Register to reply

Center of the Univers

by The Grimmus
Tags: univers
Share this thread:
jcsd
#37
Jul5-03, 01:49 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,226
Originally posted by subtillioN
That is absolute bull****. I have gone to a university and they do NOT deal with the alternatives. When they do mention them they mis represent them drastically.

If you can deal with the alternatives then prove it and debate the links I posted.
Well can you explain to me the uniformity and istropy of the CPR? Cos, that's one thing I've never seen an alternative theory explain.
subtillioN
#38
Jul5-03, 01:50 PM
P: n/a
cop out
drag
#39
Jul5-03, 01:54 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,341
Greetings !
These are purely speculative ideas that have no known means of experimental verification.
This is what the scientist that wrote that Physics Essays
article in ST's link says about what is theorized to have
happened in the BB. I wonder, when he says "experimental
verification" what precisely does he mean ? Has he ever
seen a virtual pair of particles, or directly interacted
with them or touched them ? Did he ever set his feet on
Mars ? Did he taste the Sun to check it's flavour and
make sure it's "real" ?

Live long and prosper.
subtillioN
#40
Jul5-03, 01:55 PM
P: n/a
Originally posted by jcsd
Well can you explain to be the uniformity and istropy of the CPR? Cos, that's one thing I've never seen an alternative theory explain.
Yes the MBR is due to the planck radiation from the ubiquitous interstellar molecular medium.

see http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html
jcsd
#41
Jul5-03, 02:02 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,226
Originally posted by subtillioN
Yes the MBR is due to the planck radiation from the ubiquitous interstellar molecular medium.

see http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html
I have to say that explantion is laughable, why don't we observe more CPR in the region of the sun or stellar sources then?
CrystalStudios
#42
Jul5-03, 02:08 PM
P: n/a
I get the feeling sub is just a troll........
Brad_Ad23
#43
Jul5-03, 02:13 PM
P: 499
Analyzed. It makes several faulty connections.


1) The average density of the inteseller hydrogen is quite low, meaning that it should not interact. True some was formed in the past, but not nearly enough. Remember, the hydrogen atoms would have to get close enough to each other through mutual gravitation, which needless to say is extremely feeble.

2) As I stated, the references are old, so it is of no surprise it does not deal at all with the modern Big Ban (also called Inflationary big bang). In this version of it the problems of anisotropy are no longer present.

3 The claim that the universe must have been a black hole. While it is generally claimed the universe had some initial singularity, as I had mentioned in some other thread, the BB signularity is a fundamentally different singularity than that in your typical black hole. Also to boot, the properties of physics themselves as well as the strengths of the 4 forces were very different in the early universe (and yes not all of that is theoretical. Particle accelerators have verified that as we get to higher energy levels the behaviors of forces do change, for example, the weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force couple into the electro-weak force. At even higher temperatures [which we haven't reached yet so this is not yet verified directly] the strong force joins in, and then eventually at the instants of creation so does gravity). Again also it does not take into account the inflationary Big Bang in which quantum fluctuations essentially turn the gravitational field from what is classified as a tensor field into a scalar field and cause immediate exponential expansion until freezing out and returning to normal.

As I said, all this is well documented and a bit of research from credible sources will show it.
Hurkyl
#44
Jul5-03, 03:08 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,092
Your logical mind says that in any finite explosion there must be a point definable as a "center" yet this is forbidden by the abstract non-sensical notion of the universe as "finite but unbounded".
This is the point where you cease working with the analogy of an explosion and you seek what the math actually says.

The big bang theory says that there was a time when the universe had an extremely small volume (but no boundary) and extremely high temperature. From that time onward the universe has been expanding.



With an ordinary explosion, you can point at a region of the universe and say "Yah, all of the material was there, inside a bomb, then it exploded". (Of course, you still can't find a point that is the exact center of the explosion, but you can say something fuzzy like the bomb was the center of the explosion)

With the big bang, there is no "outside" to the universe from where you can say "Yah, it was all inside that little region at first"; the energy was spread through the entire universe.

But if you really like to cling to analogies, then this will do. After your bomb explodes, can you tell me which atom of the bomb was at the center of the explosion?


The oxymoronic mantra is "finite but unbounded". This nonsense notion is stolen directly from abstract mathematics (curved space)
The correct phrase is "finite but without boundary". Care to explain why it is nonsense? (I make this correction because "unbounded" and "without boundary" really do have totally different meanings)
subtillioN
#45
Jul5-03, 03:19 PM
P: n/a
Originally posted by jcsd
I have to say that explantion is laughable, why don't we observe more CPR in the region of the sun or stellar sources then?
The matter in the region near the sun is much hotter obviously. Why would you expect it to stay at 3K. The ambient temperature is very weak and cumulative.
subtillioN
#46
Jul5-03, 03:23 PM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Analyzed. It makes several faulty connections.


1) The average density of the inteseller hydrogen is quite low, meaning that it should not interact. True some was formed in the past, but not nearly enough. Remember, the hydrogen atoms would have to get close enough to each other through mutual gravitation, which needless to say is extremely feeble.


There are measurements of vast H clouds in interstellar space. It is not as tenuous as you believe. The mere presence of the Hydrogen in interaction with the ambient radiation from stars and other astrophysical objects is enough to account for the MBR.

2) As I stated, the references are old, so it is of no surprise it does not deal at all with the modern Big Ban (also called Inflationary big bang). In this version of it the problems of anisotropy are no longer present.
Inflation is a kludge to fix the huge problem of isotropy of the MBR and a valid argument is a valid argument regardless of its age.

3 The claim that the universe must have been a black hole. While it is generally claimed the universe had some initial singularity, as I had mentioned in some other thread, the BB signularity is a fundamentally different singularity than that in your typical black hole. Also to boot, the properties of physics themselves as well as the strengths of the 4 forces were very different in the early universe (and yes not all of that is theoretical. Particle accelerators have verified that as we get to higher energy levels the behaviors of forces do change, for example, the weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force couple into the electro-weak force. At even higher temperatures [which we haven't reached yet so this is not yet verified directly] the strong force joins in, and then eventually at the instants of creation so does gravity). Again also it does not take into account the inflationary Big Bang in which quantum fluctuations essentially turn the gravitational field from what is classified as a tensor field into a scalar field and cause immediate exponential expansion until freezing out and returning to normal.

As I said, all this is well documented and a bit of research from credible sources will show it.
There are simpler cosmologies which fit the data much better without the constant readjustments of inflation etc. required by the big bungle.
Brad_Ad23
#47
Jul5-03, 03:31 PM
P: 499
there may be clouds, but the nebulae are not isotropic.

And the argument is not valid in the new big bang. As for simpler cosmologies, I must disagree. All the other possible versions I have read about lead to serious problems. And inflation does not make constant adjustments mind you-it happened once for an extremely short amount of time and is a sound theory.
r637h
#48
Jul5-03, 03:36 PM
P: n/a
This may sound picayune, but: The CBR is not isotropic.Recent measurements have demonstrated this (although the means of measurement are taxed to the limit, signal-to-noise-wise).

Incidentally, the spectrum of CBR should tell us the same thing (or the fact that CBR has a spectrum).

The concepts of uniformity and isotropy are related, but different:
CBR may be "uniform" everywhere we look, but not necessarily isotropic (A bit like comparing precision with accuracy).

We can't "see" the future, but we can predict it (A bit like predicting the weather, though).

For example: Assuming the same dimensions, if we could reasonably compare the manifold(s?)) of the CBR with the manifold(s?) of what the Universe looks like today, perhaps we could derive an end-point of some sort.

It may be simplistic to say so, but the fact that CBR is the same everywhere we look may mean the the Universe has no center.

Thanks, Rudi
Brad_Ad23
#49
Jul5-03, 04:11 PM
P: 499
Right on, I was just about to say, the CBR is slightly anisotropic..but this is extremely small, which is good. If it were perfectly isotropic, structure would not have emerged in the universe.

Anywho, cases for the Big Bang:

The universe is expanding. This indicates that sometime in the past it was denser.

The CBR. Not only does the thermal spectrum match extraordinarly well with what the BB predicts. Not only that, but we can measure it at cosmic distances as well and show it was hotter in the past (Researchers at the Paranal Observatory showed it was by studing intersteller dust clouds).

Not only that, but the evolution of stars and galaxies and clusters is indicated by the big bang and observed. As are the production of light elements from primordial nucleosythesis.
jcsd
#50
Jul5-03, 04:15 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,226
Originally posted by subtillioN
The matter in the region near the sun is much hotter obviously. Why would you expect it to stay at 3K. The ambient temperature is very weak and cumulative.
But why don't we see more radiation of the CBR wavelength from the sun? The point is though if it had a stellar origin it would be less isotropic.

The correct phrase is "finite but without boundary". Care to explain why it is nonsense? (I make this correction because "unbounded" and "without boundary" really do have totally different meanings)
Actually Hurkyl, your incorrect, unbounded is the right term here. In cosmological models it means 'without boundaries'.
jcsd
#51
Jul5-03, 04:20 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 2,226
Yes, as brad points out it is slightly anisotropic, but only 1 part in 10,000 a degree of isotropy which means that the source must be very far away.
Hurkyl
#52
Jul5-03, 04:44 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Hurkyl's Avatar
P: 16,092
Actually Hurkyl, your incorrect, unbounded is the right term here. In cosmological models it means 'without boundaries'.
Sigh, so much for the myth of standardized terminology!
subtillioN
#53
Jul5-03, 06:52 PM
P: n/a
Originally posted by jcsd
[B]But why don't we see more radiation of the CBR wavelength from the sun? The point is though if it had a stellar origin it would be less isotropic.
The CBR is only measured at ~3K and the matter near the sun is HOTTER than 3K. Therefore it is NOT seen in the 3K CBR surveys.
subtillioN
#54
Jul5-03, 06:55 PM
P: n/a
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
there may be clouds, but the nebulae are not isotropic.

And the argument is not valid in the new big bang. As for simpler cosmologies, I must disagree. All the other possible versions I have read about lead to serious problems. And inflation does not make constant adjustments mind you-it happened once for an extremely short amount of time and is a sound theory.
You are severely lacking in your understanding of the alternatives. Do you know Plasma Cosmology models?

see www.electric-cosmos.org

Learn it and then come back to debate it, otherwise you are just blowing smoke.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Center of gravity (it's not center of mass ) General Physics 28
The geometric center of the Earth and the center of mass Classical Physics 9
U think that the univers is realy expanding? think again Cosmology 10
Can two objects with the same center of mass oscillate about that center? Introductory Physics Homework 0
The center of Mass perfectly match the center of Force-> General Physics 9