A Realistic Cosmological Model: 90 Years of Development

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on Geoffrey Burbidge's paper proposing a realistic cosmological model that challenges the prevailing hot big bang theory, which is often accepted without critical review. Burbidge argues that significant observational data from the past 90 years, particularly regarding active galaxies, has been overlooked, leading to a flawed understanding of cosmology. He suggests that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) may originate from hydrogen burning in active galaxies, implying a cyclic universe with a longer time scale than currently accepted. The paper highlights unresolved issues and unexpected observations that contradict the dominant cosmological model. Overall, Burbidge advocates for a comprehensive approach that incorporates all relevant data to develop a more accurate cosmological framework.
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
4,410
Reaction score
555
arXiv:0811.2402 [ps, pdf, other]
Title: A Realistic Cosmological Model Based on Observations and Some Theory Developed Over the Last 90 Years
Authors: Geoffrey Burbidge
Comments: 21 pages, conference
Subjects: Astrophysics (astro-ph)
This meeting is entitled "A Century of Cosmology." But most of the papers being given here are based on work done very recently and there is really no attempt being made to critically review what has taken place in the last 90 or 100 years. Instead, in general the participants accept without question that cosmology equates to "hot big bang cosmology" with all of its bells and whistles. All of the theory and the results obtained from observations are interpreted on the assumption that this extremely popular model is the correct one, and observers feel that they have to interpret its results in terms of what this theory allows. No one is attempting to seriously test the model with a view to accepting it or ruling it out. They are aware, as are the theorists, that there are enough free parameters available to fix up almost any model of the type.
The current scheme given in detail for example by Spergel et al (206, 2007) demonstrates this. How we got to this stage is never discussed, and little or no attention is paid to the observations obtained since the 1960s on activity in the centers of galaxies and what they imply. We shall show that they are an integral part of a realistic cosmological model. In this paper I shall take a different approach, showing first how cosmological ideas have developed over the last 90 years and where mistakes have been made. I shall conclude with a realistic model in which all of the observational material is included, and compare it with the popular model. Not surprisingly I shall show that there remain many unsolved problems, and previously unexpected observations, most of which are ignored or neglected by current observers and theorists, who believe that the hot big bang model must be correct.
 
Space news on Phys.org
What are the arguments against this hydrogen burning.

It strongly suggests that the CMB does arise from hydrogen burning, but the time scale
for the universe must be much longer than (H−1
o ). Since the universe is largely made up of
condensed regions of matter (lumps) in the form of galaxies, these must be the places where
the creation processes occur.
This leads us directly to the idea that the CMB arises in active galaxies, and the overall
time scale leads us to the conclusion that the universe is cyclic. This means that we are in
an expanding phase now, with a cycle time of ≈ 20 Gyrs. Later on the universe will slow
down and start to collapse. However, the pressure exerted by the active galaxies as they
squeeze close together means that the universe will not collapse back down to a region of
extreme conditions.
 
Hi Wolram,

It may be that we old curmudgeons (me and Burbidge) like to stick together, but I like Burbidge's paper.

This is an extremely presumptive thing for an ignoramous like me to make, but I feel a lot more comfortable with the cyclic universe than the BB, and dark matter and dark energy have always struck me as fudge factors put in because we don't know what's going on.

Admittedly, I don't understand everything he's presenting in his paper, but I'll read it a few more times and see if I can't get more out of it. But for now, I like it.

Frank
 
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