I've been reading the posts on the new improved board with interest. There is as usual a lot of criticism of the Big Bang model along with attempts to defend it. Rather than just join in with the Big Bang bashing, I thought I'd present what I consider to be the main alternative to that model, namely the static universe. I’ve made the same arguments in various posts in the BABB.

The static universe is really not a new idea. It once had a large following prior to the advent of GR and the related expansion cosmologies. Basically, it supposes that the universe is infinite in time and spatial extent and is not expanding. It is thus not to be confused with the Steady State model, which does suppose expansion. In the static model, all the processes that are ongoing in the universe are assumed to be in longterm equilibrium. This places heavy constraints on the model and thus allows clear predictions to be made. Whereas the Big Bang model looks for empirical support using observations chiefly at very high z, the static model can employ observations at low z.

There is considerable evidence in favour of the static model. Some of the arguments are covered in these papers:

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/v05n3edw.pdf

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V03N3JAA.PDF

http://redshift.vif.com/journal_archives.htm
then scroll to issue #12 (Feb 1992) and look for article by Andre Assis

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/Assis.htm

This is just a tiny slice of the literature on this topic. Some of the more recent discussions appear in journals such as Apeiron and Physics Essays.

Let’s go over a few of the central issues surrounding the static model.

(1) cosmological redshift. In most static models this is caused by some sort of ‘tired light’ redshift. In tired light models photons lose energy in their passage through space. A whole variety of mechanisms have been proposed, from Zwicky’s original idea of a gravitational drag on photons to John Kierein’s Compton effect mechanism and a recent similar mechanism, CREIL. No mechanism has been yet found which is without problems, but that in itself does not invalidate the concept of a static universe. Rather, it just attests to our ignorance about it. For my part, I suspect that the energy lost from light is returned through some cyclic process to the gravitational potential energy of stars and galaxies. Toivo Jaakkola discussed this in some of his papers. The topic of redshift leads us to:

(2) time dilation in SNe. Recent evidence for this has been taken as proof positive of recessional velocities of galaxies, in accordance with the Big Bang. It proves nothing of the sort. Time dilation has been found in many situations where redshifts have been observed, including SR and GR (Shapiro effect in the latter). The original prediction of time dilation in distant SNe was based on the classical Doppler shift. It is thus unreasonable to suppose that time dilation will not be paired with a tired light redshift mechanism, once that mechanism is found. Indeed, it is difficult to envisage how a train of electromagnetic waves could be shifted to longer wavelengths without the whole train being stretched out linearly in space.

(3) CMBR. This is again thought to prove the Big Bang model. Predictions of the background radiation were actually made in static models long before they were made for the Big Bang. In a static universe, infinite in time and spatial extent, there is obviously unlimited time for the universe to come into thermal equilibrium. The universe can be likened to an oven, where the energy inputs (starlight) over sufficient time will precisely balance energy losses (the redshift of light at all frequencies). The ‘walls’ of the oven are the clouds of interstellar dust and gas, which intercept and reradiate starlight. A CMBR would arise under these circumstances.

(4) abundances of light elements. This point has been covered well enough in the quasi-steady-state-cosmology. Essentially, one can envisage that local explosive events associated with quasars and AGNs stand in for the analogous explosion of the Big Bang. In one part of the universal cycle, the heavier elements would be broken down into light elements again within large objects such as AGNs or black-hole-like objects. (In the Big Bang model, such a process has been envisaged in conjunction with the ‘Big Crunch’ or collapse of the universe onto a new primordial core).

On top of all of this, the static model returns cosmology to something about which definite statements can be made. In reading through Big Bang papers, I am constantly amazed at the level of obfuscation that appears. It is not necessarily deliberate, but can easily arise from the Big Bang’s set of assumptions. I’m just saying, there's an easier, better road.

HI ExpErdMann

Well written posting.

If the universe were infinite, and there were an infinite number of stars, wouldn’t the accumulation of all the stellar heat be a problem in a steady state model? How is the energy “recycled” back to the stars?

snowflake

Someone more knowledgeable than me will have to take this one, but my question here is this: what about all the data gathered by WMAP? From the WMAP data we found that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, and lots of other beginning-supporting data. Also, it sees to me that Occam's Razor applies here when addressing the issues of Hubble expansion, and the CMB. It seems much simpler to me to conclude that the universe is expanding because of some kind of "explosion" or begging of some sort. The whole idea of rewinding the film to get a Big Bang is a lot more intuitive than some optical illusion. I just looked back at your post and saw that the Static model denies expansion. I believe that there is just too much evidence that makes just too much sense to justify turning to an alternative at this time.

That's part of a bigger problem regarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics and a static universe in equilibrium.

Another set of problems with the static universe are:
- there are no objects older than the 13.7 billion year supposed age of the universe, though there should be if it is infinitely old. Examples include red dwarfs and cooling white dwarfs.
- galaxies seen at z=5 and greater are clearly smaller and more chaotic in appearance than the ones visible today.
- from the ages of stars, and from the appearance of galaxies, there was a peak of star forming in galaxies from five to eight billion years ago.
- there was an era of quasars, but it is over.

All of these things say that things used to be different than they are now, and so we are not at equilibrium.

We also observe evidence that the CMB temperature used to be warmer than it is now. This is measured by some indirect methods, but also suggests we are not at equilibrium.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Ah, but your assuming that redshift = distance, which it doesn't in a static universe.

Unless you accept Arp's interpretation. See Arp's book Seeing Red for maths and data.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

No, I'm saying that this maximum age thing is evidence against infinite age of a static universe. There are no white dwarfs that have been cooling off for more than 13 billion years, but there should be if the universe is much older than that.

Concerning the quasars, you're right. I have discounted Arp's ideas.

Do you have something to say about the era of peak star formation or the shape of z > 5 galaxies?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Cosmic distance ladder
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics...w/node109.html
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...ce_ladder.html
If you know enough math to be able to defend these theories, you should know enough to calculate the odds that redshift perfectly matches up with other distance measures by chance. (Hint: 0)

The CMB could not possibly be as isotropic as it is with a universe that went through periodic "stages" (which would be, on average, randomly spatially distributed) of creating heavy/light elements (and thus most likely have different energy outputs, although I can't calculate this exactly using the magical physics that's used to justify the creation of light material in the manner necessary for this to be true (hint again: ratio of hydrogen : not hydrogen vs. what you'd expect from 13 billion years of stars--another amazing coincidence!)).

In reading through Big Bang papers, I am constantly amazed at the level of obfuscation that appears. It is not necessarily deliberate, but can easily arise from the Big Bang’s set of assumptions. I’m just saying, there's an easier, better road.
As I've said more times than I should have to, you not understanding =/= theory not working. The theory and reality do not care if you understand them. The big bang theory fits incredibly well with all the data we've seen. Take a 300-level calculus astronomy class that covers cosmology, and learn.

Thanks, snowflake. The answer is that the rate of energy being emitted by stars into space per unit volume is equal to the rate at which energy is lost from the CMBR due to the cosmological redshift. Remember that the CMBR accounts for the bulk of radiation density. Some equations for this can be found in the first link I gave.

The time of 13.7 billion years or so also features in static models. It corresponds to a cosmic recycling parameter. This parameter is given approximately by 1/H. As an example the rate of star formation in spiral galaxies as measured at low redshift can be calculated as

SFR = n* H,

where n* is the number of stars in the galaxy (see first link above). What it means is that it takes about 1/H seconds = 13 billion yrs for all the stars in a galaxy to be replaced by new ones. You can think of it as the same sort of cycling parameter that you would have for a forest of trees.

A second aspect to this is that the visible universe in the static model is given by c/H and the time it takes the radiation from that distance to reach us is again about 13 billion years. So, while I can't personally give you the specifics on why WMAP should give that precise value in a static model, I can't say it surprises me at all.

That seems like an unsupported statement to me. I wonder how one would apply a timescale to something like a cooling white dwarf. At the same time, it should be recognized that in a static model there needs to be a mechanism for getting the matter in condensed objects back into interstellar space, to begin new cycles. I mentioned in my first post that gravitational potential energy in stars has to be regenerated. While it is only speculation at this stage, I suppose that this energy is drawn from the energy lost by photons due to the cosmic redshift.

These objections are traceable to a single source, which is the distortion of measurements taken at high z. There are any number of contributors to the distortion. One is that the frequencies of starlight as seen in nearby galaxies are shifted to lower ones. So the spectral picture is constantly being buffeted. Secondly, when composite redshifts are in place, as is likely with quasars, then you will see the apparent situation of few quasars nearby, due to the intrinsic redshifts of quasars, a peak value at intermediate z, and then a quick falling off at high z due to the composite redshift formula:

(1 + z) = (1 + zH)(1 + zi),

where zH is the Hubble redshift and zi the intrinsic redshift.

Who said anything about the universe going through stages. It is constant as the Northern Star in a static model. I can't follow the rest of this paragraph.

Looks like you've made up your mind already. There is some learning that the mainstream folks can do too.

WHAT?! That's insane. So, what happens to white/brown dwarfs in 13 billion years? Do they magically disintegrate?? There's absolutely no scientific reason that should be true. Also, the universe IS 13 billion years old, because we can see stars that can be calculated to be about that age in manners having absolutely nothing to do with redshift!! http://www.astro.washington.edu/cove...color_mag.html That would mean the universe was "recycling" NOW, there's absolutely no evidence of anything like this happening, and there's MORE than enough hydrogen left to last stars for quite a while.

Not to mention your bizarre comment on a horizon; even if the universe "recycled" every 13 billion years, because you claim the universe is infinitely old, we would still be able to see further away than 13 billion light years!!! And we'd be able to see light from infinitely far away! Unless all light in the universe magically "dies" during this resurrection!

It's trivial to figure out how long something takes to cool off by radiating heat away!! (Hint: a long time! Especially when you start out as a star!)

That doesn't even make sense. That makes some kind of anti-sense that destroys any sense around it on contact.

What?! You do realize we look at entire spectrums, don't you? That still doesn't even pretend to explain what you quoted above it about structures being different than they are nearby, nor any of his other points.

What? How does this explain any of those things? Yes, this would clearly cause structures to look completely different...

Edit:
You did!!!!
local star groups can all be measured to have the same ages using HR diagrams (learn them!!). If what you're saying is true, the entire universe would have local areas all in different sages of development....

Learn about something called EVIDENCE. Don't say "I think," "it could be caused by," and "you aren't listening to me," say "spectral data from XXX show," "Fourier analysis of the CMB shows," "<calculus> shows," learn some astronomy! *Shock* if you expect astronomers to listen to you, then you need to know astronomy!! AMAZING!!

You could look at a fresh white dwarf and see how much energy it is radiating, and then look at older ones and see what they are radiating. You know the temperatures of the objects by the spectrum they give off. You can calculate how rapidly they are cooling.

I don't know what you mean by "gravitational potential energy in stars has to be regenerated". Can you elaborate on any mechanism by which energy lost to tiring photons could "regenerate gravitational potential in stars"? At the moment I'm not seeing what you mean here.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Another (very speculative) possibility to ExpErdMann's solution to this is that there are no older objects in our visible universe, but there might be outside of it. This means that all the objects in out visible universe would have a shared history, and the oldest objects in it would have been created 13,7 billion years ago (or, say, ~20 billion if we accept the derived ages of some globular clusters). This of course implies some very, very large scale processes, and I don't know what they are.

Something like this could also explain the signs of universal evolution like the ones you mentioned elsewhere in your post, but in this context it wouldn't be universal evolution, it would be the evolution of a certain area that is so big that we can't detect what's outside. In other similar areas the evolution would be in different stage of evolution. This evolution process would then recycle after certain time. (Pretty vague, huh? )

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website] [Nimblebrain forums]

I also believe in a static universe...

But that means i believe in spatial tension... a static field. which is the fundamental particle, and forms all matter and energy.

But, i do believe the universe evolved.. and will change and die. Eventually.

-MT

I don't think that's true. There is a limit how far we can see. In any direction you look, there's eventually a galaxy or a black hole blocking your view (that is, if universe looks the same everywhere).

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website] [Nimblebrain forums]