| THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - THE BIG BANG THEORY -> A challenge to the Big Bang theory | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: A challenge to the Big Bang theory |
| Posted By: Orionix Posted On: Mar 27, 2005 Views: 1267 | A challenge to the Big Bang theory The discovery of yet another supposedly distant quasar interacting with a nearby galaxy might poses a problem for the BBT. http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp Redshift is supposed to determine recession velocity, and you have big problems if two objects with very different redshifts interact physically. This latest finding is important for SETI for many reasons: 1) It confirms what astronomers like Halton Arp have been telling us for decades: redshift is not a reliable distance indicator 2) If redshift is not indicative of recession velocity, cosmologies requiring an expanding universe are instantly thrown into doubt 3) If the universe is not expanding, its age cannot be determined accurately. In fact, it might be infinite and timeless 4) Timelines for evolution and travel by spacefaring civilizations are vastly increased, meaning more time for ET to phone home. The universe just got a little more interesting. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Mar 27, 2005 Views: 1264 | RE: A challenge to the Big Bang theory I happen to think the universe has always been very interesting :-) Put in very simple terms, we know that the universe can't be static, it must either be expanding or contracting. All the evidence so far appears to suggest it is expanding. If it were contracting there is no way of explaining how it started out large! The BBT is basically only saying the universe started out very small and has been expanding ever since. Getting the maths exact is a technicality. it's the concept that is important. What is the alternative concept? |
| Posted By: Orionix Posted On: Mar 28, 2005 Views: 1260 | RE: A challenge to the Big Bang theory The math is extremely technical. Basically the BBT is based on two assumptions. The first is that Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity correctly describes the gravitational interaction of all matter. The second assumption, called the cosmological principle, states that an observer's view of the universe depends neither on the direction in which he looks nor on his location. This principle applies only to the large-scale properties of the universe, but it does imply that the universe has no edge, so that the big-bang origin occurred not at a particular point in space but rather throughout space at the same time. These two assumptions make it possible to calculate the history of the cosmos after a certain epoch called the Planck time. There have been a number of non-standard models which have been proposed: 1. Creationist ideas 2. Quasi Steady State 3. Tired light 4. Variable Mass Hypothesis and Intrinsic Redshifts 5. Plasma cosmology According to these cosmologies the basic problems with the Big Bang nucleosynthesis are: 1. baryon concentration necessary to get an exact match with the current abundances is inconsistent with a universe with mostly baryons. 2. the Big Bang predicts that no elements heavier than lithium would have been created in the Big Bang, yet elements heavier than lithium are observed in quasars, which presumably are some of the oldest galaxies in the universe. 3. The big bang nucleosynthesis produces no elements heavier than lithium, then we ought to see some long lived remnant stars which have no heavy elements in them. We don't. Cosmology is in crisis but before we can go any further we have to complete the following experiments: 1. To find the hypothetical Higgs Bosons, predicted by supersymmetric models. If these won't be discovered by the LHC in 2008 (and i don't believe this will happen), the Standard Model is in trouble. 2. A much more difficult experiment is the detection of gravitational radiation (also called ripples in space-time), a prediction of general relativity. If gravitational waves won't be observed by LISA in 2009 (and i honestly don't believe this will happen), then general relativity might be in serious trouble. To be clear, i'm talking about a situation where the experiment disproves with undisputed accuracy the presence of gravity radiation which theory predicts, we have a number of options: (1) The wave length of gravity waves is different, probably longer, than expected. (2) Gravity waves are slower than expected. (3) Contrary to theory, gravity is particle-like and not wave-like. (4) Contrary to theory, gravity is instananeous. (5) The instrument is part of the system in an unexpected way which makes it incapable of detecting gravity ways. (6) It's all the Dolphins' fault. If gravity waves are weaker than we expected, then we may need to tweak the theory accordingly and a more sensitive detector would need to be built. Any detector has a "detection limit" below which it cannot see, so it's hard/impossible to prove that there are zero gravity waves (an experiment may say there are no gravity waves detectable at X meters... and we can keep lowering X with better detectors). In order to totally scrap general relativity, we would first need to develop a new theory that explains everything GR can and more (GR has already been shown to be very accurate on a broad range of tests). A scientific "theory" has already passed experimental tests. It's a hypothesis that you can keep/drop based on (essentially) one experimental result. See also Beyond Einstein project for much more information: http://universe.nasa.gov/ 3. Dark Matter needs to be detected, especially because dark matter could be related to what we call 'dark energy'. The leading candidates for the particles which might make up this matter are SIMPs and WIMPs, none of which have so far been detected in particle accelerators. Until then, the BBT will not die easily... |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Mar 28, 2005 Views: 1258 | RE: A challenge to the Big Bang theory I too blame the dolphins. Every theory of the day always seems right, until the day comes that we get a new theory that really is right, and so it goes on. We will never know when and if we ever get it right. We need to be careful when using words such as 'truth' and 'right'. But if we always played safe and said 'maybe', we would most probably still think that the sun circled the Earth. |
| Posted By: Orionix Posted On: Mar 29, 2005 Views: 1253 | RE: A challenge to the Big Bang theory General relativity is a geometric master art but we don't know if it corretly describes mother nature and the gravitational force. We know that the gravitational force is the weakest of all other forces. Basically all these calculations are done by using the solutions to Einstein's field equations. I believe that the CMB is the local signature of the ZPE EM fields, and that the strong dipole anisotropy is an artifact of our galaxy's proper motion through that field. Smaller anisotropies will be the result of smaller proper motions (galactic rotation, Sun's path through the galactic arm, Earth's path around the Sun, etc). Perhaps someday, the 2nd year WMAP data will be released. If in fact my ZPE model is correct, I predict that the data will show that the small angle anisotropies do not agree with those of the 1st year data, and therefore the CMB is not the echo of the Big Bang, but is the local ground-state of the quantum vacuum. The longer the release is delayed, the more I suspect that the delay is due to a "problem" of this magnitude. |