[The Big Bang] is an irrational process that cannot be described in scientific terms ... [nor] challenged by an appeal to observation. -Fred Hoyle
Contrary to popular public opinion, the Big Bang is one of the most sound, well-tested and verified scientific models of all time. It's right up there with Evolution, General Relativity, and the Standard Model. In fact, it's sometimes known as the Standard Cosmological Model.
Image credit: grandunificationtheory.com, and as always, click for full-size where available.
Let's remember, however, that unlike Evolution and General Relativity, the Big Bang is relatively new. This is because, until 1929, we thought the Milky Way was the full extent of the Universe! Once we realized that our galaxy was just one of many, and that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it moves away from us, we realized that the Universe was vast. Rather than just our Milky Way, the Universe consists of billions of galaxies comparable to ours.
When the Big Bang Theory came out, it said that the reason the galaxies are expanding away from us -- and that the farther one is from us, the faster it expands away -- is because the Universe started off in a hot, dense, expanding state. And that ever since, the only thing that's really mattered is gravity, pulling matter into structures like stars and galaxies, and slowing the expansion rate of the Universe through gravitational attraction.
In addition, the Big Bang also made two outstanding predictions: the abundances of elements created in the Big Bang and the existence of the leftover radiation from the Big Bang. Both of those have been experimentally verified, and it was the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background in the 1960s that led to the general scientific acceptance of the Big Bang and the rejection of practically all other models.
But if you can make another model that explains the abundances of the light elements and the cosmic background radiation, you just might have a viable alternative. Certainly, you'll have something worth considering. And just last week, a new proposal hit the arXiv. The title?
Sources of cosmic microwave radiation and dark matter identified: millimeter black holes
That's a novel idea: that millimeter-sized black holes (these would be in between the masses of Pluto and the planet Mercury) could cause the cosmic background radiation! Let's examine the idea, and see if this is an exciting new possibility, or whether we can demonstrate swiftly and easily that this is not feasible.
So, let's run with this model. Let's assume we've got these miniature black holes distributed all throughout our galaxy, as the authors assume. They choose the mass of their black holes -- m = 4.28 x 1022 kg -- so that the Hawking Radiation coming from these black holes is the right temperature to match the cosmic microwave background.
On the surface, this might look good, since the CMB is a blackbody spectrum, which means the energy density vs. frequency graph looks like this.
(Thanks, xkcd.) But there's another thing that needs to match, that the authors don't discuss: it isn't just the shape of the curve, but also the scale. In other words, you need these black holes to radiate enough energy to match the observed energy density!
So what is the energy density of the CMB? It's about 3 microWatts per square meter. That's about 300,000,000 times weaker than the radiation we receive at Earth from the Sun. So that might seem like a small energy density, but we need to compare it to what these theorized black holes do. So how much power -- in Watts -- does each one of these miniature black holes emit?
2 x 10-13 Watts. That's small, but is it prohibitive? Absolutely. Why? Because these things aren't in your backyard, they're distributed throughout the galaxy and the Universe! If you placed them far closer than they're actually allowed to be -- at the same distance that the Sun is from us -- it would take more than a whopping 1030 mini-black holes to give us enough power.
Of course, by that time, you've gone and exceeded the mass of the Universe. So this idea doesn't work, and it definitely doesn't work.
It's really, really difficult to come up with an alternative to the Big Bang, and if you want one, you need to get the light elements, the expansion, and the CMB correct. Even this paper, which was contrived to give you the Temperature and Energy distribution of CMB, couldn't even get the overall power to reasonably match what's observed.
But keep trying, because if there is an alternative to the Big Bang, I want to know about it! Until then, I'll keep on telling the greatest story ever told, and sharing it with you.
- Log in to post comments
Cool analysis. Thanks.
If you placed them far closer than they're actually allowed to be -- at the same distance that the Sun is from us --
What does this mean? Why can't they be closer to us than the sun?
Also, the authors do indeed claim that the mass of the universe is of the order 10^30 black holes (I didn't check the math.) So I think they would view this as a triumph--the mass of the universe equals the mass of mini black holes needed to generate the observed energy density.
Or did I misunderstand something here?
Well, from my picky tabletop AMO experimentalist perspective I'd say the theory is is one of the most sound, well-tested and verified scientific models back to about 10^-12 s after t = 0. Before that things start to look suspiciously speculative.
Which isn't to say the speculations aren't right, just that corroboration from fundamental theory and high-energy experiment is still very a work in progress.
Fascinating. I was just having a discussion about this with a friend's father yesterday while he was taking us home. He brought up the old "this means something comes from nothing" card, and I just let him win at that point because I could see right into his motivation and didn't want to argue. Still didn't know that this theory was that strongly supported!
Andrew Foland:
Because if there were an object within 1 AU that had the same mass as Pluto, we'd know about it due to its gravitational effects.
In general, why would someone write a paper like this? In particular, if you had to pick your value of black hole mass with such precision in order to get your theory to work out... what's the point? Could this ever make it pass peer review?
Back in my high school astronomy class, I came across a theory called Process Physics (or the "Random Reality model") that looked intriguing, but I lack the background in both physics and math to evaluate it for sure. Looking for the papers I found before led me to http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index.htm and I'm not at all encouraged now, since the site seems to be infested with "Vedic physics" and kooky claims about the aether...
Still, I like the basic "random reality" concept, which is that the universe has always existed in some form or other because space exists (why? Because It Can) and it is currently expanding at an accelerating rate because new space appears randomly at a rate determined by the amount of space already in existence (again, though, the answer is Because It Can). The apparent big bang is accounted for under this model by saying that the amount of space passed some threshold that allowed expansion to increase sharply, and entropy is accounted for by suggesting that an expanding universe is an open system in which empty space appears at a greater rate than occupied space. It stinks of hidden variables and crackpot wishful thinking, but the concept is strangely appealing and they claim to have run computer simulations that produce very universe-like laws from random inputs.
As I said, I have virtually no math or physics background, so this could be total crap and I wouldn't know it, but I'd like to know what you think, if any piece of this is actually plausible.
I'm just waiting for Ken Miller to say god is Dark Matter. Any day now. It will explain everything. Not. I wouldn't count such a claim as a replacement for the Big Bang though.
John Moffat of MOG (modified gravity) fame reckons his theory of gravity (which does away with dark matter) predicts a different start to the Universe to the standard inflation/big bang model. I have read his chapter 16 "the Eternal Universe" in his book "Reinventing Gravity" (I won't say that I actually understand it), but his model predicts a vast Universe with no matter or energy, zero curvature and zero Hubble constant. At t=0, energy and matter are formed from quantum mechanical fluctuation in space (so there's no singularity) to form the very hot plasma which inflates initially (but not as much as the standard model). He reckons his model matches the standard model after the first 300,000 or so years and differs before that, suggesting that were we able to detect the gravity waves from before that point his model would give a different result to that of standard inflation/big bang theory. He also says that black holes don't exist.
AJKamper
but it's a relatively uniform distribution of black holes, no? So although one black hole within an AU would cause detectable gravitational disturbances, it's not obvious to me that a whole set of them distributed more or less uniformly would.
I suppose the "mean field" of all of them must be near zero, but there would be small-scale dynamics due to the nearest one?
My first reaction Ethan is that you are a bit too harsh on this new hypothesis. I tend to be harsh on established hypotheses like the big bang cosmology (system of hypotheses); because they have acquired so much intellectual momentum and also hubris; whereas, I tend to be gentler to the new hypotheses, assuming they passes first skeptical tests; because new ideas are fragile and the physics establishment (like all establishments) is very reluctant to accept new ideas. (Remember Einstein, he did not win a nobel prize for either of his theories of relativity; because the physics establishment was too skeptical.) Now, let me examine your critique of the MBH hypothesis. First, here's what you say:
"Let's examine the idea, and see if this is an exciting new possibility, or whether we can demonstrate swiftly and easily that this is not feasible."
To me, it seems that your intent is to dispatch it swiftly; and you succeed in your own mind. However, not with all the commenters and not with me. Not that I think this hypothesis is great, but I think it is worth following and seriously encouraging to see whether this hypothesis can leads us to other new interesting physics. Though an alternative CMB interpretation is interesting enough by itself.
Now let me critique your critique of the mini-black-hole hypothesis:
"mass of their black holes -- m = 4.28 x 10^22 kg ... it would take more than a whopping 10^30 mini-black holes to give us enough power... Of course, by that time, you've gone and exceeded the mass of the Universe. So this idea doesn't work, and it definitely doesn't work." Let's check the mathematics of your assertion! Does it align with estimated mass of our universe or is your assertion hubris??
We multiply mass of MBH times # of MNH and we get 4.28 x 10^52 kg as the total mass of mini black holes in our universe. Is this out of sync with the mass of the universe?
A quick internet search shows estimates of the mass of the visible universe:
- Wiki shows mass of the universe as 8 x 10^52 kg.
- The Physics Factbook lists various esitmates of the mass of the universe from 3 x 10^50 kg to 1.6x 10^60 kg.
Most of these mass of the universe estimates definitely work with a total mini-black-hole mass of m = 4.28 x 10^52 kg.
So!!!! Your critique shows hubris not critcal analysis. Or maybe you just accepted some establishment university physics hallway gossip without doing your own anaylsis and fact checking (not very good scientific approach). Not a problem, we all screw up.
But seriously, please don't ask rhetorical questions, "Big bang alternatives, anyone?"; just so that you can "play science" with a slam-dunk "pretend" analysis.
Now, if you still have a problem with the mini-black-hole hypothesis other than with the extra mass that it requires; please tell us; because the extra mass required seems to be no problem at all. And now that you've brought up this topic; you fan's request a serious answer.
Of course, if my analysis and fact checking are wrong; then please let me know.
I'm just curious: if we presume inflation with no preexisting energy or mass, could the decay of the scalar/reheating due to rate-of-expansion alone be enough to produce the energy and matter we have now?
@10: Not that I've checked your math or Ethan's math, but my interpretation of Ethan's analysis is that there would need to be 10^30 black holes on the surface of a sphere centered on the earth with a radius of 1 AU.
Thomas @10: The objection to needing that amount of mass in black holes is that in order to get the observed power levels you have to put all of those 10^30 black holes on the surface of a sphere with a radius of 1 AU. That is clearly ridiculous.
Even at a mean spacing of 1 AU, that gives us a density of roughly (2*10^5)^3 ~ 10^16 per cubic parsec. The disk of our galaxy is roughly 10^5 parsecs in diameter and 10^3 parsecs thick, for a volume of ~10^13 parsecs. That's ~10^29 just in our galactic disk (let alone the halo). Last I checked, there were a lot more than ten galaxies our size in the universe.
Thanks Jeff and Eric
If Ethan means 10^30 MBH's within 1 AU of Earth, that is quite different; than if the authors means 10^30 black holes in the whole universe. When, I go to the link that Ethan suggests (and I can only read the abstract); it sure reads to me that the authors are talking about 10^30 MBH's in the universe.
So I think someone who has access to the article needs to tell us what the authors meant. And if their calculation is different than Ethan's; then why.
Awaiting, further clarification.
Nevertheless, I apologize to Ethan for my disrespectful remarks. But I do think that if Ethan offers an alternative; he should offer it as a possible alternative not just as a punching bag.
Also, Thomas, do note that Ethan isn't DOING physics on this blog, he's EXPLAINING it. Even if he knew before writing the blog post what his conclusion was going to be, that doesn't mean that he had decided before reading or considering the paper what it would be.
Thomas, you are right that the abstract claims 10^30 total of these in the universe. That by itself is not ridiculous, as you point out: a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that that many black holes of that size would be ~10% of the non-baryonic dark matter in the observable universe. (Since black holes have no hair, we are free to assume that they are non-baryonic.) The problem comes in with the amount of power put out. I'll assume the power figures Ethan put in the post above are accurate. 1 AU is about 1.5*10^11 m, so a sphere of that radius would have a surface area of a bit under 3*10^23 m^2. Multiply that by 3*10^-6 W/m^2 and you get not quite 10^18 W coming through a sphere of that size. At 2*10^-13 W per black hole, you'd need more than 10^30 of them on the surface of that sphere.
Andrew Foland:
"I suppose the "mean field" of all of them must be near zero, but there would be small-scale dynamics due to the nearest one?"
I don't have the math skills to prove this, but yes, that would be my assumption. Something like the Sun dropped in its lap would significantly alter the local distribution, after all.
Eric, Thank you.
Now I sort of understand that the cumulative wattage is much too low with this alternative scenarios hypothesis. OK then.
So in effect Ethan is saying that 10^30 such MBH's are needed in the neighborhood of each solar (star) system rather than for the whole universe. Since there are maybe 10^10 stars per galaxy and maybe 10^10 galaxies per our universe; Ethan suggests that this alternative model would more correctly need approximately 10^50 MBH's in our universe rather than the 10^30 that their article suggests. And hence, the total universe mass of there MBH's would be approximately 10^20 times the mass of the universe. Hmm, well then the authors of this alternative theory seem to have made a big oversight.
When I go to the Ethan's linked abstract and then Google the lead author's name; I am able to find the pdf of the whole article http://arxiv4.library.cornell.edu/ftp/arxiv/papers/1004/1004.2251.pdf,
however I can't understand the logic about how they derive 10^30 MBH's for the whole universe. As well I see nothing that looks to me like a wattage discussion. But I can't really critique what I don't understand.
So at this point, I assume that Eric's clarification of Ethan's analysis is correct. As well, I assume that Ethan's numbers and his conclusion are correct.
Hey everyone (especially Thomas),
This paper just hit the preprint archives (arxiv.org) last week, and I got a chance to read it earlier this week.
Part of the reason the Big Bang is such a huge success is that it takes these three very powerful observations -- the expanding Universe following Hubble's Law, the nuclear abundances of the light elements, and the cosmic microwave background -- and explains them in one fell swoop.
The last one -- the CMB -- is perhaps the most important, because there are no other good alternative explanations for it. The only one we've got is that the Universe was once small enough, dense enough, and hot enough that everything was ionized all at once and stopped being ionized all at once everywhere in space. Even (Wayne @8) John Moffat's iconoclastic ideas don't challenge this.
So when I saw this paper, I was excited about a possible alternative! But when I started reading the paper, I became disillusioned very quickly. And when I realized they didn't even consider whether black holes radiate enough power to account for the CMB, I got a sinking feeling in my gut. Why? Because they're called black holes for a reason. Even with Hawking radiation, the power emitted by a black hole is remarkably tiny.
After doing the calculation, I realized that it's not going to work. If I instead model the galaxy as normal with these black holes distributed the way we think dark matter is distributed, I find that the power of the CMB would be too small by about fifty orders of magnitude.
But my overall conclusion is -- unfortunately -- that it's a very bad paper. Which is too bad, because a viable alternative to the Big Bang would be fascinating to explore in depth!
Thank you Ethan,
You're right it is disappointing not to have a strong alternative to the big bang.
Glad to hear that you are not just slam dunking a weak paper; but actively searching for a credible alternative.
Once again, my apologies for misjudging you.
Ethan: I see the CMB routinely cited as the knock-dead argument for a Big Bang, but I've never seen any explanation why it can't be interpreted as, simply, blackbody radiation scattered by lonely ions in the inter-galactic medium. In other words, why can't it be just the average temperature of our part of the universe at the moment, telling us nothing more about our origins than fog tells us about road ahead?
(Of course any such refutation cannot depend on the universe having a size and age dictated by a Big Bang interpretation.)
I dont know any alternative to Big Bang - but its obvious that there are a great many problems with the theory.
"most sound, well-tested and verified scientific models of all time" is clearly overblown hyperbole!
Problems: (1)flateness problem - ad hoc fix - inflation.
(2)Globular cluters older than the age of the universe - fix? - try and explain away the evidence - so far no good.
(3)Supernova observations - suggesting accelerating expansion - ad hoc fix - dark energy.
etc.
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
A sound theory that requires adding evermore "epicycles" to fit the observations looks like desperation - propping up a sick theory.
I don't know what the alternative is - but I sincerely hope there is someone out there trying to find one. This is one ugly, cludged, patched monster of a theory.
Mark.
@Nathan
We can measure the effects of the CMB temperature at various distances by using a couple of different phenomena. One is the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, and another is the temperature-dependent strengths of certain spectral absorption lines. See Figure 1 in this paper, for an example of what you get from the former: http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2815 . A (1+z) temperature scaling law due to cosmological redshifting of an initially hot blackbody spectrum seems a pretty elegant solution.
@Mark
I sympathize with the principles underlying your position. However, it is worth bearing in mind that one of these "epicycles" (dark matter) has turned out to be almost certainly correct.
@Nathan Myers: I see many problems with your "alternative proposal" for the CMBR.
* It is unclear why the CMBR should be so homogeneous if it comes from intergalactic scattering - why should the ions be so homogeneously distributed and all have the same temperature?
* What should be the source of the temperature of this intergalactic medium? Heating by starlight doesn't work, that gives another (higher) temperature (I read a nice webpage explaining this in more detail, but I can't find it at the moment...)
* It is totally unclear why the power spectrum should so nicely match the theoretical predictions, and the measurements of cosmological parameters based on the CMBR agree so nicely with other methods, if the CMBR merely comes from intergalactic ions.
* As already mentioned, we measure a higher temperature for the CMBR in distant galaxies, quantitatively consistent with the predictions of the Big Bang Theory.
etc.
Mad Scientist wrote: "I'm just waiting for Ken Miller to say god is Dark Matter. Any day now. It will explain everything. Not. I wouldn't count such a claim as a replacement for the Big Bang though."
Why, exactly, would I say such a thing? Just like Ethan said, "the Big Bang is one of the most sound, well-tested and verified scientific models of all time." Just like evolution. Amen! (Do you have me confused with someone else??)
- Ken Miller (Brown University)
@Mark:
(1) You are right that inflation was proposed mainly as a fix for the flatness problem. However, based on inflationary models, predictions could be made - and some of these predictions have in the last years been confirmed. (when the data from Planck comes in, we'll see more)
(2) I know of no globular clusters which are estimated to be older than the universe. Apparently you use outdated sources.
(3) Dark energy is not an "ad hoc fix" - it is merely the realisation that a parameter in the Big Bang theory (Lambda) which, due to simplicity, was assumed to be zero, isn't zero after all. Simply the measurement of a parameter, nothing ad hoc about that.
The website you cite has so many problems it is really hard to know where even to start...
Static models are neither possible using Newtonian gravity nor General Relativity - hence they contradict well-known and well-studied physics. Further, there are heaps of evidence that the universe was totally different billions of years ago than it is today (stars were younger, temperature of the CMBR was higher, galaxies had different shapes, there were lots more quasars, etc. etc. etc.) And further, strangely no references are given for this extraordinary claim...
I have looked at the data on the Big Bang theory for years, and I know of no such "mutually exlusive values". The references are both to Tom van Flandern - someone who is well-known for his misunderstandings of relativity. Further, reference 3 is a book, not a peer-reviewed paper, and reference 2 contains only obscure journals like Apeiron - a journal well-known for publishing lots of highly questionable stuff. If Mr. van Flandern really had a cause, he would have published in reputables journals. And before you begin crying "censorship" or something like that, consider that other Big Bang critics like e. g. Hoyle had no problems publishing their critic and data in reputable journals...
No, it doesn't. For details, see my reply to Nathan Myers above.
As Ethan nicely showed in one of the earlier parts of his series, this claim is simply wrong: primordial nucleosynthesis needs only very few parameters. In contrast, static models can't explain the origin of the light elements at all (Ned Wright analyses the efforts of Hoyle et al. in detail in his webpage).
Strangely, *all* simulations of large structure formation in the universe say otherwise. And even more strangely, these simulations aren't cited here...
As already mentioned above: the ages used here are *totally* outdated.
etc. etc. etc. The whole webpage uses a mixture of outdated sources, outright falsehoods and (obviously conscious) omissions of all of the hundreds of papers and observational pieces of data which contradict its claims. Don't believe a single word there!
@Nathan Myers, @Mark: With respect to the claim that the CMBR could come from dust etc. heated by starlight or the "temperature of space", try these:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stars_vs_cmb.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Eddington-T0.html
Einstein searched most of his life for evidence of the Standard Model and failed.Now we know that if you add a radiator and a time varying field to the Gaussian law of statics Maxwell's laws of radiation is applicable. So Einstein was correct that the standard model clues were out there together with particle carrying charges.
Einstein thought this finding would be invaluable, so why do physicists of the present day be of the opinion that it is all worthless? The mechanics of radiation are revealed as well as the full description of the standard model but physicists just can't handle change and thus turn aside.
Classical physics still reigns
http:www.unwinantennas.com for details
Björn: Thank you, but I am not proposing any alternative, per se. I just have not seen the evidence that makes the CMB such a compelling argument for BB. (Note that I do not claim that it is inconsistent with BB.) Your first link shows that the CMB isn't red-shifted starlight. Your second link shows that the CMB isn't scattered starlight. Neither addresses the matter at hand. As I noted in the original posting, if one does not assume BB, there need be no upper limit on how far a CMB photon may have traveled to reach us, so microwave images from 10 Gly distant do not suffice to demonstrate IGM transparency.
If those links represent the best arguments available, then the case seems weak.
@Nathan Myers: Did you miss the other arguments, in comments 23 and 24?
@Art Unwin:
That makes no sense. There are only two "standard models" in physics (as far as I know): (1) the standard model of elementary physics, describing elementary particles and their interactions, which dates back to about 1975, and (2) the standard model of cosmology (Lambda CDM), which only was developed after the year 2000. In contrast, Einstein died in 1955. So, how could he have searched most of his life for evidence for the Standard Model? (which of the two do you mean, anyway?)
This also makes no sense. How do you propose to "add a radiator and a time varying field" to the Gaussian law? (the Gaussian law of electrostatic is: Laplace operator of electric potential gives a constant times the charge density; did you perhaps mean another law?). And what exactly do you mean with "Maxwell's laws of radiation"? Do you mean Maxwell's laws of electrodynamics, or what?
Err, how does that follow from the things you said above?
Because no one even understands what you are trying to say here...?
Electromagnetic radiation and charge are both excellently described by Quantum Electrodynamics. So why do you claim that physicists can't handle charge?
Explain the results of a double slit experiment with electrons, quantitatively, with classical physics. If you can't do that, stop boasting.
Oh, let's take only the first sentence:
Einstein never said anything like that. He didn't use terms like "initial forces at the beginning" or "virgin basics of all forces". If these terms are supposed to be your own restatements of what Einstein said, then you fail miserably - this has nothing to do with what Einstein ever did. Try again.
Björn: I did miss #23, sorry DG. About #24, I don't presume to guess how the IGM got its apparent temperature; either it has, or doesn't yet. The inefficient exchange noted in your second reference, and a big and old enough universe, ought to suffice to explain uniformity in our neighborhood. Deviations from the blackbody curve, however interesting, are a different subject than we are discussing. I will comment on DG's notes when I have a chance to examine his reference carefully.
Problems with alternatives to Big Bang that, to be overcome, would seem to require physically magical events of the magnitude of, say, Inflation, or Dark Energy, should not give us no pause whatsoever, if we are not to be guilty of special pleading for welcoming them in Big Bang's case.
@Nathan Myers:
We know from observations that the cosmos is quite violent and chaotic - e. g. galaxy collisions happen quite frequently. So why should one expect the intergalactic medium to be so perfectly uniform?
Why is this a different subject? If you want to claim that the CMBR could have another source, then you have to explain *all* observations relevant to the CMBR. And the power spectrum of the CMBR (which isn't really the same as "deviations from the blackbody curve, BTW) is indeed powerful evidence for a cosmological origin.
What's "magical" about those?
Björn: I will continue this discussion under a future appropriate posting, after digesting DG's reference.
But deviation from blackbody is a different subject because Ethan made it a different subject. And, inflation and dark energy are magic because their entire existence arises from ad hoc patches to rescue Big Bang from self-contradiction. If you'd rather call them band-aids than magic, that's OK with me, but they're band-aids that are bigger than the whole rest of the universe put together.
I hasten to add that I'm not saying there's anything wrong with patching holes in a theory by inventing phenomena of practically unlimited magnitude from whole cloth. Only, those phenomena can't be assumed to exist independently of the theory; and you don't get to object to similarly large inventions that may be needed to patch other theories.
"Only, those phenomena can't be assumed to exist independently of the theory"
Very astute. You have to put the band-aid on the leg that's bleeding. I think that, unlike legs, we're talking about just the one universe, this very one here, but if there were intended to be another universe that the Standard Cosmological Model pertained to, then that 'band-aid on the bleeding leg' analogy would be pertinent. No-one is going to sneak a theory onto the wrong leg on your watch. Stay vigilant...
Ethan
Let me add one more comment (appropriately here); rather than in your current posts. You suggest, "But if you can make another model that explains the abundances of the light elements and the cosmic background radiation, you just might have a viable alternative. Certainly, you'll have something worth considering."
Earlier #8 you also say, "the story of the formation of neutral atoms and the leftover glow -- was to lead to the widespread acceptance of the big bang and the rejection of pretty much every alternative. Why? Because they don't predict this leftover glow that we see.
So -- for those of you who don't like the big bang -- this is your number one challenge when you make a theory of the Universe. Can you explain the observed abundances of the elements? Can you explain the leftover microwave radiation? Can you explain the fluctuations in that microwave radiation? And can you explain the expansion of the Universe?"
So I've mentioned this astronomer Burbidge who never accepted the big bang (he died earlier this year). And others have mentioned Hoyle (he died in 2001). But none of you astronomer/physicists seemed to know about or consider worthy of consideration a book A Different approach to Cosmology publihed in 2000 by F. Hoyle, G. Burbidge and J.V. Narlikar. It is an undated quasi steady state model that offers an alternative to the big bang theory. Here's the link to read part of it online. http://books.google.com/books?id=lxzxg6iHc1MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=co…
Now, I don't expect this alternative to be "correct" any more than I expect the "big-bang theory" to be correct. But I expect it to be the most reasoned alternative available. And more importantly, I expect this work to present the problems and successes of the big-bang theory in different light than big-bang advocates present these issues.
For example, pg 97 explains that ad hoc nature of the CMB success, "It is common to find that students emerge from a cosmology course in modern times believing that the big-bang theory explains the observed microwave background and that it also explains a cosmic helium value with Y close to 0.25. This is to distort the meaning of words... Thus the radiation-dominated early universe is an axiom of modern big-bang cosmology, and the supposed explanation of the microwave background is a restatement of that axiom." Of course, Hoyle et al present the problematic equations and show where the ad hoc assumption is made, "There is nothing in the big-bang theory, even its most developed modern form, which fixes the value of this coefficient." And so on.
Now there are a lot of alternative theories to the big bang (including my own); which probably flunk the first serious observational test. But Fred Hoyle's 2000 quasi steady state theory is not the same as his 1949 steady sate theory. And all of the authors of this book are credible professional physicist/ astronomers.
So I'll be reading this book carefully, though it is beyond my technical ability. And instead of trashing this book; I would respect professional astronomers more if they would take the time to both support as well as denounce the conclusion of these three scientists. I can't believe that all of their ideas (whether denouncing an aspect of current big bang theory or proposing an alternative interpretation to some point of current big-bang theory) are incorrect.
Since this seems to be the only systematic well thought out alternative to the big bang; why not tentatively embrace its good points instead of dismissing all of it out of hand.
Well that's the thought.
if big bang is so robust a theory then why does it rely on the theoretical and as of yet unproven and untested forces of inflation, dark matter and dark energy. i am inherently skeptical of any theory that invents new forces to explain itself...
Would anyone be interested to simulate the collisions of submicroscopic absolute solid, frictionless inelastic spheres? I presume these randomly moving PRIMORDIAL PARTICLES (P-particles)create clusters of mass-bearing matter, gravitation, and the universe as we know it.
No theory will ever be correct concerning our beginning since God is past finding out. I love science but there comes a time when you get to the end and there is no explanation but (God). If there was a big bang where did the big bang occur since there was no space or time. And where is the universe located now? We really know so much less then we would admit and yet we want there to be an answer other then (in the beginning God). So there will never be a time when moral man will understand the beginning of things. However we may know Him who to know is life and knowing Him gives us the assurance that someday we will have the privilege of knowing more as he reveals it to us throughout eternity. Wes
No mention of Schwarzchild radii? A flat universe of sufficient size and observed density yields an outer boundary of infinite number of Schwarzchild radii at approximately the same distance from any given relative position. This would be observed as a spherical red-shifted horizon as an observer would be looking INTO the infinite number of black holes at the same approximate distance in any direction.
Man I really enjoy this stuff, so that being said, seems to me, that with all the math, dark matter, space & time, etc. Is it possible Fred Hoyle was right or half right? What if you combined Big bang & Static state universe to explain everything? What if Gravity fundmental purpose is to Take matter reverse it back to energy? Gravity seems so weak of a force compared to the other 3, yet at the center of black holes is it possible all the elements are being reversed back to a state of pure energy? Is it possible the universe in it self, goes back & forth from a physical realm/ to a state of pure energy?
Actually, the big bang theory relies much more on general relativity, thermodynamics and quantum theory. General relativity is the only thing that explains the behaviour of the planets in our solar system (with the classical physics there were holes). Quantum theory is something you use every day in your computer, in your LED/plasma/TFT TV and in your cellphone. Thermodynamics... well, I really don't have to explain that, do I?
If you can change both those theories, which would actually be nice because it would allow us to do many more things, the big bang is doomed. If not, it holds.
Lots of good comments above.
When Hoyle and BBers were bruising it out in the mid to late 50's I initially was a bystander. At the time it seemed like a struggle between U.S. theorists that favored the BB model and English theorists whereby many sided with Hoyle-Narlikar.
These models seemed to be going head to head and then when I was in High School I remember being asked which model I preferred by a fellow student, maybe this was about 1957. At the time I knew little about either theory excepting the general ideas of them. I replied to the question that I thought the State Theory sounded better because the 20 billion year age (at that time) seemed too short of time for the entire universe to evolve in my opinion at the time. I also, however, didn't like the Steady State Model because forever seemed like too long of a period, and I also didn't like the continuous creation of new matter in the middle of Space. Later such creation possibilities based upon this model suggested more possibilities, but upon becoming educated concerning the details of both theories I decided I liked neither. I then started seeing many science explanations that seemed to me ad hoc.
By the end of 1958 I developed my own preliminary theory of cosmology maybe 10 type written pages long at that time plus my own theory of gravity since I didn't like the warped space idea in General Relativity. I saw no reason that GR equations might be wrong, only that the explanations of warped space seemed illogical to me. There were only two basis for my hypothesis, one was observation, but for my theories I felt that logic was the most essential characteristic besides the equations.
Now 50 years later I am a theorist and these theories/ hypothesis of mine are more that 350 pages long and they encompass cosmology and theoretical physics.
There are only a half dozen different mathematical formulations, one being gravity which I accordingly use to explain away dark matter, another a reformulation of the Hubble Law concerning distances which accordingly explains away dark energy.
Others explain the mechanics of the universe according to my own model. It proposes another explanation of the observed galactic red-shifts (generally unknown to the public) whereby the universe is generally not expanding, a different kind of beginning in a much older universe (but still finite in age), and a universe whereby there are no forces of nature or pure energy. A universe solely based upon far simpler logic whether right or wrong.
Take a look :) My alternative to the BB model: pantheory.com
leave comments at the sight if you wish, or here if this thread is still open. I'll bookmark this page and check back. I know I am late to the party but I'll still check back. Obviously it's an interesting thread for me.
regards, Forrest
@Forrest Noble: Please go to
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html.
Can your "theory" explain all the pieces of evidence listed there? (quantitatively!) If yes, I'll have a look (hey, I would even be satisfied if you could only explain the CMBR and the abundance of light elements quantitatively!); if no, it's not worth the time.
Bjoern,
I'll give you my brief explanations of all listed "evidence."
Obviously with a book as long as mine I know all the arguments concerning the BB.
I'll just do the a,b,c, according to the Evidence section at the link you gave.
a) large scale homogeneity
A) this is better explained by an older universe.
b)Hubble Diagram
B)Is only relevant to the BB model. I do not consider it evidence in favor of the BB or any model.
c)abundances of light elements.
C)My model as well as other alternative models/hypothesis have no problem with this one.
A particular problem with the BB model is the Lithium quantities observed. I think the abundance of light elements is equally as easy to explain for any model that involves continuous creation but is a problem with a steady state model of infinite age.
d) explaining the CMBR
D)I also consider this an easy one. In a much older universe the temperature of intergalactic space would be generally uniform.
e)fluctuations in the CMBR
E)since in my model the universe is much older there would be very distant galaxy clusters that could only be observable as minor temperature increases in the CMBR.
f)large scale structure of the universe.
F)I believe this is much better explained by a much older universe and is not at all evidence for the BB model.
g)age of the stars
G)for some stars in our own galaxy some astronomers have claimed that at their youngest possible age they must have begun at the beginnings of the universe according to the BB model. In my model there is also fission as well as fusion within stars that break up the heavier isotopes given enough time suggesting that present methods of age dating are only rough estimates and poor estimates concerning the oldest stars.
h)evolution of galaxies
H)a model concerning a much older universe could allow much more time for the evolution of galaxies and galaxy clusters.
i) time dilation in supernovae curves
I) There is nothing at all complicated about time dilation and I don't think it has anything to do with the BB model.
Example: A supernovae with a redshift of 1, meaning that the red-shifted wavelengths are twice as long, will also be observable for twice as long period of time considering that the same number of waves will be observed.
j)Tolmen Tests and galaxy surface brightness.
J)This is only a valid argument concerning a static universe that is not expanding. Hoyle's SS theory also proposed the universe is expanding. My own model has a different spin on it but equally explains these tests.
k)The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect (SZE) is a small spectral distortion of the cosmic microwave background (CMB)
K)Again I think these observations can be explained by a number of possibilities not just the BB model. In my own theory I do not favor any one of the many possible explanations discussed by others.
l)Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, gravitational redshifts
The non-integrated SachsâWolfe effect is supposedly caused by gravitational redshift occurring at the surface of last scattering according to the BB model.
L) This I think is a good example of trying to find evidence and an explanation according to the BB model. I believe it is simply the MWBR variations that has nothing to do with the BB model.
m) Dark Matter.
M) I think the dark matter hypothesis is evidence against GR and the BB model. It is simply ad hoc to explain spiral galaxy rotation curves that did not match observation unless 90% of galactic matter was unobservable.
My own model has different equations than GR and I think better explains observations in simple terms.
n)Dark Energy.
N)This I think is just another BB ad hoc hypothesis. In my own model I have a different formulation for galactic distances based upon my model which requires such a reformulation. When supernovae are plotted according to my model it matches observation nearly perfectly. Accordingly there is no such thing as dark energy.
o)consistency
O) Although I think the BB model is full of inconsistencies
I think presently the two biggest and most obvious are:
1) The density of the universe in the past should have been 8 times more dense when the universe was half its present age according to the BB model based upon the volume of a sphere and an average rate of expansion. Observation have shown no difference in density in the past.
2) The age of galaxies in the past at the beginning of the universe according to the BB model, appears to be the same as the Milky Way in many cases. I have dozens of technical papers whereby astronomers are questioning how such "old appearing galaxies" could have formed so quickly in the beginnings of the universe according to the BB model.
Prediction: After the new space telescopes are up I think we will be continuously looking at the same kinds of galaxies no matter how far back we look.
To account for this I think BB theorists will postulate that after beginning Inflation that the universe came close to a halt concerning its expansion and then very slowly stated to expand again. It accordingly expanded at an accelerated rate and then slowed down to a decelerating rate, and now again an accelerating rate or some similar explanation which might accordingly account for an older universe :)
If these answers seem reasonable take a peak at my site mentioned above.
@Forrest Noble: Did you miss the "quantitatively" I asked for? I don't want just-so stories; I want to see that you explain these pieces of evidence quantitatively. Don't you know what that word means?
Also, several things you wrote above are simply false, e. g. this:
There are observations which have shown a different density in the past...
And this:
is also simply wrong. There are some few examples of galaxies which look quite "mature" at a quite early age - but (1) these are statistical outliers, not the norm; most galaxies look young, small and fuzzy and (2) the ages of galaxies have been determined to be younger the more distant to use they are.
Methinks you have only looked very briefly at the page I mentioned, read only the section headlines, but ignored all the content...
@ Bjorn,
your quote:
"There are some few examples of galaxies which look quite "mature" at a quite early age - but (1) these are statistical outliers, not the norm; most galaxies look young, small and fuzzy and (2) the ages of galaxies have been determined to be younger the more distant to use they are."
As I said before, when the new telescopes are up and maybe within 5 years thereafter, I predict that they will increase the age of the universe according to the BB model.
This I believe will be the beginnings of the end of this model. They, however, will continuously add patches to the present model until they think they have found a viable alternative.
As to the abundance of light elements, I think this is a poor argument in favor of the BB model since predictions of some light elements such as isotopes of lithium do not match reality. Instead it is a argument against a steady state model that does not include continuous creation of new matter which essentially was the century old standard cosmological model at the turn of the last century.
Below was an argument/assertions that I made against BB nucleosynthesis a couple of years ago, seen below. I have done no calculations on this front primarily because I think it would take me too long. Realize there are hundreds of nuclear physicists trying to match observation with the BB model. There is less than a half a dozen looking to find fault with this model. I do have mathematical models that "explain away" dark matter and dark energy based upon observation, however. Mathematically enhancing GR and changing the "hubble law" isn't that enough for just one person? :)
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/gary-steigman-neutrinos-and-big-…
My model has hydrogen, deuterium, and helium also being created in great abundances surrounding galactic black holes so it does not solely rely on stellar nucleo-synthesis for such explanations. Give my a equal number of nuclear physicists as it took to create the present BB model of nucleosynthesis and 20 years and I would bet dollars against doughnuts that I could come up with an equal or better model than the present BB nucleo-synthesis model.
"Statistical outliers" are where all theory is tested, otherwise they could simply be great examples of a collective imagination. If you wish to look at my technical papers in the upper index at the website denoted above you will see my mathematical argument and observations against "dark energy" and observational evidence against the age of the universe according to the BB model.
Thanks to the author of this interesting blog/ thread for the invitation and hosting of alternative ideas. As far as I am concerned such an attitude is what science is all about.
It's relatively easy to make scientific assertions and create related mathematics/ physics but observational proof, on the other hand, is what it's all about.
@forrest noble:
Are you aware that you sound an awful lot like the creationists here, who have predicted the imminent demise of the theory of evolution for decades?
Methinks you still haven't read the content at the site I mentioned... Even a steady-state model with continuous creation of matter will have a hard time explaining the observed abundances, especially in different populations of stars.
Can these models explain all the observations which are normally attributed to dark matter and/or dark energy?
I'm at a loss to understand what you want to show me with the article you linked to. That article spells out in great detail the very good consistency of all measurements concerning the abundance of elements and the BB predictions, mentioning that the only problem left is Li - and then in the comments you claim that there are enormous problems, and your model is far better! Say, have you even read the article?!?
Nice for you. Now, what was that about the quantitative predictions...? And even a non-quantitative one: according to your model, one should expect that close to the center of galaxies, there should be more H, D, and He, whereas outwards, there should be more heavy elements. It would be news to me that anything like that is observed!
Say, aren't you aware that there are probably hundreds of people like you in the world, who claim that they have found a better explanation than the BB? Could you give us a reason why physicists should look at your idea, and not at the hundreds others?
I've looked at your "technical paper" briefly. Apparently, you can explain the SN data with your model quantitatively. Nice. However, I've seen already several "alternative" proposals which can do that. So, there is still no reason to look at your model preferently, and ignore all the others...
Additionally, I note that your proposed change of the Hubble relation is completely ad hoc. That's not how one does cosmology calculations - one does not simply change one derived formula! If you want to propose an alternative, you have to start from the beginning, i. e. the equations of General Relativity, and have to show how your proposed formula for the Hubble relationship follows from these! (I noted that you claim that your "theory" is unrelated to Einstein's relativity - however, that makes your ideas even more suspect...)
On page 25, you mention many sensible arguments why the increasing density at large distances has not been observed so far (although as I pointed out, there is at least one observation where this indeed has been observed - you ignored that...), but simply brush them aside as insufficient. Also, some of the things you claim there (e. g. that the proportion of elliptical galaxies is the same at large distances) are simply wrong.
Your model fails to explain a lot of observations which clearly show that the universe was different in past times, e.g.:
* quasars are seen mainly in a certain redshift range
* the galaxy population is different at high redshift; this includes observations like these:
http://thespacewriter.com/wp/2010/02/18/things-arent-like-what-they-use…
http://news.discovery.com/space/hubble-telescope-early-universe.html
* star populations in galaxies with high redshift are all observed to be younger than the star populations in the Milky Way
* the temperature of the CMBR is measured to be higher in galaxies at high redshift
etc. etc. etc.
@Bjoern,
"Are you aware that you sound an awful lot like the creationists here, who have predicted the imminent demise of the theory of evolution for decades?"
It may seem like that to you but I would bet my life against 20 bucks (or 4 drinks) that natural selection is generally valid; I'd also bet 4:1 that my model of cosmology is more valid than the BB model.
"Methinks you still haven't read the content at the site I mentioned... Even a steady-state model with continuous creation of matter will have a hard time explaining the observed abundances, especially in different populations of stars."
Although in general I think the SS model is a better model than the BB model I think both have serious logical problems. To me nothing except for valid interpretations of observations can trump logic. Wrong interpretations of observations can be worse than no observations at all as far as understanding reality.
"Can these models explain all the observations which are normally attributed to dark matter and/or dark energy?"
I really don't know since I'm fairly sure that I am unaware of many observations that they attribute to dark matter and dark energy. Upon reading such things my belief is that the theorists that propose them must be very smart since their imaginations, in my opinion, seem to be fantastic :)
"â¦â¦â¦Now, what was that about the quantitative predictions...? And even a non-quantitative one: according to your model, one should expect that close to the center of galaxies, there should be more H, D, and He, whereas outwards, there should be more heavy elements. It would be news to me that anything like that is observed!"
Yours is a good criticism. It is true that mostly older stars reside within galactic cores so there is probably less star forming gas there. Although I've seen some astronomers claiming large clouds moving outward from the inner core this has been observed only a couple of times that I am aware of. Possibly a more likely mechanism is that this matter is created from toruses surrounding galactic black holes, from old matter that is disintegrated by the forces of the black hole. Accordingly because of the vast forces fissioning old matter, new matter accordingly would also be created (protons and the lightest nuclei through fusion processes in the inner torus) from field material (ZPF) and much of it would be jettisoned into the outer galaxy and out of the galaxy by galactic jets. Both mechanisms (fissioning and new creation) could provide the abundances of light elements seen. This new-creation mechanism accordingly would be the same source for the creation of all particle matter since the beginnings of a no BB universe.
In my opinion there are no direct observations of this creation that support any model therefore I consider such proposals, including my own and the BB model, to be solely hypothetical concerning the abundances of light elements.
"Additionally, I note that your proposed change of the Hubble relation is completely ad hoc. That's not how one does cosmology calculations - one does not simply change one derived formula! If you want to propose an alternative, you have to start from the beginning, i. e. the equations of General Relativity, and have to show how your proposed formula for the Hubble relationship follows from these! (I noted that you claim that your "theory" is unrelated to Einstein's relativity - however, that makes your ideas even more suspect...)"
This criticism is invalid. My reformulation is entirely based upon my cosmological model. That fact I hope and the explanation of it is adequately explained in my technical paper.
"On page 25, you mention many sensible arguments why the increasing density at large distances has not been observed so far (although as I pointed out, there is at least one observation where this indeed has been observed - you ignored that...), but simply brush them aside as insufficient."
Your comment is valid in that I do not give equal time to interpretations according to the standard model for two reasons: primary my book is only explaining my own model and advise readers to look at other sources concerning the BB model. Secondly I think a number of present BB interpretations of observations are invalid and by mentioning them I think it would unnecessarily age date my arguments.
Such was the case when Quasars were once thought to be something different that only existed in the past. SS theorists along with my own theory predicted they were just AGN of distant galaxies which has generally turned out to be valid. This at the time was a big argument supposedly in favor of the BB model that turned out to be wrong.
"Also, some of the things you claim there (e. g. that the proportion of elliptical galaxies is the same at large distances) are simply wrong."
That any very distant elliptical galaxies have been seen at all at these great distances should be a strike against the BB model. I do agree that there are no observational claims that these percentages are the same as close by galaxy clusters. In this way this statement of mine would have been more accurately framed as a prediction rather than as observations.
"...there is still no reason to look at your model preferentially, and ignore all the others..."
One of the strongest arguments in favor of my model I believe is that it much more closely follows the tenets of O'camm's Razor and has its strongest footing in this concept since the theory proposes that there is only one fundamental particle, only one fundamental force, no forces at a distance, and no energy without substances producing it (such as a fundamental field particle like dark matter.
I do agree that all possibilities should be evaluated concerning what alternative theory might have to offer about explanations of reality/ observations.
"Your model fails to explain a lot of observations which clearly show that the universe was different in past times, e.g.:"
I believe this is not observations that "clearly show" that are in question but instead interpretations of these observations.
â* quasars are seen mainly in a certain redshift rangeâ
Some have asserted that this statement is valid. I have seen no such claims but believe your statement concerning this claim. In my own model observable distant quasars (AGN) are only a part of the total quasars observed and closer Einstein red-shifted quasars "proto-black holes" are also another type. This idea has kinship to Arp's ideas concerning closer "naked" quasars. I've talked to him by e-mail a couple of times concerning his ideas. This, however, I consider to be hypothetical since I'm not yet convinced concerning Harp's observational claims of galactic bridges to quasars since there still is no conclusive âproofâ in my opinion.
If this some-quasars-are-Einstein-redshifted model is correct it might explain the abundances of quasars within certain redshift ranges.
"* the galaxy population is different at high redshift; this includes observations like these:
http://thespacewriter.com/wp/2010/02/18/things-arent-like-what-they-use…
http://news.discovery.com/space/hubble-telescope-early-universe.html
* star populations in galaxies with high redshift are all observed to be younger than the star populations in the Milky Way"
This I believe is just a matter of trying to fit observations to theory.
"* the temperature of the CMBR is measured to be higher in galaxies at high redshift"
This effect is also predicted in my own model, of course for different reasons. My own model contains an unknown type of relativity that I think easily explains these observations as just apparent rather than real.
Bjoern, thanks for taking the time to look and intelligently discuss rather than briefly trying to disparage my model.
@Bjoern,
"Are you aware that you sound an awful lot like the creationists here, who have predicted the imminent demise of the theory of evolution for decades?"
It may seem like that to you but I would bet my life against 20 bucks (or 4 drinks) that natural selection is generally valid; I'd also bet 4:1 that my model of cosmology is more valid than the BB model.
"Methinks you still haven't read the content at the site I mentioned... Even a steady-state model with continuous creation of matter will have a hard time explaining the observed abundances, especially in different populations of stars."
Although in general I think the SS model may be better than the BB model I think both have serious logical problems concerning interpretations by its practitioners. Wrong interpretations of observations can be worse than no observations at all as far as understanding reality. To me nothing except for valid interpretations of observations can trump logic.
"Can these models explain all the observations which are normally attributed to dark matter and/or dark energy?"
I really don't know since I'm fairly sure that I am not aware of all the observations that they attribute to dark matter and dark energy. Upon reading such of these interpretations of observations my belief is that the theorists that propose them must be very smart since their imaginations, in my opinion, seem to be fantastic :)
"â¦â¦â¦Now, what was that about the quantitative predictions...? And even a non-quantitative one: according to your model, one should expect that close to the center of galaxies, there should be more H, D, and He, whereas outwards, there should be more heavy elements. It would be news to me that anything like that is observed!"
Yours is a good criticism concerning the lack of discovery of light elements near galaxy centers as my model proposes. It is true that mostly older stars reside within galactic cores so there is probably less star forming gas/clouds there. Although I've seen some astronomers claiming large clouds moving outward from the inner core this has been observed only a couple of times that I am aware of. Possibly a more likely mechanism is that this matter is created from toruses surrounding galactic black holes, from old matter that is disintegrated by the forces of the black hole creating lighter elements by fission processes. Accordingly because of the vast forces fissioning old matter, new matter accordingly would also be created (protons and possibly helium and other lighter nuclei through fusion processes in the inner torus) from field material (ZPF) and much of it would be jettisoned into the outer galaxy and out of the galaxy by galactic jets. Both or either mechanism, fission and/ or new creation, could provide the abundances of light elements that have been observed. This new-creation mechanism accordingly would be the same source for the creation of all particle in the universe since the beginnings of time without any need for a BB for such creation.
In my opinion there are no direct observations of this creation of light elements that support any model therefore I consider such proposals, including my own and the BB model, to be solely hypothetical concerning the reason for the abundance of light elements.
"Additionally, I note that your proposed change of the Hubble relation is completely ad hoc. That's not how one does cosmology calculations - one does not simply change one derived formula! If you want to propose an alternative, you have to start from the beginning, i. e. the equations of General Relativity, and have to show how your proposed formula for the Hubble relationship follows from these! (I noted that you claim that your "theory" is unrelated to Einstein's relativity - however, that makes your ideas even more suspect...)"
This criticism is invalid. My reformulation is entirely based upon my cosmological model. That fact and the explanation of it,I hope, is adequately explained in my technical paper on supernovae.
"On page 25, you mention many sensible arguments why the increasing density at large distances has not been observed so far (although as I pointed out, there is at least one observation where this indeed has been observed - you ignored that...), but simply brush them aside as insufficient."
Your comment is valid in that I do not give equal time to interpretations according to the standard model for two reasons: primary my book is only explaining my own model and advise therein for readers to look at other sources explaining the BB model. Secondly I think a number of present BB interpretations of observations are invalid and by mentioning them I think it would unnecessarily age date my arguments.
Such was the case when Quasars were once thought to be different cosmological entities that only existed in the early universe. Steady State theorists along with my own theory predicted at that time that quasars were just AGN of distant galaxies which has generally turned out to be valid. This at the time was a big argument supposedly in favor of the BB model that turned out to be wrong.
"Also, some of the things you claim there (e. g. that the proportion of elliptical galaxies is the same at large distances) are simply wrong."
That any very distant elliptical galaxies have been seen at all at these great distances should be a strike against the BB model. I do agree that there are no observational claims that I know of that these percentages of distant elliptical galaxies are the same as in close by galaxy clusters. In this way this statement of mine would have been more accurately framed as a prediction rather than as observations.
"...there is still no reason to look at your model preferentially, and ignore all the others..."
This is correct but one of the strongest arguments in favor of my model I believe is that it faithfully follows the tenets of O'camm's Razor and has its strongest footing in this concept since the theory proposes that there is only one fundamental particle, only one fundamental force, no forces at a distance, and no energy without substances producing it (such as a fundamental field particle like dark matter).
I do agree that all possibilities should be evaluated concerning what alternative theory might have to offer about explanations of reality/ observations.
"Your model fails to explain a lot of observations which clearly show that the universe was different in past times, e.g.:"
I believe this is not a matter of observations that clearly show "this or that" that are in question but instead those observations where alternative interpretations may also be valid.
â* quasars are seen mainly in a certain redshift rangeâ
Some have asserted that this statement is valid. I have seen no such claims but believe your statement concerning this claim. In my own model observable distant quasars (AGN) are only a part of the total quasars observed and closer Einstein red-shifted quasars "proto-galaxtic black holes" are also another type. This idea has kinship to Arp's ideas concerning closer "naked" quasars. I've talked to him by e-mail a couple of times concerning his ideas. This idea, however, I still consider to be hypothetical since I'm not yet convinced concerning Harp's observational claims of galactic bridges to quasars since there still is no conclusive âproofâ in my opinion.
If this some-quasars-are-Einstein-redshifted model is correct it might explain the abundances of quasars within certain redshift ranges.
"* the galaxy population is different at high redshift; this includes observations like these.."(links above)
* star populations in galaxies with high redshift are all observed to be younger than the star populations in the Milky Way"
This I believe is just a matter of trying to fit observations to theory.
"* the temperature of the CMBR is measured to be higher in galaxies at high redshift"
This effect is also predicted in my own model, of course for different reasons. My own model contains an unknown type of relativity that I think easily explains these observations as just apparent rather than real.
Bjoern, thanks for taking the time to look and intelligently discuss the model rather than briefly just trying to disparage it.
@forrest noble:
Well, I gave you a link to a webpage were a lot of these pieces of evidence are listed (not all, merely the ones which I, almost a layman concerning cosmology, could find). What about reading that page, and looking up the articles referenced there, instead of only looking at the table of contents...?
Good look with coming up with a quantitative explanation how that should yield the observed abundance of the light elements... So far, all you have is a entirely speculative just-so story: "It could happen in that way...", without any reason to believe your scenario, no numbers anywhere. And nevertheless you critize the Big Bang theory because it "only" gets H, He and Be quantitatively right (including several isotopes), but has still problems with Li?!?
Wow. The BB model manages with very few free parameters (only two, if I remember correctly) to describe the abundances of essentially all light elements with very good accurary, and nevertheless you call this "hypothetical"?!? You really have some rather strange standards!
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBNS.html
First, I'm not aware of any "very distant elliptical galaxies"; could you please provide a reference? Second: have you never heard of statistical outliers? According to the BB model, there were denser and less dense regions in the early universe. In regions which were very dense, obviously the development of galaxies would have been quicker; so it's no such big deal too find a very few large galaxies at already quite early times. It would be a big deal if that were the norm - but the norm is quite different: at high redshift, what one finds are almost only small, fuzzy, undeveloped galaxies. Nicely consistent with the BB model.
First, I don't know what you mean with "Einstein red-shifted"; are you talking about gravitational redshift maybe? Second, I fail to see how that idea should be able to explain the observations.
No comment on this?
Care to explain what this is supposed to mean? How this should work? Try e. g. this article:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0103450
Oh, and while you are at it, you could also explain why the star formation rate was different in the past:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0403293
@forrest noble: I wrote a long reply, but currently it is still held in moderation (probably because I included to many links). So, only a short reply here to one point:
The problem is: there are many, many proposals out there which also claim things like that. If you think that your model is in any way unique, then you haven't looked around much...
There are far to many proposals out there - one can't evaluate all of them. That's why I keep asking people with alternative proposals first if their model can explain all the available evidence (or at least the most important pieces) in a quantitative way. With the sole exception of Hoyle et al.'s Quasi-Steady State (and obviously the Big Bang theory itself), I haven't encountered even one single alternative proposal which could do that in the last 10 years... (at least). Most of the people proposing alternative even are unaware of most of the pieces of evidence (you seem to know more than many, but still you apparently don't know a lot of things), and very many don't even understand the theory they are criticising...
@Bjoern
Know what you mean. One of my postings was also delayed. One piece of the puzzle I think you are missing however is that the basis of the mainstream model is entirely hypothetical, Inflation, dark matter, dark energy, cause of the micro-wave background, abundance of light elements. All I consider to be ad hoc hypothesis.
You're right about a great many alternative models but as the author said there's no alternatives out there that cosmologists take seriously, or consider to be competition.
Since my Hubble equation is entirely based upon my cosmological model, and since it shows to be a "perfect standard candle equation" (doing away with dark energy concerning type 1a supernovae), I will try to get some university backing and make a play for recognition in a mainstream journal if possible. Until then you could contact me on my site for further discussion if you wish. I'll keep watching comments here also.
best regards
@forrest noble:
First, none of these things belong to the "basis" of the mainstream model. Second, for each of these things, there are a lot of pieces of evidence. Third, at least dark matter and dark energy are totally natural hypotheses (both essentially predicted by elementary particle physics) - if that stuff didn't exist in the universe, we would have to wonder why not! Fourth, your own model also rests on some hypotheses - which look far less supported to me than the things listed above.
You make no sense. These latter two were predictions of the Big Bang theory - how could predictions be hypotheses?!?
Well, and the simple reason is that the Big Bang theory is supported by so much evidence, and there is no other model which comes even close to explain so much (Hoyle et al.'s Quasi-Steady State came close, but nevertheless did not succeed)
That's no enough. You also have to explain the other pieces of evidence for the existence of dark energy before you can proclaim your model better. And it also would be good if you could provide some independent evidence that your model is better, i. e. you have to look where the Big Bang theory and your model make different predictions, and then you have to look which predictions are better matched by the observations.
Sorry, but this gets more and more uninteresting to me. You claimed to have a better model - but apparently, all you can explain quantitatively is the SN Ia data. You have to bring up more if you want to keep me interested! You could start by addressing the article I brought up above (did you miss that comment?):
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0103450
@Bjoern,
I also think yours is an interesting abstract, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0103450
The article argues against the standard model i.e. the Einstein-de Sitter universe in favor of a dark energy model, last edited 2002,
Their conclusion: ".......star formation in at least these particular elliptical galaxies was completed somewhere in the redshift range z = 3 - 5."
A redshift of 4 looking back in time, according to the present formulation, is 13 billion light years.
Dark energy I believe is a hypothesis/ theory because they cannot otherwise explain present observations like my model does/can. Occam's razor states the simpler model is the better model all else being equal.
"All else being equal" then becomes the only question since my model is definitely a lot simpler.
@forrest noble:
And again I wonder if you know what you are talking about... the standard model is a dark energy model, it is not an Einstein-de Sitter universe. So the article argues in favor of the standard model, not against it!
No, it's about 12.2 billion years. 13 billion years would be a redshift of about 7.
Err, where did I say otherwise?!? My point was that the CMBR and the abundances of light elements are not hypotheses, as you claimed!
Right. But since I haven't seen you explain anything quantitatively with the sole exception of the SN data, all else is here obviously not equal.
@Bjoern,
The creation mechanism of the Pan Theory model is that new matter is created primarily within and/or surrounding galactic black holes.
Here is the Pan Theory presently worded prediction.
#22) Most large Galaxies would have been created from the inside out. Most of the matter and stars of any large galaxy would have been produced from field material (aether) surrounding the central black hole and ejected in large polar jets or polar emitted clouds, primarily in the form of protons, electrons, and positrons.
(added "and positrons")
In this model there are only three long-lived particles: protons, electrons, and positrons.
Now here is the link(s)to a very recent observation:
http://www.rdmag.com/News/2010/11/Astrophysics-Astronomers-find-giant-p…
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15326
This may be just a galaxy burp concerning some previously consumed matter or it may be proof of theory concerning the creation of new matter from field material by black holes which was a possible mechanism concerning new-matter creation discussed in the Steady State model and it is the only mechanism concerning how matter is created concerning my own model.
@Bjoern,
The creation mechanism of the Pan Theory model is that new matter is created primarily within and/or surrounding galactic black holes.
Here is the Pan Theory presently worded prediction.
#22) Most large Galaxies would have been created from the inside out. Most of the matter and stars of any large galaxy would have been produced from field material (aether) surrounding the central black hole and ejected in large polar jets or polar emitted clouds, primarily in the form of protons, electrons, and positrons.
(added "and positrons")
In this model there are only three long-lived particles: protons, electrons, and positrons.
Now here is the link(s)to a very recent observation:
The program here does not allow too many links. Here's one
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15326
This may be just a galaxy burp concerning some previously consumed matter or it may be proof of theory concerning the creation of new matter from field material by black holes which was a possible mechanism concerning new-matter creation discussed in the Steady State model and it is the only mechanism concerning how matter is created concerning my own model.
@Bjoern
your quote:
"That's not enough. You also have to explain the other pieces of evidence for the existence of "dark energy" before you can proclaim your model better."
I think you meant here "dark matter" since I already showed you my equation to eliminate the need for dark energy.
I also reformulated General Relativity to explain away dark matter. You can see this reformulation/ equations by going to the gravity section of The Pan Theory. This formula is incomplete concerning the Einstein range (galactic bulge) whereby Eintein/ Newtonian gravity can be used here but in the outer galaxy, like MOND gravity it makes very different predictions for the outer galaxy and galaxy clusters rotation curves than standard-model gravity. The basis of this model and equations is an aether-flow pushing-gravity model. It matches the orbital motions of galactic disk stars which have a nearly flat orbital momentum. As you can also see in the prediction section that I make an additional 70+ predictions (in addition to #22 posted above.
@Bjoern
This is the best criticism of the Big Bang model that I ever read.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/modern-cosmology-science-or…
@forrest noble:
Nice. Now, where is your evidence supporting that? Where is your calculation showing that this hypothesis yields the observed abundances of the light elements? Hey, it would even be nice if you could only explain why there is about 25% helium in the universe!
Well, since it could be both, this obviously provides no conclusive evidence for your ideas. (oh, and BTW: don't confuse "evidence" with "proof")
Ethan posted "The simplest argument for Dark Matter" just yesterday, presenting two types of measurement there which provide strong evidence for the existence of Dark Matter. Can your model explain these pieces of evidence, too?
What's that supposed to mean? Since then do galaxy clusters have "rotation curves"?
And that? "orbital momentum" perhaps means "angular momentum"; but what is "flat" supposed to mean in this context?
Strange. All I see there is a text with several (some of them glaring!) errors, which simply asserts that the number of free parameters is larger than the number of independent observations, without presenting any evidence for that claim (and it would be news to me that the Lambda CDM model has 17 independent parameters - last I looked, there were about 6!). And apparently the author is unaware of a lot of observations, because he nowhere mentions them or even hints that he knows of them (e. g. the stuff which Ethan discussed in the article I mentioned just above).
@Bjoern,
I enjoy talking with you because all your criticisms have validity. A little "attitude" maybe but my sometimes aggressive assertions could also be mollified a bit at times.
Here is the link which I thought I presented before but must have missed it concerning large polar clouds in the Milky Way. There are a number of new articles concerning this recent observation published just weeks ago.
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=15326
This recent discovery is exactly what I predicted and I believe is strong evidence in support of my theory, even if it is simply the result of a matter consumption burp some millions of years ago.
Whether by creating new matter by this process or by the disintegration of old matter also in my theory, these clouds are evidence for the processes which I discussed to explain the 25% helium in the universe. This time I said evidence instead of proof.
As far as dark matter is concerned my gravity equations concerning disc stars match observations and do not need dark matter to explain anything, but the vortex aether currents accordingly surrounding and within the galaxy might be modeled similarly to where dark matter might be needed to explain rotation curves. The mathematics however needs nothing. Although these equations are four dimensional (include time) I've only done calculations 3 dimensionally. It gets a little hairy after that. For now that's all that's needed to predict velocities in a single plain like disc stars and many galaxy clusters. (note: MOND equations do not work concerning galaxy clusters nor do they have a justifying model)
The rotation rates of galaxies in clusters also cannot be explained based upon the mathematics of GR or Newtonian gravity. Also an abundance of dark matter must be added to the equations to explain there rotation rates.
The orbital velocity of outer disc stars in our galaxy all rotate at a similar rate.
I tried to find the original paper, this is a reprint. The 17 should have been 7.
The author of the paper, Michael Disney, is a retired professor of physics and astronomy in Scotland who also worked for years in the design of satellites for the U.S. space program.
@forrest noble:
You already presented this above, and I have already briefly addressed it.
Does your model predict this number of 25%? If yes, how? And how does it explain the abundances of the other light isotopes, like Be?
Please tell me where exactly I can find these calculations.
And again I ask you: what are you talking about?
This makes no sense, since the very next sentence is: "Thirteen of these parameters are well fitted to the observational data; the other four remain floating.". Last I looked, 13 + 4 = 17, not = 7.
Nice for him. But despite these qualifications, there are indeed several glaring errors in the article; for example, this sentence: "On the other hand, to explain some surprising observations, theoreticians have had to create heroic and yet insubstantial notions such as "dark matter" and "dark energy," which supposedly overwhelm, by a hundred to one, the stuff of the universe we can directly detect." is simply wrong - dark matter "overwhelms" ordinary matter by a factor of about 5, dark energy by a factor of about 25; that's a far cry from "a hundred to one". Why should I trust the words of someone who makes such glaring, obvious errors?
@Bjoern,
I think that I mentioned that I did not make such calculations concerning the abundance of light elements, I only proposed the mechanisms involved that seemingly could explain the abundances of light elements. I also presented evidence to support two of those proposed mechanisms. The third mechanism was stellar fission processes.
The equations, discussed mechanics, and drawings concerning gravity are explained in the gravity section. Actual calculations of specific galaxy(s) rotation curves are not in there but by inputting the unknown variables in the equation to match some observations you get the desired rotation curve based upon two dimensional rotation plus time. To complete the process I would need to write a paper which includes a multitude of observations like I did concerning dark energy. One limit of these equations is Newtonian gravity and another limit is MOND gravity. There is also an aether drag gravity mechanism involved to explain the pioneer anomaly.
Many Galaxy clusters orbit a center of gravity of the cluster. The orbital rate using conventional equations must also include roughly 5 to 10 times more matter surrounding a galaxy cluster than what is visible within it to make the calculated orbital rotation rates match observation.
If that's the case then he meant 17. I was just going from memory concerning his discussion of floating parameters.
Obviously he, like myself, thinks those numbers concerning dark matter and dark energy are based upon incorrect calculations in that accordingly they are solely hypothetical ad hoc proposals. Probably at the time he wrote the article a couple of years ago, he was most likely referring to the proportions of the dark stuff being proposed at that time.
Big Bang Alternatives, anyone?
The Pan Theory: Brief Summary
This cosmological model might be categorized under the broad category of Scaling Theory. The idea of scaling theory in general is the scale of things in general change over time whether uniformly or otherwise. Such models in general seemingly cannot be disproved based upon their scale changing proposal alone. The first such proposal was made by Paul Dirac in the late 1920âs when galactic redshifts were first discovered. His proposal was that both matter and space expand over time. The second generally know Scaling theory was proposed by Hoyle/ Narlikar in the mid 1960âs whereby atomic diameters were proposed to be reducing over time. If atomic diameters were larger in the past then the resulting EM radiation that they would have produced would have been longer explaining the observed galactic redshifts. This Scaling Theory model could also be called Diminution of Matter theory. In such model space would only appear to be expanding but instead matter would be getting smaller and accordingly the universe as a whole would generally not be expanding.
The Pan Theory can be defined as a Scaling Theory and a Diminution of matter model. The universe accordingly started as a single simple particle and very slowly divided into strings of exactly the same entities except proportionally smaller. The minimum age of the observable universe would be more the a trillion years old. According to this model there is only one particle, a fundamental presently unknown particle (something like dark matter, Higgs particles etc.) that makes up all of reality, no forces of nature/ pulling forces, no pure energy. There would only be one internal mechanical force within these particles that causes them to unwind and slowly form strings of like particles which can eventually be looped. In their few stable looped forms they spin as fermions perpetuating changes which we call time. Space would simply be defined as the volume which matter occupies being an extension of matter. It is by far the simplest possible cosmological model. The Pan Theory is not an unknown theory. Itâs been around for 50 years and has been published in its present form for more than 20 years.
@forrest noble: Essentially all you wrote amounts to "beside the SN data, my model can't explain anything quantitatively so far; but nevertheless, I'll claim that it is far superior to the Big Bang theory". Yawn. Please call me back when you have something better.
@forrest noble: Oh, and BTW: it's quite telling that you ignore almost all pieces of evidence, papers and errors that I pointed out (both in your claims and in the article which you claimed was the "best" you ever read), and simple go on to post your stuff again...
Bjoern,
Besides my equation that would supposedly supersede the Hubble formula (not a small thing) that you mentioned concerning the SN data, your forgot to mention that in my model I also reformulated gravity in a MOND-like re-formulation, not a small consideration either, even though its application is presently 2D and not a data-point analysis like my SN analysis as you pointed out.
You also forgot to mention my knowledge concerning Lutefisk :)
A new theory called "Proton Dominated Infinity" is presented at www.westastrofysik.com. It breaks the common assumption that the universe is electrically charge neutral. The ideas are presented in a simple format and there is a discussion/comments page where people have already added their questions and criticisms. The theory has been adjusted several times based on these comments. In the end it is argued that Proton Dominated Infinity explains current observations more simply than The Big Bang Theory. What do you think?
Hey, I thought you might like to know I found an error in your text.
"and slowing the expansion rate of the Universe through gravitational attraction."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=expanding-universe-slo…
Starting from a state of nothingness, scientifically, nothing will happen. Something coming out of nothing violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Inertia, and the Law of Cause and Effect for starters. Alan Guth's idea of a Vacuum Fluctuation is scientifically useless. A vacuum is the absense of matter but requires the existence of matter. A fluctuation or a vacuum cannot occur without energy. It cannot happen in a moment of time, if time does not exist. It cannot happen in a spot no bigger than a dime if space does not exist. How does this story begin? Oh yeah, "Once upon a time, long ago and far away."
The big bang does not explain even the most basic of characteristics of the universe. Acceleration in its expansion, flat, spinning, spiral shaped galaxies are but a few. Consider then, super massive black holes, as the source of the stars surrounding it, and host stars as the source of the planets. Equatorial discharge from these spinning masses explains why galaxies spin, why they are spiral shaped, and why planets are found orbiting their host star at its equator. Realistically, all the matter in the universe can be condensed into a small space, about the size of a galaxy, and if a piece is sliced off this condensed core, it will send it away, accelerating and spinning. Stars within galaxies come from their host super massive black hole. The time is come to stop seeing black holes as mysterious places that feed on stars sending the matter to some unknown place. Atoms are unable to enter black holes. Black holes are spinning too fast. It is time to stop seeing black holes as feeding monsters and start seeing them as the place where stars come from. Heavy elements, once thought to come from novas, are created when reactions on the surface of stars starts to eject planets. When that happens, heavy elements are made. Accretion theory is dead. The big bang theory explains nothing. No facts support it. It constantly requires fixing, like the after thought of dark matter. Again, a theory of the nature and origin of the universe must explain the basic characteristics of galaxies, solar systems, and the accelerating nature of the universal expansion. Remember, the big bang theory was conceived when people thought at best that we lived in a decelerating universe. There is no need to create a beginning for time. Its design is to always have been and always will be. What an insult it must be to God to say His creation was the result of nothing more than an explosion. Besides, accretion in an expanding universe is foolish. Who came up with that idea anyway?
I've been studying the "Big Bang Theory" for about eight years now and it doesn't make any sense. The scientists behind the theory knows it makes no sense. The rules don't add up. There is however one theory, Something I've been working on and it seems so obvious that I can't find any other theory like it. If you'd like to compare ideas I'm on jasonlack@hotmail.com
maybe this ? http://www.scribd.com/doc/58496226/Detecting-Fractal-Dimensions-via-Pri…
I love how so many people have their "Own Theory" :--
Ethan,
"But keep trying, because if there is an alternative to the Big Bang, I want to know about it!"
I'm hoping to hear your opinion on this:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/10/if-it-comes-back-to-…
http://www.sdss.org/includes/sideimages/sdss_pie2.html
I'd appreciate your having a look and commenting on the EEMU Hypothesis.
Link: https://sites.google.com/site/eemuhypothesis/
Note: Some additional ideas and details have evolved since creating the webpage.
Thanks! . . . W. Mansker, Ph.D.
I have been refining this alternative theory for years. Here it is.
http://blog.darkwingnightmare.com/2011/03/23/what-caused-the-big-bang.a…
This may be the most informative response you receive. I am a retired engineer scientist and have disclosed a theory, www.enlightenment-theory.com, which is a theory regarding the interactions of space, time and matter. It brings into question many long-held explanations of these phenomena and provides relatively simple alternatives.
You are stupid if you don't believe in the bible's way of creation.