Solution to horizion problem ?

  • Thread starter xsavior
  • Start date
In summary, this theory suggests that the speed of light may have been faster in the past and that this may explain cosmic inflation.
  • #1
xsavior
2
0
ok, the cmb is the background light from the big bang that stretched from visible light to radio waves...

what if the speed of light isn't as constant as we take for granted.

for the brief time before the light shifted spectrum perhaps the speed of light , was actually much faster. and once that cmb light shifted it created a sort of friction with light. Creating the speed of light we now observe. and take for a constant since we cannot remove the background static remnant of the big bang.

It makes perfect sense to me , that this explains cosmic inflation as it is known. and gives it a reason to have happened.

Some one please explain why this does or doesn't work or how it could be proved .

I can't believe I am that smart that no one has thought of this. But i can't seem to reason it away either. halp
!
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
xsavior said:
I can't believe I am that smart that no one has thought of this.
:rofl:

Well, there are variable speed of light theories cosmological models out there, and one of their inherent properties is that they solve the horizon problem. I don't know much about these theories but I would imagine that their problems would then lie in resolving some of the other problems that inflation solves.

With respect to your post, I'm not entirely sure what you mean and it seems pretty speculative to me (which is against PF rules). Light is redshifted through the entire range of the electromagnetic spectrum; there aren't two clear cut categories whereby the light suddenly jumps from one to another. I also don't know what you mean by the friction part of your post.

Anyway, I should remind you that you are not permitted to discuss personal theories here, but if you wish to talk about one of the published VSL cosmologies, then that is fine (so long as you cite it).
 
  • #3
fair enough. ill find another forum.
 
  • #4
xsavior said:
ok, the cmb is the background light from the big bang that stretched from visible light to radio waves...

I wonder what evidence there is for this. ie how do we know from practice that this is so rather than theory.
 
  • #5
xsavior said:
...the cmb is the background light from the big bang that stretched from visible light to radio waves... what if the speed of light isn't as constant as we take for granted ...


Sounds like "Joao Magueijo's Big Bang" on the Science channel.
{h}ttp://science.discovery.com/tv-schedules/special.html?paid=48.8544.122181.0.0
 
  • #6
henrieta said:
I wonder what evidence there is for this. ie how do we know from practice that this is so rather than theory.
The accepted picture says there HAS to be a microwave background of the observed temperature because
1. at a certain time the universe was 1000 times hotter and 10003 times denser than it is today

2. before that moment it would have been a opaque glowing cloud of hydrogen and it would have been sending out light, right around the time the cloud cooled enough to become transparent.

3. so given the standard model, and what we know about hot hydrogen gas, the universe must now be full of that light but with the wavelength stretched out by a factor of 1000

and that turns out to be just what we see!
The accepted cosmology model says there HAS to be this microwave light all over this place, of just this range of wavelengths. If there weren't then it would be reason to discard the model.
========================

The acceptance of scientific views rests on empirical testing, which basically means testing PREDICTIONS.

General Relativity is the accepted theory of gravity because in 1915 it predicted a certain bending angle of light passing by the sun and in 1919 this angle was observed, and then after that came other tests to this day. Which it continues to pass with flying colors.

The basic expansion model of cosmology (Friedmann and others) derives from that theory of gravity: Gen Rel.
If you believe the accepted theory of gravity then you are probably inclined to believe the expansion cosmology because solving Gen Rel indicates that it has to be either expanding or contracting and by all evidence it sure isn't contracting!

Then in 1948 some people realized that if the accepted theory of gravity, Gen Rel, and the expanding model cosmology that comes out of that, are right then, from what we know about hydrogen gas at various temperatures, there has to be a microwave background coming from the early universe. It was a PREDICTION of a hitherto unexpected phenom.

And almost 20 years later, in 1966, some people who didn't know about the prediction and weren't looking for the microwave background FOUND the background was there more or less as predicted.

Basically the credibility of a scientific model rests on the fact that it predicts things that turn out to be right, and there is a premium on predicting things that are otherwise completely unexpected.

So you can say that the expansion model of cosmology (based on a well-demonstrated theory of gravity) has the very best sort of practical supporting evidence, namely that it predicted something totally unexpected that turned out to be there 20 years later.

And it has not been shot down. It continues to survive all empirical tests. All the new data that comes in is consistent with it.

Whereas alternative explanations for where some of the observed stuff might come from, like the microwave background, are always a bit strained and they always get shot down by some observation or other. Nobody seems able to think of an alternative model that fits all the data.

Which doesn't mean that people shouldn't try! Their should always be people trying to come up with alternative models, and testing them. Eventually one will show up that will be an improvement, no doubt.

And it doesn't mean that you, Henrieta, have to believe the standard model of cosmology either. You are welcome to doubt it. Skepticism is highly approved of. You are also welcome to make up your own model. But do try to appreciate the bulk of practical nuts and bolts evidence that weighs in on the side of the accepted picture.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
g33kski11z said:
Sounds like "Joao Magueijo's Big Bang" on the Science channel.

Think link works now.
http://science.discovery.com/tv-schedules/special.html?paid=48.8544.122181.0.0

Not seen it yet but he published a very readable book called "Faster than the Speed of Light" (sic)

I am not up to date (apart from not being competent:biggrin:) but got the impression all these brilliant advances are like WW1 battles: encouraging advances at first then get bogged down.

xsavior says "I can't believe I am that smart that no one has thought of this". Joao Magueijo found out that he had not been the first one either.
 
  • #8
Nor will he be the last. FTL theories are a dime a dozen because they fail miserably in the face of observational evidence. GR is not wrong and any theory that suggest otherwise is doomed to fail. I'm not saying GR is complete, but, I am asserting it is 100% correct at the low energy limit. It is, observationally speaking, the most successful theory in the history of science.
 
  • #9
Chronos said:
Nor will he be the last. FTL theories are a dime a dozen because they fail miserably in the face of observational evidence. GR is not wrong and any theory that suggest otherwise is doomed to fail. I'm not saying GR is complete, but, I am asserting it is 100% correct at the low energy limit. It is, observationally speaking, the most successful theory in the history of science.

He maintains he is not contradicting GR or the relevant observations, i.e. light velocity is fixed constant now not in early universe AFAIR and that he has met this objection. I could not myself argue much for him.
 
  • #10
marcus said:
The accepted picture says there HAS to be a microwave background of the observed temperature because
I am not trying to be cantankerous here. I am happy with the present model. But 'has' is not science. Is there any observational evidence that links the accepted picture of expansion and the CMB? Just wondering
 

1. What is the horizion problem?

The horizion problem, also known as the cosmological horizon problem, is a paradox in cosmology that arises from the observation that the universe appears to be homogeneous and isotropic on large scales, despite being composed of regions that are causally disconnected due to the speed of light limitations.

2. How does the horizion problem challenge our understanding of the universe?

The horizion problem challenges our understanding of the universe because it suggests that the universe should not appear as uniform as it does if it has evolved from small, causally connected regions. This suggests that there must be some mechanism or event that allowed for the uniformity we observe.

3. What is the proposed solution to the horizion problem?

The most widely accepted solution to the horizion problem is the theory of cosmic inflation, which proposes that the universe underwent a rapid period of expansion in its early stages, resulting in the homogeneity and isotropy we observe today.

4. How does cosmic inflation solve the horizion problem?

Cosmic inflation solves the horizion problem by proposing that the regions of the universe that appear uniform were once in close proximity and able to exchange information. During the period of inflation, these regions were expanded to a size larger than the observable universe, resulting in the uniformity we observe today.

5. Are there any alternative solutions to the horizion problem?

While cosmic inflation is the most widely accepted solution to the horizion problem, there are alternative theories and hypotheses such as the cyclic universe and the multiverse theory. However, these alternatives are still largely speculative and have not been widely accepted by the scientific community.

Similar threads

  • Cosmology
2
Replies
57
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
1
Views
993
Replies
39
Views
3K
Replies
37
Views
3K
Replies
57
Views
3K
  • Cosmology
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
421
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
17
Views
1K
Back
Top