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

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I simply think Einstein's original instincts were correct in this particular case, and he unfortunately bowed to peer pressure.

It was the other way around - it was the peer pressure of the static model they were all become accustomed to that caused him to reject the physics of his own GR. When he had a chance to think it through, he realised a static GR universe was metastable and LeMaitre was right.

 

[Michael]

It was the other way around - it was the peer pressure of the static model they were all become accustomed to that caused him to reject the physics of his own GR. When he had a chance to think it through, he realised a static GR universe was metastable and LeMaitre was right.

Do you have a link for that? I don't really (know) the the sequence of events that led him to change his mind, but suffice to say that I personally still think that the physics of space expansion is abominable. Space isn't physically defined, so how could "nothing" possibly "expand". It sounds like magic rather than physics.

FYI, this is a very open minded paper describing the various debates surrounding cosmological redshift:

https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0806/0806.4085v1.pdf

From the paper:

Galileo Galilei once said: “in questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual”

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you have a link for that?

Not offhand; Einstein originally introduce the cosmological constant to ensure a conventionally static universe (his 'greatest blunder'), so he was aware that GR implied a dynamic universe, and when Hubble discovered it was expanding, Einstein realised that Le Maitre's solution was right - although he thought the idea of a 'primeval atom' was rather too theological for his taste. In fact, in the early 1920s, the Russian physicist Friedmann had already solved Einstein's equations for the general case (a uniformly matter-filled universe) and found that it was dynamic, but at that time no-one, including Einstein, took his paper seriously.

... suffice to say that I personally still think that the physics of space expansion is abominable. Space isn't physically defined, so how could "nothing" possibly "expand". It sounds like magic rather than physics.

In GR spacetime is physically defined, and is certainly not 'nothing', regardless of your naive intuition.

If you find that magical, what do you think of quantum superposition and entanglement?

 

[Michael]

Not offhand; Einstein originally introduce the cosmological constant to ensure a conventionally static universe (his 'greatest blunder'), so he was aware that GR implied a dynamic universe,....

Hmmm, well, yes and no. He seem to realize that GR tended to predict (be stable in) a contracting or expanding scenario, but his introduction of a non-zero constant didn't actually cause "space" to expand. It simply kept it from imploding. It could have been something simple, like EM field influences.

....and when Hubble discovered it was expanding, Einstein realised that Le Maitre's solution was right - although he thought the idea of a 'primeval atom' was rather too theological for his taste. In fact, in the early 1920s, the Russian physicist Friedmann had already solved Einstein's equations for the general case (a uniformly matter-filled universe) and found that it was dynamic, but at that time no-one, including Einstein, took his paper seriously.

Even when he rejected the idea, he seemed to accept that the math worked out on paper, but he didn't seem to be enamored by it's physical implications at first. I'm still not.

In GR spacetime is physically defined, and is certainly not 'nothing', regardless of your naive intuition.

I would agree that "spacetime" is physically defined in GR, but not "space" per se. The term space is physically indistinguishable from distance in the way it's being used. What is "space" and how does it physically expand? It's being treated almost like a material aether in LCDM.

If you find that magical, what do you think of quantum superposition and entanglement?

Well, they're testable in controlled experimentation, so I don't tend to have a problem with those concepts. On the other hand, I've never seen "space expansion" demonstrated in a controlled experiment.

 

[DennisTate]

I would be impressed if a near death experiencer who was an Atheist / Agnostic before his NDE were to come back and report being shown something like the Cyclic Model of the Universe /Multiverse?!

Mellen-Thomas Benedict's Near-Death Experience

I was in pre creation, before the Big Bang. I had crossed over the beginning of time / the First Word / the First vibration. I was in the Eye of Creation. I felt as if I was touching the Face of God. It was not a religious feeling. Simply, I was at one with Absolute Life and Consciousness. When I say that I could see or perceive forever, I mean that I could experience all of creation generating itself. It was without beginning and without end. That’s a mind-expanding thought, isn’t it? Scientists perceive the Big Bang as a single event that created the Universe. I saw during my life after death experience that the Big Bang is only one of an infinite number of Big Bangs creating Universes endlessly and simultaneously. The only images that even come close in human terms would be those created by super computers using fractal geometry equations.

The ancients knew of this. They said God had periodically created new Universes by breathing out, and recreated other Universes by breathing in. These epochs were called Yugas. Modern science called this the Big Bang. I was in absolute, pure consciousness. I could see or perceive all the Big Bangs or Yugas creating and recreating themselves. Instantly I entered into them all simultaneously. I saw that each and every little piece of creation has the power to create. It is very difficult to try to explain this. I am still speechless about this.

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?

 

[sjastro]

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.

If you accept this which is based on a relativistic Doppler shift then you are admitting your pet theory is wrong.
You can't have it both ways.

 

[sjastro]

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.

You have missed out on the irony.
Einstein made up a cosmological constant to rescue a static universe theory.
Why are Einstein’s actions acceptable but not than the introduction of dark matter and dark energy in LCDM?

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.

No it’s particle physics incorporated into BBT.
BBT is an evolutionary theory of the universe and since the early universe was composed of sub atomic particles, particle physics plays a very significant role.
The important issue that connects particle physics to BBT is the reaction rate of any particle physics process Γ must be greater than the Hubble expansion rate H.

Γ/H > 1

For example the half life of a free neutron is 10 minutes.
If the Hubble expansion rate is higher the cosmological time is greater in which case the bulk of neutrons have already decayed before the formation of deuteron (deuterium nuclei) with protons.
Then there is the time temperature dependence which is intimately tied in with Hubble expansion rate.
In the radiation era of the BB the temperature scales as T².
Depending on how the particle physics process temperature scales determines the temperature range when the process can occur in the universe.
For example the particle physics electroweak interaction scales as T⁵.

Since Γ/H > 1
T⁵/T² = T³
Hence Γ > T³H is the condition for which the electroweak interaction can occur in the universe.

Your example highlights the problems behind a static universe.
Since a static universe is infinitely old it cannot explain the existence of long lived radioisotopes such as ²³²Th, ²³⁵U, ²³⁸U or even the proton which has a theoretical finite half life.
A static universe is also a thermodynamically isolated system where entropy cannot decrease.
It should have reached thermal equilibrium at maximum entropy and therefore be composed of nothing more than photons and perhaps black holes.

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

Yes one can classify neutrinos in the SM, but it is neutrinos that show the SM is incomplete as neutrino oscillation cannot be explained by the SM.

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'.

As shown previously the static universe does not work with particle physics.
It cannot explain the current make up of the Universe.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hmmm, well, yes and no. He seem to realize that GR tended to predict (be stable in) a contracting or expanding scenario, but his introduction of a non-zero constant didn't actually cause "space" to expand. It simply kept it from imploding. It could have been something simple, like EM field influences.

Coming from anyone else I'd suspect this was trolling.

I would agree that "spacetime" is physically defined in GR, but not "space" per se. The term space is physically indistinguishable from distance in the way it's being used. What is "space" and how does it physically expand? It's being treated almost like a material aether in LCDM.

Coming from anyone else I'd suspect this was trolling.

Meh, it's a waste of time.

 

[Michael]

I would be impressed if a near death experiencer who was an Atheist / Agnostic before his NDE were to come back and report being shown something like the Cyclic Model of the Universe /Multiverse?!

Mellen-Thomas Benedict's Near-Death Experience

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Michael]

If you accept this which is based on a relativistic Doppler shift then you are admitting your pet theory is wrong.
You can't have it both ways.

Actually, I'm not adverse to an expansion model based on time dilation, but I do prefer a static universe model and a tired light explanation for redshift. What I reject is "space expansion", not expansion models in general.

 

[Michael]

You have missed out on the irony.
Einstein made up a cosmological constant to rescue a static universe theory.
Why are Einstein’s actions acceptable but not than the introduction of dark matter and dark energy in LCDM?

His constant was acceptable because it didn't result in "space expansion", nor did it necessarily need to be anything new. It could have been ordinary EM fields. He didn't try to claim that he "discovered" a new form of energy.

No it’s particle physics incorporated into BBT.

It's still a cosmology theory related issue. In a static universe scenario it's irrelevant.

BBT is an evolutionary theory of the universe and since the early universe was composed of sub atomic particles, particle physics plays a very significant role.

Sure, but in a static universe theory it doesn't apply. Again, you're basing this whole argument on a *cosmology* model that may not even be accurate.

Your example highlights the problems behind a static universe.
Since a static universe is infinitely old it cannot explain the existence of long lived radioisotopes such as ²³²Th, ²³⁵U, ²³⁸U or even the proton which has a theoretical finite half life.

A static universe is also a thermodynamically isolated system where entropy cannot decrease.

It should have reached thermal equilibrium at maximum entropy and therefore be composed of nothing more than photons and perhaps black holes.

Actually an infinitely old, and infinitely large universe can explain it. It simply has to recycle energy over time and things have to explode from time to time.

The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars: Fusion, Gravitational...

Yes one can classify neutrinos in the SM, but it is neutrinos that show the SM is incomplete as neutrino oscillation cannot be explained by the SM.

That's a really minor problem/limitation at worst case. It's nothing compared to the major problems of non standard particle physics models like SUSY theory.

As shown previously the static universe does not work with particle physics.
It cannot explain the current make up of the Universe.

Sure it can. Even the overall makeup of plasma in space simply mirrors the solar wind. The three most abundant elements in solar wind are hydrogen, helium +2, and helium +1 in that specific order because they have the highest charge to mass ratio and they most easily escape the gravity well of the sun (and all suns).

 

[sjastro]

Actually, I'm not adverse to an expansion model based on time dilation, but I do prefer a static universe model and a tired light explanation for redshift. What I reject is "space expansion", not expansion models in general.

You still can't have it both ways.

 

[sjastro]

His constant was acceptable because it didn't result in "space expansion", nor did it necessarily need to be anything new. It could have been ordinary EM fields. He didn't try to claim that he "discovered" a new form of energy.

This doesn't even rank well as a spin story.
So it's perfectly OK to invent a cosmological constant provided it has absolutely no association with space expansion.

It's still a cosmology theory related issue. In a static universe scenario it's irrelevant.

Irrelevant comment.

Sure, but in a static universe theory it doesn't apply. Again, you're basing this whole argument on a *cosmology* model that may not even be accurate.

What!
In your previous post particle physics was considered important to a static universe, now it doesn't apply.
Make up your mind.

Actually an infinitely old, and infinitely large universe can explain it. It simply has to recycle energy over time and things have to explode from time to time.

The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars: Fusion, Gravitational...

Irrelevant; citing a ridiculously wrong paper does not explain the existence of ²³²Th, ²³⁵U, ²³⁸U in a static universe.

That's a really minor problem/limitation at worst case. It's nothing compared to the major problems of non standard particle physics models like SUSY theory.

Irrelevant comment.

Sure it can. Even the overall makeup of plasma in space simply mirrors the solar wind. The three most abundant elements in solar wind are hydrogen, helium +2, and helium +1 in that specific order because they have the highest charge to mass ratio and they most easily escape the gravity well of the sun (and all suns).

Irrelevant comment.

 

[Michael]

This doesn't even rank well as a spin story.
So it's perfectly OK to invent a cosmological constant provided it has absolutely no association with space expansion.

Sure. If it doesn't involve making a claim that defies any potential for laboratory support, I don't have a problem with it.

What!
In your previous post particle physics was considered important to a static universe, now it doesn't apply.
Make up your mind.

It's important in areas like atomic emissions and things like that, but not nucleosynthesis and such.

Irrelevant; citing a ridiculously wrong paper does not explain the existence of ²³²Th, ²³⁵U, ²³⁸U in a static universe.

Things explode in space and heavy elements are the byproduct. No big deal.

 

[sjastro]

Sure. If it doesn't involve making a claim that defies any potential for laboratory support, I don't have a problem with it.

There is no potential laboratory support for Einstein's cosmological constant because as FB pointed out it is WRONG.
The cosmological constant does not lead to a stable static universe which I will go into detail in the my next post.

It's important in areas like atomic emissions and things like that, but not nucleosynthesis and such.

Using the terminology "and things like that" is a sure sign you do not have a handle on the subject matter.

Things explode in space and heavy elements are the byproduct. No big deal.

Even if you ignore the fact the proton which is the building block for your explosions has a finite life and disappears in an eternal static universe, the mass energy available for each successive explosion is reduced through the photons and neutrinos produced and the subsequent build up of degenerate matter.
A static universe will end up as a cold dark place.

 

[sjastro]

As a continuation from my last post, Einstein’s field equations
Rₐₑ - (1/2)Rgₐₑ =8ΠGTₐₑ/c⁴ for an expanding universe reduce to Friedmann’s equations.

(1) [(da/dt)² +kc²]/a² = 8ΠGρ/3
(2) (2d²a/dt²)/a + [(da/dt)² +kc²]/a² = -8ΠGp/c²

a is the scale factor, k is the curvature which could be -1, 0, 1, ρ and p are the density and pressure respectively.

Einstein couldn’t believe these equations but thought he could work around them to produce a flat static universe.
In a static universe the scale factor a=1, hence da/dt =0 and d²a/dt² = 0.
Equations (1) and (2) reduce to.

kc² = 8ΠGρ/3 = -8ΠGp/c²

In order for density ρ to be positive k=1.
However k=1 results in the pressure p being negative which would cause a static universe to collapse on itself.

To get around this Einstein added a cosmological constant λgₐₑ to the field equations resulting in the equations;

(a) [(da/dt)² +kc²]/a² - λ/3 = 8ΠGρ/3
(b) (2d²a/dt²)/a + [(da/dt)² +kc²]/a² - λ = -8ΠGp/c²

Note when λ = 0 (a) and (b) reduce to Friedmann’s equations.
In the static universe the pressure p is very small and can be approximated as p ≈ 0.

Combining (a) and (b) gives;

d²a/dt² = (a/3)(λ - 4ΠGρ)

It was Eddington in 1930 who noticed a flaw in this equation soon after Hubble’s discovery in 1929.
d²a/dt² is an acceleration of the scale factor a, and d²a/dt² = 0 is a condition for a static universe if λ = 4ΠGρ.
The smallest imbalance between λ and ρ would make d²a/dt² ≠ 0 causing the static universe to accelerate on expansion or decelerate on contraction.
Einstein realised his mistake and declared this to be “the greatest blunder of my lifetime”.

 

[Michael]

There is no potential laboratory support for Einstein's cosmological constant because as FB pointed out it is WRONG.
The cosmological constant does not lead to a stable static universe which I will go into detail in the my next post.

Except GR theory *all by itself* simply *assumes* that gravity alone is the *only* relevant influencing process on the movement patterns of a plasma universe which of course it's not. EM fields also have a *major* influence on plasma. The basic "flaw" in the LCDM model is assuming that all major movement in the universe boils down to gravity alone.

Note too that after Einstein called the introduction of a non zero constant his greatest blunder, he simply set the constant back to zero and left it there throughout his lifetime. Dark energy proponents resurrected a form of blunder theory.

The whole problem with astronomy today, and the reason it's stuck in the literal "dark" ages, is that it ignores the important role of electricity in space. More specifically/correctly it downplays the electrical aspects to the point of absurdity. That is exactly why astronomers *still* cannot reproduce a working, stable, hot corona or a planetary aurora in a lab, a full *century* after Birkeland demonstrated in the lab that they are caused by an electric field between the sun and 'space'. The later discovery that cosmic rays are overwhelmingly positively charged supports his model and his explanation. In fact it's a highly successful prediction of his model.

That's the whole problem with LCDM theory in a nutshell. It *assumes* that it's reasonable to try to explain the behaviors of a plasma universe with gravity, and a tiny bit of *magnetism*, while ignoring the important electrical aspects entirely.

 

[sjastro]

Except GR theory *all by itself* simply *assumes* that gravity alone is the *only* relevant influencing process on the movement patterns of a plasma universe which of course it's not. EM fields also have a *major* influence on plasma. The basic "flaw" in the LCDM model is assuming that all major movement in the universe boils down to gravity alone.

Grossly incorrect.
The stress energy tensor T ͣ ͤ in Einstein’s field equations is the effect of external forces which can include electromagnetism via the electromagnetic stress energy tensor;
The overall equation is;
T ͣ ͤ = [(ρ + p/c²)(dx ͧ/ds)(dx ͥ/ds) - g ͣ ͤ p/c²] + ε₀(F ͣ ͤ Fₑͨ + (1/4)g ͧ ͨ F ͣ ͤ Fₐₑ)
The first term is the contribution from gravity the second term from electromagnetism.

Note too that after Einstein called the introduction of a non zero constant his greatest blunder, he simply set the constant back to zero and left it there throughout his lifetime. Dark energy proponents resurrected a form of blunder theory.

Stop making things up as a substitute for your lack of comprehension of the mathematical details of my previous post.
Einstein did not set λ = 0, he discarded the cosmological constant entirely along with the idea the universe was static.
If he did set λ = 0, then the equation;
d²a/dt² = (a/3)(λ - 4ΠGρ) becomes;
d²a/dt² = -(a/3)( 4ΠGρ) < 0.

The condition d²a/dt² < 0 drives the universe into contraction.

The whole problem with astronomy today, and the reason it's stuck in the literal "dark" ages, is that it ignores the important role of electricity in space. More specifically/correctly it downplays the electrical aspects to the point of absurdity. That is exactly why astronomers *still* cannot reproduce a working, stable, hot corona or a planetary aurora in a lab, a full *century* after Birkeland demonstrated in the lab that they are caused by an electric field between the sun and 'space'. The later discovery that cosmic rays are overwhelmingly positively charged supports his model and his explanation. In fact it's a highly successful prediction of his model.

That's the whole problem with LCDM theory in a nutshell. It *assumes* that it's reasonable to try to explain the behaviors of a plasma universe with gravity, and a tiny bit of *magnetism*, while ignoring the important electrical aspects entirely.

Not only irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the discussion of Einstein’s cosmological constant but also false propaganda.

 

[Skreeper]

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

It's above my paygrade to evaluate cosmological models.

When the experts and scientific consensus regarding the BBT changes and it turns out the model was incorrect, then I'm gonna change my view too.

 

[Michael]

It's above my paygrade to evaluate cosmological models.

When the experts and scientific consensus regarding the BBT changes and it turns out the model was incorrect, then I'm gonna change my view too.

Welcome to the conversation. Thanks for your answer.

I see that you label yourself an atheist. I'm wondering why you don't take the majority/expert/consensus opinion on the topic of God as well?