Not all people on earth have converted themselves to the BB theory. Although the Steady State theory is not a proper alternative (creation of matter also), I like to reflect on a theoretical cosmological model, that has the following properties:

4D Space-Time frame without begin or end (infinite), space-time is essentially flat.

First objection is, how to remove Olbers' paradox. It seems possible, assuming that we have no upward limit on structures, super-structures etc, which in their nature are fractals, due to the way gravity works in combination perhaps with electromagnetism in plasma.

Has anyone found a fractal solution for removing Olbers' paradox?.

Furthermore, of course there would be a need for explaining the large scale structure more extential then BB theory can, as also the CMBR.

Anyone proposals or reflections on this?

In the end, there is no begin.

PS.
I am aware of a Inflation variant, in which the Cosmos has infinite Inflation stages.
A galaxy in this model is in essence a 'false vacuum' bubble, creating their own universe (the 'old' island universe model someway). This variant encapsulates a hierarchic (tree-like) structure for space-time, creating new space-time frames. A kind of evolution of universes, a spawned universe unherits some properties of the parent. Nice feature of this model is: a universe can be rotating.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-20 06:01 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-20 06:02 ]</font>

Look here. I address Olbers' paradox in such a universe.
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html

Thanks for the reply. As a matter of fact I have come accross some of these ideas already (like the idea of Grote Reber 'Eternal, Boundless, Stable Universe', and studied some of the arguments why the Big Bang Theory might not be the correct theory.

That's why I have come up with this topic on here in the first place, although I miss a lot of background on all the issues involved, but trying to keep up with it.

What still is missing I think is a worked out and complete description of this alternative theory of the cosmological model, with reliable evidence based on scientific data, and which can give us a good explenation why the cosmos looks like we observe it to be.

I admit, I did not studie the proposals for alternative models to closely, so it might well be there already is a well-defined model, with observational evidence, so that's why I started this topic to talk about this with others.

I will study the availabe material on this issue more deeply, and will refer to that later on.

For now, if may I ask, what is in short the kind of cosmological model you think might work?

Does it fit more or less the description I put forward (no beginning, eternal and infinite in all extent)?

PS.
I could not find something on Olbers' paradox on the page, but I have not checked all the links (some of them did not work properly: page removed).

Could you direct me to material on how to remove Olbers' paradox and how to explain the CMBR in such a model?

Thanks!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-20 07:13 ]</font>

Here is another alternative, or merely a meta model for the BBT (a study on all possible universes).

http://www.everythingforever.com/

Unfortunately (for those opposed for some unknown reason to the big bang), I have yet to see an alternative model that explains the observational evidence as well as the standard picture Big Bang. Of course, Olber's paradox does not exist in the Big Bang model. I'm apt to simply say, fuggetaboutit.

Here's why I believe in the Big Bang:

1) Ockhams' Razor for a redshift distance relation. You've seen the argument before. If you don't think that the redshifts are due to a difference in velocities then you need to provide an alternative CONSISTENT theory that explains the universe JUST AS WELL as the Hubble Flow. I have not seen one. We know that the Hubble Flow is consistent with GR, we know that it gives us a look into different epics in the history of the Universe that we can probe with other means.

2) Nucleon abundances. Four basic nuclear matter: hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium are found cosmically. If we look at their relative ratios, we find that the Big Bang model can give us an excellent first-principles explanation for the reason the ratios are the way they are. You can derive the abundances using particle physics cross-sections and knowledge of thermodynamics. Theory matches data well. It could just be a coincidence, but I'm of the opinion that any alternative theory should be able to explain why we got it right.

3) The CMB. This is the most damning evidence of all. There are those on this board that don't believe that it is a real signal or believe that they can explain it using other models. None of them have provided a rigorous analysis of this. That is to say, the standard model explains the CMB to a precision of better than one part in 10^6 or so. This includes the fact that the CMB is a beautiful planck spectrum to the first four orders of magnitude and its deviations from that can be characterized on an angular scale as coinciding with the formation of large scale structure in the universe. This would be a RIDICULOUS coincidence if the CMB were due to some other homogeneous mechanism that was spread throughout the universe. I'm not inclined to say that the Big Bang is wrong because independent analysis of epics and scales is just massively coincidental. That would be like saying quantum mechanics is just coincidental: that the fact we can measure states of the hydrogen atom snd their interactions is just a coincidence. I don't buy it.

There are plenty of other incidental evidences that allow us to fit the Big Bang model in. There are all kinds of distance measurements and lensing analyses and large scale structure correlation functions and hot x-ray emmission gases in intercluster space and metalicity evolution in redshift space and temperature evolution in redshift space.... I could go on, but what's the point.

I will take a Big Bang denier seriously when they start out their post with: "I am aware of the overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang. I am aware it explains quite a bit and understand that's why it has been successful. But I think I can explain everything that it explains better." Then I'll be interested. Right now, everybody who is a denier is more interested in weak ontological and even anthropological arguments against the theory. They give away their own ignorance with regards to the topic.

I am not denying about the evidence, which are consistence with the theory.
Bing Bang Theory is now the theory that best describes the universe how we currently observe it, in the respects you mentioned above.
I was just looking into the issue weather any other theory could in principle explain the same phenomena that BBT can.

To my current understanding, this is not realy the case, even though the BBT has some problems, like:
- It can not realy explain the large scale structure of the universe (the Great Wall, for instance)
- BBT is dependend on an Inflation scenario, which requires there to be considerably more mass as has been found (Dark Matter problem).

Pls. correct me if I am wrong

It is not very arguable that BBT, despite the problems still existing, can be defeated easily.

But it doesn't say, it can never be done.

No, actually it does an incredibly GOOD job at predicting large scale structure correlation functions from the CMB angular power spectrum. There is an association of the results that is so profound it is used as a proof for why the Big Bang WORKS!

No, not MASS but it requires DARK ENERGY (which in Einstein's Equations ends up behaving repulsively as opposed to attractively). The Dark Energy problem is indeed a problem because we don't have a good explanation for it at this point. There's also the problem that the mass of the universe seems to be so high (it really should be nearly a density of one in omega parameter or zero, but right now it is on the same order but less than one in an instability strip which is a bit confusing).

The Dark Matter problem really isn't so much a cosmological problem as it is an observational one. SUSY looks promising, but there are a few problems with it, esepcially the mass of the neutralino being way too large.

Eventually we will have new theories that will be different. How they will incorporate the old Big Bang theory remains to be seen, but there is going to have to be some explanation for why the Big Bang looks so right if it is actually wrong. The Basics of the Big Bang (that is the universe was once hotter, denser, and has a finite age for observations) are indisputable observational facts just like, say, the fact the moon orbits the Earth.

Can you pls. give me a source (if you have one) for this info? thanks.

Let us say here that the least thing that can be said and understood is that the BBT challenges our understanding and perception of this big world around us.
I think this has a lot to do with the way physics abstracts from our ordinary perceptions of things, that tossles with our daily world understandings. I think most part of the problems in the way we can understand this, lies on that field.

Take for instance our ordinary perception of causality. Time is just the awareness of the change, which can be measured. It's always one state of affairs leading to another, in an eternal way. So, it couldn't be, there was a beginning state. It can't be there was a time, in which there was no "before" or no time at all. It just doesn't make sense. But physics just refrains from the ordinary perception of time, and abstracts from it. In a way that things which couldn;t happen in our down to earth understanding, just boil up from phyisical explenations.
Same as with time, also our daily life cognition of space is being put under pressure by the way physics deals with space. In our down to earth thinking, space is not an entity, not something that has existence or any properties of it's own. It's just the 'mode of existence' (same as time) of matter, moving in an eternal way.
So, if physics explains to me, space is curved, I might well respond, that such a thing is nonsense, there is nothing there that can have curvature. Space in the physical explenation is just a handy framework to work with, which can be modelized in difficult equations, to explain the way matter moves. But if we intermix physics interpretations of time and space to our daily life, worldly interpretation of things, things just blurr out and make no sense. I think that is where the difficulty resides.
The way physics describes and defines things, just don't correspond with the way we humans understand the world to be.
That is where we get the trouble from, explaining physics reality to our daily reality. The way I understand reality, the world has not boiled up from some quantum fluctuation (literally 'out of nothing') or whatever physics understands it to be, and didn't have a beginning, but just has always been there, and will always be there, and is in eternal motion.

So, what I was trying to tell is that, although within it's own set of definitions physics and math makes sense and describe the world as it is, when it comes to explain terms in the way we human percept things and have cognition, these things just don't make sense. It's like they form two compartments of logic, and there is no way these can communicate with each other in a proper way. A truth in one domains, is just absolutely nonsense in the other domain.
So, in such a sense, we realy live in an "expanding world" in which the space between different compartments of knowledge and human understanding, just keeps on stretching in such a speed, that in a way these compartments of knowledge don't have a way of communicating which each other.
We live in a world, we like to make sense of. For no other reasons we have invented science, to explain reality to us. But the way science has developed over the years, they developed into finding abstract truths, but we have still the task to make sense of it all, and has to be confined to the real world we as humans are living in.
The search for the truth about, which has lead to people claiming that we are about to have a "theory of everything". If we boil this down to what this means in the compartment of where we humans live (which is not the world of vacuum fluctuations, electrons, photons, and quantum mechanics) and spent our lifetime in, it might well be called a theory of essentially nothing, cause in te real world, it doesn't explain anything at all. It doesn't provide anything for any human being, it doesn't accomodate the world to be in more harmony with itself, it doesn't provide the basic human needs for all of humanity.
How many of earth population would realy know or care about, of what science has to tell about these domains of knowledge. A very small percentage I would guess. So how do we explain to us humans, all of humanity, the reason for spending billions of dollars on high tech research of where are origins are of how the cosmos came into being and all that, if this just is hopelesly inapproppriate for our daily life needs for must of us. Is it realy worth the spending in terms of energy, time, money, human talent and labour for? In human terms, I just can't abstract from that, and make sense of this. And I don't think I am the only one there, having some reflections on that. Maybe that some people are now showing signs of "redshift", and hasten to "stretch the space" between themselves and this, but that is just the way it is. The abstract knowledge scientific research has accumulated over the years, is in human terms inadequate of explaining anything of real meaning in the field of human knowledge.
It maye have satisfied human curiosity and understanding, but in the field of the needs of humanity, it only plays a marginal role.

Just some things to think about....


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-21 14:47 ]</font>

The reason I think the Big Bang theory is wrong is the following:

1. The BB theory can be seen as explaining how the universe came into being out of merely nothing. As a matter of fact, there is no need to explain why the universe exists, because of the simple fact the universe has always existed and will always exist. Plain physics shows that matter can't be created out of nothing, nor motion can arise out of a state without motion. Which leads to the simple conclusion that time has no begin or end.

2. The cosmological model BB theory is based on, assumes there was a finite amount of matter. As a consequence such models predict either there be expansion or contraction. But space is just unlimited and filled with matter in infinte extent, so such a model doesn't need to be assumed.

3. BB theory is based on an explenation of the redshift of starlight from far away galaxies as being a doppler redshift. There is a far more simply theory, that explain why there is a distance - redshift relation, which is simply based on the fact that the light during the long travel looses some of it's energy (gets redder) because of the interactions with the intergalactic matter.

4. Olbers` paradox states that if the universe were unlimited in extent and homogenously filled with luminous matter, and without a beginning, would lead to a sky being luminated in all directions. This is indeed the case, but because of the redhsift, the remnants of all the light from all the stars in an infinite universe, can only be seen as the 3 K radiation, and not as visible light.

5. BB theory can't explain how out of literally nothing, all matter came into existence, without a meta-physical explenation. In ordinary physics, matter can't be created out of nothing, and no motion can arise out of a motionless state. Physics can't help to understand or explain that (there is no need for that either) without turning into meta-physcis. I could just well asume that a superbeing did it.

6. And there are a lot more things wrong with the BB theory. That's why it is fixed everytime new observations are made, that can't be explained with the existent BB theory.

Big Bang theory is just plain wrong, because it needs the help of meta-physics to explain the universe, and it tries to explain things, that don't need explenation at all.
The universe simply exists (although it is constantly and eternally changing) and has no begin or end (not in time and not in space).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-23 06:36 ]</font>

The best place to look is on any of the MAP or COBE papers on the angular power spectrum of the CMB.

I'm afraid this just isn't the case. The world works in the way physics describes it by definition. If it didn't, we'd have to explain why it didn't. Right now GR, for example, is consistent for anything we can measure the effect of GR to be. That means our theory is complete as of today. Tomorrow we may find an observation that runs against GR, but that's for the future to worry about and we can only offer idle speculation.

The way physics describes things is EXACTLY the way we perceive the world to be. This is often the exercise that is done when first introducing a more complex theory to students. It is often asked that the student prove that the world we perceive necessarily follows from the complicated mathematical models.

I think you don't have a good understanding of physics. 1) matter is not conserved. 2) all motion is relative. 3) time doesn't care about matter at all and only cares about motion due to the laws of Special Relavity.

Then you have to work out why we see a finite amount of matter and not an infinite amount. You may not like the observational evidence for the expansion of the universe, but it is still there and can't be simply dismissed by saying there's an infinite amount of matter. Even the steadystaters of yore admitted there was an expansion going on.

A theory which has been shown to be untenable. Why? Because you need a scale invariant field that takes EXACTLY the right amount of energy away to preserve the cosmological distance scale and NOT BE OBSERVED IN ANY OTHER WAY. Space is very UNdense, and as such, any interactions with intervening material would have to be VERY STRONG. It is not a simple problem in the least and one that has not had an adequate solution presented. Indeed, the simplest explanation is a differential velocity field.

Unfortunately, the steady state model has been discounted by the fact that the integrated starlight at 3 K could not have a blackbody curve that was equal in precision to the one observed from ALL PARTS OF THE SKY. This is the nail in the coffin for the steadystaters.

Nor does it have to. All the Big Bang model does at this point is posit a solution to the overall structure of the universe. At one time the universe was hotter and denser than it is today. It is a simple matter of measuring the time dependence of these factors that establishes the big bang. Primal cause is left to speculation.

Untrue. I can create virtual particles out of the vacuum, and given the proper interactions, create matter out of "nothing".

All motion is relative.

Well, you do have a interesting point here (though your examples are bad). Feynman stated it in the metaphor of a chessboard. Physics asks "What are the rules of the game?" You learn that a bishop moves only on colored squares. Later on you learn the bishop moves on diagonals. Physics refines the rules. It does not, however, speak to the purpose or the reason BEHIND the game.

That's the hallmark of any good theory in science. All scientific theories are constantly being modified and tested to their limits to determine how good they really are. So far, the Big Bang has stood up well to a lot of scrutiny and has been embraced by the vast majority of the astronomical community. You don't have to take my word for it. Read all about it in the published journal literature yourself!

You haven't demonstrated this in the least.

The Big Bang could still be right and the universe could still be constantly and eternally changing without beginning or end. This is one of the possible model fits for our Big Bang observations.

Be careful what and how you criticise. There is a lot more to science than simply grandstanding statements about the way the "universe is" and then laughing at everybody who questions this supposition. No, science is built on critical thinking skills that encourage everyone to ask questions about the universe. Many of the points you brought up are ones that were already dealt with, some of them need some reworking. On the whole, they represent an excellent attempt to get at the heart of the matter. Now it's up to you to really research these issues and figure out what the theory really says and not just what you think it says. Good luck!

1) Can you give an example of non matter conservation? The particle-antiparticle creation in vacuum with "borrowed" energy perhaps? But it is not stated there the energy is netto created, the particles annihilate again, and no energy is lost or won.

2) But not that relative. Or do you hold it for possible that some sphere of matter, suddenly expands (which is motion) out of a state in which there was no motion? Pls. give an example of that!

3) Well yes, of course time is connection to motion, but motion is connected to matter also. There is no intrinsic time, apart from matter. Matter is in motion always (motion is the mode of existence of matter), and therefore time exist. There wasn't a time in which there was no motion. Matter couldn't exist when it was not in motion, and time couldn't exist when there was no matter. So, if we talk about the material world, then these concepts of matter being in motion and the notion of time and space, are brought together and are interconnected. A material world without time, or without motion or without space, is just simply non-existent.
That is why I think 'A phyiscs' of a world before the beginning of time, is just a non-existent world, and talking about it is not physics.
I am not elaborating on a Steady State theory (which does assume the cosmos expands, but compensates this by the obscure "matter creation" thing, in order for the cosmos to be 'static').
I was working on the viewpoint, that the redshift has a non-doppler cause, and therefore creates the illusion of an expanding space/universe.
There is obviously a mechanism that causes the light from far away stars to become weaker (redder), and that is why we only see a portion of the universe.
In my perspective you need a form of photon - matter interaction, that causes the photon to loose energy proportional to distance, without the photons becoming "diffuse".
Yhe intergalactic space is very dens, true. Even denser then any vacuum we can create in an earth laboratory. But there is a lot of space out there, and each cubic meter of space containts some matter. It all adds up in those large distances.
Isn't there such a mechanism?
If we look at a light source in a tube with an undense gas in it, it can be measured that the light looses some of it's energy without becoming diffuse, and which is a proportional with distance mechanism for redshift.
Steady State is an expanding universe model. I wasn't trying to 'revive' that model. I was simply stating that the remnants of all the star light in the infinite universe, cause the sky to be bright in the 3 K region, and not visible light, because of the redshift mechanism.
Well, it already goes further then that, with Inflation models, and pre-Inflation models (Instanton). It's not left to spculation, but to theoritical investigation (but of the kind that is purely speculative indeed!), such as the Hawking-Turok instantanton model. There it is, we are being left in the dark, or being brought to 'a physics'.
This is a very microscopic phenomena.
And you somehow assume that Nature at one time decided to pop up with a number of particles/energy that was sufficient to have this universe emerge?
Remember though, this energy is only on borrow, someday it will have to be payed back!
But not that relative (see my 1st argument). The argument is, if you put together all existing matter together in a motionless state, motion cannot arise out of it. But the case is absurd of course, cause neither matter could exist, when not being in motion somehow. To explain all this, phyisics leads us right back to a dark and obscure form of physics (meta-physics), to explain what 'caused' this matter and motion to arise, and time and space to become into existence.
There is no 'why' question in physics, that's right. We can't ask why the universe exist, we can only try to understand how it works.

Or as Hawking explained to us:

"One could say: “The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.” The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It should just BE."
Oh, it's not my doubt if the current theory is embraced by a lot of scientists, I am completely aware of that fact.
I revealed some of the problems that comes up with the BB theory. I don't think that it is doable for me to clearly proof the BB theory is wrong, I would have to rely on sources and investigations from others.
To my knowledge, given the amount of credit given to the BB theory, such a thing would be a major achievement and break-through in cosmology.
That is something that can be assumed. Although I do not realy see a connection with this to the BB theory, as it includes the concept of a beginning of time. How would you remove that "beginning of time" thing from BB theory?
Yes, I am digging into that stuff, the issue on hand though is that every examnination leads you to innumerous sources, which have contrasting opinions and assumptions about nearly everything. It's a giant task even to get a non-contradictionary prescription on what in fact the BB theory says or states.
And I am far from laughing on the scientist who credit BB theory, I am mere pointing out BB theory contains somehow inproper concepts and notions about the material world, that in a way don't go together. And to my knowledge it might well turn out, that every other possible (yet, undiscovered) explenation or theory which could replace BB theory, while removing those from the BB theory, has the property of leaving other things in the dark or contain somehow contradictionary concepts. And somehow to my notion, we always come up with some kind of contradiction, which might well be the very essence of reality and existence, so that every theory about reality, must somehow contain contradictions, and which explains that no theory can explain reality in an uncontradicationary way.

It is questionable if this BB theory is not as much of an inflation vacuum bubble, as the material world it describes.
I can point to some of the interpretations, which seem to have gone their own way, and were not implied by their respective discoverers. For instance, the Friedman solution to the Einstein equations about the cosmos. Friedman himself did not imply there, the cosmos was expanding, but it was just an outcome of the mathematical model, in which the expanding metrics of the space made the calculations easier.
And still up to today, in my notion, there realy is not such a thing as "space expansion", it doesn't fit the reality of space.
I know, this is just my notion or conceptual framework, that tells me something is wrong there, and that becomes clear if one mixes the "modelled space" and it's behaviour with "real space". "space expansion" is realy an ugly concept, because - in order for it to have any effect in the real world - adresses properties to space that are not viable. A photon traveling through space, has no notion about this "space expansion" and it can't be that it's light becoming redder is somehow caused by the space, it traveled through having expanded during the travel, cause it would mean "something" interacted with the photon.
So, in fact I very much doubt if the cause for the photons emitted light years ago by stars light years distantiated from us, to be seen redder as when they were emitted, has something to do with the "expanding space" at all.
Friedman himself, who was the first one who thought of the cosmological consequences of the Einstein GR equations, did not think about it in that way. And I believe, neither Hubble implied the redshift he discovered to have the meaning of an expanding universe.
So it might well be that what we call an expanding universe, is nothing more then a self-created illusion, because we adapted a false interpretation to what we observe.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-24 12:26 ]</font>

heusdens --

You have a lot of misconceptions that need to be cleared up pronto.

You need to be a bit clearer on your definition of terms. "Matter" is something that is defined as an object that has a non-zero restmass. This is indeed something that need not be conserved given the proper interactions. A perfect example of this is radioactive decay. If you take all the products of a radioactive decay and find their masses, you'll find that they are not as massive (have less MATTER) than when you started. This mass-energy has been lost in order to impart a momentum energy on the decay products. It indeed is a REAL loss of matter and not one that is "borrowed" or has to be eventually "paid back".

In the local frame, energy is conserved, you're right about that. All of the interactions you document in a local frame have to have the same amount of energy (when including mass-energy) in the products as in the reactants. However, on a global frame in GR, this doesn't need to be true. Energy is only conserved locally as, for example, a photon can lose energy to a gravitational redshift (and thus not have the same amount of energy as when it started).

You see, it is all much more nuanced than you make it out to be.

Indeed, you can define your reference coordinates in GR to be anything you wish (with or without "motion"). This is what allows us to do gravitational cosmology. We can switch from a moving reference frame to a comoving reference frame by a simple conformal mapping. Likewise, if I assume a static universe, I can transform myself into a moving universe simply by transforming my coordinates into a moving reference frame. This is analogous to standing on a train and looking out a window. Who is moving? The world or you? Relativity tells us there is no way for us to give a meaningful answer to that question. All motion is relative, without qualifications.

This is a popular urban legend about physics. It is actually untrue. Time doesn't care whether matter is there or not. Indeed, one of the more informative solutions to the Einstein Equations involves an empty (Milne) universe. Time doesn't care that nothing is in there, it just keeps marching on.

You need to get past thinking of time in the classical sense. It is actually a dimension that is caught up with the other three, but we are confined to move in only that dimension. You would never say that space requires matter to define it, for we know that empty space has just as much "space" as does space that has something in it. Likewise empty time is just as much "time" as time that has something in it.

But as I explained earlier there is no theoretical model that has been presented that works with this interpretation. The manner in which you are presenting your idea is analogous to the way in which the geocentrists present their viewpoint. They deny that there is any evidence that says the world moves. Well, we point out to them that retrograde motion is explained, that Keplerian dynamics naturally follow from a Copernican universe, that Newtonian dynamics is hard to satisfy if massive bodies orbit less massive bodies. Somehow, none of this sways them, they say there must be "another" explanation without providing one. This is what you are doing, heusdens. You admit that there is a redshift distance relationship. You admit that the Doppler Effect is a viable cause of redshift. Yet somehow you don't seem willing to put two and two together.

There are other confirmations for an expanding universe as well. Those I outlined in a previous post. The Big Bang model is embraced because it attacks so many different problems from so many different angles. You have no mechanism for nuclear abundances. You have no explanation for the CMB that explains it as well as the Big Bang explains it. There are numerous other small effects (Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, for one) that you cannot explain. You don't have a reasonable alternative to the current model.

But you haven't given me this mechanism, only posited that it exists. I will tell you EXACTLY what the mechanism is: it is the finite amount of time that the universe has been expanding from a very, very small size. You can calculate what effects you would expect from such a mechanism and without fail, we see those effects. For example, we can actually see the CMB cooling off. Some processes are in thermal equilibrium with the background radiation and we can measure the temperature of the radiation at their given epoch. If you do that, you find that the CMB radiation temperature scales with time just as the Big Bang model predicts it should. A steady-state idea cannot explain this effect unless stars are somehow getting cooler over the ages.

[quote]In my perspective you need a form of photon - matter interaction, that causes the photon to loose energy proportional to distance, without the photons becoming "diffuse".[quote]

This is only part of the problem. You also need it to be uniform and homogeneous on all scales (the universe is not) and you need it to somehow have a mechanism that has been unobserved in the lab since the energy scales are much greater than those processes we currently know about. You are talking about inventing new physics, which may be an okay thing to think about, but is much more problematic from the point of view that your "theory" needs to explain all the other observational evidence I pointed out as well. You can't just attack this one piece and expect your idea to work. You need to formulate an entirely new paradigm. And you need to do it with the rigor that the Big Bang has been presented with. Looking at the content and the quality of some of your posts, I would say you are probably not up to the task.

This is all pie-in-the-sky speculation until you tie yourself down to the numbers. There are books that actually do this game and the conclusion is that any force you care to name is not strong enough to effect these streaming photons on the scales we're talking about except for gravity. You have been romanced by certain voices on this board who have said otherwise. Unfortunately, they have all been shown to be full of hot air and worse, haven't admitted their errors.

You made this up. There is no such effect that has ever been measured. I can't even think of what kind of experiment you got confused with to make this statement. It really is not physically sound.

Except, that effect will not look like the CMB we observe. It will not be nearly uniform enough.

Make sure you understand that there are theoretical extensions to the paradigm and then there is the paradigm itself. Inflation is just beginning to gather observational evidence to support it as a mechanism. It is still extremely early in the age of the universe. If you look at the universe some fraction of a second after this proposed period you will find a Big Bang universe that matches observations in any case. There are speculative theories that are presented all the time, but they are necessarily tied at the late end (a few seconds into the life of the universe) to the standard Big Bang model. This is the direction of cosmology today.

[quote]And you somehow assume that Nature at one time decided to pop up with a number of particles/energy that was sufficient to have this universe emerge? Remember though, this energy is only on borrow, someday it will have to be payed back![quote]

I have assumed no such thing. That is only one possible explanation for the universe. One. It is not embraced by all cosmologists nor should it be. We don't have any observational evidence for this, all we know is that the model seems to work for the physical laws we can derive to the energy scales we're dealing with.

I am trying to patiently explain to you where your physics is going awry, heusdens. One place is in your understanding of quantum mechanics. You seem to think that there is some kind of borrow/payback mechanism in quantum mechanics that is akin to the rule about conserving energy. This is only an analogy that is used in the popular literature to get the general public to understand concepts like quantum tunneling. In reality, the story is much more mundane than that. All this tunneling is is a mathematical expression of the idea that there is a finite non-zero probability to have part of you particle's wavefunction in a classically forbidden energy region. This is a well-documented phenomenon that is responsible for such things as radioactive decay. In fact, once you pass the potential barrier, there is no problem, you have succeeded in passing through the wall, so to speak. There is no "payback" mechanism other than the fact there is a ridiculously small probability that you might tunnel back to where you were before. However, you can surpress this probability with the appropriate conditions so that it is nearly an impossibility. Of course, if you are dealing with the universe and a (fiducial) infinite amount of time that "nearly" an impossibility becomes something you worry about. Thus the appeal to the borrow/payback analogy. It is not, however, useful to consider this as an actual mechanism in physics (it is not). It is only an illustrative tool.

Let me give you another example. Let's say two electrons tunnel out of nonexistence and then annihilate each other. This creates two high-energy photons that zip off in opposite directions. Where did these photons come from? The only explanation is they came from the vacuum, the part of space that doesn't have any photons or electrons in it. This may seem to be a contradiction, but it is a very real phenomenon. It is actually something that we must take into consideration when we monitor high-energy particle physics. If your system has enough energy, you can end up creating virtual particle pairs that can remain real since your system has enough energy to interact with them. If the vacuum has an energy density (and there is good evidence to say it does) then we expect these particles to be creating themselves in many different places... NO PAYBACK REQUIRED!

Now this is just plain bad physics. If I put two masses at a distance r from each other, they will exert a force on each other. They will begin, by Newton's laws, to accelerate. Where did this motion come from? It came from the dynamical instability of matter in the universe. However, if I sit on one of these masses and look out, what do I see? Well, I see myself just sitting still while the other mass comes racing towards me. This is how motion can be seen to be relative.

Again, you need to tell us motion in relation to what? To each other? Consider the following thought experiment: I can put two masses at infinite distances from each other travelling at very high speeds and they will not measure a motion relative to each other. They will say the other mass is fixed with respect to them. Now, if I create a universe with just these two masses, I still have a perfectly fine universe, but I have no motion. Time is still marching forward at one-second-per-second in any local reference frame and space is behaving the way it should depending upon the sign of the curvature term. Matter exists, but it is not in motion. Therefore I disproved your statement.

The only problem you outlined that has any merit is the so-called "singularity" problem or the primal cause problem. Indeed, this is a troubling problem in cosmology, but it does not invalidate the Big Bang. It simply allows us to further ask the question. The Big Bang stands on its own without referring to such a beast. It has observational evidence that can be modelled well using the tools of General Relativity, particle physics, and an expanding universe that is influenced by various effects as the universe ages through various epochs. This is the success of the Big Bang and has not been addressed by you other than to say that "scientists embrace it". Well, you are free to embrace whatever you like, but you should at least have the decency to try to understand why scientists embrace it.

Be discerning in your choice of sources. There are plenty of crackpots out there.

Or not as the case may be. We have no evidence to show this one way or the other. Einstein thought as you did, that it should be assumed. He later said that that assumption led him to his greatest blunder (which actually has been a useful modification to his theory of GR that we use today). If he hadn't assumed that, he could have a priori derived the expanding universe from his equations before Hubble. That would have been a truly impressive acheivement.

Stick with sources that tie themselves closely to observational evidence and address the theory with proper tools. Don't just fall into the Arp-admirer trap of picking and choosing your evidence and presenting your counterargument that way. Look at the current explorations into the large scale structure, into redshift catologing (2df, Sloan), into CMB exploration (DASI, COBE, MAP), into nuclear abundances, and look into the particle physics theories and unification ideas but keep in mind that they are mostly not as tied to observation as the other parts of the story. If you do this, I am sure you will be able to provide an adequate critique of the Big Bang model.

Use resources from .edu especially (if you use the web). Avoid ICR nonsense and generally anything that is published on a free webpage. Also, try hardbound texts found in your local library about cosmology. Read more than one in case you get stuck with a particularly off-the-wall one. There is consensus and it is discoverable. Also, Phil has put up a link to an excellent Cosmology FAQ on this page. Do read through it. I haven't found any errors in it to date.

And Copernicus believed that the Earth was the center of the universe... he just wanted to create a more convenient "system". Yeah, yeah, we've heard all this before. It's meaningless. Friedmann didn't have access to the data we know have. If he did, that would have been all the more impetus to develop his model. He didn't make a statement one-way or the other about the universe. He just presented the solution as it was in an "isn't that interesting" manner. It took Hubble's observations of other "island universes" and his establishing the redshifts (and blueshifts) inherent in these places to give us a good understanding of how the universe may actually be expanding.

Well, I'll remember not to ask you for your opinions in the future. But in all seriousness, do you know how ludicruous this sounds to someone who deals with this every day? Any galaxy I look at has a measureable shift in its spectrum. Any one. If I do a simple plot on the sky, I see a scatter around a linear progression. If I then try to match this data to a best fit I get the Hubble Law. Regardless of whether you believe the velocities are "real" or not, that's what the evidence is telling us... that there is a relationship between distance and redshift.

Furthermore, I see deviation from this law at higher redshifts. This is due to the so-called "deceleration" factor which is what you have to deal with because either you have dark-energy pushing you outward or you have gravity pulling you inward. I also can see cosmological effects of the Hubble Flow in Large Scale Structure measurement. If you look at the size of the largest bound structures in the universe (clusters), you will find that that's the size you get if the you allow for normal gravitational infall over the period of the universe's growth (H^-1). More than that, you find that structures are actually evolving in time. We also see that metalicity evolves in time which is predicted from the fact that the earliest universe had far fewer heavier elements than today due to the fact that no stars had a chance to produce the heavy nuclides. We also can look at timescales and we find that the oldest stars are actually on the same order in age as what we calculate for teh universe. This is a completely independent measurement observation that has no sensitivity to the age of the universe, other than the fact that we posit an age to the universe. If we'd have measured the age of globular clusters to be 30 billion years, then there'd be a contradiction. As it is, they lie somewhere in the ballpark of a dozen billion years which gives us further confirmation that we're getting the timescales right.

These are only a smattering of the observational evidences behind the Big Bang, which is why you should believe it.

This is the problem of nonlocality. You can't expect to have a photon behave the same way in the same reference frame simply because the photon behaves the same way no matter where it is locally. That means if your two reference frames are moving with respect to one another you get different observations for the same photon. There's no mystery in this, though, a similar effect is seen in special relativity and measuring time dilation or length contraction.

Well, you need to look much more closely at the theory because this is perfectly allowed for by the Freidmann Equations and is a natural outcome of the fact that we see a Hubble relationship at all. We could have looked out into space and seen no relationship at all. This would have been consistent with your model of the universe. There wouldn't be a need for expansion, only peculiar velocities of the galaxies. If we were to make a plot in that way, we'd see that the further we went out, there would be no redshift-distance correllation. That isn't what we see though, and saying that you have some mysterious mechanism to explain this phenomenon because you simply don't like or can't understand the expansion of space-time is, in my mind, a rather arrogant and stubborn way to go about educating oneself.

This is all idle speculation on your part. Have you read the papers they published? I have and it is clear that 1) Hubble believed that the galaxies were moving away from us and 2) Freidmann believed that his model of the universe was a solution to Einstein's field equations. It is a typical device for detractors to say that the developers of the theories themselves didn't believe in their theories. A similar thing is done with evolution and Charles Darwin. It just is not the case, though. You may be able to point to a passage or two that is made in response to a detractor in regards to Hubble's development of the observational evidence for an expanding universe. This is just a typical scientific cautionary exchange. There is no doubt if you actually read what Hubble wrote that he was firmly convinced that his observations showed a relationship between the velocities of the galaxies away from us and their distances.

Then tell us, where is your replacement paradigm?

In answering JS Princeton.

Well let me explain again, I do think that BB theory stands on its feets quite solid yes. And I don't think I can manage to tackle this enormous theory, in fact no individual can. If the BB theory is replaced or adjusted (well it keeps getting adjusted, but I mean a majpor change) then this will most probably be the work of a large amount of scientists, working in different fields, and not just an individual.

I think from our discussion we have minor problems in understanding, because of the use of different terminology. I for example use matter in a more general way (not just mass having objects, but also energy, fields, whatever can be grasped as being material), and also motion. Take for instance the nucleus of an atom, where protons and neutrons reside. Well nothing at rest here, the proton and neutron interchange particles (so called gluons, if I am correct), and which causes the proton to become a neutron, and vice versa. I would call this phenomena also motion. In fact, matter (anything material) is never at rest.
What I was trying to say that, when we go back to the point at which, as is said, time began, this is something of a mystery because of the singularity, although in some theoretical explenations, it seems to have been dealt with satisfactory.

Some other thing is: what do we call "existence"? In my mind, the only existence is matter which is in motion always, and therefore requires space and time. Has void space existence of it's own? I don't think so. I think the GR theory of Einstein just shows us how connected matter is with spacetime. Matter has no meaning without spacetime, and spacetime has no meaning without matter.
You might think of a void space of having existence of its own, but your reasoning is ultimately derived from an existing (material) world, which contains (almost empty) voids. But could you think of an existing world, which would be just totally empty space? Please go ahead and try to think of it.

What I was merely trying to say is that existence has no alternative. There is no "negative" existence or "non" existence.
You cannot think of a mere "nothingness" as being in existence.

Here's a link dealing with that issue:
http://www.everythingforever.com/ywexist.htm

About the alternative redshift-distance explenation, I found this page dealing with such effects:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBA...ng.html#Author

I don't know if this holds true, and in fact I can imagine that this argument has been succesfully been dealt with in the BB theory, but - apart from the fact that in explenations of the BB theory, it is said that such effects (like the 'tired light' theory) have been succesfully excluded - I did not see a good explenation of why such an effect can be excluded. If you have such material, that deals with this issue, I would be happy if you can show me.

The other issues I like to respond in another post.

Jargon is a somewhat debatable issue, but consider this. When physicists talk about "motion" they mean motion as measured from a rest frame. What you are describing is something else entirely. Particle and nuclear physics indeed involves complex interactions and exchange diagrams that may look a lot like "motion" but they are not "motion" in the sense objects move in the universe.

"At rest" would mean that there is a zero derivative of the position of the particular particle. Indeed, the nucleus remains immobile in its rest frame. It is not "in motion" at all. You have to be rigorous when using these terms. Right now you are being too sloppy.

No, empty sapcetime also is dealt with. It is a solution to Einstein's Equations. In fact, if you enter the metric for empty spacetime you get a very interesting set of solutions known as the Milne Universe. Look it up if you don't believe me.

This is true

This is untrue.

No, it is derived through theoretical considerations of Einstein's Equations.

Milne Universe, as I've said twice before.'

There absolutely is. What happens to your lap when you stand up? It ceases to exist. However, this is an ontological question rather than a physical one. There is no a priori reason, though, for accepting your postulate that existence means existence is all that can be. This is a topic both Leibnitz and Kant struggled with, actually.

Ontologically, yes you can. It's kind of like saying that the "vacuum" has substance. It doesn't have substance in any sense other than the fact that we define our coordinates to exist in that place. That and the fact that there is a stress-energy tensor associated with it that allows us to solve the Einstein Equations. But if I'm beginning to sound like a repeating record it's because you refuse to listen to what I'm saying.

This link is one way to jump into the Many Worlds Hypothesis. It is not, however, anything more than a metaphysical game treatment of these issues. We cannot say yea or nay with regards to this issue. Science is right now mute as to the mystery of existence, and therefore I shall comment no further on it.

This is a very incomplete and inappropriate critique of Big Bang Theory. It may not be the intent of this page to provide a complete interpretation of the "plasma" universe, but it certainly doesn't do a convincing job at demonstrating how the proposed mechanism.

Absolutely. The problem is that the expansion of the universe has all kinds of other implications that cannot be explained by the "plasma" explanation. I already outlined these in this thread.

The past does not cause the future to exist, in an ontological sense. The future simply happens to exist in a manner that proceeds from the past through simple consistent rules, called Physics.

Just because the universe has a beginning, does not mean that it was created from nothing. Well, it is not made from anything that we are familiar with at least.

If you are dealing with the creation of a universe, the time of that universe is not very relevant to the discussion.

You are right I interchange philosophical terms with scientific terms, which don't have the same meaning.
So my statement was that matter is never in an unchanging state, even at the lowest levels. So, changes take place within matter continously, which I see as a evolving in an everlasting way, without begin or end.
Because every outcome of the state of the material world is based on a previous state of the material world, this questions the possibility of a beginning. Or stated otherwise, the beginning itself questions our notions of what matter, space and time realy is.
(See above)
I think that any philosophical issue or debate has been done before. Even the BB theory has had it's philosophical predecessors. About tje Kant/Leibniz topic:
I can remember that I had to struggle with this idea myself, and what strikens is of course that when you mentally struggle with this issue, and try think of what would be left of the world if you get rid of anything material that constitutes the world, utimately you arrive at the fact that this also excludes your own being from the world.
The cognition I have from this struggle is that our being is ultimately dependend on everything material in this world, and that we couldn't be here or exist otherwise. When relativizing the existence of the material world, in consequence one must relativize one's own existence. And that is a position
one cannot realy hold. I have never looked into this issue from philosophical literature, but from my own point of view, I regard this outcome as some form of basis of our material existence and our consciousness, I conceive of it in a way that this cognition is somehow "hardwired" into our brains, as the basis of our existence and consciousness about the world.
I think that is because we hold different positions in this issue.
Well, your argument is that ontologically you can think of another universe as empty space, because in your mind you can substitute empty density into the Einstein equations. Well, I am pretty sure that in such a world there wouldn't be a you who could conceive that.
I can of course also have in my mind a notion of a theoretical world, inhabited by mathematical entities or other ontological categories. But I would not hold that for an "existing" world, or as something that could have existence of its own. This is to be understood also as a derivate from my cognition of the material existence which constitutes me.
I brought only that page up for that issue. His thesis about this state-space of all possible worlds in my view excludes the one we happen to live in: one which doesn't have a beginning.
I brought it up solely for demonstrating a possible mechanism for non-doppler redshift, and not as a complete critique on the BB theory. The issue was about if such a mechanism could in fact exist, and I tried to answer that in showing a possible mechanism.
Well, that is true. If one brings down the doppler-redshift in BB theory, and comes up with another explenation, all other things in BB theory will fall with it.
I don't suspect that would happen all of a sudden, cause I hold it the theory has been tested on most of these attempts, but in theory it could not be excluded neither.
So, the sole reason would be for bringing it up, to find a satisfactory answer from BB theory. Is this issue/alternative regarded as of the category "tired light"?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-24 23:21 ]</font>

Your last post had only three problems that I could see.

1) You assume that a physical theory should consider its existential import. This is, in fact, an impossible desire. Every theory we have is an approximation of reality. Some approximations are better than others, but all of them that we use tell us something the way the world works. This is the same thing with an empty universe. To one first approximation model, the universe IS empty. Therefore it is instructive to consider what the universe is like as empty space and time. The universe couldn't care less if you or I existed and the consideration of whether or not I'd be able to think about these issues if the universe was empty is a moot point. I don't care if no one is around to ponder the unponderable... that's not the question I'm answering at that point. The only question I'm answering is the question of how does an empty universe behave, and we know how to answer this question.

2) You want to assume that the universe has to be without cause and unending. There are ways to work this idea into the Big Bang model, however, there is no evidence yet to say whether you are right or wrong. You state this idea as though it were fact when it is in fact a belief. Just be careful about mixing those in the future.

3) Your "alternative" redshift model isn't an alternative that is viable. That's because there just isn't a mechanism that has been outlined that behaves in the way we need. I am glad people have abandoned tired light, but actually tired light makes more sense than this plasma interaction business. I can understand the mechanism for tired light, even though it doesn't occur. I have yet to see a good explanation for how the intergalactic plasma would take every wavelength photon and monotonically shift it to another location in the spectrum by scattering or absorption/reemission. This is completely ignored by the advocates of the idea, I can only assume because they have no idea how it can be done either.

Well, we have a mechanism that is independently confirmed by many different means and remains the only decent explanation for observed phenomenon. Everybody admits that the Doppler Effect would cause the redshifts in the way we see them, but for some reason not one of the "alternative" modellers cares to grapple with the simple thought that such could be the mechanism. This is simply a case of arrogant denial, not wanting to concede that the scientific community can come up with the answer to the question. Get with the program!

It may be that in the future there will be a replacement for the Big Bang. However, what will drive it is not a problem with the redshift-distance relation. It will be from an unsolved area of the paradigm. The explanations will fall into place from the reinterpretation. This is how we replace paradigms. Einstein considers the fact that spacetime curvature could cause gravity, but realizes that his theory has to conform to Newtonian observations of mechanistic gravity and should explain some of the problems at the forefront of gravitational dynamics. The model you present, heusdens, does something entirely different. It says that a new paradigm must be out there, it must look like this, here's some unrelated information that sort of looks like what I'm talking about, now how can you believe in the Big Bang?

And you expect me to be convinced by such an argument?

Everyone has the right to wonder about the origin of the cosmic background radiation. And so astronomers have wondered, too. Many alternative models to a hot, dense, virtually perfectly homogenous universe have been put to the test against observations of nature, and all come back wanting. Here are several examples, including those discussed in this thread.

a refutation of somebody's idea about the origin of the CBR:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/Stolmar_Errors.html

a refutation of tired light (whatever the cause) - straight from the data:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Can the CBR be redshifted starlight? Nope:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stars_vs_cmb.html

a discussion of errors in the SS and QSS models (including those related to the CBR):
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/stdystat.htm

Any scientific model makes predictions about the way nature behaves (among other things). If we observe nature and it does not behave at all in the way predicted, then the model either needs refinement or to be thrown into the trash heap (once the data are numerous and strong enough, that is).

Hope this helps.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-11-25 09:54 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spaceman Spiff on 2002-11-25 09:59 ]</font>

The point I made was made on philosophical grounds. You outline that nature has no trouble in having empty space, and for sure we can calculate it's behaviour. These are however abstractions from reality, which have their merits in understanding how reality works.
But yet, what scientists, cosmologist, physicist, do want to know is, what the real world is like. Ultimately we want to explain reality as we observe and can measure it.
That is, it also needs to consider the fact that the material conditions were such and such that made life possible and conscious beings. When it comes to theories about the existence/beginning of the universe, this argument is taking into consideration. We might be interested in what possibly could constitue and form a universe, but in the end we want to know how the universe we live in was formed. So, I think in the end, this point has to be taken into consideration, but this does not exclude that in searching for that, one makes use of abstractions of less meaningfull, and more simple models of reality, to understand the whole picture.
You are right about that. But this is kind of incorperated into the scientific development, because to find new truths one has to look over the horizon of what is currently explored. And where knowledge is not helpfull anymore one falls back on belief or assumptions on philosophical grounds. I think it is quite natural, and without it, we would not have shifted the horizon of our knowledge. What is was proclaiming isn't much original, thousands of scientists and philosophers must have said this before me, and either they had proof about it. Take for instance non-euclidian geometry, which was taken into consideration in mathematics, without there being any observational evidence for such a geometry in the real world, etc.
I was just questioning this, and wondered how good the explenation the BB theory had given was. One needs to carefully study every detail and every aspect, in first instance without taking care about the whole picture. Else the theory becomes a bit self-predictive, and becomes ignorant of any critique. And yes, there is also a lot of critique that is rather senseless, but still there remains a lot of issues on which the BB theory does not come up with good predictions, or contradictionary predictions.
So, in my view, there is still a lot missing. It's a mistake to state that we can never adopt an alternative explenation for any part of the BB theory, for the reason that this can only be done, when a complete new theory is established, which can explain all the observed facts that the BB theory more or less explains. All major advances in science have come from criticizing existing theories, and carefully examining all the involved predictions and observations, and look beyond the current horizon of knowledge.
Scientidic development must be open minded. Not in a roughfull way, as to not care about the existing knowledge, and replace it with something else ad hoc of course. But one has to take care not to be too convinced about the BB theory, and which could lead to possibly missing a part of reality, that would be better described by a new theory.
So, in other words, BB theory has its merits so far in describing the reality of the universe, and even when we are convinced about that, one needs to take into consideration other alternatives carefully, to not miss something important, that could lead to new insights in reality.
To question the currently adopted redshift mechanism, and look at alternative models, might look unfruitfull for those who already been there, but I didn't do that, so I am still questioning, why such a mechanism other then doppler-redhsift couldn't exist.
It may look silly, but for me it isn't.
It's a bit arrogant to state, before taking it into consideration and carefully study it, that such a thing could not be the case.
Well, maybe this has already been done and been dealt with, and has been studied carefully before excluding this possiblity.
The BB theory isn't a belief, it's our best guess about how the universe was formed.
New research and scientific development can cause BB theory to be replaced, which I state on mere theoretical grounds, because scientific development has always been this way.
Even when cosmology and theoretical physics shows us now the big picture in a convincing way and with more detail then ever before, still up to today, we don't have the slightest idea what for example gravity is.
We can just wonder what the outcomes will be of new scientific advances in the field of cosmology and physics.

Seeing the whole picture / paradigma
(an answer I owe you)

One of the first questions that arises me, is if the universe as far as we think it is, is to be conceived as something "self-contained", or of something that was "caused" by something of a "super-nature".
With the latter, I would mean that some models describing the early universe, picture our universe of having come into being, and causing everything material coming into existence, including the space-time frame, from a "higher-order" world or universe in some unknown state.
It might show up, that the BB theory ultimately would lead to this, and which gives rise to the conclusion that the universe as we know about, is not something self-contained, and must be embedded in a higher order framework.

Ultimately I think it would lead to this.
If you think of emerging theories, like the "brane-world", one gets the idea of where this leads to.

My assumptions about the Universe (that is: the broadest definition one can give to it, defining it as self-contained) would be that it is infinite in extent, and has no boundaries.
But there are infinite many ways, in which the universe can be infinite. The road on which the brane theory is evolving is one way (the "universe" embedded in a higher order brane world).

If one must assume the universe to be infinite in order for it to be self-contained, then for me, it would be more obvious to start from the assumption that it would be infinite within the space-time frame we normally assume.
At least to me, that would make more sense then assuming in first instance that it was finite (in respect to the amount of mass, time and space), and then later on conclude that this couldn't possibly be self-contained, and then go on and assume a higher order world in which this universe is embedded in.
Within this self-contained universe, with "normal" space-time attributes, and assuming that space-time is infinite (without begin or end) and also matter is infine in extent, I think it is possible to explain all the observed facts.
For instance, an infinite universe doesn't require expanding to exist, nor will it collapse, it explains the flatness of space, one doesn't need to assume that 90% of all matter is not directly observable, the state of development of the oldest galaxies can be better explained, etc. Even the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation can be explained within these assumptions.
On the condition that, based on these assumptions, satisfactory explenations can be given for all the observed facts, including of course the redshift observations. I think it is too early to conclude that such assumptions can be excluded, even as up to now, Big Bang theory did a convincing job in explaining a lot of observed facts. But we are certain, Big Bang theory does not hold too well on certain areas and comes up with contradicationary predictions. Some observed facts can't be satisfactory explained by the Big Bang theory, especially I think on the field how galaxies formate. The constraint of the Big Bang theory because of the limited age of the universe (approx. between 10-12 billions years) doesn't fit some observations of mature galaxies, which could not have formed in this time scale.
This is not yet conclusive evidence for fact that the BB theory doesn't hold, but it indicates that the BB theory is not yet a satisfactory explenation.
But it is arguable that the alternative assumption about the infinitness of the universe, must not yet be excluded, and it might turn out that based on this assumption the observed facts can be explained more satisfactory.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-25 12:17 ]</font>

Thanks for this. I already inspected Ned Wrights' pages. I think it can be regared as convincing evidence against some models for redshift.

A post I made earlier included a link to a photon-atom interaction theory.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBA...ng.html#Author

To me, it sounds reasonable convincing.

The assumption Paul Marmet makes however for this photon-atom interaction model is that the density of matter in intergalactic space is higher then the current estimate.
This might be due to the inperfect detection methods. As detection methods progress, this theory might become more acceptable.

If you (or anyone else) have convincing evidence this theory can't be regarded as a redshift mechanism, I am certainly willing to know about it.

Heusdens, you have a penchant for lumping a lot of misinformation into one thought and declaring yourself the winner. For example, you seem to think that Dark Matter is a problem for Big Bang Cosmology. It most assuredly isn't. The Dark Matter is an observational quandary. Big Bang doesn't REQUIRE the universe to have Dark Matter, it is simply something we observe and fit into the model. And the model works incredibly well for predicting the Large Scale Structure, the CMB anisotropy, and nuclear abundances to name a few. I think you need to just get a better understanding of astronomical observations before you begin taking on cosmology. All theory is based on observation, science doesn't proceed the other way around. To that end, may I recommend you go through an introductory astronomy text to get a foundation in observational evidence?

YOu mention Marmet's ideas and why they are not tenable. Ned Wright's page is as good as any site for debunking the non-expansion ideas surrounding redshift. Especially the bottom of the page.

You say there are problems with the Big Bang but can only name one out of six that has any relevance (the singularity problem) that has possible solutions within the paradigm. What other problems do you have that are not addressed by the Big Bang? Don't be shy. Tell us about them. I have a feeling you just are not listening or do not want to listen that most of your "issues" are simply non-issues, but you refuse to dialog on these facts. Please, have you found any errors in my posts? Then what is unconvincing about the Big Bang?

I can address this one, at least: when light is red-shifted because of velocity, the entire curve of the spectrum is shifted toward the red.

Stars emit a spectrum of light with a well-understood spectrum, a distribution curve of light. (e.g., a blue giant has a maximum in the color blue; our sun has a maximum in the color green.)

If the light simply lost energy, then the curves would still have the same shape. The light would be redder overall, but there would still be a maximum in the curve at the point it was in the original light.

But if the light is shfited, then the maximum point of the curve is shifted. You see curves with a maximum in the deep orange, which wouldn't come from any known kind of star.

The "tired light" idea has been exploded by examination of entire spectra, as opposed to individual photons.

Silas

I have something here who can convince you.

First note than what is described look like the filamentary structure like describing in the Plasma Universe model and calling in the text "Dark Matter".But call it like you want the light is definively affected by that structure.
http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/News/Lensing/
http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/News/Lensing/#IC

Well, I have gone through a lot of pages explaining the observational evidence for the Big Bang theory. And believe me or not, I am willing to accept a theory that explains the observational facts in a better way as its competitors, and therefore I agree that at this current stage of scientific research and observational data, the BB theory is clearly the best theory.
Even so, the BB theory contains some elements that aren't very well satisfactory explained.

Maybe it is that the page I read about this, was giving me a false interpretation, but in what I read it was stated that the average density of the universe is an important issue, it should be very near to the critical density. Otherwise the proposed inflation scenario for the beginning of the universe, would not be a valid theory. Ok, you can be right that it's not an issue to the Big Bang theory itself, but just the inflation theory.
Well, I have been through a number of introductory astronomy texts. But it's a good idea to read more.
Well, there are issues within the Big Bang theory that can't be explained satisfactory, as for instance the age of some galaxies, and their maturity (in so far we understand the timescale for galaxy formation) doesn't fit the timescale for the Big Bang.
But even if that could be explained satisfatory, I think the whole picture that Big Bang theory presents, just doesn't make sense.

What is discussed often is that Big Bang theory simply is an outcome of the observations we make, and the physical laws that describe natures behaviour. But if we get the total picture of this, and see what the Big bang realy tells, I think it is not conforming reality. I expect that Nature behaves reasonable and predictable, and that nature is knowable.
And a lot of things involved in Big Bang theory, very much challenge this ordinary perception we have.
For instance, Big Bang theory requires us to think that all matter in the whole universe, including space and time have emerged in one moment out of literally nothing. We either have to accept this peculair behaviour of nature, or we have to assume a higher order nature, behaving quite different then our ordinary world, and might be in a way "unknowable" and even effect our universe.
I mean, please tell me, what distinguishes this kind of higher order nature with a deity. We cannot know about it, it resides in another time, so we cannot realy know or observe it, and yet, it can have influences on our world (as sometimes is argued), and it also was the primal cause for this universe to come into being.
So, this theory will evolve eventually in having a higher order nature, that can explain everything, but at the same time this higher order nature is in itself probably unexplainable.

To my understanding, such is not science, but that is religion. It fits the description of religion in every sense.
I still assume that the universe we live in is understandable and knowable, and doesn't need a higher order nature to be self-contained and comprihensible. And that is just mere instinct, a basic assumption I have. It is what distinguishes science from religion.

Science has picked up in the previous century a number of elements, which make it uncomprehensible, and which make nature behave in an unpredictable way. In certain interpretations of quantum mechanics
for instance, ordinary concepts of causality and objectivity are simply being lost.
And also special and general relativity has some elements which inflicts our understanding how nature behaves.

So, my instinct just tells me, something must be wrong.

My understanding of the world is that it exists uncaused (it has simply existed all the time) and that it is unlimited.
Observation and physical law however tells us, we live in another kind of universe.
The observations themselves are our basis. But the physical laws make us interpret these observations in a certain way, that ultimately conflict with common sense.

One may argue that my instinct might be failing or that my common sense is not worth anything.
To my understanding, if you view this Big Bang theory in full, including all the pieces of the puzzle that constitute the big picture, one can say without doubt that science managed to unificate itself with religion amazingly well. At the lowest levels of matter, the quantum physics interpretation of nature, leaves room for acausal behaviour and the disappearance of an objective material world, and big bang theory just states that the universe cannot be realy understood without invoking a higher order nature, which, since it resides in a higher dimensional world, cannot be directly observed directly and might alltogether be ununderstandable and unknowable. The number of obscure elements, are just to numerous.

Well it is my current understanding that science and religion don't go together.
And if the scientific interpretation and the religious interpretation of the world are
succesfully unitied, in my understanding it just means that science has dissolved itself.

So, at least this explains why I think, that the Big bang interpretation of the world,
cannot be a correct one, and that along the way of solving this big puzzle, all kind of
interpretations of nature's behaviour have slipped in, that obfuscates real knowledge
and understanding, and in fact, if this view were to hold, would in fact mean a dismantling of science all together. There would be no way to distinguish between the scientific interpretation of the world and the religious one, apart from using a different language. They both come up with the "super natural" for explaining the world, and in neither case there is direct evidence for that. The postulation of this higher order nature or framework, just comes from the fact that we haven't established a self-contained framework, and therefore need a higher order framework.

So, this means I cannot take this outcome of the scientific research, which lead to the Big Bang theory for granted, and accept it just as it is. And what I just assume needs to be done, is reexamining the pieces of the puzzle that constitute the big picture. There must be evidently something wrong, cause we obviously didn't succeed in picturing the universe as a self-contained entity. Somewhere I think we must have made a mistake.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-25 17:09 ]</font>

Orion, I have actually done some work on that project. It is a nice theoretical confirmation of the Big Bang. It does not support the plasma universe. Thanks for trying. Nice site, though.

heusdens -- the issue of "flat" that the ratio of the energy density of the universe to the critical density of the universe must be one is indeed important, but the universe can be flat without appealing to dark matter. It so happens that Dark Matter as observational evidence fits well into the theory, but we could just as easily have a flat and empty universe.

As to the rest of your post, you are dealing mostly with the speculative nature of the theory. The "primal cause" is one that is not addressed by the Big Bang. I think I should say that again: PRIMAL CAUSE IS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE BIG BANG! Do you understand what that means? It means that you are arguing against and EXTENSION to the Big Bang and not with the Big Bang itself.

Look at it this way: you seem to have trouble with a t=0 condition. So do I. So does physics. We don't know how to deal with the problem yet. However, we can deal with the problem up to t=fraction of a second. That is the Big Bang model and that's the one I find it dubious to question. Be my guest and throw your full dubious weight against Theory of Everything speculation. Mention the magnetic monopole problem or the relic line-like field instabilities. Talk about how particle physics doesn't allow us a decent understanding of string theory. These are all reasonable problems, but they are not problems with the mainframe of the theory, that is they are simply manifestations of our primitive extrapolation of how to look at the world before that first fraction of a second we model so well.