Spontaneous matter?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RJBeery, Oct 3, 2012.

  1. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,222
    The wiki page on him left me with the feeling that the community largely felt Hoyle was fringe. It even mentions that while his work in nucleosynthesis was Nobel-worthy some believe he was snubbed due to his other fringe ideas.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    subquantum cpsmic process => a universal energetic process that occurs at the subquantim scale, ultimately sourcing both observable (detectible) 'mass' and (measureable) 'energy' + >entropy - (through intrinsic, intermediate steps?)

    HBB = Hot, Big Bang

    energy/mass conservation: both are basically transforms of the same cosmic 'stuff'; mass derives from original energy; 'total equivalence' (energy + mass) remains the same - to the extent that entropy will allow.

    Above . . . . IMPO . . . of course!

    I refer you to the Alternative Theories Subforim
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,222
    ...or rather perhaps driven us there?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    Kinda' off-topic . . . . I see(PM) Prom has issued me another warning for 'trolling and posting meaningless content' on this thread . . . looks like another "holiday' is in the works! . . . Thanks for all your (members) efforts to resonably discuss the OP's (and Prom's) queries.
     
  8. wlminex Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,587
    RBeery . . . .we all have choices we can make . . . .
     
  9. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    wiki fred hoyle.

    just to clear up why Hoyle coined the term "Big Bang".
     
  10. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I'm going to respect all the good stuff he did. He's dead and the 'fringe' stuff' is water under the bridge. Big Bang nucleosynthesis is important cosmology for understanding the evolution of our universe. Sounds like he got a bit 'confused' in his later years.
     
  11. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    Until circa 1945-1965 there were quite a few cosmologies which were consistent with the observations known at that time.

    The Big Bang which was (& still is) the winner. I think all here are familiar with it & need no discussion of it.

    Continuous Creation (aka Steady State) was championed by Fred Hoyle with quite a few others opting for it. It claimed that the universe in its gross features was unchanging: Only details changed.

    This required the spontaneous creation of a small amount of matter to balance that lost to the observable universe due to those galaxies whose recession velocity exceeded the speed of light. The amount required was perhaps (my wild guess) a neutron created in every cubic meter every hundred years. This creation was the motive force driving the observed expansion. When asked where this matter came from, Fred (or somebody) said "From the same place you Big Bang Boys got it all at once."

    The only reason to consider Hoyle a fringe thinker is that he advocated Steady State long after the evidence refuted it. Observation of the CMB was the final blow to Steady State, although prior to that observation, it was discovered that Quasars (& maybe other phenomena) existed circa 8-11 billion years ago, but no longer exist.

    BTW: I was sad when Steady State lost out. It was my favorite cosmology.

    Alternating Bangs & Crunches seemed viable for a while. I forget why it lost out.

    Matter/AntiMatter annihilation. This postulated the existence of galaxies composed of AntiMatter. The observed expansion was due to mutual annihilation in places where the edges of the two types of galaxy came into contact. As our observational capabilites improved, it was concluded that the matter annihilation should be observable. This view killed the cosmology.

    At the time this cosmology was thought up, there seemed to be no reason to believe that there should not be equal amounts of matter & AntiMatter. Asimov & a few others (though not believers in this theory) claimed that no cosmology could be acceptable if it did not explain where all the AntiMatter was or why there was not a lot of it. This very reasonable view was what led to the Matter/AntiMatter annihilation cosmology.

    Big Bang cosmology has an astrophysics explanation for the lack of AntiMatter. I skimmed the explanation, but do not remember much about it.​

    It is interesting that current cosmology predicts a future which will seem consistent with the cosmology of the late 19th & early 20th century. Each galaxy will be alone in what seems to be an otherwise empty universe. All the other galaxies will will be running away at recession velocities at or beyond the speed of light.
     
  12. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    I've only heard a QM explanation:
    Researchers in Japan used a particle accelerator to create B-Mesons and anti-B mesons. Composed of one Quark(Up, down, strange or charm. Top quark has too short a lifetime) and one Anti-quark (bottom), B mesons and anti- B mesons decay at a slightly different rate. This difference was enough to leave a 'preference' for matter over anti-matter in the Early Universe. Although most of the matter/anti-matter annihilated, that small advantage from decay rates left enough matter to be seen today.
     
  13. Mars Rover Banned Banned

    Messages:
    55
    Dinosaur. I just read the CMB Photons thread. The discussion there has raised questions about CMB assumptions. So big bang and expansion may not be after all because assumptions may be incorrect? If CMB is produced as a constant background of ongoing steady state process, then Fred Hoyle may be right? And he may be more right because if no expansion to explain then no additional matter need be created because matter and energy and all that stuff is just recycling always? Maybe none of that assumptions and ah hoc fixes needed after all, maybe. Interesting thought. A case of, "It's back to the past again, with Fred Hoyle"! Wow.
     
  14. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Not necessarily. Bear in mind certain inaccuracies being put forth...
     
  15. Mars Rover Banned Banned

    Messages:
    55
    Neverfly. What inaccuracies, specifically?
     
  16. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    The charge of 'assumptions' is not necessarily accurate.
    Are you claiming that the CMBR has a current source is currently being produced?
    Can you demonstrate this big "If" of 'no expansion of the Universe?'
     
  17. Mars Rover Banned Banned

    Messages:
    55
    I simply report on what I read there and the questions it raised in me: It was agreed there that the "background noise" Mwave do interact with neutral matter (like in our detectors) and also that the cosmos both far and near is full of plasma and charged matter and processes which also must absorb and or produce Mwaves of varying frequencies including Redshifted from doppler and from gravity well effects. Given these agreed things, it seems unreasonable to insist that the background "must be" from a "big bang" and not continuously produced by ongoing processes all around. The main assumption that I see as problematic for big bang MWs in preference to later-produced MWs is that if the universe since that epoch has been full of plasma (stars, galaxy and black hole and other jets and so on), and if MWs do interact both with neutral and charged matter which is littered thickly around us from nearby to greatest distances, then what justifies the "assumption" that because we detect MWs they must be big bang ones? This is untenable because, if MWs interact with our detectors and all that stuff out there since the big bang, then any big bang MWs would have been absorbed by all those interactions. Which only leaves the reasonable thought that maybe the MWs we do detect have been produced by all that stuff and processes out there since long after any "big bang" was supposed to produce them. That's what I meant about something being not quite right about the assumptions, based on what I read in that thread. It made me think, it did!
     
  18. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Nonsense. You simply made charges of assumptions and made assumptions of your own. Who are you trying to convince that it Raised Questions In You? These questions were already there and you doubtlessly, had your own ideas as to what model should be used to describe the Universe.
    Why so? Explain what makes it "unreasonable." You seem to be touting a claim that scientists are treating cosmology like religion. As if to say, they got the idea in their head and won't let it go and it is based on faith. Clearly, you do not understand the principles of cosmology, you do not understand the evidence nor the process by which it was gathered. You do not understand the science- you made this claim when you said you "simply went by what you read" in the thread.

    Thickly?! REALLY?!
    Inaccurate- this is not an assumption.
    It was predicted by the Big Bang Model researchers for a theoretical curve for a black body at a temperature of 2.7 K which led to attempts (Successful) to observe it. Part of this predictive process is the structural imprint that is, in fact, based on the density contrast of the early universe and galaxy clustering seen today.
    Enter stage left: COBE. (Preceded by IRAS)

    Instrumentation included:

    -Differential Microwave Radiometer(DMR)
    -Far-InfraRed Absolute Spectrophotometer(FIRAS)
    -Diffuse InfraRed Background Experiment (DIRBE)

    These three instruments worked in conjunction, cross referencing and providing checks for accuracy. This is the problem with claiming that the CMB interacted with detectors. In addition to this, a complex multi-direction control system was employed on COBE to ensure proper alignment to prevent errors in readings from interference.

    DMR was tasked with creating full sky maps of detectable anisotropy of cosmic background radiation.
    DIRBE was tasked with creating full sky maps of brightness at ten frequency bands ranging from the near to far infrared.
    FIRAS was to measure the black-body distribution of CMB.
    These instruments and experiments were run to observe that had already been calculated out and predicted by the Model.
    Prediction Curve:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Observed curve:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    We didn't stumble upon some random MW radiation and say, "Well, golly gee willikers! This must be CMB support for Big Bang Theory"
    Not at all. It was directly and precisely predicted in detail by BB theory and eventually- Observed.

    Provide data to support this Claim.
    I'm calling B.S.
    I suspect you had ideas of your own long before that thread and frankly, if you're taking a public LAYMEN discussion on the internet as gospel, you're already not taking the science very seriously.
     
  19. Mars Rover Banned Banned

    Messages:
    55
    Neverfly. You seem to want to argue over semantics and who asked the questions first. I said I just report what was said and the questions it also raised in me. That the questions also occurred to others only makes the questions more apparent.

    And as for predictions, what has that to do with the fact that the same predictions can now be made with less assumptions and regard to what was just agreed to in that thread. Why trust assumptions based on ignoring what is now in question in that thread which has been agreed to? Remember the epicycles assumptions while ignoring the heliocentric assumptions because of "religious" denial of the obvious evidence? That is what may be happening here if the agreed-on things in that thread are so. They indicate that the basic assumptions that cmb photons must be from some big bang event were made in denial of the obvious evidence which Occams Razor prefers. Especially if all those assumed big bang MW photons cannot survive interaction with all the neutral and plasma/charged matter states and processes we see all around us.

    And by "thickly" I mean all that dark matter between galaxies and plasma trails connecting galaxies and clusters of galaxies at all scales. Also the various globular clusters of stars and mini/dwarf galaxies which the better telescopes are finding more and more of, especially in the infra-red. Add all that up and all the jet material that has been ejected to interstellar and intergalaxy and inter-cluster space since the time the light from all those galaxies and quasars and jets from the most distant galaxies, you get the idea what I meant by thickly. And all those things may interact and or produce Mws as I already mentioned. So why so "religiously" attached to bb and MW background assumptions which denies all that without explanation? Occams Razor makes your attitude not objectively scientific but 'personally attached' to whatever orthodoxy you subscribe to without bothering to question and look at the evidence under your nose. And even in the bb epoch, the galaxies and everything was supposed to be much closer together than what we see even now from long-distance light reaching us; so then the suns and galaxies and plasma trails and everything would have been even more "thickly" all around. So forget the semantics and look at the facts.

    You are not the person to make opinions. Just check the facts and ask your questions accordingly. I couldn't care less whether you do or not, since you seem more interested in scoring personal points in denial of the facts as agreed on in that thread. I am disengaging with you until you are reasonable instead of biased and in denial of what was just reported to you. Adios.
     
  20. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Inaccurate. There are no semantics involved nor is there a chicken or egg question.
    Straw man.
    Argumentum ad populum. Large groups of people claim to be visited by paranormal entities. Just because "questions" occur amoung people not fully familiar with a topic does not lend any credence to making bold claims.
    Quantitative mathematical predictions based on standing science- Not predictions made by whatever can be pull out of ones nether orifice.
    So laymen discussing in an internet forum are now the Professional Scientific Consensus?
    You're just repeating yourself, here.
    Provide support for your claims.
    I really do not care what you or others have agreed to- at this point it's between you and me. You have ignored what I posted above...
    What "obvious Evidence" do you have and what support do you have- rather than just bold claims? What part of Predicted quantitatively prior to observation do you fail to understand?
    How much Dark matter, in what quantities and how is it distributed in the spaces between galaxies and clusters? do you even know- is this a wild assumption on your part? Just how "thick" is this distribution? Put it on a scale, please. No more word salad- Provide the numbers.
    Funny you say that... refer to mentioned COBE above which made most of these discoveries.
    No, not really. I get the idea of less than 1 percent in contrast to the vastness of the Universe.
    Seems pretty damned thin, actually.
    Ok, this is reasonable.
    Now, all you need to do is run the numbers. Provide theoretical support for this hypothesis (which means doing the observations, the math and the cross referencing) and then propose a method of testing your hypothesis to compare it with our current ideas about CMB. This means, determining what 'things' may interact, how they may interact and in what intensity they will interact.
    You haven't listed any actual facts to deny. You've listed broad and uneducated assumptions and claimed that you were 'simply going by what you read on a discussion on the internet.' This is exactly why I called you out on that. In addition, you now claim you're "disengaging" - A neat way of avoiding having to back up/provide support for claims as well as proposing a realistic test for your hypothesis.

    The vast majority of what you said is you projecting your own behavior onto others and claims of a "religious" dogma in science. This is the usual claim made by people that cannot support their claims- an ad hom attack rather than providing solid evidence.
    The problem with your accusation of "religious" is that my position is based on HARD EVIDENCE. Which you've ignored while claiming others are ignoring the evidence you're failing to produce.
    This tactic is used to confuse others and make it appear as though you're innocently persecuted for your reluctance to bow down to the status quo.
    The only issue with it is that it's actually a deception. You cannot compare blind faith to acceptance of a lot of hard evidence. You cannot put forth no evidence, ignore evidence put forth by the opposition and then claim that the opposition ignored your evidence. You are not fooling anyone.
     
  21. Mars Rover Banned Banned

    Messages:
    55
    Neverfly. You seem to argue all around everything except what counts. The facts now and the questions raised by those facts now. Instead of just arguing philosophy and goodness what else that you have a bee in your bonnet about, how about just looking at the evidence yourself and apply Occam's Razor to the assumptions now as compared to assumptions for MW from BBang only. I never asked you to take my word for anything, least of all what questions should be asked about what assumptions made by others. I just reported about the agreed issues and what they imply for any mw and hence bb assumptions based on what was discussed and agreed in that thread. I really couldn't care less about your philosophy or religious adherence to orthodox assumptions in denial of what has been brought to everyone's attention in that thread. Argue with them not me. I just have my own questions about it all because of what I read in that thread. Adios.
     
  22. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    What Facts? Detail them and show how these "facts" are supported.
    Your attempts at obfuscation only demonstrate a bias on your part against the "Mainstream establishment." This suggests that your "questions" are not well founded. Your refusal to answer any direct or pointed questions suggests the same.

    Here is a list of questions for YOU that you're avoiding/neglecting/failing to answer. Your answers to these questions can demonstrate whether you have honest questions or not:


    Are you claiming that the CMBR has a current source and is currently being produced?

    Can you demonstrate this big "If" of 'no expansion of the Universe?' Is the universe expanding? If you say it is not, what evidence supports your conclusion?

    Provide data to support this Claim.

    Provide support for your claims.
    What "obvious Evidence" do you have and what support do you have- rather than just bold claims?

    What part of Predicted quantitatively prior to observation do you fail to understand?

    How much Dark matter, in what quantities and how is it distributed in the spaces between galaxies and clusters? do you even know- is this a wild assumption on your part? Just how "thick" is this distribution? Put it on a scale, please. No more word salad- Provide the numbers.

    Do you have a working model and a proposal to test it?
     
  23. Mars Rover Banned Banned

    Messages:
    55
    Neverfly. Still at it? Take a breath, will you? Why don't you just stop and ask yourself the same questions and see what comes of it? Like: if our detectors interact with MWs, then why shouldn't they interact with other matter 'out there'? And like: if the universe is replete with plasma and charged and neutral matter, what is to prevent these from producing a MW background that is not from any bb or expansion process? And then: if that assumed big bang and/or expansion did make MWs, how have they survived long enough for us to detect them if all these other plasma and charged and neutral stuff is spread across the universe (even more closely in earliest epochs if bb and expansion was as assumed)?

    You do the math and see what you get. All your philosophy and other quarrels fall away once you do that math and see what answers and questions arise in you about why should bb and expansion assumptions be more valid than the Occam's Razor observations all around which was denied by original bb and expansion proponents (like that "Epicycles" example of denial, right?).

    All I wanted to do was comment on Fred Hoyle's original steady state rationale based on non-expanding infinite universe. If this latest argument is found to be correct, then he wouldn't have needed to justify "spontaneous creation" of any additional matter because the cycling of what always already existed would be enough in a non-expanding steady state universe.

    I am not interested in your opinions or philosophies or assumptions. Just apply Occam's Razor to what has been discussed now in that thread, just like I did when I read it. What you make of it all is your own business. I am not interested if you are going to carry on like this. Adios.
     

Share This Page