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

[sjastro]

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.

To the rest of us who read the article for what it is instead reading our own bias into it, the "catastrophic" failures are due to the low S/N ratio of the X-ray spectra and systematic errors associated with the Fe blind search due to varying Fe abundance, ICM temperature gradients and instrumental characteristics.

 

[Michael]

To the rest of us who read the article for what it is instead reading our own bias into it, the "catastrophic" failures are due to the low S/N ratio of the X-ray spectra and systematic errors associated with the Fe blind search due to varying Fe abundance, ICM temperature gradients and instrumental characteristics.

In other words, scattering and absorption in spacetime......

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

Strictly speaking, energy conservation is a local phenomenon, depending on time-translation symmetry, which isn't preserved at the largest cosmological scales or in exotic regimes such as the big bang. Nevertheless, there are energy conserving models that involve the balance of matter & energy with the gravitational distortion of spacetime they produce, giving a net-zero energy balance - this is one basis for a 'universe from nothing'.

Just sayin'.

 

[Michael]

Strictly speaking, energy conservation is a local phenomenon, depending on time-translation symmetry, which isn't preserved at the largest cosmological scales or in exotic regimes such as the big bang.

It should be noted however that "tired light" explanations for photon redshift are completely compatible with energy conservation laws, and compatible with laboratory physics experiments, not to mention completely compatible with the standard particle physics model.

Any momentum that is lost by photons is simply transferred into the plasma medium through which the photons are traveling in tired light explanations of photon redshift. No energy is ever lost or gained, it is simply transferred from one form to another or one particle to another.

Energy Is Not Conserved

When the space through which particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not conserved.

Even before we look at "dark energy", the LCDM model is problematic in terms of violating conservation of energy laws, and dark energy supposedly retains a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume, *grossly* violating conservation of energy laws and constantly adding more energy into the system. Worse yet, the LCDM model "assumes" that the standard model of particle physics is wrong, or at least incomplete, in spite of zero laboratory evidence to support such a conclusion.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Energy Is Not Conserved

Even before we look at "dark energy", the LCDM model is problematic in terms of violating conservation of energy laws, and dark energy supposedly retains a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume, *grossly* violating conservation of energy laws and constantly adding more energy into the system. Worse yet, the LCDM model "assumes" that the standard model of particle physics is wrong, or at least incomplete, in spite of zero laboratory evidence to support such a conclusion.

Not sure what point you're making with Carroll's blog post about General Relativity, but your paragraph following shows you either didn't read it or didn't comprehend it.

As for the Standard Model being considered incomplete, the people at CERN can explain: ...So although the Standard Model accurately describes the phenomena within its domain, it is still incomplete.

 

[Michael]

Not sure what point you're making with Carroll's blog post about General Relativity, but your paragraph following shows you either didn't read it or didn't comprehend it.

As for the Standard Model being considered incomplete, the people at CERN can explain: ...So although the Standard Model accurately describes the phenomena within its domain, it is still incomplete.

I wasn't actually making any particular point about general relativity theory per se since the problem isn't really GR theory itself, but rather the LCDM cosmology model, specifically the concepts of "space expansion" (optional/not required to occur in GR) and dark energy (also optional in GR).

The energy conservation problems of the LCDM cosmology model make it undesirable IMO, and there are alternative explanations for redshift that do not require one to toss out the laws of physics on a whim. A static universe, tired light GR oriented cosmology model violates no conservation of energy laws since there is no need for either space expansion, or dark energy.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The energy conservation problems of the LCDM cosmology model make it undesirable IMO, and there are alternative explanations for redshift that do not require one to toss out the laws of physics on a whim. A static universe, tired light GR oriented cosmology model violates no conservation of energy laws since there is no need for either space expansion, or dark energy.

The blog post you linked explains why there's no energy conservation problem with LCDM and the conservation of energy laws aren't violated because they aren't relevant in that regime. We've been over this already - remember time-translation invariance symmetry and Noether's theorem?

 

[Michael]

The blog post you linked explains why there's no energy conservation problem with LCDM and the conservation of energy laws aren't violated because they aren't relevant in that regime. We've been over this already - remember time-translation invariance symmetry and Noether's theorem?

I'm afraid that we're never likely to agree that the conservation laws are not being violated, or that it's not relevant to GR theory and/or cosmology. GR theory doesn't *require* either space expansion, or dark energy, so only LCDM cosmology model proponents have to claim that energy conservation "doesn't matter/doesn't apply" to their model. It sounds like pure special pleading from my perspective. I find that to be simply too far fetched and too "convenient".

I'd go as far as to accept the notion that LCDM by definition puts itself outside of the concept of energy conservation, but that's an extremely *negative* feature, not a positive one from my perspective.

It would be akin to a theist telling you that his her definition of God is outside of the laws of physics and the scope of the laws of physics, and that's why your otherwise valid scientific argument doesn't apply to that particular definition of God. It wouldn't likely come across as a positive assertion from your perspective, or cause you to accept that definition as a valid argument.

Insisting that the laws of physics don't apply to the LCDM cosmology model simply sounds like a bad case of special pleading from my skeptical vantage point.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

GR theory doesn't *require* either space expansion...

In GR a static universe is metastable, i.e. it predicts either an expanding or a contracting spacetime. What we see is consistent with the former.

Insisting that the laws of physics don't apply to the LCDM cosmology model simply sounds like a bad case of special pleading from my skeptical vantage point.

I'm sorry you can't or won't accept the physics of General Relativity. Newtonian physics is only workable as a classical limit of GR, i.e. flat spacetime.

 

[Michael]

In GR a static universe is metastable, i.e. it predicts either an expanding or a contracting spacetime. What we see is consistent with the former.

It would be more correct to say that in GR, *if gravity is the only force at work*, then it predicts either an expanding or contracting universe, but alternative cosmology models rarely suggest that only gravity acts on objects in space.

Furthermore, "spacetime" contraction/expansion is possible without "space expansion" if objects themselves move (expand or contract) so even the the concept of "space expansion/contraction" isn't a requirement in a gravity only scenario.

I'm sorry you can't or won't accept the physics of General Relativity.

I accept GR theory, and prefer it to explain gravity, without the metaphysical add-ons like space expansion, or exotic forms of matter/energy. It's only when optional elements are evoked that I tend to balk.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It would be more correct to say that in GR, *if gravity is the only force at work*, then it predicts either an expanding or contracting universe, but alternative cosmology models rarely suggest that only gravity acts on objects in space.

Furthermore, "spacetime" contraction/expansion is possible without "space expansion" if objects themselves move (expand or contract) so even the the concept of "space expansion/contraction" isn't a requirement in a gravity only scenario.

In GR it's spacetime that expands or contracts. Matter only influences the curvature of spacetime.

I accept GR theory, and prefer it to explain gravity, without the metaphysical add-ons like space expansion, or exotic forms of matter/energy. It's only when optional elements are evoked that I tend to balk.

Unfortunately, you can't cherry-pick which bits of GR you accept. The physics of GR has certain implications and you either accept them or come up with a different theory.

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF. -- That includes accusing members of lying -- not acceptable.
Do not make posts that speak of any Staff action either with you or another member (including any bans, warnings, or editing or removal of posts)
Do not complain about another members posts or threads.
MOD HAT OFF

 

[Michael]

In GR it's spacetime that expands or contracts. Matter only influences the curvature of spacetime.

Well, objects can certainly move around in GR, and various objects can expand or contract in relationship to each other. I have no problem with the type of "spacetime" expansion or contraction. It's only the concept of 'space' expansion that I'm skeptical of. I understand it's mathematically acceptable, I simply lack belief that it actually happens in nature. It's not a process that can even be verified or falsified in direct experimentation.

Unfortunately, you can't cherry-pick which bits of GR you accept.

Oh, but I can and I do. I don't have an problem with other aspects of GR theory. I think that much of it has already been verified in fact.

The physics of GR has certain implications and you either accept them or come up with a different theory.

Meh. Even Einstein originally rejected Lemaitre's space expansion ideas, saying "Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable". I still think the physics aspect of space expansion is abominable. That is where the whole energy conservation conflict comes from.

I don't have any problem with Einstein's static universe models based on GR because I have no doubt that other influence *besides* gravity are also involved in the movements of plasma in the universe.

 

[sjastro]

I'm afraid that we're never likely to agree that the conservation laws are not being violated, or that it's not relevant to GR theory and/or cosmology. GR theory doesn't *require* either space expansion, or dark energy, so only LCDM cosmology model proponents have to claim that energy conservation "doesn't matter/doesn't apply" to their model. It sounds like pure special pleading from my perspective. I find that to be simply too far fetched and too "convenient".

Incorrect.
LCDM is not the only cosmological model where energy conservation doesn’t apply.
Energy conservation doesn’t apply to the following cosmological models either.

(1) Steady State (Bondi- Gold)
(2) Steady State (Hoyle)
(3) Steady State (Narlikar)
(4) Eddington Universe
(5) De Sitter Universe
(6) Anti De Sitter Universe
(7) Cyclic Model (M-Theory)
(8) Brans-Dicke theory

All these models are expanding where the metric tensor components are time dependant resulting in the energy conservation law being non applicable.

GR theory doesn't *require* either space expansion………….

Incorrect.
Gravitational waves come directly from the field equations as a perturbation of the Lorentz metric for flat spacetime.
In this case spacetime undergoes expansion/contraction in a quadrupole symmetry.

I don't have any problem with Einstein's static universe models based on GR because I have no doubt that other influence *besides* gravity are also involved in the movements of plasma in the universe.

Indeed it does such as a cosmological constant or a form of dark energy to prevent matter from collapsing under gravity; the very thing you reject as a metaphysical “add on”.

Worse yet, the LCDM model "assumes" that the standard model of particle physics is wrong......

Totally incorrect.
As mentioned in another post the history of the LCDM from the hot Big Bang to nucleosynthesis is the standard model of particle physics which is incomplete.
Neutrinos, dark matter and dark energy goes beyond the standard model.

 

[sjastro]

DP.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, objects can certainly move around in GR, and various objects can expand or contract in relationship to each other. I have no problem with the type of "spacetime" expansion or contraction. It's only the concept of 'space' expansion that I'm skeptical of.

Strictly, it's the metric of the geometry of spacetime that is changing scale.

I understand it's mathematically acceptable, I simply lack belief that it actually happens in nature.

There we have it - for some, belief trumps science; it's the same mistake you describe Einstein making below.

.. Even Einstein originally rejected Lemaitre's space expansion ideas, saying "Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable". I still think the physics aspect of space expansion is abominable. That is where the whole energy conservation conflict comes from.

Memorably, Einstein later had the sense to realise he was mistaken to trust his instincts in that, and the grace to admit it.

 

[46AND2]

Michael, correct me if I'm wrong, but have you changed from an EU supporter to another form of plasma cosmology?

 

[Michael]

Michael, correct me if I'm wrong, but have you changed from an EU supporter to another form of plasma cosmology?

No. I personally don't make a distinction between "Electric Universe" theory and "Plasma Cosmology" theory and I use the terms interchangeably. Other people however do make such a distinction for various reasons. There are in fact quite a few very different models that all fall under the same umbrella of the term that I use, so I can appreciate the fact that some people would prefer to separate them and categorize them in some way.

AFAIK, the only 'cosmology' models that can be considered EU or PC *cosmology* models are Alfven's and/or Peratt's cosmology model, or Lerner's static model. I tend to support Lerner's static model. Most of the significant variation in EU/PC ideas tends to relate to solar physics, their electrical polarity, and the question as to whether suns act as net generators or net resistors in the circuits of spacetime. I therefore don't even try to separate electric universe from plasma cosmology, whereas some individuals like Anthony Peratt do indeed make such a distinction to show their disdain for Jeurgen's solar model for instance, or Velkovski's solar system concepts. Admittedly there are a few pretty "out there" concepts that all fall under the electric universe umbrella.

Personally however I don't feel the need to try to distinguish between all the different ideas and create arbitrary separation between them. I just acknowledge that I don't buy into all the possible variations, but I do believe that the universe is basically electrical in nature.

 

[Michael]

Strictly, it's the metric of the geometry of spacetime that is changing scale.

I understand the concept of metric expansion, I just don't buy it. There are however some expansion ideas that I might accept:

Is space really expanding? A counterexample

There we have it - for some, belief trumps science; it's the same mistake you describe Einstein making below.

Memorably, Einstein later had the sense to realise he was mistaken to trust his instincts in that, and the grace to admit it.

I've had the grace to publicly admit that I could no longer support the LCDM model, and no longer support the mainstream solar model too.

I simply think Einstein's original instincts were correct in this particular case, and he unfortunately bowed to peer pressure. We're all human, and all prone to mistakes. Einstein called his introduction of a non-zero constant into GR his "greatest blunder", yet now a non-zero constant is used in the LCDM model. He seemed to reject the notion of "singularities" (zero radius objects) too. We all make mistakes, myself included, and Einstein included.

 

[Michael]

Incorrect.
LCDM is not the only cosmological model where energy conservation doesn’t apply.

Point noted. My use of the term "only" was erroneous. I'm sure that there are a number of variations on the same theme in different configurations.

Incorrect.
Gravitational waves come directly from the field equations as a perturbation of the Lorentz metric for flat spacetime.
In this case spacetime undergoes expansion/contraction in a quadrupole symmetry.

Meh. I'll wait and see how the various TOEs (theories of everything) pan out before I decide what a "gravitational wave" might actually be.

Indeed it does such as a cosmological constant or a form of dark energy to prevent matter from collapsing under gravity; the very thing you reject as a metaphysical “add on”.

Einstein's non-zero cosmological constant could have been something very common, like EM fields. He wasn't claiming it caused "space expansion", or "space acceleration" to occur as a result of the introduction of that constant.

Totally incorrect.
As mentioned in another post the history of the LCDM from the hot Big Bang to nucleosynthesis is the standard model of particle physics...

Er, no. I disagree. That's a cosmology model. The big bang is one *possible* cosmology model that happens to *use* the standard (and non standard) model(s) of particle physics to try to "explain" nucleosynthesis. One might simply start with an infinite and eternal universe and never need to even bother to explain a bang or nucleosynthesis using particle physics. You're confusing astronomy and cosmology models with particle physics.

....which is incomplete.
Neutrinos,.....

Neutrinos are found in the standard particle physics model. There are questions that remain about them, but they are part of the standard model.

dark matter and dark energy goes beyond the standard model.

Those are *cosmology* requirements however which don't necessarily apply to other cosmology models and therefore the standard particle physics model works fine to explain other cosmology models. There are of course *non standard* particle physics models too, like SUSY theory, but they're *non* standard models for a reason, without the same level of support (specifically lab support) and they are therefore less 'popular'.