Horizon problem: Why is the distant universe so homogeneous when the Big Bang theory seems to predict larger measurable anisotropies of the night sky than those observed? Cosmological inflation is generally accepted as the solution, but are other possible explanations such as a variable speed of light more appropriate?
For answer on this thread question it is useful to read a rather short thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_the_notion_of_Big_Bang_convenient_appropriate_for_you_question_for_physicists_chemists_and_researchers_working_in_related_sciences#view=5d18d3b2f8ea526b830f8940 , first of all the SS posts in this thread.
Cheers
I will but a paper, in my profile, probably newt week, which contain the explanation of the characteristics of the Universe, exact calculation of the gravitational constant ....
The farther we look into the skies, the farther back in time we are looking. The outskirts of our observable universe, the farthest possible observable matter in space, must have been there from the beginning (or very close). What we see farthest away was the first light to exist in the universe, one universe time length away and only just now reaching us. It's no coincidence that the objects we see now, giant super-dense gas clusters and the brightest things we can observe, resemble what probably existed long ago, after the big bang and before the first stars.
Why does the distant universe appear so homogeneous in light of the Big Bang model?
Of course the Inflation hypothesis tries to answer this question in answer to the horizon problem. Maybe a bigger question would be: why is the density of the distant universe appear to be the same or less dense than the presently observed density in our time. Based upon the Big Bang model it should have been 8 times more dense just 7 billion years ago, and about 16 times more dense 10.5 billion years ago based upon expanding space and an expanding universe. To the contrary, the distant universe appears to have been far less dense than the present universe and less distant arras.
IMO the simple answer is because the Big Bang model is wrong in that the universe is not expanding. Observations instead fit much better with a steady state universe. For this to be true there simply needs to be another explanation for observed galactic redshifts other than expanding space or an expanding universe. There have been many such proposals, and of course expanding space is unlikely to ever be testable. But maybe one of the alternative proposals might prove to be testable and valid in time.
“Thank you so much for your kind rearrangments and helpful commets. This feedbacks are the best one I've had ever in other sites."
OK! You will find the answer in the "Daon Theory: Gravitation and Cosmolgy" in my profile.
JES
- Badges
- Science topic