Does Einstein's Static Universe Theory Disprove the Big Bang?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LSulayman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Static Universe
AI Thread Summary
Einstein's Static Universe Theory posits a universe that is neither expanding nor contracting, implying it has always existed in a constant state. However, this concept contradicts current astronomical observations, such as the redshift of supernovae and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which indicate that the universe is expanding and supports the Big Bang theory. The discussion highlights that if the universe were truly static, the Big Bang would not be a viable explanation for its origin. Clarification is made that the Static Universe Theory is distinct from the Steady State Theory, which also addresses cosmic evolution. Ultimately, the consensus is that the universe is not static, undermining the validity of the Static Universe Theory.
LSulayman
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
"A static universe or "Einstein universe" is one in which space is neither expanding nor contracting." from:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_universe

Does this mean that such a universe has always existed and has always been the same? Has always been here, unchanged?
Because I don't really understand what they mean with static universe.
 
Space news on Phys.org
Yes, that is what it means. But, this isn't true because we observe the expansion of the Universe through the redshift of supernovae. Also the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation suggests that a Big Bang occured.
 
Kevin_Axion said:
Yes, that is what it means. But, this isn't true because we observe the expansion of the Universe through the redshift of supernovae. Also the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation suggests that a Big Bang occured.

So according to the static universe there would be no such thing as a 'big bang'?
 
Probably not. Could be, but it's kind of a pointless question since the universe isn't static.
 
LSulayman said:
So according to the static universe there would be no such thing as a 'big bang'?


If by "Static Universe Theory" you mean the "Steady State Theory" then the answer is no.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top