We know that our star, the Sun loses about 10^-14 of its mass per year as a result of electromagnetic radiation and particle emission. That reduction in mass should show up as a decreasing gravitational red shift. Same thing should happen to entire galaxies. But isn't it true that the galaxies we observe that are farther from Earth are also the younger we see (because light has taken millions of years more to come to us) and, as a consequence the more massive when we consider entire galaxies? (Because we cannot possibly see them as they are, but as they were millions of years ago.) Shouldn't we expect, correspondingly that the gravitational red shift of an observed galaxy will increase with its distance to Earth?
Oscar, it isn't generally true that the objects we observe that are farther from Earth are also the older. There are regions of space where new stars are being created right under our eyes.
That older stars are more massive, or the converse, is also not true, it may be a selection bias. We cannot see light stars unless they are nearby. Our galaxy hosts both older and younger stars, the oldest ones are located in globular clusters.
The energy loss by e.m. radiation and particle emission are very small effects which will not cause noticeable gravitational redshift of distant galaxies, nothing compared to the gravitational redshift caused by the expansion of the universe.
Hello Oscar,
you are confusing different types of redshift. There is the gravitational redshift which is greater when the mass that causes it is greater.
Anyway, a distant object can be lighter or heavier, older or younger than an object close by. For instance, there are still stars born (with every possible mass) at any distance in the universe right now.
The other type of redshift is the cosmological redshift, which you observe as a result of the expansion of the universe. This type of redshift can be observed at distant objects, but has nothing to do with their individual age or size.
For completeness: there is also the Doppler redshift (and blueshift) which is caused by the relative movement of the observer and the object.
But isn't it true that the objects we observe that are farther are necessarily older than the objects we observe that are closer, because of the time it takes for light to come to us?
Oscar, it isn't generally true that the objects we observe that are farther from Earth are also the older. There are regions of space where new stars are being created right under our eyes.
That older stars are more massive, or the converse, is also not true, it may be a selection bias. We cannot see light stars unless they are nearby. Our galaxy hosts both older and younger stars, the oldest ones are located in globular clusters.
The energy loss by e.m. radiation and particle emission are very small effects which will not cause noticeable gravitational redshift of distant galaxies, nothing compared to the gravitational redshift caused by the expansion of the universe.
@Matt Roos Sorry, I meant to say the younger, because light has taken more time, millions of years, to come to us and we do not see them as they are but as they were millions of years ago. Also, I used the word objects instead of galaxies which, after your remarks I see will be more appropriate. I have rephrased my question.
The answer to the question of whether there is an alternative to the expanding universe
is that we can change our point of view. Hoyle once showed that one could alternately
see the same process as a change of mass with time, and that this would result in all
frequencies being red shifted as one looked back to earlier time. So from that perspective the redshift would be unreal.
The demonstration of true expansion of the universe would be to see the decrease of the angular diameter of bound objects with time. It is tiny - 1 part in 10^14 per year, so until we can make some incredibly precise measures of angular sizes, we are not going to be able to make this distinction.
So reality can be set by our view of what we consider "ought" to be stable. Are we more comfortable with mass changing or size changing? And at some time that angular measurement is going to tell us which.
.>.....Is there a reasonable alternative to the theory of the expanding universe? ....
Is there an equivalence between an expanding universe and a universe that is increasing the sum of its internal relationships?
Is there an equivalence to an expanding universe and a universe where matter is shrinking with respect to space/time?
These may be silly ideas but there may also be a problem with the concept of an expanding universe in the first place!
Expanding with respect to what?
The astronomical Redshift is not in the color of the galaxy per se, it is in the frequency at which the spectrographic lines for the elements are found. This is determined by the originating frequency, and the relative speed of the spectrographic elements. The best model so far is the expanding universe model, because it describes why the furthest galaxies have spectrographic lines that are red shifted more than nearer galaxies. However it is just a model, and may be replaced at a later date if we come up with more information than is available now.
Expanding with respect to what? The redshifts of more distant supernovae with respect to those of nearby supernovae.
Precisely, the time perspective demonstrates the expansion It is measured by the Hubble constant which is expressed in units of km/s per Mpc, which can simply be expressed in units of inverse time.
Ok, so let us, for the sake of simplicity, say that the 'volume' of the universe is x at time t and the volume of the universe is x2 at time t2. We can work out the difference between them and say that the universe has expanded by t2 - t.
However, although we may make these calculations we also know that the universe does not displace an equivalent volume of something else. Sure, it's volume 'Jim' - but not as we know it? It's a closed system and it makes its own rules.
Matts, do you think that your own subjective intuition as to what 'volume' is and means applies directly when we are thinking of the volume of the universe? Or is there a schism?
@Christopher Davia
In my opinion, a gravitational red shift of expectral lines is to be expected also, because photons produced by the transitions between atomic energy levels will have to travel "up hill" the gravitation pull of the stars they come out and the gravitational field of the galaxy as a whole. Now, if I see the images wonderful images, the astronomers have been able to obtain of those far objects, I notice that most of the radiation comes from a region nearby the center of a galaxy, where the density of stars is bigger, at lest in appearance, and the pull of gravity as well.
Well, I don't know about the expansion, but there is a theory that states that the universe is not expanding but on many different parallel universes. The base plate theory, saying that every time one of those bases touch, they cause a big bang and expand and contract back to their original shape. This would mean that the universe has a limit to expanding.
Oscar,
Specifically regarding your posted question, as I understand the magnitude of redshift imparted to ancient star light from distant galaxies far exceeds what could possibly be explained by gravitational redshift as it escapes its emitting star and galaxy. The magnitude of observed cosmological redshift also far exceeds any that might be imparted by peculiar motions (which also impart blueshift - that is negligible in comparison to cosmological blueshift.
Also consider that light entering our own galaxy is gravitationally blue-shifted - to a negligible extent in comparison to cosmological redshift, but to an extent that should nearly offset any gravitational redshift imparted by the emitting galaxy.
Even light that coincidentally passes very near or even through many large galaxies and/or galaxy clusters on its way to us would be first gravitationally blueshifted, then redshifted by a comparable amount.
Ancient light that was emitted in the denser ancient universe that reaches us today might have been gravitationally redshifted by virtue of its traversing a continuously diminishing mass density, but that requires that the universe is expanding...
Going back to the original question.
Our perception of the Universe as expanding is based on a " Red Shift "
There are two possibilities:
1) The Universe is actually expanding
or
2) The " Red Shift " is a change in the frequency of light
as it passes through the ultra Thin Stellar winds from numerous
stars on its long journey to Earth.
We already know that signatures from Super Nova explosions
arrive at Earth from from fractions of seconds to minutes different in
time depending upon the distance traveled. This implies
different velocities, and differences in the rate of change in the
velocities depending upon the frequency and initial energy.
I see no reason that Light in its various frequencies and energies
should behave any differently than sound as it propagates through
a medium, even if that medium is a near vacuum.
We know from the 1925/1926 Michelson experiment that light
travels slower in smoky air than it does in a vacuum.
So why would not light continue to red shift as it passed through a
series of, of sequence of stellar winds from different stars, or as it
passes a series of galaxies.
I would act like a long series of stepped Doppler shifts to
lower frequencies, like hitting each key on a Piano in sequence
from the highest to lowest.
The answer is simply that no, there is no credible alternative to the expanding Universe that can explain the experimental observations.
Further considering cosmological redshift...
It's often considered that cosmological redshift is imparted to extragalactic light by the expansion of its wavelength as it traverses expanding spacetime.
Another factor contributing to cosmological redshift might be gravitational redshift imparted to ancient light propagating from the dense early universe to the now much more disperse distribution of mass represented by the cosmic web.
While the first factor, the metric expansion of wavelength, would directly correspond to the rate of expansion, the second (gravitational) factor imparting cosmological redshift would be a secondary effect - not directly related to the current rate of expansion - diminishing in time. As a result, the total amount of redshift imparted to cosmological light would be decreasing as a function of spacetime expansion.
This is at best an illustrative example - any factor contributing to cosmological redshift that is not directly related to expansion could produce the identified discrepancies in the distance estimates of cosmological models that presume a fixed relationship between cosmological redshift and expansion.
Yes, of course. According to our (with Elena Kadyshevich) PFO-CFO Solar System Formation Hypothesis (Ostrovskii, V.E., Kadyshevich, E.A.: The PFO–CFO hypothesis of Solar System Formation: the notion of the Sun-like stars and their transformations, EPSC Abstr., 8, PSC2013-145, 2013; Kadyshevich, E.A., Ostrovskii, V.E.: PFO–CFO Hypothesis of Solar System Formation: the presolar star as the only source of chemical elements for the Solar System, EPSC Abstr., 8, PSC2013-38, 2013; Ostrovskii, V.E., Kadyshevich, E.A.: The PFO–CFO hypothesis of Solar System Formation: the presolar star explosion mechanism, EPSC Abstr., 7, EPSC2012-101, 2012 and the presentation at the same site; Kadyshevich, E.A., Ostrovskii, V.E.: Formation of planetary systems around Sun-like stars (the advanced PFO–CFO hypothesis) EPSC Abstr., 6, EPSCDPS2011-314, 2011; Kadyshevich, E.A., Ostrovskii, V.E.: Oxygen isotopic anomalies in the rocks of celestial objects: Are they the key to the planet formation mechanism? EPSC Abstr. 5, EPSC2010-3, 2010; Kadyshevich, E.A., Ostrovskii, V.E.: Development of the PFO–CFO hypothesis of Solar System formation: Why do the celestial objects have different isotopic ratios for some chemical elements? Adv. Plasma Astrophys., Proc. IAU Symp.274, 2010, Cambr., UK, pp. 95–101, 2011; etc; all are available at the ResearchGate), the Universe is eternal and infinite. The analogous notions were given by Fr. Engels in its "Dialektik der Nature". In our opinion, the extension over the world of the hypothesis on Big Bang is nonsense because this hypothesis solves nothing: it bears new questions on the nature and origin of the neutron cloud and of the energetic field which, according to this hypothesis, had led to the explosion, and it leads to extremely complicated and therefore hardly probable mechanisms of formation of stars, planetary systems, chemical elements, etc. A number of celestial phenomena cannot be explained on the basis of the notion on Big Bang. In our opinion, the notion on the eternal and infinite Universe is sufficient and the multitude of the celestial events, phenomena, and objects can be explained today only on the basis of our hypothesis in its recent formulation. The concept of the PFO-CFO hypothesis consists in the idea that the space represents the energy/mass substance of a low potential (concentration) and the stars are the knots in it and that the energy/mass transforms into matter in their vicinities.
Some relevant breaking science news to this thread:
Search for clues about dark energy is underway
Dark energy, the force believed to cause the universe to expand at an ever-accelerating rate, is the subject of a five-year study using the Dark Energy Camera at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile. The 570-megapixel camera is snapping photos in an effort to map galaxies up to 8 billion light-years away. "We're looking at this big galaxy map of the universe as a way of finding evidence for dark energy and characterizing its nature with cosmic epoch," said Dark Energy Science project Science Committee Chairman Ofer Lahav of University College London. "An even more challenging goal for DES is to tell if what causes the acceleration of the universe is indeed dark energy, or something entirely different."
The Fermilab DES press release is available at http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/2013/DES-20130903.html.
The DES project website is http://www.darkenergysurvey.org/.
Dear Colleagues,
In my opinion the expansion of the universe is very different of what is generally believed to be the case. I have published in the "Journal of Modern Physics", Vol.4 No.6, June 2013 a paper with the title: "Why the expansion of the Universe appears to accelerate". As I try to explain in this paper the expansion of the universe occurs over space-time and not just space alone. And this very fact makes an linear expansion in true time to become an exponential expansion in observer time. The experiments proposed by NASA and ESA to measure the dark-energy should go ahead, since the measurements of the acceleration can then reveal whether the expansion is decelerating or accelerating. An expansion that goes faster than exponential would mean a true acceleration of the expansion and anything less than exponential will mean a deceleration of the expansion in true time.
Please let me know what you think.
Article Why the Expansion of the Universe Appears to Accelerate
Please see a recent report regarding discrepancies in measurements of the Hubble constant:
http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.241305
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v110/i24/e241305
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-hubble-expansion-universe.html#inlRlv
@Paul Smeulders
I have a problem understanding that idea of "true time" you left hanging there. Is there a universal "true time." What's your oinion on that? I find difficult to make sense of a statement like "The universe is expanding right now." We don't know what is going on "right now" in the Sun.
Dear Oscar,
The "true" time is only there to show that the expansion will appear to accelerate because of the change of the observer clock over time. The crucial point I want to make is that the angular impulse momentum has to be modified to include the expansion of the universe as explained in the paper I published. The modified momentum is the same we are used to in our time, when a(t)=1 and Z=0. However all observer clocks ticked faster in the past.
Best regards,
Paul Smeulders
The universe is infinite and, of course, nonexpanding.. For more on this see www.infiniteuniversetheory.com
>……(because light has taken millions of years more to come to us)…….galaxies we observe that are farther from Earth are also the younger we see…
The Universe is infinite and eternal (Fr, Engels, Natural dialectics, Papers, the last page of the Introduction). The phantoms, such as the so-called Universe expanding, dark energy, etc. result from arbitrary spreading of the value of the today Solar System gravitation coefficient to the entire Universe and to all times and from taking arbitrary Eddington's assumptions as the grounds for the present astrophysics . I wrote about this here, and the last our (together with Elena Kadyshevich) works on this subject are now available at the open sites of the EPSC2013 and ResearchGate. Their titles are: V.E. Ostrovskii, E.A. Kadyshevich, PFO–CFO Hypothesis of Solar System formation: the notion of the Sun-like stars and their transformations and E.A. Kadyshevich, V.E. Ostrovskii, PFO–CFO Hypothesis of Solar System Formation: the presolar star as the only source of chemical elements for the Solar System. These works contain references to our previous publications, which are also available at the ResearchGate.
In our opinion, it is past time to have a discussion of the fundament of the building of our notions on the Universe; till when it is allowable to heap up the absurdities over the fundament that is built from the unconfirmed ideas of a questionable freshness only just because these ideas were modern and enthralled the entire population of the world 90 years ago?
I am sorry for my constructivism, but I believe that the building that is upbuilt on the paper fundament bound by nothing but ink should tumble down and hide under its ruins the phantoms living in it. Finally, a boy should exclaim: “But the emperor has no clothes!”, similarly to the well-known Andersen’s tale. A Russian aphorism says: “Get at the root of things”.
1. That the universe is expanding is based on firm experimental evidence. One of the very solid evidence is microwave background radiation. Second is the observed ratio of helium to hydrogen in the universe and the fact that heavier elements are only in trace amounts. The puzzles are the fact that observable matter (from light emitted, motion of stars in galaxies etc) is much less than total matter required (dark matter problem) and that the universe seems to be accelerating (related to dark energy problem). These pose observational challenges as well as theoretical challenges.
2. True, galaxies having large red shifts are far away so we are seeing them as they were in the past. But there is some understanding of how galaxies evolve so there is some theoretical understanding of what these galaxies looked like when they emitted light which we are seeing now. But frequencies of spectral lines do not change over time (at least there is absolutely no evidence of that. Frequencies can change if electromagnetic interaction changes over time and that's is not happening). So, red shifts we see are because of expansion of universe.
3. True stars loose mass because of radiation of light and particles. But fractional mass loss is extremely small. One can imagine that equal amount of matter falls in the star (comets, dust etc) . So, change in red shift due to change in the mass of a star is red herring. (in fact, mass loss will give blue shift).
4. Universe appears to be expanding at each point everywhere at same rate. In the model for such expansion (Robertson-Walker metric) one can define a cosmic time which is same at every point in the universe. The 'true' time mentioned earlier in one of the mails is probably this cosmic time.
@Manuel
Neutron and hydrogen atom is not fundamental. Neutron is not even stable. It decays in about 1000 sec. Hydrogen consists of proton and electron. There are four fundamental interactions, strong or nuclear, electromagnetic, weak and gravitational. There is absolutely no dispute over these aspects.
I disagree with Oliver Manuel that "The universe EXPANDS because NEUTRON-REPULSION in cores of heavy atoms..."
The solar system does not expand, nor does the Milky Way, nor does the Local Group. Only at cosmological distances is there expansion, as testified by supernovae beyond 100 Mpc.
Oliver Manuel,
I claim that one cannot explain the Hubble expansion on cosmological scales by the astrophysics on solar scales.
Dear Matts,
The expansion proceeds where the gravitation constant value is unknown and doesn't proceed where it is known.
Oliver,
Are you referring to the Cosmic Inflation? I am referring to the Hubble expansion to which your factor of 10^39 certainly does not apply.
Dear all! I call you to stop in the fantasies based on the assumptions of the 90-year age and to remember about the difference between science and trust. Any trust requires no proof; the word of an oracle is sufficient, and if it is not correlates with the reality, the additional interpretation from him or his follower crosses one's t's; strong trust is capable of seizing nations and of moving mountains, and such a trust is worthy of respect. However, naturalists said at all times that science differs from trust by the occurrence of proofs, and a hypothesis that leads to an absurd should be rejected and another hypothesis should substitute for it. What is the way to specify an absurd or a phantom? If one, two, or three generations of researchers found in the reality no prognosis that follows from a hypothesis, is this hypothesis wrong or should admiration by nothing increase from generation to generation? I. Kant wrote about the scientific method of the nature cognition: “Reason must approach nature with the view, indeed, of receiving information from it, not, however, in the character of a pupil, who listens to all that his master chooses to tell him, but in that of a judge, who compels the witnesses to reply to those questions which he himself thinks fit to propose. To this single idea must the revolution be ascribed, by which, after groping in the dark for so many centuries, natural science was at length conducted into the path of certain progress.” (I. Kant, The critique of pure reason (Translated from German by J. M. D. Meiklejohn), Univ. of Adelaide, South Australia (2009), Introduction I.). But did the today naturalists receive the natural information that could count in favor of the assumptions which had led to such phantoms as dark matter and energy, black holes, etc. Are there real grounds for calculating the stellar speeds and masses out of the Solar System? And have we enough knowledge to calculate the speeds and directions of electromagnetic radiation over different galaxies? Where are the experimental data that could prove that the stars, including the Sun, are living by fusion reactions, that they can be considered and calculated as the spheres of noble gases, and that the gravitation constant value inherent in the Solar System is also inherent in the entire Universe? Isn't it time to remember K. Popper’s conclusions that “…science is fallible, because science is human”? (K. R. Popper, The open society and its enemies, vol. II, Addendum. UK (1980) 369–396). The notions of the Universe know a number of confirmations of this opinion in the past. It is pointless to reject a hypothesis, even it is a questionable one, until it can be replaced by nothing. But at present, when the PFO-CFO hypothesis is available, may be, it should be considered as the alternative one (see ResearchGate, V.E. Ostrovskii, E.A. Kadyshevich, 2013).
Victor,
The scientific literature contains precise and multiply confirmed answers with error estimates to your questions on "dark matter and energy, black holes, etc. .. the stellar speeds and masses out of the Solar System.... the speeds and directions of electromagnetic radiation over different galaxies" and so on. One needs to follow the literature: only in arXiv [astro-ph.CO] there are some 400 new papers per month. None of them needs to refer to Karl Popper.
Dear Matts,
Unfortunately, the quantity of the paper doesn't confirm the adequacy of the statements that underlie them. As you sow you shall mow. As you assume at the beginning of the paper you shall obtain at the end of it.
There are many astrophysicists - there are many papers. There are few new ideas in heads - there are few new ideas in papers. There are many ticket collectors - there are few stowaways.
Do you know the papers that confirm directly the constancy of the gravitation coefficient, the occurrence of the fusion reactions within the stars, and the correctness of the calculations based on the modeling of stars as the spheres of noble gases?
The explanations of a number of routine observable celestial phenomena are too involved, complicated, difficult and unconvincing to be abundant in time and space.
There are a number of types of universe events, which are predicted on the basis of the 400 monthly papers but not identified over space.
A majority of the so-called explanations represent explanations of unintelligible things on the basis of unknown thinks.
Of course, I express my personal opinion only.
If the existing situation satisfies you, you are optimist and I welcome you.
However, you can see that not all persons are satisfied by the today level of the understanding of the Universe.
Best regards
Is there a reasonable alternative to the theory of the expanding universe?
The answer is "NO!"
Victor, I think you're making a fundamental mistake by confusing philosophy, religion and beliefs with science and how it's really done in practice today.
Dear Tapio,
I fully agree that the expansion is observed to accelerate. But that is an artifact caused by the observer clocks changing in tact with the expansion itself. As I try to explain a time ago a constant rate of the expansion changes for the observer into an exponential one. Please read for more information the JMP of June 2013.
Best regards,
Paul Smeulders
Dear Paul, your manuscript is not a scientific one. Your argument about linear expansion of the Universe is simply invalidated by the fact that GR and everything else works at "local" scales, but not at the largest. There's an accelerating expansion at all scales.
Cp God frey,
Do you write that there are no reasonable alternative to the theory of expanding Universe as God of Frey, i.e. as Greek God for the fertility and prosperity?
Then: "Your desire is my command!"
I can't refuse God's gifts even if this God is Greek one and not the One G-d. But if not me, other ones will do the same because it is high time to do this. In a different way, the next thing physical journals'll write is negative time, the circle'll close up, and the devilry within it will become forbidding. I believe and I'm sure the common sense will triumph, obsessions'll dissipate, and physicists'll smile when remembering that their teachers calculated the rates and masses of remoter worlds on the basis of assumptions filled with nothing.
And let me a question towards the end. Is it for a scientist to present a statement on a controversial problem with no proofs under a pseudonym, similarly to ancient priests who translated the words of Greek Gods?
I have added a preprint of my most recent paper "Model-Independent Cosmological Tests" that will provide an answer to your question. Although the light from distant galaxies requires time to reach Earth, there are a few important observations that must be taken into consideration with respect to relative age. Direct observations of galaxies show that both the fraction of cold baryonic matter and relative metallicity are increasing with redshift; naturally, these two factors must also increase with age. Furthermore, the local amount of merger remnants and close pair fractions are minimal, while drastically increasing at moderate to high redshift. These observations would insist that the age of galaxies is increasing with redshift, which is contrary to big bang predictions based upon the second law of thermodynamics and entropy.
Article Model-Independent Cosmological Tests
Michael Peck: Increase in metalicity is understandable on the basis of neuclosynthesis in stars. In the beginning only hydrogen and helium was there. Heavier elements are built in stars and when they explode as supernovas the matter in stars is spewed out. So fraction of heavy elements grow as supernovas occur in galaxies. So, it is consistent with expanding universe. Large red shift regions have lower metalicity as we are looking at galaxies in past. Small red shifts correspond to galaxies at later times and so they have larger heavy element content and higher metalicity. So, your conclusion that large red shift corresponds to older galaxies is not correct and there is no inconsistency between expanding universe and increasing metalicity.
Shashikant,
Well put, in general. As I understand, Michael Peck's statement:
"Direct observations of galaxies show that both the fraction of cold baryonic matter and relative metallicity are increasing with redshift; naturally, these two factors must also increase with age."
- is generally incorrect. The observed light from distant galaxies was emitted long ago (even in a static universe). As a result, the properties of observed distant galaxies reflect their ancient state. As I understand, distant galaxies' stellar metalicity generally diminishes with distance (and age of emission), as you explain.
However, there are exceptions. In general, older star clusters contain older stars with low metalicity because they long ago exhausted their gas required to fuel new star formation. Only surviving ancient, low mass, low metalicity stars remain. They can be found at high redshift and even within the Milky Way halo.
Also see this note regarding this very interesting most distant galaxy - indicating that some very peculiar distant galaxies had already produced many generations of fast life cycle (massive) stars - http://news.sciencemag.org/space/2013/10/scienceshot-universes-farthest-galaxy-%E2%80%A6-so-far
But this very distant, very early galaxy is definitely an exception...
Dear Oscar
you are certainly not the only one to wonder whether modern cosmology is right or plain wrong.
At present in the astronomical community there is preatty much 100% consensus that the Universe is expanding, and this produce answers to your question like the one of Cp Godfrey from Missury w. s. University.
However, in science consensus means nothing. Things have to be proved. Here you can find a good reading on the subject: Disney M. 2000, GReGr 32, 1125.
Thus, critically looking at what evidences we have for the reality of the expansion of the Universe, we find very little. The strongest one is the cosmological redshift (has mentioned somewhere else, the gravitational redshift is negligible and the effect of mass loss undetectable).
The important thing to keep in mind is that redshift is INTERPRETED as due to the expansion. It is NOT proving the expansion. You might like or not this, nevertheless, redshift DOES NOT prove the expansion.
The cosmic microwave radiation is, similarly, interpreted as due to the Big Bang, but does not demonstrate it.
So we can take modern cosmology and see what testable prediction is making. Beside the fact that modern cosmology make sense only if DARK matter, DARK energy, and Inflation are real (enough to place cosmology among the most questionable theory around), there are some predictions:
1) the apparent size of a standard rod should decrease with distance up to redshift z~1, then it should increase.
2) The surface brightness of distant galaxies should drop as (1+z)^4.
3) Time should stretch as (1+z).
If predictions 1 and 2 were correct, then with present technology we would not be able to observe anything beyond z~3. Still, any one that has ever looked, for instance, at the Hubble deep field do know that predictions 1 and 2 are plain wrong. Distant object have vanishly small apparent size and they surface brightness is basically constant, allowing at present the reliable detection of galaxies up to z~8.
The last effect, the time stretching, is supposedly observed in supenovae light curve and in my opinion this is the strongest piece of evidence in favor of the expansion of the Universe. However, light curve of quasars DO NOT show time stretching (see Hawkins 2001, ApJ 553, L97), questioning also this result.
To conclude, my short answer to your question is: yes, there are alternative and people should be more modest when claiming we understood what the shape of the Universe is.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=2000GReGr..32.1125D&db_key=AST&link_type=ABSTRACT&high=526f920a9122122
Dear Donald,
I find the your reasons for an accelerating universe very interesting as explained in your link : http://novan.com/5th-forc.htm ,
and I agree.
My personal thought is that the expansion could also be anticipated, similarly, in a 3D vortex and masses accelerating towards the eye [ black hole?] , disintegrating there particles’ radiation and contribute to universe’s regeneration.
I contemplate the beginning of the universe structured by rarefied elemental masses at high temperature in a gravitational field that attracts them, from a lower gravitational potential to higher one and lower temperature, moving towards it and cooling at the same time to solidification, moving in a form of a vortex[ due to a medium – possibly called ether], giving the impression of expanding, but infact converging to a point of highest gravitational potential [this could be the so called black hole], resulting to the highest speed that matter could attain, before its possible disintegration to its constituent elements[ and start again a possibly similar cycle].
P.S.
You may refer to the following extracts of my stated ideas [ ResearchGate discussion : On varying speed of flow of time over our life ]
>…..As for the limits of the universe where I could understand infinity starts, [but without an end] is that where moving celestial masses under acceleration they should reach a velocity/acceleration condition that they should disintegrate to their constituent particles [ mass to energy change], thus reaching to a similar condition they started from [ Regeneration]…..….The findings of an accelerating universe is the " difference"!
I coulkd add here one or two of the many questions problematizing me for a long time on this matter.
Couldn't the cause of the spinning galaxies be the result of friction of their moving masses through a medium i.e the so called Aether?
Another short one is the accelerating in expantion of universe shoudn't it imply a positive form of gravity? ……In a static, but vibrating field [aether- electromagnetic medium], conductive
[ massive] elemental lines with alternating pipolar charges moving in it by the action of the field , should result into alternating currents running within them.
Two such lines could be contacted electrically at the ends of each line, via their + and - charges, and similarly
three lines [ in the correct lengths] could form triangles [ orthogonal according to my theory], and in such forming a surface. Similarly by joining two pairs of such triangular forms [elecromagnetically attracted by the currents running within them] could create materialistic volumes[ tetrahedra].Continuing, by these similar actions of electromagnetic forces, the joining of these materialistic volumes[tetrahedra] could result into further building blocks of matter.
According to my geometric theory [ pure classical geometry, based on the Square Root of the Golden Section ] such materialistic volumes [ tetrahedra ] build a Great Pyramid Model via which the structure of the world of the 5 Platonic [ or Eucleidian] solids are formed.
Ref:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c39K0iHRtgg&list=UUi4v2r_QyjvOZSOeD6PBuVA&index=1&feature=plcp ------
http://www.stefanides.gr/html/Root_Geometries.htm -------
http://www.stefanides.gr/html/All_triangles_derive.htm -------- …..
Shashikant and James, nucleosynthesis and supernova are the mechanisms behind enrichment of interstellar medium. However, if we consider the big bang theory where look back time increases with redshift, the most distant objects should be very metal poor. Many extreme redshift galaxies and quasars have higher metallicity with respect to local ones. If extreme star formation took place 700 million years after a big bang, then the relatively high metallicity in these objects should either increase or be preserved up to low redshift.
The model that I have proposed is similar to a big bang but in terms of a continuous jet entering the local space via the “dark flow”. As the jet cools and expands into newly formed metal poor galaxies and clusters, these objects begin to fall back towards the jet’s origin. It is therefore not necessarily true that a steady state universe will have look back time increasing with redshift. For example, a galaxy previously at our local position took x amount of proper time to accelerate back into the gravitational potential of the universe. It emits light billions of years prior to reaching Earth, but when emitted the galaxy was still billions of years older than our own. This is only possible with a continuous flow of recently formed galaxies and clusters accelerating into such potential. The deflection of light due to the geometry of the universe must also be taken into consideration; i.e. our local projection arises almost entirely from a lower gravitational potential, providing the illusion of accelerated metric expansion.
Characteristics of local passive and active galaxies further demonstrate that dense regions of x-ray emitting gas inhibit stellar formation and gravitational collapse of galaxies. I strongly believe that Eggen had it right 51 years ago, when he used the motion of stars to provide evidence that formation proceeds by collapsing galaxies; "Evidence from the motions of old stars that the Galaxy collapsed". This is consistent with elliptical galaxies commonly being found within regions abundant in x-ray emitting gas, while the opposite is true for later types. It also explains the radial motion of stars in elliptical galaxies and unstable rotational curves in later types via the conservation of momentum. The local abundance of x-ray emitting gas in clusters further becomes reionized hydrogen with respect to Lyman-alpha blobs beyond 2z, where star formation rates significantly increase.
Metallicity and abundance of cold baryonic matter cannot be considered as strong proof for or against the big bang theory due to a large amount of what ifs. The pieces of the puzzle simply fit together better when this new perspective is taken into consideration. The five cosmological tests in my recent paper however offer conclusive results with respect to the validity of various models.
Dear Michael, Panagiotis, Donald, Riccardo, James, Shashikant, Paul, and Tapio,
I am sorry, but I, like all you, am a scientist, and the science places definite demands on me. I think that therefore I should to raise the objections to your issues. I wrote here some time before that naturalists have at all times said that science differs from trust by the occurrence of proofs, and a hypothesis that leads to an absurd should be rejected and another hypothesis should replace it. What is the way to specify an absurd or a phantom? Did the today naturalists receive the natural independent information that could count in favor of the assumptions which had led to such phantoms as dark matter and energy, black holes, etc.
Are there real grounds for calculating the stellar speeds and masses out of the Solar System? And have we enough knowledge to calculate the speeds and directions of electromagnetic radiation over different galaxies? Where are the experimental data that could prove that the stars, including the Sun, are living by fusion reactions, that they can be considered and calculated as the spheres of noble gases, and that the gravitation constant value inherent in the Solar System is also inherent in the entire Universe?
All stellar and galactic rates and masses and interstellar and intergalactic distances are calculated under the assumptions that the Solar System gravitation constant is the same over the Universe and that the electromagnetic radiation propagates in the homogeneous gravitation field; all calculations that link up the stellar temperatures, sizes, and masses are based on the assumption that the stars are similar to the balls of noble gases. No one of these assumptions is confirmed with independent measurements, and they led to fantastical results, such as dark matter, black holes, etc., etc. In any other science, any one of such results would be sufficient to set aside the system of the initial assumptions and to start the construction of the scientific building on a new fundament.
For 90 years, there was no new fundament. Today, such a fundament occurs. I have the impression that you do not understand that this fundament will work for a long time after me. I call all those astrophysicists, who consider themselves rather young to critically estimate the degree of validity of the today notion of the Universe, to mediate upon this subject.
Today, there is only one alternative approach to study the Universe, and this approach is formulated by us in our works of 2013. I also think that our 2007-2013 way to the today terminal edition of the PFO-CFO Hypothesis of Solar System Formation could also be of interest. Its central ideas are that all chemical elements originate in each stellar system not within the system-forming star but in its vicinity from radioactive and non-radioactive pico-drops of the stellar substance, and that not fusion reactions but the radiochemical decays are the source of the stellar luminosity, the neutrinos resulting from the beta-decays of the pico-drops.
My previous issue is not seen at present here, and, therefore, I allow me to repeat a portion of it. Isn't it time to remember K. Popper’s conclusions that “…science is fallible, because science is human”? (K. R. Popper, The open society and its enemies, vol. II, Addendum. UK (1980) 369–396). The notions of the Universe know a number of confirmations of this opinion in the past. It is pointless to reject a hypothesis, even it is a questionable one, until it can be replaced by nothing. But at present, when the PFO-CFO hypothesis is available, appearently, it should be considered as the alternative one (see ResearchGate, V.E. Ostrovskii, E.A. Kadyshevich, 2013).
Victor,
I have to clarify: I'm not a qualified scientist (thanks) - merely an information systems analyst..
That the galactic rotation of especially spiral galaxies infers the existence of an enormous, enveloping halo of undetected mass (dark matter) is not likely due to any cosmological variations in the gravitational constant, as dark matter has been analytically inferred by the rotation curves of the Milky way and Andromeda as well as many other nearby galaxies.
I think that the fundamental issue with the galactic gravitational evaluations that infer the existence of dark matter is that, in applying Newtonian dynamics, a planar distribution of disk mass is represented by a single separation distance ('r') - each test object's radial distance. As a result, the mass necessary to produce the observed rotational velocity at the specified separation distance (for example) is overestimated, since the actual distribution includes much nearer masses, and the influence of separation distance is non-linear in accordance with inverse-square law. The mass necessary to produce the observed gravitational effects is overestimated as a function of each test object's radial (separation) distance. There are also several other factors that I think contribute to fundamental radial distance related estimation errors...
That said, you're correct that the presumed invariability of the gravitational constant, especially throughout cosmological time, has not been definitively established.
Victor, the question regarding the path to differentiating between truth and absurd/phantom results is a key problem in modern cosmology and astrophysics. As stated, nearly all other professions start from scratch when they run into serious problems with a model, theory or project. Attempts are then made to find the correct solution by using well-founded science that has been proven through direct observations over decades. Only when these attempts fail does one go to such extremes.
I will therefore begin this answer with respect to dark matter. Dark matter is required to explain the formation of galaxies in an expanding universe over extremely short time-scales, balance unstable rotational curves with visible mass and explain lensing in distant clusters. In fact, it is commonly claimed that lensing from distant clusters provides direct proof that dark matter exists. However, there are many contradictions to these observations such as the lack of dark matter through local observational and experimental tests. In addition, cluster mergers such as Abell 520 have dark matter in locations that defy the basic assumptions of its properties.
Now, I can prove through several direct observations that angular diameter distances predicted by lambda-CDM are incorrect resulting in systematic lensing errors. These include the faint blue galaxy problem (both size versus absolute magnitude and number densities of FBGs), the angular size of the most massive clusters (to avoid any uncertainty from morphological evolution) and Tolman surface brightness tests based upon large datasets/no evolution. Disk galaxies in the HUDF (>1z) further have angular diameters 10 fold smaller than FBGs, with the majority experiencing a single major merger from 0z with respect to Lotz et al. Even with multiband surveys of FBGs insisting that no evolution occurs up to the 2x excess, it appears that most are unaware or simply ignore these results. Combined with galaxies and clusters cooling with increased redshift, the lack of local merger remnants, lack of local close pair fractions, multiple anomalies in the cosmic background radiation and metallicity in quasars increasing at 0.108 ± 0.030 [FeII:MgII]/z, I simply cannot begin to contemplate how a major paradigm shift has not already begun.
Perhaps it is due to a prior lack of alternative explanations; however, from my own personal experiences any alternatives are being censored by the likes of arXiv moderation and conventional journals without reason. It is an absolute shame when better fitting alternatives based upon the standard model are censored, let alone fail to receive proper peer-review. I’m not talking about the “tired light” theory or “plasma induced redshift”, but instead simple things such as gravitational acceleration into a potential and resulting redshift; models that require less parameters and fit observations better. This is what true science is, finding the simplest answer in agreement with all observations. Pseudoscience is commonly characterized as an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation. So my question is, where are all of the rigorous attempts at refutation?
As you have stated, it is up to mostly the young scientists to begin questioning the foundations. They are the ones who will someday replace those currently in charge of the various institutes and access to scientific literature. This is how nearly all paradigm shifts proceed, but then again there is always the chance that things can progress in a much more reasonable manner this time around.
>....Today, there is only one alternative approach to study the Universe, and this approach is formulated by us in our works of 2013. I also think that our 2007-2013 ...... the PFO-CFO ..........................Hypothesis .........................of Solar System Formation could also be of interest....
Dear Panagiotis Stefanides, Michael Peck, James Dwyer,
When writing about a hypotheses of the Universe, I write about the hypotheses capable of explaining the origin of stars, chemical elements, planetary systems, regular stellar protuberances, big planetary moments, high temperatures of the stellar coronas, stellar magnetic moments, different rotational velocities of the stellar cores and radiation zones, etc.
The CFO-PFO hypothesis gives definite explanations to all these questions.
Together with this, we refute the physical validity of the current views on the stellar nature and origin, of the current conclusions on the dark matter and energy, black holes, Universe expansion, and other phantoms, because we have today no real ground for calculating the rates, distances, masses, and directions of electromagnetic radiation out of the Solar System; as for the Solar System, we have now only the laws by Newton and Kepler as fundamental generalizations, but we know nothing about the real intra-solar temperatures, processes, and past and future history. We have almost infinite mass of observations, but have only a few confirmed generalizations.
Practically, we propose the basis for the new astrophysics. Of course, nobody is insured against the impropriety of this basis, but I think that no other basis non-compromised by time exists today.
I think this my issue contains, in particular, the answers to your questions.
Victor, I am unfamiliar with the CFO-PFO hypothesis although there are some aspects in my research that pertain to the origin/evolution of stars and local chemical abundance. In my first paper, I derived smoothed particle hydrodynamic solutions to general relativity. When solutions are treated on a per particle basis, coordinate singularities no longer occur. This is rather significant, as it would insist that conventional black holes do not actually exist; i.e. they are instead highly degenerate objects consisting of dense quark matter. Stellar evolution will therefore differ between current treatments and the numerical methods I have provided.
In addition, there were prior conflicts with the ages of local stars being greater than the age of the universe as predict by big bang cosmologies. Although it appears the mainstream has alleviated this contradiction by adjusting stellar evolution models, I find this quite unsatisfactory since the underlying application of general relativity remained the same. From the insight I have obtained through various observations, it would appear that initial star formation occurs from dense, low metallicity x-ray emitting gas. Relative to the Milky Way it is likely that several generations of stars have already occurred, seeding the interstellar medium with light metals and dust. This does not necessarily rule out the CFO-PFO hypothesis, but instead adds several aspects that should be considered.
Beyond stellar evolution and local chemical abundance, there are some important observations that all researchers should be aware of with respect to cosmology. I have found several additional angular diameter distance studies that apply both QSOs and the surface brightness of galaxies up to high redshift. These depict observations fitting a steady state, nearly Euclidean universe with minimal evolution. Combined with equivalent variations in the extent of gas in the most massive clusters, faint blue galaxy (FBG) size versus absolute magnitude and FBG number densities, it would seem rather absurd to conclude that unrelated mechanisms are causing all of these objects to drastically vary by equivalent amounts over cosmological distances.
Michael,
"... it would insist that conventional black holes do not actually exist; i.e. they are instead highly degenerate objects consisting of dense quark matter."
This requires that quark degeneracy pressure is sufficient to support a massive collapsed object, preventing further collapse...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_matter#Quark_degeneracy
"Quark-degenerate matter may occur in the cores of neutron stars, depending on the equations of state of neutron-degenerate matter. It may also occur in hypothetical quark stars, formed by the collapse of objects above the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff mass limit for neutron-degenerate objects. Whether quark-degenerate matter forms at all in these situations depends on the equations of state of both neutron-degenerate matter and quark-degenerate matter, both of which are poorly known."
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_mass_black_hole#Properties
"The largest known stellar black hole (as of 2007) is 15.65±1.45 solar masses."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7164/edsumm/e071018-05.html
Is there any form of matter (including quarks) whose degeneracy pressure would be sufficient to support a discrete material object whose mass exceeds millions of solar masses (i.e., supermassive black holes)?
Dear Michael,
I don't understand well your logic. On the one hand, you write that you are unfamiliar with the PFO-CFO hypothesis, on the other hand, you write that your consideration could add several aspects to it. First, I can say that the content of the PFO-CFO hypothesis is available at ResearchGate in its final form of 2013-2011. Second, I should say that your information is, indeed, of interest for me and I thank you for it. It shows that the Big Bang theory is insufficient, isn't it? If this is so, this conclusion is in the context of our opinion. If you read our publications, you will understand that our criticism is rather deep. We put under question the grounds underlying the current conclusions on the Universe nature, the current terms and their intrinsic content.
Thank you again for your information.
Regards,
Victor
Dear All!
For a long life in Science, I understood that any researcher must say aloud about all his scientific conclusions even if he knows that these conclusions are against the widely distributed opinions; the solid conclusions should be presented loudly and without reservation. I said quite a few in this discussion, and today I decide to write my opinion on the so-called Big Bang.
I argue that the idea of Bing Bang is unscientific in its origin, grounded on nothing, contradictory to thermodynamics, irrational, and, in my opinion, useless to make an reasonable assertion on the origin of the world, and can’t be considered as a hypothesis which is really waiting for its confirmation:
(1) Each scientific statement should be based on any more fundamental well-stated phenomenon or on any exact mathematical or logical solution. The idea of Bing Bang does not satisfy this condition, because it is based on nothing; moreover, it lays a claim to the primary subject/phenomenon which might be confirmed by the subsequent phenomena only. However, it could be confirmed, apparently, by nothing but an expansion of the Universe. Meanwhile, we have no measurable parameter that could confirm this phenomenon (see (2)).
(2) Thus, the idea of Big Bang is grounded on nothing; we are incapable of proving the expansion of the Universe because we are incapable of calculating or measuring the masses, velocities, and the directions of electromagnetic radiations out of the Solar System. Indeed, we have no methods of independent measurements of gravitation coefficients out of the Solar System and no grounds to consider that the Solar System gravitation coefficient is constant over the Universe. The notion on the so-called dark matter was obtained from the mass deficiency in the calculations of the speeds of the movements of neighboring galaxies; there are no less grounds to use these mass deficiencies to calculate the true gravitation coefficients.
(3) The idea of Bing Bang is contradictory of thermodynamics and of that category which is usually termed the common sense. Indeed, the initial neutron “egg”, or even a point, of infinite density and temperature (the so-called singularity) is hard-to-understand and put very difficult questions about the compatibility of these two characteristics of the energy/mass in its any form, about the source of this substance, and about the energy that forced this substance into such pressing. It seems that it takes G-d to do this, but not Nature. According to the Bing Bang hypothesis, the density and temperature of the primary “egg” at a moment 10^(-43) s after Big Bang were 10^(32) K and 10^(93) g/cm^(3), respectively. As for the zero moment, it is taken that the state of the substance at that moment had obeyed none of the known physical laws (!?).
(4) The Bing Bang hypothesis takes the singularity as a fact but it doesn’t consider and even doesn’t discuss the causes and mechanisms of its appearance.
(5) A number of important observed well-stated phenomena, such as the space anisotropy and the occurrence of a dominating direction in rotation of galactic systems, are not explained by the Bing Bang hypothesis advocates.
(6) Available explanations of a number of observed phenomena represent explanations of unintelligible phenomena with the help of unknown phenomena; an example is explanation of the observed space anisotropy by the questionable process of re-ionization of the photons at free charges.
I think, this not full list of the defects of the Big Bang hypothesis shows that the door for the subsequent consideration of the problem of the Universe origin and construction is opened rather widely.
This conclusion was one of the moving forces that initiated our scientific activity in understanding of these two most principal problems.
The second moving force was the understanding that all calculated extra-Solar-System masses and rates of the celestial objects and the radiation directions are, to say the least, questionable. Indeed, nothing say that the Solar System gravitation coefficient is constant over the Universe, the radiation moves aside in unknown gravitation fields by known ways, the rates and masses of the celestial objects are calculated correctly, and Eddington’s assumptions on the fusion reactions as the ground for the stellar transformations and his approximation of the stars by spheres of noble gases that follow the simple gas laws are correct. Really, the correctness of each of these approximations is confirmed by nothing.
The third moving force was our desire to apply Einstein’s conclusion on the common inner nature of the mass and energy and on the difference between the notions of mass and matter to consideration and to understanding of the principles that were put by Nature in the ground of the Universe.
The PFO-CFO Hypothesis is presented at the ResearchGate in its development up to its finish state of 2013. This hypothesis integrated these three moving forces that urged us on this work.
At present, this work is available for your criticism.
The PFO-CFO hypothesis, including the mechanism of formation of stars, is presented at ResearchGate and can be read at my pages. The Universe is eternal and infinite, consists of energy/mass of low concentration and has infinite (!) rotational moment. The stars are the knots in the space. The energy/mass transformation into matter starts within stars and finishes in their surroundings by the mechanism described in our available publications.
We hope to present soon our notion of the Universe as a whole, its transformation into galaxies, and the hypothetical mechanism of formation of stars.
The initial synthesis of hydrogen and helium require exceedingly dense conditions - the amount of of the light element produced seem to require that such conditions existed universally, before stars could have been produced.
This condition does not necessarily seem to require the existence of any physical singularity - only that the universe expanded from an initial state sufficiently dense enough to condense enormous amounts of hydrogen and helium.
The existence of an initial physical singularity seems to be presumed based solely on the interpolation of identified recent expansion conditions necessary to produce hydrogen and helium.
If its assumed that the initial state was not confined to an idealized singularity there might be no need for an unexplained inflationary epoch.
James, to answer your question I must go into the details of my smoothed particle hydrodynamic solutions to general relativity. The basic assumptions are general covariance and Einstein’s equivalence principle, but the actual foundations are based upon a unified field theory. My proposal is that all matter and fields consist of Planck scale fluctuations of space itself, analogous to a spring-mass system in three dimensions. I further define the energy density of such system with a complex Hamiltonian density [H = o + iv], i.e. a scalar-vector field requiring tensor contraction to arrive at. For a single non-composite particle, the quaternion norm of the Hamiltonian is proportional to classical energy at the particle’s position [E = sqrt(m^2 + p^2), c = 1]; while the far-field is proportional to gravitational potential. I further refer to the quaternion norm as vacuum energy density, which is an invariant scalar field with respect to the conventional space-time metric.
With these foundations, I can go into the details of determining degeneracy and the space-time metric for composite objects. When particles form, they have a discrete mass for each type. In addition, each produces a gravitational potential (far-field) that is proportional to mass divided by radius. This is the classical limit of general relativity, where the field is from an individual particle rather than complex object. For simplicity, I will discuss what occurs to the field of a single particle as it moves into a larger potential defined by the Schwarzschild metric. The field of the particle must be invariant with respect to the metric, i.e. its electric and gravitational potential follow distance as defined by the space-time metric. From this, we can determine how the particles field deforms with respect to the Schwarzschild frame of reference. Furthermore, we can determine how a particles field will deform due to the presence of any amount of particles (external fields), including how it will affect such external fields. By applying converging continuous fractions, the space-time metric can be calculated on a per particle basis. With this method, coordinate singularities only form if there is an infinite amount of classical energy.
However, this approach assumes that you know the mass, momentum and degeneracy prior to determining the space-time metric of composite objects. It is also sensitive to the type(s) of particles in an object, which should be surprising since singularities can occur in conventional general relativity by only knowing the accumulative mass of an object. Beyond this, the question of degeneracy pressure and discrete material is dependent upon several assumptions. The Schwarzschild radius is linear with respect to an objects mass [R = 2GM/c^2], it is therefore possible to have singularities under various degeneracy and pressure scenarios in conventional general relativity. Furthermore, conventional general relativity usually limits quark stars to up, down and strange quarks prior to the formation of singularities; i.e. there are several degenerate states beyond these such as charm, bottom and top quarks. After top quarks, it becomes difficult to determine what exactly occurs from the standard model and QCD because these theories begin to fail after certain energy levels.
James and Michael
The Big Bang singularity was perhaps not necessary, but inflation yes, to explain the horizon problem and the flatness problem. All models of inflation predict a scalar spectral index slightly less than 1. Recently the Planck satellite measured it to be 0.9608 +/- 0.0054. What is your prediction?
Inflation ended at time 10^[-35] s, Hydrogen and Helium formed when the cosmic time was a few seconds, how do you form stars? Not much earlier than the oldest galaxies at time 700 Myr.
Matts,
As I understand, the inflationary epoch is necessary to produce primordial fluctuations only because the big bang would be expected to produce homogeneity that conflicts with the observed density variations. I'm not proposing an alternative to the big bang model or making predictions, but if there was no initial singularity, the initial state would not necessarily be required to be homogeneous.
Victor, I had found a short paper on the PFO-CFO hypothesis with the general concepts being proposed prior to responding; however, I am still somewhat unfamiliar with it. From what I understand, the hypothesis states there was a presolar star that went supernova and distributed dust/metals unevenly throughout the solar system. This seems like a reasonable explanation, but I do not know enough about it or current formation models to add anything beyond my own insight in cosmology and astrophysics.
Matts, the only problem I have with theories predicting an initial singularity is that something would have always existed to begin with. In this framework, one must come up with an explanation as to why an always-existent singularity (or prior object) changed states with respect to a big bang scenario. As you have stated however, an initial singularity is not necessary for all formulations of the big bang theory.
My disagreement with big bang cosmologies relates to entropy and angular diameter distances. There are several observations that depict cold baryonic matter and metallicity increasing with redshift. In addition, several studies depict angular distance-redshift relations fitting a steady-state Euclidean universe with AB surface brightness along the lines of (1+z)^-1. Most have proposed that drastic evolution is occurring that allows observations to fit lambda-CDM predictions. However, there are several unrelated objects varying by nearly equal amounts over cosmological distances. These include the extent of radio lobs in QSOs (Hooley et al. 1978 and Kapahi 1986) and the extent of gas in the most massive clusters with respect to my recent articles (2013). Both of these avoid uncertainties due to surface brightness variations and are suitable rods. My cosmological model is approximately (1+z)^-1 from the inclusion of time dilation and slightly negative curvature. When working under the assumption of filters/bandpass it is closer to (1+z)^-2, which is in agreement with the studies conducted by Pahre et al. (1995) and Lubin et al. (2001). For AB magnitudes, surface brightness of distant galaxies is anywhere from (1+z)^-1 via Lopez-Corredoira (2010) to (1+z)^0 for Lerner (2005).
These observations are fully consistent with a steady-state universe where redshift arises from classical mechanism (Doppler and gravitational redshift). I was further able to fit all observations by assuming an asymptotically flat, linear gravitational potential where the local deflection of light provides the illusion of accelerated metric expansion. This is masked by residual thermal expansion (z < 0.1) due to the recent origin from a dense relativistic jet emanating from the center of such gravitational potential. These large-scale structures fit the variations in the cosmic background radiation quite well, even when applying multipoles.
James
You have misunderstood the situation of large quantum fluctuations after Big Bang and before the Planck time, the Universe is not assumed to be homogeneous. Inflation is needed to explain the ensuing homogeneity: why are the properties of distant parts of the Universe identical when those parts could not have been in causal contact?
I am not attempting to explain these difficult and largely not understood concepts here, I have done it in my book and there are many other books you could consult, too.
Dear Matts,
The things that can not be explained shortly, alas, can not be explained at all!
Matts,
Thanks for correcting me, but the basic point still stands: If the universe did not originate as a singularity, expected to produce conditions that conflict with current observations, then a 'corrective' inflationary epoch might not have been necessary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
"Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.[18] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch..."
Dear Matts,
Please, pay your attention to a representative fact: nobody say that you misunderstand something, but you say not for the first time that your opponents are slow on the uptake.
Tu te fache, Jupiter, done tu as tort (You are angry, Jupiter, because you are not right).
Dear Michael,
Thank you for your interest in our works. That is a fact that we discuss a very many-sided problem that looks as a rather inconsistent one. Therewith, each of us is as if under a hypnosis of the widely-distributed opinions. When beginning the work within the problem under our consideration in 2007, I understood that Eddington's assumptions are non-realistic and the thread of the assumptions initiated by them is not applicable. I also concluded that these assumptions cannot be correct and that the Ariadne's thread end dangles somewhere else. The first principal heresy, into which I fell, was the assumption that the elements are formed from the stellar pico-drops of different sizes and gradually, after several steps of discussions with me myself and with Elena, we concluded that the idea of the so-called supernovae should also be rejected. Our hypothesis in its final form is published in 2013-2012. Apparently, you met an intermediate publication. I wrote not accidentally in my issue addressed to Mohammad that it is desirable to read at ResearchGate my publications on the PFO-CFO hypothesis in their direct or reverse chronological order, 2010-2013 (or even 2007-2013) or 2013-2007 to see the progress in our understanding of this problem. I think that, for you, it is sufficient to read one or two short publications of 2013.
Cordially,
Victor
Dear Victor,
an example of a theory that cannot be explained simply is GR. But when you take the trouble to understand it, it is a highly successful theory.
- Badges
- Science topic