Dan,
I suspect that I am victim to reading too much hokey non-fiction related to
fringe science, where controversial ideas are popularly published and sold
as science, despite the poor science the author practices or pushes.
Hollywood may also may have a part in influencing my biasness towards poor
science. I do apologize for stereotyping. I am also guilty of what I accused
others of, which is allowing my cosmological view to interfere with an
objective analysis of known facts.
I know that there a lot of arguments one way or another, BB vs. Steady
State. I concede that there is a lot of supporting evidence for BB, and that
a lot of the arguments against are superfluous, and lack substantial
research. Despite it all, I will still lean toward a non BB solution. I do
not have any other model to fall back too. I do not consider myself leaning
towards steady state either. I suppose I am a BB Agnostic.
I suspect that there is too much for one person to absorb in a lifetime. As
a layman foolishly attempting to sound like I know what I am talking about,
I think I will take a break, and table this subject for now. I will not be
coming up with any solutions anytime soon (but if I do find the secret, I'll
let you know... ;->), so I don't see much point in getting worked up about
it.
I believe that my intention (unless I am in blatant denial) was to
illustrate that a cosmologic view ( the philosophical, spiritual model of
the Universe) does affect a person's stand on the scientific facts, theories
and observations. What one believes will influence what facts they will
accept, and what facts they will discredit.
However, I think you can agree that without that Cosmologic View, scientists
would not be so driven to pursue such lofty goals (like understanding how
the Universe came about). "Preachers of the Faith" are required in science,
as well as in religion. Science is too cold without some vision of pursuing
the "Greater Truth". I believe that a degree of subjective belief is
required to gain satisfaction from cold (hard and objective) science.
With that said, I will move on to the next popular fringe science subject on
the horizon.
Nerd From Hell
"liftin' the lid off Hell, and puttin' a block under it!"
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 8:00 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: The Big Bang L3
>
>
> 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.
>
> y 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
