Let's create steady state theory

[Ari Jokimaki]

Hello Everyone!

I would like to invite you all to speculate with me about steady state universe and the its problems. By steady state universe I mean the universe in which space does not expand (so this leaves out Hoyle's quasi steady state theory).

What would the universe be like, and what would be the biggest problems in this kind of theory?

I think that the biggest problem would be the need of "matter recycling system" (I think that there would be no matter creation), because without it all matter would become iron (wasn't iron the end-product of both fusion and fission?).

[Amadeus]

Hello Everyone!

I would like to invite you all to speculate with me about steady state universe and the its problems. By steady state universe I mean the universe in which space does not expand (so this leaves out Hoyle's quasi steady state theory).

What would the universe be like, and what would be the biggest problems in this kind of theory?

I think that the biggest problem would be the need of "matter recycling system" (I think that there would be no matter creation), because without it all matter would become iron (wasn't iron the end-product of both fusion and fission?).

How about black holes sucking in matter being linked to white holes discharging?

P.S I know nothing about white holes!... Did I just make that up?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
La la laa laa wahaay goood bye!

[Captain Kidd]

Isn't there a theory that says that if the universe wasn't expanding, the whole sky would soon become lit as light completely fills the sky? That's tickling my mind. But I also remember that the theory was mentioned in a fiction book so it might have been something the author thought up too... :-?

[Ari Jokimaki]

I don't know about white holes either, but I'm under the impression that they are not yet accepted as real objects.

[sideways]

How about black holes sucking in matter being linked to white holes discharging?

I'm not saying that's a bad theory, but it kind of reminds me of perpetual motion. Although it's possible I could be misinterpreting it.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Isn't there a theory that says that if the universe wasn't expanding, the whole sky would soon become lit as light completely fills the sky? That's tickling my mind. But I also remember that the theory was mentioned in a fiction book so it might have been something the author thought up too... :-?

I think that you are talking about Olbers' paradox. This is usually mentioned, when steady state theory is discussed. A while back I read a book about this, which was written by Edward Harrison. He presented there a solution for this problem. If I remember correctly, he calculated the temperature which would result, if all matter would be transformed to energy (using the E=mc^2). I don't remember his precise result, but it was surprisingly low, it was somewhere around 50K (quite far from the temperature of star surface, which Olbers' paradox is talking about).

I just wonder why Harrison's solution is not widely acknowledged, does anyone know if it's valid?

[Captain Kidd]

I think that you are talking about Olbers' paradox. This is usually mentioned, when steady state theory is discussed. A while back I read a book about this, which was written by Edward Harrison. He presented there a solution for this problem. If I remember correctly, he calculated the temperature which would result, if all matter would be transformed to energy (using the E=mc^2). I don't remember his precise result, but it was surprisingly low, it was somewhere around 50K (quite far from the temperature of star surface, which Olbers' paradox is talking about).

I just wonder why Harrison's solution is not widely acknowledged, does anyone know if it's valid?

Yes... I think I remember the word 'paradox'. Thanks, that was actually starting to bug me.

[mike alexander]

Are you assuming a finite universe with a finite amount of matter? The system would be gravitationally unstable and would collapse.


Right? :-s

[Captain Kidd]

Are you assuming a finite universe with a finite amount of matter? The system would be gravitationally unstable and would collapse.


Right? :-s

As in, since there's no outward acceleration to off set gravity, eventually everything would pull together?
Hmm, yeah I can see that.
However, does a rotating galaxy have... ker-plunk! the word just fell out of my head... crud, angular momentum (?, angular inertia?), gyrpscopes for example... where they'd resist the pull of gravity from other galaxies?

Heh, like I had enough classes, and remember enough of those I did, to be able to discuss something along these lines. I ran screaming from the orbital mechanics class when I about poked my eye out trying to do a right hand rule while staring at a single equationg with more i's, j's and k's than I saw the whole previous semester for linkages class.
Oh well, still fun.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Are you assuming a finite universe with a finite amount of matter? The system would be gravitationally unstable and would collapse.

I'm assuming infinite universe, which has always existed, and has flat geometry.

But if it would be finite, could it be any way possible to prevent the collapse? Maybe there could be some mechanism that when enough matter is gathered together, it would explode or something like that, spreading the matter again.

[Cougar]

"Unfortunately, the Steady-State theory finds it virtually impossible to explain either the [abundance of] light elements or the CMB, both of which require the universe to have been much different in the past than it is today, namely very hot. For this reason, all but the most rabid fanatics gave up the Steady-State theory around 1965 with the discovery of the CMB."

Speaking of element abundances....

"When the temperature dropped far below one billion degrees [three minutes after the big bang] this 'primordial nucleosynthesis' stopped and, according to the standard model, we should be left with roughly 25% helium by mass and 2 x 10^-5 parts deuterium. It may seem like a miracle that astronomers in fact do measure about 25% helium in the real universe, but it is a miracle squared that they also measure something like 2 x 10^-5 parts deuterium."

[ExpErdMann]

What would the universe be like, and what would be the biggest problems in this kind of theory?

I think that the biggest problem would be the need of "matter recycling system" (I think that there would be no matter creation), because without it all matter would become iron (wasn't iron the end-product of both fusion and fission?).

It's true we need a way of getting the heavy elements back into hydrogen. But that's not really such a big problem. If the heavy elements are passed through the centres of quasars or AGNs or black hole-like objects, the high temperatures there can blast the heavy nuclei back to lighter ones. (There is an analogous argument in the BB theory that the heavy elements would go to light ones if there was a 'big crunch', ie the universe fell back in on itself)

[ExpErdMann]

But if it would be finite, could it be any way possible to prevent the collapse? Maybe there could be some mechanism that when enough matter is gathered together, it would explode or something like that, spreading the matter again.

I think a finite universe will be gravitationally unstable. Best stay with the infinite, static model. There you can have a decay of the gravitational force with distance, analogous to a tired light effect.

[Ari Jokimaki]

[quote="Cougar"]

"Unfortunately, the Steady-State theory finds it virtually impossible to explain either the [abundance of] light elements or the CMB, both of which require the universe to have been much different in the past than it is today, namely very hot. For this reason, all but the most rabid fanatics gave up the Steady-State theory around 1965 with the discovery of the CMB."

Why would abundance of light elements require the universe to be different in the past?

I agree that CMB is a problem for steady state theory. I haven't even seen many alternative explanations for this, just some claims about it being redshifted light from far-away galaxies without any details backing these claims. But I don't know enough about how CMB is measured. I understand that it involves some heavy processing made to original data?

[Ari Jokimaki]

It's true we need a way of getting the heavy elements back into hydrogen. But that's not really such a big problem. If the heavy elements are passed through the centres of quasars or AGNs or black hole-like objects, the high temperatures there can blast the heavy nuclei back to lighter ones. (There is an analogous argument in the BB theory that the heavy elements would go to light ones if there was a 'big crunch', ie the universe fell back in on itself)

And how do you get the newly formed light nuclei out from the black hole? Or are you talking about some alternative black hole model?

[ExpErdMann]

And how do you get the newly formed light nuclei out from the black hole? Or are you talking about some alternative black hole model?

Note that I said black hole-like objects. Personally, I do not subscribe to the notion of black holes as entities from which nothing can ever escape. If you adopt a Le Sage-type gravitational model, attenuation of the gravitational fluxes occurs in passing through bodies. This attenuation reaches a maximum value in very large objects, after which further increases in mass do not lead to any increase in the gravitational force. While other possibilities may exist, I like the model where new galaxies are ejected as quasars from the centres of older ones.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Note that I said black hole-like objects. Personally, I do not subscribe to the notion of black holes as entities from which nothing can ever escape. If you adopt a Le Sage-type gravitational model, attenuation of the gravitational fluxes occurs in passing through bodies. This attenuation reaches a maximum value in very large objects, after which further increases in mass do not lead to any increase in the gravitational force. While other possibilities may exist, I like the model where new galaxies are ejected as quasars from the centres of older ones.

I also have hard time accepting the conventional black hole model (mainly because of the singularity, which just doesn't make any sense to me), but I didn't know there are alternative models. I must do some reading of the Le Sage thing you mentioned.

[ExpErdMann]

I also have hard time accepting the conventional black hole model (mainly because of the singularity, which just doesn't make any sense to me), but I didn't know there are alternative models. I must do some reading of the Le Sage thing you mentioned.

Here are some links to get you started. The first one is the preface to 'Pushing Gravity', which gives the topic a good coverage. The second link is to Tom van Flandern's site (where there is lots of discussion about it) and the third is to a piece by Halton Arp.

http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/P...ty.htm#Preface
http://www.metaresearch.org/publicat...s/PushingG.asp
http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstr...mp;ArticleId=2

Also, were you aware that one of your countrymen, Toivo Jaakkola, who died in 1996, was one of the leaders in the field of static cosmology? You can read up on him in the backfiles of Apeiron

http://redshift.vif.com/journal_archives.htm

for instance, the article in v. 3 no. 3/4.

[Cougar]

"Unfortunately, the Steady-State theory finds it virtually impossible to explain either the [abundance of] light elements or the CMB, both of which require the universe to have been much different in the past than it is today, namely very hot. For this reason, all but the most rabid fanatics gave up the Steady-State theory around 1965 with the discovery of the CMB."

Why would abundance of light elements require the universe to be different in the past?

Maybe someone else can clarify why the ratios of the light elements require the universe to have been very hot in the distant past. I personally can't answer that one.

But let me put it this way: IF the universe is steady-state, I don't know of any reason why the baryons in the universe should be made up of roughly 75% hydrogen and 25% helium. As far as I know, a steady-stater would just have to say, "That's just the way it is."

But IF the universe was initiated by a hot, dense big bang, THEN calculations in accordance with the Standard Theory of quantum physics predict, in fact demand, that the baryonic makeup of the universe be roughly 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, and that is what is observed. As Rothman says, "it may seem like a miracle that astronomers in fact do measure about 25% helium in the real universe," but through definite calculation Quantum Theory also predicts there should be 2 x 10^-5 parts deuterium, and it seems to me that it should be REALLY convincing that astronomers do indeed measure something very close to that precise amount of deuterium abundance in the universe.

A pretty complete description of such calculations can be found in The First Three Minutes, A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe [1977] -- Steven Weinberg

But I don't know enough about how CMB is measured. I understand that it involves some heavy processing made to original data?

No, I think it's pretty straightforward. Excellent general audience books describing that process include....

• The Light at the Edge of the Universe [1993] -- Michael D. Lemonick
• Wrinkles in Time [1993] -- George Smoot, Keay Davidson

[Ari Jokimaki]

But let me put it this way: IF the universe is steady-state, I don't know of any reason why the baryons in the universe should be made up of roughly 75% hydrogen and 25% helium. As far as I know, a steady-stater would just have to say, "That's just the way it is."

I think that this is just an extension to the problem I stated in my first post. If we would have proper matter recycling mechanism, it should create those ratios.

But IF the universe was initiated by a hot, dense big bang, THEN calculations in accordance with the Standard Theory of quantum physics predict, in fact demand, that the baryonic makeup of the universe be roughly 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, and that is what is observed. As Rothman says, "it may seem like a miracle that astronomers in fact do measure about 25% helium in the real universe," but through definite calculation Quantum Theory also predicts there should be 2 x 10^-5 parts deuterium, and it seems to me that it should be REALLY convincing that astronomers do indeed measure something very close to that precise amount of deuterium abundance in the universe.

Which one was first, observations of those ratios or the theory? I mean, if theory was tuned to those ratios, then it wouldn't be so big miracle.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Also, were you aware that one of your countrymen, Toivo Jaakkola, who died in 1996, was one of the leaders in the field of static cosmology? You can read up on him in the backfiles of Apeiron.

Wow, I have never even heard of him! But thanks for the links, I'll try to find the time to study them (I might even have read the Arp's paper, at least I remember reading some papers from his webpage).

[Cougar]

...if theory was tuned to those ratios, then it wouldn't be so big miracle.

No, there was no tuning. The calculations were derived directly from accelerator experiments and the observed behavior of matter in an ultra-hot environment.

And of course "miracle" is a poor choice of words. The point is, it is SUCH a remarkable coincidence, it is beyond unlikely that it is just a coincidence. So we have these elemental abundances BECAUSE the early universe was exceedingly hot and dense. Which means the steady-state idea goes out the window.

[Cougar]

If we would have proper matter recycling mechanism, it should create those ratios.

Well, if one doesn't know the mechanism, one certainly doesn't know that it will spit out these ratios. This just seems to be piling Ockham violations atop other Ockham violations....

[ExpErdMann]

I don't think the mechanisms for formation of the light elements are fundamentally different in the BB and static models. In the BB model, it happens in an exploding fireball of some sort. In static models it occurs inside the centres of active galaxies, where we can also postulate similar conditions of ultrahigh densities and temperatures. Arp and Narlikar (and Hoyle?) described this in their 1994 Nature paper.

From a scientific standpoint the static models hava a clear advantage here, because the formation of light elements in this case can potentially be observed in active galaxies. The BB model by contrast was a one shot deal where we can't hope to study this process directly.

[dgruss23]

...if theory was tuned to those ratios, then it wouldn't be so big miracle.

No, there was no tuning. The calculations were derived directly from accelerator experiments and the observed behavior of matter in an ultra-hot environment.

And of course "miracle" is a poor choice of words. The point is, it is SUCH a remarkable coincidence, it is beyond unlikely that it is just a coincidence. So we have these elemental abundances BECAUSE the early universe was exceedingly hot and dense. Which means the steady-state idea goes out the window.

In this preprint it is pointed out that it has been claimed that the Tolman Surface brightness test confirms expansion of the universe. Except that - it doesn't. Lubin&Sandage found that the (1+z)^-n surface brightness test gives n=2.28 in the R band and n=3.06 in the I-band instead of the n=4.00 predicted by the standard cosmological model. They invoke evolution of galaxies as an explanation for the difference between the predicted and observed value of n.

Lubin&Sandage then show inconsistency when they apply the Tolman test to a static universe. For that model the static universe predicts n=1 and they found n=1.61 in the R-band and n=2.27 in the I-band. Instead of exploring some other factor as an explanation for the discrepancy with the static models they declare that the static models are disproven.

It seems this sort of inconsistency in reasoning is prevalent. Unlikely statistics such as 1 in a billion alignments of high and low z objects do nothing to convince mainstream supporters that Arp's anomalies might be right, but things unlikely to be accidental that appear to confirm standard views are embraced with open arms.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Well, if one doesn't know the mechanism, one certainly doesn't know that it will spit out these ratios. This just seems to be piling Ockham violations atop other Ockham violations....

Yes, I agree. I just tried to point out that if we would solve this problem of missing matter recycling mechanism, it would automatically solve this light element problem, because the mechanism wouldn't be correct if it wouldn't give the correct ratios.

[Ari Jokimaki]

And of course "miracle" is a poor choice of words. The point is, it is SUCH a remarkable coincidence, it is beyond unlikely that it is just a coincidence. So we have these elemental abundances BECAUSE the early universe was exceedingly hot and dense. Which means the steady-state idea goes out the window.

Sorry, if I'm nitpicking, but no matter how remarkable coincidence, there still is a chance of it being just that, a coincidence. So this, in my humble opinion, doesn't prove anything. But it's a good point, though.

Anyway, this is a little out of the scope, because with this thread I wanted to evaluate how good or bad the steady state theory currently is. So in this viewpoint it doesn't really matter if Big Bang theory is better or not.

[JS Princeton]

The biggest problem with Steady State theory is that it does not predict a blackbody for the CMB. Oh, you can get the 3 degrees figure out okay with a summation of the starlight, but it will not be as constant as it is across the sky. Starlight integrated as the sum of blackbodies are just impossible as the source of the well-defined CMB curve. You can get the deviation from a BB curve down to about one part in ten for steady state, but not to the one part in ten thousand that is observed from Microwave Explorers like WMAP. This is why steady state is no longer accepted as a viable alternative by anybody in the scientific community.

Unless you can give a convincing source that would create a consistent black body at 2.73 Kelvins across the ENTIRE sky, I'm afraid your stuck.

And don't tell me that it's a local phenomenon, because we see such things as the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect to show that it isn't.

So here's your task, in your revised Steady State you need to explain the CMB in terms of steady state and you've got yourself an alternative worth considering. Throw in the nuclear abundance priors and a Hubble Flow explanation and then get your paper published. It also wouldn't hurt to explain some large scale structure phenomenon, flatness issues, and supernovae observations.

[JS Princeton]

Unlikely statistics such as 1 in a billion alignments of high and low z objects do nothing to convince mainstream supporters that Arp's anomalies might be right, but things unlikely to be accidental that appear to confirm standard views are embraced with open arms.

Well, Arp has made outlandish statements based on statistics by assuming rather preposterous priors. It's a bit like saying, "The chances of me standing next to any particular person are one in 6.2 billion or so, so standing next to this woman who is totally different from me but is nearly the same height in the Moscow subway while I am visiting is an indication that there is some cosmic coincidence that cannot be explained." Anybody can see that the issue is that correlations are bound to be found in a limited space (the world). In other words, you're bound to stand next to somebody and every once in a while that somebody is going to correlate with you in some unexpected way. It's the reverse engineering of the priors (why should the coincidence be height, for example, why not weight or shoe size or number of zits?) that makes Arp's arguments wholly unbelievable. That they are coincidences no one can mistake. That they represent some problem with current models is highly dubious.

I will say that the acceptance of corroborating evidence for current theories are sometimes received a bit too warmly, but the fact of the matter remains science is the best skeptical community we've got (far better than the against the mainstream folks who hold with teeth barred to their dogmatic positions). While stalwarts will exist everywhere, for every shoddy paper written that is given wide acceptance and has flaws, there are usually four or five that will come out within in the year to expose those flaws. And it's not as though there is only one paper per model. No, the scientific community, to toot its horn, gets it pretty good. Sometimes they miss the boat for a few years, even for a few decades, but if there is an error be convinced we will find it. We have.

I don't begrudge Arp his meanderings. There may even be found to be some utility in some of his object cataloging not yet seen. However, Arp's abilities as a theorist are sorely lacking as any careful perusal of his literature will reveal.

[dgruss23]

Welcome back JS Princeton!! =D> Will you be sticking around?

[quote="JS Princeton"]

Unlikely statistics such as 1 in a billion alignments of high and low z objects do nothing to convince mainstream supporters that Arp's anomalies might be right, but things unlikely to be accidental that appear to confirm standard views are embraced with open arms.

Well, Arp has made outlandish statements based on statistics by assuming rather preposterous priors. ... Anybody can see that the issue is that correlations are bound to be found in a limited space (the world). .... It's the reverse engineering of the priors (why should the coincidence be height, for example, why not weight or shoe size or number of zits?) that makes Arp's arguments wholly unbelievable. That they are coincidences no one can mistake. That they represent some problem with current models is highly dubious.

But as we've been discussing here, Arp's empirical model is able to make predictions. It's simply not true that these examples must be coincidences. And you're right - they might not represent a problem with current models, because it could turn out that the redshift anomalies are superimposed upon expansion.

I will say that the acceptance of corroborating evidence for current theories are sometimes received a bit too warmly, but the fact of the matter remains science is the best skeptical community we've got (far better than the against the mainstream folks who hold with teeth barred to their dogmatic positions). While stalwarts will exist everywhere, for every shoddy paper written that is given wide acceptance and has flaws, there are usually four or five that will come out within in the year to expose those flaws. And it's not as though there is only one paper per model. No, the scientific community, to toot its horn, gets it pretty good. Sometimes they miss the boat for a few years, even for a few decades, but if there is an error be convinced we will find it. We have.

That's all true and does not change my point - there are many that are all too eager to declare any alternatives as dead, but at the same time accept anything that seems to support the mainstream. But if you read that Lopez-Corredoira article and combine that with recent results that have found many ellipticals lack dark matter, the recent observations that time does not become "fuzzy" on the Planck scale to name just a few we've discussed here recently, it really becomes apparent that it is an exaggeration to declare the Big Bang as proven and alternatives as dead.

I don't begrudge Arp his meanderings. There may even be found to be some utility in some of his object cataloging not yet seen. However, Arp's abilities as a theorist are sorely lacking as any careful perusal of his literature will reveal.

That makes sense since he's an empiricist and not a theoretician. Its not his job to provide a theory to explain his empirical model. Research is specialized. Some researchers focus on observations and others focus on theory. He and others continue to accumulate examples that support his empirical model. Since those results are largely ignored it matters little what theory might explain them.