alternatives to the big bang

[invisibleone]

I have heard some alternatives to the big bang theory mentioned in this forum before, and I would appreciate it if some of you could share these other theories with me. Thank you.

[Beercules]

Are you looking for alternatives that actually have evidence, or anything goes?

[invisibleone]

alternatives with evidence please. . .

[Beercules]

There is inflation (http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm), but it really isn't an alternative to the big bang, in the sense that it isn't a theory of origins. You will hear that all evidence for the hot big bang theory can be explained in terms of inflation, but keep in mind that the origin of the expanding universe (which must pre-exist any inflation epoch) is still in question.

Nothing else comes to mind. Other attempts to explain the data, such as the steady state and plasma cosmology require many more unjustified assumptions than the standard model, and often have made no successful testible predictions.

[Ares]

'Steady-state theory' was the BB's most serious rival, until the CMBR was discovered. After that there hasn't really been any model of the universe taken as seriously as the BB. In fact, most models are basically modified theories of the BB which take observational facts or new discoveries in physics into account. The BB theory will probably only be usurped by whatever model emerges from a theory of quantum gravity, assuming one is ever found.

[KitNyx]

String Theory has an interesting alternative. In String theory, the universe is composed not of point like particles, but loops of "string" with radii of approximately a Planck length. This theory rids us of the messy infinites that normally abounds particle physics. These strings takes an equal amount of energy to stretch to twice normal diameter as it does to "crush" it to half diameter. The interesting thing that develops from this theory is that the universe must constantly oscillate in size around a Planck length.

Of course, this still leaves us with the same problem, what added energy into these 4 dimensions that caused them to expand (String theory predicts another 5-7 dimensions that are not extended - they are "curled up").

- KitNyx

[invisibleone]

thanks to all who replied!

[Beercules]

String theory is a theory of particle physics, and is not an alternative to the big bang.

[advisor7]

You can see an analysis questioning the big bang on my web site

http://inventing-solutions.com/new-universe-theory.htm

Sol

[KitNyx]

Beercules - I assume you meant quantum physics, not particle physics, since particel physics does not exist in string theory.

String theory is an attempt at a GUT. It is as much a theory that can be used to explain the Big Bang as is a theory expaining quantum physics.

- KitNyx

[advisor7]

My theory does not consider the string theory or particle theory because they apparently do not involve direct observables.

My theory just considers red shifts, distances to stars, and the effect of modified gravity - plus measurement of background radiation.

It is not the same as MOND which also considers modified gravity.

Try to read the material on my web pages - and new pages that will be added with additional information.

Sol

[Beercules]

Modern particle physics is quantum theory. String theory replaces point particles with stringy particles. Big deal. As for the big bang, it is a cosmological model. String theory could be used to explain what happens in the moment where GR fails, but it doesn't really change the overall model too much. You still have a universe expanding from a hotter, denser state, and possibly even a beginning.

[advisor7]

The big bang depends upon the measurements of Hubble and others who determined that red shift increases as a linear function of star distance. It was ASSUMED that the red shift was caused by velocity (Doppler shift) and on this basis it was assumed that the universe is expanding. This even fooled Einstein.

The supposed expanding universe was extrapolated back to the start and supported the concept of the big bang. If the red shift is proven to be because of "tired light" then the support for the big bang collapses.

My simplified model of the universe provides support, based upon published observations of others, that a modified gravity (with the addition of a force that increases linearly with distance and becomes significant compared to Newtonian gravity at distances over 3 kpc, removes the validity of the expanding universe interpretation. The universe may not be expanding, and may slowly be contracting.

See the pages available at: http://inventing-solutions.com

Sol

[apolo]

All I can say to ADVIZOR7 is

I think you are on the right track. Keep going

[invisibleone]

Any thoughts on the 'electric universe' model? I just read something about this and found it to be quite interesting.

[Beercules]

Proponents of the electric universe claim that the big bang, and most of all, inflation are theories that require a lot of add hoc assumptions to make the data fit. This seems a bit unfair, since plasma cosmology seems to have it's own fair share of ad hoc assumptions. A quote from Ask the Astronomer (http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q1381.html):

The bottom line is that there is no body of evidence that plasma cosmology is trying to explain, that ordinary gravitational cosmology cannot explain in a much simpler way.

[Zarkov]

Following on from Electrodynamic Sping Gravity explorations, I would offer this model.

Recursive {Recursive [ Body + n(satellites) ] at the end the bodies draw together via magnetism then induced nuclear fusion and charge separation then the body ejects satellites}

Satellites are allowed to eject their own satellites, and these satellites can be stars, planets, or noons.

In a way it is like radioactivity, predictable but untimely.

So we have a mathematically linked system, Earth-Moon..or more satellites, this system is in a larger system which is mathematically linked to the previous satellite system.

So the Earth-Moon system is a satellite of the Sun, and this star Sun, is in a sub system since we and the Sun are in our galaxy. Furthur I can not go, but the astronomers would know.

How it started, I have no idea,...... or time ?? what reference ?? I am more inclined to know what it really is, I say steady state, for me eternal.

:)

[bigjnorman]

i'm sorry, but what is a "noon" ?

and what does it mean to be "mathmatically linked"?

[apolo]

I have read all the posts by "advisor7" and I find them to be like a blast of fresh air in to a smoky room full of tired big bangers who are desperately inventing new hypothesies to fit new discoveries (that contradict the BB theory) into their theory even if they have to use a crowbar. advisor7 mentions the new MOND theory (Modified Newtonian Dinamics) by Moti Milgrom. This new theory explains among other things why PIONEER 10 is slowing down, (it should'nt be according to Newton) and why stars in galaxies are accelerating faster than they should in their orbits. Milgrom's new theory beautifully explains this. But all the Big Bangers can say is; it might be caused by dark matter ?
The last gasp from a drowning Big Banger would be " ya but dont forget the Cosmic Background Radiation, that proves the BB"
The CBR dos'nt prove a dog gone thing. At least 4 astronomers predicted , between 1886 and 1914, that there would be a constant minimum background temperature in the universe, and they calculated
it to be aprox. 2.9 K. Now they did'nt observe this, they had no radio telescopes, But they were darn near right on. And dont forget they were assuming a steady state universe. So in 1966 when Penson and Wilson invented the first radio telescope, and actually found the background temperature to be 2.8K they said hurae, we have prooved the BB theory.!!

Excuse me, but off to check advisor7's website

[apolo]

I have read all the posts by "advisor7" and I find them to be like a blast of fresh air in to a smoky room full of tired big bangers who are desperately inventing new hypothesies to fit new discoveries (that contradict the BB theory) into their theory even if they have to use a crowbar. advisor7 mentions the new MOND theory (Modified Newtonian Dinamics) by Moti Milgrom. This new theory explains among other things why PIONEER 10 is slowing down, (it should'nt be according to Newton) and why stars in galaxies are accelerating faster than they should in their orbits. Milgrom's new theory beautifully explains this. But all the Big Bangers can say is; it might be caused by dark matter ?
The last gasp from a drowning Big Banger would be " ya but dont forget the Cosmic Background Radiation, that proves the BB"
The CBR dos'nt prove a dog gone thing. At least 4 astronomers predicted , between 1886 and 1914, that there would be a constant minimum background temperature in the universe, and they calculated
it to be aprox. 2.9 K. Now they did'nt observe this, they had no radio telescopes, But they were darn near right on. And dont forget they were assuming a steady state universe. So in 1966 when Penson and Wilson invented the first radio telescope, and actually found the background temperature to be 2.8K they said hurae, we have prooved the BB theory.!!

Excuse me, but off to check advisor7's website

[James R]

No new physics is needed to explain space probes slowing down. In the case of Pioneer 10, the current most likely explanation is non-isotropic heat loss from the spacecraft.

[apolo]

Question for advisor7

I tried getting on to your web site, but all I get is a site with some advertising , and it says on top "invent-solutions.com" comming soon.
Does that mean your site is not yet up and running ?

Thanks for your answer. APOLO

[apolo]

Hi JamesR

I have read most of your posts, and you are obviously a man of great intelect, which I admire. But you are also a BIG BANGER, and I dont hold that against you. After all there are still some people who beleive the earth is flatt. They have a club in England it is registered as a none proffit association in London. They have members from from many countries, and I understand -from a recent interveiw on
CBC - that some of them have university degrees.
But honestly "none isotropic heat loss". Do we have to use a crowbar to fit that into the BB theory.
I refer you to the most recent article I have read on the subject in
DISCOVER. "The force of gravity might no longer be directly proportional to acceleration. With this minor change, which kicks in when acceleration dip below one 10-billionth of a meter pr second every second, Milgrom found that he could perfectly predict the motions of galaxies without introducing the fudge factor of dark matter, by using MILGROM'S (new) LAW, known as MOND.

Regards APOLO

[James R]

apolo:

<i>I have read most of your posts, and you are obviously a man of great intelect, which I admire.</i>

Thankyou.

<i>But you are also a BIG BANGER, and I dont hold that against you. After all there are still some people who beleive the earth is flatt.</i>

Whether or not the big bang is true is not a popularity contest. Science is decided on the evidence, not on what is the current trend (most of the time, anyway).

I'm not an astrophysicist, but from reading stuff by astrophysicists who know what they're on about, I get the impression that the big bang theory is still the most viable expanation for the start of our universe at present. So, I'm happy to go along with it until something better comes along.

<i>But honestly "none isotropic heat loss". Do we have to use a crowbar to fit that into the BB theory.</i>

That has nothing to do with the big bang. It is an explanation for the course deviation of the Pioneer space probe in terms of known physics - nothing more.

I trust you know what I mean by that term ...(?)

<i>I refer you to the most recent article I have read on the subject in DISCOVER. "The force of gravity might no longer be directly proportional to acceleration. With this minor change, which kicks in when acceleration dip below one 10-billionth of a meter pr second every second, Milgrom found that he could perfectly predict the motions of galaxies without introducing the fudge factor of dark matter, by using MILGROM'S (new) LAW, known as MOND.</i>

I can't comment on MOND, since I don't know much about it. However, I do know that not everybody agrees that it is a great theory. I have heard there are problems with it.

[Ares]

"I have read most of your posts, and you are obviously a man of great intelect, which I admire. But you are also a BIG BANGER, and I dont hold that against you. After all there are still some people who beleive the earth is flatt. They have a club in England it is registered as a none proffit association in London."

You are arguing from analogy here, comparing the people who argue for a big-bang with believers in a flat Earth-in my view, a very poor analogy indeed.

The Flat Earth movement, much like believers in alien abductions, UFOs being alien spacecraft, ether theories of space and time, Young-Earth Creationists, etc believe that there is a 'truth' or system of truths, which whilst may stand in apparent contradiction to the findings of modern science, is still true. They hold to their beliefs steadfastly no matter what factual evidence you present to them, to which they usually respond 'Well, you are part of the establishment...' or appeal to faith or to bibilical authority or whatever-but their refusal to modify their belief system when confronted by contradictory evidence is the same no matter what it is they believe.

This does not apply to BB cosmology. BB cosmology, as any professional astronomer would tell you, is a changing science that is stringently tested against observation-different models of the universe make different predictions which are tested stringently by precise observation. It is through this 'trial and error' process that science-and astronomy-progresses and the big bang theory is no different.

"They have members from from many countries, and I understand -from a recent interveiw on
CBC - that some of them have university degrees."

Qualifications are mainly important for those who are applying for a job in the field-what really matters however is the underlying science and how it stands up to testing.

"But honestly "none isotropic heat loss". Do we have to use a crowbar to fit that into the BB theory.
I refer you to the most recent article I have read on the subject in
DISCOVER. "The force of gravity might no longer be directly proportional to acceleration. With this minor change, which kicks in when acceleration dip below one 10-billionth of a meter pr second every second, Milgrom found that he could perfectly predict the motions of galaxies without introducing the fudge factor of dark matter, by using MILGROM'S (new) LAW, known as MOND."


MOND theory is one of several theories used to explain the problem of 'dark matter.' Strictly speaking, dark matter is not a problem for big bang theory-it is more a problem for observational cosmology and astronomy. We know the universe has emerged from a hot, dense state in the past without having to know exactly what DM is.