The Gravity Model vs Big Bang Theory

[W.Davidson]

I'm a layman with a lifelong interest in science and one of the subjects I'm particularly interested in is alternatives to Big Bang theory. I came up with a theory of my own some years ago and sent copies to around 30 cosmologists. However, the reaction I got was pretty lukewarm, probably because they were all 'committed' to the Big Bang, so I thought I'd condense it to the bare essentials and post it on an Internet science forum to see what kind of reaction I'd get Okay? Here goes.

 

In order to explain the acceleration of galaxies, scientists have invoked the existence of a mysterious 'dark energy'. This is because their thinking is constrained by their belief in an expanding universe caused by the 'Big Bang'. A less biased researcher might conclude that the galaxies are under the influence of the only known force of nature that could cause such acceleration - gravity. This would require the existence of a supermassive, non-luminous body in space (presumably a black hole) towards which all the galaxies in the observable universe were being drawn.

 

If such a body existed, it does not seem likely that it would be the only such body in the universe, just as the Milky Way is not the only galaxy. There might be billions of such supermassive bodies, each drawing billions of galaxies towards them. This would mean that that which we call 'the observable universe' is merely a finite system of galaxies among many such finite systems in the universe at large.

 

If such a model could explain other observations such as the observation that the galaxies are all moving away from each other, then would it not deserve to replace the increasingly baroque and untenable Big Bang theory which requires us to believe so many scientifically unorthodox and unproven assumptions about the universe? I believe it should.

 

A simple 'thought experiment' reveals how the 'Gravity Model' would result in almost all the observable galaxies being redshifted. In 1994, comet Shoemaker-Levy was broken up into 22 discernible fragments up to 2km in diameter. The fragments were described as being like a 'string of pearls'. Imagine five of those 'pearls' in a line numbered 1 to 5 with 1 closest to Jupiter and 5 furthest away, with equal spacing between them. You, as the observer, are on number 3, the middle fragment. You have at your disposal, the most exquisitely sensitive scientific instruments capable of detecting minute differences in redshift, velocity and acceleration. You would see that the other four fragments were all redshifted. Fragments 2 and 4 would have the same value. The redshift values for fragments 1 and 5 would also be the same, but the value would be higher than that of 2 and 4. In other words, the farther away a fragment is, the greater its redshift. This is not because the space between them is expanding, but because of the differential influence of Jupiter's gravitational pull with regard to the proximity of the fragments. This increasing redshift with increasing distance is exactly what we see when we look at the galaxies. Your instruments would also tell you that the fragments were accelerating.

 

However, it could be argued that the galaxies are not a two dimensional string of pearls. This is true. But in whatever direction you look, the galaxy you are viewing will either be closer to or farther away from the 'Great Body' than your own galaxy, and so will appear redshifted. Nevertheless, this presents the Gravity Model with its greatest challenge. Big Bang theorists claim that the universe is isotropic. This means that galaxies at a given distance from the observer would all be moving at the same velocity away from him in every direction. However, this idea that the universe is isotropic is simply not true. Various research groups have found that the recessional velocity of galaxies with similar intrinsic luminosities varies according to the direction in the sky in which the galaxy is to be found. One study adjudged minimum values to be around two thirds of the maximum. One might have expected a greater discrepancy. It may be that galaxies which lie in the direction of the Milky Way's galactic plane, and are therefore not seen, could provide more extreme values.

 

Another observation which Big Bang theory cannot explain is the 'peculiar' motion of galaxies. In the Gravity Model, the galaxies will not simply be travelling towards the Great Body in a straight line. They will be spiralling towards it, and the 'peculiar' motion is the transverse component of their spiral path.

 

The CMBR. I have read that the 2.7K temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation could be caused by hydrogen clouds, but that astronomers have not been able to detect enough clouds to account for it. If the observable universe is a finite system, as it must be in the Gravity Model, then the question arises as to what lies beyond it. The answer must be that it is a hydrogen field, since galaxies cannot condense out of nothingness. This hydrogen field would envelop the observable universe and presumably radiates at 2.7K It will be the source of galaxies and astronomers have observed gigantic highly flattened 'pancakes' of hydrogen containing up to 10 to the power of 14 solar masses. These are believed to be the precursors of large clusters of galaxies.

[Little Bang]

W, I think your view is relatively close. Sometime this week I will post a view that will confirm your idea but with a different twist. The reason I don't post it now is because I want to also post a description of gravity as a probability wave instead of a force, and I should have that in the next couple of days.

[Little Bang]

There is still some work to do but I'm going to post anyway.

 

You may have heard the term “ rogue wave “ but I will explain it’s definition so that it’s meaning is understood in this argument . Ever since man has started sailing in ships there have been stories of rogue waves that sometimes destroyed a ship. A rogue wave in the ocean is created by the constructive interference of small waves that can grow to over a hundred feet in height. There is even a video record of an encounter with an oil tanker. The current estimate is that they occur in the thousands every day but are so short in duration that an encounter with ships is rare.

 

There are two main unanswered questions in physics. One, how did the initial photons condense into the quarks that make up all the protons and electrons in the universe. Two, how do we unite electromagnetic energy with gravity.

 

Number one: If we accept the Big Bang we must assume that the universe expands as a ball or some shape of electromagnetic energy, but then we are still left with the problem of getting photons to condense into quarks. I suggest that the universe was a sea of photons and that the Big Bang was an event that sent ripples through this sea and the subsequent “rogue waves” that developed were the necessary quarks that produced the electrons and protons. This view would also solve the inflation problem because the ripples would have an infinite velocity from the stand point of the sea of photons If what I suggest is true there may be something on the order of > ten times the mass of the visible universe outside of it. This would explain the accelerated expansion that we see today.

 

Number two: Einstein gives a description of gravity as the warping of space time. A very accurate analysis of the effects of gravity but not a very good modus operandi of it’s actual workings. I would like to propose a hypothesis that describes gravity as a probability wave instead of a force. Let’s say that we have two magical spheres of the same volume that will contain a single diatomic hydrogen atom in each sphere. If we examine one of the spheres for the location of the atom thousands of times we would find the atom had been in every possible location inside the sphere with the average being the center. If I look at a specific 1/3 of the volume of a sphere, probability theory says that I should find the atom there one time out of three. Now I want to overlap the two spheres such that the edge of each sphere passes through the center of each. If we examine the area of overlap probability says I should find at least one atom two out three times. Thus I suggest that the probability of the two atoms being close together is greater than them being far apart. The probability spheres as I call them would extend to infinity.

[Little Bang]

I must admit that I am rather astonished. My idea must be so stupid that it doesn't deserve a response and if that's the case then I apologize.

[ronthepon]

Well, I get the basic structure, but I can't help but be a little critical.

 

Check this out.

 

The first point

 

Number one: If we accept the Big Bang we must assume that the universe expands as a ball or some shape of electromagnetic energy, but then we are still left with the problem of getting photons to condense into quarks. I suggest that the universe was a sea of photons and that the Big Bang was an event that sent ripples through this sea and the subsequent “rogue waves” that developed were the necessary quarks that produced the electrons and protons. This view would also solve the inflation problem because the ripples would have an infinite velocity from the stand point of the sea of photons If what I suggest is true there may be something on the order of > ten times the mass of the visible universe outside of it. This would explain the accelerated expansion that we see today.

 

Well, in it you had said that there was a sea of photons before the big bang.

 

In what state was the 'sea' of photons?

It cannot be static, as ER can't be truly static.

And If the photons (Or light waves) were moving dynamically, there would be a great deal of interference, and all such phenomena anyway. As such, matter particles would be formed.

 

The second point:

 

Number two: Einstein gives a description of gravity as the warping of space time. A very accurate analysis of the effects of gravity but not a very good modus operandi of it’s actual workings. I would like to propose a hypothesis that describes gravity as a probability wave instead of a force. Let’s say that we have two magical spheres of the same volume that will contain a single diatomic hydrogen atom in each sphere. If we examine one of the spheres for the location of the atom thousands of times we would find the atom had been in every possible location inside the sphere with the average being the center. If I look at a specific 1/3 of the volume of a sphere, probability theory says that I should find the atom there one time out of three. Now I want to overlap the two spheres such that the edge of each sphere passes through the center of each. If we examine the area of overlap probability says I should find at least one atom two out three times. Thus I suggest that the probability of the two atoms being close together is greater than them being far apart. The probability spheres as I call them would extend to infinity.

As I understand this, you are attempting to describe gravity as a result of a probability thing.

 

Explain this better please, as I am getting such loud doubts in my head that I need to be retold.

 

PS: Write them in point form so that people do bother to read them.

[Tormod]

A less biased researcher might conclude that the galaxies are under the influence of the only known force of nature that could cause such acceleration - gravity. This would require the existence of a supermassive, non-luminous body in space (presumably a black hole) towards which all the galaxies in the observable universe were being drawn.

 

You have a strong anti-science bent. Why call researchers "biased" simply because they do not find your theory interesting?

 

For a scientific theory to be accepted, it needs to describe what we observe better than the currently accepted theories. Researchers often receive more or less viable theories from lay people like yourself. It is not to be expected that they have the time, nor the resources, to evaluate them beyond a glance. That is no reason to call the biased.

 

Your theory, as far as I can see, offers no explanations but raises a few questions. Most of all, where do the giant black holes come from? Why would they be spaced out around the observable universe?

 

Gravity *is* the force that underlies the standard model. Dark energy is an expression of the energy required to work against the force of gravity to keep the universe expanding. It may be mysterious but I posted a news item today which seems to support the dark energy theory.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-news/6650-ruler-measure-universe.html

[Tormod]

If we accept the Big Bang we must assume that the universe expands as a ball or some shape of electromagnetic energy

 

I fail to see how this is a requirement of the big bang theory. Can you elaborate on this?

[Little Bang]

Ron, you ask what state this sea is located. I can tell you where the state of Iowa is located because I have information about it’s location. I can not have any information before the Big Bang so how could I give you a location. As far as gravity being a function of probability, I said in my post that I am working on a better description. Hopefully I will have a probability equation that will help explain. The idea may turn out to be a red herring but we’ll see where I get with it.

 

Tormod, I may be wrong but I thought the Big Bang theorized an explosion of pure energy, i.e. photons?

[Tormod]

Tormod, I may be wrong but I thought the Big Bang theorized an explosion of pure energy, i.e. photons?

 

The big bang was not an explosion per se, unless it happened inside an already existing universe. Photons are carriers of energy - we don't know whether this energy existed prior to the big bang.

 

However, I was questioning your requirement that we assume that the universe has a given shape. How does that come into play?

[W.Davidson]

Tormod,

 

No, I do not have a strong anti-science bent. The opposite is true. It is 'Big Bang' theorists who are anti-science. Here is an example of Big Bang anti-science - inflation theory. "When the universe was between 10 to the minus 35 and 10 to the minus 32 seconds old it underwent a faster than light 10 to the power of 50 expansion - to the size of a grapefruit".

 

Do you call that science? It is complete nonsense.

[Little Bang]

Tormod, I am not concerned with it's possible shape, only that some event did start the universe. If you don't believe that to be true then you must believe in a static universe, but the observed phenomina hints at an expanding universe which implies a beginning.

 

As to your first question the Big Bang was something, what?

[Farsight]

the increasingly baroque and untenable Big Bang theory sounds emotional rather than rational. And a hypothesis that describes gravity as a probability wave instead of a force sounds somewhat off-topic.

 

Come on guys, what's wrong with the Big Bang or Gravity? If you're not happy with something can't you detail your problem or explore some refinement before you start totally chucking the baby out with the bath water?

[ronthepon]

Here is an example of Big Bang anti-science - inflation theory. "When the universe was between 10 to the minus 35 and 10 to the minus 32 seconds old it underwent a faster than light 10 to the power of 50 expansion - to the size of a grapefruit".

 

Do you call that science? It is complete nonsense.

 

How on earth is that nonsense?

 

The boundary of the universe need not be matter or energy to be bounded by the condition of infinite mass arising from speed tending to speed of light.

 

Are you sure you understand perfectly how this limit to maximum speed arises?

 

If not, allow me to explain.

You know about the mass-velocity relation in relativity.

So according to it as a object approaches the speed of light, it's mass increases.

And also, when it reaches the speed of light, it's mass becomes infinity.

So to speed up an object that has infinite mass, we need infinite energy.

 

Thus, nothing can go that fast.

[ronthepon]

Ron, you ask what state this sea is located. I can tell you where the state of Iowa is located because I have information about it’s location. I can not have any information before the Big Bang so how could I give you a location. As far as gravity being a function of probability, I said in my post that I am working on a better description. Hopefully I will have a probability equation that will help explain. The idea may turn out to be a red herring but we’ll see where I get with it.

 

Tormod, I may be wrong but I thought the Big Bang theorized an explosion of pure energy, i.e. photons?

Although I can say that you have to build a good theoretical base before you say "I don't know". Atleast give some possible states where photons can be in a 'sea'.

 

You know, you have imagination, but should work on this topic a little more. Who knows, you may just be right!

[Bo]

Well it's been a while since I posted here, but anyway :)

A less biased researcher might conclude that the galaxies are under the influence of the only known force of nature that could cause such acceleration - gravity. This would require the existence of a supermassive, non-luminous body in space (presumably a black hole) towards which all the galaxies in the observable universe were being drawn.

 

 

The idea you give here is in contrast with two observations concerning the expansion of the universe.

First of all: The observation that the expansion is isotropic and homogenous. This means nothing more then -on the avarage- the expansion is the same in every direction, as seen from any reference point.. Your idea would create a preferred direction (namely in the direction of the massive object). In fact your idea would mean a clustering of matter around the massive objects instead of an expansion of the distances between the objects.

secondly your idea is in contrast with hubble's famous observation that the velocity at which we see stars and stuff going away from us grows linear with the distance to these objects. this linear relation will not be obtained by your model (instead probably quadratic)

 

Bo

[W.Davidson]

Bo, the following is from an Internet abstract: Mapping the Anisotropy of the Hubble Constant:

 

'A statistically significant difference in expansion rate is observed to occur across the sky. In the HST Extragalactic Distance Scale Key Project data, the maximum value of Expansion is 50% greater than the minimum value. The general trend is that values are higher in the southern hemisphere of the celestial sphere and lower in the northern hemisphere. Other Hubble constant data yield similar results but are more riddled with systematic errors between determinations. Using the HST Key Project data, in the nearby regime, the map produces a dipole with a minimum in the general direction of (alpha = 21h, delta = +65 deg) and a maximum in the general direction of (alpha = 21h, delta = -65 deg). In the distant regime, a minimum occurs in the general direction of (alpha = 18h, delta = +20 deg), and a maximum in the general direction of (alpha = 6h, delta = 0 deg). The two sets of distance dependent maxima and minima appear to be distinct from one another'.

[questor]

W.D., in order to confirm your theory, how many super bodies would have to be placed where, and composed of what mass to produce the effects you

propose? whereas there may be some difference in measurements as you suggest, your theory would lend itself to chaos rather than order and eventually result in a disordered, lopsided universe. i do congratulate you on independent thinking.