questioning Big Bang theory

debugas
debugas
Joined: 11 Nov 04
Posts: 170
Credit: 77,331
RAC: 0

According to the site

According to the site "Redshifts are quantized for both galaxies [[53],[54]] and quasars [[55]]. So are other properties of galaxies. [[56]] This should not happen under Big Bang premises."

Is the quantization real ? I somehow think expansion is more or less uniform all over the universe so it seems quantization is indeed a trouble for Big Bang theory

Nereid
Nereid
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 79
Credit: 925,034
RAC: 0

RE: According to the site

Message 45367 in response to message 45366

Quote:

According to the site "Redshifts are quantized for both galaxies [[53],[54]] and quasars [[55]]. So are other properties of galaxies. [[56]] This should not happen under Big Bang premises."

Is the quantization real ? I somehow think expansion is more or less uniform all over the universe so it seems quantization is indeed a trouble for Big Bang theory


First, the four source documents:
53
54
55
56

Curiously, the 2001 Burbidge and Napier paper ([55]) contains text, in the introductory section, that directly contradicts [53] and [54]: "The effect [quantised redshifts] has never been found in samples of galaxies that have normal spectra arising from stars and interstellar gas, or in samples that have substantial admixtures of normal galaxies"

Notice that all four sources, except possibly the 2001 Burbidge and Napier paper, pre-date the two huge galaxy and quasar surveys - 2dF and SDSS

(to be continued)

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,214
Credit: 136,136,605
RAC: 27,692

RE: i tend to agree with

Message 45368 in response to message 45365

Quote:
i tend to agree with hockeyguy that modern science has become so complex that ordinary (who did not invest much time into it) people buy in easily into all the pseudo-science crap especially if it is wraped nicely into scientific terminology (all those astrologists talking about all those X-energy multi dimensional fields etc etc)


I'm all for free speech, and please continue this discussion, but the clever kicker here is that now "we" can be quoted as "them" to the advantage of such crap artists - now that they got us talking. Spin like this - 'as discussed on the E@H forums', or 'arguably the most novel explanation for the CMB yet', or 'such proposals currently have the serious attention of the scientific community' - quite derivative drivel and referential to third level, papparazzi/tabloid-like coconut grove chatter. Not actually untrue - as here we are at E@H seriously arguing - but even a link to here from there may not be followed up in detail to determine our consensus. You get the idea.....
Because the process of science is to actually go out and measure reality first before testing theory against it, that readily confronts those who wish to define reality by their internal precepts first then filter data to suit. That sounds like a subtle point, but it is a crucial distinction which allows thinking to gradually detach from reality and yet appear to be valid for the purpose of true explanations of reality. ( In the Australian press this is known as 'business as usual'. )
The history of chemistry is a stunning example of this: before, say, Antoine Lavoisier chemistry wasn't right or wrong - it was haywire - with Earth, Air, Fire, Water, Essences. It explained everything and at the same time nothing.
Cheers, Mike.

( edit ) The 'coconut grove' reference is like this: a Pacific island. Do you go out in a canoe, explore and take risks, to get your food? Or do you stay in the shady, sheltered grove and wait for it to fall from above? Plusses and minuses each way. The canoeists depart and most come back, with food, stories, scars and thrills. The 'grovers' eagerly consume the food, with thanks even, but deride the nonsense spoken by the canoeists. While they were out we had got to some serious undistracted thinking, and things really could not be like you say they are, out over the horizon! It doesn't make sense, the grovers say, and goes against some important principles that we have discovered. The canoeists sigh, wink to each other, but secretly agree to feed the grovers in the future anyway..... :-)

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Nereid
Nereid
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 79
Credit: 925,034
RAC: 0

RE: I dont understand

Message 45369 in response to message 45363

Quote:
I dont understand anything you just said. Maybe im too drunk, but its probably over my head. the reason i doubt what most people believe is because the reasoning to modern theory is way over my head. i dont understand it. so when someone comes along and offers an alternative that is not as technical, i can buy into it easier because it is not as technical, and it makes sense to me. this is the case with dark matter. it seems like someone developed a theory that would simply make an adjustment to current theory. However, when a problem that seems to debunk modern theory, like the dark matter problem, it seems more logical that current theory is wrong, rather that more parameters are needed. Parameters seem like they are in place to keep old theories current.


It's really quite simple, hockeyguy; in a single sentence: the case that the big bad 30 webpage makes is self-contradictory, inconsistent with large numbers of independent observations and experimental results, and requires you (in effect) to believe that if you jump off the roof of a 20-storey building, you will fly (and not go splat on the footpath below).

It really is this simple - the chain between your experience in jumping off the roof of a tall building and the consensus cosmological models is very, very strong. That, in order to appreciate the strength of the chain, you need to get your head around a lot of math, the results of centuries of scientific research, and so on, does not in any way mean the chain is weak (or that crackpots are automatically right).

Another way to think of this: your computer works just fine, right? Yet you have not the first inkling of what Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is, let alone why it is the most accurate theory in science, ever, right? So are you going to believe someone who says that QED is wrong 30 ways to Tuesday, without even bothering to ask whether their claims also mean your computer wouldn't work?

Nereid
Nereid
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 79
Credit: 925,034
RAC: 0

RE: According to the site

Message 45370 in response to message 45366

Quote:

According to the site "Redshifts are quantized for both galaxies [[53],[54]] and quasars [[55]]. So are other properties of galaxies. [[56]] This should not happen under Big Bang premises."

Is the quantization real ? I somehow think expansion is more or less uniform all over the universe so it seems quantization is indeed a trouble for Big Bang theory


In light of what Mike (and hockeyguy) wrote, perhaps I'm being too pedantic, in trying to lay out a rock-solid, detailed explanation of why the big bad 30 website "isn't right; it isn't even wrong" (to paraphrase Pauli), or, per Mike, the work of "crap artists."

No, the redshift quantisation is not real.

And you can see for yourself - the 2dF and SDSS galaxy and quasar data are all available to anyone (with an internet connection), for free; you can do your own analyses, to prove to yourself that there is no quantisation.

Or you can read the peer-reviewed papers which looked for such quantisation, and came up blank. Most* of these are also available to anyone, for free.

(but, if anyone would like a chapter and verse rebuttal of the points on that site, let me know; I'll be happy to provide it).
*sometimes you need a subscription; however, you can get the preprints for free, from ArXiV.

littlegreenmanfrommars
littlegreenmanf...
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 19
Credit: 7,097
RAC: 0

As a newbie to Einstein@home,

As a newbie to Einstein@home, I thought I'd have a stroll through the boards, to see what goes on here.
I just read through this thread, but like hockeyguy, it went way over my head!
From the point of view of a non-scientist, it does seem to be that each time scientists find something that doesn't fit the theory, they dream up something that helps a square peg fit a round hole. Dark matter is one of these "adjustments" to the theory.
While I accept the Universe is likely to be very complex, scientists (to us dunderheaded laypersons) seem to have forgotten Occam's Razor.
If I may, I shall outline a concept that sits easy with me, and invite the knowledgeable to respond, so that I may be better educated. Please, however, try to put your replies in language I can understand! (lol)
I see the Universe as complying with the laws of thermodynamics, and behaving much like the dynamic equilibrium one sees in a solution of salts in water.
As an example, I use Seyfert galaxies:
A Seyfert galaxy pours out huge quantities of matter from the poles at the galactic centre. With the huge mass of billions of stars pressing inward, current theory would suggest there be a black hole at the centre of any galaxy of sufficient mass and age. If there is a black hole, I believe there is a certain critical mass, beyond which a black hole will explode, explaining the huge streams of matter ejected by Seyfert galaxies. This matter would gradually coalesce to reform new galaxies. Hence completing a cycle, and hence my analogy with the chemist's dynamic equilibrium.
If there IS a critical mass for black holes, this would put paid to any possibility of matter being able to compress into a "pre-big bang" condition, as it would explode before coming anywhere near that stage.
Galaxies display a doppler red shift, believed to prove they are travelling away from us. This red shift increases with distance between our Milky Way and the galaxy in consideration. I believe as galaxies contract, due to gravitational force, that they distort space, to form a gravity well. If the speed of light is constant, and space is stretched, then wavelength will increase to keep the equation, i.e. light that may have originally been blue would exhibit a spectral shift towards red. Older galaxies would have a deeper "gravity well", thus exhibiting a greater doppler shift, making them appear to be moving faster.
Background microwave radiation, theorised to be from the big bang would have travelled faster than matter thrown out from a big bang, and we would be seeing none of it, if the Universe were expanding. It would, I believe, have reached the outer boundary of the Universe, and either stretching the boundary further, or following the curve, and "orbiting" the rest of the Universe.
If there are countless black holes exploding all over the Universe, in "mini bangs", there would be enormous amounts of radiation spreading in all directions, leaving a permanent background radiation.
To my untrained mind, this model is thermodynamically stable and self-perpetuating. It is simple, and therefore conforms to the principle of Occam's razor. It requires no invention of semi-mystical dark matter. I believe it also conforms to Einstein's theory. (My knowledge here is wafer-thin)

I repeat what I said at the start, and invite any knowledgeable person reading this to try explaining to me in language that is as plain as possible, just what is wrong with my theories, as I genuinely wish to understand as much as I can about our mysterious Universe, and current theories.

Chipper Q
Chipper Q
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 1,540
Credit: 708,571
RAC: 0

The self-perpetuating

The self-perpetuating thermodynamic equilibrium sounds good. But what exactly does the model look like? What are the parameters? How does it compare to the Lambda-CDM model?

Regarding the microwave background, it's believed that the radiation originates about 400,000 years after the big bang, when the temperature of the universe changed from being so hot that radiation was scattered in all directions (since everything was in an ionized state where electrons weren't bound to atoms), to a cooler temperature where electrons could finally be captured by the atoms, and the universe (at this time) went from being opaque to being transparent. The point is that the radiation was being scattered (at all locations) in all directions. Hence the radiation is detected coming from all points in the sky, from distances greater than ~13 billion light-years. The last thing most of these photons interacted with is what cosmologists refer to as the 'Surface of Last Scattering'.

I'm not an expert, and what I've pointed out doesn't necessarily mean that your model isn't right. Others hopefully will have additional things to point out...

littlegreenmanfrommars
littlegreenmanf...
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 19
Credit: 7,097
RAC: 0

RE: The self-perpetuating

Message 45373 in response to message 45372

Quote:

The self-perpetuating thermodynamic equilibrium sounds good. But what exactly does the model look like? What are the parameters? How does it compare to the Lambda-CDM model?

Regarding the microwave background, it's believed that the radiation originates about 400,000 years after the big bang, when the temperature of the universe changed from being so hot that radiation was scattered in all directions (since everything was in an ionized state where electrons weren't bound to atoms), to a cooler temperature where electrons could finally be captured by the atoms, and the universe (at this time) went from being opaque to being transparent. The point is that the radiation was being scattered (at all locations) in all directions. Hence the radiation is detected coming from all points in the sky, from distances greater than ~13 billion light-years. The last thing most of these photons interacted with is what cosmologists refer to as the 'Surface of Last Scattering'.

I'm not an expert, and what I've pointed out doesn't necessarily mean that your model isn't right. Others hopefully will have additional things to point out...

Chipper, at least your explanation of the microwave background radiation goes some way to explaining my question. I know the model I proffered is practically a heresy, according to modern theory, but if I can be shown WHY it's wrong, Ihope to understand current theory better. :)

Many thanks for taking the time to reply.

Chipper Q
Chipper Q
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 1,540
Credit: 708,571
RAC: 0

RE: I know the model I

Message 45374 in response to message 45373

Quote:
I know the model I proffered is practically a heresy, according to modern theory, but if I can be shown WHY it's wrong, Ihope to understand current theory better. :)


Hey LGMFM,

Most current theories come from trying to understand and answer basic questions like 'is the universe in a steady state?' (I think your model would be in this category), or 'does the universe oscillate in cycles of bang-expand-collapse?', or 'will the universe expand forever?'.

The thing that all good theories have in common is the language by which they're understood and communicated (and hence evaluated). They're all conveyed with the language of mathematics, so an understanding of maths is a necessary prerequisite to understand any models. Whatever else can be said of maths, it's surely the sharpest tool in the shed. (I go further, and say that it's not the physical constants that constrain the mathematical constants; it's the other way around.)

So not only must your cosmological model have descriptions of all quantities, relationships, and rates of change, you must also have models for the different quantities themselves, e.g., models for stars, models for galaxies, and models for larger scale structures, like clusters of galaxies. All these models within models must balance out into a picture that matches what we observe; not an easy task...

I thought that what you said about black holes (with critical mass) and redshift of light escaping a gravitational well was particularly interesting. As I was looking for an example of a model for a BH to show you, I found this one: Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object (MECO). Quite a twist on the idea of mass in a black hole!

Anyway, don't stop asking questions, since if your idea (or model) is good, then it's likely that there are good evaluations for it out there already.

Alexander W. Janssen
Alexander W. Janssen
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 56
Credit: 1,303,604
RAC: 0

RE: Is Big Bang theory just

Quote:
Is Big Bang theory just a scientific attempt to safe the face of religious explanation of "God created everything" ?


I'd ask the other way round: Why should we explain everything we can't explain today with science explain with "you know, there's that god out there"?

Religion is not that cheap, you know...
Just my 2c, Alex.

"I am tired of all this sort of thing called science here... We have spent
millions in that sort of thing for the last few years, and it is time it
should be stopped."
-- Simon Cameron, U.S. Senator, on the Smithsonian Institute, 1901.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.