There was never a Big Bang

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Cris, Jan 9, 2000.

  1. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,188
    There never was a big bang.

    As a follow up to my posting on Multiple Big Bangs and their origin.

    I received an e-mail from Paul Marmet B. Sc., Ph. D. (Physics), Laval University, O. C. (Order of Canada), F. R. S. C. He points out that there was probably never a big bang. His theory is supported by published papers and in particular http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html and a book (A New Non-Doppler Redshift) which is on the Web that shows that the redshift comes from the inelastic collisions of photons. See other papers at http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Marmet.html.

    The basis for the big bang is that we see a red-shift from all the other galaxies around us which has been interpreted as a Doppler effect and therefore implies that they are moving away from us - hence an expanding universe that must have started with a big bang. What Paul Marmet explains is that the red-shift is simply a reduction in the light energy from these distant galaxies caused by absorption by intersteller and intergalactic matter. The loss of energy shifts the light into the red.

    The theory is simple and very believable and seems more rational than trying to believe that all matter appeared from a single point. It also implies that the universe is not expanding, didn't start from a 'creation event', and allows for an unlimited or infinite universe.

    I have posted this as a new thread as it seems quite different from multiple big bangs and I cannot find any history of other topics that cover this theory.

    Has anyone seen other supporting papers on this theory? This came as a surprise to me and is a significant departure to that of the big bang supported by the popular press and media.


    [This message has been edited by Cris (edited January 08, 2000).]
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. samus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    52
    after reading this article, it is evident that there are many serious flaws which it cannot overcome. granted our conception of the universe cannot be held as perfect, but nothing is. especially this conception of the universe.


    first, this requires a mystical force called the cosmological constant. this was first thought of by einstein to explain why gravity had not yet crushed the universe. the cosmological constant is a force which prevents the universe from doing so. we have no indications whatsoever that this force exists. einstein later called this "the biggest blunder in my life." simply put, because of gravity, if the universe is not expanding, it must be contracting. and if it were not expanding rapidly at one point, gravity would have already crushed it by now.


    second, this view also requires a different view of light, one which suggests that all light particles interact with the medium through which they travel. it implies that each photon hits multiple atoms and passes through them. this would in turn imply that light should be able to pass through all things, only slower. for instance, we would see that light could pass through gold given enough time. but it cannot. moreover, if we pound gold thin enough, we see that light CAN pass through, showing us the opposite, that light CANNOT interact with it's medium, and can only pass through without doing so.

    imagine a red tinted substance. you see two images coming from this substance, the red and the image of other objects on the other side of the room. the red color is the interaction of light with the atoms. light hits and is absorbed by the atoms, which in turn emit new, red light. the image of objects, on the other hand, is the original light continuing toward you, the observer. you see these objects clearly because the light moves without interacting with the substance.


    and third, this implies that it is merely a coincidence that all objects we have observed are uniformly expanding. in every case, we see that an object which is further away has a greater velocity. but this theory implies that it is not in fact the doppler effect, but that it is the distortion of light caused in space which, by incredible coincidence, is the same as the doppler effect would predict every time.


    this theory is wrong for many more reasons far more complicated than this, but they would take far longer to explain and would require each reader to actually suffer through the entire article as i did, which is a waste of time.


    samus
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. steadystate Registered Member

    Messages:
    26
    samus,
    Why does this require a "mystical constant"?
    IF the universe is infinite, then the cosmological constant could be the "gravity field strength" average for a large area, such as the "observed" universe. IF the universe is infinite, any crushing or expansion is a "local" phenomenon. It would appear that Einstein never conceived of an infinite universe and what the resultant would be. Instead, his reasoning implies he only considered the universe as a "closed system". In an "open, infinite system", results are different. I haven't found much speculation on what an open system leads to.

    SteadyState
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    Any "steady state" leads to local collapse after infinite time. What you end up with, is an infinite universe populated by roughly evenly distributed black holes. This is because gravity falls off as a square of distance, so more distant interactions are much less important than local ones. The only way to prevent this (other than conjecturing a young universe), is to have a perfectly balanced grid of matter, so that no 'clumps' are present to initiate collapse. However, such a configuration is highly unstable and could not be sustained; moreover, it is certainly not in agreement with even the most rudimentary observation (not to mention our very existence).

    Redshift is not the only evidence for a "recent" origin of the universe. For example, the galaxies further away actually appear younger in their shape and chemical composition. Further, any stable system of orbiting bodies dissipates heat through tidal interactions -- and thus the system radiates its energy away and dooms itself to an eventual gravitational collapse. The very fact that our galaxy has not so collapsed yet, means it is relatively young (and at the very least, NOT infinitely old). Then, there is the chemical evidence. The universe contains largely hydrogen; yet, it is being constantly burned in stars, and converted to heavier elements. The fact that there is so much more hydrogen than heavy elements indicates that the universe is still relatively young. Additionally, measured element abundances precisely correspond to predictions based on Big Bang. Furthermore, the cosmic microwave background radiation corroborates Big Bang (with inflationary component) -- down to its precise temperature (predicted by theory prior to measurement.) Not to mention that absorption and re-emission of light cannot explain redshift, because such a process would quantize distant light into narrow bands corresponding to emission spectra of interstellar matter; however that is not the case. The "aging" of light due to some kind of vacuum interference also does not make sense, since interference would be constructive just as often as it is destructive -- giving a net effect of zero.

    To wrap up, if a worldwide community of mathematicians and physicists finally swallows and accepts a highly controversial theory, and lives comfortably with it for a couple of generations -- it usually means that the theory does not contain any trivial flaws, and actually truly is the best explanation for observed data, out of all the dozens (hundreds?) of other explanations (including trivial ones) that have already been tried. That the Big Bang happened is pretty much a foregone conclusion by now; whether Big Bang was all there ever has been, on the other hand, is another matter.

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.

    [This message has been edited by Boris (edited January 16, 2000).]
     
  8. Plato Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    366
    Yesss, I'm back ! Hi everyone.

    About an infinitly old universe : if one considers Hawking radiation even a black hole won't last for eternity, it will decay in a spray of elementary particle over time. According to the latest GUT theories even the proton has a half-life, after 10^30 'st something years it decays in a positron, a neutrino and a gamma photon. So ultimatly only the leptons and photons are left in a huge but very empty universe. The so called thermodynamical death.

    ------------------
    "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
    Isaac Newton
     
  9. intlmanofmystery Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    Plato,

    Isn't Hawking radiation actually one half of a matter-anitmatter pair which split precisely at the event horizon for a black hole preventing their anhilation? If so, this really isn't matter from the black hole itself, nor would it contribute to enentual black hole decay. Might slow its growth down a microsecond, but not evaporate it!
     
  10. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    talk about a thread that wouldn't die

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Well, first of all in a steady-state infinite universe, black holes won't evaporate since Hawking radiation escaping from one black hole would inevitably be captured by another -- so the net effect is zero. In fact, a steady-state universe would result in infinite temperature (ala Olbers' paradox.)

    Secondly, Hawking radiation process turns a virtual particle pair into a real particle pair, utilizing energy stored in the black hole. While one member of the pair is recaptured by the hole, the other one escapes, thus carrying some of the hole's energy with it. Through this process, black holes do indeed evaporate -- in fact it's that particular result that brought Hawking his fame.

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.

    [This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 26, 2000).]
     
  11. Rock Registered Member

    Messages:
    27
    Just to underline Boris' point, I'd like to mention that it doesn't matter (per se) where the pair is created, so long as one of the particles flies off to "infinity" further away than the other one falls to the singularity. The fly away particle removes gravitational energy in it's flight.
     
  12. TIME02112 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    62
    Has anyone been paying any attention to what is going on in "C E R N" Laboritories (Geneva Switzarland) and their Experiment with the latest Collider?... They recently constructed their biggest one ever.

    From what I understand, they are attempting to replicate a mini "Big Bang" under ground.

    Can You imagine the outcome, or chain of events that this may set forth? c'mon, I know that many of the people involved with this research project are brilliant Scientests, and Physicists, well astute in their field of experience but, do they relly know what they are dealing with, or about to do?........does anyone really know the answers?

    I am all for research and study of the unknown, that is how we learn, but are we really redy to recreate a "Big Bang"?
     
  13. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    They are only replicating on a microscopic scale the <u>conditions</u> present early in the Big Bang (i.e. the ultra-high temperatures.) The aren't replicating a "mini-Big Bang".

    In fact, events much more powerful than Earth accelerators could ever achieve send ultra-energetic cosmic rays slamming into the Earth all the time -- and terrestrial detectors record the literal showers of energy and particles that rain down when a high-energy relativistic cosmic ray slams into some unfortunate atom in the atmosphere.

    Relax, nothing we ever do will be able to even remotely approach the energies present elsewhere in the observable universe (e.g. in the accretion disks or relativistic particle jets of neutron stars and black holes.) And since we don't see other Big Bangs being triggered by highly energetic cosmic events, we are pretty safe in assuming that the miniscule energies we can muster on Earth aren't going to result in any cosmic catastrophy.

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.
     
  14. steadystate Registered Member

    Messages:
    26
    Hmmm. If Black Holes accumulate all the mass/energy around them, then before some far away "group" of mass/energy manages to get to it and cause some more Hawking Radiation, the Black Hole simply disappears off our "view screens". Aha, maybe these are the great missing matter needed to do whatever?

    Still thinking occassionally,
    Steady State
     
  15. Boris Senior Member Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,052
    not really. First of all, for large black holes it could take something like 10^50 years (or significantly less, or significantly more, depending on black hole size) to completely evaporate. It is calculated that no black holes that were originally (immediately following the Big Bang) larger than a centimeter across would have evaporated by now.

    Additionally, the dark matter is not some very distant phenomenon; it has to actually be present inside galaxies to account for the high orbiting velocities.

    Finally, evaporation of black holes bears no consequences for gravity. The process merely converts a high concentration of matter into a diffuse clowd of particles and photons. Both energy and matter bend space (they are equivalent), so black hole evaporation merely tends to smoothe the spacetime fabric locally while bending it globally, with a net effect of 0.

    And finally finally, black hole evaporation cannot even begin to reduce black hole sizes before all the matter and energy that accrete onto the holes run out.

    ------------------
    I am; therefore I think.

    [This message has been edited by Boris (edited March 05, 2000).]
     
  16. Plato Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    366
    There is an old paradox, I forgot who mentioned it first, which stated that if the universe is infinite (no bounderies and not bend into itself) and thus has an infininite amount of stars glowing then this universe would be very hostile for life and us humans. It would mean that every single direction you would look, there would be a star, this combined effect would result in a sissling hot sky as bright as the surface of the sun !
    What about absorption by dust ? That is irrelevent because this dust would after enough time become as hot as all the light it is blocking (we are talking about an infinite amount of time of heating) and wouldn't block at all eventually.
    So then you can argue ok, so maybe space is infinite but matter isn't. This however would mean there is an edge to the volume that matter takes in, suddenly there would be no more stars, galaxies, nothing... However when we look around us we see no evidence of such an edge, it seems as though in every direction we look there is a somewhat even distribution of matter. This could mean two things or we are in the center of this matter volume which brings us right back to the medieval geocentric view or we can't see far enough.
    Something else that we have to keep in mind is that gravity tends to pull things together so if there is a finite amount of matter clustered together in a volume around us, then why isn't it falling towards us ? Why is this volume not contracting ? What prevents it ? Some mysterious repulsive force ? Why haven't we seen any evidence of this force yet ?
    I don't think it is more rational to believe that the universe is not expanding, on the contrary there are, if you think about it, a whole lot of contradictions. I admid that to think of our universe as 'bend back unto itself' is a bit strange at first but nobody claimed that the universe made perfectly sense...

    ------------------
    "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
    Isaac Newton
     

Share This Page