What would cause you to rethink your position on "big bang" theory?

[Michael]

Recent observations of massive quasars and mature galaxies at high redshift have made me wonder if there are any specific observations that would cause proponents of the big bang model to chose to "lack belief" in that particular cosmology model?

The basic cause/effect claims of the LCDM model have never been demonstrated in a lab. For instance, while moving objects and plasma produce redshift in controlled laboratory experiments, "space expansion" is not a known or demonstrated cause of photon redshift. Despite spending tens of billions of dollars hunting for exotic types of matter and energy over the past few decades, no such things have ever been observed in the lab. Quite the contrary, the standard model of particle physics has passed every test with flying colors.

In terms of "predictive success", it's hard to image how any cosmology model could have done more poorly at predicting observations at ever increasing redshifts. Most of the current expansion model for instance is composed of "dark energy", a concept that needed to be added to the model due to it's failure to correctly predict SN1A observations. Recent observations of massive quasars and mature galaxies at high redshift defy the evolutionary predictions of the BB model.

What about the big bang model do you find attractive, and what might cause you to choose to "lack belief" in it?

 

[Dave-W]

I had to re-think my position not too long after Penny and Leonard got married. It was a funny show that I never missed. But stopped watching and missed entirely the last few seasons.

 

[Dave L]

Recent observations of massive quasars and mature galaxies at high redshift have made me wonder if there are any specific observations that would cause proponents of the big bang model to chose to "lack belief" in that particular cosmology model?

The basic cause/effect claims of the LCDM model have never been demonstrated in a lab. For instance, while moving objects and plasma produce redshift in controlled laboratory experiments, "space expansion" is not a known or demonstrated cause of photon redshift. Despite spending tens of billions of dollars hunting for exotic types of matter and energy over the past few decades, no such things have ever been observed in the lab. Quite the contrary, the standard model of particle physics has passed every test with flying colors.

In terms of "predictive success", it's hard to image how any cosmology model could have done more poorly at predicting observations at ever increasing redshifts. Most of the current expansion model for instance is composed of "dark energy", a concept that needed to be added to the model due to it's failure to correctly predict SN1A observations. Recent observations of massive quasars and mature galaxies at high redshift defy the evolutionary predictions of the BB model.

What about the big bang model do you find attractive, and what might cause you to choose to "lack belief" in it?

Is the "Big Bang" the voice of God that spoke the universe into existence? I have no trouble with such a concept. If you put God behind it, and everything that will ever exist into it, becoming visible throughout time, you have biblical predestination. Where God created the end from the beginning and all that leads up to it. And nothing will change the future anymore than we can change the past.

 

[Michael]

I had to re-think my position not too long after Penny and Leonard got married. It was a funny show that I never missed. But stopped watching and missed entirely the last few seasons.

That is a funny show.

 

[Michael]

Is the "Big Bang" the voice of God that spoke the universe into existence?

If you're asking me personally, I would say no. It's just a bad cosmology model that has nothing to do with reality IMO.

 

[Halbhh]

Recent observations of massive quasars and mature galaxies at high redshift have made me wonder if there are any specific observations that would cause proponents of the big bang model to chose to "lack belief" in that particular cosmology model?

The basic cause/effect claims of the LCDM model have never been demonstrated in a lab. For instance, while moving objects and plasma produce redshift in controlled laboratory experiments, "space expansion" is not a known or demonstrated cause of photon redshift. Despite spending tens of billions of dollars hunting for exotic types of matter and energy over the past few decades, no such things have ever been observed in the lab. Quite the contrary, the standard model of particle physics has passed every test with flying colors.

In terms of "predictive success", it's hard to image how any cosmology model could have done more poorly at predicting observations at ever increasing redshifts. Most of the current expansion model for instance is composed of "dark energy", a concept that needed to be added to the model due to it's failure to correctly predict SN1A observations. Recent observations of massive quasars and mature galaxies at high redshift defy the evolutionary predictions of the BB model.

What about the big bang model do you find attractive, and what might cause you to choose to "lack belief" in it?

I don't normally think about of all the many diverse (and competing) theories about the evolution of the Universe to be simply:

the evolutionary predictions of the BB model.

I'm used to thinking of the very many hypothesis and theories as simply competing theories about the evolution of the Universe.

So, is it that you are instead thinking some kind of steady state Universe or such is instead the situation?

I remember talking with you before a lot about but dust-induced redshift, and about magnetic fields, and the last I remember was me following up months later with giving some new links to recent articles about extra galactic magnetic fields, for your interest. I think that's about where we left off. I have no objection at all to finding out just what portion of redshifts are here and there influenced (variously) by dust, etc., except that it seems...of limited application -- past a point.

It's good to notice there is no contradiction between having redshift from source A and redshift from source B, both. You'd merely then want to get more precise measurements of them, as possible. Sure, the general expectation of cosmologies/astronomers would probably be that dust based redshift isn't going to amount to that much of the 'cosmic red shift'.

To review:
Redshift - Expansion of Space -
Wikipedia

 

[Speedwell]

If you're asking me personally, I would say no. It's just a bad cosmology model that has nothing to do with reality IMO.

OK, and if you are able to replace it with a more successful model, good for you.

 

[Prodigal Son returns]

Recent observations of massive quasars and mature galaxies at high redshift have made me wonder if there are any specific observations that would cause proponents of the big bang model to chose to "lack belief" in that particular cosmology model?

The basic cause/effect claims of the LCDM model have never been demonstrated in a lab. For instance, while moving objects and plasma produce redshift in controlled laboratory experiments, "space expansion" is not a known or demonstrated cause of photon redshift. Despite spending tens of billions of dollars hunting for exotic types of matter and energy over the past few decades, no such things have ever been observed in the lab. Quite the contrary, the standard model of particle physics has passed every test with flying colors.

In terms of "predictive success", it's hard to image how any cosmology model could have done more poorly at predicting observations at ever increasing redshifts. Most of the current expansion model for instance is composed of "dark energy", a concept that needed to be added to the model due to it's failure to correctly predict SN1A observations. Recent observations of massive quasars and mature galaxies at high redshift defy the evolutionary predictions of the BB model.

What about the big bang model do you find attractive, and what might cause you to choose to "lack belief" in it?

The part of the big bang theory that cracks me up is the fact that the astrophysicists are stuck. They've just put their hands in the air and said "we don't know". So they propose that there is some kind of machine that keeps pumping out universes but only 1 in every trillion of them can sustain life. Its basically just Darwinism applied to Cosmology

 

[Halbhh]

The part of the big bang theory that cracks me up is the fact that the astrophysicists are stuck. They've just put their hands in the air and said "we don't know". So they propose that there is some kind of machine that keeps pumping out universes but only 1 in every trillion of them can sustain life. Its basically just Darwinism applied to Cosmology

In physics (and many other related fields, like astrophysics), it's normal, all the time, through the centuries, to be 'stuck' on something, even if not noticed by many. It has to be that way, always, until a 'theory of everything' -- a complete physics theory that accounts for all physical observations all of kinds everywhere -- is finally accomplished, if that ever happens. I think we won't get to that before the end of this age though, personally.

Science always has unanswered questions, and the whole cosmological expansion one is fascinating, and a lot of fun.

 

[Ophiolite]

Science always has unanswered questions, and the whole cosmological expansion one is fascinating, and a lot of fun.

Indeed, if there were no unanswered questions there would be no science. Science, despite the etymology of the word, is not the knowledge of physics and biology and astronomy and all the other 'ologies. Science is the method we use to answer a certain category of question. No questions equates to no science.

Humanity seems to fall into two categories. There are those who encountering an unanswered question are troubled and unsettled. They need a solid foundation under their feet at all times. This can lead imposing a "suitable" answer for which there is little or no evidence. The second category find an unanswered question a challenge and an inspiration.

 

[Yttrium]

I'm flexible. When I was little, the steady state theory was still around. Then I heard about the big bang theory, and realized that steady state really didn't make much sense. I'm always hoping that better explanations come around.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm flexible. When I was little, the steady state theory was still around. Then I heard about the big bang theory, and realized that steady state really didn't make much sense. I'm always hoping that better explanations come around.

I find Big Bang theory philosophically unappealing. It lacks the continuity of change once offered by the Steady State option. Unfortunately nothing offered by Michael and others puts a dent in BBT, or offers an ounce of support for SST, or any plausible alternative. Consequently I shall continue, reluctantly, to accept that BBT offers the best current explanation for observations.

 

[Halbhh]

I find Big Bang theory philosophically unappealing. It lacks the continuity of change once offered by the Steady State option. Unfortunately nothing offered by Michael and others puts a dent in BBT, or offers an ounce of support for SST, or any plausible alternative. Consequently I shall continue, reluctantly, to accept that BBT offers the best current explanation for observations.

There's a lot yet to be figured out, and sometimes that motivates some theorists to come up with very different ideas, but they are speculative until there is enough observational support. Here's one:

Big Bounce Models Reignite Big Bang Debate | Quanta Magazine

It's interesting additionally to keep in mind that either general model still leaves so many unanswered questions, and one of those is the wonderful "Why does anything exist at all, instead of nothing?" While this suggests an Initiator, or Modifier -- aka, God -- it's not why we believe (God is a being, and we can only learn of Him by relating, by seeking Him with all of our heart, and then He answers profoundly) Now, the Big Bounce model has been around a while, and it's not exactly taken over cosmology by storm. They need some kind of definite test to distinguish which general framework has to be more correct.

 

[Michael]

I don't normally think about of all the many diverse (and competing) theories about the evolution of the Universe to be simply:



I'm used to thinking of the very many hypothesis and theories as simply competing theories about the evolution of the Universe.

So, is it that you are instead thinking some kind of steady state Universe or such is instead the situation?

Yes. I think that's a more likely scenario when we look at the evidence from higher redshift observations. We see little if any difference between the size and maturity of such galaxies and quasars compared to those in our vicinity.

I remember talking with you before a lot about but dust-induced redshift, and about magnetic fields, and the last I remember was me following up months later with giving some new links to recent articles about extra galactic magnetic fields, for your interest. I think that's about where we left off. I have no objection at all to finding out just what portion of redshifts are here and there influenced (variously) by dust, etc., except that it seems...of limited application -- past a point.

I'm not sure what you mean by "past a point". If the real cause of redshift is tired light/inelastic scattering, it would apply everywhere.

It's good to notice there is no contradiction between having redshift from source A and redshift from source B, both. You'd merely then want to get more precise measurements of them, as possible. Sure, the general expectation of cosmologies/astronomers would probably be that dust based redshift isn't going to amount to that much of the 'cosmic red shift'.

Yet that seems like a dubious assumption that is *required* only if one happens to associate redshift with 'space expansion', something that's never been shown to occur in a lab. On the other hand Chen found an empirical connection between the amount of redshift that he observed in plasma, and the number of free electrons in the plasma.

To review:
Redshift - Expansion of Space -
Wikipedia

Edwin Hubble ultimately distanced himself from the concept of expansion. He seems instead to have moved toward a tired light scenario near the end of his career and life.

Hubble Eventually Did Not Believe in Big Bang: Associated Press

 

[Michael]

I find Big Bang theory philosophically unappealing. It lacks the continuity of change once offered by the Steady State option. Unfortunately nothing offered by Michael and others puts a dent in BBT, or offers an ounce of support for SST, or any plausible alternative. Consequently I shall continue, reluctantly, to accept that BBT offers the best current explanation for observations.

I've read many different "tired light" models that all seem far more appealing than "space expansion" claims, and plasma redshift has been shown to occur in the lab. It's hard to imagine why it wouldn't also occur in space.

The high redshift observations certainly don't seem to support any sort of galaxy evolution sort of concept. BB proponents have been struggling with those high redshift observations since day one and it seems to be getting worse rather than better.

An SST model seems far more plausible to me frankly.

 

[Michael]

OK, and if you are able to replace it with a more successful model, good for you.

I don't think it's actually my personal job to "replace it". I'm comfortable with PC/EU theory, but your mileage my vary.

 

[Halbhh]

Yes. I think that's a more likely scenario when we look at the evidence from higher redshift observations. We see little if any difference between the size and maturity of such galaxies and quasars compared to those in our vicinity.



I'm not sure what you mean by "past a point". If the real cause of redshift is tired light/inelastic scattering, it would apply everywhere.



Yet that seems like a dubious assumption that is *required* only if one happens to associate redshift with 'space expansion', something that's never been shown to occur in a lab. On the other hand Chen found an empirical connection between the amount of redshift that he observed in plasma, and the number of free electrons in the plasma.



Edwin Hubble ultimately distanced himself from the concept of expansion. He seems instead to have moved toward a tired light scenario near the end of his career and life.

Hubble Eventually Did Not Believe in Big Bang: Associated Press

Plenty of things to explain, as always. Do you remember being surprised to see a giant hexagon on one of the poles of Saturn when it came into sunlight (especially from recent images so much clearer)? It was just shocking at first, for that first minute when you first see it. Then the attempts to explain start. And that's merely ordinary classical physics going on there, we'd expect. It's full of surprises.

Here, this page may help you have a more detailed and accurate picture of the state of cosmology vis-a-vis 'big bang' and some leading alternatives, with writers that are very good at reviewing the big picture succinctly:
Quanta Magazine with tag big bang

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The part of the big bang theory that cracks me up is the fact that the astrophysicists are stuck. They've just put their hands in the air and said "we don't know". So they propose that there is some kind of machine that keeps pumping out universes but only 1 in every trillion of them can sustain life. Its basically just Darwinism applied to Cosmology

It didn't quite happen like that. Inflation was proposed to explain how the big bang came about and why the resulting expansion is so remarkably uniform. Subsequent development of the idea showed that it also solved the 'Horizon problem' (why properties like background temperature are so similar across the universe), and it also was found to solve the 'Flatness problem' (why the curvature of spacetime is far flatter than would otherwise be expected). Given inflation's explanatory power of directly accounting for four otherwise puzzling cosmological features, it's understandable why it's become a popular hypothesis.

Further investigation of the physics behind the idea revealed that inflationary expansion wouldn't occur just once in the originating metastable vacuum, but would occur multiple times - the analogy of bubbles of gas coming out of solution in an opened bottle of champagne is evocative. This is the inflationary multiverse, and it's the prediction of an inflationary hypothesis originally devised to explain how a single universe developed - ours.

 

[Michael]

It didn't quite happen like that. Inflation was proposed to explain how the big bang came about and why the resulting expansion is so remarkably uniform. Subsequent development of the idea showed that it also solved the 'Horizon problem' (why properties like background temperature are so similar across the universe), and it also was found to solve the 'Flatness problem' (why the curvature of spacetime is far flatter than would otherwise be expected). Given inflation's explanatory power of directly accounting for four otherwise puzzling cosmological features, it's understandable why it's become a popular hypothesis.

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia

A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflaton field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data obtainable. Paul Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics. He calls 'bad inflation' a period of accelerated expansion whose outcome conflicts with observations, and 'good inflation' one compatible with them: "Not only is bad inflation more likely than good inflation, but no inflation is more likely than either [...] Roger Penrose considered all the possible configurations of the inflaton and gravitational fields. Some of these configurations lead to inflation [...] Other configurations lead to a uniform, flat universe directly – without inflation. Obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penrose's shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation – by a factor of 10 to the googol (10 to the 100) power!"[5][117]

Not only didn't inflation 'solve' the flatness problem, it turns out it's 10 to the 100th power *less* likely to occur with inflation than without it, and even one of it's "founding fathers" have criticized the idea.

 

[SelfSim]

Redshift is observed, but the actual *cause(s)* of redshift cannot be demonstrated simply by observation.

Since when has any 'cause' ever been demonstrated 'simply by observation'?

I can demonstrate that Doppler shift is a real cause of photon redshift, and I can demonstrate that plasma redshift is a real cause of photon redshift. That's a fact. It's not my fault that space expansion is a blatant case of special pleading that is devoid of cause/effect justification from lab experiments. Its the fault of it's proponents.

What nonsense! Cause is only ever inferred from some objective observation .. and separately from that, you've never come up with a consistent set of 'lab experiments' to substantiate your beliefs about it all .. In fact, the ones you've posted before are in direct conflict with eachother.