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 (Ken)]

Originally Posted by a1120028

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",

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

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.

[Rodstar (Rod)]

Originally Posted by bojan

Scientists are among the the most open minded people on Earth .. 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.

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/fr...e_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?

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Originally Posted by bojan

But it seems it is still not right time for this, we simply do not know enough yet.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Ken)]

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

[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 (Ken)]

Originally Posted by a1120028

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.

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]

Originally Posted by a1120028

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

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 (Ken)]

Originally Posted by a1120028

yes schools here especially catholic schools are teaching creationism.

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

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 (Mike)]

Ok I'm gonna stop replying to this thread, bad topic to get into.

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