So , we don't know how universe began?

[phoenixankit]

Do we?
In one of my previous Q's : http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Akghk9jTxh6r__0mfvTQ2BHty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070615215602AARrm8m
(look at the 'best answer' (first one)

How did we get "mass of dust, gas, and debris" and "deutrium"
Is there an explanation or we just don't know?

 

[Ironside]

Well, there is the Big Bang Theory, but it's a theory, and I don't know a lot about it, so we don't have solid proof as to how(or why?) the universe was created.

 

[Hurkyl]

Well, there is the Big Bang Theory, but it's a theory, and I don't know a lot about it, so we don't have solid proof as to how(or why?) the universe was created.

BBT isn't 'just a theory'; it's quite well substantiated. But contrary to popular belief, it doesn't say anything about the origin of the universe.

 

[Chronos]

I second Hurkyl's motion. BBT excels at explaining how the universe evolved from an incredibly hot, dense volume about 13.7 billion earth-time years ago. But, it is silent on the 'origin' of that volume. It also does not assert the universe is finite in age or size, merely the observationally accessible slice. The 'universe' could be infinitely old and spacious, but the observable universe is clearly finite. This distinction is a frequent source of confusion. Unless otherwise specifically stated, cosmologists mean the observable slice when using the term universe. It is however possible unobserved regions exert observable effects in our universe. It is also possible to mathematically model events beyond the observational cutoff [e.g., Martin Reuter's 'bounce' and Sean Carroll's 'Universe From Nothing]. Unsurprisingly enough, testing these ideas is astonishingly difficult. Our own minds are, of course finite, and that poses the ultimate limit on our ability to comprehend the 'big picture'. I'm convinced we will never know with certainty how the universe originated. And I find that notion strangely comforting, for it means science is a journey without end. In that sense, the universe IS truly infinite.

 

[-RA-]

I am always skeptical that scientists can really know as much as they claim about the Big Bang. And i am often surprised as to how confidently astronomers base their work on something that is still a hypothesis. It is a hypothesis which we have very good evidence to believe, but we must remember that we are predicting something that happened a heck of a long time ago, so being sure of anything much about it is very hard. If the attributes that we interpret to be due to the big bang turn out to be showing us something different, the whole foundation of astronomy will have to be changed. I would prefer it if astronomy ignored the BB and just progressed on the data we are absolutely sure of, instead of woking backwards from an unproveable hypothesis. I am not saying the BB theory is wrong, i just get the impression that people believe that the BB theory has been proved as the beggining of the universe, ie, the everything out of nothing idea. But there could be alternative interpretations of the data that has lead us to believe in the big bang.

I can't see what so wrong with just saying we don't know exactly how the universe began yet, that seems to be the impression i get from most big bang material.

 

[Hurkyl]

I am always skeptical that scientists can really know as much as they claim about the Big Bang.

I'm pretty sure that scientists know almost exactly what they claim to know about the big bang -- and very little of what popular media claims scientists know.

For example, despite popular belief, the big bang theory doesn't say anything about the origin of the universe. (Didn't I just say that? )

The current 'era' of the observable universe started with the big bang, but BBT makes no speculation about what, if anything, there was before the big bang.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am always skeptical that scientists can really know as much as they claim about the Big Bang.

Our understadning of the universe is pretty good all the way up until a tiny fraqction of a second before the event. While we don't know quite what happened in that last nano-second, we have no reason to believe there's anything wrong with our understanding the of next 13.69999999999billion years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, 59.999999999 seconds following it.

And i am often surprised as to how confidently astronomers base their work on something that is still a hypothesis. It is a hypothesis which we have very good evidence to believe,

It is not a hypothesis; it is a theory. An extremely well-substantiated one.

wrong, i just get the impression that people believe that the BB theory has been proved as the beggining of the universe, ie, the everything out of nothing idea.

They believe that because the unwashed masses like cut-and-dry answers. Too bad for them.

But there could be alternative interpretations of the data that has lead us to believe in the big bang.

There could be, yes. And many have proposed them, and technically, they are all given due process. And the Bgi Bang Theory has come out by far the winner every time. No other theory even comes close to matching the evidence.

That doesn't mean it won the race, it just means we bet where we see a winner. So far, it's been an excellent bet.

I can't see what so wrong with just saying we don't know exactly how the universe began yet,

That's what we say, yes.

that seems to be the impression i get from most big bang material.

Choose your material more wisely. For example there's a Physics Forum where you can ask experts who will give you much more accurate answers than the stuff you might read about in pop books or hear about on pop TV.

 

[-RA-]

Our understadning of the universe is pretty good all the way up until a tiny fraqction of a second before the event. While we don't know quite what happened in that last nano-second, we have no reason to believe there's anything wrong with our understanding the of next 13.69999999999billion years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, 59.999999999 seconds following it.

Thats what i find unlikely. I doubt that working that out to that many significant figures is accurate.

I would agree with all of your other points in the above post, but my problems with BBT are more specific. I will post them if they are suitable for this topic, but i feel we are deviating from the OP which was specifically asking about the time before the Big Bang, how the universe was originally created. The best current explanation has been advanced from Dr. Martin Bojowald with his Loop Quantum Gravity, but this remains a very mathematical theory and does not really explain the Everything-From-Nothing problem.

 

[Chronos]

'Nothing' reasonably approximates what preceeded the first tick of Planck time.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It is not a hypothesis; it is a theory. An extremely well-substantiated one.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0908v2.pdf

How likely is such a large underdense region in a concordance cosmology? Suppose there is only one such large underdense region in the whole volume up to z=1. The corresponding void frequency is then the ratio of the comoving volume of the void to the comoving volume of the Universe to z=1, which is roughly 3 × 10−5. Is this consistent with CDM? Void statistics have been done for a number of optical galaxy surveys, as well as numerical structure formation simulations. Taking the most optimistic void statistics (filled dots in Fig. 9 of Hoyle & Vogeley, 2004) which can be approximated by log P = −(r/Mpc)/15, a 140 Mpc void would occur with a probability of 5 × 10−10, considerably more rare than our estimate for our Universe (3×10−5) based on the existence of the cold spot. One must keep in mind, however, that observational and numerical void probability studies are limited to rc ~30 Mpc; it is not yet clear how these should be extrapolated to rc > 100 Mpc.

I hate to play the role of the skeptic, but it has recently been discovered that your "extremely well-substantiated" theory has a giant gaping hole in it that defies all the odds of a typical Lambda-CDM theory. Besides the fact that Lambda-CDM theory is based on three different metaphysical (physically undefined) entities, inflation, dark matter and dark energy, it quite spectacularly failed one of the key testable "predictions" that it made. In most scientific circles, those kinds of odds against finding such a gaping hole in what is supposed to be a relatively homogeneous mass layout would be evidence enough to scrap the theory, or at least evidence that the theory still needs quite a lot of work.

Our understadning of the universe is pretty good all the way up until a tiny fraqction of a second before the event. While we don't know quite what happened in that last nano-second, we have no reason to believe there's anything wrong with our understanding the of next 13.69999999999billion years, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, 59.999999999 seconds following it.

If our understanding of the origins of our universe was "pretty good" as you claimed, then the size of that hole would not have defied the "predictions" of the theory in such a spectacular fashion.

 

[-RA-]

If our understanding of the origins of our universe was "pretty good" as you claimed, then the size of that hole would not have defied the "predictions" of the theory in such a spectacular fashion.

Good observation. The point i was trying to make in the above post is that i have no problem with scientists coming up with theories like the BBT, as that is currently the most likely theory, but i can't understand why anyone who questions the theory is labelled a crank. They act as if BBT is definitively proved beyond any doubt. To me it seems common sense to say 'we don't know exactly how the BB happened because that is very hard to know precisely as it happened so long ago' but instead we seem to get scientists convinced that BBT is 100% correct, and seem to think we can base all other branches of cosmology on this theory. To save me ranting about this (which i am sure is not welcome on this forum), i'll copy a small bit of a letter which I found online, written to the scientific community, from over 500 separate scientists, which is about not working backwards from BBT and instead progressing forwards without the constraints the Big Bang puts on alternative theories. It can be seen at http://cosmologystatement.org/


"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang related studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe."


Personally, I think that they all have a point.

 

[cristo]

... i can't understand why anyone who questions the theory is labelled a crank.

If one questions the theory on an internet forum, without any substantiating evidence, then it is most likely that they are a crank. However, if a scientist publishes a paper questioning a certain point, then they will most likely be taken more seriously. Such is the nature of the internet, there are many people who go around trying to condemn well established theories, that this forum does not put up with cranks.

They act as if BBT is definitively proved beyond any doubt.

Who is this mysterious "they" of which you talk? You've just given a list of people who don't act like this. Futhermore, I know of no working cosmologists who say that the Big Bang theory is 100% accurate; that's a stupid thing for anyone to believe. However, for the moment, it is the most accurate theory we have (as has been stated a few times in this post and more times than I can count on this forum!)

To me it seems common sense to say 'we don't know exactly how the BB happened because that is very hard to know precisely as it happened so long ago' but instead we seem to get scientists convinced that BBT is 100% correct

Who are these scientists? Do you have any references?

 

[DaveC426913]

I hate to play the role of the skeptic, but it has recently been discovered that your "extremely well-substantiated" theory has a giant gaping hole in it that defies all the odds of a typical Lambda-CDM theory. Besides the fact that Lambda-CDM theory is based on three different metaphysical (physically undefined) entities, inflation, dark matter and dark energy, it quite spectacularly failed one of the key testable "predictions" that it made.

Of course. What are you expecting? That a theory wil be born, whole and unsullied by modification in one fell swoop? Theories take decades, if not much longer, to refine.


I really think you're tilting at windmills here. No educated, reputable person is claiming that we have all the answers about the origin of the universe.

Perhaps what you need to do is go out and find some people who are claiming that, and take it up with them...

 

[-RA-]

If one questions the theory on an internet forum, without any substantiating evidence, then it is most likely that they are a crank. However, if a scientist publishes a paper questioning a certain point, then they will most likely be taken more seriously. Such is the nature of the internet, there are many people who go around trying to condemn well established theories, that this forum does not put up with cranks.

There are many people who doubt the big bang that are definitely not cranks, the list of 500 scientists in that list i gave should show that. I am not trying to show that BBT is wrong in any way, as i said before, it is currently the best theory to account for the observations we see. However i do have a problem with using the BB as a basis for nearly all other aspects of cosmology. Because the BBT is so important to cosmology it is unlikely that scientists will be willing to significantly change BBT if new observations come along, as vast areas of cosmology would have to changed aswell. There are plenty of peer reviewed materials that offer alternative ideas to mainstream BBT, they offer different interpretations of the formation of the universe and galactic structures than are currently unaccepted by the Big Bang (gravity based) model. Sadly SpaceTiger has informed me they are not suitable for this forum, so i try to refrain from posting them here.

Who is this mysterious "they" of which you talk? You've just given a list of people who don't act like this. Futhermore, I know of no working cosmologists who say that the Big Bang theory is 100% accurate; that's a stupid thing for anyone to believe. However, for the moment, it is the most accurate theory we have (as has been stated a few times in this post and more times than I can count on this forum!)

I was referring to the popular misconception that the Big Bang solves the mystery of the origin of the universe, when infact it does nothing of the sort (i'm sure you are aware of that). By 'they' i was refferring to the mainstream cosmological opinion that the big bang is not worth debating any more (as SpaceTiger told me here "The BBT is no longer debated in mainstream science, so it would be inappropriate to debate it here.") Well i feel that everything in science should be open to debate, especially a theory that forms the core base of modern cosmology and especially one where over 500 scientists feel the need to look for alternatives.

Who are these scientists? Do you have any references?

Most mainstream cosmologists. Ok, i should not have said 100%, but scientists do say they are 99% of BBT, which i think is unlikely as it is an event that happened so long ago misinterpretation of data would be very easy. We can predict (for example) what the level of the sea was 1000 years ago to roughly 90% accuracy from geophysical data, so guesssing what the entire universe was like over 13.7 Billion years ago, to 99% accuracy, seems a stretch to me. In a nutshell i just think that cosmology should consider the viable alternatives to BBT that have been suggested, instead of denouncing these theories simply because they are different to current understanding.

 

[FTL_Diesel]

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

I am all for remaining skeptical of objects that we have not observed but only theorize exist (epicycles come to mind), but in point of fact there is observational evidence for dark matter: the flatness of galactic rotation curves, Chandra observations of the Bullet Cluster, and "streamer" dynamics in the galactic halo, amongst others. Even if we don't know exactly what it is, there's *something* out there throwing its gravitational weight around (my personal favorite is matter in the higher dimensional bulk interacting gravitationally with our brane; though that presupposes a whole host of assumptions).

Same with dark energy. I don't know what it is, but it's whatever is making the expansion of the universe accelerate (an observed result).

Now, neither of those two speak directly to the Big Bang. It could be that the Universe is completely different from what Big Bang Theory predicts. However, given that they are observed phenomena, any alternate theory would also have to include these effects. Therefore, I would point out that arguing against the Big Bang because it includes dark matter and energy is somewhat facetious.

 

[-RA-]

I am all for remaining skeptical of objects that we have not observed but only theorize exist (epicycles come to mind), but in point of fact there is observational evidence for dark matter: the flatness of galactic rotation curves, Chandra observations of the Bullet Cluster, and "streamer" dynamics in the galactic halo, amongst others. Even if we don't know exactly what it is, there's *something* out there throwing its gravitational weight around.

I could not agree more that we should remain skeptical of unobserved objects. Instead of focussing on the as of yet unproved entities we should just focus on the actual observations that have made us think that they are there in the first place. I can see one assumption in that paragraph which does well to illustrate the point i am making. You say there "there is something out there throwing its gravitational weight around", I can't see how we know that there is actaully anything physically there causing this, or whether this is infact just how gravity works on bigger scales. I am pushing my luck by listing these (all peer reviewed) papers, but they look into alternative reasons for galaxy formation, and universe formation, not based purely on gravity originating from the BB. While they obviously do not present any sort of direct disproof of the Big Bang, they are certainly alternative views that contradict current BBT.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...T&data_type=HTML&format=&high=45cce9d73311457
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...T&data_type=HTML&format=&high=45fffb02f208845
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...T&data_type=HTML&format=&high=45cce9d73311457
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1983Ap&SS..91...19P
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1995Ap&SS.227..175W
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...T&data_type=HTML&format=&high=45cce9d73311457
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1995Ap&SS.227..167S
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1958IAUS...8.1090B&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

As they contradict BBT they are not awknowledged by mainstream cosmology, but they are scientifically sound enough to easily pass the peer review process. That is the problem that i have, if there was a scientific reason to dismiss these findings then i would do the same, but it seems that the only reason ever given is that people should not believe these theories becuase only 'cranks' do. Well that's not a scientific reason last time i checked.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Of course. What are you expecting? That a theory wil be born, whole and unsullied by modification in one fell swoop? Theories take decades, if not much longer, to refine.

If a theory cannot make testable predictions accurately, then of what value is it exactly? It failed the test. I personally find it a bit dubious that you want to "modify" the percentages of metaphysical entities to 'make it fit' somehow, in a purely ad hoc, after the fact manner. It's not exactly reassuring IMO to see Lambda-CDM theory fall apart the first time we take it for a test drive. I wouldn't buy a car that broke the first time I drove it. I certainly have never seen a car run on dark energy or inflation, nor have I seen these things do anything useful on Earth or in nature. Why would I think that a universe operates on that stuff?

I really think you're tilting at windmills here. No educated, reputable person is claiming that we have all the answers about the origin of the universe.

Perhaps what you need to do is go out and find some people who are claiming that, and take it up with them...

Well, evidently I misunderstood your statements, because you sounded quite confident that A) there was certainly a big bang (meaning no other cause of "redshift" can be considered, and no other theory of cosmology can be considered), and that B) you knew exactly when this "bang" occurred. No such thing is true. At best you have evidence of "redshift" and "missing mass". Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I could not agree more. Instead of focussing on the as of yet unproved entities we should just focus on the actual observations that have made us think that they are there in the first place. I can see one assumption in that paragraph which does well to illustrate the point i am making. You say there "there is something out there throwing its gravitational weight around", I can't see how we know that there is actaully anything there causing this, or whether this is infact just how gravity works on bigger scales. I am pushing my luck by listing these (all peer reviewed) papers, but they look into alternative reasons for galaxy formation, and universe formation, not based purely on gravity originating from the BB. While they obviously do not present any sort of direct disproof of the Big Bang, they are certainly alternative views that contradict current BBT.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...T&data_type=HTML&format=&high=45cce9d73311457
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...T&data_type=HTML&format=&high=45fffb02f208845
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...T&data_type=HTML&format=&high=45cce9d73311457
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1983Ap&SS..91...19P
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1995Ap&SS.227..175W
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...T&data_type=HTML&format=&high=45cce9d73311457
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1995Ap&SS.227..167S
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1958IAUS...8.1090B&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

As they contradict BBT they are not awknowledged by mainstream cosmology, but they are scientifically sound enough to easily pass the peer review process. That is the problem that i have, if there was a scientific reason to dismiss these findings then i would do the same, but it seems that the only reason ever given is that people should not beleived these theories becuase only 'cranks' do. Well that's not a scientific reason last time i checked.

Those are excellent links. I had not read some of them. Thanks! EU theory/Plasma cosmology theory is still in it's infancy, but it has the distinct advantage of being able to "test" many of it's premises in a standard and "controlled" scientific manner. The other advantage of of a plasma physics theory is that plasma events and behaviors seem to scale very well over many magnitudes of order.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I second Hurkyl's motion. BBT excels at explaining how the universe evolved from an incredibly hot, dense volume about 13.7 billion earth-time years ago. But, it is silent on the 'origin' of that volume. It also does not assert the universe is finite in age or size, merely the observationally accessible slice. The 'universe' could be infinitely old and spacious, but the observable universe is clearly finite. This distinction is a frequent source of confusion. Unless otherwise specifically stated, cosmologists mean the observable slice when using the term universe. It is however possible unobserved regions exert observable effects in our universe. It is also possible to mathematically model events beyond the observational cutoff [e.g., Martin Reuter's 'bounce' and Sean Carroll's 'Universe From Nothing]. Unsurprisingly enough, testing these ideas is astonishingly difficult. Our own minds are, of course finite, and that poses the ultimate limit on our ability to comprehend the 'big picture'. I'm convinced we will never know with certainty how the universe originated. And I find that notion strangely comforting, for it means science is a journey without end. In that sense, the universe IS truly infinite.

IMO that was actually a very fair and balanced response, even from a plasma cosmology perspective. Thanks.

 

[DaveC426913]

If a theory cannot make testable predictions accurately, then of what value is it exactly? It failed the test. I personally find it a bit dubious that you want to "modify" the percentages of metaphysical entities to 'make it fit' somehow, in a purely ad hoc, after the fact manner. It's not exactly reassuring IMO to see Lambda-CDM theory fall apart the first time we take it for a test drive. I wouldn't buy a car that broke the first time I drove it. I certainly have never seen a car run on dark energy or inflation, nor have I seen these things do anything useful on Earth or in nature. Why would I think that a universe operates on that stuff?

Logical flaw: bad analogy. A car is not a theory. Despite being tongue-in-cheek, the remark really does miss the point.

If you're going to discard a theory, it's because you have a better theory. (You can't not have a theory, the worst you can do is to simply have a more "rudimentary" theory (the universe was sneezed out of a cosmic nose).)

Do you have a better theory?

Well, evidently I misunderstood your statements, because you sounded quite confident that A) there was certainly a big bang (meaning no other cause of "redshift" can be considered, and no other theory of cosmology can be considered), and that B) you knew exactly when this "bang" occurred. No such thing is true.

I accept that the BB theory describes our observations quite well. That is all.

I (like any reasonble person) am open to alternate theories. But they will have to be compelling enough to give BB a run for its money.

At best you have evidence of "redshift" and "missing mass". Nothing more, nothing less.

There's a little more than that - a century of physics, astronomy and cosmology behind it as well.

Again, I really don't know what your point is. You really seem to be looking for a fight. The BB is simply the best explanation we have. Should something come along that explains all these phenomena better, we'll be happy to accept it. But it won't happen right away - there's a lot to overcome.


There's many horses in the 'origin of the cosmos'* race. The race isn't over - but BB is way out front.

When you hear knowledgeable people not questioning BB, all they're really saying is "I'll put a side bet on another horse if and when one emerges from BB's dust."

*Sorry, let's be clear: the BB theory does not say where the initial mass and energy came from, only what happened from T=0-plus-a-bit.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Logical flaw: bad analogy. A car is not a theory. Despite being tongue-in-cheek, the remark really does miss the point.

Well, that's not how I see it. A car is tangible, it is testable, and it operates within the laws of known physics. I can test it. I can test it in controlled conditions. If I want to understand what makes it tick, I can, using the technology that I have here and now.

A "law" is something that we can demonstrate repeatedly and often. The law of conservation of energy can be repeated. Some theories are also easy to repeat. Gravity will make that car fall of that cliff ever single time. I can test my ideas over and over again if I have any doubt about how the car works, and how it responds to the known forces of nature, even "theoretical" forces of nature like gravity.

A "theory" however is something that is to some degree, and act of faith. I can't be absolutely sure that any theory is entirely true. I know that gravity exists, but gravity is a "theory", and I don't know "why" it works. To keep things scientifically neutral, I have to understand from a scientific perspective, that any "theory" could be, and might be, false. It might also be "true" (gravity exists), but I might not understand *why* it's true.

Some "theories" are physically and tangibly useful, and some theories are not. The theory of gravity is useful. It allows us to put people on the moon, and objects onto distant planets. Some theories have physical benefits, and physical consequences to us here and now. Some don't.

The Lambda-CDM "theory" is not a "theory" that has any known consequence to me here and now. Unlike the theory of gravity, that I can test in controlled conditions, the "theory" of a "big bang" is based on a number of "assumptions' that may or may not be true. The Lambda-CDM theory is not "testable" in a typical standard scientific tests. There is no controlled scientific test that ever demonstrated that "dark energy", "dark matter", or "inflation" ever had any effect on any atoms or anything made of mass or energy.

In the field of science, the onus of responsibility is always upon the person who is making the claim. If you believe that these "dark" things exist in nature, then it is your responsibility to show us that these forces exist in nature and that these forces have some effect on nature in a controlled test before you start pointing to distant objects and claiming that these forces effect distant objects. You can't just say "my pet theory did it" and then try to claim your pet theory is responsible for the observation in question without giving us some way to test your claim.

I can test plasma cosmology theory by studying plasma in controlled laboratory conditions where magnetic and electric fields are switched on and off, and where conditions can be changed and different ideas can be verified by changing these conditions. Birkeland did exactly that kind of experimentation with his terella experiment. Alfven and Peratt did that also in plasma experiments and in computer models. In controlled experiments, conditions can be altered and the effects of these changes can be recorded in our experiments. Our ideas can be verified in standard scientific ways. That is why I personally prefer to view space from the perspective of plasma cosmology theory.

I cannot say why you personally choose to look up at space and see "dark energy" or "dark matter", or inflation. When I look up into the heavens, I just don't see those things. I don't see our universe that way, and I can no longer relate to viewing our universe in that way any longer. All I can try to do is point to the things that I can explain in those distant observations and try to explain them in terms of current flow through plasma. I think Alfven and Peratt pretty much did all the basic groundwork as it relates to the "theory" of plasma physics, and how they would scale what they learned from plasma physics in a lab to explain the larger "structures" of space. Many of the papers listed in this thread by others show that this early part of the process has been done, and it is being done by others, even as we speak.

If you're going to discard a theory, it's because you have a better theory. (You can't not have a theory, the worst you can do is to simply have a more "rudimentary" theory (the universe was sneezed out of a cosmic nose).)

Notice here how you are being demeaning to the whole field of plasma physics and plasma cosmology by referring to it as a "sneeze"? They gave Alfven a Nobel prize for his work, and I'm not even sure what you do for a living. I have faith in Alfven's work for good reason. I can put his theories to the test in real life laboratory conditions. I can't even fathom a way to test your faith in the theory of "dark energy", or the theory of "dark matter", or the theory of "inflation", so any cosmic theory that uses even one of them puts them beyond my physical ability to test. Any theory that requires faith in all three of these metaphysical constructs can only be described as a leap of faith IMO. I don't have any way to test anything "dark' in a controlled test, or any way to show that inflation exists or ever existed in nature.

Do you have a better theory?

Define the term "better". I can't test inflation in a lab, so how can I say that inflation is better than plasma physics, or theories based on plasma physics?

How can anyone say that "inflation" is "better" than electricity, if we can't study inflation in a lab? I don't know how to define a "better" form of science other than to define "better" as something that relies upon the least number of metaphysical (non physically defined) forces of nature? To me personally, it is "better" that a theory does not rely upon a force that it cannot demonstrates even exists in nature based on controlled testing. IMO that makes plasma cosmology theory head and shoulders "better than" Lambda-CDM theory.

Now I could of course point out to you that EU theory is based on the assumption that plasma threads exist in space and that they flow with, and carry the electric currents of the universe, and are held together by large gravity wells in space. EU theory naturally "predicts" a non homogeneous universe. It would be surprising in plasma cosmology theory to "not" find "holes" and voids, and cold spots in the universe. That is a "prediction" that EU theory seems to pass with flying colors, and Lambda-CDM theory failed. IMO that observation also supports my faith in plasma physics.

I accept that the BB theory describes our observations quite well. That is all.

Well, I don't seem to have the same experience. I look at that void, and I see that Lambda-CDM theory failed to predict the *non-homogeneous* nature of the universe. That homogeneous nature was touted as the "key" prediction of inflation. As I see it, inflation theory failed miserably. I guess we see life in subjective ways.

I (like any reasonble person) am open to alternate theories. But they will have to be compelling enough to give BB a run for its money.

Don't worry. I have the utmost confidence that any car that uses electrons as an energy source is going to give your car that runs on "dark energy", with an "inflation afterburner", a run for it's money. In fact, I'll bet you a beer that a decent electric motor scooter would blow the doors off your dark energy car. ;) Don't you worry, there will be a race, and plasma cosmology theory is accelerating ahead just fine.

There's a little more than that - a century of physics, astronomy and cosmology behind it as well.

You might want to checkout the work of Kristian Birkeland, Charles Bruce, Hannes Alfven and Anthony Peratt. There is over a century of physics and science behind plasma cosmology theory as well. No faith in metaphysics is required to have faith in plasma cosmology theory. All of it's precepts can be tested in a lab in controlled laboratory conditions. Any "leap of faith" relates only to faith that plasma physics can scale to that magnitude. We already know it scales many orders of magnitude.

Again, I really don't know what your point is. You really seem to be looking for a fight.

I'm not looking for a fight, I'm hoping to keep the conversation lively and interesting, and show that there is "competition" to mainstream positions.

The BB is simply the best explanation we have. Should something come along that explains all these phenomena better, we'll be happy to accept it. But it won't happen right away - there's a lot to overcome.

You're right about that. Plasma cosmology theory is only really becoming more "popular" with the advent of the computer and the computer age. Much of the information and research related to plasma cosmology theory has remained beyond the access of most people until that advent of the internet, mostly because none of these precepts are taught inside the school systems.

There's many horses in the 'origin of the cosmos'* race. The race isn't over - but BB is way out front.

Well, you're certainly welcome to your opinion, but my money is on a different horse, particularly once I saw the odds of your horse coming in first based on that last observed "hole" in the universe.

When you hear knowledgeable people not questioning BB, all they're really saying is "I'll put a side bet on another horse if and when one emerges from BB's dust."

If I were you, I'd definitely be hedging my bets as it relates to inflation and Lambda-CDM theory. You might consider teaching a little of Birkeland's work around here, and a little of Alfven's theories too. At least that way, if your horse doesn't come in first, you won't feel so bad. :)

*Sorry, let's be clear: the BB theory does not say where the initial mass and energy came from, only what happened from T=0-plus-a-bit.

FYI, I agree with that statement.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well, that's not how I see it. A car is tangible, it is testable, and it operates within the laws of known physics. I can test it. I can test it in controlled conditions. If I want to understand what makes it tick, I can, using the technology that I have here and now.

A "law" is something that we can demonstrate repeatedly and often. The law of conservation of energy can be repeated. Some theories are also easy to repeat. Gravity will make that car fall of that cliff ever single time. I can test my ideas over and over again if I have any doubt about how the car works, and how it responds to the known forces of nature, even "theoretical" forces of nature like gravity.

When you push your car off the cliff a hundred times, you are testing gravity, not so much your car.

 

[Michael Mozina]

When you push your car off the cliff a hundred times, you are testing gravity, not so much your car.

You're right. *That* was a "bad" analogy on my part. Doh! :)

 

[cristo]

Michael Mozina: What actually is this Plasma Cosmology of which you are talking? Do you have a link to a published paper that explains it, and how it fits all the observational evidence? The papers above are all from the late 1990's, and so, if it's such a credible theory, I'd wonder why I've not heard anything about in the last 10 years, or why I see working cosmologists (with whom I work) still using the LCDM model.

 

[-RA-]

Michael Mozina: What actually is this Plasma Cosmology of which you are talking? Do you have a link to a published paper that explains it, and how it fits all the observational evidence? The papers above are all from the late 1990's, and so, if it's such a credible theory, I'd wonder why I've not heard anything about in the last 10 years, or why I see working cosmologists (with whom I work) still using the LCDM model.

A good site which includes references to most peer reviewed plasma cosmology work can be seen here http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma_Universe_resources. The basic idea is that gravity is not the only force that effects structures in the universe. Thats a very basic description of PC, the details are much more complex if you choose to look into this area.

particularly interesting to me are the tests and simulations done with plasma interactions in galaxy formation, http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Galaxy_formation

 

[cristo]

The Lambda-CDM "theory" is not a "theory" that has any known consequence to me here and now.

Then you're obviously not interested in the right field then!

The Lambda-CDM theory is not "testable" in a typical standard scientific tests. There is no controlled scientific test that ever demonstrated that "dark energy", "dark matter", or "inflation" ever had any effect on any atoms or anything made of mass or energy.

No, but dark energy could be tested at some point in the future. Besides, we have a lot of evidence that points towards dark matter (weak lensing, etc..)

I can test plasma cosmology theory by studying plasma in controlled laboratory conditions where magnetic and electric fields are switched on and off, and where conditions can be changed and different ideas can be verified by changing these conditions. Birkeland did exactly that kind of experimentation with his terella experiment. Alfven and Peratt did that also in plasma experiments and in computer models. In controlled experiments, conditions can be altered and the effects of these changes can be recorded in our experiments. Our ideas can be verified in standard scientific ways. That is why I personally prefer to view space from the perspective of plasma cosmology theory.

But does this theory actually agree with all observations? Where/what are these plasmas? If this is a published theory then you can talk about it, but if it's speculation, then you should note the PF guidelines.

I cannot say why you personally choose to look up at space and see "dark energy" or "dark matter", or inflation. When I look up into the heavens, I just don't see those things. I don't see our universe that way, and I can no longer relate to viewing our universe in that way any longer. All I can try to do is point to the things that I can explain in those distant observations and try to explain them in terms of current flow through plasma.

No-one looks up and thinks "oh, there's a little bit of dark energy." You do realize the term simply means whatever is driving the acceleration of the expansion of the universe, and that we don't say it's some "thing." For all we know, the model works if dark energy is simply a cosmological constant.

I think Alfven and Peratt pretty much did all the basic groundwork as it relates to the "theory" of plasma physics, and how they would scale what they learned from plasma physics in a lab to explain the larger "structures" of space. Many of the papers listed in this thread by others show that this early part of the process has been done, and it is being done by others, even as we speak.

Proof? Published papers?

They gave Alfven a Nobel prize for his work, and I'm not even sure what you do for a living. I have faith in Alfven's work for good reason. I can put his theories to the test in real life laboratory conditions. I can't even fathom a way to test your faith in the theory of "dark energy", or the theory of "dark matter", or the theory of "inflation"...

Oh, so because you can't think of anything, it must be false? Please. You should also note that Alfven did not get a Nobel prize for cosmology. Ok, so he made discoveries in plasma physics, but I shouldn't believe that it is at all possible to extrapolate this and describe the universe using it.

That is a "prediction" that EU theory seems to pass with flying colors, and Lambda-CDM theory failed.

But the standard model does predict voids!

I'm not sure what more to say really. You seem to be believing in some theory over a well established one just because you "look up and see plasmas." I don't think there's much hope in changing your mind: it seems like you know the observations that the standard model agrees with, but choose to ignore them!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael Mozina: What actually is this Plasma Cosmology of which you are talking? Do you have a link to a published paper that explains it, and how it fits all the observational evidence? The papers above are all from the late 1990's, and so, if it's such a credible theory, I'd wonder why I've not heard anything about in the last 10 years, or why I see working cosmologists (with whom I work) still using the LCDM model.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=2007&isnumber=4287017

 

[cristo]

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isYear=2007&isnumber=4287017

So you've pointed me towards a list of papers published in an electronics and electrical engineering journal to explain to me a theory of cosmology? Perhaps we should re-examine the use of the word "peer" in peer-review.

Anyway, this has taken up enough of my time already, and really isn't worth it. I'll just wait and see if this theory comes to anything, and, judging from the time the papers were published, I don't think it will.

 

[-RA-]

But does this theory actually agree with all observations? Where/what are these plasmas? If this is a published theory then you can talk about it, but if it's speculation, then you should note the PF guidelines.

I thought (according to the above peer reviewed papers i listed) that 99.99% of the matter in the universe is matter in the plasma state. The solar wind is a plasma, the sun is plasma, the vast majority of space is plasma. Plasma is not some mysterious entity, it is the fundamental state of matter before solid, liquid or gas and its effects and characteristics can be directly tested in laboratoires. Plasma has so many characteristics that it is hard to know what exactly you are asking to know about plasmas. I would list all the plasma cosmology related papers, but that would be tedious, could you be more specific about the scientific reasons why you believe PC is not correct, that would be a good topic of conversation.
[i feel this thread has deviated somewhat from the OP, maybe this recent part could be split into another thread?]

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you've pointed me towards a list of papers published in an electronics and electrical engineering journal to explain to me a theory of cosmology?

Absolutely. I believe that the universe is electrical in nature starting with those Birkeland currents I see lighting up the aurora. I can't think of a "better" journal to address the plasma physics material that is being presented in these papers in fact than this particular publication.

Perhaps we should re-examine the use of the word "peer" in peer-review.

Perhaps we should. Do you have a problem with that specific publication or it's "peer" review process?

Anyway, this has taken up enough of my time already, and really isn't worth it. I'll just wait and see if this theory comes to anything, and, judging from the time the papers were published, I don't think it will.

I guess I don't follow the idea about the "time the papers were published", since they were just published a few months ago. I certainly do understand your feeling of general skepticism. In fact I did "wait and see" what would happen with Lambda-CDM theory, and I can't say that I'm surprised or motived to embrace Lambda theory based on the results. If inflation was postulated to explain why the universe is nearly homogeneous, and it turns out that the universe is not homogeneous, then what is the value of inflation theory in the first place?

Keep in mind that plasma cosmology theory does not preclude the possibility of a "bang" from a relatively constrained form of energy. I'm simply not personally convinced that there ever was an actual "bang" from a singularity, or that redshift is always directly related to distance and velocity. MECO theory shows that GR will mathematically support intrinsically redshifted objects, and there are a variety of "tired light" theories that have been proposed over the years.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006astro.ph..5599B

I'm open to the possibility of a "bang", but I have absolutely no confidence that dark energy or dark matter or inflation had anything to do with it. I personally think the universe is probably eternal and without boundaries as we understand them. The visible universe may be finite, but I have no idea what the whole universe looks like, or if it ever was finite in the first place.

 

[-RA-]

I'm not sure what more to say really. You seem to be believing in some theory over a well established one just because you "look up and see plasmas." I don't think there's much hope in changing your mind: it seems like you know the observations that the standard model agrees with, but choose to ignore them!

I would suggest that your interpretaion that this is just 'some theory' is misplaced as this is one of the few emerging areas in cosmology that has a sizeable number of top academics on each side. I would suggest that a theory that takes into account the actual observed and tested characteristics of what 99.9% of the universe is made of (plasma) can not be neglected. Few people are familiar with the professors or academics that research these plasma based theories, as they question the very core of cosmology, and so are often dismissed offhand and left to work in the background.

The basic rubbing points for Plasma cosmology and Standard cosmology is that standard cosmology says that space is neutral and so electric currents and charge separation can't occur in any significant form in space, whereas Plasma cosmology says charge can separate in certain circumstances and that is what causes such things as Birkeland currents, the heating of the corona, Z-pinch fusion, Double layers, and many of the other observed plasma characteristics. I'm currently stuck in the middle, but from the papers I've read so far I am growing more interested in plasma cosmology by the day.So far the only explanation I've seen for the heating of the corona is due to electric currents flowing into and out of the sun. It does seem to make sense to me, ie, current is the flow of charge, and the solar wind is made of billions of flowing ions.
The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 633, Issue 1, pp. L57-L60, - 2005 - Are Electric Currents Heating the Magnetic Chromosphere? http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...ype=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c28646

 

[cristo]

Absolutely.

My point is that I would expect a theory of cosmology to be reviewed by cosmologists.

I'm simply not personally convinced that there ever was an actual "bang" from a singularity, or that redshift is always directly related to distance and velocity.

This statement here tells me that you do not understand the big bang theory. As is the case with anything, one should understand the standard model before discussing others. To recap what many others have said in this thread, the big bang model does not describe the actual "bang" or what happened between t=0 and t=(a tiny fraction of a second). There is no such thing as a singularity in physics-- it is simply a mathematical sign that the model breaks down at that point.

 

[cristo]

I would suggest that your interpretaion that this is just 'some theory' is misplaced as this is one of the few emerging areas in cosmology that has a sizeable number of top academics on each side.

Well, like I said, I'll wait and see what happens to this theory in the future. I'm not up for spending months trying to understand something like this when we have a theory, that's explained so many observations, to work on.

 

[DaveC426913]

I can test plasma cosmology theory by studying plasma in controlled laboratory conditions where magnetic and electric fields are switched on and off, and where conditions can be changed and different ideas can be verified by changing these conditions. Birkeland did exactly that kind of experimentation with his terella experiment. Alfven and Peratt did that also in plasma experiments and in computer models. In controlled experiments, conditions can be altered and the effects of these changes can be recorded in our experiments. Our ideas can be verified in standard scientific ways. That is why I personally prefer to view space from the perspective of plasma cosmology theory.

Ah. There's the other shoe dropping.


You have a hidden agenda. You're not here to discuss BB theory at all. You're here to flog this plasma cosmology theory.

You know, if you had just been straight from the beginning, we could have avoided a lot of misunderstanding.

 

[DaveC426913]

Notice here how you are being demeaning to the whole field of plasma physics and plasma cosmology by referring to it as a "sneeze"?

Here is a perfect example of a misunderstanding directly caused by your keeping a card up your sleeve.

I did not refer to any existing theory as a sneeze. We were talking about the BB theory. I invented a dumb theory to make a point. It seems you thought I was referring to your theory - except I didn't know about it.

You can be certain it was not my intention to refer to any existing theory.

 

[-RA-]

You have a hidden agenda. You're not here to discuss BB theory at all. You're here to flog this plasma cosmology theory.

You know, if you had just been straight from the beginning, we could have avoided a lot of misunderstanding.

I wouldn't exactly say his agenda is hidden he has quite frankly stated what his opinions are about the Big Bang; he does not fully believe it due to plasma cosmology seeming a viable alternative.

thats why i suggested in a previous post; "[i feel this thread has deviated somewhat from the OP, maybe this recent part could be split into another thread?]". Sound like a good idea? that would avoid confusion, and maybe someone could actually give a scientific reason as to why plasma cosmology is not correct. That would be nice.

 

[Chronos]

See "Errors in the 'The Big Bang Never Happened' " by Ned Wright:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

 

[-RA-]

See "Errors in the 'The Big Bang Never Happened' " by Ned Wright:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

I am not a fan of that book, as soon as i saw the title it just seemed too confrontational and not the correct style to go about persuading people of your opinion (probably boosted his sales though!). By giving it that title any cosmologist that reads it will have already formed an opinion whether the book is right or wrong before actually studying the material he is showing. It was a bold move, but probably not a wise one.
As long as the big bang theory remains just that, a theory, I have no major problem with it, as theories can be wrong. If a more viable theory turns up it will be replaced in the future, that is the nature of theories. However I find it hard to see how it is just a 'theory' anymore, as nearly all of modern cosmology is based on it, and so it must follow that most of modern cosmology is also a theory, which in turn is subject to competition from other rival theories. But i don't see any competition even being considered by cosmologists, anything that questions BBT is viewed as simply wrong from the outset, no matter what they say, which seems to be a mainly ad hominem reaction.

Victor J. Stenger, Univ. of Hawaii Professor Emeritus of Physics and Astronomy, said it well when he said, "The big bang may be wrong, but Lerner can't seriously expect to prove it in a popular book."

the debate is not fully closed on this, i could direct you to Lerners rebuttal to Ned Wright's paper that you quoted http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/wrightreply.html if i can see a rebuttal to that page, i'll be impressed, his arguments in there are quite compelling.

 

[DaveC426913]

I wouldn't exactly say his agenda is hidden he has quite frankly stated what his opinions are about the Big Bang; he does not fully believe it due to plasma cosmology seeming a viable alternative.

My post came a bit late. His agenda was hidden when he first started posting. He was bashing the BB theory and I kept asking if he had an alternative. His bashing didn't amke sense until he revealed his alternate a little later.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Ah. There's the other shoe dropping.

You have a hidden agenda. You're not here to discuss BB theory at all. You're here to flog this plasma cosmology theory.

I have no hidden agenda, I'm simply pointing out that there may have never been a "BB" at all. Where I come from, the term "flog" would imply I'm here to "beat" or put down plasma cosmology, and I'm certainly not likely to do that since I prefer plasma cosmology theory to any other theory. I'm not here selling the idea however, I'm just biased in my views like everyone else and that has become obvious during the conversation.

You know, if you had just been straight from the beginning, we could have avoided a lot of misunderstanding.

When was I ever less than "straight" with you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

My post came a bit late. His agenda was hidden when he first started posting. He was bashing the BB theory and I kept asking if he had an alternative. His bashing didn't amke sense until he revealed his alternate a little later.

First of all, I didn't "bash the BB theory". In fact I've tried to make it very clear that plasma cosmology theory does not preclude there from being a "bang" type event. My "skepticism" is related to the metaphysical aspects of the Lambda-CDM model, specifically the notion of inflation and dark energy and dark matter. The whole purpose of inflation was to explain a "monopole problem" as percieve by Alan Guth, and to explain the homogeneous nature of the matter layout of the visible physical universe. Since we have never seen evidence that monopoles actually exist in nature, there is no evidence that Guth's inflation theory "solved" anything. Now that we know that universe is *not* homogeneous, that side of his argument for inflation also goes out the window. That is why I have no faith and no confidence in Guth's mythical inflation field.

That is but one of 3 different metaphysical aspects of Lambda-CDM theory that have been "tacked on" to BB theory since I was in college. While I do entertain the possibility of BB theory, I'm not convinced that we can rule out other models, and I certainly don't think that a "bang" had anything at all to do with inflation or dark things, because I have never seen any empirical evidence that inflation exists, that dark matter exists, or that dark energy exists. I have seen some evidence to suggest "missing mass" (mass we can't identify), and I've seen some evidence to suggest that the universe *might* be expanding, but I have never seen any empirical evidence for anything "dark" or for anything related to "inflation" in any controlled scientific test. I therefore have no confidence in these things.

I simply pointed out to you that your belief that a BB occurred, and that you know pretty much *when* it occurred, is in fact an act of "faith" on your part. Not everyone that entertains BB theory also entertains inflation theory and dark energy theory, and dark matter theory. They are separate ideas entirely. I know this from experience, because when I was in college, Guth had not released his paper on inflation theory, and "dark energy" wasn't even a glimmer in anyone's eye. The term "dark matter" was used, but it typically was used to describe matter that we could not identify, it was not used to suggest the existence of some sort of exotic form of matter. I think that is why having a little bit of knowledge of the history of this profession comes in handy. One *can* have some faith in BB theory, and still have no faith in metaphysical entities. That's the way it *used* to work in fact. Only in the past 25 or so years has the BB theory been associated with metaphysical entities.

 

[Garth]

The fact that the universe is bathed in a sea of isotropic microwave radiation and comprises of roughly 3/4 hydrogen and 1/4 helium and 2% everything else is good evidence that the universe went through a very compact, hot and dense phase that we call the Big Bang from which it has expanded. Whether extrapolating further back leads to a singularity of infinite density, pressure and temperature, or not, is a matter of conjecture that will not be resolved until a quantum gravity theory is established.

There is a lot of empirical evidence to support the mainstream model. That does not mean questions are not asked about it, but anyone who dismisses it as 'just a theory' is misunderstanding what a scientific theory actually is, that is, a tried and tested body of ideas supported by observational evidence, and also shows themselves to be ignorant of all the observations made in the last thirty years or so.

It is only when you fully understand something that you can criticize it!

Questions are asked about the mainstream model in these Forums, mainly on the Cosmology forum such as in the Critique of Mainstream Cosmology thread.

Garth

 

[Michael Mozina]

See "Errors in the 'The Big Bang Never Happened' " by Ned Wright:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

Let's see if we can't point out a few *assumptions* (problems) with that rebuttal.

Lerner gives the example of filaments or sheets 150 million light years apart in Figure 1.1, and then asserts that material would have to travel 270 million light years to make the structure. Obviously 75 million light years would do the trick.

Having never even read Learners book, I'm a bit at a disadvantage. I'll therefore give this author some latitude on this point. 75 million light years would do the trick, but only if these mass objects moved in exactly the opposite direction from one another. If these mass bodies were not going in exactly the opposite direction, they may have needed to travel more than 75 million light years to end up 150 million light years apart. In other words, while Learner could be accused of being too pessimistic, this author could be accused of being too optimistic.

With material traveling at 1000 km/sec, that would take 22.5 billion years, which is about twice as long as the probable age of the Universe.

Here's where my background comes in. In my day (in college), we used standard physics to compute ages. Nobody talked about "space expanding" or "dark energy". I'm sure that Learner felt exactly as I do on that issue.

But when the Universe was younger, everything was closer together, so a small motion made early in the history of the Universe counts for much more than a motion made later.

Well, not exactly. Without some faith in metaphysical concepts like "expanding space", the distances between objects are not made larger by virtue of time. Spacetime can expand as the objects themselves expand, but "space" (as in nothing) cannot "expand". That's a metaphysical concept associated with "dark energy" that was likely put forth *after* Learner's book was written. Since nobody can show that "space" expands, you can't simply *assume* that space expands and then claim that Learner is wrong.

Thus it was easier for the material to clump together early in the history of the Universe.

This is sort of a silly statement from my perspective, because by definition, the mass was clumped together.

Lerner's math here is like ignoring interest when planning for retirement. If you save $1000 per year for 50 years, you don't retire with $50,000. If the interest rate was 7 percent throughout the 50 years, you will have a $460,000 nest egg.

No, Learners argument is devoid of metaphysical constructs like "dark energy" and "expanding space", because "space" was empty, and empty things don't "expand" just because. Only in metaphysical theories does "nothing" expand.

Furthermore, velocities relative to the Hubble flow naturally decrease with time,

His argument is dated. That's what they *assumed*. Now they *assume* that the universe is actually accelerating.

so the 1000 km/sec velocity was larger in the past. Lerner's discussion of this point uses loaded words and incorrect logic

I'd say he shot his own argument in the foot because today astronomers claim that we are moving faster than in the past.

Is there dark matter?

There is certainly lots of evidence for dark matter.

This is a false statement IMO. There is evidence of "missing mass", not "dark matter". In other words, the *estimates* of the mass in galaxies does not match what we seem to actually observe. We have evidence therefore of missing mass, just as we might have evidence of an unidentified flying object. The fact we cannot identify that mass does not mean it's a new type of mass anymore than the fact we cannot identify that flying object is automatic evidence that it comes from a different planet.

We have evidence of "missing mass", or "unidentified flying mass". We have no evidence that any of the unidentified mass is "dark matter", just as we have no evidence that the "UFO" is from another planet. All we know is that our estimates for galaxy masses is too small. That's what we know. We have evidence that the standard mass estimates are incorrect, nothing more. That could simply mean that the estimates of normal mass in galaxies is simply wrong, and is a gross underestimation of the normal matter that is actually present. In no way is that evidence for any sort of exotic form of mass or any "dark matter".

 

[Michael Mozina]

The fact that the universe is bathed in a sea of isotropic microwave radiation

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.0908v2.pdf

How likely is such a large underdense region in a concordance cosmology? Suppose there is only one such large underdense region in the whole volume up to z=1. The corresponding void frequency is then the ratio of the comoving volume of the void to the comoving volume of the Universe to z=1, which is roughly 3 × 10−5. Is this consistent with CDM? Void statistics have been done for a number of optical galaxy surveys, as well as numerical structure formation simulations. Taking the most optimistic void statistics (filled dots in Fig. 9 of Hoyle & Vogeley, 2004) which can be approximated by log P = −(r/Mpc)/15, a 140 Mpc void would occur with a probability of 5 × 10−10, considerably more rare than our estimate for our Universe (3×10−5) based on the existence of the cold spot. One must keep in mind, however, that observational and numerical void probability studies are limited to rc ~30 Mpc; it is not yet clear how these should be extrapolated to rc > 100 Mpc.

I got involved in this thread by pointing out that the background radiation is *not* isotropic, and according to Lambda-CDM theory, a hole of this size was never "predicted" to exist.

and comprises of roughly 3/4 hydrogen and 1/4 helium and 2% everything else

These percentages that you mention are based upon the belief that plasmas do not mass separate in suns, and that the elements stay relatively "mixed". That is in spite of the fact that plasmas tend to separate in the presence of strong gravitational and magnetic fields. If you remove that single assumption, those elemental abundance numbers become highly suspect. Here's what I mean:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/23/sun.iron/index.html

is good evidence that the universe went through a very compact, hot and dense phase that we call the Big Bang from which it has expanded.

Only if we "assume" that the redshifting phenomenon is related *exclusively* to distance and velocity can we "assume" that the universe is expanding. There have been a number of tired light theories proposed over the years and I have posted links to such theories in this thread. If Arp is correct, and objects have an intrinsic redshift component, then we can't even be sure that we're expanding at all. I'll grant you that the expansion "interpretation" of the evidence is valid (to a point), but Arp has shown physical connections to objects with different redshifts, and MECO theories suggest that heavy objects *can* have an intrinsic redshift. What do we do with that information? Just toss it out?

Whether extrapolating further back leads to a singularity of infinite density, pressure and temperature, or not, is a matter of conjecture that will not be resolved until a quantum gravity theory is established.

Even is we have some evidence that our visible physical universe is expanding *right now*, we do not know that it all was concentrated to a "point" or that it was all concentrated to something the size of a couple hundred light years across, or that all matter (even the stuff we can't see anymore) has always expanded. We don't know that all mass came from a "point", even if we assume that our part of the physical universe is expanding right now.

There is a lot of empirical evidence to support the mainstream model. That does not mean questions are not asked about it,

We also cannot simply assume that one "big picture" theory is right based on a single "interpretation" of the "evidence". Even if we assume that redshift is related to distance and velocity, we still cannot be sure that the universe was ever collected to a single point. All we can know is what our little visible sliver of the physical universe is doing at the moment. We can't even see the vast majority of the physical universe, so how could we even know what that matter happens to be doing right now?

but anyone who dismisses it as 'just a theory' is misunderstanding what a scientific theory actually is, that is, a tried and tested body of ideas supported by observational evidence, and also shows themselves to be ignorant of all the observations made in the last thirty years or so.

Ignorance is a funny thing because new knowledge changes our opinions over time. I've seen it change a whole lot in my time. That hole in the universe is an example of data that simply doesn't "fit" with Lambda-CDM predictions. We were ignorant of that hole in the universe until very recently. I could rightfully also claim that faith in Lambda-CDM theory is based on ignorance of this most recent data.

It is only when you fully understand something that you can criticize it!

I agree. I've been studying astronomy and BB theory now for more than 30 years. Astronomy has always interested me, probably because I was nine when we landed people on the moon, and it was forever hooked. Over that thirty years I've seen many theories come and go, and I've seen many new ideas put on the table, some that I agree with, and some that I do not. I see plenty of folks criticize plasma cosmology theory without studying it for a single day. I've been studying BB theories before inflation theories became vogue, and before dark matter theories existed, and before many of you here were even born. Trust me when I tell you that I know a lot more about Lambda-CDM theory than most folks know about plasma cosmology theory. My criticisms of Lambda-CDM are valid scientific criticisms, and I'm not the only one who has criticized that particular theory.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

I want to clearly state that plasma cosmology theory (my theory of preference) does not preclude a "Big Bang" type of event. My aversion to Lambda-CDM theory is based on my aversion to metaphysical constructs, not to the philosophical notion of a "Big Bang". It's entirely possible that something like a "bang" took place, but I have no evidence that our physical universe was ever condensed to a point, nor do I have any empirical evidence that inflation, dark energy or dark matter exist, or that these things have any influence on nature or matter. If and when you can show me empirical evidence of inflation or dark energy or dark matter (rather than missing mass) have an effect on nature in controlled scientific conditions, then I may change my opinions about these metaphysical constructs. Until I see that kind of evidence however, I'm going to be far more skeptical of these metaphysical theories than I am skeptical of BB theory in a general sense.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Here is a perfect example of a misunderstanding directly caused by your keeping a card up your sleeve.

I did not refer to any existing theory as a sneeze. We were talking about the BB theory. I invented a dumb theory to make a point. It seems you thought I was referring to your theory - except I didn't know about it.

You can be certain it was not my intention to refer to any existing theory.

My bad. Thanks for setting me straight on this point.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have no hidden agenda, I'm simply pointing out that there may have never been a "BB" at all. Where I come from, the term "flog" would imply I'm here to "beat" or put down plasma cosmology,

No. "Flog" is a colloquialism for "sell".

When was I ever less than "straight" with you?

Well, your conversation started off as "the BB is just a theory; why do we all take it as fact" (I paraphrase). To which I asked "It's not fact, it's just the best. Have you got a better one?" It seemed to be a while before you got around to pointing out a better one (enough time for me to ask twice). Until there was a better one, your initial argument seemed kind of moot. Which is what I kept saying.

Anyway, this meta-discussion (discussion about the discussion) is moot. Everyone's cards are on the table now, so there's no need for me beat it to death.

We continue...