The Big Bang - Relativity Speaking

[JoeyBlades]

This is kind of an esoteric, theoretical physics question for those who like to ponder such things. I was contemplating the theory of general relativity the other day and it's implications on time dialation due to gravity and a question occured to me... Hey, I'm quirky that way...

As we approach densities commensurate with those of the emerging universe, femto-femto seconds after the blessed event (big bang), it seems to me that the gravity of such a universe would essentially arrest time. To move further back in time, even closer to the exact instant of the big bang would seem to be impossible.

Or, asked another way: At the instant of the big bang, wouldn't the universe be unable to expand because time would be essentially frozen due to the immense gravity? It seems like there would just be a singularity of infinte gravity, a universe-wannabe, suspended in time. (I know, time has no real meaning before the birth of the universe, but you get my point)

Am I missing something? Is it possible that the theory of the big bang is flawed... and/or the theory of general relativity is flawed... and/or (at the very least) the estimated age of 12-18 billion years for the universe is grossly under the mark?

I have a train of thought that might explain it, but I hesitate to mention it at this point because (1) I want to hear what the experts have to say without muddying the pond and (2) it might be even stupider than my initial question since it pits infinities against infinities...

[Smeghead]

I'm thinking that your paradox here stems from a reference frame confusion (looking at the situation from "inside" the universe vs. "outside"), but I have learned through hard experience not to even try explaining weird stuff like this here, because when I do, it comes out sounding like complete gibberish.

[avalongod]

I do indeed think often on esoteric physics stuff (it is a flaw of mine.) Some obervations:

quote:

~~~Is it possible that the theory of the big bang is flawed... and/or the theory of general relativity is flawed... and/or (at the very least) the estimated age of 12-18 billion years for the universe is grossly under the mark?

The Big Bang Theory is (IMHO) almost definately seriously flawed. It is at the moment only a theory, with relatively scant evidence, but then again what does one expect for an event that MAYBE happened 12-20 Billion years ago. Everything physicists state about the beginning of the universe is PURE conjecture. Gen. Rel IS flawed...it does not work at the quantum level. Even at larger levels it is not a big improvement on Newtonian Classical Physics (which is usually still used by NASA for space travel). Once again GR relies heavily on math, but has little empirical backing. The time dialation thing you are discussing for instance...there is no evidence to suggest that time is anything other than what it appears to be...a fairly linear steady progression in one direction. Physicist have come up with a bunch of EQUATIONS to suggest that it might not be so (you probably have heard the, "if you travel at the speed of light" theory) but there is no empirical proof, and in fact the theory is logically flawed.

For instance by that theory, Mercury and the Earth (which travel at widely different speeds) should actually be in different time periods. Perhaps only by a few seconds, but nonetheless. So if you tried to land on Mercury would you want to land where you think it is...or where it WILL BE? Does that make sense. If you stop to consider this away from mathematics, from a purely observational empirical perspective we can see this is false...because Mercury simply is where it currently is.

The speed of light limit to speed may also be another barrier that proves to be false...again because we have no evidence to suggest many of the equations used in GR have any empirical validity (some of the ones which predict planetary motion do, but they again Ptolemy's mathematics for predicting planetary motion work pretty well too).

As far as time goes, physicists have essentially been attempting to reduce both it and space into mathematical constructs...and here I suspect they are excercising brilliant math but poor science. The empirical evidence suggests only that time is what it appears to be...linear, unstoppable, not touched by anyform of matter or energy.

From the GR perspective gravity also does not make sense, but that is a topic for another post.

[jcgmoi]

avalongod:

The time dialation thing you are discussing for instance...there is no evidence to suggest that time is anything other than what it appears to be...a fairly linear steady progression in one direction. Physicist have come up with a bunch of EQUATIONS to suggest that it might not be so (you probably have heard the, "if you travel at the speed of light" theory) but there is no empirical proof...

This is not true. Scientists have observed that high energy particles moving near the speed of light both in nature and in the laboratory have an extended existence in accordance with Einstein's time-dilation equations.

and in fact the theory is logically flawed.

No. Incomplete, sure, esp if you’re looking for a TOE, full of paradoxes even, but consistent within the limits of the math used and first-rate in describing the world we see. Doesn’t ‘logically flawed’ suggest to you that the theory is saying both A and ~A? Where are the ‘logical’ flaws?

I’ll leave further rebuttal to others.

[Chronos]

OK, avalongod, to address one point at a time here:
1) The Big Bang model, is, indeed, based on very little evidence. However, any alternative that has been proposed is based on even less evidence. Further, aside from direct divine creation, there is no other theory at this time which remains consistent with all observations (direct creation can never be ruled out, because all observations can then be explained as "God just wanted it to look that way").
2) "General relativity... does not work at the quantum level": How do you know this? The fact of the matter is, at the present time we do not knowwhat laws hold in quantum relativistic situations. It is quite possible that GR doesn't hold then. From our current knowledge, it is equally possible that QM doesn't hold in such situations, either.
3) How much of an improvement GR offers over Newtonian mechanics depends on the situation. If, for example, you try to describe a black hole classically, you will get completely different answers than if you use GR. As another example, the deflection of light by large masses is exactly twice what would be predicted by Newtonian mechanics, but matches Einstein's predictions exactly.
4) What the heck do you mean, what time appears to be? It doesn't immediately appear to be anything in particular, from all that I can tell. What color is it? How large? The only way to describe it meaningfully is mathematically, and the only mathematical descriptions which remain consistent are those based on relativity, both special and general.
5) No, I've never heard the "if you travel at the speed of light" theory, or at least, not a scientific theory. I've heard theories of things travelling very close to the speed of light, and even theories of things travelling faster, but in the context of relativity, it's not meaningful to talk about massive objects travelling at the speed of light.
6) Yes, time flows at a slightly different rate on Mercury from what it does on Earth, but it's not enough to worry about when planning landings. And even in Newtonian mechanics, it doesn't really matter where it is right NOW, all that matters is where it will be when you land on it, at which point, you'll be on Mercurian time.
7) Ptolomey's equations worked reasonably well. Kepler's and then Newton's worked better. Einstein's equations work better yet. Your point?
8) GR is the only perspective in which gravity does make sense. Newton's reason for why things fall amounts to "just because". Einstein's theory actually gives a reason for it.

I don't have any objection to a person being anti-science, and if you don't know physics and don't want to, that's your problem. But that being the case, please don't try to barge into a scientific discussion and tell us that we're all wrong.

[avalongod]

quote:

~~~This is not true. Scientists have observed that high energy particles moving near the speed of light both in nature and in the laboratory have an extended existence in accordance with Einstein's time-dilation equations

I admit I am not familiar with these studies. Nonetheless I am not sure (from your description) that I would find them convincing. I am a physics layman, but it sounds like you are saying: 1.) physics though HEPs would last say 1 sec (probably much shorter I know, but bear with me), 2.) they observe them (infer would be a better word than observe...the existence of these particles themselves is not a FACT per se but is inferred through other means) to last say 10 secs. All this really proves is that we have a poor understanding of HEPs in the first place. Keep in mind, also that HEPs ALWAYS move at the speed of light, as far as I know, thus there would be nothing to compare them too...how do you know they are in a different time function when they always go that speed. I might add there are numerous inconsistencies in the whole theory of the HEPs...the notion of such things were created to observe certain phenomenon then those same phenomenon were often used to confirm the existence of HEPs. This ultimately is circular logic. Also keep in mind, even if the above is true, this is only evidence that the particles are aging slower...that is different from saying they are in another "time zone" if you will. IF I eat my vegetables I will age slower too, but time is the same for me. If I smoke six packs of cigs a day, I age quicker...you get the point. My point is that physicists often interpret data selectively.

quote:

~~~Doesn’t ‘logically flawed’ suggest to you that the theory is saying both A and ~A? Where are the ‘logical’ flaws?

Well that is one example of a logical flaw, though I am not sure it does not apply. My example of a logical flaw was that things, whatever their speed, exist in the present, and that time moves at the same rate...things can not exist in the present and in the future at the same point, which to me seems to be necessitated by GR (in my layman's understanding).

I am interested in learning more from those who are more familiar with GR...please don't be annoyed if I am skeptical...I will point out the logical flaws that I see as I hear the theories.

[avalongod]

Regarding the study you mentioned, you got me wondering also if it might be subject to a "file drawer" type of problem? Let me illustrate:

Researcher A decides if time dialation exists, splitting an electron ought to cause a certain reactive film to turn blue (obviously I am simplifying). He splits the e-, no blue. Dang, he goes back the the drawing board, decides he was wrong, what really should have happened was that a glass of water should have heated up. Split the e-, no hot cup of water. Phooey, slap those last two experiments into the "file drawer" meaning they never get published...they are essentially disproving experiments that no one ever sees (because usually they can't be published). Now Researcher A thinks the split atom ought to cause a measurable increase in radiation. Nope that doesn't work either. Another one for the file drawer. 30 experiments later Researcher A decides the split atom ought to cause sound vibrations in the air...lo and behold we get sounds vibrations. Publish that puppy in Nature...as if that was what you expected all along of course! The trouble is, if you run enough experiments you will expect to find significant results eventually BY CHANCE ALONE. Meaning that the results prove nothing.

So I would be curious to see if such a study has been replicated. I would be interested in a link if you happen to have one?

[avalongod]

Sorry, I meant to say a "reference" if you have one.

[Triskadecamus]

I have been through this one recently, and have had some success in finding the explanation for the gravity question, with regard to the early moments of time. The force of gravity does not manifest in the first period of universal expansion. That force manifests at a later time, coincident with the creation of baryons. The first moments of time might be governed by the unified field, or perhaps not. Anyway, for the first three or four seconds of time, there is nothing but hot quark soup in the universe. No gravity. I am not sure if there are even photons.

A relatively new feature of cosmology is the “inflationary epoch” during the opening moments of existence. During that epoch, it seems that space itself increases in volume at faster than the speed of light. The matter in the universe gets left behind in clumps, strings, and sheets. Most of the universe ends up (volumetrically speaking, that is) as big voids. Everyone who has ever been willing to explain this to me has gotten real vague about scale during the inflationary epoch. Maybe centimeters. Maybe bigger. Maybe femto seconds, maybe longer.

Of course that still doesn’t answer my (and your) question about the force of gravity. Just what is the Schwartschild Radius of the mass of the entire universe? If the inflationary epoch expands things by less than fairly big number of light years, it seems to me that when the protons and neutrons finally enter the picture (which sources I have found seem to place between 10,000 and 100,000 years from the beginning at the latest) there just ain’t enough room in the universe for anything but a black hole.

Tris

[JonF]

physics though HEPs would last say 1 sec (probably much shorter I know, but bear with me), 2.) they observe them (infer would be a better word than observe...the existence of these particles themselves is not a FACT per se but is inferred through other means) to last say 10 secs

High energy particles leave distinctive signatures when they interact with other particles. Physiscists can detect the existence of most particles unambiguously. The first confirmation of extended particle lifetimes when they are moving very fast relative to us was from detecting particles produced by cosmic rays high ion the atmosphere that wouldn't ahve made it to the Earth's surface if their lifetimes were not extended.

HEPs ALWAYS move at the speed of light, as far as I know

They do not. Particles with no rest mass, such as photons, always move at the sped of light. Particles with non-zero rest masses, such as electrons and protons and neutrons, never move at exactly the speed of light. By pumping energy intot hem, we can make them get arbitrarily close to the speed of light.

Maybe a more concrete example is in order. The Global Positioning System works. If GR was incorrect, and time did not "slow down" when something is moving relative to us and time did not "speed up" when gravitational "force" is lower, then GPS would not work as well as it does. GPS relies on very accurate clocks in the GPS satellites. These clocks are purposefully set to run slightly slow when the satellites are sitting on the surface of the Earth before launch. When the satellite is put into orbit, its clock will run slower because it is moving relative to us (Special Relativity) and will run faster because it is farther from the Earth and the gravitational force is smaller (General Relativity). The GR effect is larger than the SR effect so the satellite clock would run fast unless it was set on Earth to run slow to counteract this effect.

Form What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about Relativity (http://www.metaresearch.org/mrb/gps-relativity.htm):

"For GPS satellites, GR predicts that the atomic clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick faster by about 45,900 ns/day because they are in a weaker gravitational field than atomic clocks on Earth's surface. Special Relativity (SR) predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick slower by about 7,200 ns/day than stationary ground clocks. Rather than have clocks with such large rate differences, the satellite clocks are reset in rate before launch to compensate for these predicted effects. ... we can state that the clock rate effect predicted by GR is confirmed to within no worse than ±200 / 45,900 or about 0.7%, and that predicted by SR is confirmed to within ±200 / 7,200 or about 3%. This is a very conservative estimate."

See also General relativity in the global positioning system (http://vishnu.nirvana.phys.psu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html)

[avalongod]

JonF:

Interesting stuff...again I suspect this only demonstrates that perhaps things age slower at higher speeds...a bit of a close distinction, but an important one. Again, the GP satelites maintain a continuous and predictable presense in the present time. Perhaps high speeds effect the performance of atomic clocks in some specific way...again I am not necessarily saying that this IS the case...I am merely suggesting that the evidence could be interpreted in other ways that actually require fewer assumptions.

[Phobos]

This may help with the original question...
http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/q2718.html

I'm curious why avalongod & chronos feel that the Big Bang theory is based on "little" evidence. My impression is that there are several independent lines of evidence that support the theory (expansion of space, cosmic background radiation, abundance of elements, etc.)

avalongod - it's incorrect to state that the Big Bang is "just a theory" (suggesting you can't accept it)...a scientific "theory" has a different definition than the common use of the word.

I'm glad JonF brought up the GPS example of time dilation in action. Avalongod - it seems like you would need more assumptions to explain it without Relativity.

GR is not flawed because it does not describe quantum effects...GR is not meant to be applied to quantum effects in the first place. Just because a theory does not explain every aspect of the universe does not mean it is flawed.

[JonF]

Perhaps high speeds effect the performance of atomic clocks in some specific way...again I am not necessarily saying that this IS the case...I am merely suggesting that the evidence could be interpreted in other ways that actually require fewer assumptions.

Well, you appear to be missing the point ... the speed of the GPS satellites relative to us is not particularly high, when compared to the speed of light; any relative velocity causes a change in how time appears to run. It just happens that the GPS requirements are so precise that we can (and have to) account for the effect. However, there's another effect; gravity or acceleration also causes clocks to run slower, so the GPS clocks run faster than our clocks because they are higher in the Earth's gravitational field, and this effect is the opposite sign from and larger in magnitude than the velocity effect. (When you actually sit down to do the calculations, you usually do not calculate the effects separately; it's more convenient to just calculate the overall effect).

A lot of very clever people have tried very hard to explain this effect in some other way than General Relativity, and all have failed. Believe me, assuming that energy transitions in cesium atoms (the foundation of atomic clocks) are somehow affected by velocity and/or gravity would lead to a much more complex and unrealistic theory. And it wouldn't explain many of the multitude of observations; GPS is just an easily comprehendable example.

It's a fact that time runs slower, on any kind of clock or time measuring device or "biological clock" or in any meaningful concept of time, in any system that is moving relative to you. It's a fact that time runs slower, on any kind of clock or time measuring device or "biological clock" or in any meaningful concept of time, in any system that is accelerating relative to you or in a stronger gravitational field than you. How one explains those facts may vary; the best explanation we have right now for those facts is General Relativity. It's incomplete, but there's no question that it is correct to very high precision. Any other viable theory is going to have to replicate the predictions of GR essentially exactly except in a few pathological cases where GR breaks down.

For other tests of GR, see Tests of general relativity (http://147.8.86.66/AEinstein/node97.html), Tests of General Relativity (http://members.aol.com/drphysics/GRTest.html), and Gravity Probe B: The Relativity Mission (http://einstein.stanford.edu/).

things can not exist in the present and in the future at the same point, which to me seems to be necessitated by GR (in my layman's understanding).

You seem to be stuck with a concept of a Universal Time which flows the same for all observers. It just ain't so. GR and SR do not require things to exist in the present and the future at the same time, but they do require discarding the notion of Universal Time. Not only do those theories require that; the universe requires us to discard Universal Time. Observations have shown us that time does not flow the same for all observers; and, as I said before, GR is the simplest and most accurate theory we have now for explaining those facts.

[Scylla]

avolongod said:

"again I suspect this only demonstrates that perhaps things age slower at higher speeds...a bit of a close distinction, but an important "


Could you elaborate? I see no distinction whatsoever.

[jcgmoi]

avalongod

The trouble is, if you run enough experiments you will expect to find significant results eventually BY CHANCE ALONE.

Sure, every scientist wants his paper in Nature or Cell rather than Eastern Oconee Review of Inexplicable Phenomena, so null hypotheses can be ignored by some guy lusting after sky-rocket results. After all, maybe his methodology sucked or his grad students were stoners. So shelve those data and move on.

But scientists are aware that science constantly progresses by null results. Michelson’s and Morley's failure to find evidence of ether drift is a (excuse the expression) classical example. More recently, Perlmutter worked to evaluate the rate of expansion of the universe, expecting to find it was either steady or decellerating. But his best interpretation of his data was that the rate is in fact accelerating.

[Chronos]

Re the "file-drawer effect": If someone had actually come up with some experiment which scientifically and reliably refuted either theory of relativity, it would take all of about three seconds for that person to get his or her butt to the computer and start writing up the paper for submission to the most prestigious journal available-- Disproving relativity would make a person an instant celebrity, and send all manner of good things that way. On the other hand, if a person verifies relativity (espescially special relativity) yet again, the result is likely to be regarded as boring. That's the experiment, if any, that gets tossed into the filing cabinet.
Phobos: I did say that it's the most logical conclusion to be drawn from the evidence, and that it's the only known scientific model which works. The fact of the matter is, though, that in studying the big bang, we're a lot more limited in our observations than we are with most physical phenomena. We can't simulate the process in the laboratory, for instance, and until LISA gets launched, we're limited to what we can learn from photons. If I want to study, say, beta decay, I can get a bunch of radioactive atoms, study a great many beta decays, look at the trails in a cloud chamber, observe any photons that are emitted at any stage of the process, change various conditions of the experiment and see how that affects the rate, etc.: I can't do that with the Universe. Some things are just harder to study than others.

On the subject of whether it's really time itself that is affected: Special relativity does not, strictly speaking, say anything about time itself. What it does say, is that any conceivable means of measuring time (a pendulum, a person's pulse, the oscillation of a particular molecule, etc) will be effected in the same way. The simplest way to explain this is that all of these "clocks" are measing the same thing, i.e., time, and that time is affected by speed.

[DrMatrix]

When I read the OP, I started wondering why did the universe expand at all. Wouldn't it have been inside the Schwarzschild radius in the beginning? Why didn't the universe just stay a singularity?

[Chronos]

Interesting note on that, DrMatrix: The density condition for a closed Universe (assuming no complications like the cosmological constant; I'm not sure how that would affect it) is exactly the same as the density of a black hole with radius equal to the "look-back" distance. What this would mean is that a closed Universe, in a sense, is a black hole, and we're all living inside it. What this also means is that all world-lines end up at the same point eventually, that point being the "big crunch" singularity. In other words, we can't see the singularity at the end of the tunnel 'cause we're not there yet, but it's still part of the Universe.
Of course, even without regard for such considerations, the question "why did the Universe start expanding?" still doesn't really have a good answer, anyway.

[DrMatrix]

Chronos

I think I understand your answer. We cannot see the Big Crunch singularity for the same reason the singularity of a black hole cannot be seen (even from inside the event horizon) -- it is always in the future, at least until you hit it; then time ends. But what is the "look back" distance?

[JoeyBlades]

Most of what avalon wrote was adequately addressed, however:


From the GR perspective gravity also does not make sense, but that is a topic for another post.


GR is the theory that finally made gravity make sense. Before GR we just knew that there was some force-like effect on bodies and we could predict how this force-like property was going to affect the objects, but we didn't have a clue why that force-like property existed. Newton just shrugged that part of it off.



chronos:


"General relativity... does not work at the quantum level": How do you know this?


I suspect that avalon was just 'misremembering' something that he read. I've seen a number of texts suggest that there is a conflict between QM and SR and they cite the EPR paradox and Bell's quantun non locality as an example. Perhaps avalon had GR confused with SR.



Trisk:


The force of gravity does not manifest in the first period of universal expansion. That force manifests at a later time, coincident with the creation of baryons. The first moments of time might be governed by the unified field, or perhaps not. Anyway, for the first three or four seconds of time, there is nothing but hot quark soup in the universe. No gravity.


Well, I have to admit that I did not consider a case where gravity did not or could not exist during the Planck era. I'm not sure if you were trying to make some argument about mass in your 'quark soup', but it seems reasonable to assume that there was a huge mass persent... in fact, all of the mass of the universe. Now did that mass warp space? That's a different question - and a good one (more on that later).

The only problem with this hypothesis is that it shoots M theory in the foot. I'm not saying that's "necessarily" a bad thing, but my understanding is that one of the things that makes M theory so attractive is that it unifies all of the forces all the way back to 'time zero'. M theory 'requires' gravity to be present from the start.


DrMatrix:


When I read the OP, I started wondering why did the universe expand at all. Wouldn't it have been inside the Schwarzschild radius in the beginning? Why didn't the universe just stay a singularity?


Yes, I've pondered this question too. The only conclusion I can come up with is that a black hole singularity and the primal singularity are not the same thing... well, duh!? Not only are they not the same thing, they are in some ways opposites. In a black hole all of the light cones tip inward - hence nothing escapes the event horizon and we end up with a contraction phenomenon. In the primal singularity the light cones must have tipped outward so that we ended up with an expansion phenomenon. Therefore, though they are both types of singularities, they are not the same.


Chronos:


What this would mean is that a closed Universe, in a sense, is a black hole, and we're all living inside it.


I disagree. Our universe is still holding to an inflationary model where a black hole is, by definition, deflationary. If and when the inflation halts and deflation begins toward the big crunch, then we'll be living in a black hole.



Now to my ponderings... One of my trains of thought was that during the Planck era (and possibly for a short period after) our universe had more than 4 physical dimensions... Well, that's what M theory suggests, anyway. The theory and math of GR is euclidian, but perhaps in non Euclidian, 11 dimensional space, the time dimension is distorted in other ways that we've yet to fathom? This is not too different to what I thought Triskadecamus might have been proposing. If we allow that the time dimension might be distorted, the spacial dimensions might be distorted as well. And what is gravity but a distortion of space. Perhaps the 'crowding' of the multitude of dimensions during the Planck era had a counteractive distortion of space, causing gravity to not be manifest...

One of the other thoughts I had was that the expansion (i.e. acceleration) is counteractive to the gravitational force of the concentrated mass. If the gravitational force is nearly infinite, but the acceleration is (somehow) infinite (or at least orders of magnitude larger than the escape velocity of the primal singularity) then the local acceleration/gravity of individual quarks might dominate. In other words, they would be living in a different frame of time than the core of the universe. That gets us back to the question of what causes this 'infinite' acceleration...

Feel free to pick on these lines of thought (as if you needed to be invited). I'm not overly attached to them... their just strawman - thought experiments.

[DrMatrix]

JoeyBlades said:
The theory and math of GR is euclidian, ...
No. GR says that space is negatively curved by massive bodies. Euclidian space is flat. GR allows (but does not require) that space be globally curved.

Putting a limit on the range of gravity means that photons have mass. If they have mass it must be very very small.

[Whack-a-Mole]

For Avalongod:

In the quest for the TOE (Theory of Everything) we've been slowly moving up the ladder to better and better definitions of the Universe. While still incomplete the theories we have now are extremely accurate and comprise what is now known as the Standard Model. Also, for what it's worth, all of Newtonian Mechanics can be completely derived from Relativity equations (if you do the math Newton's equations will literally come out of Einstein's equations). Newton is fine for figuring out day-today stuff but Einstein's equations go further and are more accurate even though it too has its limits.

The Standard Model can explain every piece of experimental data concerning subatomic particles, up to about 1 trillion electron volts in energy. This is about the limit of the atom smashers currently on line. Consequently, it is no exaggeration to state that the Standard Model is the most successful theory in the history of science.
Source: Hyperspace by Michio Kaku


Well, I have to admit that I did not consider a case where gravity did not or could not exist during the Planck era. I'm not sure if you were trying to make some argument about mass in your 'quark soup', but it seems reasonable to assume that there was a huge mass persent... in fact, all of the mass of the universe. Now did that mass warp space? That's a different question - and a good one

I don't think it is reasonable to assume there was a huge mass present. It is reasonable to assume there was a huge amount of energy present. Energy and mass are equivalent so eventually this energy turned into mass but not till the Universe was well under way.

My question is does energy affect the curvature of space-time the same way mass does? Light (energy) is affected by mass because mass warps space-time, if there is no mass at the beginning does this mean there was no warping hence no gravity?

When I read the OP, I started wondering why did the universe expand at all. Wouldn't it have been inside the Schwarzschild radius in the beginning? Why didn't the universe just stay a singularity?

100% WAG here (like the rest hasn't been either ;)).

The only explanation I've heard for 'where did the Big Bang come from?' is the splitting of 4-dimensional space-time from its 10-dimensional(? superstring ?) whole. 4-D spacetime unfolded (expanded) and the rest of the dimensions curled-up into a planck-length ball.

So...

A black-hole singularity is folding in on itself.

Big Bang universe is unfolding.

Semantics?

[JonF]

Energy and mass are equivalent ... My question is does energy affect the curvature of space-time the same way mass does?

To address one of your questions: Energy and mass are not merely equivalent, they are identical as far as Relativity is concerned. We think we see a difference, but that may be an artifact of our limited senses. So energy is mass is energy, and they both affect the curvature of space-time in the same way.

[AnotherHeretic]

Very interesting thread about some things I've been wondering about myself lately. Here's some references you may find interesting:

1. Caroline Thompson's Physics site:
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/
blurb:
This site is about what is wrong with Fundamental Physics. It started with the discovery that we have been misled. We have been told that experiments agree with all the predictions of quantum theory, including those that involve the impossible - the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) experiments, that are supposed to show totally incomprehensible effects of separated particles on each other. I have looked at the evidence. The "loopholes" that they know are present are large enough to allow for perfect straightforward explanations, with no sign of "non-locality". I am led to suggest that perhaps there is other currently-accepted "evidence" for both quantum theory and Einstein's relativity theories that needs re-investigation. I am not talking of "re-interpretation", but of recognising that if we want to understand nature, not just produce "predictions", the first step is to re-assess the facts, reject falsehoods.

2. Ralph Sansbury:
http://www.bestweb.net/~sansbury/Index.htm
blurb:
One could characterize this book as being about evidence for charge polarization inside electrons and atomic nuclei and what that implies, particularly with respect to gravity and light and the effect of gravity on light. But it can also be characterized as being about the two most damaging mistakes in the history of physics.

The first mistake was Roemer’s so called measurement of the speed of light in 1676 and the second was Kaufmann’s 1903 measurement of the apparent increase of the mass of beta electrons as their velocity increased. The experts of the times in these specific sorts of measurements, in each case, were ignored. Preference was given to the opinions of a larger number of scientists whose expertise lay elsewhere

3. Halton Arp:
http://www.freenet.hut.fi/avaruus/Arphs.html
blurb:
The expansion marker is the so called redshift in spectra, which can be seen when the light from distant sources is directed through a prism. The larger the redshift value (z) is, the further away the galaxy is situated, and the faster it is moving away from us, due to the expansion of the Universe.

Halton Arp says that he has found evidence showing that certain relatively nearby systems are connected by sort of bridges of matter to certain quasars, which seem to be very far away. Those are high redshift quasars connected with low redshift galaxies.

Galaxies, like our Milky way, are vast systems composed of hundreds of billions of stars. That is a fact which everybody agrees upon. It's the quasars where the disagreement starts.

According to Arp certain galaxies throw out quasars, which on their turn develop into new galaxies when time goes by. So the active galaxies are often surrounded by quasars, which are sort of moons surrounding the mother galaxy. The reason for high redshift values is that the quasars are made of new matter, Arp's theory says.

The bigbangers think that quasars are extremely luminous objects or systems situated very far away. So they can not exist near to the lower redshift galaxies. The distance marker is the high redshift, mainstream claims.

another link:
http://www.achilles.net/~jtalbot/bio/Humason.html
blurb:
'Picture yourself during the early 1920's inside the dome of the 60-inch telescope on Mount Wilson. One of the men who had driven the mules that carried the pieces of that same 60-inch telescope up the old Mount Wilson trail was Milton Humason. Humason stayed on at the observatory to become janitor and then night assistant on the telescope. (Eventually he became secretary of the Observatory and a delightful and famous astronomer.) Humason was by then an observing assistant, and we can picture him talking to the well known Carnegie Institution astronomer, Harlow Shapley, in that dome.
Humason is showing Shapley stars he had found in the Andromeda Nebula that appeared and disappeared on photographs of that object. The famous astronomer very patiently explains that these objects could not be stars because the Nebula was a nearby gaseous cloud within our own Milky Way system. Shapley takes his handkerchief from his pocket and wipes the identifying marks off the back of the photographic plate.'

Of course, Hubble came along in 1924 and showed that it was just these Cepheid variable stars in the Andromeda Nebula which proved that it was a separate galaxy system.

Of course, if one ignores contradictory observations, one can claim to have an 'elegant' or 'robust' theory. But it isn't science.
- Halton Arp, 1991, from Science News, Jul 27.

4. Electric Universe:
http://www.holoscience.com/news/science_bang.htm
blurb:
Forget the glossy astronomy books and magazines - the Big Bang is pure fiction. The discoveries that prove it will also bring about the end of science-as-we-know-it. Of course, many books and articles have been published recently heralding the end of science - meaning there is little left to learn. The truth is the opposite. Much of what we think we know "ain't so". As always, unlearning it will give us more trouble than learning something new.

5. Tom Van Flandern:
top 10 problems with the big bang:
http://www.metaresearch.org/mrb/top10BBproblems.htm
---------
Finally:
1) The Big Bang model, is, indeed, based on very little evidence. However, any alternative that has been proposed is based on even less evidence.

Firstly, I'm pretty skeptical of the statement that any alternative is based on even less evidence. Alternative theories to the big bang have little chance of being heard no matter the evidence to support them. Ask Hoyle and Arp. Even Hubble (Arp was his assistant btw for those who don't know) cautioned astronomers not to assume that redshift is based solely on the Doppler effect.

Secondly, considering the fact that we are just babies (in the sense that life on Earth esp. intelligent life, has been around for such a short period of time), we've just barely managed to visit some bodies in our solar system, haven't come close to visiting any other solar system, and have no realistic hope at this time to be able to do so in the next thousands of years with any technology we've seen so far. Yet scientists proclaim with such certainty not only how far away bodies we've just barely been able to detect are, but also how old the universe is and how it began.

A little humility by the proposers and supporters of the Big Bang might make them think twice of making such sweeping statements about the birth of our Universe.

The concept of the doppler effect allowing us to measure the distance of celestial objects is very clever, perhaps almost genius. But the assumption that we "know" the distance is arrogance.

By the same token, if you accept the Doppler effect theory of the cause of redshifts in deep space, the big bang is a clever, even very clever, assumption which follows. But if there are other causes for redshift, then the big bang theory pretty much dies.

Why do astronomers so readily accept the concept of gravitational lensing, where gravity can make the entire beam of light to be so drastically distorted, yet the idea that gravity or other things may have an effect on the redshift doesn't even dawn on them?

Therefore, I tend to agree with avalongod on this one.

[Chronos]

Quoth JoeyBlades:
What this would mean is that a closed Universe, in a sense, is a black hole, and we're all living
inside it.
I disagree. Our universe is still holding to an inflationary model where a black hole is, by definition, deflationary. If and when the inflation halts and deflation begins toward the big crunch, then we'll be living in a black hole.If you'll look up a little higher in that post, you'll see that I specify I'm ignoring the Cosmological Constant, which is a necessary ingredient for an inflationary Universe. I'll admit that, given current evidence, that's an unreasonable assumption, so in that sense, you may be right.

Jeff_42: Gedanken experiment to demonstrate that energy gravitates: Picture a device that can convert a significant mass to photons, and back. The photons are stored in a completely efficient mirror box, so they're kept localized. The system starts off with the box contents in "mass" form, and a test mass just outside the box. Now, we convert the box contents to energy. If energy did not gravitate, we could now easily move the test mass away from the box, without having to fight gravity. Now, we turn the energy back into matter, gravity resumes, and we've got more potential energy in the system than when we'd started.

AnotherHeretic: I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in a lot of places there, so I'll address what I can pick out.
1) Roemer's measurement of the speed of light wasn't the most accurate, but it was within an order of magnitude, and it was much better than the previous value, which was "very fast". I don't see what's "so-called" about it.
2) The "light bridges" between quasars and galaxies have, in every case, been shown to be illusions, coincidences, or instrumental artifacts. The assosciation in the sky doesn't mean anything more for galaxies than it does for constellations.
3) The redshift of distant objects is, in fact, due to something other than Doppler shift-- It's due to the expansion of the Universe. As space expands, the light in it expands, as well, leading to longer wavelengths. In a uniformly expanding Universe, as ours seems to be, the effects are indistinguishable, but there are conceivable cases where they'd yield different results.
4) How on Earth, or off of it, would matter being "young" cause a redshift? I've never even heard of such a notion.
5) I stand by my statements that the Big Bang model is the only one consistent with all of the evidence: How does Hoyle's steady-state theory account for the microwave background radiation?
6) True, we've only personally been to the nearest other body in the Solar System, and by most definitions, we haven't even sent an unmanned probe out of the system. How does this affect our ability to look up at the stars? All of the information we have was gained just by looking, and that information has proven sufficient to develop all of our current models. Certainly, we'd be able to learn more if we could travel farther, but that doesn't mean that we can't learn anything from where we are.

[AnotherHeretic]

>>1) Roemer's measurement of the speed of light wasn't the most accurate, but it was within an order of magnitude, and it was much better than the previous value, which was "very fast". I don't see what's "so-called" about it. <<

This relates to the blurb about Sansbury's theory. I'm not personally making a statement pro or con on his ideas as I haven't even finished reading what he has to write. I just gave the link for people who may be interested. As I understand it, Sansbury's theory about the speed of light is that it is near instantaneous and Roemer's measurement would not have detected it because the earth was under the clouds for some of the measurements.

But to get the proper idea, you'd need to read his book which is online. The reason I got interested in him is due to the fact that he's been doing experiments on faster than light light. He too had trouble getting published and the latest reports on FTL in the NYTimes apparently was similar to his work.

>>2) The "light bridges" between quasars and galaxies have, in every case, been shown to be illusions, coincidences, or instrumental artifacts. The assosciation in the sky doesn't mean anything more for galaxies than it does for constellations.<<

Is any of this material on the Internet? If not, can you point me to specific instances, I'd love to see it. Arp seems to believe that they are more than statistical coincidence. I've seen the picture of 5 interconnected galaxies and would love to know how this can be proven as an illusion or a coincidence. I understand how big bangers explain it away, but proving it a coincidence would be very interesting to me. What were those spirals? Stars? How many stars were there? What were the redshifts of those stars? If it was extragalactic, were the redshifts different for different parts of the spiral? What kind of matter was it?

>>3) The redshift of distant objects is, in fact, due to something other than Doppler shift-- It's due to the expansion of the Universe. As space expands, the light in it expands, as well, leading to longer wavelengths. In a uniformly expanding Universe, as ours seems to be, the effects are indistinguishable, but there are conceivable cases where they'd yield different results.<<

Interesting. Sounds almost identical to doppler effect. Could you point out where there would be different effects? Who came up with this alternate to Doppler and why?

BTW, your statements here illustrates something that does bother me. And again, I do say this respectfully as I do respect you and your opinion. But to say definitively that redshift "is, in fact, due to something other than Doppler shift", you are engaging in the type of certainty which we don't have about objects too far away to talk definitively about. "We think" would be much more appropriate words than discussing the theories as facts, at least IMHO.

>>4) How on Earth, or off of it, would matter being "young" cause a redshift? I've never even heard of such a notion.<<

I don't remember saying that. I just said that there may be something else causing a redshift. I didn't specify. And I think there's nothing wrong with not specifying. Stars are so far away from us there could be a million reasons for things we see that we have no knowledge about.

An intelligent deep sea organism that never left the ocean would have a tougher time explaining night and day than a human living on land. A mountain might be unknown to that organism, yet exists. The same mountain may cast a shadow on certain parts of the ocean. The intelligent being may come up with all kinds of theories about that shadow, but I wonder if he'd be able to come up with a theory that a "mountain" shadows the light from the sun which revolves around the earth. Would be interesting if this organism could come up with a theory for the beginning of the universe.

Who knows what's out there. Nothing wrong with coming out with theories, but writing about the first 3 minutes of the existence of the universe as some have done doesn't make much sense to me except as a mental exercise and taking such discussion seriously as though we humans have a clue about the beginning seems arrogant to me. No offense is meant by that.

Just curious, have you read Arp's books?

>>5) I stand by my statements that the Big Bang model is the only one consistent with all of the evidence: How does Hoyle's steady-state theory account for the microwave background radiation?<<

Good question. The truth is, I'm not advocating any theory at all. My point is, if Hoyle wants the backup of the establishment to come up with answers to your question and to honestly evaluate it, he will have a tough time. The establishment is not giving equal or nearly enough consideration to alternate theories.

>>6) True, we've only personally been to the nearest other body in the Solar System, and by most definitions, we haven't even sent an unmanned probe out of the system. How does this affect our ability to look up at the stars?<<

It doesn't. By all means, let's look and look and look, and theorize all day long. But let's show some more humility about our theories which may make sense today and may look ridiculous tomorrow. And let's open up to alternate theories.

>>All of the information we have was gained just by looking, and that information has proven sufficient to develop all of our current models. Certainly, we'd be able to learn more if we could travel farther, but that doesn't mean that we can't learn anything from where we are.<<

I agree with you (though some would argue that how good those models are is a matter for debate).

I'm curious, what is your view about my point on peer review? Do you agree with the people responsible for Arp being kicked out of Palomar? Do you think that the reason Arp had difficulty getting his work published in the mainstream journals was due to his theories being objectively and obviously wrong, or because the people reviewing his work have a vested interest in the big bang? Do you really feel that peer review rewards, or let's say does not unfairly reject, independent thinking?

Thanks for your point of view.

[Whack-a-Mole]

So my WAG on energy not being mass didn't fly (not surprised...I knew mass/energy were equivalent but didn't know they'd exhibit the same effects).

This next one is out of my a$$ but thought I'd throw it out anyway. Not as explanation necessarily but to promote debate.

A black-hole singularity is a folding of this (4-D) universe's structure.

The Big Bang singularity was/is THE universe.

Does that make any sense? Think of sand falling down a hole on the earth then comparing the earth falling down someother hole. I don't think they equate.

I don't know if that should make a difference but at a gut level it seems as if it should. Of course, at a gut level, time seems like a constant so I won't claim that this is in any way a final answer.

AnotherHeretic
I'm all for counter proposal's/arguments to the status quo. I also think the history of science has its share of good ideas buried because others 'knew' better at the time. Still, I think you are giving short-shrift to current theories.

They do not come from ideas that merely sound good but have real science behind them. I.e. Distance to other stars/galaxies may not be absolutely 'proven' till we actually fly there but there is excellent evidence supporting the assumptions scientists currently make. If someone proves one of their assumptions to be worng then they have to go back to the drawing board.

At least, that's how I always though it was supposed to work.

[AnotherHeretic]

Thanks for your comments.

>>Still, I think you are giving short-shrift to current theories.<<

Hmm, I wonder why you said that? I never said the big bang didn't happen or that I disagree or agree with the theory. In fact, to my mind, if Arp's interpretations of the red shift are wrong, and it was alleged that this has been basically proven to be the case, then I'd say that within the confines of the visible universe, the expanding universe makes sense and even the big bang makes sense. But what is "beyond" the visible universe or what is in other dimensions etc.. would be beyond the scope of the big bang. What disturbs me is the lack of hubris by those proposing the theory.

Actually, what also disturbs me is that Arp was kicked out of Palomar. With his credentials, that shouldn't have happened. And if he's right, that's definitely a big bang killer. As I said before, I'd love to see the evidence brought against Arp. I haven't seen it anywhere and I always look for references to Arp in journals, books etc.. regardless if it's pro or con.

>>They do not come from ideas that merely sound good but have real science behind them.<<

I agree.

>> I.e. Distance to other stars/galaxies may not be absolutely 'proven' till we actually fly there but there is excellent evidence supporting the assumptions scientists currently make. If someone proves one of their assumptions to be worng then they have to go back to the drawing board.<<

Well, I bring this up because of Arp. From what I've seen so far he brings evidence counter to Redshift being "solely" distance. I urge you to look at the pictures he took. It's easy to explain it away if you want to by saying that it's an optical illusion, but see the pictures yourself first. You may feel differently.

The Church didn't want to look at galileo's telescope. And they could explain him away quite well without looking at it. Having looked at the evidence, I'd have to see some pretty convincing arguments to make me think Arp was wrong. But I am open to it and again would love to see a valid justification for kicking him off Palomar.

[Chronos]

One clarification about Hoyle and the Steady-State model, AnotherHeretic (I'm going to focus on Hoyle here, because I'm not as familiar with Arp. I imagine that much of the same applies, but I can't be sure). Currently, yes, the Steady-State model is ridiculed. However, this was not always so. When the model was first proposed, in fact, it was very popular, and was considered a serious, realistic theory (this was before the discovery of the microwave background radiation). At that time, a paper on the steady-state model was just as likely to be published as one on the Big Bang, all other things being equal, and I'm sure that you could find a number of scholarly, well-received papers on the topic, from that time. As new evidence came out, however, it became clear that the Steady-State model was at the best badly incomplete, and at the worst simply wrong, as it could not explain certain observations, most noteably the microwave background. Faced with this new evidence, most cosmologists abandoned the Steady-State model in favor of the Big Bang model, which was able to explain those observations, until the present time, when Hoyle is pretty much the only supporter left for the theory. His support is generally considered to not be due to any evidence, but rather to an overdeveloped ego and a desire to be right, qualities which are very detrimental to a scientist, regardless of other qualifications. He still has his job, due to tenure, but you can believe that he's not likely to advance much farther in his career. It's quite possible (although again, I'm not sure in his case) that Arp was dismissed for this same attitude.
I don't have any evidence on hand relating to his theory, but I'll ask some of my professors tomorrow, and let you know then.

As to the difference between cosmological and Doppler redshifts: Imagine a static Universe containing two objects, a star an a planet with observers. At a certain time, the star emits a pulse of light. While the light is travelling from the star to the planet, the Universe expands significantly, and then stops again before the light reaches the planet. In this case, there would be no Doppler shift observed, as both objects were at rest relative to each other when the pulse was emitted and received, but there would still be a cosmological redshift from the expansion. Of course, so far as we know, the universal expansion doesn't do things like stop and start up again, but this serves to illustrate the difference.

In regards (again) our ability to determine things about the early/distant Universe, we do have to make some assumptions. Most notably, we assume that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the Universe. We have no proof of this, but we are able to form self-consistent theories by assuming it, and if we do not assume that, then we can't say anything about other parts of the Universe. Given that assumption, we can confidently draw the conclusions we have.

One other note, about the speed of light: Compared to just about anything with which we are familiar, it is, of course, almost instantaneous. It's not quite completely instantaneous, however, and it can be measured by a large number of methods-- I've done a few of them myself. All measurements agree, to within their limits of precision, and that value is reasonably close to the value that Roemer determined. If, in fact, there were factors preventing him from making the measurements, such as clouds, and he had to fudge his data, he was remarkably lucky to guess at an answer that was so close to the truth.

[AnotherHeretic]

Hi Chronos,

Thanks for your interesting post. This is like an adventure for me as I see that you are open to hearing things contrary to what you believe, yet you seem to believe that the "heretics" are so very wrong. But since you have not engaged in any personal attacks, which are so common with people against Arp and Hoyle etc..., I feel perhaps we can gain something here. So let's do some deeper analysis together and perhaps both of us can learn something new.

I'm curious, apparently you are a student? Of astronomy or physics or something else?

Now onto your points:

>>One clarification about Hoyle and the Steady-State model, AnotherHeretic (I'm going to focus on Hoyle here, because I'm not as familiar with Arp. I imagine that much of the same applies, but I can't be sure).<<

Yes, that is fair, but before we ignore Arp, may I ask you something respectfully? You did make a very strong statement to the effect that in each and every case in the catalog of Arp's peculiar galaxies, the connecting matter was proven to be unconnected, or optical illusions (I know it's not exact quote, but I think the thrust is correct).

In fairness to someone who has risked his career to espouse a theory, would you mind sharing where you got the info? I assume you heard it from a professor or in some discussions? Would it at all be possible to dig out the reference or ask the person? And please, do look at the evidence yourself. To really learn these things properly, it's best to look at the original evidence and counter arguments. You may be surprised at what you find. I'm saying this from personal experience. In cases where I trusted the "experts" and later did the research myself, I was astonished at how ill informed the experts were.

>>Currently, yes, the Steady-State model is ridiculed. However, this was not always so. When the model was first proposed, in fact, it was very popular, and was considered a serious, realistic theory (this was before the discovery of the microwave background radiation).<<

This statement is very telling. Why does a once serious model later get ridiculed? Why can't it be treated with respect? Even if it's wrong? Newton wasn't right about everything? But no need for ridicule in science.

BTW, I'm aware that it was considered a very serious model. I'm not aware that the cause of the change was the microwave background radiation, but will check into it. Do you happen to know what year the background radiation was discovered?

>>At that time, a paper on the steady-state model was just as likely to be published as one on the Big Bang, all other things being equal, and I'm sure that you could find a number of scholarly, well-received papers on the topic, from that time. As new evidence came out, however, it became clear that the Steady-State model was at the best badly incomplete,<<

My question is how much was politics and how much was evidence?

>>and at the worst simply wrong, as it could not explain certain observations, most noteably the microwave background.<<

Have you read Tom Van Flandern? He brings up a lot of observations that the Big Bang theory can only explain in very ad hoc way. Any theory can come up with ad hoc explanations. Be it big bang or steady state. If the scientists with the power choose to believe big bang's ad hoc theories, it will become popular. If they choose to believe steady state's ad hoc theories, it will become popular. Don't take my word for it. All I say is it's worth looking at the alternates because their voice has been taken away from them.

>>Faced with this new evidence, most cosmologists abandoned the Steady-State model in favor of the Big Bang model, which was able to explain those observations, until the present time, when Hoyle is pretty much the only supporter left for the theory.<<

Don't be so sure of that. Do you really think in today's environment any astronomer can loudly proclaim they agree with Hoyle and keep their job? From what I've seen and read, what typically happens, is that when working scientists retire, that is when they show their support for the heretics, and still, in a quiet way. But they don't dare do this while they are working. I know personally of 2 such instances, and before you ask, no I won't name names.

>> His support is generally considered to not be due to any evidence, but rather to an overdeveloped ego and a desire to be right, qualities which are very detrimental to a scientist, regardless of other qualifications.<<

You are absolutely right. I couldn't agree with you more. Except that you are pointing the accusation at the wrong person. Although I could conceivably believe it's true, I tend to doubt that Hoyle has an overdeveloped ego due to the stories I've heard, but more on that later.

>>He still has his job, due to tenure, but you can believe that he's not likely to advance much farther in his career.<<

Tenure's not the reason he has his job. I don't know where you got your information on Hoyle, but I can tell you that it's all one sided. You do not have his side of the story at all. My Dad grew up with all these stories happening before him and has been sharing his perspective with me all the years. My Dad has a great dislike for Hoyle because Hoyle didn't have the guts to stand up to the establishment. Now I still want to research this, and say upfront that this is just what I've heard and is hearsay, but here's the other side of the story as told to me:

Hoyle came up with his steady state theory. The astronomers in power did not agree with his theory. (perhaps it was after the cosmic background radiation, perhaps not). They demanded that he recant his theory. He refused. He got fired and could not get work anywhere in his field. Do you understand the enormity of this statement! This is a theory that you yourself said was considered science before the cosmic background radiation. Then it became unpopular. Even *if* the guy clung to a theory which didn't work, which is understandable human nature for big bangers as much as steady staters, that is no reason to fire him. That's not science.

So Wolfson, a rich jew, non-astronomer, offered him a job at his company paying him well enough to continue his research, apalled at his treatment by the astronomers. This was out of pure philanthropy and science. Wolfson had nothing to gain from the research (maybe the publicity was good though).

In those days, it was quite a stink that a Jew should be bankrolling a famous guy like Hoyle, and Oxford approached Hoyle again, offering him work, but asking him to recant, which eventually Hoyle did. My father heard him (in disgust), speak, with no dignity, claiming he didn't believe his own theory anymore. A broken man who obviously caved into the pressure.

A pompous guy would never recant. Recanting shows someone with no backbone. I suspect that Hoyle's new book came about because Arp's work gives him the support and confidence that it's a good time to try again.

Perhaps he's holding on to his theory because he has good reasons to? Please please please, I beg you, do not trust your colleagues and professors. You seem like a nice guy who is open. Don't take my word for it. You are obviously in a position to research this yourself. Please do so and draw your own conclusions. Don't read the works written about Hoyle and Arp, read their own words. And then read the criticisms.

As to Arp, it is worth reading him. He is no fool. And ask yourself if those pictures do present some serious questions to the big bang. But if you are an astronomer, be ready to play a political game and wait for the right time to show what you believe....

I've heard privately that there are astronomers who believe the big bang is dead within a couple of years, and that Arp is on the money. They speak to Arp privately but won't allow their names to be used for fear of reprisals. This is serious politics, not science.

>>It's quite possible (although again, I'm not sure in his case) that Arp was dismissed for this same attitude.
I don't have any evidence on hand relating to his theory, but I'll ask some of my professors tomorrow, and let you know then.<<

That should be very interesting. Thanks for doing so.

>>As to the difference between cosmological and Doppler redshifts: <snip> but this serves to illustrate the difference. <<

OK, thanks, makes sense.

>>In regards (again) our ability to determine things about the early/distant Universe, we do have to make some assumptions. Most notably, we assume that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the Universe.<<

Yup, that's a huge one to me. I wouldn't make this assumption. But I'm not against building a tentative theory with humility on this assumption because we have nothing else to go on.

>>One other note, about the speed of light: Compared to just about anything with which we are familiar, it is, of course, almost instantaneous. It's not quite completely instantaneous, however,<<

Of course. And to those that are blind sound is also. Where you can really see the difference is a thunderstorm.

>>If, in fact, there were factors preventing him from making the measurements, such as clouds, and he had to fudge his data, he was remarkably lucky to guess at an answer that was so close to the truth<<

Actually, this is your answer to Sansbury. His theory is more complicated than that and I don't want to do him injustice by butchering his theory with my explanation. Roemer's observation under the cloud wasn't done frivilously. He assumed that as long as the sky was free from clouds around the time that the light was supposed to arrive to be measured, it was ok. Somehow Sansbury felt that the clouds may have blocked a near instantaneous measurement (by *his* definition), but I don't really know enough to explain. I am not personally attacking Roemer's measurements. These experiments and experiments themselves are quite brilliant.

What I find more satisfying about technology than theory is that either technology works or it doesn't. Theories can be wrong and accepted or right and not accepted. What interests me with Sansbury is that he is performing experiments which should be pretty easy to test if he could get someone to look at it.

It's like flying. When the wright brothers were building their planes, they were ridiculed. A physicist got his paper published *proving* that heavier than air flight was impossible. Although there were literally thousands of witnesses, Scientific American, I believe, took 5 years before they showed an airplane in their magazine. It was considered pseudo science. That's why I implore you as a young scientist to always question everyone and be open to the opinions of others.

[Philbuck]

In reference to the steady-state model, AnotherHeretic wrote

BTW, I'm aware that it was considered a very serious model. I'm not aware that the cause of the change was the microwave background radiation, but will check into it. Do you happen to know what year the background radiation was discovered? was discovered?

I'm not sure Chronos meant that the CMB was the killer for the steady-state model, but just pulled it up as a quick and easy example of something that is readily explained by the Big Bang model, but not steady-state (it's my favorite, personally).

The CMB, incidentally, was discovered in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson. What was remarkable was that it was one of those nice cases where something seemingly pretty strange was postulated before it was found...I think it was Gamow who first postulated its existence in the 1940's, and it pointed out to Penzias and Wilson by Peebles and Dicke. (don't have my various references with me this summer, so I may be a bit off)

While I seem to recall Hoyle coming up with a way that the CMB could fit into his more recent Quasi-Steady State model, I don't think that it explained the actual large-scale structure of the CMB to the satisfaction of most astronomers.

This statement is very telling. Why does a once serious model later get ridiculed? Why can't it be treated with respect? Even if it's wrong? Newton wasn't right about everything? But no need for ridicule in science.

I don't think that the problem is necessarily with a theory simply being proven wrong (or, in Newton's case, limited). It's more a problem of people who cling to beliefs even after massive amounts of evidence are piled against them. I admit that perhaps I should be kind, understanding, and patient with someone who still believes that the sun revolves around the earth, but past a point my tolerance will expire.

Of course the steady-state vs. Big Bang situation is not nearly so cut and dried, but it's understandable that many scientists will get fed up with someone who refuses all evidence that contradicts their position.

>>At that time, a paper on the steady-state model was just as likely to be published as one on the Big Bang, all other things being equal, and I'm sure that you could find a number of scholarly, well-received papers on the topic, from that time. As new evidence came out, however, it became clear that the Steady-State model was at the best badly incomplete,<<

My question is how much was politics and how much was evidence?

In all truth, the steady-state model has gotten a lot of time and published space, more than most astronomers probably would give it. As recently as 1991 (long after the Big Bang model gained majority acceptance) there was an exchange of articles in Nature debating the merits and disadvantages of the theories; searching in the last few years turns up several articles in various major journals discussing steady-state cosmology, and not just by Hoyle.

Hoyle came up with his steady state theory. The astronomers in power did not agree with his theory. (perhaps it was after the cosmic background radiation, perhaps not). They demanded that he recant his theory. He refused. He got fired and could not get work anywhere in his field. Do you understand the enormity of this statement! . . .

I'm not quite sure what to say about this. Obviously you have more access to secondary sources that I do; however, Hoyle first co-published his steady-state theories in the 1940s. He has been churning out publications regularly since then; searching in the last ten years I've found multiple articles by him in the Astrophysical Journal, Astronomy and Astrophysics, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Physics Today, and Nature. He is promoting QSST in most of them. That's not the mark of someone who can't work in his field, or who has recanted his beliefs to keep a job. Yes, you can certainly argue that maybe he was treated unfairly for holding on to his theories in the face of what was becoming the establishment, but casting him as a broken, persecuted man is excessive

I certainly agree in principle that politics should not enter science. Unfortunately, scientists are human, and politics will play a role no matter what. The role of human nature also means, however, that there will be those who cling dogmatically to their own beliefs, talking up the small problems of their rivals that are present in all scientific theories, while ignoring the gaping flaws in their own.

I'll leave Chronos to deal with the rest, but I felt like dipping a toe in. :)

[AnotherHeretic]

Thanks for your insights, philbuck. From the 1940s to the 1990s is a long time, so the story of Hoyle before Arp starting taking his pictures may look different than the 90s.

BTW, What is your take on Arp?

Hmm, no one took on my question about peer review...any takers?

[JoeyBlades]

Whew! Busy these days...

DrMatrix said:


No. GR says that space is negatively curved by massive bodies. Euclidian space is flat. GR allows (but does not require) that space be globally curved.


Sorry, that was not my point. I guess I didn't express myself that well. My point was that supersymetry predicts that in the earliest seconds after the big bang the universe experienced as many as 11 dimensions. My point is that, while we have a reasonable understanding of how gravity warps space-time in 4 dimensions, we don't really know how it might have warped "space-time plus seven".



On the question of mass versus energy. I must appologize for my little faux pas, I should have refered to the initial mass of the universe as mass-energy. I think the question has already been answered, but just to echo - yes, mass-energy warps space-time exactly the same, no matter what state it's in...


Chronos wrote:


If you'll look up a little higher in that post, you'll see that I specify I'm ignoring the Cosmological Constant, which is a necessary ingredient for an inflationary Universe.


Do I detect a not of skepticism regarding an inflationary universe? Just curious...




The redshift of distant objects is, in fact, due to something other than Doppler shift-- It's due to the expansion of the Universe. As space expands, the light in it expands, as well, leading to longer wavelengths. In a uniformly expanding Universe, as ours seems to be, the effects are indistinguishable, but there are conceivable cases where they'd yield different results.



Then AnotherHeretic asked:


Interesting. Sounds almost identical to doppler effect. Could you point out where there would be different effects? Who came up with this alternate to Doppler and why?


Then Chronos wrote:


As to the difference between cosmological and Doppler redshifts: Imagine a static Universe containing two objects, a star an a planet with observers. At a certain time, the star emits a pulse of light. While the light is travelling from the star to the planet, the Universe expands significantly, and then stops again before the light reaches the planet. In this case, there would be no Doppler shift observed, as both objects were at rest relative to each other when the pulse was emitted and received, but there would still be a cosmological redshift from the expansion.


I don't really get what Chronos is trying to say (which doesn't mean his point is invalid). As far as I know, the only difference between Doppler shift and red shift is the kind of wave involved. With Doppler shift, it's sound waves - with red shift, it's light waves. The principles are the same, as objects move away from each other, the effective wavelengths appear longer. In fact, the red shift phenomenon is sometimes refered to as "Doppler Effect Red Shift". Chronos seems to be trying to differentiate between the red shift observed within a solar system and the red shift observed between galaxies... Maybe Chronos would grace us with a clearer explanation of the distinction he's trying to make???




BTW, I'm aware that it was considered a very serious model. I'm not aware that the cause of the change was the microwave background radiation, but will check into it. Do you happen to know what year the background radiation was discovered?


Cosmic Background Radiation AKA Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was first measured by radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey in 1965. Edwin Hubble first theorized that it should be present well before that (not sure of the date).



Hmm, no one took on my question about peer review...any takers?


Hey!!! You wouldn't be trying to hijack my thread, would you? [wink]

[AnotherHeretic]

Hmm, no one took on my question about peer review...any takers?


Hey!!! You wouldn't be trying to hijack my thread, would you? [wink]



Nope. Just subjecting it to peer review ;)

[Saltire]

I guess I'll try to clarify Chronos' gedanken experiment for you. What he's showing is that a red shift due to Doppler effects (which can be observed in any wave, it is not limited to sound) is caused by movement of the source or the observer. In his two-body expanding universe, there is no movement, so there can't be any Doppler effect. But the expansion would still cause a non-Doppler red shift in this situation.

I hope that was enough. If not, I'm sure Chronos will take it up next time he drops by.

[Chronos]

Gee, I feel so popular. Roughly in order: AnotherHeretic, I am indeed a physics grad student. Most of my information on Arp's theories does, indeed, come from conversations with a professor. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to catch that professor today, I'll try again tomorrow. I have seen some of the "evidence" for the galaxy-quasar links, and the ones I saw were pretty tenuous ground to hang a theory on. One was a clear example of pixel bleed, and another was a perfectly ordinary spiral arm. I'll admit, however, that these images were presented to me by people skeptical of the theory, and it's possible that they chose the least-convincing images as their examples. If you have any references for good examples, let me know, and I'll see if I can look into them.
I have no problem with heretics, just with irrational heretics. So far as I can tell, you're about as rational as the rest of us, so there's no problem there.
The steady-state model itself is perfectly well-respected, I misspoke a bit on that point. It's completely self-consistent, and makes for an interesting hypothetical case. Folks who say that it accurately describes the Universe that we live in, however, get a bit less respect.
On to Philbuck: As I understood it, the CMB was the primary observation which discredited the Steady-State model. I'm sure there were others, but I just thought that was the biggie.
Saltire and JoeyBlades: Yeah, Saltire sums up that gedanken experiment pretty well. Any further questions?

Finally, for JoeyBlades: Much as I'm enjoying the current topic, I'd also enjoy discussing your original question. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that this thread is so thoroughly hijacked by now that there's no chance anymore of actually addressing it. Maybe you ought to consider starting another thread about it, for the sake of keeping the discussions straight? And no, I'm not trying to point fingers... I'm as much to blame for the hijack as anyone else.