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

G Burbidge

  1. Nov 17, 2008 #1


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 17, 2008 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
  4. Nov 17, 2008 #3


    User Avatar

    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.

  5. Nov 17, 2008 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?