Is the big bang ready to explode?

[a1120028]

Something to ponder, and please keep an open mind. It seems there is growing evidence for a non cosmological component to redshift in quasars associated with active galaxies such as ngc 7603. This is becoming harder and harder to ignore but as most cosmologists have spent the best parts of their working life believing in a theory that may be wrong they are holding on to it with all they are worth.

The big bang theory seems to be collapsing under the weight of it's own assumptions. For every unaccountable observation there appears a new form of matter or energy to account for it. If we are to believe quasars are at their proposed red shift distances then there is some almost meta-physical process at work within them to account for their brightness. Cant account for the motion of stars in galaxies - must be dark matter, cant account for the expansion - must be dark energy. Come on! and then there is the smear campaign by certain people upon proponents of these new ideas, is that a manifestation of fear i wonder. I don't mean to stir but I'm becoming very frustrated with being told I have to believe in an idea that is so obviously (I wont say wrong) but not as complete as some would have the public think. I'm also being told I'm committing academic suicide by supporting these (not so) new theories. Isn't the truth more important that being seen to be right or holding an esteemed position based on a lie?

Maybe I have shot myself in the foot, but maybe some of you will follow up on this post and see another side to things. I always thought the search for truth was what science was about, not money or power. But then again I'm young and a bit of an idealist. Maybe time will beat that out of me. If you interested google Dr Halton Arp, and before you scoff check out the support he is now getting from some more noted leaders in the field.

P.S At the turn of the century everyone thought the milky way was all there was and newtonian physics explained all.

[bojan]

Big Bang is still holding... there is much, much more evidence for it than against it.
Scientists are among the the most open minded people on Earth (if only politicians are like that.. but then again politics is completely different game)... and there is no religious element in the fundamental scientific belief that any theory is assumed plausible but wrong until it is proven correct.. And if there is enough evidence against a theory, do not worry, they (the scientists) will be the ones who will come up with the new one which will explain the new data, not us amateurs.

[a1120028]

I wondered if I was going mad, I'm starting my honors in mathematical physics next year and as I came up through my undergraduate years I started noticing holes in the big bang model. A number of my papers came back although well marked they always had comments on them like "this is very ambitious", or "I advise you to keep these ideas to yourself if you want a job", all I was pointing out in these papers was that conclusions reached by making too many assumptions are not very solid. Especially if these assumptions are made in order to make an aspect of said model fit with current data. I believe that there is a non cosmological component to redshift especially when in relation to quasars, if this turns out to be the case there is no need for dark matter or dark energy to explain the motion of galaxies and also casts doubt on the expansion as it stands. Maybe I'm a crack pot but it just seems in light of everything I've studied over the years that there is something very wrong with the big bang model as it stands. Time will tell I guess but in the meantime I'll plug away at it with my pencil and always faithful mathematics.

[ballaratdragons]

So, in other words, you are being told that you must comform to current theories. So when does science become 'investigate' instead of 'follow'?

Baaaa-baaaa :screwy:

Keep pursuing your theories, others did and found out that the world isn't flat, and we aren't at the centre of the Solar System.

Right or wrong, it is your theory and you are entitled to your theory. :thumbsup:

[Rodstar]

I hold some skepticism about that. Certainly scientific method, if adhered to, can give us some confidence of long-term evolution of ideas. But I have met plenty of scientists who are quite "definite" about what they think about certain things, nothwithstanding the lack of scientific method involved in arriving at their conclusion. I suspect human nature is not quite so capable of being tamed, and that complete objectivity is not something any of us are capable of.

A scientific theory is only as good as the validity of the base assumptions upon which they are based. As I understand the purpose of this thread, the question being asked is whether the base assumption of the Big Bang has been taken for granted for too long. I have no idea what the answer is, but it does seem like a good question to me.

[bojan]

Well, theories do not have use-by date... So "Big Bang taken for granted for too long" really means nothing here. Not everybody in scientific community likes this theory and I am sure many are working on other explanations. After all, this is the part of scientific process: Checking, checking and checking again.. nothing is taken for granted here. But, checking method of an old theory is also subject for checking and review.
Big Bang theory will be here as long as data sufficiently support it.
When enough reliable data suggesting otherwise become available, the Big bang will be gone. In a Bang.
But it seems it is still not right time for this, we simply do not know enough yet.

[a1120028]

This is not a real new discovery but it is not well know. I believe it has HUGE implications for the future of the big bang model. http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/from_high_redshift_galaxies_to_the_ blue_pacific

[a1120028]

I agree, but what is happening is (I myself have been a victim of this) any idea that disagrees with current models is not even given a chance. The powers that be are protecting their own interests. I am saddened to see scientific exploration become a political and economical struggle rather than a search for truth. I'm very passionate about what I do and could go on for ever discussing the philosophy of science. All I wanted to do was call to the attention of this forum that there are new and very interesting ideas and observations out there that have gone some way to silencing that little voice in the back of my head that kept saying "dark matter, dark energy hmmm this just doesn't feel right", is there an alternative that makes more sense?:shrug:

[ballaratdragons]

It isn't the right time??? What are we to do? Wait for the day when Science says "OK, you are allowed to think for yourself now".

Of course we don't know enough yet! Does that mean we stop looking at alternatives, to maybe learn more??? Geez, I hope not.

[bojan]

Of course not, mate... and we are allowed to think whatever we want. The only thing is, if we are to change the way other people think, we have to have arguments, data, facts. Not just feelings that something is not right.
Until we have all this mentioned above, to effecively disprove current "official" theories, the time is not right.

[ballaratdragons]

But we already teach our school kids and each other all sorts of theories that have 'No Facts', just theories. And basically believe them!

Where are the 'Facts' for the Big Bang? I'm open to listening to alternatives, and I would encourage the learned folk to research alternatives.

I have read some wacky ideas, but also some interesting pieces. But until any theory is proven (including current ones) I don't accept any of them.

I used to be very conservative and would not bend at all. I have changed, and welcome responsible researched new ideas.

Not that I will accept them :lol:

[a1120028]

I think the word theory is used rather loosely these days even in academic circles. Just take a look at whats going on the world over, kids are still being taught creation in schools. Thats just perpetuating a gross falsehood. Anyone who believes otherwise is foolish, sorry if I offended anybody but seriously it's no wonder kids are confused. Same in Uni's all over Australia, I see it all the time. Unless the graduate students are fairly in line with the head of the departments ideas they don't get offered any post grad positions and are at best politely dismissed ,at worst the victims of smear campaigns. Human nature being what it is ego, money and pride seem to be getting in the way of knowledge.

[bojan]

Theory is a model, mathematical construct that tries to explain the existing data. Moreover, this mathematical model (or just one formula, it could be very simple thing and we can still call it a theory) can be used to predict the outcome of yet unobserved phenomenons. As long as it can do both, it can be considered plausible, even correct.
The good and simple example is the famous relativistic relation describing mass and velocity and how they are related. It describes how mass of the moving object increases with speed, reflecting the fact that if we want to increase the velocity of an object, we must add the energy to this system and that energy has its own mass... And if we want that object to move at the speed of light, according to this formula we have to add infinite amount of energy to this moving system, which will result in infinite mass. Ergo, the speed of light can not be reached or surpassed by any material object with resting mass other than zero.
Now, how about velocities higher than speed of light?
Nope. Or, not quite. If we enter into the formula the speed value greater that light we will end up with an imaginary number for mass.
Mathematically, all is OK again.
But to accept this result, we have to redefine our understanding of mass.
Could it have imaginary or complex value?
So far we have not find anything moving faster than light, and if this remains true, then mass is always real number, never complex.
The thinking in other direction is also valid, of course.
This just illustrates the way of scientific thinking in very simple terms....
Back to the Big Bang now....
Apart from Dr. Halton Arp and conclusions from his observations (many of them proved to be wrong and/or just the result of wishful thinking), what other observational data in particular we can say it does not fit the BB theory?
As a support, I would like to mention Olbers paradox... then background radiation, predicted by G Gamow long time before it was first detected and measured, then the distribution of it etc etc..... Distribution of quasars (which seem to be active supermassive black holes in centres of galaxies).
There is a vast number of observations that supports the idea.
The observations that do not support BB theory are very few. Rather, those observations just point to the need of fine tuning the basic model, but they do not disprove the basic idea.

[a1120028]

A lot of the basic idea is sound, where I see room for improvement is in supposed redshift values so high in quasars that an almost meta-physical process must be at play to explain their brightness. I put forward as does Arp and quite a few others that there may exist a non cosmological component to them.
There have been a few other theories put forward including one that involves varying particle mass over time, within which the CBMR can be explained with no need for inflation or the big bang.
I'm not disagreeing with accepted ideas because I have nothing better to do. I'm actively working on finding solutions to Einsteins field equations and in other areas that can account for red shift mathematically. As it stands it is only observational data that gives us our current understanding.
Any complete cosmological model (I feel) MUST be able to account for redshift within that framework. And as for the accelerating expansion, well conservation of energy only applies to closed systems so if the universe turns out to be open does the conservation of energy even apply?
Is there even a need to have dark energy?
Who knows but it's fun trying to find out even a small piece of the puzzle.

And as for complex factors in the special theory, I'll have to think about that one. Although what I find even more interesting is the discontinuity at 1-v^2/c^2 as v^2 approaches c^2 then we have 1-1=0 ...m or v/root 0, sorry about the math shorthand

[ballaratdragons]

What schools teach 'Creation'????

My kids schools don't, and mine never did. And I have had a major part in Youthwork dealing with schoolkids and youth for well over 16 years and none of them have been taught it.

And how do you know it's a falsehood. That is only 'your' perspective. It gets back down to the old argument which rears its head far too often of Creation verses Evolution. And this is definately not the Forum to discuss it (plus it is against the rules of the forum).

It is fine to say that you personally do not believe in creation, or UFO's, or ghosts or whatever a persons belief or study is, but to state absolute that one is a 'falsehood' is treading dangerous waters.

There are some things I believe are in action and others I don't. But they are my views and opinions. Fortunately I have, over time, become open minded enough to investigate alternatives and listen to others opinions. I will never state that anything I consider 'the answer' to be the one true answer and all others are falsehoods!

You yourself are researching an alternative to the BB. But many others will say you are crazy. Lets all be crazy. Maybe we might discover that an alternative is actually plausible. Many of histories great discoverers were labelled 'crazy' and yet now they are the Fathers of modern science!

[a1120028]

I understand what your saying about keeping an open mind, I agree totally. Same as with never saying never but, yes schools here especially catholic schools are teaching creationism. The overwhelming evidence in every area of science supports evolution on a geological and biological basis. To believe in creationism is that same as still believing the world is flat. There comes a point where we can abandon outmoded or plain wrong ideas and I think creationism is one of them. Then again thats just my opinion. :)

[bojan]

This is the situation when material object is moving at the speed of light (v=c).
you end up with something divided with zero, which is infinite number.
Ergo, nothing with mass >0 can move with the speed of light.
But, 0/0 could be any number.
That is why photons (they have rest mass equal zero) can and must move with the speed of light....

[ballaratdragons]

I don't believe you actually said that!!!! :lol:

What else do you expect a Catholic School to teach? They are a School owned and run by the Catholic Church! They can teach whatever they want. Same as Muslim Schools teach Islam, etc. It's being going for hundreds of years and it ain't likely to stop.

[a1120028]

Ok I'm gonna stop replying to this thread, bad topic to get into. I just can not fathom on any level people teaching children, the future leaders of our world something that is so obviously untrue, go ahead beat me up for saying it but come on really, how can any reasonable person believe the universe and all we see and don't see was created in 6 days by one supreme being.

I really am a tolerant, non judgmental person but pushes my buttons to see kids being led up the garden path so to speak by people they trust.

I'll leave it there, and apologize if I offended anybody or their beliefs.

[iceman]

Agreed, which is why it's best to avoid topics on religion.

[ballaratdragons]

Excellent idea. The same conversation goes round and round and will continue to do so.

How's the weather over there? :lol:

[xelasnave]

Without turning this into a religious thing because I respect and support all sides:thumbsup: .... the Bible gives God 6 days :) and I say to you six days is more acceptable than 30 seconds as given in the big bang:eyepop: ...I refer to the period of inflation in the big bang...;)

I can swallow 6 days easier (which I dont) if you see my drift;) .

I understand your feelings that the big bang has a monopoly on science at the moment... it does in truth... be it correct or incorrect does not change that... so you must respect its position... that does not mean you have to accept it that means you have to be determined to identify why you feel uncomfortable:) .

You are blessed if you have the math, I have an "idea" about the Universe which will remain that without math....

work within the system and dont feel frustrated the system will welcome new valid input.. with math you should be able to back your views and ideas with facts and math.

I would not be feeling frustrated if I were you I would feel the world was at my feet for you have the equipment to make your view stand... prove your views with math.

Now I will read the rest of this interesting thread... but I am suspicious of the big bang I say at this point:lol: :lol: :lol: .
alex :) :) :)

[duncan]

I'm open to all ideas. The bible says 6 days but it does not define the length of a day. Is it possible that back then a day could have been hundreds,thousands or even millions of years long by our standards?
Who knows, but it sure is fun trying to solve it all.:D
Cheers

[xelasnave]

Dont get carried away but have a look here you may feel at home:) ...dont sign anything;)

http://www.cosmology.info/index.html

alex:) :) :)

[duncan]

Hi Alex,
I've seen that one before. I think we should all just keep a very open mind on the whole subject.
Cheers

[xelasnave]

My point exactly... it is no good just ripping into everything there is valuable things to be found everywhere... I have a big bang Universe where all those rules apply and keep alternatives separate out of respect for the current model.
Within the big bang Universe I think we just have problems of a minor nature I dont like inflation because I would prefer something different.. and I use it as a prod at the big bang whereas in truth I just think we have not got that part figured correctly... inflation is needed to cure certain problems that may well have been taken care of in manners we dont understand yet... everythingthe same etc.
From my reading I think one has to be very careful ireading anything that purports to discredit the big bang as usually there is an axe being ground... some stuff is simply off the wall,

if you find conflicts open another Universe and keep the conflicting stuff in different Universes.

alex

[a1120028]

I said I'm not going to post re creation etc but just wanted to clarify why I started this thread.

The idea I brought up was I feel there may be some merit to the idea that there is a non-cosmological component to redshift in high redshift quasars and active galaxies.

Some questions arise

Is there a connection between galaxies and certain types of galaxies and the quasar?

Are quasars ejected from galaxies, and infact proto-galaxies themselves?

Is there some other astrophysical process that can explain the redshift anomalies.

These questions are asked and looked at in depth in the documentary "The cosmology quest".

Someone once said, and I fear it's an ominous prediction "In the future whenever we point a telescope skyward, we are only going to find what we already know is there".

I have become intrigued by the fact that if we take certain quasars associated with galaxies such as NGC 7603 and treat them as is if they are at their observed distance, ie in the vicinity of the associated galaxies, and not at their proposed red shift distances then no new ultra high energy process is needed to explain them. If this idea turns out to have merit it casts new light on things such as dark matter/energy and the BB theory.

That was the general idea.

I didn't intend to get into a theological debate. So if anyone has any ideas on the redshift thing please let me know. I'd be interested to hear them.

[g__day]

Two comments on some previous logic:

For God to create the world in 6 days...

1. God has infinite power, or energy
2. But energy equal mass
3. So God has infinite mass
4. But any infinite mass in a finite volume would impy an infinite gravitational field, i.e. so severe it would close spacetime (a blackhole)
5. So as time runs slower near a heavy mass object, maybe from our frame of reference God's days are kinda long

Secondly object with mass can't move faster than c

1. In a relativistic framework
2. If an object's speed gets too close to c then its energy density is likely to run into the energy signatures where relativity may break down and the rules of quantum gravity apply; yes that's right - get something up to the energy levels involved in the heirarchy plroblem 10^14 - 10^ 19 GeV and you may be able to travel as fast as the laws dominanting and area ruled by quantum gravity - not relativity - apply.

[xelasnave]

I dont believe there is dark matter only dark energy.
In the Gravity Push Universe(or Gravity Rain Universe) (my idea not my theory) there is no need for attraction and hence dark matter.

If this is found to be the case it will not require the big bang to be dropped but may explain something better or different...as an example...I like my ideas to fit current popular thought ( as much as possible)... your questions are extremely interesting and the matters relating thought provoking.

And I was not into a theological debate so dont worry about that...I was just saying you can shoot holes in either if you wish... does not worry me other than it upsets the the rules of here which I avoid..me I dont believe in anything so its hard to pick a side to support...so dont worry...more on your ideas and the implications of things you have noticed... one at a time perhaps.
alex

[leon]

I'm staying out of this one.:whistle:

Leon :thumbsup:

[xelasnave]

Sorry Gday I missed your excellent post ...so if I do something wrong it may be a while before he sees it maybe... no I will be good and not look for a loop hole.
alex

[a1120028]

I'm sorry I don't quite understand that statement as I thought energy and mass were one and the same. I believe this is a very well known physical principal called the mass energy equivalence. E=mc^2.

Thanks for all your input but I think it's time I moved on.

[xelasnave]

I agree but there is a fine point.
Nice talking with you keep up with your investigations, respect the system and work on it nevertheless.
Good luck.
alex

[avandonk]

Mike has just deleted I post I made about this being a waste of time not to mention how it was the blind leading the blind so now I will stop my post and see if it survives.

I have figured it out, one can make the most outrageous claims but don't tell them that they are deluded!


Bert

[mill]

As i have seen everywhere, posts about ideas and theories are getting heated and then die a sudden death :)

[avandonk]

There is nothing wrong with exchange of ideas and information but when individuals and or big companies set the agenda to limit the the discussion to very basic elements of very complex problems you will end up with a solution that suits the powers that be. Try arguing with any powerful mob all through history. You all know what happened to them!

Never stop arguing! But for your own sake duck!

I will never resile from despising the idiots that think they run things!

bert

[xelasnave]

Personally I missed seeing there was an argument I guess I am very blind indeed ... I am thick to use the vernacular.

Big bang has cred and so does the church simply because of the numbers in each camp... but then others have cred like the Government of the day where the numbers ebb and fall... who is really correct.

I think there is a camp that will never let go of the big bang as there is a camp that will never let go of the church...

I am not sure that the supporters of any side can look at the motivations and opinions of the other without disdain... that is the way the world works it seems to me.

As stupid as war is to me there are many others to come forward and argue the benefit... presumably they know more of the facts than me...but will that make them right?
I like to hear all views it does not mean they have to upset me or I have to bite ( which I don't these days) there is too much nonsense thrust in our face each day not to take a relaxed approach.

Bert I agree with your view on those in power.. they seem to develop a notion that they firstly know more than everyone else, that they are somehow more capable of intellectual input and mainly that rather than meeting argument with relevant fact resort to name calling to discredit the messenger rather than review the issue like adults.

I see holes in the big bang..I see holes in the church...I see holes in our governemnt but I also see good points in all... so I go on...and on:lol: :lol: :lol:
alex:) :) :)

[PeteMo]

I'm often surprised how science and the church often imply that there are only two camps ie Big Bang or Steady State when the truth could be a wierd blend of both. Is light a particle or a wave? Both camps appear contradictory yet each can claim that their model, either particle or wave is supported by their observations or equations.

One thing that puzzles me with Big Bang, the COBE probe detected Cosmic Background Radiation and this was taken as immediate proof of big bang, yet how do we know that this background radiation actually came from the big bang and not something else? If we came across what we thought was a driveby shooting the discovery of any gun would be taken as evidence that it was a shooting. As a tester I often perform negative testing as well a positive testing, to make sure that the incerse also applies, yet there seems to be a reluctance to look at other factors that could also account for background radiation. Sometimes it appears that some evidence is only circumstantial at best.

For all we know E=Mc^2 could be a modern day Zeno's Paradox, it looks right from a certain logical standpoint, but does not match what we are observing when galaxies are receding from us at greater than c. The explanation that space is expanding is the kind of thing I expect Mr Spock or Dr Who to say. It could be correct, but it sometimes seems more like an elastoplast job to plug the holes in Big Bang rather than state (Admit) that we need to modify Big Bang to account for the anomalies. Then again as Alex points out, there are holes in everything.

I seem to be leaning more towards Steady State but cannot overlook the main parts of Big Bang that do match what we see. When you consider that Cosmology is not very old, there's a lot more discovering and exploring to do before we get a better model to update Big Bang/Steady State.

Incidentally if anyone was interested in an approach to interpretting and understanding Genesis that does justice to the text and is compatible with modern day scientific views, I'm more than willing to share this, but maybe on another thread or as an article.

[bojan]

I said that before in another thread and I am saying the same thing again here:
It is impossible to understand those concepts without solid knowledge of the tool that helped scientists to fit the observing data into theories and come up to all those conclusions... That tool is mathematics.
Everything else is just a coffe-break chat, and no matter how much we enjoy those discussions ( I do) , they are no more than that.
In the threads like this one I would like to see more mathematical arguing and less guessing and hunching.. After all, in the guidelines for this section it says in writing:
"Astronomy Science (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=19)
Discussions related to the Science of Astronomy, Space Exploration etc. Strictly moderated - stay on-topic, serious discussions please."

Otherwise, we can use General Chat (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4) ...

[Argonavis]

There is virtually no disagreement about big bang cosmology amongst professional astronomers.

The theory is based on several almost irrefutable pillars of evidence:

1. cosmological redshift - the fainter the galaxy, the higer the redshift, implying greater speeds of recession for galaxies further away; this is confirmed by other distance markers on the cosmic distance ladder.

2. The observed ratio of hydrogen to helium (75:25) in the Universe is consistent with a big bang nucleosynthesis. This was worked out by Gamow et al (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis).

3. the cosmic background radiation at 2.7 degrees K, exactly matching predictions of a black body cooling from the primaeval fireball.

4. In the deep Universe, galaxies appear younger, or at least how you would expect young galaxies to look (see Hubble ultra deep field http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1996/01/

5. Finally, the big one, the sky is dark at night (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers_paradox)

6. Also Einstein predicted the expansion of the Universe in his field equations, but stuffed it up (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_big_blunder)

There is no other explanation for the observations.

[Argonavis]

Redshift indicates recession. High z objects appear to be at cosmological distances. There is no evidence for a "non-cosmological" component to redshift





The closest quasers subjected to deep imaging techniques display nebulosity, and are likely the active cores of galaxies in the remote far distant universe.





No. Quasers are believed to be super massive black holes on a feeding frenzy in the cores of active galaxies. They are confined to an early epoch in the Uinverse's history. Their vast distances are confirmed by their redshifts and their lyman alpha forests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar




No




in depth? This sounds like what the anti-evolutionists use in their propoganda - magnify differences of scientific opinion to create the impression that the entire edifice of science is wrong, even though my TV is still working and emitting alpha and beta particles, and the infrared remote control works too. Same with that stupid "documentary" - "what the bleep do we know", which misconstrues evidence and opinions to create a false impression of the state of modern science.





To date this has not been the case. The explosion in astronomical knowledge is awesome.






But they are not. You are using the discredited ideas of Arp. His observations were made on a previous generation of imaging equipment and have been falsified by modern investigations.

[a1120028]

Thats the sort of discussion I was looking for, the doco I was referring to was certainly not a creationists video. It was put together by Arp and 4 or 5 of his colleagues.

I did study general relativity and astophysics in 3rd yr at Uni and must say their arguments were convincing, but if they have been discredited beyond doubt with new imaging technology then that puts the matter to rest for now. The program was made in 2003 so is not very recent.

I was always better at theoretical/math based research that "hands on" lab work in physics and have only just started astronomy after having to do a 1st year semester course to finish my degree, I did astronomy and it got me hooked. That being my only experience with observational astronomy my knowledge is very limited.

Thanks for your input.

[astroron]

I got this info from the HST site, follow the link http://heritage.stsci.edu/2002/23/caption.html

[bojan]

Yes, I remember that one... this object was one of the main arguments for Arp 's ideas about non-cosmological causes of redshift decades ago. Arp was arguing that the proof of connection between the two objects was barely visible "bridge" between them on processed (enhanced) images..
Couple of years back (even before Hubble) this object and photos of it were carefully analysed by others and no traces of "links" between the galaxy and quasar were found.
The images that Arp and al were using to prove their ideas actually proved to be overprocessed, and the conclusion was drawn on basically falsified data.

[astroron]

I think it has been proven beyond that this bridge is a furfy.
I wonder if he will be discusing the subject with the MMO forum coming up in the near future:thumbsup:

[bojan]

Well... Richard Hoagland is still discussing Cydonia and "Marsface" and "New Physics"....

[Gargoyle_Steve]

As small creatures on a small world we have done extremely well in such a short time frame to explore / explain so much of what we see in the Universe all around us, and all of this without the benefit of having actually travelled any further than our own moon away.

Science is an ongoing process, ideas come and ideas go, but theories should only come and go as evidence to support or refute them comes and goes.
The Big Bang theory is currently the favoured theory by the majority of those 'qualified to know what they are taking about' ;) , and so we often consider it to be 'the' theory at present. In time it may be disproven, or it may be modified, or we may find further evidence to support it as is.

One thing we will NOT do is to discard it until a better theory, one that is more accurately supported by actual evidence, comes along. I encourage thinking outside the square, speculative ideas, etc, but unless you have a definitive theory that is better supported by evidence then it is not going to replace Big Bang.

--------------------------------------------------

(Believers in the Great Green Arkleseizure [or other Douglas Adams fans] are obviously excluded from the above constraints)

[PeteMo]

ArgoNavis Thanks for the summarised explanations. The world has moved on so much since I did my astro course at uni only 11 years ago. That was a time when objections to big bang seemed to be gaining a bit of popularity.

With the COBE background radiation, I read that there were small fluctuations in temperature, like thousandsths of a Kelvin or less, and that this was used to suggest that maybe it wasn't radiation due to the big bang. But In the grand scheme of thinks I guess a mere 1/1000th of a Kelvin is not enough to rock the boat.

[bojan]

Yes and no... the temperature fluctuations, even such a small value, must be explained because measurement instruments onboard KOBE have better accuracy that that, and simple BBG model predicts NO fluctuations. This is where inflation comes into play... and this results are confirming the inflation model.
This is what science is all about: we have observations, we devise a model that explains them. Then, we make predictions based on new model and then we go out and take measurements.. if they are in predicted conformance with the model (including measurement errors etc), fine. If not, back to the drawing board :-)

[PeteMo]

Thanks Bojan, You don't sound like an "amateur" to me. But then aren't a lot of astronomical discoveries made by 'amateurs"?
Had a read on the web and the analogy of inflating a balloon whilst an ant walks across its surface helped me understand the Inflation Model much better. :-)
Cheers

[xelasnave]

In the interests of a chat and even with the absence of the math:D ...From Wiki.....:)

History of Big Bang nucleosynthesis
The history of Big Bang nucleosynthesis began with the calculations of Ralph Alpher and George Gamow in the 1940s. Together with Hans Bethe they would publish the seminal Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper outlining the theory of light-element production in the early universe.

During the 1970s, there was a major puzzle in that the density of baryons as calculated by Big Bang nucleosynthesis was much less than the observed mass of the universe based on calculations of the expansion rate. This puzzle was resolved in large part by postulating the existence of dark matter.

:) That's all of it:) ... Is this the current state of play?:shrug:

I ask does the non resolution of the dark matter issue place the theory at risk?...

Is this why scientists are so interested in finding dark matter as it is needed to test the theory line?

I see here how the interpretation could be placed that was the underlying concern in the original post... but science has to follow the best course... the way being shown by earlier experiments...current thinking suggests big bang holds water.

I am not trying to be cute but I often wonder why the focus on dark matter...
when there is a better alternative;) but even in a mag from the early 90,s I recall seeing Vera Rubin holding plates purporting to show dark matter.... that mag also had computer generated maps of the background radiation as being somewhat varied I recall???? they looked like the final maps anyways...

If dark matter does not exist does that destroy the possibility of the big bang theory surviving or does it just need adjustment?
The point is when the result either way is known everything moves forward again on safe footing.:thumbsup:

But even without the math the push of gravity is evident in the way the galaxies are held together ... attraction can not hold them so and the math tells us that... but if you believe gravity attracts you need invisible dark matter... but gravity pushes so you don't need "dark matter" to explain what we see so you now only need dark matter for the big bang theory support.

But I say its not there look as long as you like ... machos have been pretty well ruled out... wimps are left... neutrinos etc..or my gravity rain;)

The scientists still however ignore what they see and try to make the current theory ( the presence of dark matter) work when it is unworkable...

So that's not science and probably should go in the general chat but read it again in 20 years and see what you think.:lol: :lol: :lol:


alex:) :) :)

[bojan]

Alex,
however I try, I can not undrstand how "gravity push" can resolve quiestions you are mentioning.
Basic problem is, there is no way you can derive simple Newtonian formula for invese square law from "gravity rain" idea, that will hold for big and small, dense and thin objects, close and far away... remember, gravity works over cosmological distances as well as for the distances smaller than atom, and the margin of measurement error is miniscule... it can safely be ignored.
Dark matter is dark only because we can not see it, because it does not emit or reflect elecromagnetic radiation that we can detect (that is, radio waves visible light or x, gamma etc). That only means we are not talking about excited atoms here, or free enough-energy level charged particles in strong magnetic fields.. But it does not mean it is necessarily "exotic". It could well be just a normal matter in a form of brown dwarfs, planets.. or neutrinos and/or other form of radiation (remember, energy = mass*c^2). Of course exotic matter is not exluded here and we have to keep our minds open.. but at the same time we should not allow to be carried away by those posibilities :-)
Anyway, time will tell....

[xelasnave]

I am not sure they will but it is my opinion that because one thinks of attraction is the way gravity works one therefore needs mass to explain gravity... mass is relevant but gravity rain or the Universal pressure is there irrespective of matter... in such a pressure style environment the effect of the push will be there without there being matter... it is this push that causes different rotation speeds not the presence of "dark matter"... that my view and I state it to answer "how does yourway fix it"..

But absence or presence of dark matter in this context should not relate to the required dark matter in the big bang model I would think.

Yes a formula is needed but all it can say really is the force from one side of the Universe equals the force from the other side of the Universe ..into that approach you then have to devise how one object can shield another and the results be expressed in terms we expect from a Newtonian formula.

I think I understand the concept of dark matter ... machos being things say like a brown drawf ..there but we have not seen them yet.
Hubble looked for these in Orion and the opinion seemed to be that they found less than they expected if machos were to make up a sizable part of dark matter... or at least I think I have a grip on the concept.

Wimps seems to be a better candidate but these take in neutrinos and I see neutrinos as ( or a close family member) as the candidates for gravity rain.

My point although hidden was simply that the theory, the best we have so far, needs a base, which it has, from there ideas can be tested, predictions noted and exceptions or unusual results fitted in and as a result we move closer.
A am a little anti big bang people would think but I say you have to follow all this thru.. there will be things that dont sit well but follow the results and see where that takes us.

Vera Rubin said she would be much happier if dark matter could be explained with something simple rather than having to come up with a new mysterious particle but I think dark matter will be explained by the pushing or pressure system employed by such a particle... and as such I dont think it will be matter as such but only particles rushing from one place to another at C.
Anyways I am happy those working on the problems are doing well so I think we let them keep up the good work and encourage them to keep going...

alex

[bojan]

Alex,
There is no "Gravity push" thing.
As I said once and I am repeating it here, you will convince me that there may be something in it if you can show me how to derive the inverse square law for the gravity attraction force from the postulated gravity pushing force.
You can not, and this is so not because of lack of maths skills to do it, but you (and noone else) can not do it because it can not be done. The formula you end up with is not F=g*[(m1*.m2)/r^2), simple as that.

[xelasnave]

I am not seeking to convince you as much as explain my statement on my view of dark matter:) .

I accept everything you say and encouraged that you think I have the sckill as far as the math goes:) and the problem is that I have taken to face a problem without a solution. A bright side I take from it:) :) .

Still what can you say to change my mind that push is not the go I dont know.

The absense of a mathmatical expression does not stop me from looking and wondering.
I understand your respect for math as the only evidence one can take but I feel math finally is there to support a proposition as evidence rather than to be the only player. I would like to think the observation that galaxies are held in place by an external pushing force to offer at least a hope for the idea.
Attraction will not hold galaxies together as far as the math is concerned and I think that is the problem partly as dark matter seeks to explain.

And I like my notion better than anything I have seen so far... I dont buy the graviton thing with particles somehow going to another dimension to explain gravity as a weak force.. and I dont care if the math holds up.. I dont buy it.
String theory talks of messenger particles..for this system to work you need the messenger particles to travel at twice C ... I think anyways... it does not work for me... not that it sinks or floats on my say so.. I never think that. But I put forward my thoughts my idea and that is what it is finally an idea..out of respect for science I never call it a theory.. pity string theorists dont show the same respect for the wiehgt of the word.

Still dont frustrate yourself because I can not see what you see as time goes on I learn more.. that the good thing about my idea it has me at least reading everything I can understand... will I get a job with the sckills .. I doubt it but its fun.
So if I can produce a formula you will come onto the push side???:lol: :lol: :lol:
Thanks for your kind and thoughtful input
alex