Chad Cooper wrote (I think)
>
>Although I am an uneducated layman when it comes to discussing the
> >politics of modern science, I do read about a lot of serious problems
>that the BB theorists try working around (One can always find what >one is
>looking for).
Wow, that�s a significant amount of "alternate thinker" language packed in a
couple of sentences. Let me ask a question of you. How familiar are you
with the science of modern science? I�m not just trying to be rude, but you
are insinuating that political expediency rules the nature of modern
science. It would be very helpful to understand how much physics you
understand as I formulate my responses.
Below, you do detail a number of questions regarding the big bang. There
still is, obviously, a great deal of science left to be done in cosmology.
However, this does not, by itself, indicate inherent problems with the
theory. Again, let me point to the limited power of QM, and the amount of
phenomenology that was involved. Or, in more modern times, the
phenomenology involved in quantum chromodynamics. However, neither is an
indication of a fundamental unsoundness.
Part of what needs to be considered is the problems with the alternative
theory. The main alternative to the big bang is the steady state universe
It should quickly become clear that a steady state universe model would
require continuous violation of the conservation of energy. Indeed, it
inherently assumes that hydrogen is continuously being created as space
expands.
There are several problems with this model. It does not predict the same
helium/hydrogen ratio that is predicted by the big bang. IIRC, predictions
were made from this theory, and were found to be erroneous.
Second, with this model, one should expect the universe to basically be
constant in time. As starts age, new stars form from the intergalactic gas
this is continuously being created. In this steady state, one should find a
universe that looks the same as one goes back in time. One should not find
quasars when one looks at great distances or times.
Third, without a big bang, there shouldn�t be a background from the bang.
It might be possible to insert the 3K background radiation into the steady
state theory in an ad hoc manner, but it is a natural prediction of the big
bang.
Fourth, non-conservation of energy in the present is a violation of a
conservation law that has been extremely useful in explaining a number of
phenomenon. Not it is possible that energy is not conserved, and that it is
being created continuously. But there are very sound reasons that
scientists are loath to give up something as basic as the law of
conservation of energy. With the big bang, one really doesn�t need to do
this. One can posit reasons for the bang existing, but one can also just
accept it as a fact. With the steady state universe, one should is speaking
of the, in a real sense, continual violation of that law here and now.
Finally, there is one critical point to be made. Every problem with the big
bang theory is not supporting evidence for the steady state theory. The
fact that there is matter and not anti-matter exists needs to be explained
by either theory. It is not intuitively obvious why matter, and not
anti-matter is created continuously. Many of the problems you list in the
big bang are also problems for a steady state model.
Finally, I assumed that you were a proponent of a steady state universe, not
just a universe that was old. It is clear that there has to be a fairly
recent source of hydrogen gas in the universe, so the only models that
assume an infinitely old universe are ones that include creation of new
matter.
>You may already be aware of them. The biggest problems I see are:
>
>How did super-galactic clusters form so quickly?
Some sort of mechanism has to be postulated in the first few seconds or
minutes of the universe�s existence. But, the steady state universe doesn�t
really offer much help here. Remember, most of the galaxies have to come
from fairly newly created matter. In fact, it is probably easier to
postulate potential mechanisms for the big bang than for the steady state
universe.
>Why is there a lot of observations of U being much older than predicted by
>BB?
I think this is reasonably covered elsewhere. Ages of stars can be off by a
factor of 1.5 or 2 quite easily. Factor of 10 or 100, no, but definitely
>How does spiral galaxy formation occur in so few rotations
Magnetic fields are postulated
>How do galaxies collide if they are expanding 'out'. They are huge!
Because there is local motion on top of the general expansion. Think of my
analogy with people leaving a stadium. It is clear that the first few
seconds of expansion cannot be perfectly uniform if we do not have a uniform
universe. But, the universe is, actually, pretty darned close to uniform,
with only minor to moderate variations on that. I would suggest that this
indicates that we simply need a second order correction�something that is
often seen in science.
>The question of how does empty "space" expand or rather, how does 'nothing'
>expand (this sounds philosophical, but it isn't)
I think I know where you are going here, and I suggest you review the nature
of science: it is not ontological.
� Why is there too much baryonic matter to match the math of BB predicts?
The easiest explanation is that the anti-proton has a lifetime that is
significantly lower than the age of the universe. Right now experiments
show that the antiproton lifetime is > 700,000 years.
>How some galaxies red shift indicate an age of 10 billion years or more,
>which is way before BB predicts galaxies would form?
>Observable evidence of fractal clustering of matter at all scales which
>opposes the idea of a smooth universe (which is required for BB) in
>extremely large scales
>
I don�t know why you say the big bang requires a perfectly smooth universe.
Simplistic models do, assuming a lack of structure in the first few seconds.
Well, there is nothing in the big bang inherently prohibiting or requiring
structure, so structure is left out of theories until one sees it is needed.
>
>I agree with the concept of friendly amendments, but adding Inflation to
>the
>BB equations is not "friendly amendments".
>
Why not? As we work with particle physics, and improve our understanding
there, and as we continue to work with theoretical physics, some rather
interesting results are obtained.
rse began.
>
>It is much more important than that. It validates the cosmologic belief
>that
>the Universe had a beginning. Big Bang fits well with Genesis. The fact
>that
>that a major religion is now accepting a "theory" as dogma should tell you
>something. Culturally, BB works well with the common cosmologic belief that
>U had a beginning, but preserving a poor model so that people are
>comfortable is not good science.
>
And it takes tremendous evidence to support such a strong accusation of the
world astrophysical community. A vast conspiracy to hide the truth about
the nature of the universe? Group think keeping real scientific progress
from being made? First of all, you don�t seem to understand the mindset of
many physicists or astrophysicists. I know many physicists and
astrophysicists who�s would outlook would have been much more sanguine in a
steady state universe. The human race could last forever in such a
universe. Since many/most are not theists, I don�t think theological
ramifications are a big deal.
>
>I don't believe that there is falsification in general. I do believe that
>there are not simple refinements going on with BB. It seems every day some
>new observation contradicts some past assumption about BB, and the BB
>theorists all break out the chalk and blackboards to create new "equations"
>to meet the new observations, so that they can then claim "See, BB is true,
>because we have some new equations that now work with the new
>observations.". The MEME is self-replicating. It can change to meet new
>observations, but it still contains the basic cosmologic principles that
>make people feel good.
>
I think you are missing something extremely important about the nature of
science. Your description of scientists breaking out the chalk boards,
actually its usually the computers now, is SOP for science. Its what
usually happens. There is always a wealth of data that appears to be in
contradiction with theoretical predictions. They are anomalies. 99.999% of
the time, they are eventually reconciled to the prevailing theories. The
classic example of this was the difference between the theoretical and
actual orbit of Earth�s moon. People were right to hold onto Newtonian
mechanics, even though it appeared to give results that were inconsistent
with observations.
Renormalization was needed to produce a QM that was consistent with data.
Renormalization involves giving the proton and the electron the right
infinity of bare charge so that the observed charge is seen as +/-e. That�s
simply standard stuff.
Once in a while, this process breaks down and there is a scientific
revolution. There may be one in cosmology. But, if there is, it will
probably not be a counter-revolution back to the older steady state model.
There are just too many problems with that model to consider it likely.
Dan M�.away from home, so no sig.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
