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

[wolram]

[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]

 

[zhermes]

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.

 

[Calimero]

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.

 

[Chronos]

Shakur has been pushing this bad apple cart for about 40 years and has apparently overlooked about as much in observational and methodological advances.