The Big Bang

[ukgazzer]

The Big Bang theory is a mathematical model that has to rely on two principal observations to be seen as fact-but both of those seem unsafe.

1/Redshift-From the redshift of spectral lines we can conclude that objects are generally receding.

 

Dark matter,dark energy inflation all rely on the assumption that redshift is a reliable indicator of radial velocity- I can`t see how it can be.

1/Critics mention Compton Scattering as a contributor to redshift

2/The K Trumpler effect,known since 1911-The well documented,accepted,but ignored apparent phenomenon that O,B type stars are receding to a much greater extent than other spectral classes.

I must also mention that I plotted (15 years ago) graphs of

i/ redshift of stars v galactic latitude

ii/ distance of galaxies derived from redshift v distance of galaxies derived from apparent magnitude

Both these graphs suggest that redshift is caused by something other than radial velocity.Looking through the plane of the galaxy,stars seen to recede more,and galaxies appear to recede by an amount partially dependent on their type.

I can`t say this is reliable-I did get the data from a planetarium program after all!

I would like -at the very least- to see observational data that redshift is a reliable indicator of recessive velocity.

 

2/ Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

Critics say that this looks like black-body radiation.The interstellar environment in our galaxy is calculated to be at 3K which should produce a spectrum similar,if not identical,to the CMBR.You don`t need an explosion 14 billion years ago to account for this light,so why bring one in?

 

There are other considerations such as the abundances of light elements-but I can`t say that I myself understand them.Maybe the Big Bang is still a safe and valid explanation but to me it shouldn`t rely on two debatable observations for its foundations.

[Iggy]

I believe the idea with science is to have theories predict observations. If the observations confirm the predictions then they support the theory that predicted them. If not, it is falsified.

 

Redshift was predicted to follow Hubble's constant by Lemaitre's big bang model 2 years before Hubble made the observations.

 

The cosmic microwave background was predicted by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in 1948 based on the big bang model (predicted to be blackbody) and not observed until 1965.

 

The abundance of light elements was likewise predicted the '40s and subsequently observed.

 

Since the observations were confirmed predictions they do support the model. The temperature of space that you mention didn't predict a blackbody spectrum. Eddington's Temperature of Space. It also didn't predict the radiation would be isotropic.

 

 

Until and unless there is a better model that explains the observations and makes confirmed predictions of its own the big bang is the best and most supported cosmological model we have. I believe the only really scientific ways of disagreeing with it are to find a better theory or to find observations which falsify it.

[ukgazzer]

If every test on the validity of redshift as a means to gauge recessive velocity was to suggest its unsuitability for the task (I have found nothing to say that it is suitable) then what other indications do we have other than suggestions offered by mathematical models that things are receding?

Thanks for the VERY HELPFUL link-I can`t say that I totally understand all of it:

"Radiation in interstellar space is about as far from thermodynamical equilibrium as it is possible to imagine, and although its density corresponds to 3.18^o it is much richer in high-frequency constituents than equilibrium radiation of that temperature."

Why is radiation in interstellar space far from thermodynamical equilibrium?Could alternative (steady state) models provide the possibility of equilibrium being reached over perhaps an infinite timescale?

"The starlight radiation field is concentrated in galaxies like the Milky Way, which only occupy one part per million of the volume of the Universe, while the CMB fills the entire Universe."

>99.9999% of the universe isn`t dominated by the starlight radiation field and could`ve reached equilibrium over an infinite timescale?

"If the solar system were opaque at the millimeter wavelengths of the CMB, we would see a 300 K blackbody; and if the Milky Way were opaque to mm waves we would see a 3.18 K blackbody; but neither the solar system nor the Milky Way is opaque."

If the universe was actually limitless and mostly occupied by 3K gas in equilibrium,wouldn`t it appear opaque-a blackbody?

By these arguments would a steady state model also fit the facts?