The Big Bang Never Happened
Bill Wadge
He sets out to refute the Big Bang theory and what he sees as the
ideological basis for it.
He favours the cosmological theories of H. Alfven (based on plasma
physics).
The book is very persuasive, but I'm not a physicist - any opinions?
If the book has already been discussed in the group, sorry, I'm
relatively new - is there an archive?
Bill Wadge wwa...@csr.uvic.ca
University of Victoria
Andrew P. Rhine
I haven't read the book and don't know about any specific arguments made
therein, but it would seem that opposition to the big bang would have been
dealt a major blow by this year's results from COBE and recent observations
(by the balloon-based instruments) supporting it.
Incidentally, I heard a lecture by Michael Turner (the U. Chicago physicist)
at Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab shortly after the COBE results were made
public, and Turner made several (good-natured and quite funny) pokes at
Lerner's hypothesis, using slides titled "The Big Bang REALLY Happened!" and
the like... :)
Andrew Rhine
student, University of South Carolina
Chris Metzler
The book, to put it bluntly, is a crock. Having failed to convince the
scientific establishment of the validity of his version of Alfven's
model, Lerner has gone to the public to plead his case -- as if
scientific fact was something that you vote on, rather than, well, fact.
Lerner seems to feel that the failure of the "plasma universe" to be
adopted has more to do with the sociology of science than the comparison
of theory with observation or experiment. This is a convenient tack for
him to take, because it is, IMHO, easier to construct a seemingly valid
argument in sociology than it is in physics. However, in doing so, he
neglects to tell the public these simple facts:
1.) Whether or not the hot Big Bang model is right or wrong, it has
successfully explained a very wide variety of observations and experiments;
no other competing cosmological model has been able to do this.
2.) Whether or not the hot Big Bang model is right or wrong, it has
successfully PREDICTED (God, I'm capitalizing! Help me!) a wide variety
of observations and experiments (yes, even experiments); no other competing
cosmological model has been able to do this.
3.) There is not one single observation -- not one -- that falsifies the
hot Big Bang model. People often get inflation, or cold dark matter,
or the Einstein-deSitter (\Omega = 1) universe, or cosmic strings, or
what have you, confused with the hot Big Bang model; various results that
have cast doubt on scenarios such as above say NOTHING about
the validity of the hot Big Bang model. They merely cast doubts on, or
even falsify, specific versions of the hot Big Bang model. They would
falsify the hot Big Bang model only if those were the only options available.
4.) The Plasma Universe is in great disagreement with observation. In some
cases, it makes greater ad hoc assumptions than any which are made in any
version of the hot Big Bang model (even inflation). For example, it is
very difficult to explain the thermal spectrum of the cosmic microwave
background outside of the Big Bang. Lerner postulates invisible filaments
which scatter radiation from non-thermal sources in just exactly the right
way to make the microwave background look like a blackbody spectrum to
better than one part in 10^5. What is the physical basis for believing in
such filaments? Who knows?
In regard to #3 above, it is certainly possible to falsify the Big Bang
model. For example, if someone detected a set of distant galaxies (with
distances determined independantly of the Hubble law) with strong BLUEshifts,
or if light element abundance observations strongly break ranks with Big
Bang nucleosynthesis theory, then it's safe to say that the hot Big Bang
model would be in trouble. But no such observations have ever occurred.
And in his desire to discredit most of modern physics -- including,
unbelievably enough, the Standard Model of Particle Physics -- Lerner
really starts to scream that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
There, he demonstrates that compatibility/incompatibility with the data
really isn't what he's interested in.
If you are seriously interested in studying this in more depth, I would
suggest reading P.J.E. Peebles, D.N. Schramm, E.L. Turner, and R.G. Kron,
"The case for the relativistic hot Big Bang cosmology," Nature v352,
pp 769-776.
--
SNAILMAIL: AT&TMAIL:
Chris Metzler 313-764-4607 (office)
Department of Physics, University of Michigan 313-996-9249 (home)
Randall Lab, 500 E. University
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1120 USA
MARC PAUL JOREF VAN LOO
Big-bang is simply wrong.
Read Sandage's overview paper (1988 or 1989) in
annual review of astronomy and astrophysics
(or something close to that title).
Chris Metzler
I presume that you are referring to Sandage's "Observational Tests
of World Models," Ann Rev Astron Astrophys, v26 pp561-630 (1988).
I have a copy of it bound and above my desk, and I recommend it to
anyone interested in physical cosmology. This well-written review
essentially goes over the observational techniques used to determine
the free parameters of the hot Big Bang model, and what those
results are. I repeat what I said earlier -- it is important to
not confuse the hot Big Bang model with certain scientists'
specific versions of the hot Big Bang model. If \Omega = 1 is
observationally ruled out, for instance, that says nothing about
whether or not the hot Big Bang model is valid. Sandage makes
it fairly clear in this review that there is certainly uncertainty
in the free parameters of the model (\Omega_0 or q_o, H_o, t_o,
etc.), but remember that these free parameters are tied together
by the fundamental definition of t_o, f(\Omega) * t_o * H_o = 1,
where f is a known function, and within this they are quite
consistent with each other. Anyway, if there's something else
you get out of this review that you think falsifies the Big Bang,
please let me know, because I don't know what it is, and I definitely
don't get that impression from the review. In fact, I think
Sandage's personal opinions are made fairly clear in the quote
from the first page: "In this review a prejudice in favor of the
hot Big Bang can hardly be suppressed, successful as the model
has become in providing an understanding of the abundance of He^4
and the 3K radiation. Nevertheless, if a description of beginnings
in this sense is to be confined within the methods of science rather
than to be colored by teleological metaphysics, the model must pass
the tests normal to science rather than to be accepted as revealed
truth." In other words, I don't think Sandage takes the HBB model
on faith; and yet still (and since this review came out) he
argues in favor of the model.
-- Chris
Tom Van Flandern
wwa...@csr.UVic.CA (Bill Wadge) writes:
> [Lerner's] book is very persuasive, but I'm not a physicist - any opinions?
and rh...@bigbird.csd.scarolina.edu (Andrew P. Rhine) writes:
> it would seem that opposition to the big bang would have been dealt a major
> blow by this year's results from COBE and recent observations (by the
> balloon-based instruments) supporting it.
Not at all, Andrew. Finding marginal but significant fluctuations in
the microwave background radiation saved the big bang for the moment, but did
no damage to alternatives. Especially, it does not bear on Lerner's "proof"
that the microwave radiation must be coming from relatively local sources,
and can have nothing to do with a big bang fireball. The essence of his
argument is that galaxy luminosity differences between infrared and radio
wavelengths show intergalactic absorption at such a level that the microwave
radiation could not penetrate through more than about z = 1 or so, let alone
the z = 10,000 or so required by the big bang. [E.J. Lerner, Astrophys. J.
361, 63-68 (1990).]
and met...@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu (Chris Metzler) writes:
> The book, to put it bluntly, is a crock. Having failed to convince the
> scientific establishment of the validity of his version of Alfven's
> model, Lerner has gone to the public to plead his case -- as if scientific
> fact was something that you vote on, rather than, well, fact.
Lerner used carefully reasoned arguments against the big bang, in
contrast to this ad hominem criticism. Lerner's arguments in favor of Plasma
Cosmology are, by his own admission, somewhat more speculative. He could be
persuaded of another alternative.
> Whether or not the hot Big Bang model is right or wrong, it has
> successfully explained a very wide variety of observations and experiments;
> no other competing cosmological model has been able to do this.
All theories "explain" a wide variety of things. The same is equally
true of all alternative cosmologies. This tells us nothing to distinguish
them.
> Whether or not the hot Big Bang model is right or wrong, it has
> successfully PREDICTED (God, I'm capitalizing! Help me!) a wide variety
> of observations and experiments (yes, even experiments); no other competing
> cosmological model has been able to do this.
The use of capitals was chosen as a crank indicator because it indicates
emotional involvement. You are not crankish in any sense, and neither is
Lerner. But your use of capitals does suggest to us, your audience, a bit of
emotional involvement in this issue. Please recall that all scientists are
supposed to continually strive to criticize and find fault with all
scientific theories. That is how we make progress. I think Lerner did this
well in his book.
In fact, critics such as Lerner have argued that the big bang has yet to
make a single successful prediction. For example, Lerner discusses the
history of the supposed prediction of a microwave background radiation. The
various predictions were well off the mark in temperature. By contrast,
Eddington in 1926 (in Internal Constitution of the Stars) predicted that all
interstellar material with time to cool to equilibrium would reach a
temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin, since that is the radiation temperature of
starlight.
At present, every one of the big bang's element abundance predictions is
off the mark by several sigma, and has had to be "restored" with ad hoc
helper hypotheses. For example, the beryllium abundance was found to be 1000
times too high, so cosmic ray spallation was invoked. None of the original
predictions stand without such help.
> There is not one single observation -- not one -- that falsifies the hot
> Big Bang model.
"Proof" is in the eye of the beholder. But Tifft's observations of the
quantization of redshift (recently confirmed by Guthrie and Napier), and the
time variability of redshifts, are potentially just such a falsification. I
would add the following list:
- Lerner's observations indicating intergalactic absorption at a level far
too high for the big bang;
- The "pencil-beam" surveys that show "great Wall"-like structures at
regular intervals out to seven billion lightyears on either side of us
[e.g., Science News 137, 287 (1990)];
- Bulk streaming of local galaxies in one direction out to at least 500
million lightyears, and on the opposite side of the sky too [D. Lindley,
Nature 356, 657 (1992)]. This would disappear if the microwave
radiation were not used as a standard of rest.
> If you are seriously interested in studying this in more depth, I would
> suggest reading P.J.E. Peebles, D.N. Schramm, E.L. Turner, and R.G. Kron,
> "The case for the relativistic hot Big Bang cosmology," Nature v352,
> pp 769-776.
See also the point-by-point rebuttal to that paper in: H.C. Arp and T.
Van Flandern, "The case against the big bang," Phys.Lett. A 164, 263-273
(1992). This was also discussed extensively here on the net last fall -- a
discussion in which Turner participated. -|Tom|-
--
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / met...@well.sf.ca.us
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.
Chris Metzler
(various points about the Big Bang and alternative cosmologies deleted, for
the moment)
I'm posting this just to let you (and anybody else who cares) know that I'm
not ducking the issues; I'll write a point-by-point on Monday. But I've
got to get some work done today, and I'm out-of-town all day Saturday.
But I WILL post on Monday.
Loren I. Petrich
>
>wwa...@csr.UVic.CA (Bill Wadge) writes:
>
: [Lerner's] book is very persuasive, but I'm not a physicist - any opinions?
>and rh...@bigbird.csd.scarolina.edu (Andrew P. Rhine) writes:
: it would seem that opposition to the big bang would have been dealt a major
: blow by this year's results from COBE and recent observations (by the
: balloon-based instruments) supporting it.
> Not at all, Andrew. Finding marginal but significant fluctuations in
>the microwave background radiation saved the big bang for the moment, but did
>no damage to alternatives. Especially, it does not bear on Lerner's "proof"
>that the microwave radiation must be coming from relatively local sources,
>and can have nothing to do with a big bang fireball. The essence of his
>argument is that galaxy luminosity differences between infrared and radio
>wavelengths show intergalactic absorption at such a level that the microwave
>radiation could not penetrate through more than about z = 1 or so, let alone
>the z = 10,000 or so required by the big bang. [E.J. Lerner, Astrophys. J.
>361, 63-68 (1990).]
But then, how would Lerner explain the pattern of
fluctuations?
IR/radio luminosities? I'm not terribly familiar with that
question, but I would presume that resolving it requires a detail
prediction of what the zero-intergalactic-extinction spectrum ought to
be.
Furthermore, in general, the optical depth is NOT proportional
to the redshift, though this is true to first approximation for small
redshifts. Looks like you need a refresher course in GR.
The metric for an isotropic, homogeneous cosmology is
ds^2 = - dt^2 + a(t)^2*(dx^2 + s(x)^2*(d(theta)^2 + sin(theta)^2*d(phi)^2))
where a(t) is the current "Universe size" and x is a radial
coordinate. s(x) = sin(x) for curvature = +1, x for 0, and sinh(x) for -1.
The Hubble constant is H = (1/a)*(da/dt) and the deceleration
parameter is q = - a*(d^2(a)/dt^2)/((da/dt)^2).
a(t) may be found from the familiar Newtonian equation,
interestingly enough:
d^2(a)/dt^2 = - 4*pi*G*rho*a
The quantity (omega) = (8*pi*G*rho)/(3*H^2).
It is >1 for positive curvature (expansion will reverse), 1
for zero curvature (borderline expansion), and <1 for negative
curvature (expansion that settles down for constant velocity) in a
matter-dominated Universe.
where rho ~ 1/a^3 in the matter-dominated regime, rho ~ 1/a^4
in the radiation-dominated regime, and rho ~ constant in the
vacuum-energy-dominated regime (if there ever is such a thing).
The redshift from time t to time t0 is
1 + z = a(t)/a(t0)
and the path length is
dl = a(t) dx
= dt for light.
So to get back to z = 10,000 does not require traveling a
distance 10,000 times greater, but only about 50% greater for a
standard, matter-dominated cosmology. However, the opacity does
increase with increasing density, giving a path length of about
t/a^3 or about 1/t or about 1/a^(3/2), for a ~ t^(2/3)
(matter dominated), if the opacity is proportional to the density.
> In fact, critics such as Lerner have argued that the big bang has yet to
>make a single successful prediction. For example, Lerner discusses the
>history of the supposed prediction of a microwave background radiation. The
>various predictions were well off the mark in temperature. By contrast,
>Eddington in 1926 (in Internal Constitution of the Stars) predicted that all
>interstellar material with time to cool to equilibrium would reach a
>temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin, since that is the radiation temperature of
>starlight.
Starlight in the interstellar medium inside a galaxy, yes. The
intergalactic medium? Almost certainly too big.
> At present, every one of the big bang's element abundance predictions is
>off the mark by several sigma, and has had to be "restored" with ad hoc
>helper hypotheses. For example, the beryllium abundance was found to be 1000
>times too high, so cosmic ray spallation was invoked. None of the original
>predictions stand without such help.
Are you implying that stellar nucleosynthesis and cosmic-ray
spallation are _not_ legitimate hypotheses?
The helium-4 abundance actually turns out rather good, which
is a counterexample to this particular contention.
: There is not one single observation -- not one -- that falsifies the hot
: Big Bang model.
> "Proof" is in the eye of the beholder. But Tifft's observations of the
>quantization of redshift (recently confirmed by Guthrie and Napier), and the
>time variability of redshifts, are potentially just such a falsification. I
>would add the following list:
> - Lerner's observations indicating intergalactic absorption at a level far
> too high for the big bang;
[see above]
> - The "pencil-beam" surveys that show "great Wall"-like structures at
> regular intervals out to seven billion lightyears on either side of us
> [e.g., Science News 137, 287 (1990)];
> - Bulk streaming of local galaxies in one direction out to at least 500
> million lightyears, and on the opposite side of the sky too [D. Lindley,
> Nature 356, 657 (1992)]. This would disappear if the microwave
> radiation were not used as a standard of rest.
I don't see how these are supposed to be fatal objections.
These observations only indicate that there is something or
other, such as cosmic strings, which makes _very_ large-scale
structures.
>Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / met...@well.sf.ca.us
>Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
>supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.
Well, I think that you need to understand what you are
criticizing a little bit better, so you will know what it is you are
criticizing instead of tilting at windmills.
--
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/l...@s1.gov
clem...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> In article <C0JL5...@well.sf.ca.us> met...@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
>>
>>wwa...@csr.UVic.CA (Bill Wadge) writes:
>>
> : [Lerner's] book is very persuasive, but I'm not a physicist - any opinions?
>
>>and rh...@bigbird.csd.scarolina.edu (Andrew P. Rhine) writes:
>
> : it would seem that opposition to the big bang would have been dealt a major
> : blow by this year's results from COBE and recent observations (by the
> : balloon-based instruments) supporting it.
>
>> Not at all, Andrew. Finding marginal but significant fluctuations in
>>the microwave background radiation saved the big bang for the moment, but did
>>no damage to alternatives. Especially, it does not bear on Lerner's "proof"
>>that the microwave radiation must be coming from relatively local sources,
>>and can have nothing to do with a big bang fireball. The essence of his
>>argument is that galaxy luminosity differences between infrared and radio
>>wavelengths show intergalactic absorption at such a level that the microwave
>>radiation could not penetrate through more than about z = 1 or so, let alone
>>the z = 10,000 or so required by the big bang. [E.J. Lerner, Astrophys. J.
>>361, 63-68 (1990).]
>
[Interesting discussion of intergal;actic extinction in a real universe with GR
deleted, but I think it makes some good points that Lerner has not addressed]
Its nice to see this discussion again, but I'm interested that it seems to have
gone to sci.physics from sci.astro. Was there too much heat in sci.astro for
the anti-BB camp? I'd appreciate followups sent to sci.astro as I don't get
sci.physics anymore.
Anyway, this has woken me up again, and at last I will get around to posting my
objections to Lerner's paper whic, I have to admit, I promised Tom about 6
months ago...
Lerner's paper is based on IRAS and radio data for a range of galaxies at
various distances. He uses the well known far-infrared (FIR)- radio flux
correlation relation (Helou Soifer & Rowan-Robinson ApJ. 298 L7) to predict a
galaxy's FIR flux based on its radio flux. He then calculates the difference
between observed and predicted FIR flux and finds a correlation between this
difference and galaxy redshoft. This is used ti infer that the FIR emission is
beign reduced in the more distant galaxies by absorption in the intervening
intergalactic medium.
There are a number of problems with this result which I will now describe. They
are not inescapable difficulties, and further work may be able to get round
them, but at this stage they are grounds for serious doubts on the paper's
conclusions, especially since these conclusions have wide reaching implications
for the CBR and the Big Bang. My doubts are as follows:
(1) The correlation coefficient for the decrease in FIR flux with redshift is
only 0.35 (it would be 1 for a perfect relationship), and there is visually a
great deal of scatter in the diagram. While such scatter might be expected
given the usual uncertainties with observational data, the scatter here is not
random. The bulk of the scatter is at the higher redshifts where the bulk of
the data lies. Worse than this, the marority of the correlation comes from a
small number of points at low redshift (very close to our own galaxy). Indeed,
if you remove the nearest 10 objects from the plot, visually the correlation
seems to go away. I have not done the statistics on this, but the change is
clear to the eye. This suggests to me that the 'correlation' is actually some
artifact introduced by some problem with the nearby objects, which makes them
seem to have either too much FIR flux, or too little radio emission.
(2) Two separate methods are used to extract the FIR data from the IRAS
satellite; ADDSCAN and COADD. The exact differences are not important, but the
applications of these methods is. ADDSCAN is used for more distant, smaller
galaxies, while COADD is used for nearer objects extended beyond 8'. There are
known to be systematic differences between the fluxes produced by these two
methods (I don't have a reference for theis I'm afraid. It was brought up at
the NATO ASI on Clusters and Superclusters in summer 1991). This could easily
account for the shift of the nearer objects relative to the more distant ones.
(3) There is a significant contaminating foreground componant in our galaxy,
the IRAS Cirrus, which can contaminate the integrated fluxes of large objects,
and so make them seem brighter in the FIR than they actually appear. This will
be especially problematic if the nearby objects are selected close to the
galactic plane, which they seem to be from Lerner's object lists.
(4) Of the closest 10 or so galaxies which I checked in catal;ogues, there are
problems with at least 4 of them. It should be noted that the radio-FIR
relationship seems only to work for spiral galaxies and those exhibiting a
significant star formation rate. Other objects might not fall on the relation,
ruining any results that assume they do. The problems are:
NGC55 This has a multiple nucleaus and so is probably not a spiral. Quite what
it is is unclear.
NGC110 is not a galaxy but a star cluster and so should not be included.
NGC 1569 is an Arp peculiar galaxy, and so should not e included.
NGC 3077 is an elliptical, a class of galaxy Lerner specifically excludes from
the sample.
These classifications are all based on NGC, and remove 4 of the closest 10
objects, already reducing the significance of the total correlation. I have not
investigated further due to lack of time, but I suggest that these problems all
suggest that the Lerner result is not as cast iron as TVF and others seem to
think it is.
It would be interesting to have Eric Lerner's comments on these issues.
Best wishes,
Dave
>>Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / met...@well.sf.ca.us
>>Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
>>supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.
>
> --
> /Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
> /l...@s1.gov
--
================================================================================
Dave Clements, Oxford University Astrophysics Department
================================================================================
clements @ uk.ac.ox.vax | Umberto Eco is the *real* Comte de
dlc @ uk.ac.ox.astro | Saint Germain...
================================================================================
Tom Van Flandern
Earlier, I wrote:
>> galaxy luminosity differences between infrared and radio wavelengths show
>> intergalactic absorption at such a level that the microwave radiation
>> could not penetrate through more than about z = 1 or so
and met...@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu (Chris Metzler) replied:
> The presence of large amounts of free gas in rich clusters of galaxies ...
> implies the existence of an intergalactic medium. However, quasar spectra
> show no Lyman alpha absorption trough, which would exist if there were an
> absorbing intergalactic medium filling the space between us and quasars.
But in most alternative cosmologies these days, quasars are not at their
cosmological distances. There is a mountain of evidence for this, as I
presented here last year in "Quasars: Near versus Far."
> [Lerner] essentially claims that as you go out with distance, the radio
> flux observed from his sample of galaxies drops faster than the IR flux
> does. Now, that can certainly be interpreted as intergalactic absorption;
> it can also be interpreted as the result of galactic evolution.
True, but the yellow galaxies show no signs of evolution at those
distances, and the blue galaxies give every indication of being unrelated,
rather than an earlier evolutional phase of yellow galaxies.
> If [Lerner] wants to show an inconsistency with the Big Bang model, he has
> to use the Big Bang model to analyze his data and thus arrive at an
> inconsistency.
Theoreticians are so inventive (dark matter, relativistic beaming, EUV
tunnels through the ISM, etc.) that not even possible quasar proper motions
and gamma ray emissions and quantized redshifts and the lack of radio sources
with small angular diameters and lots of other startling phenomena are
considered "inconsistencies" with the big bang. Since big bang proponents
have given up on suggesting things that could falsify the theory, and since
they assimilate all new data whether it fits or not, I no longer try to argue
whether the data is "inconsistent" with the big bang. I simply invoke
Occam's razor. The choice to be made in the future will be either a familiar
theory that models everything after the fact, or a theory that provides deep,
satisfying, fundamental insights into the processes of nature. I opt for the
latter.
> In short, on first pass, I don't think this paper shows anything.
I think you mean "proves" anything. Lerner's interpretation would
probably be judged the better one if there weren't any consequences for the
big bang to consider in the mix.
> And, from having read the book, it is clear to me that most of Lerner's
> arguments against the Big Bang are not scientific but instead sociological
> in nature. That is, Lerner seems to consider his most persuasive
> arguments those in which he assails the scientific community and the
> manner in which he thinks scientific investigation is done.
Two different perspectives. I skimmed over most of Lerner's
sociological arguments in the second part of the book. In my review of the
book for Galilean Electrodynamics, I said "I think any author who has done
his homework and gathered together so much material of interest to the reader
should be indulged a bit in expressing his views about what it all means.
Personally, I find the second part less interesting and far less convincing
than the first part. But given that it is nicely segregated, I do not
begrudge the author his opportunity to promote some of his own ideas." OTOH,
I found the arguments in the first part of the book on target and, in a few
cases, devastating.
> The Big Bang model does not carry any new science as baggage; ... it does
> not require the abandonment of much successful modern physics (e.g., if I
> remember correctly, your own Meta model).
A new model advocates abandonment of the model it seeks to replace more
or less tautologically. That can hardly be regarded as a mark against it.
The Meta Model does not seek the abandonment of any observation or
experiment, but instead seeks to provide a deeper and more satisfying
understanding of their meaning than existing models can do. "New science"?
That becomes a matter of definition. Isn't "dark matter" new science?
Weren't "black holes" new science when they were first conceived? Which is
to be preferred by objective criteria: a model that requires the existence of
invisible matter that neither absorbs nor emits radiation at any wavelength
as the dominant constituent of the universe, or a model that modifies a
mathematical formula for sound reasons that follow from first principles and
thereby explains all the same phenomena without any hypothetical dark matter?
>> Eddington in 1926 (in Internal Constitution of the Stars) predicted that
>> all interstellar material with time to cool to equilibrium would reach a
>> temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin, since that is the radiation temperature
>> of starlight.
> As for the Eddington quote above, could you be more specific about where
> in the book you mean? I'm not familiar with the book. At any rate,
> surely you know that a sum of black body sources all at the same
> temperature, in an expanding world model, would not look like a perfect
> thermal black body to us.
See Chapter 13 for the relevant discussion. The book was reprinted in
1986.
It is now accepted that the solar system is immersed in a local
"superbubble" from a supernova several million years ago. That remnant has
had time to cool to thermal equilibrium with its surroundings. The radiation
inside would be highly uniform even if the remnant itself was not. Leaving
aside the SZ effect (that is a whole other argument that we covered last
summer), I don't see another reason why the local superbubble could not be
the entire source of the smooth microwave blackbody radiation we see.
>> - Bulk streaming of local galaxies in one direction out to at least 500
>> million lightyears, and on the opposite side of the sky too [D.
>> Lindley, Nature 356, 657 (1992)]. This would disappear if the
>> microwave radiation were not used as a standard of rest.
> Please explain why you feel that this observation is a problem for the Big
> Bang. I can't think of a reason. I have a suspicion that you are again
> confusing the Big Bang model in general with specific models of large-scale
> structure.
Not a problem for the big bang -- just wielding good old Occam's Razor
again. Which is easier: moving all the galaxies in our part of the universe
in an unexpected bulk flow toward Hydra, or allowing that the microwave
radiation (with its 600 km/s dipole toward Hydra) does not provide a standard
of rest, in which case all the galaxies can be standing still?
> P.S. If you wish to continue this discussion, I'm sort-of willing (boy, am
> I stupid when I have this much work to do). ... But I won't be able to
> respond on more than about a weekly basis or so, or my advisor is going to
> think twice about continuing to pay me.
I also have limited time at present. Respond as the mood strikes you,
and let's neither of us be too concerned about slow replies. All of us have
jobs to do while we're figuring out where we all came from.
> P.P.S. On that note, how should I refer to you? I prefer to write
> messages like this in a conversational tone. Some people get grumpy when I
> use their first names (too familiar), while others feel "Mr. or Ms. (last
> name here)" is too stuffy and annoying. I go by Chris.
I sign all my notes with my first name to invite people to call me by
it. Unfortunately for me, I tend to default to the same convention with
others unless they grump at me. I think one of the nice things about
networking is the lessening of class distinctions. We're all without our
degrees and of one race, creed, color, nationality, even gender, except to
the extent we choose to reveal those things. I go by Tom. The answer to
your implicit question is implicit in the fact that I have been an AAS member
for over 25 years. It's nice to make your acquaintance in this medium,
Chris. You comport yourself very well. -|Tom|-
--
Loren I. Petrich
>and met...@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu (Chris Metzler) replied:
: The presence of large amounts of free gas in rich clusters of galaxies ...
: implies the existence of an intergalactic medium. However, quasar spectra
: show no Lyman alpha absorption trough, which would exist if there were an
: absorbing intergalactic medium filling the space between us and quasars.
> But in most alternative cosmologies these days, quasars are not at their
>cosmological distances. There is a mountain of evidence for this, as I
>presented here last year in "Quasars: Near versus Far."
_What_ alternative cosmologies?
And _what_ physical mechanism accounts for the quasar
redshifts? Especially if the quasars are connected to lowered-redshift
galaxies, as Arp claims.
: [Lerner] essentially claims that as you go out with distance, the radio
: flux observed from his sample of galaxies drops faster than the IR flux
: does. Now, that can certainly be interpreted as intergalactic absorption;
: it can also be interpreted as the result of galactic evolution.
>
> True, but the yellow galaxies show no signs of evolution at those
>distances, and the blue galaxies give every indication of being unrelated,
>rather than an earlier evolutional phase of yellow galaxies.
I have yet to see any really good theories of galactic
evolution, comparable (say) to stellar-evolution work. So using
galactic evolution as a predictor is problematic at best over
cosmological timescales.
: If [Lerner] wants to show an inconsistency with the Big Bang model, he has
: to use the Big Bang model to analyze his data and thus arrive at an
: inconsistency.
>
> Theoreticians are so inventive (dark matter, relativistic beaming, EUV
>tunnels through the ISM, etc.) that not even possible quasar proper motions
>and gamma ray emissions and quantized redshifts and the lack of radio sources
>with small angular diameters and lots of other startling phenomena are
>considered "inconsistencies" with the big bang. Since big bang proponents
>have given up on suggesting things that could falsify the theory, and since
>they assimilate all new data whether it fits or not, I no longer try to argue
>whether the data is "inconsistent" with the big bang. I simply invoke
>Occam's razor. The choice to be made in the future will be either a familiar
>theory that models everything after the fact, or a theory that provides deep,
>satisfying, fundamental insights into the processes of nature. I opt for the
>latter.
And you've got some wonderful new theory that explains _all_
of this with a minimum of _ad hoc_ assumptions?
Please tell us all about it, and be willing to accept that not
everybody will find it immediately convincing at first sight.
"Quantized redshifts", if they are not a statistical artifact,
are most likely due to the large-scale structure that has been seen in
some recent galaxy surveys.
"Lack of radio sources with small angular diameters"? Are you
sure that such sources would be too faint to be picked up very easily?
"Observational selection" is a perennial problem in astronomy.
"Quasar proper motions"? Relative to what? I presume each
other. There may be problems defining the precise positions of sources
that are
[Mention of a sympathetic review of Galilean Electrodynamics...]
Departures from Special Relativity would certainly be
interesting to learn about, but such departures certainly do not
vindicate Newtonianism, as the title of that publication would seem to
suggest.
: The Big Bang model does not carry any new science as baggage; ... it does
: not require the abandonment of much successful modern physics (e.g., if I
: remember correctly, your own Meta model).
> A new model advocates abandonment of the model it seeks to replace more
>or less tautologically. That can hardly be regarded as a mark against it.
>The Meta Model does not seek the abandonment of any observation or
>experiment, but instead seeks to provide a deeper and more satisfying
>understanding of their meaning than existing models can do. "New science"?
>That becomes a matter of definition. Isn't "dark matter" new science?
>Weren't "black holes" new science when they were first conceived? Which is
>to be preferred by objective criteria: a model that requires the existence of
>invisible matter that neither absorbs nor emits radiation at any wavelength
>as the dominant constituent of the universe, or a model that modifies a
>mathematical formula for sound reasons that follow from first principles and
>thereby explains all the same phenomena without any hypothetical dark matter?
Congratulations. You have just described the neutrino, which
is one dark-matter candidate. Neutrinos are very close to being
"invisible matter that neither absorbs nor emits radiation at any
wavelength". Some Grand Unified Theories, especially those with
Supersymmetry, predict additional such particles. So don't laugh too
hard.
However, modifying the law of gravity, as Milgrom(?) proposes
to do, seems awfully _ad hoc_ and does not lend itself to the sort of
elegant descriptions that are a feature of Newtonian gravity and GR.
: > - Bulk streaming of local galaxies in one direction out to at least 500
: > million lightyears, and on the opposite side of the sky too [D.
: > Lindley, Nature 356, 657 (1992)]. This would disappear if the
: > microwave radiation were not used as a standard of rest.
: Please explain why you feel that this observation is a problem for the Big
: Bang. I can't think of a reason. I have a suspicion that you are again
: confusing the Big Bang model in general with specific models of large-scale
: structure.
> Not a problem for the big bang -- just wielding good old Occam's Razor
>again. Which is easier: moving all the galaxies in our part of the universe
>in an unexpected bulk flow toward Hydra, or allowing that the microwave
>radiation (with its 600 km/s dipole toward Hydra) does not provide a standard
>of rest, in which case all the galaxies can be standing still?
So you've got a better theory?
The formation of large-scale structure of the Universe is
admittedly an unsolved problem, but does anyone have some good
non-Big-Bang alternatives that manage to predict what the Big Bang
theory successfully predicts?
MARC PAUL JOREF VAN LOO
interesting discussion.
Testing BB comes in two parts:
1) geometric consequences of the Friedmann-
Robertson-Walker model.
2) checking the supposed mass-density,
distribution of elements etc.
Lerner spends only one superficial paragraph
on 1), but I think he has some good points on 2).
In my point of view, 1) and 2) are unrelated.
1) is considered to be in favor of BB.
My question now is: could we have this plasma-
model in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker BB model,
or must one have a static universe for plasma-physics.
For certainly, these computer simulations of
galaxy forming in plasma physics look very impressive,
and it seems nice if plasma physics could be
incorporated in FRW BB.
Gordon Joly
A better theory? Well, the Big Bang corresponds quite neatly to The
Tao in Chinese classic philosophy. See works by F. Capra et al.
Gordo.
____
Gordon Joly Phone +44 71 387 7050 ext 3703 FAX +44 71 387 1397
Internet: G.J...@cs.ucl.ac.uk UUCP: ...!{uunet,uknet}!ucl-cs!G.Joly
Computer Science, University College London, Gower Street, LONDON WC1E 6BT
John C. Baez
>
>A better theory? Well, the Big Bang corresponds quite neatly to The
>Tao in Chinese classic philosophy. See works by F. Capra et al.
Alas, Capra is wrong - if indeed he says this. By the way, the more
up-to-date sinologists (like my fiancee :-)) now realize that one
shouldn't capitalize Tao when translating this Chinese character; to do
so distorts its significance, which is roughly "way". Classical Chinese
philosophy speaks of "my tao," "your tao," "the tao according to
Confucius," "taos" and also "the tao". (Matters are complicated by the
fact that classical Chinese has no capital letters and no ending to
denote plurals, which are implicit in the context.) In any event, the
Tao Te Ching has a famous passage "the tao is the mother of the yin and
yang, the yin and yang are the mother of the ten thousand things"
(roughly - I don't have it on me). But this is not to be interpreted as
a massive primordial explosion! It roughly means that the tao is the
precondition for the notion of opposites, and opposites (or
distinctions) are the precondition for our parsing of the world into a
multiplicity of things.
In general, Capra may fool physicists into thinking he understands
"Eastern mysticism" (a misnomer for a wide variety of distinct
philosophies such as Taoism and many different forms of Buddhism), and
he may fool humanists into thinking he understands physics, but it is
not clear that he understands either except superficially.
It should be emphasized too that there is no such thing as "The Tao in
Chinese classic philosophy" since Confucians, Mohists, Taoists etc. had
many different ideas about this concept. I recommend
Disputers of the Tao : philosophical argument in ancient China / A.C.
Graham. La Salle, Ill. : Open Court, c1989.
I happen to know, by the way, that this title was forced on Graham by
the publisher, who thought it would sell more copies. He thought it was
hopelessly tacky. It's a serious but readable account of early Chinese
philosophy, and I am going on about this in sci.physics since I think
physicists might enjoy learning a little about this from a reputable
source, rather than trendy New Age type like Capra. This would help
them demolish misconceptions about "physics and Eastern mysticism" from
both ends - the physics end and the humanities end.
Benjamin Weiner
>A better theory? Well, the Big Bang corresponds quite neatly to The
>Tao in Chinese classic philosophy. See works by F. Capra et al.
Please don't, as overly facile correspondences are demeaning
intellectually to both modern-day physics and astronomy, and the
long and honorable tradition of Chinese philosophy.
Richard A. Schumacher
>A better theory? Well, the Big Bang corresponds quite neatly to The
>Tao in Chinese classic philosophy. See works by F. Capra et al.
Ridiculous. If you can pry two correct, quantitative predictions
about cosmology out of the Tao (with or without Capra's help) I'll
send you a dollar and acknowledge your genius on the Net.
Tom Van Flandern
bwe...@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
> I thought I'd respond to an earlier assertion of Tom's, that the
> uniformity of the microwave background could come from the radiation
> having equilibrated within the "Local Bubble" which is thought to be a
> local region of low-density gas due to a supernova in the local
> neighborhood at some past time.
>
> The local gas is low-density, hot gas of T ~ 10^7 K (or maybe 10^5 K, I
> can't quite remember). Evidence for this hot gas is the roughly uniform
> soft X-ray background. I don't see any physical process one could trick
> up to bring a microwave radiation field into equilibrium with the local
> bubble gas and have its temperature come out to 3 K, especially in the
> comparatively short time since the progenitor supernova.
The cooling rates of supernova gas shells are such that they should
reach thermal equilibrium in a few million years. Our local superbubble is
estimated at four million years old. The local equilibrium temperature is,
I think not coincidentally, 3 degrees Kelvin.
But the equilibrium only refers to the gas shell from the event.
Individual alpha particles, nucleons, and electrons in the expanding shock
wave do not collide so readily, and so are not cooled in this way. They
will still be moving at high velocities; and on the rare occasions when they
do collide with matter, soft X-rays would be generated.
> Tom, it behooves you to have a mechanism for these things, not to just
> throw out random suggestions.
I do have a specific and detailed mechanism. But that is not a short
story. I have left all the long stories for my book, out soon. -|Tom|-
--
Mark
>>A better theory? Well, the Big Bang corresponds quite neatly to The
>>Tao in Chinese classic philosophy. See works by F. Capra et al.
bwe...@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>Please don't, as overly facile correspondences are demeaning
>intellectually to both modern-day physics and astronomy, and the
>long and honorable tradition of Chinese philosophy.
Please do. Linkages between established schools of thought greatly enhance the
significance of both and contribute to the spirit of globalism, in addition to
providing increased perspective on our position and role in the universe.
Benjamin Weiner
> The cooling rates of supernova gas shells are such that they should
>reach thermal equilibrium in a few million years. Our local superbubble is
>estimated at four million years old. The local equilibrium temperature is,
>I think not coincidentally, 3 degrees Kelvin.
> But the equilibrium only refers to the gas shell from the event.
>Individual alpha particles, nucleons, and electrons in the expanding shock
>wave do not collide so readily, and so are not cooled in this way. ...
> I do have a specific and detailed mechanism. But that is not a short
>story. I have left all the long stories for my book, out soon. -|Tom|-
I see - you meant that the radiation could be coming from the cold
expanding shock front itself, not from the gas inside it (in the bubble).
Frankly, I don't think a million(s)-year-old shock wave could possibly
remain smooth enough to generate radiation isotropic to one part in 10^4,
and so on and so forth - in fact, if this really turns out to be the cause
of the microwave radiation, I'll eat an issue of the Astrophysical
Journal (and those of you in the field know how hard the Ap. J. is to
digest!) But thanks for clarifying your explanation, Tom.
Emory F. Bunn
>Benjamin Weiner writes (criticizing F. Capra's books, such as The Tao of
Physics):
>> Overly facile correspondences are demeaning
>>intellectually to both modern-day physics and astronomy, and the
>>long and honorable tradition of Chinese philosophy.
Mark responds:
> Linkages between established schools of thought greatly enhance the
>significance of both and contribute to the spirit of globalism, in addition to
>providing increased perspective on our position and role in the universe.
I certainly agree that insights of great value can come from observing
previously unseen connections between distinct intellectual endeavors.
However, in order for such insights to be valuable, the author must thoroughly
understand the two fields he is attempting to connect. I have yet to meet a
physicist who thinks Capra has anything more than the most superficial
understanding of modern physics. I have also never met anyone who knows
anything about "Eastern" philosophies (which includes many radically
different philosophies) who respects Capra's scholarship in any of these
areas. I think that's what Ben means when he says that Capra's work
is overly facile and demeaning to both of the fields he's trying to
unify.
-Ted
Jason D Corley
>G.J...@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Gordon Joly) writes:
>>>A better theory? Well, the Big Bang corresponds quite neatly to The
>>>Tao in Chinese classic philosophy. See works by F. Capra et al.
>
>bwe...@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
>>long and honorable tradition of Chinese philosophy.
>
>significance of both and contribute to the spirit of globalism, in addition to
>providing increased perspective on our position and role in the universe.
No, I think Mr. Weiner was trying to say that Chinese philosophy doesn't
apply in this particular situation. It's really easy to say a parallel
exists where there is none, and Mr. Weiner was warning us against that.
As other posters have pointed out, Capra's book was largely inaccurate.
(I would be hard pressed to give specifics, though, as I have not myself
read it.)
But I do know that a lot of people I know get the wrong idea about both
physics and philosophy when they say things like "Both quantum physics
and Taoism reject the idea of dualism, and the parallels are staggering."
The fact of the matter is, both quantum physics and Taoism are much more
than the rejection of dualism, and restricting them to that single aspect
of their attributes is an insult to both of them. The parallels really
aren't that significant in this case.
--
"Seriousness of mind was a prerequisite for understanding Newtonian physics.
I am not convinced that it is not a handicap in understanding quantum theory."
------Connie Willis
Jason "cor...@gas.uug.arizona.edu" Corley Southern Arizona Gizmonic Institute
Tom Van Flandern
bwe...@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Benjamin Weiner) writes:
> if [TVF's idea about the local superbubble] really turns out to be the
> cause of the microwave radiation, I'll eat an issue of the Astrophysical
> Journal (and those of you in the field know how hard the Ap. J. is to
> digest!)
You might want to check out the full model and the reasons behind it
in my book before committing yourself to eating a whole ApJ issue. :-)
I don't mean to, but I seem to incite people to make these outlandish
bets. One fellow promised to "stand naked at high noon on the plaza at the
Jet Propulsion Lab" in Pasadena if I'm right about the exploded planet
hypothesis. Another colleague is probably starting to regret a bet
regarding the frequency of double asteroids. Toutatis, as you know, just
came close enough for radar resolution, and was found to be another contact
binary.
> Frankly, I don't think a million(s)-year-old shock wave could possibly
> remain smooth enough to generate radiation isotropic to one part in 10^4
It doesn't remain isotropic. It just blows a roughly spherical hole
in the local interstellar medium. Those parts of the ISM that have reached
temperature equilibrium then radiate at 3 degrees Kelvin. In general, the
radiation everywhere inside a nearly spherical source is almost perfectly
uniform, even though it is irregular outside the sphere.
This model is not one I have high confidence in. I mention it mainly
to illustrate how little we really know about the microwave radiation
source when we can't even rule out a local origin. But I'd hate to see you
end up on the short end of your own challenge, so I'll tell you what. If
I'm right, you just start teaching your students to keep an open mind to
new ideas that challenge accepted ones.
Come to think of it, that's not a bad idea anyway. -|Tom|-
clem...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
>> "Lack of radio sources with small angular diameters"? Are you sure that
>> such sources would be too faint to be picked up very easily?
>> "Observational selection" is a perennial problem in astronomy.
>
> See Hewish et al., Ap.J. 381, 3-5 (1991). A correlation between
> apparent angular size and redshift was looked for in 3CR sources. The
> authors identified a marked deficit of sources with small angular diameters,
> especially significant at the largest redshifts. This was attributed to
> cosmological broadening, which in turn implies 0.5 < q0 < 2.0 (q0 =
> deceleration parameter) and a strongly closed universe. But even then, the
> apparent lack of the smallest sources (angular diameters < 0.1 arcsecs)
> remains unexplained.
>
You may be interested to know that Nature this week (14th or 15th Jan I think)
contains a paper which uses new data to establish an angular size - redshift
correlation and derive q0 = 0.5 from it. I have yet to read this paper in
detail, so I don't know how much to trust it, but it suffices to demonstrate
that this particlualr issue is far from resolved, and may in fact end up in
favour of conventional Big Bang models, rather than against as Tom suggests.
Ethan T. Vishniac
(in the sense that the material swept up by the shock loses most of
its thermal energy to radiation in a time short compared to the evolution
time of the shock) are unstable on time scales comparable to the sound
travel time through the shocked shell (much shorter than the shock age)
and produce persistent density fluctuations of order unity.
Also, gas at 3 K does not radiate like a blackbody unless it is
optically thick.
--
"Quis tamen tale studium, quo ad primam omnium rerum causam evehimur,
tamquam inutile aut contemnendum detractare ac deprimere ausit?"-Bridel
Ethan T. Vishniac, Dept. of Astronomy, The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas, 78712 et...@astro.as.utexas.edu
Benjamin Weiner
magnetic field. And the Local Bubble is not thought to be actually
spherical, at least in the sketches I've seen, though no doubt this
is more conjectural. I'll stick with my offer to eat the Ap. J., thanks.
(I get to put hot sauce on it, I'll eat anything with enough hot sauce.)
Tom Van Flandern
et...@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Ethan T. Vishniac) writes:
> Just thought I'd point out that shock waves that radiate efficiently ...
> are unstable on time scales comparable to the sound travel time ...
> and produce persistent density fluctuations of order unity. Also, gas at
> 3 K does not radiate like a blackbody unless it is optically thick.
Ethan, I did not describe the "local superbubble" origin for the
microwave radiation in sufficient detail for critiqing -- that was not the
purpose of the message. But what I had in mind was a roughly spherical
hole blown in the local interstellar medium (as observed). Then the
portion of that medium that has already reached thermal equilibrium would
radiate at 3 degrees Kelvin. That radiation would be rather isotropic when
observed from the inside of the bubble, since the radiation density depends
hardly at all on the details of the shape of the bubble because it is
coming from the optically thick interstellar medium beyond it. -|Tom|-
Ethan T. Vishniac
local superbubble to be radiating at 3 degrees K. The only
point of the bubble seems to be to establish a local, spherically
symmetric hole.
This still seems wrong. The ISM of the galaxy won't produce a blackbody
unless it is optically thick at the relevant wavelengths. It isn't.
Benjamin Weiner
>microwave radiation in sufficient detail for critiqing -- that was not the
Tough. Any amount of detail is sufficient for critiquing on Usenet ...
after all Tom occasionally critiques stuff that I post without my
asking him to, and so on. I now retire from this discussion, because
it "ain't goin' nowhere," as Bob Dylan would say.
Joe Wang
>the significance of both and contribute to the spirit of globalism, in
>addition to providing increased perspective on our position and role in the
>universe.
If you want to try and somehow link Chinese philosophy and cosmology,
at least get them correct. Almost all the works, including the "Tao
of Physics" and the "Dancing Wu-Li Masters" get both their Chinese
philosophy and their physics wrong.
Most of Chinese philosophy deals with the ethical and metaphysical
foundations of the universe and do not make any claims toward
understanding the physical world. As such, combining Taoism and
astrophysics makes as much sense as combining Catholicism and/or
existentialism and astrophysics. That is to say, none at all.
Jim Buell
>et...@emx.cc.utexas.edu (Ethan T. Vishniac) writes:
>> Just thought I'd point out that shock waves that radiate efficiently ...
>> are unstable on time scales comparable to the sound travel time ...
>> and produce persistent density fluctuations of order unity. Also, gas at
>> 3 K does not radiate like a blackbody unless it is optically thick.
> Ethan, I did not describe the "local superbubble" origin for the
>microwave radiation in sufficient detail for critiqing -- that was not the
>purpose of the message. But what I had in mind was a roughly spherical
>hole blown in the local interstellar medium (as observed). Then the
>portion of that medium that has already reached thermal equilibrium would
>radiate at 3 degrees Kelvin. That radiation would be rather isotropic when
>observed from the inside of the bubble, since the radiation density depends
>hardly at all on the details of the shape of the bubble because it is
>coming from the optically thick interstellar medium beyond it. -|Tom|-
How thick is your ISM? Does its density eventually drop off somewhere?
>--
>Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / met...@well.sf.ca.us
>Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
>supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.
Jim Buell
Tom Van Flandern
bu...@phyast.nhn.uoknor.edu (Jim Buell) writes:
> How thick is your ISM? Does its density eventually drop off somewhere?
The density of the ISM drops to near zero at the border of the local
superbubble, which surrounds us with a radius of a couple hundred parsecs.
Just outside the superbubble the ISM must be bunched up thicker than
average, because the contents of a sphere with about 200 pc radius has been
emptied and pushed out that far. The density again drops to near zero at
the edges of the galaxy. In between, it is the normal ISM we see absorbing
starlight. -|Tom|-