Bang or No Bang

[harry]

G'day Chris

Mate infalling matter has its motion and becomes very complicated.

How matter collapses again is a bit more than you say.

THan it becomes a bit more complicated through the various transitions of matter.

Matter to Neutron Matrix.

Neutron matrix to Neutron merger.

Neutron merger to quarks composites

and so on.

As for black hole, you need to treat them as degenerate matter that is able to grow.

This is whay we have so called black holes varying from a few Sun massses to over 18 billion solar masses.

So matter does go into the so called black holes.

Chris you need to do a bit of reading on compact matter.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzzz

Please if I offend anybody let me know.

This following link is worth reading.

Colossal void may spell trouble for cosmology
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/ ... e-for.html

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

The standard model of cosmology ? that is, the big bang, cold dark matter universe ? is founded on the assumption that the distribution of matter (both normal and dark) becomes evenly spread at sufficiently large scales. Look in one spot in the sky and then another and they should appear nearly the same, they say. There shouldn't be a big hole in one spot and a giant cluster of matter in another.

The fractal guys argue that, on the contrary, matter continues to clump into ever-bigger structures even at the largest scales. It's like this: imagine you could have a bird's eye view of the universe (obviously impossible, but play along) and you zoom in to look at a single star. Then you begin to zoom out and you discover that the star is part of a galaxy. Keep zooming out and you see that the galaxy is part of a cluster of galaxies and the cluster of galaxies is part of a supercluster of galaxies and and the supercluster of galaxies is ? This is where the debate begins.
According to the standard model, there's nothing bigger than a supercluster. When I interviewed mainstream physicists David Hogg and Daniel Eisenstein for my article, they were claiming that the pattern should start to smooth out at about 200 million light years. According to the fractal guys, it just keeps getting bigger.

If the BBT is wrong.

How did it ever become a standard model?

What were the footsteps that allowed it to happen?

If the BBT is correct than are these papers crank pots

[JimJast]

How do you explain the apparent acceleration of expansion if there is no expansion?

We observe "expansion" only through the redshift which is the feature of time slowing down, as e.g. in gravitational redshift (greavitational time dilation). We know that the gravitational time dilation can't cause the illusion of expansion since it has different characteristics than the redshift that would be caused by expansion.

Yet: If space were curved the principle of conservation of energy would require that the time run slower in deep space and the equation would be dT/dt=exp(-r/R), where T is proper time in deep space, t is coordinate time, r is coordinate radial distance (from observer to observed point in deep space) and R is radius of curvature of space. The time dilation following from the above equation, known at least since 1985, has the same characteristics as time dilation produced by expansion with Hubble constant H_o=c/R and dH/dt=-H_o^2/2. It used to be ignored since it was predicting accelerating expansion and BB theorists kept predicting decelerating expansion till about 1998 when it turned out that it looks accelerating in the real universe.

So maybe it's time to dust off those old results of Einstein's theory, since now observations coincide with the predictions of theory. It maybe too early to discard the principle of conservation of energy and Einstein's theory, only because they don't agree with assumption that the universe got created 14 billion years ago. Maybe it is wiser to explain this accelerating expansion with old Einstein's theory than with new "dark energy"? Anyway it is what I'm going to propose to my PhD commission and probably get kick in the pants form the BB theorists who prevail in my university

[bystander]

You didn't answer the question, Jim. How do you explain the apparent acceleration of expansion if there is no expansion? Or, to put it another way, how can expansion seem to speed up when expansion doesn't exist?

[Chris Peterson]

Colossal void may spell trouble for cosmology
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/ ... e-for.html

Well, that's very sensationalist. It's not a paper, just a blog stating an opinion. And it happens to be incorrect in a fundamental assumption. The standard model of cosmology is most definitely not founded on the assumption that the distribution of matter becomes evenly spread at sufficiently large scales. Rather, that is a consequence of the model, and not a critical one. That is, finding a different large scale structure does not necessarily invalidate the theory, it probably just requires an adjustment. It is precisely challenges like this that drive the further development of the standard model.

If the BBT is wrong.
How did it ever become a standard model?

There is no rule that the standard model has to be correct. Good science doesn't guarantee that every theory will be correct; rather, it (nearly) guarantees that knowledge will evolve towards truth. So if the BBT turns out to be wrong (which doesn't look likely), it doesn't mean anybody screwed up, or any bad science happened. It just means that it was a necessary step along the way to understanding.

[JimJast]

You didn't answer the question, Jim. How do you explain the apparent acceleration of expansion if there is no expansion? Or, to put it another way, how can expansion seem to speed up when expansion doesn't exist?

Sorry bystander, I didn't understand your question the first time.

It is like when we are in the movies and watch a movie which is filmed from an accelerating car. We may tell that it is filmed from an accelerating car but we can't be sure since the movie is just a bunch of pixels and they may be painted by hand (a cartoon) and we might be not able to tell the difference.

When we are looking into the sky we see only a bunch of pixels too. The only things we see are the redshifts, or colors of those pixels and from those colors we imaginne what we see. Whether the universe is expanding or the expansion is accelerating. If we interpret those redshifts as Doppler shifts (as BB folks do) then we see accelerating expansion. If we interpret them according to Einstein's general relativity as redshifts caused by the curvature of space coupled to it time dilation, then we see a static universe, not expanding, but made of exactly the same pixels so to the BB folks it looks like expanding space. Then we may say that it is really static but at the same time it looks like accelerating too BB folks. The BB folks say it is really expanding but to Einstein folks it looks like static. So in one theory (eg. BB) expansion seem to speed up and in another (eg. Einstein's) expansion doesn't exist at all. But the pixels seen in the sky are all the same. And what they mean depends on the interpretation (on the theory).

Is it better explained this time?

Usually a better theory requires less assumptions and Einstein's theory requires the least amout of assumptions so far. The BB folks add one more assumption every few years, lately an assumption of existence of "dark energy" to explain why the "expansion is accelerating" while Einstein's theory there is no expansion at all since all the same pixels are able to tell Einstein's story without any expansion (Einstein's universe is static).

[bystander]

Usually a better theory requires less assumptions and Einstein's theory requires the least amout of assumptions so far. The BB folks add one more assumption every few years, lately an assumption of existence of "dark energy" to explain why the "expansion is accelerating" while Einstein's theory there is no expansion at all since all the same pixels are able to tell Einstein's story without any expansion (Einstein's universe is static).

A better theory is one that requires less assumptions and still fits the observations.

So you are saying that Hubble's Law is all wrong, galaxies are not receding, and that the cosmological constant that Einstein was embarrassed about (the lambda in ΛCDM = dark energy) is just some number that was required to make his universe static and has no meaning at all? (BTW: Λ required for a static universe is not the Λ observed).

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

Chris there is no doubt that you can write well and side step issues.

It does not matter what evidence or issues are presented, there is always a ad hoc way of avoiding the evidence.

How can 10^9 galaxies found in deep field images 13.2 Gyrs be formed in just 500 million years.

[JimJast]

A better theory is one that requires less assumptions and still fits the observations.

That's right. A "theory" that contradicts observations is not a theory. That's why BB is not called a theory by scientists yet but just a hypothesis with a hope that it becomes a theory one day. So far it contradicts observations according to its own interpretation of facts so it can't be called a theory, which is something internally consistent. Even BB people know that and are trying to adjust their hypothesis to observations by inventing new things as e.g. "dark energy". The "dark energy" is not needed in Einstein's theory where nothing contradicts observations yet. What Einstein assumed at the beginning (curvatures of spacetime and conservation of energy) is still enough not to produce contradictions with all observed phenomena. You may not know how it provides possible explanations but you may just assume that if I'm doing my PhD in it then I checked all the facts already and so you might ask about particular facts rather than assume that Einstein's theory is no good because you don't understand how it explains observations.

So you are saying that Hubble's Law is all wrong, galaxies are not receding, and that the cosmological constant that Einstein was embarrassed about (the lambda in ΛCDM = dark energy) is just some number that was required to make his universe static and has no meaning at all? (BTW: Λ required for a static universe is not the Λ observed).

What is Λ observed? I tried to explain to you in the last post that what is observed depends on interpretation since what we see is just pixels. We have to interpret those pixels to see Λ and expansion. We don't see them in Einstein's interpretation. To learn how Einstein's theory explains facts you have to analyze them. Ask e.g. how come galaxies are not receiding when we see their redshift? And listen to the answer. And so on. It can't be done in 12 second that is allowed in a TV spot. It might need years of studying various sciences which I already did and it might be still in front of you. But if people want to help you to understand the subject you should use all the help you can get and you might understand one day why rather Einstein who respects the principle of conservation of energy is right, than BB folks who assume that energy can be created. Unless of course they show the created energy. Assuming various things is easy. Every idiot can do it and most do. Proving the assumption is tough.

I wrote an explanation for people like you (titled Gravitation for everyone, Explanation for high school students and astrophysicists why things fall, the one the link to which you rightfully deleted so you may know where it is) and I'm trying there to explain Einstein's gravitation to people who need it most (astrophysicists and high school students, who might become astrophysicists themselves but so far are fed only Newtonian "gravitation"). You may get a lot of information from it and ask me about missing information or one that you don't understand (or don't agree with). Chances are that if you don't understand it others may not neither so it gives me a chance to improve that page. So I look forward to fruitful cooperation until you uderstand the basics of gravitation and you are able to proceede on your own.

[JimJast]

How can 10^9 galaxies found in deep field images 13.2 Gyrs be formed in just 500 million years.

harry, You are embarrasing creationists who know that the universe is eternal (because God by definition is eternal and he/she needs a place to stay as much as anybody else) but their theory is allowing (what a shame) only 14 billion years since the creation. So they are already in a tight spot and you are trying to make the spot even tighter. Shame on you.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

Hello Jimjast

Sorry mate. I know shame, with head down.

Here down under we see things kind of upside down and inside out.

Jimjast, I notice that you have both feet on the ground.

It looks like I will be reading your comments with a learning ear.

[Chris Peterson]

A better theory is one that requires less assumptions and still fits the observations.

That's right. A "theory" that contradicts observations is not a theory. That's why BB is not called a theory by scientists yet but just a hypothesis with a hope that it becomes a theory one day.

That's not quite right. It is called a model, because it can never be a theory- it is really too complex. The BBT (or lambda-CDM model, or cosmological standard model, or concordance model) is made up of multiple theories- theories in the true scientific sense. The model as a whole is robust and well supported by evidence; thus far, new observations have only resulted in changes to component theories.

[makc]

You didn't answer the question, Jim. How do you explain the apparent acceleration of expansion if there is no expansion?

Oh come on, do we need to start it over again? Last time was enough.

[Zargon]

If we had a very fast spaceship, that went zillions of times faster than light, could we catch up with the Big Bang wavefront?
8)

[Chris Peterson]

If we had a very fast spaceship, that went zillions of times faster than light, could we catch up with the Big Bang wavefront?
8)

The BB doesn't have an edge; there's nothing to catch up to, no matter how fast you go. Wherever you end up, the Universe is going to look pretty much the same as here, with the CMB being the most distant thing you can see.

[Zargon]

Yes maybe so.. But I could still catch the bubble that must be moving in a circular ball direction from the big bang origen.
I may be able to detect CMB as I approch and lose it as I pass threw the universe that from which I came.. The one where the Big Bang has already passed threw..
What ya think.. A rock thrown into a pool makes a wave. So must the big bang have also. It only makes since.

[Chris Peterson]

Yes maybe so.. But I could still catch the bubble that must be moving in a circular ball direction from the big bang origen.
I may be able to detect CMB as I approch and lose it as I pass threw the universe that from which I came.. The one where the Big Bang has already passed threw..
What ya think.. A rock thrown into a pool makes a wave. So must the big bang have also. It only makes since.

The Universe is expanding outwards in spacetime. The edge of the Universe is found in the time dimension, not what we consider the space dimensions. If the wave from your thrown rock represents the edge of the Universe, we live on the circumference of that wave. You can go as far as you want, as fast as you want, and you don't get any closer to the edge- because you're already on it, even as it moves outwards. You can't go "inwards" because that's the past. You can't go outwards (except at the speed the edge is moving) because that's the future.

For our Universe, there is no "bubble" moving outwards from anywhere in three-space, and there is no BB origin in three-space, either. No matter where you go, you will be immersed in CMB photons, all of which started out 13.7 billion years before you see them. When you move, all that changes is the center of your own observable Universe.

[aristarchusinexile]

harry, You are embarrasing creationists who know that the universe is eternal (because God by definition is eternal and he/she needs a place to stay as much as anybody else).

As a firm creationist, my view is that God is eternal and created the universe not as a place for him to stay, but for man and other beings and creatures to dwell for a time .. my spiritual reading says the universe is not eternal, but will be completely destroyed in an explosion, and a new universe consisting not of matter, but of spirit, will be created out of the fire.

[aristarchusinexile]

A better theory is one that requires less assumptions and still fits the observations.

Exactly. My one assumption is that anti-gravity exists .. everything else in my proposal can be clearly seen .. and I think the assumption of anti-gravity leans towards the definite because everything we observe seems to have an anti.

[The Code]

A better theory is one that requires less assumptions and still fits the observations.

Exactly. My one assumption is that anti-gravity exists .. everything else in my proposal can be clearly seen .. and I think the assumption of anti-gravity leans towards the definite because everything we observe seems to have an anti.

Correct: mirror, anti, and very ROUND.

MARK

[aristarchusinexile]

A better theory is one that requires less assumptions and still fits the observations.

Exactly. My one assumption is that anti-gravity exists .. everything else in my proposal can be clearly seen .. and I think the assumption of anti-gravity leans towards the definite because everything we observe seems to have an anti.

Correct: mirror, anti, and very ROUND.

MARK

Like an umbrella?

[The Code]

inverted yes....I saw the picture apodman...

mark

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

This paper is quite important in understanding dark matter and dark energy in so doing to have a better understanding of the universe and its make up.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3610
Axionic dark energy and a composite QCD axion

Authors: Jihn E. Kim, Hans Peter Nilles
(Submitted on 20 Feb 2009)

Abstract: We discuss the idea that the model-independent (MI) axion of string theory is the source of quintessential dark energy. The scenario is completed with a composite QCD axion from hidden sector squark condensation that could serve as dark matter candidate. The mechanism relies on the fact that the hidden sector anomaly contribution to the composite axion is much smaller than the QCD anomaly term. This intuitively surprising scenario is based on the fact that below the hidden sector scale $\Lambda_h$ there are many light hidden sector quarks. Simply, by counting engineering dimensions the hidden sector instanton potential can be made negligible compared to the QCD anomaly term.

This may also explain the type of bangs that may keep on evolving.

[Chris Peterson]

This paper is quite important in understanding dark matter and dark energy in so doing to have a better understanding of the universe and its make up.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3610
Axionic dark energy and a composite QCD axion

In what way is this paper important? Do you remotely understand it? I'm unfamilar with heterotic orbifold compactification as described in this paper. Could you explain it, please?

I can't understand why you refuse to accept theories that actually have observational evidence, then treat seriously this sort of mental masturbation: an extreme case of massaging supersymmetry string theory- which is already nothing more than a mathematical model of something that hasn't been seen, and may not even be testable. It postulates particles that have never been observed and fields that can't be measured.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this sort of highly theoretical analysis, but to suggest that it sheds light on dark matter or dark energy in some important way is ridiculous.

[harry]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

I can explain what ever paper you want. The paper that I posted has important relevance.

Dark matter and dark energy is one subject that many do not understand.


But it seems that you are trapped in the mind by a model that cannot explain the observation, but you keep on insisting the the BBT does.

So tell me what observations.

Tell me what are you going to do and say when you get to understand that the BBT is wrong.

=============================================================
The Surroundings of Disturbed, Active Galaxies

Halton Arp
Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, 85740 Garching, Germany
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/-search=6 ... 52314.html
Received 2000 July 18; accepted 2000 October 24

ABSTRACT

The brightest apparent magnitude examples of ultraluminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs) are studied here in X-ray, optical, infrared, and radio wavelengths. It is found that they have associated material reaching out to apparent diameters of the order of 1° on the sky. Gas, dust, X-ray material, and quasars appear to be ejected from the active nuclei with all objects nearer than their redshift distances.

==============================================================


A Possible Relationship between Quasars and Clusters of Galaxies

Halton Arp
Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, Garching D-85740, Germany; arp@mpa-garching.mpg.de
and
David Russell
22 Ithaca Road, Candor, NY, 13743
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/-search=6 ... 51780.html

Received 2000 April 20; accepted 2000 October 24

ABSTRACT

The distribution on the sky of clusters of galaxies shows significant association with relatively nearby, large, active galaxies. The pattern is that of clusters paired equidistant across a central galaxy with the apparent magnitudes and redshifts of their constituent galaxies being closely matched. The clusters and the galaxies in them tend to be strong X-ray and radio emitters, and their redshifts occur at preferred redshift values. The central, low-redshift galaxies often show evidence of ejection in the direction of these higher redshift clusters. In all these respects the clusters resemble closely quasars which have been increasingly shown for the last 34 years to be similarly associated with active parent galaxies. New, especially significant pairings of quasars are presented here, which are, at the same time, associated with Abell clusters of galaxies. It is argued here that, empirically, the quasars are ejected from active galaxies. They evolve to lower redshift with time, forming stars, and fragmenting at the end of their development into clusters of low-luminosity galaxies. The cluster galaxies can be at the same distance as their lower redshift parents because they still retain a component of their earlier, quasar intrinsic redshift.