Big-Bang & Inflation | R.K. Thakur | General Physics

In summary, the conversation discusses the author's theory on the cause of the Big-Bang and Inflation in the universe, based on experimental findings at CERN and RHIC. The theory uses a singularity-free Newtonian model of the universe and argues against the expansion of space. However, the theory has numerous flaws and does not explain important features of the universe. It has been criticized for neglecting the cosmological principle, issues with entropy, and lack of explanation for observations such as nucleosynthesis and the accelerating expansion of the universe.
  • #1
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,446
558
[14] arXiv:1103.3688 [pdf, ps, other]
Title: The Genesis of the Big-Bang and Inflation
Authors: R. K. Thakur
Comments: 8 pages
Subjects: General Physics (physics.gen-ph)

The standard model of cosmology posits that some time in the remote past, labelled as t=0, a Big-Bang occurred. However, it does not tell what caused the Big-Bang and subsequently the Inflation. In the present work the cause of the Big-Bang and Inflation is suggested on the basis of the hints provided by the experimental findings at CERN and RHIC. The model used is singularity free Newtonian, i.e., non-relativistic, oscillatory model of the universe in which the "space" does not expand whereas all the relativistic cosmological models of the universe including the standard model, except the now discredited Einstein's static model, imply that apart from the matter and the radiation in the universe the "space" is also expanding. However, there is no observational evidence whatsoever of the expansion of the "space" and as such, in all probability, the "space" is not at all expanding. A critique of the singularity theorems is also given on the basis of the experimental findings at CERN and RHIC and it is emphasized that no gravitationally collapsing object can collapse to a singularity, if it does, the time honoured Pauli's exclusion principle would be violated[14]
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
This is a very interesting article, and was very educational and informative.

It has many huge problems.

1) The starting point of the authors argument is that there is no evidence for space expanding, only for the matter in space expanding. He uses an 'analogy' of gas freely expanding---every particle moves away from each other---to motivate this point; and its the basis of him making his argument.
Expanding matter is insufficient to explain observations, in particular the homogeneity and isotropy of expansion---which does not occur for the expansion matter alone. This is reason enough to scrap the rest of the argument.
Additionally, however, the author's explanation entirely ignores issues like the horizon problem, which significantly hurts the validity of his argument.

2) The author makes some (moderately good) arguments for why the universe may not be described appropriately by general relativity, and he thus describes the universe with Newtonian gravity... Here he ignores all of the smaller scale indications that general relativity is correct, and abandons it all together for a theory which has been entirely disproven (or more accurately, proven incomplete). His results are entirely incompatible with general relativity, as they require material to easily escape from what would otherwise be within an event horizon. Again, flying in the face of established, solid, observations.

3) If, somehow, Newtonian gravity ended up being the accurate and complete explanation of the large-scale behavior of the universe, his proposal does have an interesting simplicity to its explanation of what we thought was evidence for the big bang. His theory, however, entirely fails to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe (e.g. dark energy / cosmological constant, etc).

4) I don't know too much about cosmology. But even I see that the author's theory offers no method of explaining numerous features of the universe which standard Big Bang/Inflationary cosmology does. For example: nucleosynthesis and primordial elemental abundances; the power spectrum of fluctuations in the CMB; the size of large-scale structure in the universe; etc.

Thus this paper seems to be tremendously lacking.
 
  • #3
Many objections. First, author seems to neglect cosmological principle. Second - serious issues with entropy. Third - quark gluon plasma produced in accelerators lacks one feature we certainly expect to see when approaching singularity - immense gravity.

Noone likes singularities, and not many people are happy with notion of expanding space. But if you don't give space to much credit, and think of it as plain degrees of freedom, there is no reason why it should not be dynamic, at least on large scales, which preserves our local laws of physics intact.
 
  • #4
Shakur has been pushing this bad apple cart for about 40 years and has apparently overlooked about as much in observational and methodological advances.
 
  • #5


I find this paper by R.K. Thakur to be an intriguing and thought-provoking contribution to the field of cosmology. The standard model of cosmology, while widely accepted, still leaves many questions unanswered, particularly regarding the cause of the Big-Bang and Inflation. Thakur's suggestion of a non-relativistic, oscillatory model of the universe offers a new perspective on these fundamental events.

The author's use of experimental findings from CERN and RHIC to support their model is commendable. It is important for scientific theories to be grounded in empirical evidence, and Thakur's approach adds credibility to their argument. Additionally, the critique of singularity theorems based on these experimental findings is a valuable contribution to the ongoing discourse in cosmology.

I appreciate the author's emphasis on the need to reexamine the notion of "space" expanding in the context of cosmology. While the expansion of the universe is widely accepted, it is important to constantly question and challenge our assumptions in order to advance our understanding of the universe.

Overall, Thakur's paper presents a thought-provoking perspective on the cause of the Big-Bang and Inflation, backed by empirical evidence and critical analysis. It adds to the ongoing dialogue in cosmology and offers new avenues for further research and exploration.
 

1. What is the Big Bang theory?

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing scientific explanation for the origin of the universe. It states that the universe began as a singularity, a point of infinite density and temperature, approximately 13.8 billion years ago. From this singularity, the universe rapidly expanded and cooled, eventually leading to the formation of galaxies, stars, and all other matter in the universe.

2. How does inflation fit into the Big Bang theory?

Inflation is a theory that proposes the universe underwent a rapid period of expansion in its early stages, causing it to grow exponentially in size. This period of inflation helps explain some of the features of the universe that cannot be accounted for by the Big Bang theory alone, such as its overall uniformity and flatness.

3. What evidence supports the Big Bang and inflation theories?

There are several pieces of evidence that support the Big Bang and inflation theories. These include the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the leftover heat from the Big Bang, as well as the abundance of light elements in the universe. Additionally, the observed large-scale structure of the universe, such as the distribution of galaxies, is consistent with predictions made by these theories.

4. Can the Big Bang and inflation theories be tested?

Yes, the Big Bang and inflation theories can be tested through various experiments and observations. For example, scientists can study the cosmic microwave background radiation to look for patterns and fluctuations that would support these theories. Additionally, the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is capable of recreating the extreme conditions of the early universe and providing insights into its origins.

5. Are there any alternative theories to the Big Bang and inflation?

There are several alternative theories to the Big Bang and inflation, such as the steady-state theory and the oscillating universe theory. However, these theories do not have as much supporting evidence as the Big Bang and inflation theories, and they are not widely accepted by the scientific community.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
882
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
37
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
80
Views
7K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
2K
Back
Top