Origin of universe/big bang question

[ucf-fisher21]

I've heard that before cosmologists found that our universe' expansion was accelerating, they thought that there could be enough matter to cause expansion to stop and the universe would undergo the 'big crunch' which could result in another big bang. Once they theorized this they concluded that perhaps there have been an infinite number of big bang/'big crunch' cycles and it will continue infinitely.

Since cosmologists have proven that our universe' expansion is accelerating, could you conclude that there will be no 'big crunch' for our universe and that our big bang was the first and true beginning of everything?

 

[Garth]

Since cosmologists have proven that our universe' expansion is accelerating, could you conclude that there will be no 'big crunch' for our universe and that our big bang was the first and true beginning of everything?

If the conclusion that the universe is accelerating is sound and Dark Energy continue to behave in the way it behaves now (as we don't know what it is, this may be an over simplification) then yes, there will no 'big crunch' in the future.

However we cannot therefore conclude "that our big bang was the first and true beginning of everything", it might be the last throw of a number, possibly an 'endless' number, of 'cycles'.

But this situation would mean our cycle would have to be unique amongst these other cycles and it would be very difficult to explain why that should be so.

Garth

 

[marcus]

...However we cannot therefore conclude "that our big bang was the first and true beginning of everything", it might be ...

Garth you mention just one of several ideas that are being studied. There is also the single bounce picture---a temporally infinite contraction leading to a bounce and then a temporally infinite expansion. And there is the Black Hole bounce picture. But the repeated bounce idea that you mention has certainly been considered---even to the extent that a mechanism for breaking out after a finite sequence of bounces has been proposed in the past year or so by Bojowald.

There's a paper on that by him and someone else. I could find the link to it. Bojowald and Ashtekar have collaborated on a chapter or two of the new book Beyond the Big Bang and I believe one of the things they talk about is the repeated bounce picture.

Fisher,
Several models of what preceded the big bang are under study. A book is coming out next year with chapters by a number of prominent scientists presenting different approaches to the problem.
I'll get a link that hopefully will give a list of chapters and the main contributors.

Here is the publisher's page about the book
http://www.springer.com/astronomy/general+relativity/book/978-3-540-71422-4
Here is the table of contents
http://www.springer.com/astronomy/general+relativity/book/978-3-540-71422-4?detailsPage=toc

One of the chapters that discusses the oscillating universe is the second chapter about Loop Quantum Cosmology
Loop Quantum Cosmology II: Effective theories and oscillating universes.

One of the chapters that discusses the black hole to big bang transition is the Cosmic Darwinism chapter that immediately follows the LQC II chapter
Cosmic Darwinism: A universal differential selfreproduction via Black Hole-Big Bangs

There are some 20 or so chapters, so you can see there are various ideas about conditions preceding bang. It's an active area of research with a lot of prominent scientists interested in it. Keep an eye out for the book. Supposed to be releasted in April 2009

 

[marcus]

Here's the amazon page for the book I mentioned (Beyond the Big Bang, edited by R. Vaas)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540714227/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Here is amazon's product description:

Product Description

"The Big Bang model is now both theoretically and empirically well established. However, the very beginning of our universe still remains mysterious. General Relativity breaks down at very small spatio-temporal scales and at high energy densities. That is why Quantum Cosmology is needed. Recent developments open up the exciting new prospect of going 'beyond' the Big Bang and even finding a physical explanation for it. Surprisingly, the ancient idea of a past-eternal universe is being revived, and fascinating new approaches are also being developed. This book provides an up-to-date overview of the competing scenarios in cosmology and discusses their foundations, implications, and philosophical aspects. It gathers original contributions from the world's leading researchers in Quantum Cosmology, who describe their own work and results in a manner understandable even to non-specialists."Here is what the amazon page says about the editor, who assembled the chapters contributed by 20-some scientists and made a book out of it. He has himself written several articles about the origins of the big bang.

* Philosopher of science (Center for Philosophy and Foundations of Science, University of Giessen)
* Astronomy and physics editor of Bild der Wissenschaft, one of the largest/most influential monthly science magazines in Germany [similar audience to Scientific American]
* Many contributions to cosmology and philosophy of science and nature

 

[Garth]

Yes thank you marcus, I was just trying to keep it simple and respond to the OP.

The possibilities are endless, however it would be good to get them on a sound physical basis.

Garth

 

[marcus]

...it would be good to get them on a sound physical basis.

I agree! I hope I haven't discouraged Fisher (the OP) by mentioning several more possibilities.
Getting physical observational tests for quantum cosmology models is a huge challenge.
There was just that big QGQG conference in July at Nottingham and several of the talks touched on that theme: testability

 

[Cale Carter]

What about the theory that the universe is actually contracting, not expanding?

William Tifft, an astronomer at the University of Arizona has completed about 20 years of data regarding the problems with red shift and it's use to determine that the universe expansion is underway.

Quote
" the redshift seemed to depend upon the type of galaxy that was emitting the light. Spiral galaxies tended to have higher redshifts than elliptical galaxies in the same cluster. Dimmer galaxies, higher redshifts than brighter ones. " - Tifft

 

[Chronos]

Tifft is a bit dated. More recent studies indicate the CMB temperatures increases with distance as predicted by the BB model - e.g., http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602212

 

[Denton]

Considering the universe had basically no volume < big bang, shouldn't we have named it the little bang then?

 

[Sundance]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz

I have read the link

Molecular Hydrogen in a Damped Lyman-alpha System at z_abs=4.224
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602212

They had the mind set that the Big Bang model was correct than made assumptions than proceeded to fit the data.

There is no consideration to the star formation cycles and rejuvination.

This is their conclusion:

4. Conclusion
The direct detection of H2 at high redshift is a unique tool for studying the ISM in
the remote Universe. We have detected molecular hydrogen in one of the highest redshift
DLA systems known to date (zabs = 4.224). We have shown that the gas is probably the
left-over of intense star-formation activity that happened at least 2×108 yrs before the time
of observation and that the associated object is in a quiescent phase. The UV radiation field
is of the order of or smaller than that in the Galaxy and the gas is cold (T  90−180 K). The
[Ci⋆/Ci] ratio in one of the components of the system is consistent with what is expected
for excitation by the CMBR field at this redshift (T = 14.2 K). This study demonstrates the
importance of this kind of observations for our understanding of how star formation proceeds
at high redshift. The prospect of using -ray burst afterglows as background sources for similar studies is exciting and will boost this field in a near future (Draine & Hao 2002).

Marcus said

"The Big Bang model is now both theoretically and empirically well established.

Applies to the super structures and not to the local galaxies. Even that is in question, or should I say in conflict.

Most of the data distance and velocity of objects relies on redshift. Since it is general knowledge that redshift is intinsic of galaxies and supernova one would question the evidence.


==============================================
We assume that the Big Bang Theory is a fact and proceed to make conclusions.

Before we step in that direction, just hold your horses until the cows come home.

I wish that the Big Bang is correct. But! wishing is not very scientific.

Lets have a look at some deep field clusters

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/felines/
9 and 11 Gyrs

http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/05_releases/press_040805.html
6 to 8 Gyrs

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/smg/
11 Gyrs

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2004/darkenergy/
6.7 Gyrs

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2004/rdcs1252/
8.5Gyrs

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/highzqso/
13 Gyrs

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/1273/
11 Gyrs

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2002/1127/

Quote:
The X-ray image of the quasar PKS 1127-145, a highly luminous source of X-rays and visible light about 10 billion light years from Earth, shows an enormous X-ray jet that extends at least a million light years from the quasar. The jet is likely due to the collision of a beam of high-energy electrons with microwave photons.


Reading Chandra you would think that the Big Bang is reality.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/1999/0064/
6 Gyrs

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/07/text/
13.2 Grs

The HUDF field contains an estimated 10,000 galaxies. In ground-based images, the patch of sky in which the galaxies reside (just one-tenth the diameter of the full Moon) is largely empty. Located in the constellation Fornax, the region is below the constellation Orion.

The NICMOS sees even farther than the ACS. The NICMOS reveals the farthest galaxies ever seen, because the expanding universe has stretched their light into the near-infrared portion of the spectrum. "The NICMOS provides important additional scientific content to cosmological studies in the HUDF," says Rodger Thompson of the University of Arizona and the NICMOS Principal Investigator. The ACS uncovered galaxies that existed 800 million years after the big bang (at a redshift of 7). But the NICMOS may have spotted galaxies that lived just 400 million years after the birth of the cosmos (at a redshift of 12). Thompson must confirm the NICMOS discovery with follow-up research.

Now for a galaxy to form in just 400 million years is quite an ask. For a cluster of galaxies is going to far with the question.

Compare this with the evolution of our solar system and its life expectency of about 10 to 12 Gyrs.

Something is wrong. Are we blind not to question?

Soon we will look into deep field over 14 Gyrs. What than?

 

[marcus]

Marcus said

The Big Bang model is now both theoretically and empirically well established.

Sundance, please give a link to a post when you quote me or anybody else, so the reader can check back and see whether you are quoting accurately, or misquoting. In this case what you pretend I said were not my words. It was actually a quote from the Amazon.com product description of a book.

What I said was "Here is amazon's product description", referring to the book Beyond the Big Bang that Springer press is bringing out.

Here's the amazon page for the book I mentioned (Beyond the Big Bang, edited by R. Vaas)

https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540714227/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Here is amazon's product description:

Product Description

"The Big Bang model is now both theoretically and empirically well established. However, the very beginning of our universe still remains mysterious. General Relativity breaks down at very small spatio-temporal scales and at high energy densities. That is why Quantum Cosmology is needed. Recent developments open up the exciting new prospect of going 'beyond' the Big Bang and even finding a physical explanation for it. Surprisingly, the ancient idea of a past-eternal universe is being revived, and fascinating new approaches are also being developed. This book provides an up-to-date overview of the competing scenarios in cosmology and discusses their foundations, implications, and philosophical aspects. It gathers original contributions from the world's leading researchers in Quantum Cosmology, who describe their own work and results in a manner understandable even to non-specialists."Here is what the amazon page says about the editor, who assembled the chapters contributed by 20-some scientists and made a book out of it. He has himself written several articles about the origins of the big bang.

* Philosopher of science (Center for Philosophy and Foundations of Science, University of Giessen)
* Astronomy and physics editor of Bild der Wissenschaft, one of the largest/most influential monthly science magazines in Germany [similar audience to Scientific American]
* Many contributions to cosmology and philosophy of science and nature

 

[Sundance]

G'day all

Marcus is right,,,,,,,,sorry

===========================================
moving on

Trying to understand what the hell is going on out there by reading paper upon papers.

I see most papers assume first that the big bang is a fact, the model to make work.

Than without any understanding of galaxy evolution and the dependence of the size and activity of the black hole that is directly related to the intinsic redshift proceed to make assumtions and fit the data to the big bang model. In addition there is little discussion as to the foramtion of stars and their stage evolution. Rather they assume a star is formed and date it, assuming an intial start. This process gives a false dating process.

===========================================

This link is quite interesting


Anomalous redshifts in the spectra of extragalactic objects.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A&A...309..335H

Abstract

In this paper we show that strong statistical evidence has been available for many years showing that QSO redshifts in at least some cases are not caused by the expansion of the Universe. In a complicated world the number of unexpected associations that can be subjected to statistical test is very large and somewhere among the entire ensemble of such associations a few may seem of significance, if taken separately, which are only chance effects, however, occasioned by the profusion of cases in the ensemble. False associations of this kind show up readily as new data become available, since the original chance effects are unlikely to be repeated in the new data. An example was an algebraic formula for the sunspot number which caused a considerable stir early in the present century, the formula agreeing with sunspot numbers over many years with seemingly uncanny precision, only for the agreement to disappear as soon as new sunspot numbers came along. This well-known statistical trap cannot be claimed against the proposition that QSOs of high redshifts are sometimes physically associated with nearby galaxies. This proposition has now been exposed to statistical test for almost thirty years, and it survives in new data just as well as in old data. Additionally, a number of cases have come along with the years where actual physical connections have been detected between QSOs and nearby galaxies. Six of these cases are discussed in detail in the present paper. It is consistent with standard physics for redshifts to arise from doppler motions and also in radiation emitted by matter in a gravitational field, as well as from the cosmological expansion of the Universe. These other possibilities have been examined repeatedly over the years but have never been found to give convincing explanations for the QSO-nearby galaxy associations described above. One is therefore left with the non-standard possibility that different samples of matter can have different mass scales. No theory of how the QSO mass scale could be different from the usual galaxy mass scale has hitherto been found acceptable, with the consequence that most astrophysicists and cosmologists have felt justified in ignoring the evidence for anomalous redshifts, the thought being that what is known to be impossible remains impossible no matter how strong the evidence for it may be. The main purpose of the present paper is to question this mode of thinking. We show how, consistent with the quasi steady-state cosmological theory developed recently in a number of papers, it is possible for samples of material of different ages to have different mass scales.

===========================================================

I say bring back science to the table.

 

[Chronos]

Does citing old, speculative ideas that have largely been refuted bring science back to the table?

 

[Sundance]

G'day Chronos

What has been refuted?

 

[Chronos]

G'day Chronos

What has been refuted?

e.g., Quantized redshift, variable mass over time, Arpian statistics ...

 

[Sundance]

G'day chronos

Mate I think you need to check the right papers.

 

[George Jones]

Sundance, I think you need to check the right papers.

The last sentence of the abstract that you quoted is

We show how, consistent with the quasi steady-state cosmological theory developed recently in a number of papers, it is possible for samples of material of different ages to have different mass scales.

Read what Ned Wright has to say about the errors in quasi steady-state cosmological models,

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm.

 

[Sundance]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

George said

Sundance, I think you need to check the right papers.

The last sentence of the abstract that you quoted is

We show how, consistent with the quasi steady-state cosmological theory developed recently in a number of papers, it is possible for samples of material of different ages to have different mass scales.

Read what Ned Wright has to say about the errors in quasi steady-state cosmological models,

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm.

Smile, I know what Ned Wright has written.

As for reading the right papers, that's another issue.

Please explain further what you mean, I have an open mind and still learning bit by bit.