Thanks for your reply. I understand it is what is the current explanation. But I've always wondered how such structures could have formed from such a nearly if not virtually uniform explosion.rootone said:Although the CMB is nearly uniform it isn't absolutely completely uniform, there are hotter and colder spots.
It can be argued that these tiny initial variations correspond to areas of very slightly different density, and that these were the seeds of the large scale structures which we observe.
Inflation provides a mechanism by which quantum vacuum fluctuations are converted into classical perturbations. These are widely believed to be the source of the temperature anisotropies observed in the CMB.TROU said:Thanks for your reply. I understand it is what is the current explanation. But I've always wondered how such structures could have formed from such a nearly if not virtually uniform explosion.
Thanks again. But doesn't Guth's Inflation Theory have some problems? Among them he predicts that protons will have a finite lifetime of Ten to the 30th years. Haven't experimental results failed thus far to confirm this? Beyond this the Big Bang itself seems to wildly violate the first law of thermodynamics particularly since there is no recognized source for the explosion. These are just some of the problems I've kind of always had with that theory.bapowell said:Inflation provides a mechanism by which quantum vacuum fluctuations are converted into classical perturbations. These are widely believed to be the source of the temperature anisotropies observed in the CMB.
Inflation as a general theory has nothing specific to say about proton lifetimes. Protons are thought to decay via certain GUT reactions, and the early models of inflation were sought within these GUTs; however, most of these early models have since been abandoned because they don't match cosmological observations. The generic predictions of inflation: flatness, superhorizon correlations of the temperature and polarization anisotropies, and adiabatic Gaussian perturbations, are all well-supported by current data. Finding a specific mechanism for the inflationary expansion within beyond-the-Standard Model physics is an ongoing effort, though there are several proposals that seem to work within supergravity, string theory, and more modest extensions of the SM.TROU said:Thanks again. But doesn't Guth's Inflation Theory have some problems? Among them he predicts that protons will have a finite lifetime of Ten to the 30th years. Haven't experimental results failed thus far to confirm this? Beyond this the Big Bang itself seems to wildly violate the first law of thermodynamics particularly since there is no recognized source for the explosion. These are just some of the problems I've kind of always had with that theory.
Thank you for that summary and your politeness. I have more recently read that a proposed 'GUT' ('Subquantum Kinetics' 1994 - Paul A. LaViolette PhD.) does better than the SM 'expanding universe' theory on multiple cosmological tests when compared with the 'tired-light' hypothesis. Have you read this anywhere?bapowell said:Inflation as a general theory has nothing specific to say about proton lifetimes. Protons are thought to decay via certain GUT reactions, and the early models of inflation were sought within these GUTs; however, most of these early models have since been abandoned because they don't match cosmological observations. The generic predictions of inflation: flatness, superhorizon correlations of the temperature and polarization anisotropies, and adiabatic Gaussian perturbations, are all well-supported by current data. Finding a specific mechanism for the inflationary expansion within beyond-the-Standard Model physics is an ongoing effort, though there are several proposals that seem to work within supergravity, string theory, and more modest extensions of the SM.
The big bang was not an explosion. Cosmologists don't know "where it all came from", but any process that alleges to explain the origin should not violate any physical principles.
No. Which tests?TROU said:Thank you for that summary and your politeness. I have more recently read that a proposed 'GUT' ('Subquantum Kinetics' 1994 - Paul A. LaViolette PhD.) does better than the SM 'expanding universe' theory on multiple cosmological tests when compared with the 'tired-light' hypothesis. Have you read this anywhere?
bapowell said:No. Which tests?
The Galaxy Number Count - Totani, "Near-infrared faint galaxies in the Subaru Deep Field".bapowell said:No. Which tests?
The 'Tired light' hypothesis is generally no longer considered as a reasonable explanation for cosmological red shift.TROU said:Thank you for that summary and your politeness. I have more recently read that a proposed 'GUT' ('Subquantum Kinetics' 1994 - Paul A. LaViolette PhD.) does better than the SM 'expanding universe' theory on multiple cosmological tests when compared with the 'tired-light' hypothesis. Have you read this anywhere?
Links would be helpful, but I was able to find a few of these papers. None of them mention tired light or LaViolette's work. Can you provide references in which either of these two theories are shown to provide better fits to the data than the concordance LCDM model?TROU said:The Galaxy Number Count - Totani, "Near-infrared faint galaxies in the Subaru Deep Field".
The Tolman Galaxy Surface Brightness Test. Paper IV.
The "Galaxy Angular Separation vs Galaxy Cluster Redshift Graph" data taken from Hickson and Adams "evidence for cluster evolution".
The Hubble Diagram Test. data from Kristian, Sandage and Westphal.