Big Bang cosmology

Discussions ranging from space technology, near-earth and solar system missions, to efforts to understand the large-scale structure of the cosmos.

Big Bang cosmology

Postby hyksos on March 14th, 2020, 2:32 am 

I guess this is a post in the vein of "Out-of-the-loop".

What I want to talk about is this pervasive rejection of the Big Bang. I'm finding that rejection of the Big Bang is quite popular these days among the laity. I'm actually starting to find Bing Bang rejection in the strangest places. Why is this trending and why is this rejecting the theory so popular now?
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby BurtJordaan on March 17th, 2020, 5:21 am 

Can you give a few examples of where you found this trending?
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby hyksos on March 20th, 2020, 12:38 pm 

BurtJordaan » March 17th, 2020, 1:21 pm wrote:Can you give a few examples of where you found this trending?

Paul Feyerabend is considered one of the most important American philosophers of the 20th century.

Feyerabend's magnum opus, 'Against Method' was originally published in 1975. What is quoted below is obviously some kind of 2nd or 3rd edition that must have been published after 1988.

This quotation below was taken from chapter 19, page 241.

Image

I will point out to the reader, that no particular body of observations was quoted here as defense of this claim that there is an ongoing conspiracy to "devalue" the science produced by Big Bang deniers. So subsequent pages after the above quote do not go into detail about which particular sets of observations are being "devalued". The claim is asserted in the absence of evidence.

(Nevertheless, we should all remember this was as far back in history as 1988.)


Chatrooms, IRC , forums such as this one, and even reddit is home to many Big Bang deniers. The theory is snorted at in flippant ways. When the above material was presented to reddit, the community apparently upvoted because they (fallaciously) assumed it showed Feyerabend being such a genius that he had exposed the "mere faith" of the cosmologists. I had actually posted with the motivation to discredit him. They prematurely believed their Philosophy Hero had found a chink in the armor of working scientists.

When the redditors found out that I was actually claiming the opposite, I was turned into a pariah in their eyes.


Today in 2020 there is a giant body of observational evidence supporting the Big Bang. Evidence backed up and independently corroborated by over 2 dozen ground-based and orbital satellites, with observations ranging over at least 5 different methods. The estimates agree surprisingly well with theory. (I would be happy to go into detail about all these!)

Do people not know this?
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
Hendrick Laursen liked this post


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby socrat44 on March 21st, 2020, 5:35 pm 

hyksos » March 14th, 2020, 2:32 am wrote:I guess this is a post in the vein of "Out-of-the-loop".

What I want to talk about is this pervasive rejection of the Big Bang.
I'm finding that rejection of the Big Bang is quite popular these days among the laity.
I'm actually starting to find Bing Bang rejection in the strangest places.
Why is this trending and why is this rejecting the theory so popular now?


Why the rejection of ''Big Bang theory'' is started to be quite popular these days?

The ''Hot Big-Bang theory'' tries to understand the state of ''the very early universe''
#
In my opinion it is similar to go to kitchen and make
hot “melt” egg-omelette and wait 14 billion years to see
how the chicken will evolve.
===
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 463
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby Dave_C on March 21st, 2020, 10:06 pm 

Hi hyksos,
That's really interesting, I hadn't heard about big bang denialists so I did a quick search on it. I see it's a 'real thing' but only in the christian and catholic communities, perhaps other religious communities as well. (no surprise there)

The pope put the word out against it in 2010.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope ... OC20110106

Fundamentalist in the US are also at it.
https://answersingenesis.org/big-bang/r ... g-as-fact/

Clearly, there's no doubts within the scientific community. Not that I'm aware of anyway. The only issues I'm aware of are some measurement issues which look intriguing but nothing that might dispute the theory.

Do you think the big bang denialists are fundamentalists? It could be too that people who aren't aware of the science behind it are swayed by them. Could it be a lot of people who don't know any better and have friends with religious beliefs?
User avatar
Dave_C
Member
 
Posts: 350
Joined: 08 Jun 2014
Location: Allentown


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby bangstrom on March 21st, 2020, 11:02 pm 

hyksos » March 20th, 2020, 11:38 am wrote:
Today in 2020 there is a giant body of observational evidence supporting the Big Bang. Evidence backed up and independently corroborated by over 2 dozen ground-based and orbital satellites, with observations ranging over at least 5 different methods. The estimates agree surprisingly well with theory. (I would be happy to go into detail about all these!)

Do people not know this?


Yes, people know this but, as Karl Popper pointed out, mountains of evidence in support of a theory do not make a theory valid if some basic assumption behind the theory can be falsified. I don’t consider myself to be a Big Bang denier because I remain open to the possibility but I have long been a critic of the theory because of the narrowness of its view and the “mere faith” that evidence in favor of the Big Bang rules out all other possibilities by default.

What many people don’t know is that discrediting the continuous creation part of the old Steady State theory did not rule out all other non-expansion theories. A declining rate of time in a non-expanding universe is indistinguishable from an expanding universe with a constant rate of time. The same evidence that supports one view also supports the other. We can’t say with confidence whether the cosmological changes we observe are the effect of an expanding space or a slowing of time or a combination of the two.

The observation of a 2.7 K CBR is considered to be the “smoking gun” in support of the Big Bang but, prior to Penzias and Wilson, the 2.7 K was thought to be the ambient temperature of space generated over an enormous length of time by the innumerable stars. If the 2.7 K is due entirely to “relic radiation” from the BB, that leaves interstellar space with no heat emitted by stars which is impossible unless the energy from stellar radiation was lost to expansion. In any case, the 2.7 K could be from a combination of sources and its precise measurement means little unless we can determine how much is from which source. We know for certain that some of the thermal energy in interstellar space originated from stars but energy from the recombination epoch is speculative.

Another problem is that ad hoc patches to the BB detract from its validity. Two prominent examples are Guth’s inflation and dark energy.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 798
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby bangstrom on March 22nd, 2020, 1:07 am 

Dave_C » March 21st, 2020, 9:06 pm wrote: ,
That's really interesting, I hadn't heard about big bang denialists so I did a quick search on it. I see it's a 'real thing' but only in the christian and catholic communities, perhaps other religious communities as well. (no surprise there)


Science based alternatives to the BBT are not hard to find. Try looking for (why the big bang theory is wrong)

Here is a non-religious article critical of the BB leaning towards a non-expansionist cosmology.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pr ... 2N3ASS.PDF

My personal view is that astronomical observations support the view of a far larger and older universe that is currently popular with adherents of the Standard Model BBT.

The cosmologist, Edward Harrison once reverse engineered the Friedmann–Lemaître metric by plugging in density values picked out of thin air to see which value best fit with observations. He found that a density value characteristic of a universe several times larger and older than the 15 billion year old estimate popular at the time fit all observed parameters with no need for adjustments such as Guth’s inflationary period.

Harrison also predicted that, if we could one day observe the universe at a greater distance, we should be able to observe the true slower pace of universal expansion. His prediction came true in 1997 with the BOOMERANG observations where it was not interpreted as the true expansion rate but evidence that expansion was once slower so the expansion rate is increasing.

I was expecting Harrison to say, ‘I told you so and your interpretation is backward’ but I could never find any comment by Harrison beyond his original paper so I don’t know what happened. I don’t have Harrison’s reference at hand but I can find it if anyone is interested.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 798
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby hyksos on March 24th, 2020, 2:25 pm 

bangstrom » March 22nd, 2020, 9:07 am wrote:
Dave_C » March 21st, 2020, 9:06 pm wrote: ,
That's really interesting, I hadn't heard about big bang denialists so I did a quick search on it. I see it's a 'real thing' but only in the christian and catholic communities, perhaps other religious communities as well. (no surprise there)


Science based alternatives to the BBT are not hard to find. Try looking for (why the big bang theory is wrong)

Here is a non-religious article critical of the BB leaning towards a non-expansionist cosmology.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pr ... 2N3ASS.PDF

My personal view is that astronomical observations support the view of a far larger and older universe that is currently popular with adherents of the Standard Model BBT.

The cosmologist, Edward Harrison once reverse engineered the Friedmann–Lemaître metric by plugging in density values picked out of thin air to see which value best fit with observations. He found that a density value characteristic of a universe several times larger and older than the 15 billion year old estimate popular at the time fit all observed parameters with no need for adjustments such as Guth’s inflationary period.

Harrison also predicted that, if we could one day observe the universe at a greater distance, we should be able to observe the true slower pace of universal expansion. His prediction came true in 1997 with the BOOMERANG observations where it was not interpreted as the true expansion rate but evidence that expansion was once slower so the expansion rate is increasing.

I was expecting Harrison to say, ‘I told you so and your interpretation is backward’ but I could never find any comment by Harrison beyond his original paper so I don’t know what happened. I don’t have Harrison’s reference at hand but I can find it if anyone is interested.


First of all, bangstrom is linking articles written in 1995.

There is nothing in the sky , no astronomical object observed by human civilization that is older than 17 billion years. No galaxy, no globular cluster, no nebula, no white dwarf. That is a generous, cordial upper bound, far above the whiskers of the standard deviations. That cordial upper bound is also the upper bound on 4 or 5 different dating methods.

Image

That Table 4 you are looking at here looks small, punctual and simple. But every metric shown here is the results collated and cross-corroborated by several dozen orbital and ground-based telescopes over the course of 2 decades. This is the case for each age estimate listed. The tiny table masks a much more complex experimental reality.


My personal view is that astronomical observations support the view of a far larger and older universe that is currently popular with adherents of the Standard Model BBT.

So nobody can accuse me to trying to work a personal interpretation over anyone else, I want to discuss a little more detail about this telescope data and what it looks like.

It is not the case that we observe a tailed distribution, which we then average over like sneaky statisticians. In that scenario, there would be observed galaxies with ages that are "way off" the tail of the distribution, and so there would be an occasional galaxy that clocks in at 80 billion years old. Maybe a onesy-twosey of a galaxy that is a trillion years old. But then we 'ignore' it as outliers and declare a much smaller number near the peak of the normal distribution.

For emphasis, this is not what is observed. Instead, the datasets show a peculiar cut-off point in the ages. This is most obvious in the datasets used to age globular clusters. To age globular clusters, they use temperature/luminosity scatterplots. These plots contain a little "hook" or "knee bend" on the bottom left corner, which is used to estimate their ages. These 'hooks' in the data are cut-off points in the age. This cut-off appears in other types of data.

I ask the reader to review the numbers in table 4. The age estimations disagree in their findings even outside of their standard devs. Nevertheless, they curiously, or not-so-curiously all cluster around 13.7 Gyr. The clustering is so strong that it is far below an order of magnitude difference.

There is no experimental elbow room for Edward Harrison, nor anyone else today to declare that the universe could be "significantly older". This is not an interpretational squabble. Raw telescope data settles it.

I invite anyone to both deny and debate interpretations of the nature of the universe and the cosmos. Anyone is allowed to chase me up that tree. I will buy your ticket to ride. I will put the gasoline in your tank. I'm ready to rumble. But if people in this thread start denying raw telescope data, my participation in this thread will cease.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: 28 Nov 2014
TheVat liked this post


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby bangstrom on March 25th, 2020, 3:30 am 

hyksos » March 24th, 2020, 1:25 pm wrote:
First of all, bangstrom is linking articles written in 1995.

The question remains as to what happened to the energy generated by the stars prior to 1967?

hyksos » March 24th, 2020, 1:25 pm wrote:
There is nothing in the sky , no astronomical object observed by human civilization that is older than 17 billion years. No galaxy, no globular cluster, no nebula, no white dwarf.


The visible limit for the best telescopes is a little over 13 Gyr so we can’t expect to find any galaxies beyond that point with present day technology even if they do exist. If the BB was 13.7 Gyr ago, that doesn’t allow much time for galaxy formation so we have the ad hoc invention of Guth’s inflationary period to explain the rapid early evolution of the universe.

In the late sixties and seventies Alan Sandage among others were discovering star clusters with estimated ages in excess of 20 Gyr when the estimated age of the universe was 15 Gyr based on the Hubble constant as it was generally measured at the time.
Sandage refused to back down on any of his estimates but, after his death, his team of astronomers joined with others and massaged the numbers down to fit within the 15 Gyr age of the universe. Later, with the establishment of the Lambda-CDM model, the estimated age for the universe was lowered to 13-14 Gyr and the older estimates had to be reduced again to fit the model. These things don’t give me much confidence in the system.

hyksos » March 24th, 2020, 1:25 pm wrote:
I invite anyone to both deny and debate interpretations of the nature of the universe and the cosmos.


Occam and later Ernst Mach cautioned against adding any effects from outside the bounds of known or directly observable physics to any theory to make the observations fit the theory. The rule of thumb is to modify the theory to fit the observations. Not the other way around. I see the use of dark energy and dark matter in the lambda CDM model and Guth's inflation to be examples of modifying the observations to fit the theory since they rely on unknown and unobservable phenomena. Mach called such things "metaphysicals" and they were his-and mine- anathema.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 798
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby BurtJordaan on March 25th, 2020, 6:48 am 

@Bangstrom:"I see the use of dark energy and dark matter in the lambda CDM model and Guth's inflation to be examples of modifying the observations to fit the theory since they rely on unknown and unobservable phenomena."

I think it is the other way around. Which 'modification to the observation' specifically are you referring to?

The theories that you have mentioned are IMO in the closest agreement with the full set of observations of all the presently available theories.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby bangstrom on March 25th, 2020, 3:19 pm 

BurtJordaan » March 25th, 2020, 5:48 am wrote:@Bangstrom:"I see the use of dark energy and dark matter in the lambda CDM model and Guth's inflation to be examples of modifying the observations to fit the theory since they rely on unknown and unobservable phenomena."

I think it is the other way around. Which 'modification to the observation' specifically are you referring to?

The theories that you have mentioned are IMO in the closest agreement with the full set of observations of all the presently available theories.


Yes, it is the other way around. Thank you for picking up on my error. My complaint is that the theory has been modified by invalid means to fit the observations and and not the other way around as I incorrectly stated. Any theory should be modified to fit observations if the two are in conflict as long as the modifications are consistent with the laws of physics and our understanding of matter.

The inflationary period, dark matter, and dark energy are the sort of things Mach called “metaphysicals” since their existence is speculative and can not be confirmed by direct observations and, unlike quarks, we can’t even explain why we can’t observe the dark elements if they do exist.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 798
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby BurtJordaan on March 26th, 2020, 9:46 am 

OK... Sabine Hossenfelder explains the physics reasoning much better than I can.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby curiosity on March 26th, 2020, 3:04 pm 

Yes, it is the other way around. Thank you for picking up on my error. My complaint is that the theory has been modified by invalid means to fit the observations and and not the other way around as I incorrectly stated. Any theory should be modified to fit observations if the two are in conflict as long as the modifications are consistent with the laws of physics and our understanding of matter.


Consistent with the laws of physics...Exactly!!! super-luminal inflation at one billion x c ??? If a fudge factor of that magnitude is needed in order to make the numbers add up, something is seriously wrong with either the math's or the theory. I can think of one much simpler solution to the problem and I will keep a check on this thread to see If you manage to come to the same conclusion.

Although the theory in general, is good... The details need to be worked on !
curiosity
Member
 
Posts: 406
Joined: 19 Jul 2012


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby bangstrom on March 27th, 2020, 3:33 am 

BurtJordaan » March 26th, 2020, 8:46 am wrote:OK... Sabine Hossenfelder explains the physics reasoning much better than I can.

I hear Sabina H. explaining how physicists put a scientific spin on things when they are making stuff up.

curiosity » March 26th, 2020, 2:04 pm wrote:

I can think of one much simpler solution to the problem and I will keep a check on this thread to see If you manage to come to the same conclusion.


I would be interested in seeing your explanation of the expansion problem.

I can think of simple explanations consistent with the laws of physics for all of the problems Sabina Hossenfelder listed and none of them are new or original. The problems include, dark matter, dark energy, the lambda cosmological constant, galactic rotations and filaments, and the accelerated expansion of the universe.

My explanation for the “super-luminal inflation” is that the expansion rate for the universe is slower than estimated and the universe is either not expanding at all or the expansion rate is being slowed by gravity. I suspect the universe is both far older and larger than explained by the BBT so Alan Guth sped up the start of the movie with his “inflation” in order to make the theory consistent with observations of a universe more advanced than possible in 15 Gyr..

The error in the BBT is that distant galactic redshifts indicate the rate of multiple changes in the universe but they are not indicators of recessional velocities.

My basic questions are, If the universe is expanding, relative to What ? is it expanding.

Or, considering the principle of yin and yang where there can be no expansion without contraction. If space is expanding, what is contracting?
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 798
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby BurtJordaan on March 27th, 2020, 5:55 am 

My response in a nutshell. Most of science is "made-up" stuff - how else? We observe, we postulate one or more theories, we see how well they fit (post-dict) the observations.

Now all observations have finite accuracy, and no theory ever fits observation precisely. So we pick one or more that fit best into the error bars, if at all.

Observations evolve into better accuracy and so do theories and eventually we end up with one or two in competition (obs and theory) and we have to wait for even better observations in order to judge.

Sometimes new theories predict some effect that others don’t and then have to wait for experiment to confirm or rule out. Such predictions are often outside technologies of the time and have to wait for decades, if not longer...

This is more of less where we are in cosmology. Inflation and LCDM still rules the roost, despite some mild tension with observation here and there.

Both disciplines are still evolving, but it's a tough job in the face of the most severe scrutiny that ever existed. Theories must stand up to or improve upon every confirmed observation ever made before. Today only large collaboration of scientists (both theoretical and observational) stands any chance.

More later in the lock-down - some house TLC required…
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby BurtJordaan on March 27th, 2020, 5:59 am 

Just quick remark: the universe is supposed to mean all there is. You cannot measure it relative to anything else.
But expansion does never need anything else, because you can observe it from within. That's all there is to it, no mystery at all!
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby BurtJordaan on March 27th, 2020, 7:47 am 

While taking a break from my lock-down-labors, I had a quick reread of this good argument for inflation. It is very technical, but I recommend skipping the math and other too technical stuff - I learned a lot out of it without those.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby hyksos on March 27th, 2020, 5:30 pm 

bangstrom, You have invaded this thread and you are flagrantly engaging in wholesale denial of measured evidence. You are in material breach of evidence-denial.

bangstrom » March 22nd, 2020, 7:02 am wrote:Yes, people know this but, as Karl Popper pointed out, mountains of evidence in support of a theory do not make a theory valid if some basic assumption behind the theory can be falsified.

If you are going to whip out Karl Popper to create an atmosphere of doubt in the mainstream consensus, then Popper's criterian makes the stuff you post on this forum even more suspect.

...or did you think Popper only applies to mainstream theories, and not anything you write?


Alan Sandage among others were discovering star clusters with estimated ages in excess of 20 Gyr when the estimated age of the universe was 15 Gyr based on the Hubble constant as it was generally measured at the time. Sandage refused to back down on any of his estimates but, after his death, his team of astronomers joined with others and massaged the numbers down to fit within the 15 Gyr age of the universe.

"..refused to back down..."

(implication: he was being ordered to back down by... by who? The Spanish BB Inquisition?)

You have now asserted the existence of an ongoing conspiracy to suppress experimental observations that contradict the mainstream consensus. This behavior is part-and-parcel prototypical Big Bang denial. The assertion of a social conspiracy to censor and suppress evidence is the "Jet-fuel-can't-melt-steel-beams" of cosmology. We have seen it 1000 times from 1000 people.


I suspect the universe is both far older and larger than explained by the BBT so Alan Guth sped up the start of the movie with his “inflation” in order to make the theory consistent with observations of a universe more advanced than possible in 15 Gyr..

I am not Alan Guth, nor am I a spokeperson for Alan Guth. (I could tell you that you what you ahve written here is bullshit, but I'm not going to take your bait. Not today.)

When cosmologists assert that the universe was much hotter and denser than it is now, they don't mean "hot" as in the oven in a kitchen. They don't mean "hot" like the surface of a lightbulb's filament. By "hot" they mean so hot that atoms cannot form. So forget rocks... forget stars, there weren't even atoms.

One of the deal-breaking predictions of the consensus model of the cosmos is thus : Every atom in the room with you now... every nitrogen you breath in, every carbon in your clothing.. every potassium atom in that banana there... none of those atoms existed 14 billion years ago.

That assertion might seem like another metaphysical speculation, but hold the press. In the very Table 4 I linked above, you will see "Radiometric", with two papers by Cowan et al, and Wanajo et al. Radiometric dating consists of measuring the abundances of radium-226 in galaxies. Because radium-226 has a known half-life, its abundance in a sample acts like a clock. That is to say, we suppose that we are measuring how long the atoms in galaxy X have been decaying since they were created -- literally formed from precursor nucleons. This approach which seems stupid on its face, can be performed, and it does give you a number.

Lookie-lookie, the estimates using the radiometric technique agree quite well with the consensus model. Further, these numbers don't agree with anything you have asserted in this thread.

The visible limit for the best telescopes is a little over 13 Gyr so we can’t expect to find any galaxies beyond that point with present day technology even if they do exist.

Nonsense. We have several dating methods that are quite alien to considering redshift and multiplying times Hubble Constant. In the case of globular clusters, if there were really old ones, we would absolutely see them using today's technology. If the situation were as you describe, the milky way would be age 0, and more distant galaxies would "get older" scaling with their distances. That is ridiculous. There is nothing prohibiting a very ancient "red-and-dead" galaxy being right next door to us. There is nothing stopping that from happening. Also, the milky way has an age too, and it's not zero. People reading this thread , (perhaps yourself too) may now wonder how old the Milky Way is. In an atmosphere of Big Bang denialism, one might suppose the Milky Way is suspiciously young for a galaxy. Unfortunately, the briefest google search will shoot that down quick.
User avatar
hyksos
Active Member
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: 28 Nov 2014


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby TheVat on March 27th, 2020, 6:27 pm 

Observational analysis of 1a supernovae from last year that questions dark energy as a dominant role in cosmic expansion.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.04597

Here's a plain language explanation of the implications from my favorite physicist...

https://youtu.be/oqgKXQM8FpU
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7631
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby BurtJordaan on March 28th, 2020, 2:44 am 

TheVat » 28 Mar 2020, 00:27 wrote:Observational analysis of 1a supernovae from last year that questions dark energy as a dominant role in cosmic expansion.

I think if this analysis holds up, it may at most reduce the dominance of the dark energy (cosmological constant).
We must not forget that the CMB measurements did include these anisotropic effects and still indicate a spatially flat observable universe. To remove the cosmological constant completely will mean more than a doubling in the amount of dark matter in order to satisfy the spatial flatness.

So we may see a bit of reshuffle of the curvature parameters - but the jury is still out...
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby bangstrom on March 28th, 2020, 3:07 am 

BurtJordaan » March 27th, 2020, 4:59 am wrote:Just quick remark: the universe is supposed to mean all there is. You cannot measure it relative to anything else.
But expansion does never need anything else, because you can observe it from within. That's all there is to it, no mystery at all!

Right, you can’t measure the expansion of the universe relative to anything else. Since the time of the ancient Greeks, atomic size and the length of material objects has been considered as the absolute against which we can measure expansion so intuitively expansion is the natural assumption about the changes we observe but our measurements of expansion are only as good as our assumption that material objects have a constant size over enormous lengths of time.

Arthur Eddington explained long ago that a universe of constant radius but with a shrinking atomic scale is the mathematical and conceptual equivalent of an expanding universe. One is the simple inverse of the other. That is, when we measure the universe from within, we can’t tell if the universe is expanding or if all the material within is growing smaller and the two conditions are equivalent so we can interpret our observations either way. One possibility is a theory of expansion and the other is a theory of inverse expansion and, from our inside view, the two are the same phenomenon viewed from a different perspective.

The two possibilities are equivalent so we can check the validity of one model against the other and, if we find places where they don’t agree, we can examine the discrepancy closer looking for possible sources interpretative error within either model.

Spacial expansion is endothermic and material contraction is exothermic so only the expansion model requires dark energy to explain accelerated expansion. If the universe is expanding against gravity, the rate of expansion should be slowing over time On the other hand, a material collapse tends to accelerate over time so this favors contraction model and this is one of several clues that something is wrong.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 798
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby bangstrom on March 28th, 2020, 3:32 am 

hyksos » March 27th, 2020, 4:30 pm wrote:bangstrom, You have invaded this thread and you are flagrantly engaging in wholesale denial of measured evidence. You are in material breach of evidence-denial.


Can you give me an example of where I deny any of the evidence?

Or, later in the post where you claim Sandage was forced to deny his evidence. He and his group freely published their evidence with materials, methods, and observations for all to review. The debate that followed was over his interpretation of the evidence and not the evidence itself.

hyksos » March 27th, 2020, 4:30 pm wrote:
In the case of globular clusters, if there were really old ones, we would absolutely see them using today's technology.


What is the optical limit of today’s best telescopes either on Earth or in space. My understanding is that it is a little over 13 G light years so we can’t visualize older galaxies beyond that point. There are galaxies and more galaxies for as far as we can see up to the optical limit. Radiometric dating also has its limits.

hyksos » March 27th, 2020, 4:30 pm wrote: If the situation were as you describe, the milky way would be age 0, and more distant galaxies would "get older" scaling with their distances. That is ridiculous. There is nothing prohibiting a very ancient "red-and-dead" galaxy being right next door to us. There is nothing stopping that from happening. Also, the milky way has an age too, and it's not zero. People reading this thread , (perhaps yourself too) may now wonder how old the Milky Way is. In an atmosphere of Big Bang denialism, one might suppose the Milky Way is suspiciously young for a galaxy. Unfortunately, the briefest google search will shoot that down quick.

I do wonder how old the Milky Way is, beyond that, I have no idea what you are saying.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 798
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby BurtJordaan on March 28th, 2020, 6:43 am 

bangstrom » 28 Mar 2020, 09:07 wrote:Arthur Eddington explained long ago that a universe of constant radius but with a shrinking atomic scale is the mathematical and conceptual equivalent of an expanding universe. One is the simple inverse of the other. That is, when we measure the universe from within, we can’t tell if the universe is expanding or if all the material within is growing smaller and the two conditions are equivalent so we can interpret our observations either way. One possibility is a theory of expansion and the other is a theory of inverse expansion and, from our inside view, the two are the same phenomenon viewed from a different perspective.

If Eddington ever said that, he was either waffling, or it was long before he could have understood what was going on. He died before the discovery of the CMB, but how do you reckon he would have explained the CMB and the structure formation in a shrinking universe?

As Hyksos has asked, please do not hijack this thread and drag it back into the dark ages of cosmology. Skepticism is fine, but let's use the latest, not the pre-scientific-era of cosmology.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby bangstrom on March 28th, 2020, 5:48 pm 

BurtJordaan » March 28th, 2020, 5:43 am wrote:
If Eddington ever said that, he was either waffling, or it was long before he could have understood what was going on. He died before the discovery of the CMB, but how do you reckon he would have explained the CMB and the structure formation in a shrinking universe?


Eddington and others of his time were aware of the CMB only at the time it was referred to as the “temperature of space”. Early radio experimenters knew the microwave band where we find the CMB was useless for communication because of interference in that region of the RF spectrum. The article I cited earlier:

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pr ... 2N3ASS.PDF

discusses some of Eddington’s writings and calculations about the topic starting on the second page of the article (p.80). The CMB at that time was known as the “temperature of space” and it was thought to be energy from the stars being absorbed by non-luminous matter (dust and gasses) far from any local stars and then re-radiated back into space at the equilibrium temper of deep space just a few degrees above Kelvin.
This is why I asked, If the CMB is relic energy from the Big Bang, then what happened to the energy from the stars?

Christof Wetterich has a recently published cosmology of a non-expanding universe composed of atoms that are diminishing in size but increasing in mass. His CMB is what he calls “dark energy” which is the same as Eddington’s “temperature of space” where non-luminous matter is re-radiating energy that originally came from the stars so this is not just “pre-scientific” cosmology.
https://www.thphys.uni-heidelberg.de/~w ... .Cosmology
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 798
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby socrat44 on March 28th, 2020, 9:28 pm 

Before the Big Bang had a ''day with No yesterday'',
would the Big Bang have a ''day with No tomorrow ''?
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 463
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby BurtJordaan on March 29th, 2020, 4:34 am 

bangstrom » 28 Mar 2020, 23:48 wrote:This is why I asked, If the CMB is relic energy from the Big Bang, then what happened to the energy from the stars?

In the standard model, cosmic expansion redshifted the starlight out of contention. The redshifted CMB today still has orders of magnitude more intensity than all the starlight put together. Without expansion, we would have fried, not only by starlight, but predominantly by the CMB radiation.

bangstrom wrote: Christof Wetterich has a recently published cosmology of a non-expanding universe composed of atoms that are diminishing in size but increasing in mass.

In contrast to the ineffectual Apeiron 1995 paper, the 2013 one by prof. Wetterlich that you have quoted is indeed recent and scientific, judged by his preprint: 'A Universe without expansion' being accepted in Arxiv.

AFAIK it has not yet passed peer review (i.e. not published in a mainstream journal), but it seems that cosmologists did take notice of it. I have just scanned through the paper, but will give it a read later and post my comments.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby bangstrom on March 29th, 2020, 2:55 pm 

BurtJordaan » March 29th, 2020, 3:34 am wrote:
In the standard model, cosmic expansion redshifted the starlight out of contention.

Starlight can not be redshifted out of contention because it is being continuously recycled.

I can’t imagine that the CMB radiation has existed for billions of years in its pristine condition except for being redshifted by expansion. That may be possible for an energy source now but not at an earlier time when expansion theory tells us that matter was enormously more concentrated. The radiation of recombination must have been absorbed by early matter and re-radiated as starlight. Or, from the present perspective, stars and all forms of matter are now 2.73 K warmer than they would be without the CMB radiation but they are radiating that energy back into space much higher up the spectrum.

The theoretical origin of the CMB from starlight is that bits of matter or clouds of gasses in deep intergalactic space exist at an ambient temperature just a little above absolute. They are warmed slightly by distant starlight and then radiate this energy back into space at 2.73 K which is the background radiation formerly known as the the “temperature of space”.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 798
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby BurtJordaan on March 30th, 2020, 6:06 am 

bangstrom » 29 Mar 2020, 20:55 wrote:
BurtJordaan » March 29th, 2020, 3:34 am wrote:
In the standard model, cosmic expansion redshifted the starlight out of contention.

Starlight can not be redshifted out of contention because it is being continuously recycled.

CMB photons outnumber all other types of photons by more than 200:1
See:https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/196366/does-the-number-density-of-photons-n-gamma-approx-108-mathrm-m-3-refer) or the references contain therein. Do check the logarithmic scale graphics lower down in the article.

I think you misunderstand what the standard model says. The CMB radiation is also perpetually "replenished", because we see farther as time goes on, bringing in continuous fresh areas of photon emission from the original recombination.

Yes those CMB photons are reshifted, but so is the starlight, which is less than 1% of the total today. So the CMB is not predominantly re-radiated starlight.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2865
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby curiosity on March 30th, 2020, 8:17 pm 

TheVat » March 27th, 2020, 5:27 pm wrote:Observational analysis of 1a supernovae from last year that questions dark energy as a dominant role in cosmic expansion.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.04597

Here's a plain language explanation of the implications from my favorite physicist...

https://youtu.be/oqgKXQM8FpU


I can quite understand why she is a favorite of yours... She is unbiased and tells it the way she sees it.
I feel much better about my own stance on the subject after watching the video and listening to what she had to say.
curiosity
Member
 
Posts: 406
Joined: 19 Jul 2012


Re: Big Bang cosmology

Postby socrat44 on March 31st, 2020, 5:22 am 

Big Bang -- the cosmic microwave background radiation --
-- the 1978 Nobel Prize. Nobody can deny the existence of CMBR.
===
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 463
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Next

Return to Astronomy & Cosmology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests