The discussion centers on the theoretical basis for a hot Big Bang, emphasizing the role of redshifted Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) and the dense packing of matter in a smaller initial space. The conversation contrasts this with alternatives like a 'cold' Big Bang and critiques the "tired light" hypothesis proposed by Fritz Zwicky in 1933, which has been largely dismissed due to its failure to match observational data. Participants recommend studying modern cosmology textbooks, such as those by Andrew Liddle, to gain a deeper understanding of the hot Big Bang model.
PREREQUISITESAstronomers, cosmologists, students of astrophysics, and anyone interested in understanding the foundational theories of the universe's origin and structure.
The latter, and also "cold" nucleosynthesis. The redshift/distance relationship can also be explained in a much more visualizable and intuitive way as an inherent redshift of ancient matter's light emissions/absorptions, and that the latter have gradually been getting bluer since then. Also, Fritz Zwicky sought a reasonable explanation back in 1933, with his "tired light" hypothesis. But such ideas haven't been seriously pursued because they lacked a theoretical foundation.Drakkith said:As opposed to a 'cold' big bang? Or no big bang at all?
No, they were abandoned because their predictions don't match observation.hkyriazi said:But such ideas haven't been seriously pursued because they lacked a theoretical foundation.
That's right, as explained in detail here:Vanadium 50 said:No, they were abandoned because their predictions don't match observation.
...is a lot more than what you're describing in your OP. I suggest taking some time to work through a good modern textbook on cosmology, such as Liddle:hkyriazi said:the theoretical basis for a hot Big Bang