Material Creation

[CraigD]

if what you [coldcreation] say is true, then you and you alone have not the Final Theory but the Final Conclusion. would it be presumptuous to ask for proof , for some phenomenae now under discussion, say cold creation itself ?

I’d take this request back a step, and rather than ask for proof (experimental confirmation / conclusion), ask for as many predictions of Cold Creation Theory (CCT) that differ observably from Big Bang Theory (BBT) as possible. (In the ideal scientific tradition) Comparing such predictions to existing observational data (or, more glamorously, directing observations to obtain such data) is the next step, after the theory’s predictions have been announced.

 

On 10/5/05, in post #19 of this thread, I suggested such a prediction:

A key distinction between the Big Bang Theory (BBT) and CCT can be summarized by a graph of the absolute masses of the elements. CCT postdicts a fairly uniform increase in these masses over 250+ BY, while BBT postdicts a slight decrease in H and increases in everything else over 14 BY.

 

Another is the relative masses of the elements. Where BBT postdicts essentially 75% H, 25% He, CCT postdicts an era, before the formation of the first stars, of 100% H.

 

These distinctions suggest that CCT predicts less He will be observed via spectroscopic analysis of distant stars than does BBT, a testable prediction.

I believe coldcreation followed up with related observations about differences of predicted amounts of other elements, such as metals, which should also yield testable predictions.

 

One peril I’ve noticed in CCT is that many of it predictions appear consistent with variations of BBT (VBBTs) that differ from mainstream BBT (MBBT) only in predicting a substantially older universe. It’s not enough to find mismatches between predictions of MBBT and observation – matches must be found between predictions of CCT and observation.

 

I humbly request the aid of everyone interested in CCT to compile a list of measurable phenomena, and their predicted values according to CCT, MBBT, and VBBTs.

[Southtown]

Arp has no cosmology theory (it has never been published if he does) and the blackhole idea you mention is not tenable. It is too mainstream for that.

Arp doesn't agree with black holes, but he does promote a flat geometry.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1993ApJ...405...51N&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=

[Little Bang]

He has been starting for almost a year and never said anything meaningful.

[coldcreation]

He has been starting for almost a year and never said anything meaningful.

 

Back from Paris, where I formulated an answer to CraigD, to be posted later today.

 

Hello LittleBang, are you referring to Arp or CC?

[coldcreation]

I’d take this request back a step, and rather than ask for proof (experimental confirmation / conclusion), ask for as many predictions of Cold Creation Theory (CCT) that differ observably from Big Bang Theory (BBT) as possible. (In the ideal scientific tradition) Comparing such predictions to existing observational data (or, more glamorously, directing observations to obtain such data) is the next step, after the theory’s predictions have been announced.

 

On 10/5/05, in post #19 of this thread, I suggested such a prediction:I believe coldcreation followed up with related observations about differences of predicted amounts of other elements, such as metals, which should also yield testable predictions.

 

One peril I’ve noticed in CCT is that many of it predictions appear consistent with variations of BBT (VBBTs) that differ from mainstream BBT (MBBT) only in predicting a substantially older universe. It’s not enough to find mismatches between predictions of MBBT and observation – matches must be found between predictions of CCT and observation.

 

I humbly request the aid of everyone interested in CCT to compile a list of measurable phenomena, and their predicted values according to CCT, MBBT, and VBBTs.

 

Observational tests of Cold Creation

(Predictions)

 

The deep universe

The abundance of light elements (e.g., helium, lithium and beryllium) in the deep universe should be virtually identical (no more than 10-15% less) to the quantities observed locally.

 

Metallicity of the most distant objects should be almost as high as locally. 10 to 15% fewer heavy metals should be observed in those object located near the horizon.

 

Galaxy morphology types at high-z: Galaxies should be well-formed, mature and large near the visible horizon. The age of these high-redshift galaxies (the old stellar populations) should not differ greatly from the ages of local galaxies (of some local stars, i.e., 15-18 Gyrs old).

 

The amplitude of rotational curves of stars in high-redshift galaxies should be extremely close to those found in local galaxies (as the mass contained within these galaxies is significantly similar to nearby galaxies).

 

In principle the cosmic microwave background CMB should be fractionally cooler than observed locally (i.e., less than 2.726 Kelvin). The angular size of the CMB fluctuations should be larger, and the thermal difference smaller (10% more or less respectively).

 

Redshift z: Greater deviations from the standard Hubble flow, from the linear redshift-apparent magnitude relation, should emerge, especially in the near- and far-infrared spectral range, but not exclusively. This across-the-board observation will be the signature of spacetime curvature (not a Doppler effect in a flat Euclidean non-relativistic universe dominated by some unknown source of dark energy and/or non-baryonic dark matter).

 

Observations will point to a hyperbolic, general relativistic, open, Gaussian curvature of the geometrical spacetime manifold. Note that a hyperbolic continuum has a larger volume out to interval distances than its Euclidean counterpart. This effect has already in part been derived from the supernovae Type Ia observations of the late 1990s, but should be too studied amongst galaxy counts, intrinsic luminosity, size, mass, and too, the count-magnitude relation, angular size-redshift relation, differences between metric and isophotal diameters, color distribution, signal to noise ratio, at large redshift z. All observations (the few exceptions are due to intrinsic Doppler and gravitational redshifts) should be consistent with hyperbolicity.

 

The above argument is available in comprehensive detail in the thread called Redshift z, by Coldcreation. As a matter of recall, a fundamental theme of general relativity is that spacetime curvature is determined by the mass-energy density of the manifold. The universe is a non-Euclidean continuum. The curvature manifests itself as redshift. Redshift z is thus a distortion (a relative 'stretching') of the wave packet throughout the 19 octaves of the spectrum.

 

There are also tests and observations to be made in the local universe (to follow).

 

Coldcreation

 

[coldcreation]

Y-o-u-'-r-e__a-l-l__g-e-t-t-i-n-g__c-o-l-d-e-r

C---O---O---L

[coldcreation]

When (and if) high rezolution data comes in from the planned James Webb Space Telescope (2011-?) it should become much clearer which model should be used as the standard.

 

(1) If the actual standard model is to remain intact an era should be observable where galaxies are forming out of initial density fluctuations of the undifferentiated matter, an epoch called the redshift desert, or galaxy formation era. The stars there should be large, bright, hydrogen burning mosters. The galaxies should be chaotic in structure, and merging. Metals should hardly at all be present.

 

(2) If the Coldcreation theory is correct (or some oher theory that predicts the same) then the galaxy formation era is not accessible to observation. Galaxies near the horizon are quasi-identical to those observed locally (i.e., there should be a mix of large, well-formed, metal-rich, and often-old stellar populations such as globular clusters).

 

Three arguments will surface:

 

(a) Galaxies formed earlier than expected. Though this position only holds to a certain point. If, for example, a 15 Gyr old metal-rich star is found in a large spiral galaxy at the horizon then there is no way to fit that finding into a theory that predicts the universe is 13.7 to 15 Gyrs old.

 

(:eek2: The age of the universe will once again have to be revised. This solution, I'm afraid is the more desperate one of the two, as the supposed rate of expansion must be made to correspond when the clocks are reversed. As it stands now, the universe is much to young to accomodate ceratin observations from the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF).

 

© If the actual standard model cannot be modified (without the introduction of dark energy, non-baryonic dark matter, both of which are ad hoc parameters that have little (nothing) to do with physics that can be tested experimentally), or (and this is what will happen according to CC), the standard model will not be able to absorbe observations even with ad hoc kooky energy, dark matter, and will have to be abandonned...

 

...A drastic conclusion, perhaps, but what choices will be left? Neither old inflation, new inflation, new new inflation, eternal inflation, chaotic inflation, multiverse, string, M, Loop quantum, can save the model.

 

CC

[coldcreation]

I should add that if a galaxy forming epoch with large hydrogen burning stars and merging galaxies is found in the deep universe, then Coldcreation (and all similar theory that postulate a much older universe) is untenable and will be discarded. There is no possible way Coldcreation could explain such an observation, such a young universe, such rapid evolution, albeit that the big bang is if fact the way to go. In Coldcreaation cosmology there are no parameters to tweek, no kooky energy in that dominates the universe and no non-baryonic material to fill in the blanks.

 

Let's see what happens...my bet is on CC or similar. The deep universe will look the same as the local universe, with virtually the same composition and structure.

 

cool.

[coldcreation]

Let's see what happens...my bet is on CC or similar. The deep universe will look the same as the local universe, with virtually the same composition and structure. Cool.

 

I would like to hear from CraigD, since he asked specifically for the Coldcreation predictions. Above are the predictions with regard to the large-scale high-redshift universe. The local features that differenciate competing theories will be discussed afterwards.

 

cc

[coldcreation]

... Coldcreation predictions: Above are the predictions with regard to the large-scale high-redshift universe. The local features that differenciate competing theories will be discussed. cc

 

The predictions are on the table. They are simple. The differences between the standard model and Coldcreation theory are clear-cut.

 

One theory is right and one is wrong, it could be CC or the SM.

 

Observations at high redshift will determine which should be discarded.

 

Neither theory can be modified to accomodate the data (with or without the introduction of speculative physics: dark energy, non-baryonic dark matter, false vacuums).

 

I would like to hear comments.

 

Recall that the masses, the majority, the mainstream, have been wrong before. There is a new cosmology on the horizon, a contemporary cosmology, that may well topple the old standard model. It may not be Coldcreation, but it will not look at all like modern cosmology.

 

cc

[coldcreation]

 

The predictions are on the table.

 

They are simple.

 

The differences between the standard model and Coldcreation theory are clear-cut.

 

I would like to hear comments.

 

cc

 

Coldcreation

[coldcreation]

still waiting...

[Little Bang]

Your predictions may or may not be true and until someone proves or disproves one or more of them I can't comment either way.

[questor]

cold creation will become a considered theory only when the predictions are made, the math is done, and the cooperation or disagreements with quantum

are resolved. it will bear the same scrutiny that any other theory undergoes.

[coldcreation]

Resumé Coldcreation:

 

Evidence:

 

1) Large-scale homogeneity

2) Nonlinear redshift-apparent magnitude relation

3) Abundances of light elements

4) Abundances of heavy elements

5) Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation Existence

6) Fluctuations, anisotropy, angular power spectrum of the CMB

7) Structure of the universe on both large and small-scales

8) Age of oldest stars (some of which appear over 18 Gyrs old)

9) Galaxy structure and evolution

10) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect

11) Tolman tests

12) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect

13) Spacetime dilation in supernova brightness curves

14) Existence of zero point energy ZPE and zero point fluctuation ZPF

15) Creation of anti-hydrogen at ultra-low temperature

16) Existence of Bose-Einstein condensate at ultra-low temperature

17) Polarization of the vacuum

18) Superfluidity of hydrogen at ultra-low temperature

19) Gunn-Peterson decrement absorption trough

20) Quasar redshift discrepancy

21) Discordant redshifts

22) Luminous bridges between high-redshift objects and galaxies

 

 

 

Advantages of Coldcreation over the standard model:

 

a) No nonbaryonic hot or cold dark matter

:) No dark energy

c) No hidden dimensions

d) No magnetic monopole problem

e) No false vacuum

f) No problem with unification of gravity with other forces

g) No boundary condition

h) No singularity problem

i) No entropy problem

j) No horizon problem

k) No flatness problem

l) No origin of spacetime problem

m) No growth of space problem

n) No time t = 0, origin of the universe or what happened before problem

o) No conservation of energy problem

p) No antimatter problem

q) No matter-antimatter asymmetry

r) No age (of the universe or thing in it) problem

s) No disagreement between GR and QM

[questor]

do you have proof of any of these predictions? where's the Beef (math)?

[coldcreation]

do you have proof of any of these predictions? where's the Beef (math)?

.

 

There is evidence on the observational front. Stay tuned.

 

You see, Coldcreation theory is entirely derived from observation. Not from math as in, say, string theory, M-theory, or even inflation theory (Guth et al), where, crudely speaking, the entire meal evolves from literally nothing: no hind quarters of prime beef, no sirloin or fore-rib, no Porterhouse steak, no Momma's Meatloaf, T-bone or hot barbecued pork shank, no gorgonzola burger, but a false vacuum then poof. A free lunch.

 

Some of the evidence for CC has already been layed out in this thread, e.g., high metalicity in high-z objects located near the horizon in an era thought to be populated by hydrogen burning stars (see HUDF images)

 

There is more. Much more.

 

Something has only just begun

 

Coldcreation