Challenging the Big Bang: Addressing Objections to the Expanding Universe Theory

[dm4b]

Hello,

I'm sure you all have heard these before. I'm just curious what your answers are to these, thanks.

(1) Quasars with very large red shifts seem to be attached to (or interacting with) galaxies with much smaller redshifts.

(2) Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion.

(3) Large-scale Voids are too old
The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.

(4) Surface brightness is constant
In contrast, the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above, decreases as (z+1)-3. More distant objects actually should appear bigger. But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution--early galaxies are different than those today-- lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense.”

(5) No room for dark matter
While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter.


Thanks for any and all feedback.

 

[George Jones]

Please give mainstream references for all of these, as required by Physics Forum Rules,

Generally, discussion topics should be traceable to standard textbooks or to peer-reviewed scientific literature. Usually, we accept references from journals that are listed here:

http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/

Use the search feature to search for journals by words in their titles. If you have problems with the search feature, you can view the entire list here:

http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER

 

[dm4b]

They're not mainstream, they are objections to the mainstream.

I am attempting to defend the Big Bang elsewhere where these counter arguments have arisen, and am seeking help.

I have not included the ones I already had decent answers too (like conservation of energy, dark matter, etc) But, I don't feel I have convincing arguments from the Big Bang theory in my knowledge to counter the ones I have posted.

Just censoring, or ignoring, the questions makes people asking them even more suspicious.

Anyhow, some support would be much appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[dm4b]

oh and ignore #5, I already have that covered, thanks.

 

[Mordred]

I don't know where you got your information but nothing I see above is correct. Please provide references or there is no way we can assist you.
for example how do you measure the age of a void for that matter what constitutes a void?
in number 4 redshift and luminosity are two different things brightness is luminosity not redshift yet you gave redshift values.
provide a documented example for number 1
on number 2 the predicted quantity of elements from BB nucleargenesis is a very close match to what has been observed so please provide references to that as well.

 

[dm4b]

I don't know where you got your information but nothing I see above is correct.

But, how is it wrong?

For example, one objection: the Big Bang is wrong because it says the total energy of the Universe is conserved, yet if the Universe expands and empty space contributes to the energy density, the Big Bang must be wrong for not accounting for that incease in energy.

Aswer I gave: the Big Bang doesn't say total energy is conserved. It's been long known you cannot define a total energy for a dynamic spacetime under GR. So, your understanding of what the Big Bnag says is wrong.

Surely, there must be simple answers to the other objections, as well?

I don't have references because these are people in real life asking the questions.

 

[Bandersnatch]

You might find this page helpful:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
I think it's specifically aimed at battling this kind of militant misinformation.

1 is covered in "Arp", as it is Halton Arp's claim.
I don't know anything about 4, while 2&3 contain positive claims that require sources(i.e., whomever said so needs to support it).
Evidence contrary to 2 is actually one of the supporting pillars of BBT, as shown in the link above.

 

[bapowell]

I'll take a crack at No. 5. First, the big bang theory says nothing about the existence of dark matter a priori -- it's existence is empirically inferred from several distinct cosmological and astrophysical observations. Second, as far as I know, the claim regarding the ability of white dwarfs and other halo objects to account for all the physical effects that motivate dark matter is simply wrong. That needs a reference.

 

[Mordred]

In number 1 Redshifts can be easily miscalculated in order to calculate a change in redshift you need to know the frequency of the source. hence distance measures use standard candles. These are objects whose properties are known. Quasars are not consistent enough to be used as a standard candle. Not like type 1a supernova. For more information look at cosmic distance ladder or extragalactic distance scales. No single method of distance measurements is used as due to distances no single method works in all scales. In other words to compare the redshift of a galaxy to a quasar simply isn't done.

Bandersnatch covered 2

number 3 large scale voids I'm assuming you refer to the space between galaxy clusters. Velocity of nearby objects do not determine age. There is nothing in a "void to measure" See the reference Bandersnatch posted to see how we detemine age of the universe.

I've already mentioned 4, brightness is given by luminosity in the form of flux or magnitude. or more exact apparent magnitude. I have no idea what you mean by surface brightness however surfacce brightness of what?. The CMB and WMAP data confirms that the universe is expanding not static. All measurements confirm that we are indeed expanding and not static.

For the most accurate model of measurements to actual data refer to LambdaCDM. which is derived from the hot big bang model.

another good site is Ned wrights tutorial.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

 

[Mordred]

Been thinking on number 4. In regards to the static vs expansion. Sounds to me like your asking how we can see objects farther than the age of the universe. Both links provided can answer that question.

 

[dm4b]

I'll take a crack at No. 5. First, the big bang theory says nothing about the existence of dark matter a priori -- it's existence is empirically inferred from several distinct cosmological and astrophysical observations. Second, as far as I know, the claim regarding the ability of white dwarfs and other halo objects to account for all the physical effects that motivate dark matter is simply wrong. That needs a reference.

That was exactly what I said for #5, thanks.

 

[dm4b]

In number 1 Redshifts can be easily miscalculated in order to calculate a change in redshift you need to know the frequency of the source. hence distance measures use standard candles. These are objects whose properties are known. Quasars are not consistent enough to be used as a standard candle. Not like type 1a supernova. For more information look at cosmic distance ladder or extragalactic distance scales. No single method of distance measurements is used as due to distances no single method works in all scales. In other words to compare the redshift of a galaxy to a quasar simply isn't done.

Bandersnatch covered 2

number 3 large scale voids I'm assuming you refer to the space between galaxy clusters. Velocity of nearby objects do not determine age. There is nothing in a "void to measure" See the reference Bandersnatch posted to see how we detemine age of the universe.

I've already mentioned 4, brightness is given by luminosity in the form of flux or magnitude. or more exact apparent magnitude. I have no idea what you mean by surface brightness however surfacce brightness of what?. The CMB and WMAP data confirms that the universe is expanding not static. All measurements confirm that we are indeed expanding and not static.

For the most accurate model of measurements to actual data refer to LambdaCDM. which is derived from the hot big bang model.

another good site is Ned wrights tutorial.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

To be honest, I didn't really even understand what they were implying by #3 and #4. It's my understanding though that is a popular objection, so I wanted to figure it out, both for my edification and the folks raising it.

I'll have to take a deeper look through your posts and all the links provided and slowly digest and make sense of all the information.

Thanks a bunch.

And, if ya'll don't mind, I may be back with another question, or two ;-)

 

[Mordred]

no problem feel free to, those articles will clear up a lot of misconceptions.

 

[Vanadium 50]

They're not mainstream, they are objections to the mainstream..

Then they are not topics for discussion on PF. If you find a mainstream article discussing them, PM a mentor and they will reopen the thread.