Nereid's intention, perhaps, that the alternative cosmologies be presented by adherents of same. I do not support the QSSC, and I think that standard big bang cosmology is now, and will remain, the most appropriate class of cosmological models. But I have much respect for Narlikar, and his co-authors, for maintaining high standards of scientific inquiry.

I was just reading through some of his stuff today. I was extremely interested in his work with Burbidge on nucleosynthesis alternatives to the hot big bang.

[Peter Wilson]

...The intention of this thread is to see what BAUT members consider to be the strongest (ATM) alternative(s) these theories, from a quite specific perspective - ability to match several sets of good observational results...

Well, that’s a tall order.

Naturally, I am of the opinion that the the DEILE is best poised to fill that order, but so far, no one seems to understand what I am saying. As suggested, what’s needed is a paradigm-shift.

In the BB paradigm, space either expands or contacts; in the DEILE paradigm, it does both. In the BB paradigm, the question is: what did cause the expansion? In the DEILE paradigm, the question is: what is causing it?

If you accept the duality—that the universe is both expanding and contracting—and think in present-tense rather than past-tense, then everything falls into place.

Look at the observations another way, and they all add up.

[Gillianren]

In the BB paradigm, space either expands or contacts; in the DEILE paradigm, it does both. In the BB paradigm, the question is: what did cause the expansion? In the DEILE paradigm, the question is: what is causing it?

But isn't the universe still expanding under Big Bang cosmology?

[Thanatos]

The CMB was hotter in the past. This is very difficult to explain without an expanding universe model:

Molecular Hydrogen in a Damped Lyman-alpha System at z_abs=4.224
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602212

[VanderL]

This ATM section of BAUT has a number of threads, and many posts, presenting opinions, feelings, analyses, commentary, critiques, and more of one or more aspect of the class of cosmological theories called Big Bang theories.

There is also a (much smaller) number on alternatives to these BB theories.

The intention of this thread is to see what BAUT members consider to be the strongest (ATM) alternative(s) these theories, from a quite specific perspective - ability to match several sets of good observational results.

The observations that are within the scope of this thread are the following:

1) observations of the CMB, particularly those from WMAP, but also from the observations of the CMB such as summarised here.

2) observations underlying the Hubble relationship, especially wrt galaxies.

3) observations of the abundance of elements and nuclides.

4) observations that were used to determine the large scale structure of the universe, such as those referenced here.

5) observations that the night sky is dark - that the upper limits on diffuse background EM radiation, in all bands is {X} (the CMB excepted, of course).

I am stressing observations, not interpretations. For example, in an alternative cosmology, the CMB may not have a distant origin, or the observed redshifts for galaxies, in the Hubble relationship, may arise from quite different mechanisms.

Once again, this thread is NOT about how well, or how poorly, any BB theory does, or does not, match the five sets of observations. This thread is about which alternative cosmological theory fits these observations best.

While speculation is interesting (e.g. "I reckon that {Y} theory can account for all the data very well, but I've neither read any papers showing the match, nor done any work myself to check"), I am really interested only in demonstrable matches.

Why not research this yourself and write a paper on the alternatives, or invite the authors of alternative cosmologies (Eric Lerner has contributed to BAUT) to explain their cosmological models here. You don't seriously believe that people without the proper background are able to produce an alternative cosmology?

So, if you think {Y} ATM cosmological theory can match the WMAP data well, then be prepared to either show that yourself, or point to a paper (or similar) which can.

Be prepared or?

I think that alternatives must be considered, but your list of "observations" is not a list of true observations, every single one (with the exception of the "dark sky at night") is an interpretation already. Allowing intrinsic redshifts is a very simple alternative interpretation that would possibly lead to a completely different list of "observations".

Cheers.

[Nereid]

While speculation is interesting (e.g. "I reckon that {Y} theory can account for all the data very well, but I've neither read any papers showing the match, nor done any work myself to check"), I am really interested only in demonstrable matches.

Well, that’s a tall order.

Naturally, I am of the opinion that the the DEILE is best poised to fill that order, but so far, no one seems to understand what I am saying. As suggested, what’s needed is a paradigm-shift.

In the BB paradigm, space either expands or contacts; in the DEILE paradigm, it does both. In the BB paradigm, the question is: what did cause the expansion? In the DEILE paradigm, the question is: what is causing it?

If you accept the duality—that the universe is both expanding and contracting—and think in present-tense rather than past-tense, then everything falls into place.

Look at the observations another way, and they all add up.

I did a quick skim of the DEILE thread, but could find no accounting for any of the five sets of observations (so I added a post asking for details). Perhaps you could provide the detailed matching in that thread?

[Nereid]

[snip]

I think that alternatives must be considered, but your list of "observations" is not a list of true observations, every single one (with the exception of the "dark sky at night") is an interpretation already. Allowing intrinsic redshifts is a very simple alternative interpretation that would possibly lead to a completely different list of "observations".

Cheers.

That's why the OP stresses the (underlying) observations.

For example, "the CMB" observations are things like the observed intensity of the microwave sky, at a range of frequencies, integrated over a range of (many different) angular beams. An alternative cosmology merely needs to account for these observations.

A second example, "the Hubble relationship" observations are redshifts and whatever went into establishing the distances of the objects observed, plus a determination that these objects are "galaxies". An alternative cosmology merely needs to account for these (this alternative cosmology may, for example, interpret the "galaxies" as something quite different from gravitationally bound, and interacting, systems of stars, gas and dust).

[Jerry]

[QUOTE=Nereid]
This is an interesting challenge, but there are subtle straw men qualities. Alternatives are discounted because the BB is based upon a specific set of rules. If the rules are wrong, in most cases, so are the interpretations of the phenomenon.

3) observations of the abundance of elements and nuclides.

My universe is infinite and does not have a beginning, so the high levels of heavy elements found in distant quasars and galaxies is a no brainer: The mean distribution does not change. The local areas that are low in heavy metals does not present a challenge, either: There must be recycling, and an obvious place for this is in galactic cores, many of which just happen to be blowing giant hydrogen bubbles. (Remember, the 2d law of thermal stuff has to be thrown out in a closed system, and whether the violation is a big bang or point exceptions in areas of high density, the results are the same.

1) the Cosmic Microwave background: It is a gaussian distribution of energy in a low frequency bandwidth. I think it is primarily a function of the electromagnetic field associated with the solar wind at terminal shock with energetic particles. There is also galactic, and cluster-wide contamination - about the only specific information is the increase in intensity toward the galactic center, and a weak stirring cause by the planets in the zodiac plane: The two primary features in the WMAP surveys. The rest is just muddy water.

4) and 2) The classification of the large scale structure is heavily biased by the rules used in interpreting the data. BB cosmologist eschew intrinsic redshifts, and also assign relativistic factors in the k-corrections. If these distance dependancies are wrong, so is the interpretation of structure. The most obvious evidence that these interpretations are wrong is the migration of 'blue' galaxies from cluster cores in the past into 'Field galaxies' at the present time, but in general, all of the power functions, patterns and geocentric peaks in galactic distributions are not due to a universe radiating from a BB center, but artifacts caused by our lack of understanding of the basic nature of light. This is mostly Einsteins fault.

5) The dark sky: Light travels through space as an electromagnetic soliton, and just as it is subject to the rules of radiation transfer passing through a crystal or any medium with a known density, it also interacts gravitationally with each and every object. Since this is also (In my interpretation) an electromagnetic effect it is NEVER perfectly elastic: redshifting is a radiation transfer event. We don't measure this locally, because it is prohibitatively small, but it is impossible for light to travel through space without an energy budget. The sky is dark because all light is eventually redshifted into oblivion. The universe is not winding into a complete state of equilibrium because massive, dense galactic cores are also converting electromagnetic energy into light elements, and about the only thing that Einstein did get right, is that it takes a lot of light to make a single proton - which incidently, is also a soliton. Waves, baby, waves.

[antoniseb]

1) the Cosmic Microwave background: It is a gaussian distribution of energy in a low frequency bandwidth. I think it is primarily a function of the electromagnetic field associated with the solar wind at terminal shock with energetic particles.

Wouldn't you expect that if this were the cause that it would vary in time completely replacing the pattern of smaller scale peaks and valleys on the order of hours rather than the minimum decades to centuries(*) that we see based on WMAP COBE, and other data?

* we have not yet observed a change.

[Nereid]

This is an interesting challenge, but there are subtle straw men qualities. Alternatives are discounted because the BB is based upon a specific set of rules.

You're right, Jerry, there are some unstated assumptions.

For example, given that the scope is 'cosmology', then an unstated assumption is that any cosmological theory will at least attempt to address all (good) observations of the big, the distant, the old, etc.

So, the list includes items which are big, distant, old, etc, in the best cosmological theory we have, today.

If the rules are wrong, in most cases, so are the interpretations of the phenomenon.

Only to the extent that, in an alternative cosmology, there are phenomena which are big, distant, old, etc that are not included in this list (an alternative cosmology should address all items in the list, at least showing that the things observed are not big, distant, old, etc).

And the OP specifically refers to the observations, not the interpretations of those observations (which may be quite different, in an alternative cosmology).

3) observations of the abundance of elements and nuclides.

My universe is infinite and does not have a beginning, so the high levels of heavy elements found in distant quasars and galaxies is a no brainer: The mean distribution does not change. The local areas that are low in heavy metals does not present a challenge, either: There must be recycling, and an obvious place for this is in galactic cores, many of which just happen to be blowing giant hydrogen bubbles. (Remember, the 2d law of thermal stuff has to be thrown out in a closed system, and whether the violation is a big bang or point exceptions in areas of high density, the results are the same.

So, how does your universe produce the observed abundances of elements and nuclides?

Or, more pertinent to this thread, how well are the observed abundances accounted for, in your alternative cosmology?

1) the Cosmic Microwave background: It is a gaussian distribution of energy in a low frequency bandwidth. I think it is primarily a function of the electromagnetic field associated with the solar wind at terminal shock with energetic particles. There is also galactic, and cluster-wide contamination - about the only specific information is the increase in intensity toward the galactic center, and a weak stirring cause by the planets in the zodiac plane: The two primary features in the WMAP surveys. The rest is just muddy water.

So, once again, how well does your alternative cosmology account for the observations of the CMB*?

4) and 2) The classification of the large scale structure is heavily biased by the rules used in interpreting the data. BB cosmologist eschew intrinsic redshifts, and also assign relativistic factors in the k-corrections. If these distance dependancies are wrong, so is the interpretation of structure. The most obvious evidence that these interpretations are wrong is the migration of 'blue' galaxies from cluster cores in the past into 'Field galaxies' at the present time, but in general, all of the power functions, patterns and geocentric peaks in galactic distributions are not due to a universe radiating from a BB center, but artifacts caused by our lack of understanding of the basic nature of light. This is mostly Einsteins fault.

Surely this is OT?

The OP explicitly limits the scope of this thread to alternative cosmologies ("Once again, this thread is NOT about how well, or how poorly, any BB theory does, or does not, match the five sets of observations. This thread is about which alternative cosmological theory fits these observations best.")


How well does your alternative cosmology match the (underlying) observations?

5) The dark sky: Light travels through space as an electromagnetic soliton, and just as it is subject to the rules of radiation transfer passing through a crystal or any medium with a known density, it also interacts gravitationally with each and every object. Since this is also (In my interpretation) an electromagnetic effect it is NEVER perfectly elastic: redshifting is a radiation transfer event. We don't measure this locally, because it is prohibitatively small, but it is impossible for light to travel through space without an energy budget. The sky is dark because all light is eventually redshifted into oblivion. The universe is not winding into a complete state of equilibrium because massive, dense galactic cores are also converting electromagnetic energy into light elements, and about the only thing that Einstein did get right, is that it takes a lot of light to make a single proton - which incidently, is also a soliton. Waves, baby, waves.

So, what, in your cosmology, are the expected (diffuse) background levels of EM, by wave-band? How well does your cosmology match the observations of (upper limits to) the backgrounds?

*these include the detection of (distant) point sources, of (nearby, rich) clusters, the dipole, and the black-body distribution of photon energy, by frequency.

[Gillianren]

Why not research this yourself and write a paper on the alternatives, or invite the authors of alternative cosmologies (Eric Lerner has contributed to BAUT) to explain their cosmological models here. You don't seriously believe that people without the proper background are able to produce an alternative cosmology?

Though we have seen them try. Over and over and over. As I keep saying, when I can spot scientific flaws in your argument, perhaps you ought to do a little more research before espousing it. And I have, in the past.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]You don't seriously believe that people without the proper background are able to produce an alternative cosmology?

Though we have seen them try. Over and over and over. As I keep saying, when I can spot scientific flaws in your argument, perhaps you ought to do a little more research before espousing it. And I have, in the past.

Right on!

[Bob Angstrom]

The CMB was hotter in the past. This is very difficult to explain without an expanding universe model:

Molecular Hydrogen in a Damped Lyman-alpha System at z_abs=4.224
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602212

We have a static observation of 2.73 K for the CMB. How do we know that it was once hotter? Has anyone observed a temperature change?
We know the CMB was once hotter because the universe is expanding and we know the universe is expanding because the CMB was once hotter but is there any evidence for change outside this circular loop?

[Bob Angstrom]

Why not research this yourself and write a paper on the alternatives, or invite the authors of alternative cosmologies (Eric Lerner has contributed to BAUT) to explain their cosmological models here.

It would be an incredibly difficult job to seriously review even a tiny fraction of what is out there.

You don't seriously believe that people without the proper background are able to produce an alternative cosmology?

And why is this so impossible? Considering the seemingly infinite number of monkeys with keyboards pounding out cosmologies on the internet , I find it difficult to imagine that not one of them has yet to come up with a superior alternative either by fool’s luck or design. Just consider what Edgar Allen Poe was writing back in the mid 1800’s long before these cosmologies were mainstream.
http://www.poedecoder.com/essays/lar...%20Origin%20of

[P.Asmah]

Though we have seen them try. Over and over and over. As I keep saying, when I can spot scientific flaws in your argument, perhaps you ought to do a little more research before espousing it. And I have, in the past.

Right on!

Of course, that is the strength of the Big Bang -- It is difficult to spot any flaws in it. Yeah, right.

[P.Asmah]

We have a static observation of 2.73 K for the CMB. How do we know that it was once hotter? Has anyone observed a temperature change?
We know the CMB was once hotter because the universe is expanding and we know the universe is expanding because the CMB was once hotter but is there any evidence for change outside this circular loop?

Why were there so many more accurate predictions in relation to the CMB temperature before BB supporters stole it as their own?

[Nereid]

The CMB was hotter in the past. This is very difficult to explain without an expanding universe model:

Molecular Hydrogen in a Damped Lyman-alpha System at z_abs=4.224
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602212

We have a static observation of 2.73 K for the CMB. How do we know that it was once hotter? Has anyone observed a temperature change?
We know the CMB was once hotter because the universe is expanding and we know the universe is expanding because the CMB was once hotter but is there any evidence for change outside this circular loop?

There are a number of observations which have been interpreted as "the CMB was hotter in the past, in line with one or other BBT".

Any alternative cosmology should address these. However, as they are marginal, I imagine that would not be difficult.

Why were there so many more accurate predictions in relation to the CMB temperature before BB supporters stole it as their own?

If you know of an alternative cosmology which can account for the (observations of the) CMB (and the other four points), by all means please present it here (along with details of how well it matches the underlying observations).

Note that the CMB observations are considerably more extensive than just a temperature - they include its SED (spectral energy distribution), a near-perfect blackbody - for example, and a dipole.

To repeat the intent of this thread, as stated in the OP:

I am stressing observations, not interpretations. For example, in an alternative cosmology, the CMB may not have a distant origin, or the observed redshifts for galaxies, in the Hubble relationship, may arise from quite different mechanisms.

Once again, this thread is NOT about how well, or how poorly, any BB theory does, or does not, match the five sets of observations. This thread is about which alternative cosmological theory fits these observations best.

[lyndonashmore]

Would any alternative cosmologcal theory have to explain the axis of evil?

[lyndonashmore]

Would any alternative cosmologcal theory have to explain the K trumpler effect?

[lyndonashmore]

Would any alternative cosmological theory have to explain the fact that we cannot get the abundances of the light elements correct at the same time?

[lyndonashmore]

Would any alternative cosmologcal theory have to explain where the energy goes when photnons are redshifted?

[lyndonashmore]

Would any alternative cosmologcal theory have to explain Arp's bridges?

[lyndonashmore]

Would any alternative cosmologcal theory have to explain why quasar light curvesd are not 'stretched'?

[lyndonashmore]

enough said?

[antoniseb]

Hi lyndonashmore,

In the ATM section we have some rules about staying on topic, which you have violated over the last five posts. Technically this is hijacking the thread. We really don't have a forum section designed for one-liners bashing the big bang cosmology. In any case your recent posts are a violation, and this is a warning. Please stay on topic. I am asking you to write a note of apology to the original poster.

Now, you are addressing several things which cover a diverse set of alternative theories. If you really care about each of these individually, please address each to a pre-existing thread that is appropriate. If you are interested more broadly in observations which are not addressed by big bang cosmologists, but which are not unified within any one ATM model, then we can start a new thread, though I'd like you to think carefully about how to express the opening post so that it keeps the thread manageable (as opposed to what happened with the first EU thread). I think for a lot of these things we'll get speculations, but no answer (e.g. Does model say what happens to the energy of cosmologically red-shifted photons?)

edit by antoniseb changing my suggestions for a solution.

[Bob Angstrom]

I am stressing observations, not interpretations.

Alternative theories in any discipline tend to agree closely on observations but may differ wildly on interpretations. I think your emphasis on observations over interpretation is misplaced. Many alternatives are so basic in their interpretations of how our universe functions that they leave observations untouched. The same observations that apply to the conventional also apply to the exotic.

Three of my personal criteria for examining alternative theories are as follows:

1. Does the theory agree with observation? I don’t know of any theory old or new that can pass this razor so it must be used with discretion.
2. Does the new theory comply with the known laws of physics or present a really good case for an alternative?
3. Is the theory internally self consistent? This is a biggie!

[Nereid]

Alternative theories in any discipline tend to agree closely on observations

That may be so, but I'd like to have BAUT members weigh in anyway.

but may differ wildly on interpretations. I think your emphasis on observations over interpretation is misplaced.

That may be so; but it is outside the scope of this thread.

My interest, and purpose, in this thread is just as I stated in the OP - what is the best (or, if you prefer, the three best) alternative cosmologies, in terms of the (admittedly narrow) scope of matching those five sets of good observational results?

If you would like to start another thread, closer to what you feel would be a more appropriate question, please do so.

Many alternatives are so basic in their interpretations of how our universe functions that they leave observations untouched. The same observations that apply to the conventional also apply to the exotic.

If you're talking about what I call 'philosophical' alternatives - ones that produce nothing that can be tested, to distinguish it from standard big bang theories, even in principle - then I agree that this thread is not the place to mention them.

They are, by definition, not within the (narrow?) scope of what I consider to be science.

Three of my personal criteria for examining alternative theories are as follows:

1. Does the theory agree with observation? I don’t know of any theory old or new that can pass this razor so it must be used with discretion.

This goes to the heart of this thread.

Specifically, how well do the best alternative cosmologies 'agree with' the five sets of observations listed in the OP?

So far, only one alternative cosmology has been introduced; if several others also get introduced, then it might be interesting to move on - to asking how, scientifically, it makes sense to try to distinguish among these (but we're not at this point yet).

2. Does the new theory comply with the known laws of physics or present a really good case for an alternative?
3. Is the theory internally self consistent? This is a biggie!

These are, of couse, interesting questions/criteria.

Sadly, they are outside the scope of this thread.