Is big bang proven to be solid true?

[kaneda]

It's logical, wouldn't you say? If everything is flying away from us, then at some point in the past, everything must have been where we are. Right?

Explain why a singularity is not ultimately stable without additions of fudge and "once upon a time" explanations.

The big bang is a complicated theory. It makes lots of predictions about different things.

It predicts that basic science is wrong?

The basics of the big bang (that there was one, etc.) have been confirmed beyond any serious doubt. Some of the details of exactly what happened in the first moments after the bang are still being worked out.

Typical! People go on about thousands of scientists working every day to confirm the BB but the truth is that they just accept it as being infallibly true. That is not science.

The thing to realise is that no single fact proves the big bang theory. Rather, there is an immense amount of evidence of different types that supports the theory. Chances are that knowing down one piece of evidence won't knock down the theory, contrary to what some people think.

Part of the problem. Every time a fault is found, believers say the rest must be true so invent something like DE to explain it away. An overview shows that it is a whole mass of fudges.

Not according to experts in the field.

Which of these experts have even considered a possible alternative? Money is short in science and does not pay to go over old ground, so no one checks.

All we need to do is look at red shifts to establish that. So, we can and do know.

Several years ago a group of scientists said they had found a cluster receding at more than light speed. So obviously it was a quasar and they were measuring a gravitational red shift. Even now we know of linked quasars with very different redshifts because a gravity redshift looks the same as a recessional redshift. The basic idea of photons stretching sounds like it was worked out by a creationist.

The big bang was not an expansion of matter in a pre-existing spacetime (c.f. black holes as the collapse of matter in a pre-existing spacetime). Therefore, the big bang was not a "time-reversed black hole" or anything like that. The big bang was an expansion of spacetime itself, which is quite a different kettle of fish.

Space is literally nothing so does not expand. What occupies it can move further apart, soi making space seem larger. Spacetime is a mathematical definition. It is no more realistic that spaceheat to describe infra-red radiation moving through space. Time is merely change and not a dimension. Dr Who is just a fictional TV programme!

Are there any other viable baskets around? If so, I haven't heard about them.

BB-ers have smothered them and hid them away, using insults and ridicule rather than explanations. That is their idea of scientific procedure, that they do not even consider them.

The balloon analogy commonly used must be understood correctly. The surface of the balloon represents the universe, not the inside and outside of the balloon. The surface of a balloon has no edge, in the same way that the surface of the Earth has no edge. If you walk around the Earth's surface, you never fall off the edge of the world.

The balloon has four physical dimensions so though the skin may be thought of as having no thickness to 4D beings, it does to us 3D beings. Think of a TV picture where there can be endless depth in a 2D screen.

Maybe.

The scale would be such that we could never know about another universe.

 

[kaneda]

That doesn't mean there isn't an above or below, James. So what's outside the universe?

I believe space is literally nothing so effectively everything ends at the edge of our universe. However if space is expanding into it, since space is defined by what occupies it, there is "endlessly more space" without it stretching or undergoing any processes.

If the universe is an expanding hypersphere (4D sphere), then if we were somehow able to make a 4D explosion and blow a hole in it, no matter how small, it would lead to the end of the universe as it collapsed in on itself like a punctured balloon.

 

[Billy T]

.... There are serious flaws in the BB. We do not have final proof of expansion (as in actually seeing it happen) so other ideas should at least be considered. ... A number of very basic problems need to be answered about the BB and until they are, believers are just shouting lalalala ever louder. ...

Most of modern / recent physics has been in the area of mathematical modeling. I.e. trying to fit N known facts into one theory with M parameters when M is significantly less than N and, if possible, predict some new possible fact, f, for experimentalist to look for just as was the case with the CBR, which happen to be discovered by two guys who did not know it had been predicted.

I don't think anything is proven so yes, if you (or anyone else) can find a better theory/ model that also describes the N facts using only P adjustable parameters, where P < M , then many will be inclined to this new theory. I.e. of course "other ideas" should be considered. - Have a go at it, but until the "P theory" is found, we are stuck with the "M theory."

As I understand you, you think that some (or more than one) Fact, F, exists related to the big bang, not in the set of N which it explains. If that is your POV, please call this fact to our attention. That would be very useful, if accurate. It is not useful to simply say: I do not like the aspect A of the current M theory. Perhaps because it has not been observed, perhaps because it is "counter intuitive," perhaps because ....?

If your only complaint is you do not like some aspect to the currently best, the M theory, you should either try to find the more parsimonious P theory or get out of the game.

I did the later as I did not like the general trend of physics over the last 30 or so years - building mathematical models. Math was never my strong suit. Hell, I even had difficulties doing boundary value problems with Maxwell's Equations. (Things like calculating the skin depth, dielectric reflection coefficients, or the amount of polarization induced by non-normal, metallic, reflection or Bruster’s angle, etc.) Tensor math I once could follow, but not anymore. (I did, however admire the extremely compact notational conventions, but not like them.)

At present the "M theory" of this field is the "BB theory." - We are waiting for you to either shut up or advance the "P theory" which is more parsimonious than the BB theory and can replace it (but still explains the F, facts). Bitching that you do not like the BB theory is not helpful or even interesting.

Again:
Helpful would be to point out some fact inconsistent with the BB theory, but I for one, don't give dam if you do not like aspect A of it such as the inflation phase.

...Every time a fault is found, {BB} believers say the rest must be true so invent something like DE to explain it away. An overview shows that it is a whole mass of fudges. ...

DE (Dark Energy) is not part of the BB theory, but a very recently discovered mystery. Just as is what caused the recent South Atlantic Ocean Air France plane crash is a recent mystery. BB theory does not claim to explain either of these recently discovered mysteries. BB theory was developed years BEFORE either of these recent mysteries was even known to exist. AFAIK, the BB theory covers only the time period up to the formation of matter, or pehaps even less time after t = 0. Some probably limit the BB theory to the interval between t = 0 and t = 1 second as by one second the inflation period is over, (I think simple thermodynamics and quantum theory can descibe what happened after t = 1 sec. but this is not my field of knowledge so I may be wrong about that.).

Again I ask: What fact that BB theory should explain does it not? Or is there some more parsimonious alternative to the BB theory you can suggest?

 

[tsmid]

The balloon analogy is just that: an analogy. I think one needs some minimal familiarity with the concept of non-Euclidean geometry to appreciate the analogy.

Reading a book written over a hundred years ago, Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions might help. The wikipedia entry points to some online versions of the book. In a nutshell, Flatlanders live on a plane. There is no such thing as above or below to the Flatlanders;

There is no such thing as Flatlanders. So how can a factually false metaphor serve as an analogy to reinforce the validity of a certain scientific concept?

the plane is their universe. Instead of a plane, suppose their universe is the surface of a balloon. Still two dimensional. There is no above or below; asking that is in a sense a nonsensical question but it is also an indicator that the balloon analogy is not a particularly good analogy.

There is no such thing as a surface of a balloon (or any other object for that matter). The balloon skin consists of atoms that are arranged in our 3D-space in a way that from far it gives the impression of a surface. Just put the balloon skin under an electron microscope and this impression will disappear. All there is is our 3D-space and atoms in it.

Thomas

 

[(Q)]

There is no such thing as Flatlanders. So how can a factually false metaphor serve as an analogy to reinforce the validity of a certain scientific concept?

There's no such thing as riding atop a beam of light, either, but it helped Einstein win a Nobel Prize.

 

[tsmid]

There's no such thing as riding atop a beam of light, either, but it helped Einstein win a Nobel Prize.

I don't see how it would helped him to get his Nobel Prize, because he got it for his theory regarding the photoelectric effect.

Thomas

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Haven't been back for a while to answer your inevitable idea that I am wrong because I do not quote the wiki.

No, I consider you often wrong because you create strawmen by saying such things as "The only evidence for the BB is redshift", which is false as there's such things as isotope ratios. I'm not asking you to blindly accept the theory, simply to actually read up on it before making claims or statements about it and given your lack of scientific knowledge Wikipedia is a good place to start.

You seriously have trouble grasping that logic. Is it too much to ask for you to make an informed post rather than an uninformed one?

We do not have final proof of expansion (as in actually seeing it happen)

This is not the only bit of evidence, as I just commented, yet your post is making it out to seem it is. See what I mean about being informed and not making strawmen?

so other ideas should at least be considered.

They are, as theories are never 'proven', only 'not falsified' (which means we gain confidence in it being at least a good approximation). But no model has come close to being able to explain all the phenomena which the BB can explain.

I appreciate this is something alien to you since you are a scientific creationist with every word in a text book true from the first to the last

Nice strawman. I say "Can you please read about the BB because you claim it says thing it doesn't actually say" and you read it as "The BB is undeniably correct". Do you have an English language comprehension issue?

Don't worry! No one will ever accuse you of having an original thought.

Correcting you on what the BB does or doesn't say/imply doesn't mean I'm devoid of original thinking. I don't believe in the Bible but if someone, in a discussion, said "In the Bible Jesus was a homosexual" I'd correct them. Can you see the logic here? Irrespective of whether you agree with something or not, actually being informed about it is important.

Besides, I have original work which is published. My name on it, in a scientific journal. The fact you have turned down my numerous offers to discuss it with you doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

We have computer simulations like a recent one which said that gravity worked down to 10^92 tons per cubic meter but no further. I don't see why it should not go further but that will do.

Nuclear densitirs are 10^18 kg/m^3 and then you need the Standard Model. Over smaller distances (ie higher densities), say by 6 orders of magnitude, you go beyond the ability for the Standard Model to describe with any confidence (ie beyond experimental checks) and beyond 30 orders of magnitude you hit Planck scale physics and all of our quantum field theory descriptions (other than string theory) fall apart due to gravitational corrections so I'd question your numbers. At densities you talk about you cannot ignore quantum gravity.

It has been said that if black holes were large enough (like the size you said humans could enter alive), then there could be ordinary matter inside them as in the Universe itself might be a black hole. To form a black hole, all it needs is sufficient matter in a small enough area. It does not have to be "in casual contact".

So now you accept it is possible to have a sufficiently large black hole that tidal forces don't kill a person as they approach the event horizon. My my, that is a change of tune, after you so often proclaimed you'd proven Rpenner and I wrong over on PhysOrg so many times. As for the universe being in a black hole while it might be true that all matter is within it's Schwarzchild radius, the event horizon hasn't yet formed as the dynamics of all matter we can see is as if there is no event horizon. Inside a black hole event horizon you see part of the sky as black (the side closest the singularity) and the other side brighter, as no light comes up from the singularity to you. We do not see this in the sky above us and so there has not been sufficient time for the gravitational effects to propogate through the universe to create this effect. We are out of causal contact with enough matter to know we're within the Schwarzchild radius. If we were within causal contact at least half the sky would be black and the orbits of all planets and stars would be distrupted as we'd be unable to move away, at all from the centre of mass of the universal black hole. So my point about causal contact is perfectly valid.

Who cares? I'm more worried how right it is. A number of very basic problems need to be answered about the BB and until they are, believers are just shouting lalalala ever louder. Whoever they are.

Care to outline those problems a bit more specifically? It's just that I've seen you post threads "What's the evidence for the BB?" and then gone on to list a bunch of strawmen, ignore things any school kid will know and then whine when people say "Wow, did you even bother to check Wikipedia because you missed out most of the evidence it lists, never mind what you get in journals!".

DM and DE are an embarrassment. .

You do realise DE and DM are two entirely unrelated phenomena, they just happen to be 'dark' because they are not visible via electromagnetic radiation. While I can see why people might be uncomfortable with dark energy, to me dark matter, at least the principle, seems not only acceptable but also entirely probably. Dark matter is matter in the universe which doesn't interact with light. It's a bit silly to think all matter should interact with light and unless its distribution was entirely unlike that of normal matter it would only be detectable when you do quite specific and detailed analysis of gravitationally governed systems, which is something we've only been able to do with time and plenty of observations. You can see a supernova just by using a telescope (if you time it right) but to detect matter which isn't optically vislble you'd need to do measurements and calculations. Simply working out the mass of galaxies takes a lot of work and theory so the discovery of dark matter much later than other astronomical phenomena isn't entirely unsurprising.

Tell me Kaneda, are you appalled by the entire concept of dark matter or the fact it seems to be a lot more plentiful than normal, visible, matter?

 

[Ophiolite]

If your only complaint is you do not like some aspect to the currently best, the M theory, you should either try to find the more parsimonious P theory of get out of the game.

Hear, hear. I dislike BBT on philosophical grounds, but because I can offer no better (or even equal) alternative I support it and question those who snipe at it because they have nothing better to do.

 

[Billy T]

Hear, hear. I dislike BBT on philosophical grounds, but because I can offer no better (or even equal) alternative I support it and question those who snipe at it because they have nothing better to do.

My POV exactly. I liked Hoyle's Steady State cosmology more philosophically and am not sure that the CBR should have been taken as the disproof of it.

Why could there not be CBR in the SS cosmology? I seriously doubt there is any evidence for any change in the CBR – let’s just add it to the SS universe. Having zero low energy microwave energy would appear much stranger to me than some low level microwaves.

For example, the Earth is not highly charged, but solar UV ejecting electrons from the high atmosphere, I bet has it with some net positive charge. If true, very accepted physics state that the accelerated Earth is radiating. - Probably very long wavelength EM waves with period of ~8550 hours a lot more with 24 hours due to rotation of the Van Allen belt charges and more still with the electrons in them bouncing back and forth between near polar regions, plus lightening from most planet atmospheres etc. etc.

In the steady state, the positive charge makes those UV electrons return to the Earth, accelerated by gravity. The charged particle flowing along magnetic loops at the solar surface are radiating too. When two inter galactic protons scatter of each other they surely make radiation with typical wave lengths even shorter than the 4 degree CBR spectrum peak.

Just because the universe is expanding doesn’t mean it was once a singularity! I’ll grant the evidence is strong that it is space itself that is expanding – probably due the spontaneous appearance of new hydrogen atoms.*

-------------
* I always liked Holye’s reply when asked: “and where does this new hydrogen come from?” Holye said: “From the same place you BB guys get it all at once.”

Quote below from: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/universes/html/univ_steady.html

“… Because the vast majority of quasars lie exceedingly far away, their existence proves that the perfect cosmological principle cannot be true**—the distant and therefore ancient universe is not the same as the younger universe nearby. The death knell for the theory sounded when radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic microwave background, the leftover radiation from the Big Bang. The steady-staters had no reasonable way to explain this radiation,*** and their theory slowly faded away as so many of its predecessors had. …”
------------------------
**So where did God carve this man-made principle in stone? Of course more will be found in every spherical shell 1000 light years thick, the farther away from Earth that shell is – The volume in that shell is directly proportional to its distance from Earth! Of course the very distant universe has much higher ratio of quasars to galaxies - hard to see any but the very biggest galaxies that far away. Also that is back when that chunk of space was smaller - of course it looks different - the universe has been expanding as more hydrogen is stuffed into it. - simple thermodynamics.

*** I outlined how the CBR might come to be in the SS cosmology above. And add now that I think one can show that Compton scattering will bring that mix of long wavelength radiation into a black body distribution with the same temperature as the inter-galactic hydrogen, most of which is ionized.

Want to join me in the "Gold/Hoyle were right fan club”? Our motto is:

“ To Hell with BB! ” (That’s not a reference to Bridget Bardot. – She is heavenly.)

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Explain why a singularity is not ultimately stable without additions of fudge and "once upon a time" explanations.

I don't follow this, what do you mean?

It predicts that basic science is wrong?

Can't you do something other than make vague, yet incorrect, statements? At least try to back up what you just said.

Typical! People go on about thousands of scientists working every day to confirm the BB but the truth is that they just accept it as being infallibly true. That is not science.

No, thousands of scientists work everyday to test, develop and refine the theory. If it should fail a test in a way which cannot be reconciled, then it'll be replaced. James's point is that it's like evolution, yes it's conceivable that it's wrong on even the conceptual level but all the time we find more and more evidence to the contrary and we refine our understanding further than further.

Part of the problem. Every time a fault is found, believers say the rest must be true so invent something like DE to explain it away. An overview shows that it is a whole mass of fudges.

Science has always advanced by trying small changes before trying big ones. This isn't some fault of cosmology, it's the scientific method. And when you say 'overview' what you really mean is your uninformed bias opinion. There's nothing wrong with the fact the BB theory of today looks different to the BB theory of a few decades ago, it's evolved and developed as new evidence, new understanding and new methods are obtained. You can't find a single area of science which doesn't display this behaviour. It'd be naive to think a first attempt at a description of a poorly observed/measured phenomena is going to stand up perfectly to future scrutiny, such attitudes are the realms of cranks (see PhysOrg and numerous people's pet theory). By your logic our understanding of quantum field theory is just a bunch of fudges, as we went from classical electromagnetism to electrodynamics to quantum mechanics to quantum electrodynamics to electroweak theory. Each one is developed once a problem arises with the previous one, each time encompassing more and more phenomena.

Which of these experts have even considered a possible alternative? Money is short in science and does not pay to go over old ground, so no one checks.

Actually a huge quantity of time, effort and money is put into verifying things. For instance, the CMB was first measured in the 60s, giving evidence to the BB. Yet the satellite COBE was used to measure it more, to check if the spectrum was as the BB predicted. Then WMAP went further, testing more accurately, looking for deviations and now there's Planck. Millions of dollars and thousands of man years of work to keep testing, searching for errors. People do check, it's just not a glamorous thing to do and so you don't see headlines in newpapers like "Team of physicists confirm calculation to 8 decimal places, up from 6!". Tell me, do you read cosmology journals?

Several years ago a group of scientists said they had found a cluster receding at more than light speed. So obviously it was a quasar and they were measuring a gravitational red shift. Even now we know of linked quasars with very different redshifts because a gravity redshift looks the same as a recessional redshift. The basic idea of photons stretching sounds like it was worked out by a creationist.

Except that redshift due to recession at the speed of light is infinite, no light at all reaches the observer. Can you cite your source? And can you cite a source for connected quasars of different redshift other than the well known crank whose name begins with A?

Space is literally nothing so does not expand. What occupies it can move further apart, soi making space seem larger. Spacetime is a mathematical definition. It is no more realistic that spaceheat to describe infra-red radiation moving through space. Time is merely change and not a dimension. Dr Who is just a fictional TV programme!

Ah, the "I refuse to accept physics I don't understand and so it is wrong. How dare the universe do something outside my everyday experience!" line of logic.

BB-ers have smothered them and hid them away, using insults and ridicule rather than explanations. That is their idea of scientific procedure, that they do not even consider them.

And the "There's a conspiracy afoot!" logic. Anyone of decent scientific aptitude who has something contrary to the mainstream but is a rational stab at a new idea can get their work on ArXiv. Just last year a rival to general relativity was put on ArXiv and it became the hot topic of theoretical physics, huge numbers of papers were published on it. It went so far as to say special relativity's tenant of Lorentz invariant was not true, yet it got a lot of attention.

New, interesting and rational ideas get more attention than just those which are 'more of the same'. Not that you'd know, not being in the scientific community and having no wish to actually check your facts before whining.

If the universe is an expanding hypersphere (4D sphere), then if we were somehow able to make a 4D explosion and blow a hole in it, no matter how small, it would lead to the end of the universe as it collapsed in on itself like a punctured balloon.

Another excellent display of your grasp of higher dimensional geometry. Perhaps next time you'd talking about the balloon analogy you could mention balloon animals or something?

 

[James R]

kaneda:

The main sense I get from your reply to my post is that you have a large amount of anger over this issue. Why are you angry? And are you aware that anger can cloud your judgement?

Explain why a singularity is not ultimately stable without additions of fudge and "once upon a time" explanations.

I don't believe I mentioned singularities not being stable etc. etc. What are you talking about?

The big bang is a complicated theory. It makes lots of predictions about different things.

It predicts that basic science is wrong?

Obviously not, since it relies on basic science being right.

The basics of the big bang (that there was one, etc.) have been confirmed beyond any serious doubt. Some of the details of exactly what happened in the first moments after the bang are still being worked out.

Typical! People go on about thousands of scientists working every day to confirm the BB but the truth is that they just accept it as being infallibly true. That is not science.

Please stop foaming at the mouth and read what I wrote again. I said that the basic fact of the big bang is beyond dispute in scientific circles. People aren't working to confirm the big bang. They are working to test the theory - to try to find faults in it, to see where it needs refining or changing. And trying to find fault is the exact opposite of accepting the theory as infallibly true.

Part of the problem. Every time a fault is found, believers say the rest must be true so invent something like DE to explain it away. An overview shows that it is a whole mass of fudges.

Perhaps. The question is: does anybody have an viable alternative to dark energy? Sure, you can throw out the entire big bang theory if you have a better theory to replace it with. Do you?

Which of these experts have even considered a possible alternative?

Possible alternatives are being considered all the time. The person who disproves the big bang theory will win a Nobel Prize.

Several years ago a group of scientists said they had found a cluster receding at more than light speed.

Got a link?

The basic idea of photons stretching sounds like it was worked out by a creationist.

I've never heard of this photon stretching idea. Got a link?

Space is literally nothing so does not expand. What occupies it can move further apart, soi making space seem larger. Spacetime is a mathematical definition. It is no more realistic that spaceheat to describe infra-red radiation moving through space. Time is merely change and not a dimension. Dr Who is just a fictional TV programme!

Sounds like you know all about space and time. Where did you study?

The scale would be such that we could never know about another universe.

It's not just a problem of scale. Alternate universes are supposed to be causally separate from our universe.

 

[MikeBeer]

Several years ago a group of scientists said they had found a cluster receding at more than light speed.

Got a link?

He may be talking about superluminal motion observed in quasars, radio galaxies, blazars, etc. Those are widely understood to be optical illusions though, so I'm missing the point.

 

[Dr Mabuse]

There's no such thing as riding atop a beam of light, either, but it helped Einstein win a Nobel Prize.

Surfing on a wave of light actually wasn't it?

 

[Dr Mabuse]

Explain why a singularity is not ultimately stable without additions of fudge and "once upon a time" explanations.

Exactly.

 

[Billy T]

Hi James:
Rather than waste your time on Kaneda, why not shoot down arguments in post 69 (or join the fan club)?

 

[tuberculatious]

Is big bang proven to be solid true?
Just because we observe that the distant galaxies are flying away from us, we postulate that the universe was born from a big bang?
So far, how true is big bang according to the latest astronomical observation?
And, any evidence to prove otherwise?

No. it will only be proven when they recreate the big bang in the lab. And as far as I know they haven't because we still exist.

 

[MikeBeer]

No. it will only be proven when they recreate the big bang in the lab. And as far as I know they haven't because we still exist.

There is research currently going on into creating a universe in the lab; however, they aren't close to accomplishing it. If they were to succeed though, I believe the common consensus is that the created universe would instantly splice from ours and expand, without displacing any space that we currently lay claim to, so we wouldn't be affected.

 

[James R]

Billy T:

Why could there not be CBR in the SS cosmology?

Why should there be? What would produce it? And why would it have a near-perfect blackbody spectrum, with just the kind of fluctuations that we would expect from a big bang?

And add now that I think one can show that Compton scattering will bring that mix of long wavelength radiation into a black body distribution with the same temperature as the inter-galactic hydrogen, most of which is ionized.

Can you show this?

Your theory shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, Billy T, but somebody (you?) really needs to do the physics properly. Otherwise, it's just idle speculation.

 

[Billy T]

I have already answered your questions in post 69, but here are the answers again:

Billy T: Why should there be? {CBR} What would produce it?

In post 69 I gave a more than half a dozen examples of natural accelerated charges - all of which would make EM waves. The first example was the positively charged Earth (making a tiny amount of ~8550 hour period waves) up to the collision of two electrons in inter galactic space (making much shorter wavelengths than the peak of the 4 degree CBR) with examples of intermediate wavelengths. I.e. there are many dozens of natural long-wave length EM wave sources.

And why would it have a near-perfect blackbody spectrum, with just the kind of fluctuations that we would expect from a big bang?

For exactly the same reason that the CBR is black body. I.e. CBR's EM waves were (and still are) in thermal contact with charged particles (mainly electrons & protons). You do know that most of the universe is hydrogen, don't you? Much more as atomic H than H2 because space is so empty*. I.e. once H2 is separated into two atoms they rarely get back together. This is even more true of H atoms being separated in to proton and electron. The separation is, in both cases caused by stellar radiation being absorbed in most cases.

Space is highly ionized extremely low density plasma. This Plasma scatters EM waves and thereby the EM waves have the thermal black body distribution with the same temperature as the protons and electrons of space. Thermodynamics requires this. These space particles have been adiabatically cooling with the expansion of space - currently their temperature is about 4K.

Can you show this?

No, not by detailed analysis, but yes by the above argument from thermodynamics. Note that the radiation inside any closed box with isothermal walls is also in thermal equilibrium to have the black body radiation distribution with the wall temperature and it is very hard to show this with detailed analysis, which probably would erroneously make you conclude what the walls were made of was important. That is thermodynamics strength - when it applies - details are not needed.

The steady state universe is not my idea. I only think there has been sort of Band Wagon effect that caused the Big Bang model to displace the Steady State model when the predicted CBR was accidently found. Also nuclear synthesis does NOT require, or even naturally use, the Big Bang model. Some here have been sighting it as "support" of the Big Bang. Only Thermodynamics and quantum physic are required to explain nuclear synthesis. For example Hans Bethe did not use any part of the big bang to explain nuclear syntheses in the sun and in other hotter denser stars up iron. (Some of the higher than iron atomic number atoms are also produced in stars too by endothermic "cooking" and more are produced in the supernova shock waves.) Is Thermodynamics, QM, and shock wave theory part of the big bang theory?

The Hydrogen / Helium ratio is not AFAIK "explained" by the big bang model. The big bang model is adjusted to give it, and some other observables, I think. Prior to "inflation" being added, the Big Bang had an extremely improbable set of initial conditions to even work (result in our universe). It has been rescued to fit, did not predict, our universe.

IMHO, it is easier to assume that time had no beginning than to have t = 0 fall out of the Big Bang to better hide the "first cause" problem.

Your theory shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, Billy T, but somebody (you?) really needs to do the physics properly. Otherwise, it's just idle speculation.

I have done all I plan to, with simple thermodynamics above, but I think the Steady State model is not out of the running yet. For me the CBR fits equally well in either model and looking back in time is looking at a less expanded part of the steady state universe - when the total mass of hydrogen of that then smaller universe was less could make a difference, even in the Steady State, if anything does (like the strength of Dark Energy?) does depend on the total mass of the universe. Perhaps it should be called the Quasi Steady State model? (If anything like size or DE etc does depend on the total mass of the universe.) It would not be the first time a physics model has needed a slight refinement.

-------------
*Look at the Saha equation to see mathematicaly that near 100% ionization is a result of extermely low density, even at very cold temperatures, if there is any photo-ionization flux. It is highly unlikely that the separated electron "finds" an ion and nearly impossible for it to combine if a third body is required as it is for non-radiative capture.

BTW the radiative capture is usually into an extremely high principle quantum number "n" with subsequent cascade down thru many small delta n states - I.e. lots of more long wave length radiation come from radiative recombination de-ionization of ions in space.

PS I see you asked about the slight variation in the CBR too. I do not know much about this, but the rate at which the EM radiation comes into thermal equilibrium with the charged particles does depend on the density of the charged particles - I.e. where the density is lower then the adbatatic cooling may not be complete and the ions and electrons may have slightly different temperatures (Collsion between grossly different mass do not share their energy as well as if between link masses.) This fine variations probably too can be fit into either model - Perhaps easier into the SS model than the BB model as BB's CBR is, I think, the expaned photons from when the universe was much denser an not ionized. (Stars had not yet formed to "re-ionize" it.)

I ask again: Want to join the SS club?

 

[kaneda]

No evidence that a singularity can exist. No evidence that inflation can happen. Basic physics: If you have sufficient matter in a small enough place, you get a black hole. How does inflation slow down to expansion without fudge to help it? How do you get a four physical dimension inflation/expansion to happen? How does space expand from quantum size to over a hundred million light years in diameter. Enough?

Expansion somehow increased several billion years ago, based on the BB idea. DE was made up to explain this. DE must have originally come from the BB. Why was it inactive for several billion years and what activated it? WTH is it?

The BB is not an origin in that it starts after t=0, so it merely places the origin one step further back. A lot would be solved if instead of a nonsensical singularity, matter and energy formed (somehow) over a very large area, so stopping the lot collapsing into a black hole.

Example: A race of beings live on a very hot world. They have produced water and cooled it down to 20.C so far. They draw a graph and show that at somewhere well below zero centigrade, water shrinks to a dot and vanishes. They do not know that it starts expanding again at 4.C and have never encountered ice, so their theory seems perfectly practical to them.

We do know about black holes and that a singularity should be ultimately stable. We do know that you cannot pack energy into a small area. We have no excuse for believing in the BB other than ignorance.