The big bang does exist, empirically, as a phenomenon that explains universal expansion, as measured thru red-shift.
There's a very big assumption here - that the explanation for red shift is expansion. This is very dubious. If all of the other galaxies are expanding away from us (and eachother) then we must be at the centre? But we are not even at the centre of our own galaxy. IMHO red shift will be found to be a property of (tired) light dependent upon the distance travelled. Thus one of the planks of the BB goes away. And the other - the CBR - has even less to commend it and has other, more feasible explanations.
regards
Felix
__________________ And woe to us if, blinded by illusions,
We detach ourselves from the dancing cosmos,
This universal harmony.......Ruth Peel
There's a very big assumption here - that the explanation for red shift is expansion. This is very dubious. If all of the other galaxies are expanding away from us (and eachother) then we must be at the centre? But we are not even at the centre of our own galaxy.
Sorry, but this is wrong. You mean that this means that either we are at the centre of the universe, or the universe does not have a centre. The latter agrees with the cosmological principle, and thus we take that as true. On doing this, your argument breaks down.
Quote:
IMHO red shift will be found to be a property of (tired) light dependent upon the distance travelled.
I find the tired light theory intriguing, and you are right that the typical red-shift explanation is not a scientific fact, but a couple of things regarding your argument...
Universal expansion, and thus red-shift, does not require we be at the center of expansion, nor does it require that expansion even have a center. Consider the following diagram.
Each galaxy would appear to be moving away from every other, thus we would expect red-shift. Tho I don't believe it would be EQUAL red-shift for each galaxy measured.
"Big bang" is in fact a poor analogy that when first used, was the butt of a joke. As far as the first 3-dimensions are concerned, it is not assumed that galaxies are all expanding out from a central point, as would be the case in an explosion. Instead, the fabric of space itself is stretching and thus all points on the graph are getting farther apart. For points closer together, such as the atoms in your body, the expansion is unnoticeable, but the effect is cumulative across distance, hurling the galaxies apart at great speed.
To verify red-shift, we would need to know the ACTUAL distance between galaxies and their ACTUAL speeds relative to one another. Unfortunately, we have no point-of-reference with which to make such a comparison because red-shift IS our point-of-reference. We do ASSUME it is true, only because so far we have no better explanation or clearly irreconcilable fact.
(1) Sorry, but this is wrong. You mean that this means that either we are at the centre of the universe, or the universe does not have a centre. The latter agrees with the cosmological principle, and thus we take that as true. On doing this, your argument breaks down.
(2) I find the tired light theory intriguing, and you are right that the typical red-shift explanation is not a scientific fact, but a couple of things regarding your argument...Universal expansion, and thus red-shift, does not require we be at the center of expansion, nor does it require that expansion even have a center.
(3) "Big bang" is in fact a poor analogy that when first used, was the butt of a joke. As far as the first 3-dimensions are concerned, it is not assumed that galaxies are all expanding out from a central point, as would be the case in an explosion.
(4) Instead, the fabric of space itself is stretching and thus all points on the graph are getting farther apart (4).
(2) OK you convinced me of the error of my ways as regards the centre - a picture is worth a thousand words - but not that red shift is justification for the BB.
(3) Schrodinger may be dead but his cat lives on. Fred Hoyle is also dead but his day will come (again).
(4) This explanation holds no water. If the fabric of 'space/time' is expanding then it will not be measureable by us as our clocks and rulers will be expanding at the same rate.
regards
Felix
__________________ And woe to us if, blinded by illusions,
We detach ourselves from the dancing cosmos,
This universal harmony.......Ruth Peel
(1) If the expansion has no centre then it does not support the BB
What definition of the big bang model are you using? If your above point is true, then I would suggest you are using a popularised version, which is different to what I, and other cosmologists, think of the big bang model.
I've not read through that properly, but it appears that you are postulating quanta of time as a source of the cosmic microwave background. That is, you are saying it is not electromagnetic radiation?
__________________ ~neutralino
If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day - John A. Wheeler.
(1) What definition of the big bang model are you using? If your above point is true, then I would suggest you are using a popularised version, which is different to what I, and other cosmologists, think of the big bang model.
(2) I've not read through that properly, but it appears that you are postulating quanta of time as a source of the cosmic microwave background. That is, you are saying it is not electromagnetic radiation?
Hi Neutralino
(1) The general description of the BB as popularised by Hawking, Penrose, Gribbin, Kaku, both Greenes, Smolin, et al) Are they not members of the club? Should I be looking somewhere else?
Either way, I believe that the formation of the galaxies is not explained by the BB. It is much more likely to be the result of a small bang at the centre of each one. This model says that BHs are actually holes rather than the blobs which current theory describes. A hole has two sides so each black hole has an equivalent white hole - a star nursery - the source of each galaxy.
(2) My description of time is a mechanical one related to the probability function. I am postulating that the CBR is the same as the (apparently random) appearance and disappearance of particles from nowhere which others (e.g. Krauss) refer to as 'quintessence'. These are actually chronons, the 'particle' of time. Their presence is necessary for a waveform to reach the critical value and collapse forming a real particle. Chronons are strings (not to be confused with string theory) which pop in and out of existence according to a pattern which, to us, appears random.
regards
Felix
__________________ And woe to us if, blinded by illusions,
We detach ourselves from the dancing cosmos,
This universal harmony.......Ruth Peel
I haven't been following this entire thread but it's my belief that the big bang model also accounts for the CBR and proportion of hydrogen atoms to helium atoms very nicely.
Best,
Pat
P.S The universe may be eternal, but no way, no how, is it a steady state. Say goodnight Fred.
Last edited by Profpat; 04-22-2008 at 02:58 PM.
Reason: Added PS
I haven't been following this entire thread but it's my belief that the big bang model also accounts for the CBR and proportion of hydrogen atoms to helium atoms very nicely.
Hi Pat
I suggest a slight rewording:
.....the big bang model has been made to account for the CBR and proportion of hydrogen atoms to helium atoms very nicely.
regards
Felix
__________________ And woe to us if, blinded by illusions,
We detach ourselves from the dancing cosmos,
This universal harmony.......Ruth Peel
Linear Mode
