Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Failures of Big Bang

  1. Oct 29, 2005 #1
    This continues the “Big Bang” thread which was locked. I trust this does not mean that scientific criticism of 'mainstream theories" is banned here.

    I notice that “chronos” has not responded. Perhaps scientific debate is not his thing.

    The question of scientific method is key—we debated this a bit at our conference in Moncao, although not in the same terms.

    Let us see if we can get away from quoting authorities (not very scientific!) and determine objectively what the scientific method is.

    How do we know science is true, that it gives us a more accurate view of the universe than say, magic? The ultimate answer lies in technology, and in the last analysis, in our own existence. We can “prove” the validity of our theories of chemistry and some of what we know of biology by producing artificial fertilizers, which really do greatly increase the production of food. No artificial fertilizers, no 6 billion people on earth. If our theories were wrong, most of us would not be alive to argue about it.

    Technology requires predictability, that certain things you do in the world will produce predictable results. Trial and error could never get you too artificial fertilizer—there are too many variables. So a theory that makes wrong predictions, or does not make any predictions at all, even if it “explains” things you already know, is worthless.

    This is true even in fields, like cosmology that are APPARENTLY far from technological use. In fact if we look at the history of science, valid science generally gets applied technologically fairly rapidly. Europeans had a great deal of interest in the motions of the moon and planets by the time of Kepler and Newton because if you could reliably predict where at a given moment these objects were against the background of distant stars, by observing them, you could tell time. If you knew the absolute time, and could figure your local time easily by sunrise or sunset, you could find your longitude. That was worth a lot of money and many lives in crossing the Atlantic and Pacific. The epicycles of Ptolemy could “explain” the motions of the plants—ignoring a few anomalies—but could not accurately predict them.

    Similarly, the Big Bang is a sterile theory because with it you can’t predict new things, you can only ‘explain’ observations you’ve already got by fitting parameters or inventing new entities. Plasma cosmology, as a contrary example, is based on the close connection between the phenomena of the cosmos and that of the laboratory. Some of the very same theories that can explain cosmic phenomena, like quasars, may well be used to produce fusion energy here on earth.

    One other point briefly—someone asked how do stars produce deuterium? This is well known—protons accelerated by stars as cosmic rays can collide with protons in the interstellar medium to produce pions and deuterium. This is later incorporated into new stars. Others pointed this out as well as I, and I made quantitive predictions back in ’89 of the D abundance, which worked out quite well.

    Eric Lerner
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 29, 2005 #2

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Not at all, Dr. Lerner. I think you are a fine scientist and your surface brightness paper may turn out to be one of the most important works in modern science. I look forward to where you go with it. I also retract my 'math challenged' remark. I reviewed it again, and found it flawless. OK, I might argue an assumption or two.
     
  4. Oct 29, 2005 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Since you can look into the past with a telescope, can't we find new evidence of things that happened eons ago, to confirm or falsify the big bang?

    How is that any different from geology?
     
  5. Oct 29, 2005 #4

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Dr Lerner,
    Concerning your paper Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF, at about the same time another paper was published completely independently:
    A large population of galaxies 9 to 12 billion years back in the history of the Universe that seem to be describing the same effect, though using a different data set, but explaining it as an enhanced star formation period in the early universe.

    Given that galaxies go through star-burst episodes do you not think that it is likely that they do so when they first form and now observed at relatively high red-shift?

    It may indeed be true that as the standard ‘mainstream’ model and the theory it is dependent on, GR, requires Inflation, DM and DE, none of which has been confirmed in laboratory experiments, then it may need modification. However it is difficult to deny that the whole universe has gone through a period of intense compression, density and temperature to produce the relative abundances and CMB as observed.

    Garth
     
  6. Oct 29, 2005 #5

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes, there is the opportunity to make new observations about old objects, as detector sensitivities are improved. These opportunities have been present all along. The problem is that the BB theory has not been real predictive in this regard.

    Where are the BB papers predicting the discovery of mature massive galaxies with super-solar metalicities at z~6? Such a prediction is absolutely trivial in a steady-state model, but flies in the face of the heirarchical evolution of structure inherent in the BB model. If we live in a steady state universe, the LBT and Webb will show us more and more of these mature galaxies at higher and higher redshifts. If we live in a BB universe, high-z observations must eventually "turn the corner" and start showing us some young low-metalicity objects. I do not believe that this will happen, and I predict that we will continue to find mature massive galaxies (larger=higher ave. EM flux density=easier to detect) with solar and super-solar metalicities at higher z.

    If this trend plays out as I predict, at what point will the BB model be convincingly falsified? This is an important question, and I would like to hear responses from adherents of BB cosmology. At what redshift would the observation of mature galaxies with super-solar metalicities cause you to doubt the validity of the BB, and why?
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2005
  7. Oct 29, 2005 #6
    please provide a link to a refereed article that shows a galaxy at z~6 with super solar metallicities.
     
  8. Oct 29, 2005 #7

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Actually it is a quasar, amongst others with supra-solar metallicity see this thread .

    Garth
     
  9. Oct 29, 2005 #8
    come on Garth, where is the mention of a super solar metallicity galaxy/quasar T at z~6 in that thread?
     
  10. Oct 29, 2005 #9

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This paper is 4 years old and has garnered at least 228 citations. Fan et al show that these quasars at z~6 must have masses of several billion Suns and they reside in hosts with minimum masses of 10 trillion Suns with supersolar metallicities. Quite a trick, since the universe is supposedly less than a billion years old at the time this light was emitted.
    (Note: edited only to replace HTML character code that does not translate.)

    Here is the paper:
    http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJ/journal/issues/v122n6/201316/201316.text.html

    Here is the citation list:
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n.....122.2833F&refs=CITATIONS&db_key=AST

    Here is another interesting paper:

    Spitzer Imaging of i′-drop Galaxies: Old Stars at z ≈ 6
    http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0502/0502385.pdf

    Here is a news story about a number of surprises at high-z:
    http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030301/bob10.asp

    There are LOTS more papers on this theme (old massive structures at high redshift) if you will care to look. Just following the citation list for Fan et al could keep you occupied for a long time.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2005
  11. Oct 29, 2005 #10

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Come on matt.o did you not read that thread? My post #1 includes
    From the abstract of that last paper link
    The metallicity of APM 08279 + 5255 is given in An old quasar in a young dark energy-dominated universe?
    You also might read my post #2 in that thread where this quasar's metallicity is explicitly cited!

    I hope this helps.

    Garth
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2005
  12. Oct 29, 2005 #11
    If the mass of those objects is so high, then how much of the redshift is due to the gravitational well that those photons have to climb out of. Perhaps those objects are older/closer than we think.
     
  13. Oct 29, 2005 #12

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The characteristics of the spectra are consistent with most of the redshift being cosmological rather than gravitational in nature - although these objects are so far away that there is some room for argument.
    Garth
     
  14. Oct 29, 2005 #13

    Janus

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    When a thread is locked, this is not an invitation to start a new thread. If the mentor locking the thread had meant for this they would have split off posts into a new thread theirself.
    Yes, we do have rules regarding non-mainstream science, and those are that it is restricted to the Independent Research Forum, and subject to the applicable guidelines, found here.
     
  15. Oct 31, 2005 #14

    Phobos

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    See the links provided by Janus. Discussion of questions/concerns about Big Bang theory is acceptable for this particular forum, but presentations of non-mainstream alternative theories are to be directed to the Independent Research forum.

    Please refrain from personal attacks against other members.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Failures of Big Bang
  1. The Big Bang (Replies: 38)

  2. *Big Bang* (Replies: 27)

  3. The Big Bang! (Replies: 4)

  4. Big bang (Replies: 1)

  5. Big bang (Replies: 1)

Loading...