Nonexpanding Cosmology Attempts to Oust Big Bang Theory
A static universe better explains the properties of the cosmos than the Big Bang and avoids the nagging problems of dark matter and dark energy, according to a new cosmology.
kfc 09/09/2010
- 105 Comments
The idea that the universe began in an event called the Big Bang some 13 billion years ago has a special place in science and in our society. We like the idea of a beginning.
And the evidence is persuasive. Distant galaxies all appear to be moving away from us at great speed, which is exactly what you'd expect if they were created in a Big Bang type event many billions of years ago. Such an event might also have left an echo, exactly like the one we can see as the cosmic microwave background radiation.
The Big Bang seems so elegant an explanation that we're prepared to overlook the one or two anomalies that don't quite fit, like the fact that distant galaxies aren't travelling fast enough to have moved so far since the Big Bang, a problem that inflation was invented to explain. Then there are the problems of dark matter and dark energy, which still defy explanation.
So a legitimate question, albeit an uncomfortable one, is whether there is an alternative hypothesis that also explains the observations. We looked at one here and today, David Crawford at the University of Sydney in Australia gives us another. He says all this can be explained just as well by a static universe in which spacetime is curved. He says this explains most of the major characteristics of our universe without the need for dark matter or dark energy. Neither is there any need for inflation in a static universe.
Of course, he has to make one or two new assumptions but he argues these are no more difficult to swallow than things like inflation which we have to accept in the Big Bang model. His main idea, which he has championed for a couple of years now, is that the redshift associated with disant galaxies is caused by the interaction of photons with other low energy photons in curved space, an idea called the tired-light model.
For such an effect to operate, space would have to be filled with a high temperature plasma which would be easily identified by the light it emits. Crawford says the observed x-ray background radiation between 10 and 300 keV could easily be the signature of such a plasma. The cosmic microwave background, he says, can also be explained like this: it is by high energy electrons in this plasma that interact with photons passing through.
Redshift data is also used to infer the rotation rates of galaxies. These seem to be spinning so fast that they ought to fly apart--so astronomers have hypothesised that they must contain mountains of dark matter to provide the gravitational tug to hold them together. Crawfrod says this problem disappears is the redshift effect comes not from the movement of the galaxies but from the new plasma effect in curved space between here and there. A similar kind of reasoning does away with the need for dark energy too.
And Crawford says his model explains at least one thing that leaves conventional cosmologists scratching their heads: the strange deceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft at the edge of the Solar System. This, he says is caused by the interaction between the spacecraft, the cosmic plasma and interplanetary dust, which must be a little denser than current estimates.
Crawford has certainly give his ideas some careful thought and there are plenty of strands of evidence he calls upon; we've looked at only a few here. He says curvature redshift is testable in the lab although the paper is a little light on details.
It's certainly an unusual take and a sterling effort. And it's one of a growing number of new ideas that suggest the Big bang is an idea too far. For example we looked at an even stranger model just a few weeks weeks ago.
But abandoning the Big Bang is something most cosmologists will find difficult to do, which means Crawford is set to get some stick over his ideas. Exactly how they attack his model will be fascinating to watch.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1009.0953: Observational Evidence Favours A Static Universe
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
ncm
56 Comments
Hadrons
Assuming there really was a Big Bang, cosmologists have a big problem besides accounting for inflation, dark matter, and dark energy. If, as all agree, the overwhelming majority of the (hadronic) mass of the universe is ISM and IGM plasma, what keeps it from having any effect at all on anything?
This is Doyle's dog that didn't bark in the night.
Reply
AKT
453 Comments
Re: Hadrons
I do not know what you are talking about? Dark energy, ....?
1. E = sqrt((m0c^2)^2 +(cp)^2).
2. E = mc^2.
3. E^2/c^2 + p^2 is relativistic invariant.
Combining 1 and 3 together, we have that E is relativistic invariant. 2 asserts that E is relativistic variant.
This means that E = mc^2 is false as the theory of relativistic mechanics which deduced E = mc^2 is inconsistent.
It is not only cosmology, virtually all contemporary physics with the exception of Bohm's QM are false, invalid.
Let us make the real analysis inconsistent by adding a false assumption that 5=2. We have
(1) 5 = 2 [axiom]
(2) 3 = 0 [(1) - 2]
(3) 1 = 0 [(2)/3]
(4) x = 0 [(3)*x].
So in this theory, all numbers are equal to 0. This means there is only one number. If you do not notice this, you will think that you invented an amazingly powerful theory which proves things like Int(x^3+2x)dx = Int(sin(x))dx for all x.
Sure we have a powerful cosmology which proves that all particles have zero rest mass etc. European tax payer had to pay 8 billion dollars to support experiments which is supposed to prove this pure nonsense. I do not know how many lives would have been saved using that money for humanitarian aid.
Sorry I spoiled your party but party is over. It is time for big chill. Physicists are still in denial, ruthlessly attacking anybody who points out their failure. They are known to do anything to defend their cult of personality.
Best regards,
AKT
Reply
ncm
56 Comments
Re: Hadrons
What?
Reply
AKT
453 Comments
Re: Hadrons
Sorry it is just a middle school maths problem which killed SR and the standard model. It means that the king of science does not understand even middle school mathematics.
Regards,
AKT
Reply
jjs
79 Comments
Re: Hadrons
It means AKT can't do math. Equation 2 is Equation 1 where p (momentum) = 0 (i.e. energy equivelant of rest mass). See
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/relmom.html
for an explanation.
Reply
AKT
453 Comments
Re: Hadrons
Ah your post was really entertaining.
m0 is rest mass. If you know SR you should not have made this stupid mistake. Many members of this cult of personalities make this mistakes.
In E = mc^2, m is relativistic mass. In the energy momentum equation, m0 is not relativistic mass. it is rest mass.
Just to make sure. relativistic mass means that the mass has momentum, not zero. So, you are flat wrong and so is the stupid website. Alas this is the standard of American university now!
Let me see,
E^2 =m^2c^4 = (m0^2c^4)/(1-(v/c)^2)
(cp)^2 = (m0cv)^2/(1-(v/c)^2)
So,
E^2 -c^2p^2 = m0^2p^4.
I think this is a middle school mathematics in decent old world educational system. In America university professors of physics cannot do this type of elementary mathematics. What is more problematic about the physics community is that professors teach what they do not understand. The chap who wrote the article certainly know nothing about SR. SR has become a holy scripture to the moronic community of theoretical physics.
Have a good day chap.
AKT
Reply
flared0ne
395 Comments
Heh...
Can't talk to him without having a predefined vocabulary of precise meanings laid out ahead of time -- and he won't cooperate in THAT process at all. It's beneath him. Of course.
On the other hand, he CAN'T cooperate in that process -- because it would entail revealing that HE is just as slippery about choosing meanings without reference to what the ORIGINAL theorea had chosen for meanings.
What you NEED is a red cape and a couple of picadors... He has a LOT of mental commitment "invested" in avoiding any meaningful confrontation about this -- he doesn't have much else going on in HIS "one man cult-of-personality".
Reply
dobermanmacleod
7 Comments
Re: Heh...
I commend you for verbalizing the syndrome so succinctly. Unfortunately, I am unable to evaluate the truth, but I do have the expertise to point out that such a syndrome is MUCH more common than the alternate explanation (that he is correct, and most everybody else is wrong). Keep an open mind!!
Reply
GaryB
119 Comments
Re: Heh...
It would be easier if cranks would end their messages with:
PS. I am NOT a crank!
Reply
drjimbob
1 Comment
Re: Hadrons
E^2 =m^2c^4 = (m0^2c^4)/(1-(v/c)^2)
(cp)^2 = (m0cv)^2/(1-(v/c)^2)
So,
E^2 -c^2p^2 = m0^2p^4.
First two eqns do not lead to the third equation. Elementary algebra shows you if you subtract the top two equations you get
E^2 - c^2p^2 = (m0^2c^4 - m0^2 c^2 v^2)/(1 - (v/c)^2) = m0^2c^4 (1 - v^2/c^2)/(1- (v/c)^2)
or E^2 - c^2p^2 = m0^2 c^4.
Reply
alienx
2 Comments
Re: Hadrons
Hi,
I'm only a recently joined amateur and that will show if anyone reads my blog 'Is there any room for amateurs?'If you click on the link there for five consecutive papers on a variant theory, accelerating expansion, gravity and the rest become evident with some hairy maths.
The points I wanted to raise here is if SR is 'true', where does the extra mass come from as seen by the stationary observer when v tends to c in the Fitzgerald-Lorentz equation with m and m0? No use saying it just appears if we have to believe in conservation laws. The answer is evident in those five consecutive papers because there is only one source for that mass. However, it is also easily shown that v is independent of c. SR deals only how things appear to an observer who is stationary and not co-moving.
The other point is that even using Newton's law, the universe has to be expanding. Einstein realised that GR showed expansion but that was not fashionable at the time. So what about galactic red-shifts? Are they just a trick of the light?
Reply
flared0ne
395 Comments
Re: Hadrons
There's a "simple" answer, and then there's an answer expressed in equations.
The "effective" mass increase is a direct result/example of the mass-energy equivalence equation -- because the energy being put into accelerating the system is increasingly being assigned to the spatial deformation explained by the Lorentz contraction equations -- where that deformation is a form of energy storage AND strongly equates to the same deformation which WOULD be CAUSED by the presence of a mass literally equal to the amount of energy involved.
In particular (a very interesting result, in fact) that spatial deformation has its OWN "momentum" and "inertial" aspects.
As you accelerate to a higher and higher velocity, the "phase angle" of the mass being accelerated increases such that the "real" velocity increase is constantly diminishing, "as though" the mass itself is increasing, while the "imaginary" result of the acceleration is the spatial distortion which is STORING the REST of that applied energy.
Which is why calculations of energy release from bombardment by a relativistic object are not intuitively rational, don't seem to follow the usual simple additive maths we are familiar with. And why simplistic calculations of the result of applying acceleration don't work either.
And I'm not too sure about that "stationary observer" comment -- because the thought experiment can play both ways, and as the accelerated object approaches 'c' closer and closer, the distinction gets smaller and smaller: the effects seen by a relativistic observer would start to approximate what a stationary observer would see if the entire universe around the observer were being accelerated toward 'c'.
Think about it -- the typical description of a "star-bow" due to wavelength compression in front and expansion in back; the apparent fore-shortening of everything visible to the sides; all the same results you would get if suddenly everything BUT you had been accelerated.
Ugh... Suddenly "ablation" becomes a disturbing concept. And I don't want to even think about "sunburn".
Reply
phoenix11
1 Comment
Re: Hadrons
Oh you sly little fox playing with SR like that!
His equations SHOULD read:
1)E=sqrt[(m_0c^2)^2 + (pc)^2]
2)E=mc^2 (fancy relativity shorthand for eqn 1)
3)E^2/c^2-p^2 (relativistic invariant since it's a product of 4-vectors in Minkowsky space)
E^2/c^2 + p^2 is not and never will be a relativistic invariant
Cheers
Reply
humanzee
5 Comments
Re: Hadrons
Bless Doyle & his dog.
But, ya know, if he had a Basenji dog, there would be no barking -- day OR night.
Reply