Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[CraigD]

At the point in time of the big bang all matter/energy would have been moving very fast does anyone know of a study or 2 on the effect that Einstiens theory of relitivity would have on the time aspect during the 1st few days after the big bang?

According to the latest Big Bang Theory, by about 3 minutes, the moment fundamental forces appeared and matter – mostly baryons, the stuff of present day atoms – became recognizable enough for Relativity to be applied in a sensible way, matter was on average not moving significantly faster that it does in many places (eg: within stars) now. So Special Relativity, with its various relative speed-related transformations, wasn’t have been unusually significant. “Energy”, a synonym in this context for bosons, mostly photons, are predicted by most theories to have traveled at the same speed – c=299792458 m/s – from the instant they existed, about [math]10^{-43}[/math] seconds, though today, and forever.

 

According to BBT, the period of greatest cosmic inflation, when the universe expanded at effectively many times the speed of light, occurs much earlier than this, between [math]10^{-36}[/math] and [math]10^{-32}[/math] seconds, but continues at a much smaller, but increasing, rate up to the present. However, cosmic inflation is due to the expansion of space, not the velocity of matter through it, so isn’t applicable to SR.

 

The early universe is postdicted BBT to have been much more uniform than the present one, without dense concentrations of matter (eg: stars and black holes), so it would have been gravitationally much more flat than nowadays. So General Relativity, with its gravitational field strength-related transformations, wasn’t as significant as it is now.

 

An important bit of background to understand about Relativity is that, although it’s been applied to and incorporated into theories like Quantum Particle Physics, it’s at heart a classical theory, making no assumptions about what matter is actually made of. So it’s very good at describing the behavior of big things like planets, stars, and galaxies, but not small things, like the very early history of the universe. At the time it was written, physicist were strongly biased toward the assumption that the visible universe was much older than a dozen or so billion years, and fairly, with stars and galaxies more-or-less maintaining their present-day distances and velocities. His efforts to support this assumption rigorously – that is, to get the mathematical physics to predict something other than an endlessly expanding or collapsing universe - lead the theory’s inventor, Einstein, and a minority of other physicists to work on theories related to the “cosmological constant”, an effort Einstein eventually described as his “biggest blunder”, and one he and most others abandoned when astronomic observation and new physics showed it to be unworkable. To get a good grasp of what I’m hinting at here, I recommend at least a couple of the many excellent books on the subject: Thorn’s “Black Holes and Time Warps” and Kaku’s “Hyperspace”. Though 15 years old and with SF-ish titles, both give wonderful overviews of the whole of modern physics.

[enorbet2]

One of the problems facing the so-called general public in a time where for the better part of a decade Science has been assailed by religious groups who have home schooled their children to avoid exposure to Science other than filtered through the religious agenda or even entirely made up to support that agenda and then provided colleges such as Patrick Henry where these students are essentially guaranteed positions in government. This is a part of a longer term resurgence of evangelism and an insidious agenda of FUD to get legislation passed favoring fundamentalists such as the overthrow of Roe V Wade and the undermining and discrediting of the Theory of Natural Selection (or Evolution) as if that were possible among real scientists, but it might be in some backward communities. The point is that there is a big push going on in the religous communities to appear scientific while at the same time discrediting real Science.

 

Pseudo scientists and religious fanatics like to point to adjustments and even supercesion such as Einstein over Newton as a sign of weakness and confusion in order to discredit Science. The turth is that the main body of legitimate theories rarely is thrown out. Only details or arenas are refined and "adjusted". For example Newton's theories and mathematics still are true and still work when dealing with "planetside" Earth and simple orbiting bodies. It's only at higher energy states or on the atomic scale that Newton begins to break down. There one must look to Einstein and at higher velocities, energies, or smaller scales Quantum Mechanics becomes increasingly important.

 

Discoveries are commonly made in two distinct ways. One either explores generally and discovers what they will by serendipity (and careful observation) or one is looking for something specific at the start and either finds it or something unexpected. Expansion was discovered in the 2nd manner while Hubble was seeking ways to measure how far away cosmic objects are. Please remember that at that time "The Universe" was thought to be The Milky Way galaxy. Until telescopes of suffcient strength, such as Hubbles, were used what are now known to be other galaxies were thought to be gas clouds or nebulae. So it was something of an accident to discover that the Universe is by many orders of magnitude larger than previously realized. When it was realized that everything was red-shifted it was theroized that the Universe is expanding. This was so startling that it has undergone unprecedented scrutiny and every test continues to support expansion. This ecidence took a quantum leap when a few scientists decided to measure how much the expamsion is slowing down only to be shocked to discover it is speeding up. They were convinced this had to be wrong so they checked and triple checked, announced their findings and of course the scrutiny was even greater since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE has contradicted these findings. The Big Bang is secure as is The Standard Model that includes it. There are always details to be worked out but the basics are highy unlikely to change. For example scientists (Magueio, Smolin, Greene, etc) may argue over some early expansion rate problems and what that implies but nobody is seriously thinking of throwing out the Big Bang. It may get refined in some novel ways but bever happened? Not Likely!

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

 

CraigD said

 

According to the latest Big Bang Theory, by about 3 minutes, the moment fundamental forces appeared and matter – mostly baryons, the stuff of present day atoms – became recognizable enough for Relativity to be applied in a sensible way, matter was on average not moving significantly faster that it does in many places (eg: within stars) now. So Special Relativity, with its various relative speed-related transformations, wasn’t have been unusually significant. “Energy”, a synonym in this context for bosons, mostly photons, are predicted by most theories to have traveled at the same speed – c=299792458 m/s – from the instant they existed, about seconds, though today, and forever.

 

According to BBT, the period of greatest cosmic inflation, when the universe expanded at effectively many times the speed of light, occurs much earlier than this, between and seconds, but continues at a much smaller, but increasing, rate up to the present. However, cosmic inflation is due to the expansion of space, not the velocity of matter through it, so isn’t applicable to SR.

 

The early universe is postdicted BBT to have been much more uniform than the present one, without dense concentrations of matter (eg: stars and black holes), so it would have been gravitationally much more flat than nowadays. So General Relativity, with its gravitational field strength-related transformations, wasn’t as significant as it is now.

 

Each point needs to be proven.

 

Just because its according to the BB "THEORY" does not make it so.

 

In the last few weeks I have been reading these papers.

 

Vector Inflation

arXiv.org Search

 

 

and

 

Chaotic Inflation Theory

arXiv.org Search

 

After reading most of these papers, I even question more, how on earth the BBT became the standard model.

 

I went back and read BBT papers and I must say the huge amounts of papers supporting the the BBT. Than I tried to look at the evidence supporting the BBT. Not one evidence could stand up without an ad hoc idea supporting it. In my opinion the BBT is on weak foundation.

[coldcreation]

One of the problems facing the so-called general public in a time where for the better part of a decade Science has been assailed by religious groups ...

 

 

Let's not forget the long drawn out citation (1952) by Pope Pius XII in which he unequivocally accepted the big bang picture of creation as a rational support for the [irrational] doctrines of the Bible. The pope embraced science (i.e., the big bang theory) for having definitively proved the Church’s long-standing doctrine—let there be light—confirmation of what many had suspected from the start, serving only as fuel to the fire in a controversy between cosmology and spirituality, between big bang believers and its adversary.

 

Note too, many who disagree with the big bang scenario are atheists, brights even.

 

 

NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE has contradicted these findings. The Big Bang is secure as is The Standard Model that includes it. There are always details to be worked out but the basics are highy unlikely to change. For example scientists (Magueio, Smolin, Greene, etc) may argue over some early expansion rate problems and what that implies but nobody is seriously thinking of throwing out the Big Bang. It may get refined in some novel ways but bever happened? Not Likely!

 

The idea that no credible evidence exists contradicting the big bang is to some extent subjective, if not false.

 

Here are some examples of observational data which indeed pose a problem for the BB theory:

 

SOURCE: What is the evidence against the Big Bang?

 

Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities

The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium' date=' lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion.

 

[b']Large-scale Voids are too old[/b]

The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.

 

Surface brightness is constant

One of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory is that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances. In the space around us, on earth, in the solar system and the galaxy (non-expanding space), as objects get farther away, they get smaller. Since distance correlates with redshift, the product of angular size and red shift, qz, is constant. Similarly the surface brightness of objects, brightness per unit area on the sky, measured as photons per second, is a constant with increasing distance for similar objects.

 

In contrast, the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above, decreases as (z+1)-3. More distant objects actually should appear bigger. But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution--early galaxies are different than those today-- lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense.”

 

Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation

The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy.

 

No room for dark matter

While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter.

 

No Conservation of Energy

The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.

 

Alignment of CBR with the Local Supercluster

The largest angular scale components of the fluctuations(anisotropy) of the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. (Big Bang theorists have implausibly labeled the coincidence of the preferred CBR direction and the direction to Virgo to be mere accident and have scrambled to produce new ad-hoc assumptions, including that the universe is finite only in one spatial direction, an assumption that entirely contradicts the assumptions of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, the only model generally accepted by Big Bang supporters.)

 

 

 

 

This is just the tip of the iceberg...

 

 

 

Coldcreation

[enorbet2]

We seem to be living at a unique time where the sciences are growing at a vastly accelerated rate compared to ay time in history and even relative to the whole "future shock" effect in which change occurs at a logarithmic rate. Probably the main reason that the sciences are going through such expansion is that there is a confluence or at least unprecedented interaction between diverse fields and especially those of the very large with those of the very small. Also we cannot overestimate the cumulative effect of cheap powerful computers. It is worthy of considerable note that recently eight Sony PS3 gaming consoles were combined creating a super computer capable of calculating and modeling gravity waves around black holes! What would have cost in excess of $30,000 US only a few years prior was acquired for under $4000. Moore's Law assures this will become even more ubiquitous in just a few years, So concurrent with the unprecedented growth of data is the means to process it.

 

Usually when such upheaval and massive growth occurs it signals a breakthrough is about to occur. While this could be so, we also face a stone wall. All of the sciences and especially Physics faces the situation where increasingly our predictive mathematics outstrips our ability to test, confirm or even observe the phenomena of the questions we can ask. First our instruments are reaching a state of impasse where it is going to be a *very* long time before we can build machines capable of exploring the microcosm. We are many orders of magnitude away from even imagining by what means we can approach the Planck Scale. So much is riding on the results of the Large Hadron collider and as terrific as it is the next step is both puny in terms of results and gargantuan in our ability to finance and build anything substantially improved, a next step. Imagine the problems of creating a collider circling Asia or the Equator and each of those falls far short of what is needed to gather real data on questions we have been asking for years. There was less than 50 years delay between mathematically predicting black holes and direct evidence It is important to remember that the math was right but the time lag between prediction and evidence is likely to increase as the energy levels required increase and the sizes we need to study decrease.

 

Combine with that the effect on Science, even the scientific method itself, when, as with String and M Theory all we have or can have for a very long time is elegant mathematics and that dealing with Planck Scale sizes even while we are already without frame of reference at orders of magnitude larger scales where Quantum Mechanics rules. No wonder Einstein despised Quantum Mechanics since it opens the door to the slippery slope between science and philosophy, mechanics and mysticism. Alice in Wonderland indeed! It's easy to see why sci-fi and fantasy so love it as a blank check for any crackpot idea or plot device. We are likely missing something fundamentally important but it is also likely it's going to be awhile before we can even imagine what that is.

 

One major obstacle to wrapping one's head around these things is that they look different and act differently at different scales. Most BB proponents agree that it's likely that the four observable forces now, were successively combined the further back, the higher energy levels, ago so that at some early point there was only one. It seems to me that as space expanded, as energy became matter and amti-matter, as the great annihilation of matter vs/ antimatter occured, as the Universe as we know it was being created by the evolution following the BB, the Laws of Physics of this Universe were also evolving. Similarly near black holes, past the event horizon, the laws including Time, begin to break down at these high energies and relativistic speeds, If events common at atomic levels occured at the scale at which we are familiar, nothing would make sense, we're back to that Alice in Wonderland place where things can be at two different places at the same time. Likewise at cosmological scales things don't make sense in an ordinary context. Here's a quote feom wikipedia:

 

" The expansion is due partly to inertia (that is, the matter in the universe is separating because it was separating in the past) and partly to a repulsive force of unknown nature, which may be a cosmological constant. Inertia dominated the expansion in the early universe, and according to the ΛCDM model the cosmological constant will dominate in the future. In the present era they contribute in roughly equal proportions.

 

The metric expansion leads naturally to recession speeds which exceed the "speed of light" c and to distances which exceed c times the age of the universe, which is a frequent source of confusion among amateurs and even professional physicists.[1] The speed c has no special significance at cosmological scales. "

 

This quote applies to superclusters as well as voids and my point remains the same since all credible squabbles with BBT deal with recent details, largely since expansion was found to be accelerating (Dark Energy) and sinced observed speeds and distribution in glaxies required more gravity than matter could account for (Dark Matter) or very early details so far possibly explained by Inflation. Others propose changing values of the speed of light or changing, even quantum, gravity. Only those way out on the fringe claim that expansion is not occurring. This is as it should be since Expansion gas been around longer which implies it is detectable by lower orders of technology and has had more time for scrutiny and for subsequent observation to either confirm or deny. It is unlikely that the Big Bang did not occur. It is highly unlikely that Expansion is not occurring. It is exrtremely unlikely that Eric J. Lerner, the guy whom coldcreation quoted, has inroads to the truth. He is not taken seriously by even casual but serious students let alone post docs and professionals. His book contains many basic factual errors and since he continues to promote those same errors without counter refutation he apparently thinks he is above peer review and that automatically disqualifies him as a scientist, at least in this area, but just like the story about distrusting the husband who claims he is boss in his own home, he is likely to lie about other things as well.

 

The basics of The Standard Model are as safe as the likelihood that details will be changed andrefined as new technologies and new data improve our grasp.

 

PS It's a no-brainer that the pope prefers BBT since it implies a beginning and an end. It doesn't hurt that LeMaitre was Catholic. It may not be what convinced that nazi, Pius XII, but it also doesn't hurt that Hubble was an excellent and thorough scientist who questioned his own conclusions.

[Pluto]

G'day enobert2

 

The problem that I see is that the BBT for what ever reason is the so called standard model. This in itself is a trap, since many scientists assume it to be "Standard" most papers assume it to be the way to go and fit the data to suit.

 

Any person who has studied cosmology and understands the complexity and the enormity of just the observable universe would question the age of the universe being 13.7 GYrs as per the BBT without taking into consideration the cyclic processes that is of general info to all.

 

A prime example is the 100 billion galaxies that we see in deep field images 13.2 Gyrs and we are lead to understand that they were formed by magic in just 500 million years.

 

Read this

http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2009.01.pdf

 

and

 

ACG Newsletter

[enorbet2]

Greetz Pluto

 

You've certainly nailed one of the processes that can act as pitfalls in any body of knowledge involved in exploration where.by the very nature of the endeavor, continually finding new things, too ready acceptance can poison the effort, working against itself. The problem is even greater than that when one considers how up and coming scientists, as students, are funded and advanced by the old guard who may tend to eschew those who don't conform adding to the likelihood of stagnation. Fortunately though the scientific method especially during times like these where not only is new data coming in faster than ever before within a field, but add to that the somewhat new effect of folding in on itself where disparate fields are encouraged to act together, to share data and perspectives and the checks and balances acting against the forces acting to settle into dogma are more than sufficient to keep it fresh and inquisitive.

 

There certainly has been no shortage of rebellious physicists or renegade mathematicians willing to have a go at the old guard. IMHO the field of string theory is in far more danger of becoming staid and dogmatic than the Standard Model and let's remember that BBT is only part of the Standard Model and each step of it has had to fight hard for many years to achieve that lauded term "Standard". I don't think we are in much danger of settling too soon on a wrong path when the arguments began roughly 100 years ago, leading step by step to the model as we now know it.

 

Since everything is connected and builds on the past the exploration of cosmology is much like any other exploration such as say finding a safe path over an ocean icefield, tenuous at first. The few on the fringe finally convince a small crowd that the ice is safe and as it proves to support more and more people the evidence grows that it is indeed a safe path. It seems to me that though there have been some fairly long-lived false paths in the past (the "ether"between the spheres, phlogiston) as science and technology has progressed and as the sheer number of people considering a problem has greatly increased, most of such dead ends are considerably in the past. Newtons model lasted 250 years before there were any serious challenges and even though it was adopted fairly easily compared to most, as always at the beginning it is natural that there are more doubters than adopters. So if we graph out acceptance on a time scale it seems that initially new ideas, especially fundamental ones, are met with extreme skepticism which slowly slopes off until there is near universal acceptance and then as time advances and new phenomena begin to pile up skepticism begins anew. Einsteins work isn't even 100 years old yet and he faced extreme doubt right on the heels of his acceptance. You can see the consternation on his face in the famous photograph taken in Copenhagen where Quantum Theory clearly beat up the old guard who were made old before their time compared to the period of grace allowed such fundamental soothsayers of the past. The point is that things change much faster now than they did and will likely do so more in the future.

 

Specific to your concern over the age of the Universe and "magic" galactic formation, let's tackle age first. Immediately after Hubble's revelation that the Universe was by many orders of magnitude larger than previously thought and was not in infinite progression but actually had a beginning, the question was begged "How old is it then?" Fairly quickly evidence was very solid as to the lower limits. It is the upper limits that are at all controversial. In the 1950s that upper limit was supposed to be 20 G years and as new and different methods were developed year by year that number was shaved. Now there are numerous models used to not only directly result in the age but to test the degree of accuracy. Not only that but whole other fields that work on reconciling the various methods has been very successful. It is my understanding that since WMAP and the application of statistical algorithms the number 13.68 G Years contains only one percent margin of error. That's pretty damned accurate!

 

If this number seems a problem for some processes and if processes are not well understood are in effect "magic" then I suppose it is magic even though I dislike the term because it implies it is beyond understanding and I don't think that is at all so. It has only been within the past decade that it has been seriously proposed, based on observation, that perhaps "all" galaxies have at their centers, black holes. It is also within the past decade that rotational speeds of stars have been linked to black holes but still present problems. However we still know so little as to be stuck with the "chicken and egg" problem of whether black holes begat galaxies or galaxies begat black holes. Whichever turns out to be true doesn't seem to pose any serious problem for the 13.68 G year number so what's the problem? Previous conflicts that seemed possibly catastrophic such as stars that appeared older than the Universe resolved just fine. I don't see that galaxy formation problems, if there is one, is sufficiently fundamental to throw out the baby with yadayada.

 

The Standard Model is standard exactly because sufficient agreement with ever new observations has resulted in deserved confidence. Yes there are details to work out as there always will be, but none seriously threaten the whole. The most outrageous renegades promoting Quantum Loop Gravity, Variable Light Speed, etc. still don't stand BBT on it's head. MOND has fallen by the wayside and it's successor Tensor Vector Scalar Gravity fortunately will likeluy be resolved by the LHC. Even if it proves true, while it would utterly change the Standard Model (no dark matter) it would not kill it nor in any way contradict Big Bang.

[coldcreation]

...It is exrtremely unlikely that Eric J. Lerner, the guy whom Coldcreation quoted, has inroads to the truth. He is not taken seriously by even casual but serious students let alone post docs and professionals.

This latter statement is false (he is in fact 'taken seriously' by most, if not all, of those who oppose the BBT), and the first is philosophically based (since it is based on 'truth' rather than evidence), thus irrelevant to the current discussion.

 

His book contains many basic factual errors...

 

Such as?

 

 

...and since he continues to promote those same errors without counter refutation he apparently thinks he is above peer review and that automatically disqualifies him as a scientist...

 

Are you saying he's not a scientist?

 

 

...at least in this area, but just like the story about distrusting the husband who claims he is boss in his own home, he is likely to lie about other things as well.

 

Are you calling him a liar?

 

Instead of attacking him personally, why not attack his interpretation of the observational evidence (or the lack of evidence).

 

Here is the list again (see above):

1. Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities

2. Large-scale Voids are too old

3. Surface brightness is constant

4. Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation

5. No room for dark matter

6. No Conservation of Energy

7. Alignment of CBR with the Local Supercluster

 

 

The basics of The Standard Model are as safe as the likelihood that details will be changed and refined as new technologies and new data improve our grasp.

 

Au contraire perhaps; with time, as new technologies and new data improve, more and more bunk (e.g., inflation, DE and CDM) may have to be added to the standard model for it to stay afloat (that is arguably what has been transpiring for decades). Eventually, if indeed the standard model does not represent the history of the universe, observations will rule it out (just as observations may eventually show it to be tenable).

 

The real test will come with the JWST and other telescopes that will probe the very deep universe. The HUDF has shown to be insufficient as a means of exploring galaxies at such distances. Eventually it should emerge whether the most distant objects are young galaxies in the process of formation, or mature metal-rich galaxies like the ones that inhabit the Local Group.

 

 

PS. It's a no-brainer that the pope prefers BBT since it implies a beginning and an end. It doesn't hurt that LeMaitre was Catholic... it also doesn't hurt that Hubble was an excellent and thorough scientist who questioned his own conclusions.

 

 

 

Don’t lose the shades yet.

 

 

 

 

CC

[Pluto]

G'day Coldcreation

 

I fully agree with you.

 

Attack the evidence or issues and not the person.

 

Eric Lerner has done amazing work towards cosmology and Focus Fusion. More credit.

 

This is quite interesting

NEW THEORY OF NON-EXPANDING UNIVERSE

Non Expanding Universe

 

Picking one point

1. Cosmological red shift

 

Astronomer Edwin P. Hubble was the first to observe that the spectral lines in the light from distant galaxies are shifted towards the red end of the visible spectrum with an increment of their wavelength. If l is the original unaffected wavelength and l ( >l ) of the same spectral line in the light from the galaxy as received by an observer on earth, the red shift is given by

 

Z = (l - l )/l .... (1)

 

Hubble attributed this red shift to the Doppler effect due to recession of galaxies. But in UPT's non-expanding universe it is caused by the depletion of spectral photon energy during passage through the sharmon medium.

 

This would be a very simple execise to prove one way or another

[enorbet2]

Greetz

 

I was probably more derisive than Mr Lerner deserves since he is a moderately succesful scientist at least in the field of plasma, and of course that is likely what brought him around to Hannes Alfven's plasma view of the Cosmos. Although it is true that both of them are considered "outsiders" and "unorthodox", I rather like underdogs and outsiders. However just because I have a soft spot for unorthodox underdogs I can't let that add any sway to the argument since those that belong to the Flat Earth Society or believe in UFOs or that we never landed on the moon are also unorthodox underdogs. So though it does trouble me a little that Lerner is 'taken seriously' by most, if not all, of those who oppose the BBT" (I'd rather he be taken seriously by at least a few proponents, as well) it is a small thing, hopefully. There have been good scientists who just rubbed conventional thinkers very wrong because of poor social skills and that in no way should diminsih their science. I seem to recall that Steinmetz and Tesla had such problems. Some of Mr. Lerner's ostracism may come from conservative scientists taking issue with the fact that Lerner was an active member of both SDS and Lyndon LaRouche's crew. There was even some backlash against Carl Sagan because he chose to write to the masses and was considered "too popular" ro be a real scientist by many. Lerner also writes a lot for popular science so some of that may rub off on him as well. Thrse things don't particularly bother me.

 

What does bother me is that while he is fairly widely admired by non-experts he has received bad reviews by experts most of whom claim his alternative model for Hubble's law is unstable and take issue with his interpretation of WMAP. That is testable, and it seems he's been tested and found wanting. His main adversary is Edward Wright whom he addresses directly on his website and though I may not be expert on the level these two men are in physics, I can tell when I'm being setup. It is common for underdogs who are also off the mark to contend that every single detail they find some issue with is an essential ingredient of the whole. So they set the pins up and then they knock them down. It's contrived. He doesn't talk like a scientist exploring and open to learn something new. He acts like a man with an axe to grind. I contrast him to Vera Rubin, whom you may know was important in gathering a great deal of data regarding the galactic rotation problem. She seems like how I expect a real scientist to be. She, despite her white hair, still has that childlike wonder where she seems to have no personal investment. She just wants to know what's going on and she's open to variable gravity or dark matter, or whatever else the evidence supports. Because she was originally snubbed as a woman, she could easily have become bitter and agenda-ridden but she did not. I feel badly for Hannes Alfven who was snubbed even after he won a Nobel Prize. That doesn't make Lerner's case however.

 

It is quite possible that all I am detecting is the man's cultivated sense of point of view required in writing for papers and magazines (and he is prolific having written close to a thousand articles in his lifetime - I've read some 25 since he was mentioned in this thread and I like his style, just uncertain about his science re: BBT) but a problem in pure science.

 

I'm doing some research so I can more intelligently address specific questions regarding Lerner's difficulties but I didn't want too much time to pass before I responed at all lest you think I didn't even respect your point of view enough to respond. As you will see quite the opposite is true. For now ponder this - First Lerner pointed to galactic super structure as requiring more time to evolve than 13.7 billion years but that being harder to defend was dropped in favor of large voids. This is sort of a package deal problem since according to BBT proponents either Inflation or something functionally like it occurred and if it turns out not to ne Inflation but something else that accomplishes the same events Big Bang itself is in no danger. If you accept that Inflation or something like it occurred, large structures such as the voids pose no problem. It is only when you throw out BBT before you even begin that these large structures are a problem. That's not only bad science, it is illogical to assume the conclusion in the attack. More later...

Jimmy

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

 

Enorbet2 could you get the facts right before you comment on a person or a science issue.

 

You said

First Lerner pointed to galactic super structure as requiring more time to evolve than 13.7 billion years but that being harder to defend was dropped in favor of large voids. This is sort of a package deal problem since according to BBT proponents either Inflation or something functionally like it occurred and if it turns out not to ne Inflation but something else that accomplishes the same events Big Bang itself is in no danger. If you accept that Inflation or something like it occurred, large structures such as the voids pose no problem. It is only when you throw out BBT before you even begin that these large structures are a problem. That's not only bad science, it is illogical to assume the conclusion in the attack. More later...

Jimmy

 

 

Mate its the total package, large structures such as the 100 billion galaxies 13.2 gyrs deep field images formd in just 500 million years and the 1 Gy voids also the formaton of the Milky Way and its dwarf galaxies going through mergers being formed in just 13.7 Gyrs. I like to see some one prove to me how that could be possible.

 

As far as the BBT goes, this is built up from ad hoc ideas with no evidence to back it up. All the so called evidence is in question and disputed by many. Yes! I could give you thousands of papers supporting the BBT, but every paper talks around the issues with question marks.

 

The process that is discussed in the BBT of matter coming out from a so called singularity is a process that we observe as jets small and large that are emmited from compact bodies such as Neutron and exotic stars and the ultra dense so called black holes that have a naked singularity.

 

Hey! My opinion could be wrong.

 

Sorry about the missspelt name.

[enorbet2]

Apparently Pluto you don't enjoy practicing what you preach. First, you promote not resorting to personal attacks and then you purposefully misquote my name. It is only a screen name but still unless you explain that it was "just a really serious typo" it stands as a personal insult. On top of that you berate me for not getting facts right or speaking through ignorance and yet it seems the only fact you disagree with is the conclusion that BBT is safe. Certainly you aren't saying that logic allows one to assume the conclusion in the premise? I contend that it is you, sir, who merely restates his conclusion with not an iota of supporting data.

 

I don't think anyone knows or has tried to explain exactly how galaxies evolve since as I mentioned we still don't know if galaxies form around black holes or black holes form inside galaxies, so sorry, you were born too soon as those answers are a ways off. However since theories are simply consistently plausible explanations of observable phenomena that can make predictions also explainable by the theories tenets, explaining how it was done isn't essential as long as no observed phenomena contradicts the theory or is impossible to explain within the theory. Hoyle and essentially a large establishment of scientific thought at the time had their reputations at stake and certainly would not have lost the battle without any evidence/ The nails in the coffin of steady state started with the observed cosmic microwave background radiation which by the way was discovered by accident not by agenda. COBE and WMAP sealed the deal. Dark energy and dark matter are fairly secure. By a very large margin experts agree that the only areas still considered to be speculation are inflation, and baryogenesis and and those are not altogether without evidence, nor are they deal breakers of the whole. The areas of prediction, the abundance of light elements, CMB, large scale structure, and Type 1a supernovae are no longer seriously contested and considered successes. Nobody serious can say there is NO evidence. One can disagree with the interpretation of the evidence but to say thet none exists is sheer denial and folly. Incidentally Hawking and Penrose withdrew the position that the Big Bang had to start with a singularity.

 

So considering that despite your insults I did not insult you and I have indeed responded with logic and evidence can we now get on to serious discussion? If on the other hand you just enjoy being the provocateur, well that's fine too but I won't rise to the bait once I know your intentions. As I see it, it is possible that BBT will undergo major changes but it is highly unlikely to be repealed, discounted, or disappear as a whole.

 

It is likely to get very exciting rather soon as the LHC and Hubble ST's replacements all come on line.

[enorbet2]

As some may have noticed I'm new here and I just wanted to comment on how lively a forum this is. I belong to several and have for a very long time since I've been online since 1993. I really don;t recall ever having been invited and compelled to read so much as I have in just a week here. I first would like to thank Pluto for the cosmology info newsletter which in itself is so full of links it took me 3 days to read it all. I was particularly engrossed over the GAIA mission of which I was unfamiliar and I followed my nose through many links to find out more. It is going to be hard waiting for 2020. What a delightfully ambitious mission. I have been aware of the value and proposals that much more can be accomplished at the L2 Lagrangian point but I was unaware of any dedicated missions. I am confident the rewards will cause more such missions. I hope I live to see their results.

 

Anyway, thank you all for the intellectual stimulation.

 

More later eh?

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

 

enorbet said

 

So considering that despite your insults I did not insult you and I have indeed responded with logic and evidence can we now get on to serious discussion? If on the other hand you just enjoy being the provocateur, well that's fine too but I won't rise to the bait once I know your intentions. As I see it, it is possible that BBT will undergo major changes but it is highly unlikely to be repealed, discounted, or disappear as a whole.

 

 

I think you read my words out of context. If I ever insult you. Please let me know. It is not done on purpose.

 

Also I'm not trying to bait you.

 

As for the BBT, I'd rather not discuss it, I rather discuss the actual workings of the parts within the universe.

 

As for the evolution of galaxies and star formation it is well documented.

 

Just to let you know at the present moment I'm reading up on Jets and Nucleosynthesis

 

Jets and Nucleosynthesis astrophysics ADS

Query Results

 

Although I read these before, just to refresh and look at the similarity between the theoretical Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and properties of jets. OOps thats another file.

 

So! enorbet I'm very sorry if I had insulted you. It's not my nature.

 

 

Keep Smiling

[CraigD]

Jets and Nucleosynthesis astrophysics ADS

Query Results

 

Although I read these before, just to refresh and look at the similarity between the theoretical Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and properties of jets.

Readers should be cautioned that processes containing the same words, such as “Big Bang nucleosynthesis”, “stellar nucleosynthesis”, and “nucleosynthesis in magnetically driven jets from collapsars” are not necessarily similar.

 

Big Bang nucleosynthesis (or, if one finds the phrase “Big Bang” offensive, primordial nucleosynthsis) refers to a hypothetical process by which the first atomic nuclei were formed from an earlier population of unconfined fermions – primarily (80%) hydrogen-1 (protons) and (20%) helium-4 nuclei, with much less abundant (< 0.1%) elements with masses as high as lithium-7 and beryllium-7.

 

Stellar nucleosynthesis and nucleosynthesis in magnetically driven jets from collapsars, refer to the fusion of light elements, primarily hydrogen, into increasingly more massive ones, up to iron-57 and nickel-62. According to papers such as “NUCLEOSYNTHESIS IN MAGNETICALLY DRIVEN JETS FROM COLLAPSARS”, one of those found in the search Pluto posted, the accretion disks and jets of collapsars – supernova remnants such as black holes and neutron stars – are are similar in terms of nucleosynthesis to the cores of high metalicity stars.

 

The nuclei of still heavier elements are synthesized primarily explosive nucleosynthesis, such as in supernovae explosions.

 

Another kind of nucleosyntheis involves the fission of nuclei into lighter nuclei through collisions with very high speed baryons, primarily protons, a process known as cosmic ray spallation. Although very little such nucleosynthesis compared to other processes occurs via this process, most or nearly all of some uncommon isotopes, such se helium-3, are believed to be formed via it.

 

Big Bang nucleosythesis appears to explain the composition of elements in the early universe (as observed in the most distant stars, which appear to contain no elements heavier than beryllium). Taken together with radioactive decay processes which do not require star-like or more extreme conditions, the other forms of nucleosynthesis, which are occurring now, explain the abundance of elements presently observed, and predict that the universe is in essence a “giant iron factory” that will eventually transmute a universe consisting mostly of hydrogen to one consisting mostly of iron, in which stars will no longer be possible.

 

It appears to me that many proponents of a “eternal recycling universe” model believe that there exists a kind nucleosynthesis that reverses the stellar and similar nucleosynthesis processes, transmuting iron and lighter elements into hydrogen and helium. However, I can recall reading no theory or observational data in any credible literature, including the hundreds of papers referenced by Pluto in this thread, suggesting how such a process might be possible, or that it is occurring.

 

While the idea that the universe is eternal and in overall form and composition unchanging is very emotionally satisfying, isn’t scientifically supported. The idea that, on a timescale spanning about the next [math]10^{14}[/math] years (vs. a present age of the universe of about [math]10^{10}[/math] years the universe is undergoing a one-way transformation from a primarily hydrogen filled universe in which stars are possible to a primarily iron and similar mass element filled one in which they are not, while emotionally disturbing, is scientifically supported.

[Pluto]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

 

CraigD you must have read my mind. I was about to write something similar.

 

But! for

 

You said

 

It appears to me that many proponents of a “eternal recycling universe” model believe that there exists a kind nucleosynthesis that reverses the stellar and similar nucleosynthesis processes, transmuting iron and lighter elements into hydrogen and helium. However, I can recall reading no theory or observational data in any credible literature, including the hundreds of papers referenced by Pluto in this thread, suggesting how such a process might be possible, or that it is occurring.

 

 

You must not have read all of them. Regardless

 

The process involving the property of double layer plasma, Z-pinch during the magnetic entanlement of EM/gravitatonal waves changes normal matter to subatomic particles such a Neutrons. It also has the ability to compact such Neutrons if the zone is able to keep them in a stable matrix, such as the core of the Sun and Neutron stars. When this occurs close to or on the surface the Neutrons change back to protons.

 

 

 

There are other processes that are general info. Do you wish for me to post them.

 

Such as

 

Photodisintegration

Photodisintegration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Photodisintegration is a physical process in which extremely high energy gamma rays interact with an atomic nucleus and cause it to enter an excited state, which immediately decays into two or more daughter nuclei. A simple example is when a single proton or neutron is effectively knocked out of the nucleus by the incoming gamma ray, and an extreme example is when the gamma ray induces a spontaneous nuclear fission reaction. This process is essentially the reverse of nuclear fusion, where lighter elements at high temperatures combine together forming heavier elements and releasing energy. Photodisintegration is endothermic (energy absorbing) for atomic nuclei lighter than iron and exothermic (energy releasing) for atomic nuclei heavier than iron. Photodisintegration is responsible for the nucleosynthesis of at least some heavy, proton rich elements via p-process which takes place in supernovae.

 

 

[edit] Hypernovae

In explosions of very large stars (250 or more times the mass of earth's Sun), photodisintegration is a major factor in the supernova event. As the star reaches the end of its life, it reaches temperatures and pressures where photodisintegration's energy absorbing effects temporarily reduce pressure and temperature within the star's core. This causes the core to start to collapse as energy is taken away by photodisintegration, and the collapsing core leads to the formation of a black hole.

 

 

Would you like me to post links to:

 

P-process

S-process

R-process

and so on.

 

 

One of the main triggers of a supernova is the photodisintegration of Fe and similar elements to He than H than Protons than Neutrons that collect at the core forming the Neutron core matrix. This process is well documented.

 

 

I do not mind discussing any issue, I express my opinion as best as I can with limited time.

 

Cosmology is at the footsteps of discovery.

[enorbet2]

I have now spent the better part of a week reading some hundred articles by Lerner. Apparently I had been biased since my opinion of him has grown dramatically. However I now see him as something of a journeyman scientist in that he writes excellent informative articles but even more than ever now I can't escape the conclusion that he changes up when it comes to promoting his own ideas about BBT. His methodology is flawed whenever he gets involved with BBT partly because he never seems to deal with it on it's own. He blithely combines steady state and BBT into a whole and then the greater part of his argument is made attacking long proven wrong aspects of steady state and then concluding BBT is wrong. The only area I have seen so far where he restricts himself solely to BBT is in Expansion, the red shift phenomenon. In this area I can find no explanation of how his idea that red shift, rather than being a doppler phenomenon, is caused by a filtering effect through the sharmon medium can possibly account for increasing red shift, the basis of the concept of Dark Energy.

 

While I am impressed with his assessment of some problems that can occur in peer review, it is certainly a huge leap to assume those flaws are common or systemic if that's where he's headed. It still remains that according to peer review

 

1) The only speculative portions of BBT, which are by no means essential to the whole, are inflation and baryogenesis.

 

2) All of the arguments regarding oldness/flatness, horizon, 1a supernovae, abundance of primordial elements, etc have all been well explained by BBT and until and unless some new compelling evidence to the contrary is observed BBT, and the Standard Model, is safe.

 

That Lerner continues to batter away at such as the horizon issue and oldness/flatness might possibly be fruitful but the odds are against it since these are essentially decided again until and unless something really new comes along to "upset the applecart". This is exactly why Lerner is far more appreciated by amateurs than professionals. I find myself in the unusual, for me, position of supporting status quo, the BBT, at least for now.