"Paradox": Light Years vs. Age of Universe

[coldcreation]

Huh?

 

The CMB measurements were done long after the Big Bang theory saw the light of day, and as such is not a staple of BB theory but a proof for it.

 

I believe it was George Gamow, and I believe the prediction was 20 K. That's a huge difference.

 

The CMB proves all theories. It proves the universe is not absolute zero. It proves the universe is not empty. What the thermal radiation does not show is if it is warming or cooling with time. That is a theory based interpretation.

 

Imagine the quasi-steady state theory without a prediction of thermal blackbody.

 

Here is a quote from Hoyle, check this out:

 

“How, in the big-bang cosmology, is the microwave background explained? Despite what supporters of big-bang cosmology claim, it is not explained. The supposed explanation is nothing but an entry in the gardener’s catalogue of hypothesis that constitutes the theory. Had observation given 27 Kelvins instead of 2.7 Kelvins for the temperature, then 27 kelvins would have been entered in the catalogue. Or 0.27 Kelvins. Or anything at all.” (Hoyle 1994, 1997 p. 413)

 

The age of the universe should not be measured based on temperature. It is far too extrapolative for that.

 

My opinion? The universe has no age...only objects that find themselves within it do, and right now my buddies, there appear objects older the the big bang universe...jesus, cool.

[infamous]

 

My opinion? The universe has no age...only objects that find themselves within it do, and right now my buddies, there appear objects older the the big bang universe...jesus, cool.

 

Very true coldc: And what about the question that the First Law of Thermodynamics poses. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and universal energy remains constant. How does the Big Bang fit into the mix, if the First Law is correct then where did this energy come form before the BB created our universe? Or must we modify the First Law to only be valid after the fact? Something seems to be out of place and it is either the First Law or the Big Bang itself.

[EWright]

Very true coldc: And what about the question that the First Law of Thermodynamics poses. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and universal energy remains constant. How does the Big Bang fit into the mix, if the First Law is correct then where did this energy come form before the BB created our universe? Or must we modify the First Law to only be valid after the fact? Something seems to be out of place and it is either the First Law or the Big Bang itself.

 

Some would say that nothing existed before the bb and that it created the conditions of the universe, including the laws of physics, which it is governed by. (I, however, prefer my own theory.)

[Tormod]

That is a theory based interpretation.

 

What is wrong with theory based interpretation, coldc? What other ways can we work with theories than by interpreting data?

[coldcreation]

Some would say that nothing existed before the bb and that it created the conditions of the universe, including the laws of physics, which it is governed by. (I, however, prefer my own theory.)

 

Infamous: Very true coldc: And what about the question that the First Law of Thermodynamics poses. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, and universal energy remains constant. How does the Big Bang fit into the mix, if the First Law is correct then where did this energy come form before the BB created our universe? Or must we modify the First Law to only be valid after the fact? Something seems to be out of place and it is either the First Law or the Big Bang itself.

 

I suggest openiing a new thread, not here, in the cosmology section, to discuss the thermodynamic-evolution of the universe. Open it Infamous or I will.

 

EWright, what is your theory? That you can continue here if you wish...I'll check in later to see if it's worth the wait. Whatever it is it better agree with observations and natural laws.

[coldcreation]

Huh? The CMB measurements were done long after the Big Bang theory saw the light of day, and as such is not a staple of BB theory but a proof for it.

...What is wrong with theory based interpretation, coldc? What other ways can we work with theories than by interpreting data?

 

There is no evidence that suggests the CMB is redshifted, nor that it is a relic radiation of a hot blast, or even that it is billions of years old. What is wrong with a model based interpretation? Simply, it may be wrong. That all depends on the theory. That is exactly why I suggest that the age of objects be measured using non-theory base methods, or at least, confirmed theory-based methods. For example it is well known astrophysics that stars through processes of nucleosynthesis form heavy elements with time t. Age is easier and more reliable to estimate according to metallicity.

 

You call the CMB "proof" of the BB. Any theory can claim the CMB to be proof. I claim it to be proof of the Cold Creation theory. Hoyle claimed it to be proof of QSSC. Arp would claim it to be proof of a cosmological theory if he had one. Segal claimed it as proof, Nernst claimed it as proof, way before its discovery, and so too did MacMillan and MilliKan. There is not one modern model that does not explain and justify the CMB one way of another.

 

The discussion of thermodynamics is essential now, because these are laws that are NOT theory-based. They are thus empirical, and should be favored before all other theory-based extrapolations. Infamous has a great question. It is not the first time it has been asked, and it certainly will not be the last. Does BB cosmology abide by the laws of thermodynamics? I think not. The first and second law are violated. And the third law is nonexistent in BB cosmology, except when considering the temperature T of the universe as time t tends to infinity (T will never reach zero K), no big deal. What is a big deal though, is how to explain using thermodynamical arguments what exactly happened at the outset, t = 0. And if there was no t = 0, what transformed itself into something with infinite (or very high) energy, temperature and density (send a link if you can find anything on that thermodynamic question mark).

 

Coldcreation

[Tormod]

There is no evidence that suggests the CMB is redshifted, nor that it is a relic radiation of a hot blast

 

Correct. It is a relic of the point in time when atoms formed. It is not redshifted.

 

or even that it is billions of years old.

 

Then how do you explain that it is seen from all directions in the sky, and that it is remarkably uniform?

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html

 

What is wrong with a model based interpretation? Simply, it may be wrong.

 

Any theory may be wrong. Even yours, coldc.

 

That all depends on the theory. That is exactly why I suggest that the age of objects be measured using non-theory base methods, or at least, confirmed theory-based methods.

 

You seem to ignore how the scientific method works. The WMAP mission is a necessary test for some of the basic predictions made by big bang theory. It has simply mapped the CMB to an extrordinarily fine resolution. This map confirms the big bang theory, and gives us a fine measurement of it's age. The WMAP mission could have found anomalies, like the lack of anisotropy at fine scales, and these anomalies would have thrown a spanner in the works of BB theory. That has not happened.

 

For example it is well known astrophysics that stars through processes of nucleosynthesis form heavy elements with time t. Age is easier and more reliable to estimate according to metallicity.

 

But the CMB is not starlight. It is not redshifted. The CMB is older than the oldest stars. The use of stellar observation to measure the age of the universe is a part of the data gathering and has been so for a long time, as I am sure you are aware of. But stellar observation does not explain what happened before stars were born.

 

You call the CMB "proof" of the BB. Any theory can claim the CMB to be proof. I claim it to be proof of the Cold Creation theory. Hoyle claimed it to be proof of QSSC. Arp would claim it to be proof of a cosmological theory if he had one. Segal claimed it as proof, Nernst claimed it as proof, way before its discovery, and so too did MacMillan and MilliKan. There is not one modern model that does not explain and justify the CMB one way of another.

 

I don't see how that makes it a problem to claim the CMB proves the BB, any more than any else claiming it proves other things. It boils down to which interpretation of the data is better at explaining what we see.

 

It is, however, not my claim - it is the claim of Big Bang scientists. I am not one of them..

 

The discussion of thermodynamics is essential now, because these are laws that are NOT theory-based. They are thus empirical, and should be favored before all other theory-based extrapolations.

 

This is a great logical catch-22, but it is sadly mere semantics. Cosmology as such has a major flaw in that it cannot be empirical. We only have one universe to study. I have no quarrels with that.

 

Does BB cosmology abide by the laws of thermodynamics? I think not.

 

Me neither, actually. I don't think it has to. The laws of physics are defined by the properties of our universe. The big bang did not happen inside our universe, it caused it. String theorists will see this differently, for example. No problem.

 

What is a big deal though, is how to explain using thermodynamical arguments what exactly happened at the outset, t = 0.

 

Yes. Because of the same argument above. And this is no hidden "secret" or mystery in the bb theory - we cannot explain what caused the bb nor what happened exactly.

[coldcreation]

Wow Tormod that was a long post. Good comeback.

 

Hmmm, according to my standard theory sources, though, the cosmic microwave background CMB blackbody radiation is redshifted. Example, T = 2.726(1 + z) K and so, at redshift 1500 the thermal background radiation was about 4000 K. (M.S. Longair 1993, The Deep Universe, the Physics of the Background Radiation, section 2.1, p. 355)

 

But because this is a problem that has to do with cosmology, and redshift, I will continue the topic of CMB in the cosmology section of this science forum, rather than here under physics and mathematics, in the thread titled Redshift z. See you there...

[Tormod]

Hmmm, according to my standard theory sources, though, the cosmic microwave background CMB blackbody radiation is redshifted.

 

Egg on my face. I misread you and was a bit quick. Yes, the CMB is redshifted. It is however not redshifted *starlight*, which is a common misconception. Ugh, sorry for that.