Big bang, schmig bang: everything's just shrinking

[Namloh2000]

okay sure, the redshifts in light measured from distant stars would imply that the space between us and it is getting farther and farther apart.

wouldn't this also be true if all matter was shrinking?

take two inflated balloons spaced a meter apart. if the balloons represented stars and they were both constantly deflating, the space between them both would grow, and this would account for the redshifts we measure... wouldn't they?

 

[Severian596]

...

This would imply that each star is on its own balloon. What's in between the balloons? It can't be space, because space is what's ON the balloons...

 

[Namloh2000]

you're looking at the problem wrong, i think. each balloon is a star. the balloon srinks (the star shrinks) - the space between the stars is greater.

this WOULD still prove a redshift

also I've heard that we have observed blueshifted stars before... if anyone wants to fill me in on that.

 

[Severian596]

The redshift experienced by shrinking stars...would be minimal if not zero. I would investigate the phenomena of "shrinking stars" a bit more.

The type of red**** that cosmologists observe affects every star/galaxy outside our own...every one. Imagine that. Every star that's not in our own galaxy is moving away from us, yet we're not in the center.

Do some more research friend. It's all interesting.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Namloh2000
you're looking at the problem wrong, i think. each balloon is a star. the balloon srinks (the star shrinks) - the space between the stars is greater.

this WOULD still prove a redshift

That would still provide a redshift: for 5 minutes or so until the star disappeared...

The observed redshift is big. For galaxies billions of light years away, the recession velocity exceeds the speed of light. That can only be explained by expanding space.

Your idea would also not explain why redshift varies with distance.

also I've heard that we have observed blueshifted stars before... if anyone wants to fill me in on that.

When discussing redshift and expansion of the universe, its galaxies, not stars that you are talking about. Stars in our own galaxy (and a handful of the galaxies closest to us) are so close to us that their proper motion overrides cosmological expansion.

 

[Namloh2000]

referring the guy with the eldar avatar:

not only shrinking stars... shrinking everything

lets say all matter was shrinking at an alarming rate - that its volume constantly decreased.

also i know the whole history of the big bang theory and i KNOW that we generally understand that everything is moving away from us. THIS IS WHY the only reasonable explanation is that the universe is expanding.

BUT i suggest that this redshift we see from all stars and galaxies that are around us could also be true if everything was shrinking - making it so that the distance (or space) between any two peices of matter is constantsy increasing - accounting for this redshift.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Namloh2000
okay sure, the redshifts in light measured from distant stars would imply that the space between us and it is getting farther and farther apart.

wouldn't this also be true if all matter was shrinking?

take two inflated balloons spaced a meter apart. if the balloons represented stars and they were both constantly deflating, the space between them both would grow, and this would account for the redshifts we measure... wouldn't they?

Good question.

Here's a suggestion for how to test the idea: how much 'shrinking' would need to be going on to account for the observed redshifts? For simplicity, start with the Hubble relationship: objects appear (on average*) to be receding from 'us' (this need to be qualified, but let's keep it simple for now) at ~70 km/s/Mpc. "Mpc" is a megaparsec, or 1 million parsecs; a parsec is unit of distance used by astronomers, it's ~3x10¹³ km.

And yes, there are plenty of blueshifted objects, particularly stars in the Milky Way. There are also a small number of galaxies in the Local Group which show a blueshift.

*plenty of observed deviations from average, a fascinating field of study. For a start, look up Great Attractor - there's a good thread here in GA&C on that.

 

[Namloh2000]

Your idea would also not explain why redshift varies with distance.

yeah i realized this... unless some matter was shrinking faster.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Namloh2000
yeah i realized this... unless some matter was shrinking faster.

Please take the time to do the math (OOM is OK) and tell us how much faster. You can pick a few values of z, e.g. 0.05, 0.2, 0.5, 1.3, 3.5, 10

 

[DrMatrix]

Universe expanding and matter shrinking are two ways of looking at the same thing. Consider that our unit of distance is a matter of definition. We define the meter based upon how far light travels in a certain fraction of a second. By this definition of distance. The universe is expanding and (idealized) rigid rods have a fixed length. We could define distance in such a way that space is not expanding, but rigid rods (and the meter) are shrinking.

Units of distance and time are matters of definition.

 

[russ_watters]

DrMatrix, did you read the entire thread?

 

[Severian596]

Originally posted by Severian596
The type of red**** that cosmologists observe...

I just realized I said red**** instead of redshift...oh **** I did it again.

 

[Severian596]

Originally posted by Nereid
Please take the time to do the math (OOM is OK) and tell us how much faster. You can pick a few values of z, e.g. 0.05, 0.2, 0.5, 1.3, 3.5, 10

This is pretty overwhelming. I like the idea of looking at things from a new perspective, kinda like at the end of Men in Black when some strange kids are playing marbles and the marbles have galaxies in them. It is dizzying to think of how MUCH matter must be shrinking, though, and then what would the consequences be of density? Would our density change? Or to the atoms themselves get smaller too, so the "space betwee" atoms doesn't effectively decrease.

Kudos to the new perspective though.

 

[DrMatrix]

Originally posted by russ_watters
DrMatrix, did you read the entire thread?

Yeah. Are you referring to your assertion that shrinking matter "not explain why redshift varies with distance"? I think it must:

Since expanding space and shrinking matter are two equivelent ways of describing the same thing (the only difference being the definition of our unit of distance), if you have red shift in one, you must have red shift in the other.

Is there something else I missed?

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by DrMatrix
Yeah. Are you referring to your assertion that shrinking matter "not explain why redshift varies with distance"? I think it must:

Since expanding space and shrinking matter are two equivelent ways of describing the same thing (the only difference being the definition of our unit of distance), if you have red shift in one, you must have red shift in the other.

Is there something else I missed?

If they are, indeed, 'equivalent', is there any way - through experiment or observation - to tell the two apart?

If not, then it's surely just a question of personal taste which you prefer to use to do your physics.

If it is possible to tell them apart, please give us some suggestions on how.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by DrMatrix
Is there something else I missed?

Several things (essentially every point made above still applies):

First off, there is only a finite amount of shrinkage that can occur (otherwise an object could disappear). The rate must slow hyperbolically as the object gets smaller and smaller, whereas expansion can proceed linearly, hyperbolically, parabolically, etc.

Second, if our meter sticks (the units) were changing, we would indeed observe exactly the same thing as we do now: but that includes redshift and still includes expansion! Whether or not our meter-sticks are changing, the distance between objects would still need to be expanding according to that shrinking meter stick.

Third, speed of light. Observing objects apparently moving faster than the speed of light requires expansion of space. The surface of an object can't recede faster than the speed of light.

Fourth, the type of effect you describe would not be observable from within the universe (necessary result of point 2) and as a result, even if it exists it can be ignored by everyone except God.

I think you may be mixing up two different concepts: observable shrinkage and unobservable shrinkage.

If our meter sticks were shrinking, it would be just like applying a conversion factor to our numbers (SI to English). There would be no observable change in the structure of the universe as a result of such shrinkage and as such, it wouldn't affect any of our laws of physics.

Namloh was suggesting shrinkage as a cause of observed red-shift. For that to even show up in our measurements, objects must be shrinking while our metersticks would not.

 

[DrMatrix]

If our meter sticks were shrinking, it would be just like applying a conversion factor to our numbers (SI to English). There would be no observable change in the structure of the universe as a result of such shrinkage and as such, it wouldn't affect any of our laws of physics.

That is exactly my point. There is no way to decide which model (expanding space or shrinking matter) is correct. Both are matters of definition. Our current definition of a unit of length is preferred, not because it is more correct, but because it is more useful -- our(idealized) rigid rods do not change length.

Namloh was suggesting shrinkage as a cause of observed red-shift. For that to even show up in our measurements, objects must be shrinking while our metersticks would not.

Well, if expanding space explains redshift and shrinking matter is just applying a conversion factor to our unit of length. Shrinking matter must give the same results. It's just another way of expressing the same thing.

To answer Nereid's questions: Since the difference is a matter of definition, there is no way to tell them apart. The difference is descriptive.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by DrMatrix
That is exactly my point. There is no way to decide which model (expanding space or shrinking matter) is correct.

No. Since there is no evidence of either, neither are assumed. Again, you're mixing up two different concepts: If an effect produces no observable phenomenon in the universe, how does it explain an observable phenomenon in the universe?

Well, if expanding space explains redshift and shrinking matter is just applying a conversion factor to our unit of length. Shrinking matter must give the same results. It's just another way of expressing the same thing.

No, it isn't. With one, everything including the meter stick expands/contracts at the same rate and as a result, no expansion or contraction (ie, no redshift) is observed. With the other, the universe expands/contracts(expands) and the meter stick does not, resulting in an observed blueshift/redshift(redshift).

There have been several threads in the past asking the question "If I woke up tomorrow and everything in the universe had doubled in size, how would I know?" The answer is, you wouldn't - there would be no evidence of it. But cosmological redshift is a piece of evidence for something. But for what...?

 

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by DrMatrix
That is exactly my point. There is no way to decide which model (expanding space or shrinking matter) is correct. Both are matters of definition. Our current definition of a unit of length is preferred, not because it is more correct, but because it is more useful -- our(idealized) rigid rods do not change length.Well, if expanding space explains redshift and shrinking matter is just applying a conversion factor to our unit of length. Shrinking matter must give the same results. It's just another way of expressing the same thing.

To answer Nereid's questions: Since the difference is a matter of definition, there is no way to tell them apart. The difference is descriptive.

Not so! It completely depends on how you specify matter is shrinking. It also depends on how the laws of physics react during a period of shrinkage.

Exactly HOW is matter changing? You will find it difficult to come up with a value of some parameter for this. It is not as easy as saying it is the same as the expansion of the universe, you need to provide a description, formulas, etc. which reproduce observed results. You can't just wave your hands and say there is no difference, when maybe there is when you supply the details.

On the other hand, there are estimates for the expansion of space over time which match observation within limits, and all other known laws are accounted for within the standard model of the Big Bang.

 

[DrMatrix]

No, it isn't. With one, everything including the meter stick expands/contracts at the same rate and as a result, no expansion or contraction (ie, no redshift) is observed. With the other, the universe expands/contracts(expands) and the meter stick does not, resulting in an observed blueshift/redshift(redshift).

How can the two models produce different observations when we can transform one into the other by changing the definition for our unit of length (applying a conversion)?

There have been several threads in the past asking the question "If I woke up tomorrow and everything in the universe had doubled in size, how would I know?" The answer is, you wouldn't - there would be no evidence of it. But cosmological redshift is a piece of evidence for something. But for what...?

It is nonsense to say everything in the universe has doubled in size, because we would have to say doubled in size compared to some defined unit of length.

If we assume that rigid rods do not change length, then redshift is evidence for expanding space. If we assume that space is not expanding, then redshift is evicence that rigid rods must be shrinking. It is just two ways of expressing the same thing.

 

[DrChinese]

How can the two models produce different observations when we can transform one into the other by changing the definition for our unit of length (applying a conversion)?
It is nonsense to say everything in the universe has doubled in size, because we would have to say doubled in size compared to some defined unit of length.

If we assume that rigid rods do not change length, then redshift is evidence for expanding space. If we assume that space is not expanding, then redshift is evicence that rigid rods must be shrinking. It is just two ways of expressing the same thing.

That is factually incorrect. The expansion of the universe according to the Hubble flow is NOT a change to the yardstick used to make measurements. The distance between the orbitals in an atom, for example, stay the same. It is a physical process, as of now poorly understood, and is part of the same process that yielded rapid inflation in the very early universe. Below is an excellent summary of the current state of the art on this subject:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0310/0310808.pdf

It is clear to me that this describes something which is far different than what you describe. If you think you can find an equivalent way to describe how shrinking gives the same effects, it will take as much analysis as is presented in the paper to convince. After all, the light we are seeing 13 billion years ago (universe was 750 million years old) is coming from object now 46 billion light years away.

I don't believe you can prepare a "shrinking" scenario which matches these results. Recall that most physicists will reject your assertion that the processes described in the citation above is equivalent to a change in the yardstick used to measure distances. Showing the kind of invariance you are attempting to assert (that you call a definition) is far from simple. Don't assume they are the same thing. You must propose a rate of change of the yardstick and fit everything together in a consistent way. I.e. show how matter shrinks while space remains constant, and that yields predictions consistent with observation.

 

[russ_watters]

How can the two models produce different observations when we can transform one into the other by changing the definition for our unit of length (applying a conversion)?

?? Who said we can? We can't.

It is nonsense to say everything in the universe has doubled in size, because we would have to say doubled in size compared to some defined unit of length.

That's exactly the point and exactly why such a thing would not be observable. It is an interesting philosophical question nonetheless.

If we assume that rigid rods do not change length, then redshift is evidence for expanding space. If we assume that space is not expanding, then redshift is evicence that rigid rods must be shrinking. It is just two ways of expressing the same thing.

That's basically correct, but it would still not fit with what we observe: the magnitude of the redshift caused by such shrinkage would be orders of magnitude too low.

Take a step back for a second and go back to the cause of doppler shift in general. Doppler shift is observed as a result of motion of two objects relative to each other. The typical example is a train whistle: as the train approaches, the pitch of the train's whistle starts off high, then drops as the train passes.

Doppler shifted light works the same way: if the source and reciever are moving closer together, frequency is increased adn the light looks bluer. If the source and reciever are moving apart, the frequency is decreased and the light looks redder.

So, what can cause the source and reciever to appear to be moving apart. Well, if the object is a star, it has a large diameter, but the light comes off the surface. So if the star is at a fixed distance but is contracting, the surface will be moving away from the source and cause a doppler shift. This is what Namloh was suggesting. But as explaned, there are a host of problems with this.

In actuality, objects in the universe are of fixed size and the distance between them is increasing.

 

[jcsd]

Dr. Matrix is correct, it was (IIRC) Fred Hoyle (and others) who proved that the two models are equivalent. Redshift can be explained in terms of shrinking atomic radii.

 

[DrChinese]

Dr. Matrix is correct, it was (IIRC) Fred Hoyle (and others) who proved that the two models are equivalent. Redshift can be explained in terms of shrinking atomic radii.

Sounds dubious to me. Hoyle, if I recall, opposed the big bang in favor of steady state. I would need to see a reputable citation on that one. I don't see how Hoyle could have ever prepared an analysis of equivalence since high red-shift objects were only discovered relatively recently.

Recall that the issue is NOT whether "Redshift can be explained in terms of shrinking atomic radii" as you stated. The issue is whether the current standard model can be considered equivalent to a shrinking distance model. Please do not confuse one with the other, this point has been made by myself and russ several times already.

 

[jcsd]

Whatever Hoyle's view's on big bang theory (big bang was actually a term that he coined himself) he is a key figure in cosmology and was certainly no crackpot.

Redshifting of distant objects has been known about for many years ((Hoyle himself died three years ago), objects with higher and higher reshift have constantly been discoverd since then due to improvemnts in technology, the fact that more have been discoverd is neither here nor there.

What Hoyle and Naikur proved is that the reults of Hubble redshifting could be exactly accounted for by changes in the mass:fundamnetal charge ratio. As the atomic radii shrinks the electrons bcome more tightly bound meaning that light is blueshifted (and hence light from distant objects appears redshifted). This model is exactly equivalent to the redshifting of light by the expansion of spacetime. It's generally treated as a clever piece of mathematical trickery rather than a serious alternative theory to big bang theory as it merely replicates BB theories results.

 

[DrChinese]

Whatever Hoyle's view's on big bang theory (big bang was actually a term that he coined himself) he is a key figure in cosmology and was certainly no crackpot.

Redshifting of distant objects has been known about for many years ((Hoyle himself died three years ago), objects with higher and higher reshift have constantly been discoverd since then due to improvemnts in technology, the fact that more have been discoverd is neither here nor there.

What Hoyle and Naikur proved is that the reults of Hubble redshifting could be exactly accounted for by changes in the mass:fundamnetal charge ratio. As the atomic radii shrinks the electrons bcome more tightly bound meaning that light is blueshifted (and hence light from distant objects appears redshifted). This model is exactly equivalent to the redshifting of light by the expansion of spacetime. It's generally treated as a clever piece of mathematical trickery rather than a serious alternative theory to big bang theory as it merely replicates BB theories results.

As to Hoyle's views on the Big Bang, I am afraid it is fairly relevant. He coined the big bang term in derision, and I question whether he ever really accepted it as he pushed the quasi-steady state model until near his death. He also believed that life on Earth originated extraterrestrially (panspermia). But even crackpots have good ideas.

I could not find any Google references to Naikur, but after some looking I found it was Narlikar. One thing leading to another, I think this reference gets pretty close to your point:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0011/0011091.pdf by Danilo Behnke et al, 2000.

They claim that the equivalence is there, but I didn't see anything where they worked through the details of the cosmology. I will continue to study it.

 

[DrMatrix]

Thanks for the support, jcsd.

It's generally treated as a clever piece of mathematical trickery rather than a serious alternative theory to big bang theory as it merely replicates BB theories results.

Certainly! I'm not suggesting that my proposed model would be more useful (or even as useful) than the current model, just that it is equally valid.

There is no absolute unit of length. Unit of length must be defined. In fact, the definition of meter has changed. The previous definition was the distance between two marks on some particular bar in France. With this definition it was possible to test Special Relativity by asking the question: "Is the speed of light constant?" And it is conceivable that the answer could have been no. On the other hand, if you were to ask: "Is the distance between those two marks constant?" The answer would necessarily have been: "Yes, by definition, the distance is exactly one meter."

The current definition of the meter is the distance that light travels in some fraction of a second. Using this definition, the answer to: "Is the speed of light constant?" becomes: "Yes, even if Special Relativity is wrong, the speed of light in meters per second is constant by definition." Now the question to test SR becomes: "Do rigid rods change length?"

The model I'm talking about is essentially just another definition.

[nitpick]
DrChinese:

In post #24 you referred to a "shrinking distance model". Shrinking distance is meaningless. Distance is distance. It is shrinking rigid rods or shrinking matter.
[/nitpick]

 

[jcsd]

Hoyle was hardly at the fringes, he made many inmportant contributions to cosmology and is still regarded as one of the great astronmers.

It really shouldn't be a surprise that you can produce Hubble redshift from a shrinking model,as Dr. matrix says they both are the same transformation when carried out globally.

 

[DrChinese]

...Certainly! I'm not suggesting that my proposed model would be more useful (or even as useful) than the current model, just that it is equally valid.

...Using this definition, the answer to: "Is the speed of light constant?" becomes: "Yes, even if Special Relativity is wrong, the speed of light in meters per second is constant by definition." Now the question to test SR becomes: "Do rigid rods change length?"

What model? Your model?

Or are you discussing the one in the cited article called "Conformal General Relativity"? That one is complicated, and certainly is far from being "equally valid" compared to the standard model. For instance: if matter is shrinking, the universe must have once been quite large. Where did the cosmic background radiation come from?

As you should be aware by now, just saying something is equivalent does not make it so.

As to Special Relativity being proved wrong: I have news for you, that cannot happen. It will always be useful, even if something superior to it arrives on the scene. This thread is not a debate on SR, that debate is taking place elsewhere. Please do not attempt to hijack this thread for that purpose.

 

[DrMatrix]

I don't doubt special relativity, nor do I wish to debate SR. I was just trying to illustrate that units of distance are not something we observe, but something we must define. In order to ask the question is space expanding, we must first define units of distance and time and it is possible to define our units such that space is not expanding.

 

[DrChinese]

It is the putting together of all the pieces that tips the scale on one theory over another.

Hoyle had come up with argument after argument, as convoluted as needed, to keep the steady state theory going against the big bang. He tried to account for Hubble's red shift, and other pieces of the puzzle. Then the cosmic microwave radiation was discovered around 1965, and that was the end of the steady state theory.

So the same applies to a shrinking matter model. Are you trying to say there was no big bang? If so, where does the radiation come from? That is neatly accounted for in an expanding universe model.

 

[Jack Martinelli]

It is the putting together of all the pieces that tips the scale on one theory over another.

except all the pieces aren't in place yet. It is unlikely that they ever will be.

Then the cosmic microwave radiation was discovered around 1965, and that was the end of the steady state theory.

Really?

So the same applies to a shrinking matter model. Are you trying to say there was no big bang? If so, where does the radiation come from? That is neatly accounted for in an expanding universe model.

The big bang theory is dubious & has been since inflation is needed to hold it up & since galactic recession has been found to be accelerating.

 

[Nereid]

[re Big Bang:] except all the pieces aren't in place yet. It is unlikely that they ever will be.

[re discovery of CMBR being the end of the Steady State theory:] Really?

[re the Big Bang theory accounting for observations:] The big bang theory is dubious & has been since inflation is needed to hold it up & since galactic recession has been found to be accelerating.

It seems, Jack, that you are somewhat sceptical of the strength of the Big Bang theory. Is your scepticism based on any particular sets of observations which the BB theory cannot account for (or accounts for only poorly)? or a more general discomfort with the whole concept? or a belief that an alternative to the BB theory better matches the data?

AFAIK, the BB theory is really the only game in town at the moment; it accounts for all the observations to within the error budgets, and all other theories have serious difficulties with at least one well established set of observations.

Of course, since cosmology is now within the realm of science, the BB theory can never be 'proven', science doesn't work like that.

 

[Jack Martinelli]

It seems, Jack, that you are somewhat sceptical of the strength of the Big Bang theory. Is your scepticism based on any particular sets of observations which the BB theory cannot account for (or accounts for only poorly)?

How about gravity? It's an observable & BB theory doesn't account for it.

If recession is accelerating, is it constant, increasing, or decreasing? How does this answer impact the age of the universe? Or CMBR?

or a more general discomfort with the whole concept? or a belief that an alternative to the BB theory better matches the data?

Because there are some serious open questions related to BBT, I'm hesitant to say that such a thing actuall happened.

AFAIK, the BB theory is really the only game in town at the moment;

If it were the only drinking hole in town. That's where you'd find me. I'm a little pickier with my science.

it accounts for all the observations to within the error budgets, and all other theories have serious difficulties with at least one well established set of observations.

All observations? How about the relative masses of the elementary particles?

Of course, since cosmology is now within the realm of science, the BB theory can never be 'proven', science doesn't work like that.

I agree.

 

[DrChinese]

How about gravity? It's an observable & BB theory doesn't account for it.

If recession is accelerating, is it constant, increasing, or decreasing? How does this answer impact the age of the universe? Or CMBR?

Because there are some serious open questions related to BBT, I'm hesitant to say that such a thing actuall happened.

If it were the only drinking hole in town. That's where you'd find me. I'm a little pickier with my science.

All observations? How about the relative masses of the elementary particles?

Your thinking is seriously flawed.

Gravity is accounted for by GR as you know. The "serious" flaws you try to describe in the BB - mass of particles, strength of gravity, etc. - are really issues of the respective theories (GR, QM) and not the BB itself. Most physicists to not consider these flaws anyway - those theories treat them as free parameters not requiring a specific value. Failure to explain the value itself is not a flaw at all.

Theory evolves, and perhaps one day an answer to those questions will be discovered. In fact, it is no different than evolution not being able to explain why it took 4 billion years for intelligent life to develop on Earth (versus 1 billion or 10 billion). Or perhaps you haven't bought into that yet either.

I don't agree that you are being picky with your science. The standard model is quite picky. You viewpoint is purely retro. However, I would be willing to meet you at the local watering hole to discuss ;)

 

[Nereid]

How about gravity? It's an observable & BB theory doesn't account for it.

If recession is accelerating, is it constant, increasing, or decreasing? How does this answer impact the age of the universe? Or CMBR?

Because there are some serious open questions related to BBT, I'm hesitant to say that such a thing actuall happened.

If it were the only drinking hole in town. That's where you'd find me. I'm a little pickier with my science.

All observations? How about the relative masses of the elementary particles?

DrChinese addressed your points well, I feel. However, I'd like to expand on one point: the scope, or domain, of a scientific theory.

In economics, there's a thing called the theory of comparative advantage, and it's pretty good in its domain of applicability (industries which countries engaged in free trade should concentrate on in order to maximise the economic benefits to each country). However, it's useless for accounting for the photosynthetic pathways in plants, or the spectrum of hydrogen. And biologists, physicists and economists are quite relaxed about this.

Similarly, in physics there's a thing called general relativity (GR), and it's pretty good in its domain. ... you get the picture I'm sure.

So, wrt the Big Bang theories (there's more than one), its domain of applicability is the large-scale structure (and some small scale structure) and evolution of the universe, at least from the time of radiation-(ordinary) matter decoupling if not from ~Planck time.

Then there's how 'fundamental' a theory is. Crudely, ecology is 'just' biology, which in turn is 'just' chemistry, ... until you get to GR and the QM/QFT/SM (Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory, the Standard Model); these two are the most fundamental theories we have. And, as has been noted many times in PF, there are regimes in which predictions of each are in serious conflict. The BBT is 'just' a theory built on GR and the SM, it does not supercede either, nor does it set out to. Some of its predictions may turn out to be very good tests of either GR or the SM ... let's see. Some of its components have strange new things - dark energy for example - but they are not things which 'overthrow' GR or the SM.

Your question about 'recession' is a good one; I'll address it in another post.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm a little pickier with my science.

So what do you pick as an alternative?

 

[jcsd]

How does big bang theory not account for gravity? it comes from what could be seen as a theory of gravity (GR) and gravity plays key roles in nearly all of it's equations.

 

[Jack Martinelli]

So what do you pick as an alternative?

Nothing yet.

Until someone derives the 26(http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/constants.html) fundamental constants from a fundamental idea, I won't accept anything.

The fundamentally correct idea, I think is: For every change there is an equal but opposite change.

 

[Nereid]

The fundamentally correct idea, I think is: For every change there is an equal but opposite change.

Why a binary world? Why not "for every change there are 10¹⁰⁰ equal and opposite changes"?

 

[Jack Martinelli]

Why a binary world? Why not "for every change there are 10¹⁰⁰ equal and opposite changes"?

Its not symetric. I don't know that the universe is actually symetric, but I think its a pretty good guess.

 

[DrChinese]

How does big bang theory not account for gravity? it comes from what could be seen as a theory of gravity (GR) and gravity plays key roles in nearly all of it's equations.

Well, the obvious answer to that is that GR essentially preceded the modern theory of the Big Bang. It is not dependent on it any way. Rather, the BB leads to predicted evolution of the universe according to GR. GR could be valid and the BB not be, because of the independence of the two.

Yet they both fit neatly with observations.

 

[Quantum-lept]

The type of red**** that cosmologists observe affects every star/galaxy outside our own...every one.

I just realized I said red**** instead of redshift...oh **** I did it again.

Okay, am i looking for redshift or redgarbage?!..Cosmology is so confusing!

 

[Vanadium 50]

This is a six year old thread.