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

[Hans Blaster]

You've never shown that cosmological redshift is exactly the same over the whole spectrum to start with. Show us a study that produced completely consistent redshift on every wavelength from gamma rays all the way down to radio waves from high Z objects. Scattering and absorption in space precludes you from ever doing so.

It's only 3 orders of magnitude in energy/frequency/wavelength (either will do), from optical to X-ray, but I found this reference a while back and have been hanging onto it:

Measuring redshift through X-ray spectroscopy of galaxy clusters:...

Figure 4 shows the tight correlation between optical and x-ray redshifts.

Similar examples may exist for other wavebands.

 

[Hans Blaster]

---SE---

I wasn't aware of this story about forbidden nebular lines. Not only is it not a failure of quantum mechanics, it rather instead shows the triumph of QM after it had been developed to show that such a transition existed.

The Wikipedia article references the paper that made the identification of the "Nebulium" line as [O II] from 1927, which is exactly when QM was being applied to more complex systems. (That is more complex than hydrogen, etc.)

Prior to proper quantum theory (ie, the mid 1920s) it was known that the spectra of atoms had discrete lines and some of those lines had identifiable patterns (like the various series of Hydrogen, Balmer, Paschen, Lyman), but most did not. There were simple quantized theories (like the Bohr atom) with limited applicability. But not until a full, general theory was developed could it be applied more broadly to explain so much of atomic physics. Demonstrating again that a solid, explanatory framework can explain and predict things far beyond the evidence used to develop it.

The forbidden transitions (like the "Nebulium") occur far less frequently than ordinary or "allowed or permitted" transitions. They only show up as emission lines in nebular spectra when the upper state of the transition doesn't have any other ways to emit light (that is it is not the upper state of any allowed transition, otherwise that one would dominate deexcitation of that state) and alternative ways of deexciting the state are very rare, mostly that there aren't enough collisions with electrons or other atoms that cause the atom to transition to a different state (i.e., the density is very, very low)

 

[SkyWriting]

What about the big bang model do you find attractive....

 

[SkyWriting]

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

Any model that helps predict what future discoveries might hold is a good one.
I predict scripture is correct and that on earth is the only life in the Cosmos.
I predict that science is correct that on earth is the only life in the Cosmos.

 

[Michael]

Any model that helps predict what future discoveries might hold is a good one.

I agree as long as it's accurate. The problem IMO is that the expansion model hasn't really been particularly accurate. For instance, the original BB model predicted that the universe would slow down over time. When the SN1A data came in, that prediction failed. To "fix" the problem, the proponents had to modify the model by around 70 percent with the introduction of yet a new unheard of substance they called "dark energy". The maturity and size of distant galaxies and quasars is also far different than expansion model predictions. The predictive track record of the expansion interpretation of redshift isn't very good at all.

I predict scripture is correct and that on earth is the only life in the Cosmos.
I predict that science is correct that on earth is the only life in the Cosmos.

It's a pretty big universe out there. It would be hard to imagine that life only exists on Earth IMO.

FYI, science doesn't necessarily assume that life only exists on Earth, it's just that it's the only planet that science *knows* that life exists on so far.

 

[Michael]

I wasn't aware of this story about forbidden nebular lines. Not only is it not a failure of quantum mechanics, it rather instead shows the triumph of QM after it had been developed to show that such a transition existed.

The Wikipedia article references the paper that made the identification of the "Nebulium" line as [O II] from 1927, which is exactly when QM was being applied to more complex systems. (That is more complex than hydrogen, etc.)

Prior to proper quantum theory (ie, the mid 1920s) it was known that the spectra of atoms had discrete lines and some of those lines had identifiable patterns (like the various series of Hydrogen, Balmer, Paschen, Lyman), but most did not. There were simple quantized theories (like the Bohr atom) with limited applicability. But not until a full, general theory was developed could it be applied more broadly to explain so much of atomic physics. Demonstrating again that a solid, explanatory framework can explain and predict things far beyond the evidence used to develop it.

The forbidden transitions (like the "Nebulium") occur far less frequently than ordinary or "allowed or permitted" transitions. They only show up as emission lines in nebular spectra when the upper state of the transition doesn't have any other ways to emit light (that is it is not the upper state of any allowed transition, otherwise that one would dominate deexcitation of that state) and alternative ways of deexciting the state are very rare, mostly that there aren't enough collisions with electrons or other atoms that cause the atom to transition to a different state (i.e., the density is very, very low)

The key difference is that all the core tenets of QM have been tested in many laboratory experiments. We're not even entirely sure what the 'cause' of gravity might be (QM vs. GR), but gravity certainly shows up in experiments on Earth.

Compare and contrast that with "space expansion" or exotic forms of matter and energy. They're either incapable of showing up on Earth, or simply haven't, even after spending tens of billions of dollars trying to find them.

 

[Michael]

It's only 3 orders of magnitude in energy/frequency/wavelength (either will do), from optical to X-ray, but I found this reference a while back and have been hanging onto it:

Measuring redshift through X-ray spectroscopy of galaxy clusters:...

Figure 4 shows the tight correlation between optical and x-ray redshifts.

Similar examples may exist for other wavebands.

Chen's paper was limited to a very small segment of the spectrum, but it was able to show that there was a correlation between the number of free electrons in the plasma and the amount of redshift he observed.

To show a broader range of redshift, we'd have to spend more money and make more effort. Still, the basic concept has been demonstrated in the lab.

On the other hand, the concept of "space expansion" defies any sort of laboratory support, and there's no "experiment" that could show it has any effect on *any* part of the spectrum, let alone a broad range of the spectrum.

Plasma redshift is certainly much more "testable" in that sense.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

I was describing why it became popular, not its current status. The main point is that the inflationary multiverse is a prediction of that model.

 

[Michael]

 

[Michael]

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

It hasn't and that's the problem. The assertion that "space expansion did it" can't even be tested in a lab under controlled experimentation.

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.

No they are not in conflict. The LCDM model is in conflict with the ability to even make "objective" choices about the cause of redshift because it requires a "statement of faith" in the belief that A) space expands at all, anywhere, and B) that it's the only cause of cosmological photon redshift. It's an axiom of that particular model which defies empirical support in the lab, now and forever.

 

[Michael]

I was describing why it became popular, not its current status. The main point is that the inflationary multiverse is a prediction of that model.

Point noted. Be that as it may, it only demonstrates the bizarre and undefined nature of the whole model IMO. Essentially it allows for *anything and everything* to occur eventually, so it's predictive usefulness is zero.

 

[SkyWriting]

It hasn't and that's the problem. The assertion that "space expansion did it" can't even be tested in a lab under controlled experimentation.

I have always maintained that history cannot be repeated. But a theoretical model can fit the current data and a good one can be used to make predictions on future observations. The problem comes when anybody thinks that a confirmed observation proves anything, which couch-potato scientists often do.

 

[usexpat97]

Just about anything would cause me to rethink my position on the Big Bang Theory, since I don't have a position on it.

 

[Michael]

It's only 3 orders of magnitude in energy/frequency/wavelength (either will do), from optical to X-ray, but I found this reference a while back and have been hanging onto it:

Measuring redshift through X-ray spectroscopy of galaxy clusters:...

Figure 4 shows the tight correlation between optical and x-ray redshifts.

Similar examples may exist for other wavebands.

Thanks for that link by the way. I'll read through it as I get time this weekend.

 

[SelfSim]

What we have here is an argument for a well-tested consistent model (expanding universe, cosmological redshift) and a 'no model' model (plasma universe, made-up redshift) which is inconsistent with the objective evidence.

As far as the 'it can't be falsified in the lab' argument goes, I say; the only thing which comes close to being 'true' in science is never anything better than the latest, best-tested theory .. which of course is an expanding universe with accompanying cosmological redshift, which also comes with its own predictions, where if they're ever observed, would call for its modification (only). It'll never be 'thrown out', (as Michael hopes), because its already gathered an abundance of verifying objective evidence, which is well founded in Physics Laws.

 

[Fear2Believe]

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?

If energy and matter can neither be destroyed, nor created, then logically there could be no big bang. Since all the energy and matter in the universe can only transform into something else, there couldn't be a beginning or end.

Ever.

 

[SelfSim]

As far as the 'it can't be falsified in the lab' argument goes, I say; the only thing which comes close to being 'true' in science is never anything better than the latest, best-tested theory ..

Plasma redshift has been "tested" in the lab, whereas "space expansion" cannot *ever* be tested in a lab in controlled experiments so the space expansion model begins with a pure "statement of faith" in metaphysics.[/quote].. that doesn't logically follow.
I know .. just abandon the 'in the lab' bit ... there ya go .. your problem is solved!
(Its a miracle I tell you! )

 

[SelfSim]

If energy and matter can neither be destroyed, nor created, then logically there could be no big bang. Since all the energy and matter in the universe can only transform into something else, there couldn't be a beginning or end.

Ever.

Thank goodness its only a logical issue then ..
Its not so in science, however!

 

[Michael]

If energy and matter can neither be destroyed, nor created, then logically there could be no big bang. Since all the energy and matter in the universe can only transform into something else, there couldn't be a beginning or end.

Ever.

The current big bang postulates that all types of "known matter" (periodic table elements) and energy were created after the inflation phase. I have seen some papers recently suggest that "dark matter" may have been created during or before inflation, but I think that's simply an effort to try to "explain" all those mature galaxies and quasars at high redshift. The creation/beginning of our known physical universe could be created in a bang, at least in theory, but some it would have been a transformation of energy from one form (inflation) to another (momentum/atoms). Is that a beginning?

 

[Michael]

.. that doesn't logically follow.
I know .. just abandon the 'in the lab' bit ... there ya go .. your problem is solved!
(Its a miracle I tell you! )

Your suggestion amounts to "just accept it on faith", and my problem is solved. If I was entirely comfortable with their being no empirical difference between science and religion, that would probably work.

Then again, the same thing could be said for atheists and the topic of God.

 

[Michael]

It's only 3 orders of magnitude in energy/frequency/wavelength (either will do), from optical to X-ray, but I found this reference a while back and have been hanging onto it:

Measuring redshift through X-ray spectroscopy of galaxy clusters:...

Figure 4 shows the tight correlation between optical and x-ray redshifts.

Similar examples may exist for other wavebands.

Thanks again for the link. It's a very interesting paper. One part that got my attention was figure 4. Apparently about 17 percent of the clusters produce "catastrophic" failures, probably as a result of the variations in scattering/absorption processes in space. That's pretty much par for the course with any tired light model.

Admittedly there does appear to be a correlation between redshifts as measured in other wavelengths, and those measured in x-ray, but I'm not sure it's an "exact" match. They say it fits within the error bars of the methods, but that's not necessarily a precise match. I'm still working my way through the paper.