QWC revisited 2011
- Thread starter quantum_wave
- Start date
#3#3#3
I’m sure the popular media will let us know if anything comes along that turns Big Bang Theory upside down, lol. Maybe the talk of faster than light neutrinos will do that but it is way too early to come to any conclusion even remotely on that evidence.
Here is a Google search for “faster than light neutrinos”: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-....,cf.osb&fp=4d00a8c03c934068&biw=1280&bih=582
Here is a link that announced the finding:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos
“Faster than light particles found, claim scientists”
“Particle physicists detect neutrinos travelling faster than light, a feat forbidden by Einstein's theory of special relativity. It is a concept that forms a cornerstone of our understanding of the universe and the concept of time – nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. But now it seems that researchers working in one of the world's largest physics laboratories, under a mountain in central Italy, have recorded particles travelling at a speed that is supposedly forbidden by Einstein's theory of special relativity.”
Here is a recent link with more evidence against faster than light neutrinos:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/10/04/more-evidence-against-faster-than-light-neutrinos/
“Boston University physicists Andrew Cohen and Sheldon Glashow have just submitted a paper which casts more doubt on the claims that the OPERA team observed neutrinos that traveled faster than the speed of light. The paper, which you can read here, notes that neutrinos at the recorded energies that were travelling faster than the speed of light should be radiating particles as the neutrinos were travelling. In particular, the neutrinos should have been radiating electron-positron pairs. That process of decay would result in the particles losing substantial amounts of energy.”
This will be a hot topic until a consensus is reached as to whether there is or is not anything to it. Right now I don’t think we can consider it to be evidence of anything until it has been completely reviewed and explained.
I’m sure the popular media will let us know if anything comes along that turns Big Bang Theory upside down, lol. Maybe the talk of faster than light neutrinos will do that but it is way too early to come to any conclusion even remotely on that evidence.
Here is a Google search for “faster than light neutrinos”: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-....,cf.osb&fp=4d00a8c03c934068&biw=1280&bih=582
Here is a link that announced the finding:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/22/faster-than-light-particles-neutrinos
“Faster than light particles found, claim scientists”
“Particle physicists detect neutrinos travelling faster than light, a feat forbidden by Einstein's theory of special relativity. It is a concept that forms a cornerstone of our understanding of the universe and the concept of time – nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. But now it seems that researchers working in one of the world's largest physics laboratories, under a mountain in central Italy, have recorded particles travelling at a speed that is supposedly forbidden by Einstein's theory of special relativity.”
Here is a recent link with more evidence against faster than light neutrinos:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2011/10/04/more-evidence-against-faster-than-light-neutrinos/
“Boston University physicists Andrew Cohen and Sheldon Glashow have just submitted a paper which casts more doubt on the claims that the OPERA team observed neutrinos that traveled faster than the speed of light. The paper, which you can read here, notes that neutrinos at the recorded energies that were travelling faster than the speed of light should be radiating particles as the neutrinos were travelling. In particular, the neutrinos should have been radiating electron-positron pairs. That process of decay would result in the particles losing substantial amounts of energy.”
This will be a hot topic until a consensus is reached as to whether there is or is not anything to it. Right now I don’t think we can consider it to be evidence of anything until it has been completely reviewed and explained.
Thank you for that. I agree with the perspective. No one can deny curiosity, and speculation stems from it. Any speculation that is to be considered reasonable and responsible has to be differentiated from "idle" or "fantasy", and that distinction requires honest agents.
We all know the difference between what is natural and what is supernatural. The supernatural is excluded from the scientific method but how many will agree that a discussion of preconditions to the big bang is reasonable. Certainly no one that believes BBT is reality. They will automatically call speculation about preconditions "fairy dust", lol.
They don't qualify for this discussion of preconditions on that basis.
#4#4#4
So let’s get to the speculation. If we observe what we call a big bang arena, the one we are in and part of, can any reasonable and responsible speculation about preconditions be drawn from that observation?
How about speculation that our arena is not the only one? If one big bang arena can exist why would we think that it has to be the only one? The speculation up for discussion is this:
Is it reasonable to speculate that there might be other arenas within the landscape of the greater universe? Answer: Of course it is reasonable.
Thought starter: What preconditions would be consistent with the existence of other arenas?
Here is a Google link to “alternative cosmology”: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=21&....,cf.osb&fp=4d00a8c03c934068&biw=1280&bih=582
Here is the Wiki page that comes up. You can see that the topic has some content for review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology
“Non-standard cosmologies can be grouped according to the assumptions or the features of the big bang universe which they contradict.
[edit] Alternative metric cosmologies
The Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric that is necessary for the Big Bang and steady state models emerged in the decade after the development of Einstein's general relativity and was accepted as a model for the universe after Edwin Hubble's discovery of his eponymous law. It was not clear early on how to find a "universe solution" to Einstein's equations that allowed for a universe that was infinite, unending, and immutable (scientists of the time assumed for philosophical reasons the universe should have such a character). Even after the development of expanding universe theories, people would engage in this exercise from time to time when looking for a replacement for general relativity. Any alternative theory of gravity would imply immediately an alternative cosmological theory since current modeling is dependent on general relativity as a framework assumption. What is included are a number of models based on alternative gravitational scenarios as well as early attempts to derive cosmological solutions from relativity.
[edit] Newtonian cosmology
Main article: Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric#Newtonian approximation
While not seriously advocated by anyone after Einstein's development of relativity, Newtonian gravity can be used to model the universe and non-rigorously derive the Friedmann equations that are used in the big bang universe. This non-standard cosmology is mostly used as an elementary exercise for astronomy and physics students and doesn't represent a serious alternative proposal.
[edit] Lorentzian universes
Main article: Milne model
Before the complete development of general relativity, Arthur Milne offered a cosmology based on Lorentz transformations which had the feature of being applicable to a universe of any scale. It relied on a rejection of the curvature of space and so contradicted predictions from general relativity about the shape of the universe caused by the mass it contains. Milne's universe is still used today as a model of a hypothetical "empty universe".
[edit] Early general relativity based cosmologies
See also: static universe and De Sitter universe
Before the present general relativistic cosmological model was developed, Albert Einstein proposed a way to dynamically stabilize a cosmological scenario that would necessarily collapse in on itself due to the gravitational attraction[citation needed] of the matter constituents in the universe. Such a universe would need a source of "anti-gravity" to balance out the mutual attraction[citation needed], a scalar term in Einstein's equations that would come to be known as the cosmological constant. Einstein's first attempt at modeling relied on a cosmological constant that was finely tuned to exactly balance out matter curvature and provide a framework for an infinite and unchanging spacetime metric in which the objects of the universe were embedded. This happens to be the same as a special case of the current cosmological model where the cosmic scale factor is unchanging and the density seen in the Friedman equations is equally divided between the cosmological constant and matter.
Willem de Sitter would later generalize Einstein's scalar potential model to a universe model that would expand exponentially. As the early development of the Big Bang theory began, DeSitter would be falsely credited for inventing the expanding universe metric because of this. In reality, it was the work of Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaitre who established the metric that would come to be the most accepted for cosmology. Nevertheless, DeSitter's model appears in two places today: in the discussion of cosmic inflation and in the discussion of dark energy dominated universes.
[edit] Machian universe
See also: Mach's principle and Brans-Dicke theory
Ernst Mach developed a kind of extension to general relativity which proposed that inertia was due to gravitational effects of the mass distribution of the universe. This led naturally to speculation about the cosmological implications for such a proposal. Carl Brans and Robert Dicke were able to successfully incorporate Mach's principle into general relativity which admitted for cosmological solutions that would imply a variable mass. The homogeneously distributed mass of the universe would result in a roughly scalar field that permeated the universe and would serve as a source for Newton's gravitational constant; creating a theory of quantum gravity.
[edit] Gödel's universe
Main article: Gödel metric
Partly as a counter-example to Mach's principle, Kurt Gödel found a solution to the Einstein field equations describing a universe with a non-zero angular momentum. This cosmology contained closed timelike curves; a signal or object starting from an event in such a universe could return to the same event. Einstein was unsatisfied with the implications of this and abandoned his hope for incorporating Mach's Principle into general relativity. Because of this effect, astronomers can in principle put limits on the rotation rate of the universe which today is measured to be close enough to zero that no cosmological implications should be expected.
[edit] MOND
Main article: Modified Newtonian Dynamics
Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) is a relatively modern proposal to explain the galaxy rotation problem based on a variation of Newton's Second Law of Dynamics at low accelerations. This would produce a large-scale variation of Newton's universal theory of gravity. A modification of Newton's theory would also imply a modification of general relativistic cosmology in as much as Newtonian cosmology is the limit of Friedman cosmology. While almost all astrophysicists today reject MOND in favor of dark matter, a small number of researchers continue to enhance it, recently incorporating Brans-Dicke theories into treatments that attempt to account for cosmological observations.
[edit] TeVeS
Main article: TeVeS
Tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS) is a proposed relativistic theory that is equivalent to Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) in the non-relativistic limit, which purports to explain the galaxy rotation problem without invoking dark matter. Originated by Jacob Bekenstein in 2004, it incorporates various dynamical and non-dynamical tensor fields, vector fields and scalar fields.
The break-through of TeVeS over MOND is that it can explain the phenomenon of gravitational lensing, a cosmic optical illusion in which matter bends light, which has been confirmed many times. A recent preliminary finding is that it can explain structure formation without CDM, but requiring a ~2eV massive neutrino (They are also required to fit some Clusters of galaxies, including Bullet Cluster) [1] and [2]. However, other authors (see Slosar, Melchiorri and Silk [3]) claim that TeVeS can't explain cosmic microwave background anisotropies and structure formation at the same time, i.e. ruling out those models at high significance.
[edit] Steady state theories
Main article: Steady-state theory
The Steady state theory was proposed in 1948 by Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi and others as an alternative to the Big Bang theory that modified the homogeneity assumption of the cosmological principle to reflect a homogeneity in time as well as in space. This "perfect cosmological principle" as it would come to be called predicted a universe that expanded but did not change its density. In order to accomplish this, steady state cosmology had to posit a "matter-creation field" (the so called C-field) that would insert matter into the universe in order to maintain a constant density.
The idea was almost immediately attacked by proponents of the Big Bang who described the C-field as contradictory to a consistent understanding of physics. Hoyle, one of the most vocal proponents of the steady state model, and a committed materialist, believed that the competing, older model was forced as it violated fundamental philosophical principles regarding the infinite nature of existence. Hoyle explicitly warned that the Big Bang was being promoted as a first cause dogma in line with Western theology rather than science. To attack the connection, Hoyle began a public campaign to discredit the Big Bang theory and wound up coining the term "Big Bang" which remains stuck to the standard cosmological theory today, though the descriptive quality of the name has heavily been criticized as being misleading.[2]
The debate between the Big Bang and the Steady State models would happen for 15 years with camps roughly evenly divided until the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation. This radiation is a natural feature of the Big Bang model which demands a "time of last scattering" where photons decouple with baryonic matter. The Steady State model proposed that this radiation could be accounted for by so-called "integrated starlight" which was a background caused in part by Olbers' paradox in an infinite universe. In order to account for the uniformity of the background, steady state proponents posited a fog effect associated with microscopic iron particles that would scatter radio waves in such a manner as to produce an isotropic CMB. The proposed phenomena was whimsically named "cosmic iron whiskers" and served as the thermalization mechanism. The Steady State theory did not have the horizon problem of the Big Bang because it assumed an infinite amount of time was available for thermalizing the background.
As more cosmological data began to be collected, cosmologists began to realize that the Big Bang correctly predicted the abundance of light elements observed in the cosmos. What was a coincidental ratio of hydrogen to deuterium and helium in the steady state model was a feature of the Big Bang model. Additionally, detailed measurements of the CMB beginning in the 1990s indicated that the spectrum of the background was closer to a blackbody than any other source in nature. The best integrated starlight models could predict was a thermalization to the level of 10% while the COBE satellite measured the deviation at one part in 105. After this dramatic discovery, the majority of cosmologists became convinced that the steady state theory could not explain the cosmological observations as well as the Big Bang. Since that time, detailed observations of WMAP have isolated a standard Lambda-CDM model which relates the anisotropies in the CMB to features in the universe such as large-scale structure, the detailed nature of Hubble's Law, and even bizarre features such as inflation, dark energy, and cold dark matter.
Although the original steady state model is now considered to be contrary to observations even by its one-time supporters, a modification of the steady state model has been proposed, which envisions the universe as originating through many little bangs rather than one big bang. It supposes that the Universe goes through periodic expansion and contraction phases, with a soft "rebound" in place of the Big Bang. Thus the redshift is explained by the fact that the Universe is currently in an expansion phase. A handful of remaining steady state theorists (most famously Jayant V. Narlikar) continue to insist that the intergalactic medium contains cosmic iron whiskers. However, there is still no corroborating observational evidence for the existence of these iron particles.
[End of Wiki quote]
Strangely enough, none of the alternatives seem to have a footing that would make then candidates to overtake the existing Big Bang Theory consensus. And preconditions are missing accept for steady state cosmologies, but the Steady-state Theory described above in the main article is not the only possibility for a steady state model and in fact has some pretty obvious flaws as pointed out. The other stead state version I call Iron Whiskers is a cyclical stead state which also has flaws, one of which is that each cycle will inevitably emit energy that cannot be recalled for the following crunch/bang, and as a result it will eventually not be able to recall enough energy to bang at all.
If you agree that there were preconditions to our big bang, are you willing to specify some particulars about the preconditions that would characterize a model that you would consider to replace Big Bang Theory?
So let’s get to the speculation. If we observe what we call a big bang arena, the one we are in and part of, can any reasonable and responsible speculation about preconditions be drawn from that observation?
How about speculation that our arena is not the only one? If one big bang arena can exist why would we think that it has to be the only one? The speculation up for discussion is this:
Is it reasonable to speculate that there might be other arenas within the landscape of the greater universe? Answer: Of course it is reasonable.
Thought starter: What preconditions would be consistent with the existence of other arenas?
Here is a Google link to “alternative cosmology”: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=21&....,cf.osb&fp=4d00a8c03c934068&biw=1280&bih=582
Here is the Wiki page that comes up. You can see that the topic has some content for review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology
“Non-standard cosmologies can be grouped according to the assumptions or the features of the big bang universe which they contradict.
[edit] Alternative metric cosmologies
The Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric that is necessary for the Big Bang and steady state models emerged in the decade after the development of Einstein's general relativity and was accepted as a model for the universe after Edwin Hubble's discovery of his eponymous law. It was not clear early on how to find a "universe solution" to Einstein's equations that allowed for a universe that was infinite, unending, and immutable (scientists of the time assumed for philosophical reasons the universe should have such a character). Even after the development of expanding universe theories, people would engage in this exercise from time to time when looking for a replacement for general relativity. Any alternative theory of gravity would imply immediately an alternative cosmological theory since current modeling is dependent on general relativity as a framework assumption. What is included are a number of models based on alternative gravitational scenarios as well as early attempts to derive cosmological solutions from relativity.
[edit] Newtonian cosmology
Main article: Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric#Newtonian approximation
While not seriously advocated by anyone after Einstein's development of relativity, Newtonian gravity can be used to model the universe and non-rigorously derive the Friedmann equations that are used in the big bang universe. This non-standard cosmology is mostly used as an elementary exercise for astronomy and physics students and doesn't represent a serious alternative proposal.
[edit] Lorentzian universes
Main article: Milne model
Before the complete development of general relativity, Arthur Milne offered a cosmology based on Lorentz transformations which had the feature of being applicable to a universe of any scale. It relied on a rejection of the curvature of space and so contradicted predictions from general relativity about the shape of the universe caused by the mass it contains. Milne's universe is still used today as a model of a hypothetical "empty universe".
[edit] Early general relativity based cosmologies
See also: static universe and De Sitter universe
Before the present general relativistic cosmological model was developed, Albert Einstein proposed a way to dynamically stabilize a cosmological scenario that would necessarily collapse in on itself due to the gravitational attraction[citation needed] of the matter constituents in the universe. Such a universe would need a source of "anti-gravity" to balance out the mutual attraction[citation needed], a scalar term in Einstein's equations that would come to be known as the cosmological constant. Einstein's first attempt at modeling relied on a cosmological constant that was finely tuned to exactly balance out matter curvature and provide a framework for an infinite and unchanging spacetime metric in which the objects of the universe were embedded. This happens to be the same as a special case of the current cosmological model where the cosmic scale factor is unchanging and the density seen in the Friedman equations is equally divided between the cosmological constant and matter.
Willem de Sitter would later generalize Einstein's scalar potential model to a universe model that would expand exponentially. As the early development of the Big Bang theory began, DeSitter would be falsely credited for inventing the expanding universe metric because of this. In reality, it was the work of Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaitre who established the metric that would come to be the most accepted for cosmology. Nevertheless, DeSitter's model appears in two places today: in the discussion of cosmic inflation and in the discussion of dark energy dominated universes.
[edit] Machian universe
See also: Mach's principle and Brans-Dicke theory
Ernst Mach developed a kind of extension to general relativity which proposed that inertia was due to gravitational effects of the mass distribution of the universe. This led naturally to speculation about the cosmological implications for such a proposal. Carl Brans and Robert Dicke were able to successfully incorporate Mach's principle into general relativity which admitted for cosmological solutions that would imply a variable mass. The homogeneously distributed mass of the universe would result in a roughly scalar field that permeated the universe and would serve as a source for Newton's gravitational constant; creating a theory of quantum gravity.
[edit] Gödel's universe
Main article: Gödel metric
Partly as a counter-example to Mach's principle, Kurt Gödel found a solution to the Einstein field equations describing a universe with a non-zero angular momentum. This cosmology contained closed timelike curves; a signal or object starting from an event in such a universe could return to the same event. Einstein was unsatisfied with the implications of this and abandoned his hope for incorporating Mach's Principle into general relativity. Because of this effect, astronomers can in principle put limits on the rotation rate of the universe which today is measured to be close enough to zero that no cosmological implications should be expected.
[edit] MOND
Main article: Modified Newtonian Dynamics
Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) is a relatively modern proposal to explain the galaxy rotation problem based on a variation of Newton's Second Law of Dynamics at low accelerations. This would produce a large-scale variation of Newton's universal theory of gravity. A modification of Newton's theory would also imply a modification of general relativistic cosmology in as much as Newtonian cosmology is the limit of Friedman cosmology. While almost all astrophysicists today reject MOND in favor of dark matter, a small number of researchers continue to enhance it, recently incorporating Brans-Dicke theories into treatments that attempt to account for cosmological observations.
[edit] TeVeS
Main article: TeVeS
Tensor-vector-scalar gravity (TeVeS) is a proposed relativistic theory that is equivalent to Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) in the non-relativistic limit, which purports to explain the galaxy rotation problem without invoking dark matter. Originated by Jacob Bekenstein in 2004, it incorporates various dynamical and non-dynamical tensor fields, vector fields and scalar fields.
The break-through of TeVeS over MOND is that it can explain the phenomenon of gravitational lensing, a cosmic optical illusion in which matter bends light, which has been confirmed many times. A recent preliminary finding is that it can explain structure formation without CDM, but requiring a ~2eV massive neutrino (They are also required to fit some Clusters of galaxies, including Bullet Cluster) [1] and [2]. However, other authors (see Slosar, Melchiorri and Silk [3]) claim that TeVeS can't explain cosmic microwave background anisotropies and structure formation at the same time, i.e. ruling out those models at high significance.
[edit] Steady state theories
Main article: Steady-state theory
The Steady state theory was proposed in 1948 by Fred Hoyle, Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi and others as an alternative to the Big Bang theory that modified the homogeneity assumption of the cosmological principle to reflect a homogeneity in time as well as in space. This "perfect cosmological principle" as it would come to be called predicted a universe that expanded but did not change its density. In order to accomplish this, steady state cosmology had to posit a "matter-creation field" (the so called C-field) that would insert matter into the universe in order to maintain a constant density.
The idea was almost immediately attacked by proponents of the Big Bang who described the C-field as contradictory to a consistent understanding of physics. Hoyle, one of the most vocal proponents of the steady state model, and a committed materialist, believed that the competing, older model was forced as it violated fundamental philosophical principles regarding the infinite nature of existence. Hoyle explicitly warned that the Big Bang was being promoted as a first cause dogma in line with Western theology rather than science. To attack the connection, Hoyle began a public campaign to discredit the Big Bang theory and wound up coining the term "Big Bang" which remains stuck to the standard cosmological theory today, though the descriptive quality of the name has heavily been criticized as being misleading.[2]
The debate between the Big Bang and the Steady State models would happen for 15 years with camps roughly evenly divided until the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation. This radiation is a natural feature of the Big Bang model which demands a "time of last scattering" where photons decouple with baryonic matter. The Steady State model proposed that this radiation could be accounted for by so-called "integrated starlight" which was a background caused in part by Olbers' paradox in an infinite universe. In order to account for the uniformity of the background, steady state proponents posited a fog effect associated with microscopic iron particles that would scatter radio waves in such a manner as to produce an isotropic CMB. The proposed phenomena was whimsically named "cosmic iron whiskers" and served as the thermalization mechanism. The Steady State theory did not have the horizon problem of the Big Bang because it assumed an infinite amount of time was available for thermalizing the background.
As more cosmological data began to be collected, cosmologists began to realize that the Big Bang correctly predicted the abundance of light elements observed in the cosmos. What was a coincidental ratio of hydrogen to deuterium and helium in the steady state model was a feature of the Big Bang model. Additionally, detailed measurements of the CMB beginning in the 1990s indicated that the spectrum of the background was closer to a blackbody than any other source in nature. The best integrated starlight models could predict was a thermalization to the level of 10% while the COBE satellite measured the deviation at one part in 105. After this dramatic discovery, the majority of cosmologists became convinced that the steady state theory could not explain the cosmological observations as well as the Big Bang. Since that time, detailed observations of WMAP have isolated a standard Lambda-CDM model which relates the anisotropies in the CMB to features in the universe such as large-scale structure, the detailed nature of Hubble's Law, and even bizarre features such as inflation, dark energy, and cold dark matter.
Although the original steady state model is now considered to be contrary to observations even by its one-time supporters, a modification of the steady state model has been proposed, which envisions the universe as originating through many little bangs rather than one big bang. It supposes that the Universe goes through periodic expansion and contraction phases, with a soft "rebound" in place of the Big Bang. Thus the redshift is explained by the fact that the Universe is currently in an expansion phase. A handful of remaining steady state theorists (most famously Jayant V. Narlikar) continue to insist that the intergalactic medium contains cosmic iron whiskers. However, there is still no corroborating observational evidence for the existence of these iron particles.
[End of Wiki quote]
Strangely enough, none of the alternatives seem to have a footing that would make then candidates to overtake the existing Big Bang Theory consensus. And preconditions are missing accept for steady state cosmologies, but the Steady-state Theory described above in the main article is not the only possibility for a steady state model and in fact has some pretty obvious flaws as pointed out. The other stead state version I call Iron Whiskers is a cyclical stead state which also has flaws, one of which is that each cycle will inevitably emit energy that cannot be recalled for the following crunch/bang, and as a result it will eventually not be able to recall enough energy to bang at all.
If you agree that there were preconditions to our big bang, are you willing to specify some particulars about the preconditions that would characterize a model that you would consider to replace Big Bang Theory?
#5#5#5
The Alternative Cosmologies Wiki I linked to in post #4 also offered some proposals based on observational skepticism:
Proposals based on observational skepticism
As the observational cosmology began to develop, certain astronomers began to offer alternative speculations regarding the interpretation of various phenomena that occasionally became parts of non-standard cosmologies.
[edit] Tired light
Main article: tired light
The tired light effect was proposed by Fritz Zwicky in 1929 as a possible alternative explanation for the observed cosmological redshift. The basic proposal amounted to light losing energy ("getting tired") due to the distance it traveled rather than any metric expansion or physical recession of sources from observers. A traditional explanation of this effect was to attribute a dynamical friction to photons; the photons' gravitational interactions with stars and other material will progressively reduce their momentum, thus producing a redshift. Other proposals for explaining how photons could lose energy included the scattering of light by intervening material in a process similar to observed interstellar reddening. However, all these processes would also tend to blur images of distant objects, and no such blurring has been detected.[3]
Traditional tired light has been found incompatible with the observed time dilation that is associated with the cosmological redshift. This idea is mostly remembered as a falsified alternative explanation for Hubble's Law in most astronomy or cosmology discussions.
[edit] Dirac large numbers hypothesis
Main article: Dirac large numbers hypothesis
The Dirac large numbers hypothesis uses the ratio of the size of the visible universe to the radius of quantum particle to predict the age of the universe. The coincidence of various ratios being close in order of magnitude may ultimately prove meaningless or the indication of a deeper connection between concepts in a future theory of everything. Nevertheless, attempts to use such ideas have been criticized as numerology.
[edit] Redshift periodicity and intrinsic redshifts
See also: redshift quantization
A minority of astrophysicists has been unconvinced that the cosmological redshifts are associated with a universal cosmological expansion. Skepticism and alternative explanations began appearing in the scientific literature in the 1960s. In particular, Geoffrey Burbidge, William Tifft and Halton Arp were all observational astrophysicists who proposed that there were inconsistencies in the redshift observations of galaxies and quasars. The first two were famous for suggesting that there were periodicities in the redshift distributions of galaxies and quasars. Close statistical analyses of redshift surveys today seem to indicate that there is no more periodicity than can be accounted for by large-scale structure of the cosmos.
During the quasar controversies of the 1970s, these same astronomers were also of the opinion that quasars exhibited high redshifts not due to their incredible distance but rather due to unexplained intrinsic redshift mechanisms that would cause the periodicities and cast doubt on the Big Bang. Arguments over how distant quasars were took the form of debates surrounding quasar energy production mechanisms, their light curves, and whether quasars exhibited any proper motion. Astronomers who believed quasars were not at cosmological distances argued that the Eddington luminosity set limits on how distant the quasars could be since the energy output required to explain the apparent brightness of cosmologically-distant quasars was far too high to be explainable by nuclear fusion alone. This objection was made moot by the improved models of gravity-powered accretion disks which for sufficiently dense material (such as black holes) can be more efficient at energy production than nuclear reactions. The controversy was laid to rest by the 1990s when evidence became available that indicated quasars were actually the ultra-luminous cores of distant active galactic nuclei and that the major components of their redshift were in fact due to the Hubble flow.
Halton Arp continues to maintain that there are anomalies in his observing of quasars and galaxies that serve as a refutation of the Big Bang. Arp has made observations of correlations between quasars and (relatively) nearby AGN claiming that clusters of quasars have been observed in alignment around AGN cores. Arp believes that quasars originate as very high redshift objects ejected from the nuclei of active galaxies and gradually lose their non-cosmological redshift component as they evolve into galaxies.[4] This stands in stark contradiction to the accepted models of galaxy formation.
The biggest problem with Arp's analysis is that today there are tens of thousands of quasars with known redshifts discovered by various sky surveys. The vast majority of these quasars are not correlated in any way with nearby AGN. Indeed, with improved observing techniques, a number of host galaxies have been observed around quasars which indicates that those quasars at least really are at cosmological distances and are not the kind of objects Arp proposes.[5] Arp's analysis, according to most scientists, suffers from being based on small number statistics and hunting for peculiar coincidences and odd associations.[citation needed] In a vast universe such as our own, peculiarities and oddities are bound to appear if one looks in enough places. Unbiased samples of sources, taken from numerous galaxy surveys of the sky show none of the proposed 'irregularities' nor any statistically significant correlations exist.[citation needed]
In addition, it is not clear what mechanism would be responsible for intrinsic redshifts or their gradual dissipation over time. It is also unclear how nearby quasars would explain some features in the spectrum of quasars which the standard model easily explains. In the standard cosmology, clouds of neutral hydrogen between the quasar and the earth create Lyman alpha absorption lines having different redshifts up to that of the quasar itself; this feature is called the Lyman-alpha forest. Moreover, in extreme quasars one can observe the absorption of neutral hydrogen which has not yet been reionized in a feature known as the Gunn-Peterson trough. Most cosmologists see this missing theoretical work as sufficient reason to explain the observations as either chance or error.[6]
Halton Arp has proposed an explanation for his observations by a Machian "variable mass hypothesis".[7] The variable-mass theory invokes constant matter creation from active galactic nuclei, which puts it into the class of steady-state theories.
[edit] Plasma cosmology and ambiplasma
Main article: plasma cosmology
In 1965, Hannes Alfvén proposed a "plasma cosmology" theory of the universe based in part on scaling observations of astrophysical plasmas from in situ space physics experiments and plasmas from terrestrial laboratories to cosmological scales orders-of-magnitude greater.[8] Utilizing matter-antimatter symmetry as a starting point, Alfvén suggested that the fact that since most of the local universe was composed of matter and not antimatter there may be large bubbles of matter and antimatter that would globally balance to equality (in what he termed an "ambiplasma"). The difficulties with this model were apparent almost immediately. Matter-antimatter annihilation results in the production of high energy photons which were not observed. While it was possible that the local "matter-dominated" cell was simply larger than the observable universe, this proposition did not lend itself to observational tests.
Like the steady state theory, plasma cosmology includes a Strong Cosmological Principle which assumes that the universe is isotropic in time as well as in space. Matter is explicitly assumed to have always existed, or at least that it formed at a time so far in the past as to be forever beyond humanity's empirical methods of investigation.
While plasma cosmology has never had the support of most astronomers or physicists, a small number of plasma researchers have continued to promote and develop the approach, and publish in the special issues of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science.[9] A few papers regarding plasma cosmology were published in other mainstream journals until the 1990s. Additionally, in 1991, Eric J. Lerner, an independent researcher in plasma physics and nuclear fusion, wrote a popular-level book supporting plasma cosmology called The Big Bang Never Happened. At that time there was renewed interest in the subject among the cosmological community along with other non-standard cosmologies. This was due to anomalous results reported in 1987 by Andrew Lange and Paul Richardson of UC Berkeley and Toshio Matsumoto of Nagoya University that indicated the cosmic microwave background might not have a blackbody spectrum.[10] However, the final announcement (in April 1992) of COBE satellite data corrected the earlier contradiction of the Big Bang;[11] the popularity of plasma cosmology has since fallen.
[End of Wiki quote]
The same Wiki page mentions circumstances that support the standard cosmology:
[Quote Wiki]
Nucleosynthesis objections to non-standard cosmologies
One of the major successes of the Big Bang theory has been to provide a prediction that corresponds to the observations of the abundance of light elements in the universe. Along with the explanation provided for the Hubble's law and for the cosmic microwave background, this observation has proved very difficult for alternative theories to explain.
Theories which assert that the universe has an infinite age, including many of the theories described above, fail to account for the abundance of deuterium in the cosmos, because deuterium easily undergoes nuclear fusion in stars and there are no known astrophysical processes other than the Big Bang itself that can produce it in large quantities. Hence the fact that deuterium is not an extremely rare component of the universe suggests that the universe has a finite age.
Theories, which assert that the universe has a finite life but that the Big Bang did not happen, have problems with the abundance of helium-4. The observed amount of 4He is far larger than the amount that should have been created via stars or any other known process. By contrast, the abundance of 4He in Big Bang models is very insensitive to assumptions about baryon density, changing only a few percent as the baryon density changes by several orders of magnitude. The observed value of 4He appears to be within the range calculated.
[End of Wiki quote]
After reading the links that mention non-standard cosmology models as well as the links that support Big Bang Theory, have you changed you mind? Is there any evidence mentioned that supports BBT that you feel should be discussed in order to help you finally decide? Or are you still more comfortable with speculations about preconditions to the big bang as opposed to Big Bang Theory? Discuss.
The Alternative Cosmologies Wiki I linked to in post #4 also offered some proposals based on observational skepticism:
Proposals based on observational skepticism
As the observational cosmology began to develop, certain astronomers began to offer alternative speculations regarding the interpretation of various phenomena that occasionally became parts of non-standard cosmologies.
[edit] Tired light
Main article: tired light
The tired light effect was proposed by Fritz Zwicky in 1929 as a possible alternative explanation for the observed cosmological redshift. The basic proposal amounted to light losing energy ("getting tired") due to the distance it traveled rather than any metric expansion or physical recession of sources from observers. A traditional explanation of this effect was to attribute a dynamical friction to photons; the photons' gravitational interactions with stars and other material will progressively reduce their momentum, thus producing a redshift. Other proposals for explaining how photons could lose energy included the scattering of light by intervening material in a process similar to observed interstellar reddening. However, all these processes would also tend to blur images of distant objects, and no such blurring has been detected.[3]
Traditional tired light has been found incompatible with the observed time dilation that is associated with the cosmological redshift. This idea is mostly remembered as a falsified alternative explanation for Hubble's Law in most astronomy or cosmology discussions.
[edit] Dirac large numbers hypothesis
Main article: Dirac large numbers hypothesis
The Dirac large numbers hypothesis uses the ratio of the size of the visible universe to the radius of quantum particle to predict the age of the universe. The coincidence of various ratios being close in order of magnitude may ultimately prove meaningless or the indication of a deeper connection between concepts in a future theory of everything. Nevertheless, attempts to use such ideas have been criticized as numerology.
[edit] Redshift periodicity and intrinsic redshifts
See also: redshift quantization
A minority of astrophysicists has been unconvinced that the cosmological redshifts are associated with a universal cosmological expansion. Skepticism and alternative explanations began appearing in the scientific literature in the 1960s. In particular, Geoffrey Burbidge, William Tifft and Halton Arp were all observational astrophysicists who proposed that there were inconsistencies in the redshift observations of galaxies and quasars. The first two were famous for suggesting that there were periodicities in the redshift distributions of galaxies and quasars. Close statistical analyses of redshift surveys today seem to indicate that there is no more periodicity than can be accounted for by large-scale structure of the cosmos.
During the quasar controversies of the 1970s, these same astronomers were also of the opinion that quasars exhibited high redshifts not due to their incredible distance but rather due to unexplained intrinsic redshift mechanisms that would cause the periodicities and cast doubt on the Big Bang. Arguments over how distant quasars were took the form of debates surrounding quasar energy production mechanisms, their light curves, and whether quasars exhibited any proper motion. Astronomers who believed quasars were not at cosmological distances argued that the Eddington luminosity set limits on how distant the quasars could be since the energy output required to explain the apparent brightness of cosmologically-distant quasars was far too high to be explainable by nuclear fusion alone. This objection was made moot by the improved models of gravity-powered accretion disks which for sufficiently dense material (such as black holes) can be more efficient at energy production than nuclear reactions. The controversy was laid to rest by the 1990s when evidence became available that indicated quasars were actually the ultra-luminous cores of distant active galactic nuclei and that the major components of their redshift were in fact due to the Hubble flow.
Halton Arp continues to maintain that there are anomalies in his observing of quasars and galaxies that serve as a refutation of the Big Bang. Arp has made observations of correlations between quasars and (relatively) nearby AGN claiming that clusters of quasars have been observed in alignment around AGN cores. Arp believes that quasars originate as very high redshift objects ejected from the nuclei of active galaxies and gradually lose their non-cosmological redshift component as they evolve into galaxies.[4] This stands in stark contradiction to the accepted models of galaxy formation.
The biggest problem with Arp's analysis is that today there are tens of thousands of quasars with known redshifts discovered by various sky surveys. The vast majority of these quasars are not correlated in any way with nearby AGN. Indeed, with improved observing techniques, a number of host galaxies have been observed around quasars which indicates that those quasars at least really are at cosmological distances and are not the kind of objects Arp proposes.[5] Arp's analysis, according to most scientists, suffers from being based on small number statistics and hunting for peculiar coincidences and odd associations.[citation needed] In a vast universe such as our own, peculiarities and oddities are bound to appear if one looks in enough places. Unbiased samples of sources, taken from numerous galaxy surveys of the sky show none of the proposed 'irregularities' nor any statistically significant correlations exist.[citation needed]
In addition, it is not clear what mechanism would be responsible for intrinsic redshifts or their gradual dissipation over time. It is also unclear how nearby quasars would explain some features in the spectrum of quasars which the standard model easily explains. In the standard cosmology, clouds of neutral hydrogen between the quasar and the earth create Lyman alpha absorption lines having different redshifts up to that of the quasar itself; this feature is called the Lyman-alpha forest. Moreover, in extreme quasars one can observe the absorption of neutral hydrogen which has not yet been reionized in a feature known as the Gunn-Peterson trough. Most cosmologists see this missing theoretical work as sufficient reason to explain the observations as either chance or error.[6]
Halton Arp has proposed an explanation for his observations by a Machian "variable mass hypothesis".[7] The variable-mass theory invokes constant matter creation from active galactic nuclei, which puts it into the class of steady-state theories.
[edit] Plasma cosmology and ambiplasma
Main article: plasma cosmology
In 1965, Hannes Alfvén proposed a "plasma cosmology" theory of the universe based in part on scaling observations of astrophysical plasmas from in situ space physics experiments and plasmas from terrestrial laboratories to cosmological scales orders-of-magnitude greater.[8] Utilizing matter-antimatter symmetry as a starting point, Alfvén suggested that the fact that since most of the local universe was composed of matter and not antimatter there may be large bubbles of matter and antimatter that would globally balance to equality (in what he termed an "ambiplasma"). The difficulties with this model were apparent almost immediately. Matter-antimatter annihilation results in the production of high energy photons which were not observed. While it was possible that the local "matter-dominated" cell was simply larger than the observable universe, this proposition did not lend itself to observational tests.
Like the steady state theory, plasma cosmology includes a Strong Cosmological Principle which assumes that the universe is isotropic in time as well as in space. Matter is explicitly assumed to have always existed, or at least that it formed at a time so far in the past as to be forever beyond humanity's empirical methods of investigation.
While plasma cosmology has never had the support of most astronomers or physicists, a small number of plasma researchers have continued to promote and develop the approach, and publish in the special issues of the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science.[9] A few papers regarding plasma cosmology were published in other mainstream journals until the 1990s. Additionally, in 1991, Eric J. Lerner, an independent researcher in plasma physics and nuclear fusion, wrote a popular-level book supporting plasma cosmology called The Big Bang Never Happened. At that time there was renewed interest in the subject among the cosmological community along with other non-standard cosmologies. This was due to anomalous results reported in 1987 by Andrew Lange and Paul Richardson of UC Berkeley and Toshio Matsumoto of Nagoya University that indicated the cosmic microwave background might not have a blackbody spectrum.[10] However, the final announcement (in April 1992) of COBE satellite data corrected the earlier contradiction of the Big Bang;[11] the popularity of plasma cosmology has since fallen.
[End of Wiki quote]
The same Wiki page mentions circumstances that support the standard cosmology:
[Quote Wiki]
Nucleosynthesis objections to non-standard cosmologies
One of the major successes of the Big Bang theory has been to provide a prediction that corresponds to the observations of the abundance of light elements in the universe. Along with the explanation provided for the Hubble's law and for the cosmic microwave background, this observation has proved very difficult for alternative theories to explain.
Theories which assert that the universe has an infinite age, including many of the theories described above, fail to account for the abundance of deuterium in the cosmos, because deuterium easily undergoes nuclear fusion in stars and there are no known astrophysical processes other than the Big Bang itself that can produce it in large quantities. Hence the fact that deuterium is not an extremely rare component of the universe suggests that the universe has a finite age.
Theories, which assert that the universe has a finite life but that the Big Bang did not happen, have problems with the abundance of helium-4. The observed amount of 4He is far larger than the amount that should have been created via stars or any other known process. By contrast, the abundance of 4He in Big Bang models is very insensitive to assumptions about baryon density, changing only a few percent as the baryon density changes by several orders of magnitude. The observed value of 4He appears to be within the range calculated.
[End of Wiki quote]
After reading the links that mention non-standard cosmology models as well as the links that support Big Bang Theory, have you changed you mind? Is there any evidence mentioned that supports BBT that you feel should be discussed in order to help you finally decide? Or are you still more comfortable with speculations about preconditions to the big bang as opposed to Big Bang Theory? Discuss.
If you get banned I have your e-mail, lol. As much as I am tempted to enter some of the non science related discussions, especially in politics, I resist because my first love is cosmology. In the "suggestions for SciForums" thread I mentioned how being allowed to have multiple identities would be nice, but I can see why that would be difficult both for the mods, but for people forgetting to switch IDs and screwing up their whole split personality gig, lol.
#6
Would you consider the possibility that our arena is not the only big bang arena in the landscape of the greater universe? If there were multiple big bang arenas that stem from the same preconditions as our arena did, would you expect those arenas to have the same physics as our arena? Can you visualize an arena landscape of the greater universe?
Here is a drawing that depicts a patch of the greater universe consisting of multiple big bang arenas. The picture shows a landscape where arenas that have formed are expanding. Each arena forms galaxies as it matures and expands. They expand until they intersect and overlap. When an overlap occurs there are galaxies from each arena caught up in the overlaps (shown in yellow) and gravity takes hold to overcome the expansion momentum of the galaxies converging from the intersecting arenas. The gravitational interruption of expansion momentum in the overlap space causes the galactic material into a swirling rendezvous of collapsing galactic remnants at the center of gravity of the overlap. The resulting accumulation of compressed galactic remnants forms big crunches in the overlap space.
This set of preconditions would require speculation about how a big bang would occur from the formation of a big crunch and I have some speculation on that. But I want those who have thought about preconditions to let me know if you have a favorite set of preconditions that would be more reasonable? Discuss. Provide a link or a graphic to help explain your alternative.
Would you consider the possibility that our arena is not the only big bang arena in the landscape of the greater universe? If there were multiple big bang arenas that stem from the same preconditions as our arena did, would you expect those arenas to have the same physics as our arena? Can you visualize an arena landscape of the greater universe?
Here is a drawing that depicts a patch of the greater universe consisting of multiple big bang arenas. The picture shows a landscape where arenas that have formed are expanding. Each arena forms galaxies as it matures and expands. They expand until they intersect and overlap. When an overlap occurs there are galaxies from each arena caught up in the overlaps (shown in yellow) and gravity takes hold to overcome the expansion momentum of the galaxies converging from the intersecting arenas. The gravitational interruption of expansion momentum in the overlap space causes the galactic material into a swirling rendezvous of collapsing galactic remnants at the center of gravity of the overlap. The resulting accumulation of compressed galactic remnants forms big crunches in the overlap space.
This set of preconditions would require speculation about how a big bang would occur from the formation of a big crunch and I have some speculation on that. But I want those who have thought about preconditions to let me know if you have a favorite set of preconditions that would be more reasonable? Discuss. Provide a link or a graphic to help explain your alternative.
Last edited:
Looking outwards, or forwards on the timeline, I have not much difficulty in thinking that the universe goes on indefinitely, beyond any point that our deep space satellites may travel in my life-time.
I cannot envision the universe as having an end, because it would then beg the question of what lies beyond such 'boundary'.
We theorize that the universe is expanding in relation to various measurements taken. Perhaps it is the interpretation of our measurements that may be in error? The very place we measure from is in constant motion so this could be a factor in any such inaccuracy. IDK.
My limited perspective encounters difficulty when contemplating the preconditions of the cosmos, once it has modeled down to the point of infinite regress. Once that 'point' has been reached, we pass through the eye of the needle to encounter that nothing much is different on the other side.
What, where, when and how are the measurable parameters in this speculation.
'Why' is a subjective question and so we do not utilize it.
'Y' is another thing, though.
Wherever the measurable intersects, exchange takes place.
In my mind, it is all a continuous interaction of 'Y's'.
Very difficult to provide a graphic to illustrate.
I cannot envision the universe as having an end, because it would then beg the question of what lies beyond such 'boundary'.
We theorize that the universe is expanding in relation to various measurements taken. Perhaps it is the interpretation of our measurements that may be in error? The very place we measure from is in constant motion so this could be a factor in any such inaccuracy. IDK.
My limited perspective encounters difficulty when contemplating the preconditions of the cosmos, once it has modeled down to the point of infinite regress. Once that 'point' has been reached, we pass through the eye of the needle to encounter that nothing much is different on the other side.
What, where, when and how are the measurable parameters in this speculation.
'Why' is a subjective question and so we do not utilize it.
'Y' is another thing, though.
Wherever the measurable intersects, exchange takes place.
In my mind, it is all a continuous interaction of 'Y's'.
Very difficult to provide a graphic to illustrate.
QW:
Yes . . . I entertain the idea of multiple BBs . . . such might be consistent with the 'bubble-like' distribution of galaxies, etc. that has been observed in cosmological 'mapping'. I'd speculate that if the multiple BBs underwent similar formational processes, the resultant 'physics' (physical laws) would also be similar . . .with the caveat that minor differences in BB processes might show disimilarities in . . . say . . . ratio of matter:antimatter, density of 'dark matter', etc. Such discrepancies might also affect the 'rate' at which multiverses individually evolve. Disimilarites of individual multiverses would likely 'average-out' when slightly disimilar multiverses interact (overlap?) with each other.
Yes . . . I entertain the idea of multiple BBs . . . such might be consistent with the 'bubble-like' distribution of galaxies, etc. that has been observed in cosmological 'mapping'. I'd speculate that if the multiple BBs underwent similar formational processes, the resultant 'physics' (physical laws) would also be similar . . .with the caveat that minor differences in BB processes might show disimilarities in . . . say . . . ratio of matter:antimatter, density of 'dark matter', etc. Such discrepancies might also affect the 'rate' at which multiverses individually evolve. Disimilarites of individual multiverses would likely 'average-out' when slightly disimilar multiverses interact (overlap?) with each other.
Last edited:
Thank you for thinking about this in depth. You have a natural connection with nature and always seem to have great insights about what ever you decide to contemplate. Your graphic reminds me of the convergence of wave energy which I speculate is the nature of things at both the micro and macro levels. Maybe wave energy converges at the heart of the tiniest particle and at the heart interactions at the arena level where convergence arenas intersect across the landscape of the greater universe.Looking outwards, or forwards on the timeline, I have not much difficulty in thinking that the universe goes on indefinitely, beyond any point that our deep space satellites may travel in my life-time.
I cannot envision the universe as having an end, because it would then beg the question of what lies beyond such 'boundary'.
We theorize that the universe is expanding in relation to various measurements taken. Perhaps it is the interpretation of our measurements that may be in error? The very place we measure from is in constant motion so this could be a factor in any such inaccuracy. IDK.
My limited perspective encounters difficulty when contemplating the preconditions of the cosmos, once it has modeled down to the point of infinite regress. Once that 'point' has been reached, we pass through the eye of the needle to encounter that nothing much is different on the other side.
What, where, when and how are the measurable parameters in this speculation.
'Why' is a subjective question and so we do not utilize it.
'Y' is another thing, though.
Wherever the measurable intersects, exchange takes place.
In my mind, it is all a continuous interaction of 'Y's'.
Very difficult to provide a graphic to illustrate.
Check out the first images from this new radio telescope:
Here is an interesting link and video to ALMA, a new radio telescope that promises to reveal new evidence about the nature of our arena:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...est-space-quest-knowledge-outer-universe.html
Play the video:
http://www.space.com/13143-complex-observatory-releases-image.html
The SQR ---> MR process that you describe even fits with QWC to a large extent. The equivalent to SQR in QWC is the wave energy background that is characterized by the continuous flow of wave energy at all points in space from an infinite history of arenas across infinite space.
The background is thermalized and as big bangs occur the high density "dark energy" negated from particles during the compression of galactic matter from intersecting arenas forms a big crunch, compression reaches the maximum limit of energy density which triggers the collapse and bounce into expansion of the big bang, and the expanding dense state wave energy intrudes into and is inflated by the surrounding thermalized background energy.
It is a perpetual arena process where the new arena will expand, form particles, stars, galaxies and galaxy groups, and galaxies all have separation momentum imparted to them from the expanding dark wave energy (conservation of momentum) released by the bang. Expanding arenas expand until they intersect and overlap, whereupon gravity take over from expansion momentum of the galaxies and give "birth" to a new arena.
You can see that we have some similarities and some differences in our "models" that will be interesting to talk through.
From the Maple pavilion:
#7#7#7
Let’s take a look at the section of the Wiki article on non-standard cosmological models. The drawback to the steady state model of Hoyle, Gold, and Bondi was the “creation” of new matter, the “C-field”, as the finite universe expands. The C-field was needed to meet the prediction that the energy density of the expanding universe remains the same over time in spite of the observed expansion. In Hoyle’s model that C-field is what prevented the “heat death of the universe” as it is called where expansion eventually disseminates and equalizes all particle energy across an ever expanding volume of space to the point where there is no useful energy to sustain heat. The Hoyle, Gold, Bondi Model created new matter to solve the problem but that was the failed theory that was superseded by Big Bang Theory. Look at the Wiki:
QWC doesn’t require a C-field because of the postulate that the universe is infinite and has always existed. The whole universe is not expanding, only arena patches within the landscape of the greater universe expand. On a grand scale QWC therefore always has the same average universal energy density and doesn’t need to add energy density to offset expansion. It simply reuses old cold galactic material to form crunch/bangs that restore the usefulness of the energy and provide the heat necessary to sustain the potential for life throughout the individual arenas.
That section of the Wiki article also mentions the “Perfect Cosmological Principle” which the steady-state models feature but that the spacetime models do not. A universe being homogeneous over time as well as space addresses the problem of a “beginning”. There is no mathematical failure caused by backtracking expansion back in time to a “singularity”. The singularity allows no initial conditions or pre-conditions, and allows for speculation about a supernatural beginning or creationism. Not that there is anything wrong with that except that the scientific method specifically rejects it. That leaves the consensus scientific theory saying nothing about the explanation for the existence of the universe, i.e. ignoring the controversial issues of “God did it” and “something from nothing”. QWC addresses that controversy the same way the old classical models did, i.e. the universe has always existed. It didn’t use to be so controversial because it was what science assumed and science and the supernatural were just different views about an imponderable explanation for it all.
QWC also complies with the “Perfect Cosmological Principle” that originated with Hoyle and Gold, because the arena landscape always appears the same, i.e. an arena landscape with continually intersecting arenas that spawn new arenas from the remnants of the old. Look in on it from a grand perspective and there will always be the same type of arena action going on; different arenas because they all play out as they equalize with the background and/or interest and overlap with each other.
QWC describes an infinite universe that fills all space and as a whole is not expanding, only big bang patches expand, and they only expand until their galactic materials are caught up in overlaps where gravity takes over from expansion momentum and forms big crunches. Each crunch builds up to a maximum natural energy density, collapses on itself and bounces into a big bang. It is a perpetual process.
Let’s look at the Wiki section that shows how the Hoyle, Gold, Bondi Steady-state model fails when the observed cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) was discovered.
The arenas are broadly spaced and the intervening space contains thermalized background energy from a potentially infinite history of arena action. The pre-existing background energy inflates the tiny hot dense bangs and each new arena has its own energy density level. The energy density level of an arena immediately begins to equalize toward the energy density level of the background as expansion plays out.
The infinite age of the universe and the continuity of all space results in a universal cosmic wave energy background that acts like an almost perfect black body with a thermalized microwave temperature of ~3 K. That resolves the CMBR problem that plagued the Hoyle, Gold, Bondi model and did away with the “cosmic iron whiskers” and the eternal life of stars.
In QWC each arena has its own dark energy from the collapse and bounce of its own big crunch, its own sea of dark matter that forms as the initial wave energy from the bounce is inflated by the UCWEB, and each arena has the constituents to form its own dark and light matter. The process of matter formation in each arena has its own “time of last scattering” to complete the arena backgroud, thus resolving the second problem that defeated Hoyle, Gold, Bondi Steady-state model, the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the ~3 K background of microwave energy.
#7#7#7
Let’s take a look at the section of the Wiki article on non-standard cosmological models. The drawback to the steady state model of Hoyle, Gold, and Bondi was the “creation” of new matter, the “C-field”, as the finite universe expands. The C-field was needed to meet the prediction that the energy density of the expanding universe remains the same over time in spite of the observed expansion. In Hoyle’s model that C-field is what prevented the “heat death of the universe” as it is called where expansion eventually disseminates and equalizes all particle energy across an ever expanding volume of space to the point where there is no useful energy to sustain heat. The Hoyle, Gold, Bondi Model created new matter to solve the problem but that was the failed theory that was superseded by Big Bang Theory. Look at the Wiki:
Wiki Steady-state Hoyle said:
QWC doesn’t require a C-field because of the postulate that the universe is infinite and has always existed. The whole universe is not expanding, only arena patches within the landscape of the greater universe expand. On a grand scale QWC therefore always has the same average universal energy density and doesn’t need to add energy density to offset expansion. It simply reuses old cold galactic material to form crunch/bangs that restore the usefulness of the energy and provide the heat necessary to sustain the potential for life throughout the individual arenas.
That section of the Wiki article also mentions the “Perfect Cosmological Principle” which the steady-state models feature but that the spacetime models do not. A universe being homogeneous over time as well as space addresses the problem of a “beginning”. There is no mathematical failure caused by backtracking expansion back in time to a “singularity”. The singularity allows no initial conditions or pre-conditions, and allows for speculation about a supernatural beginning or creationism. Not that there is anything wrong with that except that the scientific method specifically rejects it. That leaves the consensus scientific theory saying nothing about the explanation for the existence of the universe, i.e. ignoring the controversial issues of “God did it” and “something from nothing”. QWC addresses that controversy the same way the old classical models did, i.e. the universe has always existed. It didn’t use to be so controversial because it was what science assumed and science and the supernatural were just different views about an imponderable explanation for it all.
QWC also complies with the “Perfect Cosmological Principle” that originated with Hoyle and Gold, because the arena landscape always appears the same, i.e. an arena landscape with continually intersecting arenas that spawn new arenas from the remnants of the old. Look in on it from a grand perspective and there will always be the same type of arena action going on; different arenas because they all play out as they equalize with the background and/or interest and overlap with each other.
QWC describes an infinite universe that fills all space and as a whole is not expanding, only big bang patches expand, and they only expand until their galactic materials are caught up in overlaps where gravity takes over from expansion momentum and forms big crunches. Each crunch builds up to a maximum natural energy density, collapses on itself and bounces into a big bang. It is a perpetual process.
Let’s look at the Wiki section that shows how the Hoyle, Gold, Bondi Steady-state model fails when the observed cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) was discovered.
Wiki steady-state debate said:
The arenas are broadly spaced and the intervening space contains thermalized background energy from a potentially infinite history of arena action. The pre-existing background energy inflates the tiny hot dense bangs and each new arena has its own energy density level. The energy density level of an arena immediately begins to equalize toward the energy density level of the background as expansion plays out.
The infinite age of the universe and the continuity of all space results in a universal cosmic wave energy background that acts like an almost perfect black body with a thermalized microwave temperature of ~3 K. That resolves the CMBR problem that plagued the Hoyle, Gold, Bondi model and did away with the “cosmic iron whiskers” and the eternal life of stars.
In QWC each arena has its own dark energy from the collapse and bounce of its own big crunch, its own sea of dark matter that forms as the initial wave energy from the bounce is inflated by the UCWEB, and each arena has the constituents to form its own dark and light matter. The process of matter formation in each arena has its own “time of last scattering” to complete the arena backgroud, thus resolving the second problem that defeated Hoyle, Gold, Bondi Steady-state model, the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the ~3 K background of microwave energy.
QWC is also a modification of the steady state model but uses a speculative set of steps that answer the question of “what caused the big bang”. QWC addresses the question of a beginning and speculates that there was none, i.e. that the universe has always existed.Wiki article on steady-state continued said:
As I am prone to do from time to time, I updated my philosophy statement and am requesting comments. The current version, subject to ongoing modifications, is this:
I conclude that the universe is infinite and eternal, and every point is continually traversed by wave energy. At the micro level, matter is composed of wave energy in quantum increments, where quantum action orchestrates inflowing and out flowing wave action to establish the presence of matter and gravity. At the macro level there is a steady state landscape of huge active arenas of wave energy that are orchestrated by the natural process of arena action to perpetuate the existence of habitable environments such that on a grand scale the infinite universe appears quite the same in all directions in space and time and life-hosting across the greater universe, thus complying with the life friendly version of the Perfect Cosmological Principle.
Based on being infinite and eternal the universe and the God concept can be seen as one in the same, a set of invariant physical laws which we attempt to quantify using the scientific method. Therefore everything that appears to be non-algorithmic or Supernatural must still be consistent with Natural causes that we do not yet understand but that are in accord with the invariant Natural law's and also in accord with an invariant Natural God.
Beyond the boundary of scientific knowledge, in the realm of the unknown laws of Nature, all things can seem possible and so there is eternal hope for those who care to call upon it in their daily lives. Since there is no clear right and wrong at every turn of life we are free to seek council from what may be a good source, that being an acknowledgment from beyond the boundary of known science; unexplainable individual guidance from the unknown in accord with invariant Natural laws that we don’t yet understand.
We can choose to trust and hope that the invariant Natural laws are intended to be as they are and cannot be violated. If there is such intent then that intent has always existed as a natural feature of the infinite and eternal universe and would be the quintessential feature of a Natural invariant God. If so then it may seem reasonable that the eternal intention is for the universe to perpetually provide hospitable environments for the generation and evolution of self aware intelligent free willed life forms that contemplate the existence of the universe, infinity, life and God.
We individuals who might be living under such intent find that we act and interact in accord with our freewill which is moderated by our individual consciences, and we could reasonably suspect conscience to be an intended feature of high evolution that we each develop and apply to our actions and interactions throughout our lives. We can conclude that the universe is as it should be and could be no other way, recognizing that our free wills and consciences shape much of life’s events as direct results of our actions and if so, may God’s infinite and eternal intent serve as our source of council along the way.
I conclude that the universe is infinite and eternal, and every point is continually traversed by wave energy. At the micro level, matter is composed of wave energy in quantum increments, where quantum action orchestrates inflowing and out flowing wave action to establish the presence of matter and gravity. At the macro level there is a steady state landscape of huge active arenas of wave energy that are orchestrated by the natural process of arena action to perpetuate the existence of habitable environments such that on a grand scale the infinite universe appears quite the same in all directions in space and time and life-hosting across the greater universe, thus complying with the life friendly version of the Perfect Cosmological Principle.
Based on being infinite and eternal the universe and the God concept can be seen as one in the same, a set of invariant physical laws which we attempt to quantify using the scientific method. Therefore everything that appears to be non-algorithmic or Supernatural must still be consistent with Natural causes that we do not yet understand but that are in accord with the invariant Natural law's and also in accord with an invariant Natural God.
Beyond the boundary of scientific knowledge, in the realm of the unknown laws of Nature, all things can seem possible and so there is eternal hope for those who care to call upon it in their daily lives. Since there is no clear right and wrong at every turn of life we are free to seek council from what may be a good source, that being an acknowledgment from beyond the boundary of known science; unexplainable individual guidance from the unknown in accord with invariant Natural laws that we don’t yet understand.
We can choose to trust and hope that the invariant Natural laws are intended to be as they are and cannot be violated. If there is such intent then that intent has always existed as a natural feature of the infinite and eternal universe and would be the quintessential feature of a Natural invariant God. If so then it may seem reasonable that the eternal intention is for the universe to perpetually provide hospitable environments for the generation and evolution of self aware intelligent free willed life forms that contemplate the existence of the universe, infinity, life and God.
We individuals who might be living under such intent find that we act and interact in accord with our freewill which is moderated by our individual consciences, and we could reasonably suspect conscience to be an intended feature of high evolution that we each develop and apply to our actions and interactions throughout our lives. We can conclude that the universe is as it should be and could be no other way, recognizing that our free wills and consciences shape much of life’s events as direct results of our actions and if so, may God’s infinite and eternal intent serve as our source of council along the way.
Your drawing is exactly how I imagine the greater universe. A multitude of big bang/big crunch dramas going on.
Thank you for the response which I will use to philosophize some more
.In your imagining have you ever considered that the grand scale of the greater universe could look quite similar to what might make sense to be going on at the micro scale?
I speculate that the process that maintains the perpetual arena landscape in the drawing of the macro level is arena action where huge arena waves of energy overlap, gravity captures the galactic material from multiple overlapping arenas to form big crunches, and arena waves of energy emerge from the collapse and bounce of big crunches. Matter forms within the fresh new inflating arenas, they expand and mature to expanding galactic showplaces, which then overlap and form new big crunches to perpetuate the process.
In similar speculations at the micro level I think of the presence of matter and gravity to be maintained on a quantum scale by quantum action where synchronized quantum waves intersect and overlap and out of those overlaps or high density spots formed by wave convergences come out-flowing spherical waves, that when synchronized by a standing wave process, establish the presence of matter and gravity.
And at this point for me the cosmology that I speculate about becomes an enabler of the philosophy I have developed, i.e. with a speculated macro level self perpetuating arena landscape with an ongoing micro level process to produce matter and gravity out of wave energy, and I have an infinite and eternal universe composed solely of wave energy. This wave energy universe is characterized by invariant natural laws that cannot be violated; sort of how I think the God concept would be without any personification.
I philosophize that such a universe, being infinite and eternal as well as being governed by invariant natural laws, complies with the essential lowest common denominator of the God concept across various religions. And if a God concept is compatible with my cosmology then the concept of eternal intent comes to mind. Eternal intent is simply based on the idea that the universe is as is should be, i.e. having always existed in accord with invariant natural laws, it could be no other way. And so the way it is becomes the eternal intent which I see as hosting evolved life forms that contemplate the universe, infinity, life and God, and who have individual freewill and conscience and the rest is the history of our actions and interactions as our lives are acted out, lol.