| Author |
Message
|
| kojax |
 Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:04 am Post subject: BBT question: What is there beyond CMBR and Redshift? |
 |
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 961
|
I always hear about the CMBR and the Hubble Redshift when discussing the likelihood of the Big Bang Theory. What other confirmations are there? I mean: if those two things don't convince me, is there more evidence that I should be aware of?
People who I discuss it with always seem to suggest that there's more, but often without exactly specifying what. Is this a bluff, or is there a lot more to the picture than I am aware of? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Arch2008 |
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 177
|
Radio astronomers have shown that the galaxies were closer in the past.
Gamow/Alpher showed that the amount of light elements in the universe equals the BBT prediction.
These elements could initially only have been made from the Big Bang.
General Relativity shows that the universe must contract or expand. Itâs expanding.
Quite simply, the math. CMBR and redshift arenât hand waiving. No one ever says, âI just donât believe in arithmetic or those âeekwashunsâ.â
As Alan Guth said, âBasically, if you doubt the Big Bang, then you are a crackpot.â |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1216
|
From a crackpot; Think that comment was made to Fred Hoyle who was anything but a crackpot...
kojax; Another primary reason given a need for a created Universe, is the distribution of elements. Their thought is that is the U was ageless, it should be showing signs or have died a freezing or heated death or have done so eons ago. To justify this non apparent ending or any real signs through the billions of years of seen history (telescope observations) the BBT, took on added life.
The consistency of reasonably clear observation (about 10BLY in all direction), indicates a rather consistent and orderly process for regeneration of matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Arch2008 |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 177
|
Guth made that statement on the history channel's show "The Universe" and I think it was directed at all crackpots in general.
BTW, the universe does not regenerate matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 2082
Location: South Africa
|
I always wondered: Let's say a very large amount of matter was created in a relatively small volume through mechanisms suggested by self creation cosmology, i.e. Virtual particle pairs. The sheer amount of matter could then clump together under gravity and annihilate, creating a huge amount of photons that could create new particles, similar to as predicted by the early big bang universe. Would that be possible? I know that such large pair production events are extremely unlikey, but with an infinity to work with, it might have happened?
_________________
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Arch2008 |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 177
|
| Well, a large amount of matter doesnât âself createâ in the existing universe. Virtual particle pairs take energy from space and then recombine and annihilate back into the original amount of energy. Also, the universe is finite, so you donât have an infinity to work with. The early universe got a tremendous energy boost from the separation of the Superforce that changed the virtual particles into real particles. So, no, what you suggest wouldnât be possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 2082
Location: South Africa
|
| Arch2008 wrote: |
| Well, a large amount of matter doesnt self create in the existing universe. Virtual particle pairs take energy from space and then recombine and annihilate back into the original amount of energy. Also, the universe is finite, so you dont have an infinity to work with. The early universe got a tremendous energy boost from the separation of the Superforce that changed the virtual particles into real particles. So, no, what you suggest wouldnt be possible. |
I am trying to think of a way for the expanding of space to be compatible with an infinite universe, both in time and space. If I am not mistaken, SSU theory chalanges the explanations for CMBR redshift provided by BBU? Suppose that an alternate explanation for the expansion itself could be found ( I don't want to hijack the thread completely), would my premise be possible with an infinite time available for it to happen? There are quite a few theories, AFAIK, that could in principle at least statistically allow for such a mass creation event given enough time, no?
_________________
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1216
|
Fred Hoyle, tried to explain BBT's for an expanding U, by suggesting inflation as a cause. The inflation caused by slow but steady formation of hydrogen atoms over eons in time. The above mention Allen Guth, had his own ideas on inflation, but under BBT.
An expanding U, at the rates suggested almost requires a force and where 'Dark Matter/Energy is being given credit. Hoyle's idea would allow for increased expansion, as the U matter occupied more and more, increasing circumference, but illogical to suggested rates.
KALSTER; I may be wrong, but I think your trying to bring 'String Theory' into a mix of either BBT or SSU, neither of which could be....IMO.
Arch; The process after a stars formation to its death and the next generation of a star, under any principle, is regeneration. Under BBT our star is said by most a second or third generation. If your promoting BBT, which granted is the accepted theory, each generation should be less and less in size to a point where there is not enough hydrogen to produce the needed mass for ignition. As YOU have said, matter (elements) can break down, which should mean the availability of Hydrogen should never run out, or that hydrogen itself breaks down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Arch2008 |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 177
|
Actually, the Steady State universe challenged the Big Bang universe model. The CMBR was evidence for the BB and it, along with other evidence, closed the door on the SS.
When something is found to be impossible (the self creation of matter from nothing in the existing universe), then it is infinitely impossible. When we prove that 1+1=2 and not something else, then there isnât a point in an infinite future where an alternate explanation suddenly makes 1+1=3.
A theory is something that has evidence that it is correct. A hypothesis is a statement that has no evidence. Many hypotheses exist for the creation of the universe, but there is only one theory.
Jackson-Hydrogen is running out. Its being fused into bigger elements. Something that runs out, is not regenerating. The protons in everything will also 'run out' and not regenerate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| jackson33 |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Oct 2006
Posts: 1216
|
Long before Hoyle, an 'eternal U', basic SST, was the accepted view of the Universe. BBT a 'spontaneous beginning' for the U, was first mentioned probably in Hindu Mythology 1500 BC or so and then in the 16th century by both Catholic and Muslim teachings. Both existed as possible and neither was universally accepted. For the sake of argument, I have acknowledged the acceptance of BB, but do not agree that SSU is toast.
We do NOT know exactly how a star is formed, what process happens for ignition or how elements react under those conditions. Under BBT and Nucleosynthysis we can surmise, elements did form from other than natural cause, even using the word 'plasma'. I prefer to think of the U as having a finite supply of atoms or what makes up an atom, so have to think regeneration. To me its illogical to think anything that forms (fuse), regardless of conditions could never break down or the decay process ends at some level above the atom. Helium freezes at under 3K and Hydrogen above 4K (not exact), but what happens below...or what happens to other elements fused when temperatures go below there freezing levels in a vacuum in the process of decay over a billion years, two or a trillion years... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Arch2008 |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 177
|
Then you must produce real evidence that what you prefer to think isn't toast.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 961
|
I like Arch2008's responses, because he's been raising some interesting points. Some are more convincing than others.
| Arch2008 wrote: |
Radio astronomers have shown that the galaxies were closer in the past.
|
Now that is very interesting. I have often wondered about this. If it can be shown by observation that galaxies many light years away are appreciably closer together (on average) than galaxies nearer to us, that might prove something.
On the other hand, if they're orbiting one another in some sense, we might expect the expansion of space to have no effect on the distances.
| Quote: |
Gamow/Alpher showed that the amount of light elements in the universe equals the BBT prediction.
|
You mean the number of elements on average per a given area? I rather doubt we can't see all the way to the edge of the universe to confirm how many there are in total.
| Quote: |
These elements could initially only have been made from the Big Bang.
|
That's a very bold statement. It assumes there will only ever be found to exist one means of skinning the cat.
| Quote: |
General Relativity shows that the universe must contract or expand. Itâs expanding.
Quite simply, the math. CMBR and redshift arenât hand waiving. No one ever says, âI just donât believe in arithmetic or those âeekwashunsâ.â
As Alan Guth said, âBasically, if you doubt the Big Bang, then you are a crackpot.â |
I'm not sure GR *only* has the potential to be interpreted that way. What about a tapered universe? Maybe distances get greater and greater the larger the body of matter we look at.
Matter density in a solar system is a lot less than matter density on a planet. Matter density throughout a galaxy is a lot less than matter density throughout a solar system. I'm sure the same could be said of galaxy clusters, or clusters of clusters, or clusters of clusters of clusters.
If the concentration of matter were uniform throughout any infinitely sized universe, then GR requires that it would collapse in on itself, but it's clearly not uniform. The larger the scale you look at, the smaller the ratio of matter to area in your system.
| Arch2008 wrote: |
Jackson-Hydrogen is running out. Its being fused into bigger elements. Something that runs out, is not regenerating. The protons in everything will also 'run out' and not regenerate. |
Only if we assume that hydrogen formation requires a fission process to create.
Any free proton traveling through space is basically a positively charged hydrogen ion in search of an electron. A neutron is just a proton and and electron waiting to separate into an atom.
How many nuclear processes do you know of that don't throw out huge numbers of free protons and/or neutrons? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 2082
Location: South Africa
|
| Quote: |
| the self creation of matter from nothing in the existing universe |
Is this not possible through processes described by quantum mechanics, i.e. Quantum foam theory?
_________________
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Arch2008 |
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 177
|
| Interesting conjecture, but others have asked these questions without success. The obvious test for an infinitely big, infinitely old universe is that at night you should be bathed by the light of an infinite number of bright stars. Everywhere in the sky you looked, you should see an incredible starshine as bright as the surface of the Sun. But you don't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 2082
Location: South Africa
|
| Arch2008 wrote: |
| Interesting conjecture, but others have asked these questions without success. The obvious test for an infinitely big, infinitely old universe is that at night you should be bathed by the light of an infinite number of bright stars. Everywhere in the sky you looked, you should see an incredible starshine as bright as the surface of the Sun. But you don't. |
I believe some SSU proponents advance the concept of so-called “tired light” as an explanation for this, although it has never been demonstrated to my knowledge. However, I am thinking of a possible way for a sort of combination SSU-BBT theory to be possible. An infinite, both in time and space, universe wherein the unlikely, but statistically possible, creation event took place where a very large amount of matter was created in a relatively small volume and where the sheer amount of matter could then clump together under gravity and annihilate, creating a huge amount of photons that could create new particles, similar to as predicted by the early big bang universe. It would only require, according to my limited knowledge, a mechanism for expansion to occur, as this has been observed as still ongoing and indeed accelerating. This would take care of all the unanswered “what happened before/caused the big bang” questions. IMHO
_________________
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
