joshgreen Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 The big bang theory presents a number of serious contradictions to our observations of the cosmos. Although many attempts have been made to reconcile these differences, many questions remain unanswered. This new big bang theory offers explanations that better fit our observations and leaves us with more answers than questions.Before presenting a new big bang theory that seems to answer many questions that the current big bang theory does not, a brief review of some of the problems with the current big bang is in order.The big bang theory has several vexing problems. First, there is the big void, close to a billion light years across space, which lies at the edge of the universe. It's difficult to explain how such a great void could have formed so early in the universe's history.With the big bang model it is also difficult to explain why the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is so "clumpy," strong in one place, weaker in another, when the big bang "explosion" should have distributed it's telltale sign more evenly.It is also somewhat difficult to explain why there are galaxies altogether. How would the big bang's even distribution of matter have resulted in so much matter clumping together?Then there are the problems of dark energy and dark matter. Scientists speak of them as if they are a reality, yet their existence have never been detected, measured or satisfactorily explained.The full list of problems with the big bang and a more in depth explanation of the above problems is beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that despite attempts to explain the above and other issues, many observations remain inexplicable with the big bang theory.I believe there is a solution to most of the puzzles plaguing the big bang. A slight modification to the big bang's very initial stage would result in the universe unfolding in a substantially different manner than what our current model predicts. This new trajectory, if followed through to its conclusion, does, I believe, answer many currently outstanding cosmological mysteries.Furthermore, this new big bang theory's approach has somewhat greater empirical support than the current big bang theory.This new theory begins with the same initial "explosion" as the current big bang. But with two major differences. One, the expansion in this new model contains no matter whatsoever. The only thing that expands is space itself.Two, the universe expands to its full length and breadth within a fraction of a second and stops. That is, the universe is no longer expanding.Now, lets rewind the expansion and describe the process in more detail.The moment the universe starts expanding, virtual particles flood the void in massive amounts and continue to do so even after the expansion ceases. (Why virtual particles flood the universe in far greater quantities than they do today is beyond the scope of this article and fully explained in my book.)If you follow this scenario through, you will find that this process will have created just about everything we observe in the sky today, with very little observational contradiction.The virtual particles that enter the universe at its moment of expansion would be pulled along with the expansion at terrific speeds. The particles that enter the universe once it has ceased to expand enter the universe in relatively stationary positions.The collision of the high-speed particles with the stationary ones cause cataclysmic explosions that result in massive black holes and perhaps fusion reactions of various degrees that set in motion the inial stages of some star and galaxy formation. This all happens in a matter of seconds. (This is actually an abbreviated explanation. Again, a more detailed explanation of this process appears in my book "The V-Bang: How The Universe Began.")At this point, this new big bang can already explain with ease some cosmological puzzles.First, the "horizon" problem. For two regions of space to have the same conditions, like temperature, they'd have to be close enough to each other for information to be exchanged so that they can equilibrate to a common state. If they're too far, they are said to be beyond their horizons because even at the speed of light no communication between them can exist. So how did they coordinate their similar conditions?With the new big bang theory this is not a problem. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation was produced by the massive particle collisions which occurred equally throughout the universe. No far-corner communications were necessary, since every region of the cosmos went through the same process.Then, as the new big bang theory unfolds, it solves a few additional puzzles.These massive black holes created in the new big bang theory would still be speeding outward at terrific speeds. Perhaps not as fast as the initial particles, but still quite fast.The outward thrust of these enormous black holes then cause secondary collisions with the massive amounts of virtual particles still entering the universe. It is these secondary collisions that instantly initiate a second round of star and galaxy formation.As these black holes absorb a substantial amount of particles in their path or very close to them, they leave behind huge swats of empty space or space with particles that never enter the process of star or galaxy formation.This explains regions in space devoid of matter and regions that have enough matter to form stars and galaxies but never do, with the latter being more inexplicable than the former with the current big bang theory.This also explains great "walls" of superclusters.It explains the lumpiness of matter.This also explains variations in CMB levels. The initial particle collisions that created the CMB radiation, although they occurred throughout the universe, would not necessarily have occurred evenly in every region.It even explains why there is a heavier population of celestial objects the farther out into space you look. As the initial black holes moved outward, they left behind more and more particles untouched by their star and galaxy formation process. Thus, the farthest regions in space would have been subjected to longer periods of star and galaxy formation and with greater amounts of particles.Furthermore, the collisions of these initial great black holes with more particles would have created secondary, fainter CMB radiations. Such secondary CMB radiations have been detected, but cannot be explained with the current big bang theory.This new big bang theory, which I named the V-Bang, sheds light on a several other phenomena, which cannot be explain in full here due to space limitations, but are fully explained in my book "The V-Bang: How The Universe Began."The V-Bang explains how the redshifts that give the appearance of a universe expanding at an increasing rate of speed (referred to as "dark energy") is due largely to gravitational redshifts caused by an increase in gravitational pull, from beyond the visible universe, the farther out into space you go. (My book explains what the source of this great gravitational pull is.)And it is this strong gravitational pull that gives the impression of an expanding universe, when in fact celestial objects are simply being pulled outward by gravity. This would explain why only intergalactic space is increasing, but celestial objects are not being ripped apart by an "expanding" universe.The V-Bang easily demonstrates why Omega is equal to one (the strange "coincidence" of the distribution of matter being so evenly spread throughout the universe). With the current big bang model this is just about impossible to explain. Even inflation theory, intended to explain it, requires a stretch of the imagination. The V-Bang explains it.The V-Bang explains how there can be mature galaxies at the outer edges of the universe when, according to the big bang, they hadn't had enough time to develop. With the V-Bang, the process that initiated star and galaxy formation happened almost simultaneously throughout the universe; all stars and galaxies had about the same time to evolve.Only time will tell if the V-Bang theory will hold upon new observations, but for now I believe it presents more answers than questions. "The V-Bang: How The Universe Began," available at Amazon, V-Bang.org and other outlets, describes the above material and more in far greater detail.
swansont Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 With the big bang model it is also difficult to explain why the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is so "clumpy," strong in one place, weaker in another, when the big bang "explosion" should have distributed it's telltale sign more evenly. Quantify "clumpy" here. 1
joshgreen Posted October 28, 2014 Author Posted October 28, 2014 Quantify "clumpy" here. "strong in one place, weaker in another"
Strange Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 "strong in one place, weaker in another" Can you quantify that?
elfmotat Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 "strong in one place, weaker in another" He said "quantify." We know what "clumpy" means qualitatively.
Strange Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 Then there are the problems of dark energy and dark matter. Scientists speak of them as if they are a reality, yet their existence have never been detected, measured or satisfactorily explained. If they have never been detected, why are they thought to exist? Are you suggesting that they have been "invented" for no reason? The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation was produced by the massive particle collisions which occurred equally throughout the universe. Can you show that this produces the observed spectrum? This also explains great "walls" of superclusters. Can you show, in appropriate detail how it does this? And it is this strong gravitational pull that gives the impression of an expanding universe, when in fact celestial objects are simply being pulled outward by gravity. Are you familiar with the work of Isaac Newton, specifically the Shell Theorem? Also, can your theory predict the quantities of hydrogen and helium in the universe?
joshgreen Posted October 29, 2014 Author Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) Strange, on 28 Oct 2014 - 7:57 PM, said: If they have never been detected, why are they thought to exist? Are you suggesting that they have been "invented" for no reason?No, I don't believe they're invented. The redshifts are being misinterpreted as the result of recessional speed when most of it is gravitational redshift, with only a relatively small portion coming from recession. Can you show that this produces the observed spectrum?Not sure, at this moment. Can you show, in appropriate detail how it does this?This is difficult to explain in a few words (it's fully explained in my book), but I'll try. If you follow a proliferation of black holes of various sizes flying at great speeds outward in a cosmos that's awash with incoming particles, they would put these particles into a powerful swirling motion, similar to whirlpool, imitating star and galaxy formation. These star and galaxies, formed at the sides of the path carved out by the black holes, would then give the impression of forming a wall. Are you familiar with the work of Isaac Newton, specifically the Shell Theorem?Yes. I believe it speaks of a symmetrical circle. The black holes flying outward, being the result of billions of collisions and explosions, would not necessarily make a symmetrical circle as they fly outward to form a circle of black holes. Also, can your theory predict the quantities of hydrogen and helium in the universe?At this point, I;m not sure. Edited October 29, 2014 by joshgreen
MigL Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) -Vacuum fluctuations prior to inflation account for large scale structures, and CMB we see in the universe today. The fit to the observations is very good. -Virtual particles exist on borrowed time and are a byproduct of the vacuum energy that drives inflation and expansion ( otherwise known as 'dark energy' ). Why/how could virtual particles arise in an expanded universe devoid of energy as you claim ? -I don't believe you understand the shell theorem and are actually using Mach's theory for inertia. If there's an asymmetry as you claim, it would show up in the gravitational redshift which you are suggesting we have mistaken for recession. -If the universe expanded ( and stopped ) before there was anything in it, how was anything ever in causal contact to explain the present isotropy between areas no longer in causal contact ? Is it just coincidence that the universe of ten billion years ago looks the same to our left as it does to our right ? How would the information have gotten there ? Not suggesting inflationary big bang theory doesn't have a few problems, but your attempt addresses and modifies valid parts of the theory (detrimentally ) instead of focusing on the few actual problems. Edited October 29, 2014 by MigL
ajb Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) -Vacuum fluctuations prior to inflation account for large scale structures, and CMB we see in the universe today. The fit to the observations is very good. One suggestion is that quantum fluctuation on the inflation field seeded these density difference. Another method proposed is that there was a separate field know as the curvaton (also scalar) whose quantum fluctuations are responsible. It allows for a bit more flexibility when the specific model of inflation does not quite fit the CMBR. Anyway, any cosmological model is going to need to fit the details of the power spectrum of the CMBR at least as well as the standard model of cosmology; the Lambda CDM model. Now as joshgreen claims to have written a book on this he should know all about this. Otherwise the book is very questionable... and it is self-published; CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. Another warning sign. Edited October 29, 2014 by ajb
Mordred Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 If all stellar objects are being pulled ouward by gravity this would be a universe that has a preferred direction anistropic. Measurements and observations agree that expansion is both homogeneous and isotropic this forms the basis of the cosmolical principle. The big bang isn't an explosion as per se. It is the rapid expansion of space. Inflation itself must follow specific criteria in the timing and number of e folds to match observational evidence. If you wrote a book on the subject I assumevyou compared your model to the LCDM model using either the FLRW metrics or the Einstein fiekd equations. Could you please post your metrics of the V bang model and demonstrate how it predicts an inflation that stops. Then show how come we still measure an expanding universe with your metrics? Or did you write the book without including the related mathematics? The next question is how does your model work with the thermodynamic history and BBN? big bang nucleosynthesis? How did your virtual particles form the standard model of particles we see today? When does those individual particles drop out of thermal equilibrium and in what sequence? Does your model agree with the number and types of particles we see at the CMB? after all the current model can calculate the number of photons at the time of the CMB as well as any other standard model particle. It can also calculate the number of each particle today. Can yours do the same? Numerous models have been discounted as they could not explain the early large scale structure formation this is a problem that MOND suffers from. Having dark matter forming early enough is one of the strongest contenders for early structure formation. You state Blackholes are involved. And do not explain how enough matter cluttered enough to form those BH's instead you state BH's cause star formation? BHs form from massive stars that gave collapsed. So how did your BH's form before stars did? How would virtual particle collide with stationary particles create blackholes? virtual particles are too short lived to be considered a real particle. Anyways thats just a start on the questions I have on your book and model. Depending on the answers I may or may not have more. Actually never mind I googled your book looked over your biography and website as well as your other books. Then checked to see if you have any peer reviewed material on several of the major sites such as arxiv.org. Not interested. I'd rather buy a textbook that teaches concordance cosmology that I can trust. Something along the lines of Modern Cosmology by Scott Dodelson.
Strange Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 No, I don't believe they're invented. The redshifts are being misinterpreted as the result of recessional speed when most of it is gravitational redshift, with only a relatively small portion coming from recession. That is irrelevant to dark matter. Why do you think the evidence for dark matter should be ignored? This is difficult to explain in a few words (it's fully explained in my book), but I'll try. If you follow a proliferation of black holes of various sizes flying at great speeds outward in a cosmos that's awash with incoming particles, they would put these particles into a powerful swirling motion, similar to whirlpool, imitating star and galaxy formation. These star and galaxies, formed at the sides of the path carved out by the black holes, would then give the impression of forming a wall. Have you modelled or simulated this to show that it produces structures similar to those we see? Or is this just a guess? Yes. I believe it speaks of a symmetrical circle. The black holes flying outward, being the result of billions of collisions and explosions, would not necessarily make a symmetrical circle as they fly outward to form a circle of black holes. What mechanism would cause this not to be symmetrical? Not sure, at this moment.At this point, I;m not sure. It sounds as if you have as many unanswered questions as the existing theory....
swansont Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 "strong in one place, weaker in another" By how much? That's what "quantify"means.
Strange Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 I notice that in you book you mention "galaxies that appear to be older than the universe". Can you provide a reference to these, as there is no such thing, as far as I know. You also say that "the universe is now believed to be roughly 30 billion light years in diameter". Even allowing for the fact that you mean the observable universe not the universe, that figure is about a factor of three too small. Do you have a source for that number? (Your description of redshift is ... well, embarrasing. "Not even wrong." I definitely won't be recommending this book to anyone.)
joshgreen Posted October 29, 2014 Author Posted October 29, 2014 -Vacuum fluctuations prior to inflation account for large scale structures, and CMB we see in the universe today. The fit to the observations is very good. -Virtual particles exist on borrowed time and are a byproduct of the vacuum energy that drives inflation and expansion ( otherwise known as 'dark energy' ). Why/how could virtual particles arise in an expanded universe devoid of energy as you claim ? -I don't believe you understand the shell theorem and are actually using Mach's theory for inertia. If there's an asymmetry as you claim, it would show up in the gravitational redshift which you are suggesting we have mistaken for recession. -If the universe expanded ( and stopped ) before there was anything in it, how was anything ever in causal contact to explain the present isotropy between areas no longer in causal contact ? Is it just coincidence that the universe of ten billion years ago looks the same to our left as it does to our right ? How would the information have gotten there ? Not suggesting inflationary big bang theory doesn't have a few problems, but your attempt addresses and modifies valid parts of the theory (detrimentally ) instead of focusing on the few actual problems. MigL, on 28 Oct 2014 - 11:57 PM, said: -Vacuum fluctuations prior to inflation account for large scale structures, and CMB we see in the universe today. The fit to the observations is very good. Inflation theory itself is not exactly on solid ground. Princeton University's Physics Department: "Cosmic inflation is so widely accepted that it is often taken as established fact. The idea is that the geometry and uniformity of the cosmos were established during an intense early growth spurt. But some of the theory’s creators , including the author, are having second thoughts. As the original theory has developed, cracks have appeared in its logical foundations. Highly improbable conditions are required to start inflation. Worse, inflation goes on eternally, producing infinitely many outcomes, so the theory makes no firm observational predictions. Scientists debate among (and within) themselves whether these troubles are teething pains or signs of a deeper rot. Various proposals are circulating for ways to fix inflation or replace it." See: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf Andreas Albrecht, Professor of Physics: "It is far from clear what the inflaton actually is and where its potential comes from. This is intimately connected with the question of why the perturbations have the amplitude and spectrum they do. Currently, there is much confusion about physics at the relevant energy scales, and thus there is much speculation about different possible classes of inflaton potentials." See: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Albrecht/Alb6.html -Virtual particles exist on borrowed time and are a byproduct of the vacuum energy that drives inflation and expansion ( otherwise known as 'dark energy' ). Why/how could virtual particles arise in an expanded universe devoid of energy as you claim ? Virtual particles may exist on borrowed time, but they can become real particles under certain conditions. Harvey Mudd College, Physics Department: "The quantum mechanical description of the vacuum allows for the creation of the particle/antiparticle pairs, and the electric field tends to separate the charges. If the field is strong enough, the particles tunnel through the quantum barrier and MATERIALIZE AS REAL PARTICLES." See: http://www.physics.hmc.edu/student_projects/astro62/hawking_radiation/radiation.html Scientific American article subtitled "Virtual particles can become real photons--under the right conditions:" "The speed of light in a vacuum is constant, according to Einstein's theory of relativity, but its speed passing through any given material depends on a property of that substance known as its index of refraction. By varying a material's index of refraction, researchers can influence the speed at which both real and virtual photons travel within it. Lähteenmäki says one can think of this system as being much like a mirror, and if its thickness changes fast enough, VIRTUAL PHOTONS REFLECTING OFF IT CAN RECEIVE ENOUGH ENERGY FROM THE BOUNCE TO TURN INTO REAL PHOTONS." See: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/ If you read my full theory (much of which I couldn't present here because of space) you would see that I do not believe the space that began our universe had no energy. I believe energy, in some primordial form, permeated space in the moment of creation, and it's this energy that manifested itself by giving birth to the massive amount of particles that filled the universe in the first moments. And while I'm on this topic, I believe that the virtual fluctuations we see today has not been happening at the same rate throughout history and throughout the cosmos. It's space vacuum, I believe, that regulates the amount of virtual particles entering the universe. Today, as the universe is not as vacuous as it was a moment after its birth, the entry of virtual particles has subsided to a great degree. Furthermore, I believe space itself has energy distribution properties. Virtual participles do not violate conservation principles because the energy used to create them are borrowed from the energy of other particles. As a result, the total energy in the universe always remains the same but the energy of matter in the universe weakens as more matter is created. -I don't believe you understand the shell theorem and are actually using Mach's theory for inertia. If there's an asymmetry as you claim, it would show up in the gravitational redshift which you are suggesting we have mistaken for recession. No, I'm not talking about Mach's theory. I am talking about shell theorem. Newton's shell theorem "states that the gravitational field of a mass UNIFORMLY DISTRIBUTED on a spherical surface ... generates a null gravitational field inside itself." See: http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/35/2/028003/article In my "sphere" matter is not uniformly distributed. The asymmetry does show up in the gravitational redshift. Researchers confuse differences in gravitational redshifts with recessional speed (and distance from earth). -If the universe expanded ( and stopped ) before there was anything in it, how was anything ever in causal contact to explain the present isotropy between areas no longer in causal contact ? Is it just coincidence that the universe of ten billion years ago looks the same to our left as it does to our right ? How would the information have gotten there ? You're confusing my theory with the big bang. With the big bang this is a problem. With the V-Bang it's not. Here why. With the big bang the CMBR and whatever other force or radiation was generated was done so in one central location and then spread throughout the universe. It is therefore necessary to explain isotropy between areas no longer in causal contact. With the V-Bang the expansion itself produced nothing but space. It's the appearance of space that allowed particles to enter the universe in every corner of the cosmos. The high-speed collisions that produced the CMBR happened, in the V-Bang, throughout the universe almost simultaneous -- not SPREAD out from one location. Isotropy here therefore does not need causal contact. This is like me starting a barn fire in my backyard and you starting a barn fire in your backyard 10 miles away. If all conditions of both fires are the same -- same fuel, same size, same weather, etc. -- both fires would take roughly the same course without the need for them to be in causal contact. Isotropy in the V-Bang is the result of the same process happening throughout the universe. He said "quantify." We know what "clumpy" means qualitatively. "When looking at the data collected by WMAP, scientists noticed that, in one distant region of space — toward the constellation of Eridanus (about ten billion light-years from Earth) — the CMBR showed evidence of a large “hole” in space. They aren’t traditional holes, mind you, but spots where the temperature in the CMBR varies from the usual temperature of 2.7° above absolute zero. " See: http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/4-anomalies-in-the-big-bang-afterglow/ "Fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background" See: http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html
swansont Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 So how smooth is your prediction, vs the "clumpiness" of the BB CMB? Numerically, I mean.
joshgreen Posted October 29, 2014 Author Posted October 29, 2014 I notice that in you book you mention "galaxies that appear to be older than the universe". Can you provide a reference to these, as there is no such thing, as far as I know. You also say that "the universe is now believed to be roughly 30 billion light years in diameter". Even allowing for the fact that you mean the observable universe not the universe, that figure is about a factor of three too small. Do you have a source for that number? (Your description of redshift is ... well, embarrasing. "Not even wrong." I definitely won't be recommending this book to anyone.) - I notice that in you book you mention "galaxies that appear to be older than the universe". Can you provide a reference to these, as there is no such thing, as far as I know. When my book was written a couple of years ago there were a few examples, but some have been explained since. Here's something more recent from NASA: "If the universe is flat, and dominated by ordinary or dark matter, the age of the universe as inferred from the Hubble constant would be about 9 billion years. The age of the universe would be shorter than the age of oldest stars. This contradiction implies that either 1) our measurement of the Hubble constant is incorrect, 2) the Big Bang theory is incorrect or 3) that we need a form of matter like a cosmological constant that implies an older age for a given observed expansion rate" See: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html - You also say that "the universe is now believed to be roughly 30 billion light years in diameter". Even allowing for the fact that you mean the observable universe not the universe, that figure is about a factor of three too small. Do you have a source for that number? Again, my book was written a couple of years ago. These figures seem to change every now and then. (Your description of redshift is ... well, embarrasing. "Not even wrong." I definitely won't be recommending this book to anyone.) I'm not sure what you find was incorrect. An example would help. I find that some of what I say is being misunderstood and some people are not that up to date on some nuances of astrophysics (and I am also perhaps sometimes guilty of this). Also, remember my book was written in the hopes it would be understandable to the laymen and some explanations are meant to be simple.
Strange Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 Virtual particles may exist on borrowed time, but they can become real particles under certain conditions. Can you show (quantitatively) that these conditions existed in the early universe described by your theory? I believe energy, in some primordial form, permeated space in the moment of creation, and it's this energy that manifested itself by giving birth to the massive amount of particles that filled the universe in the first moments. How is that different from the big bang model? In my "sphere" matter is not uniformly distributed. Why not? With the big bang the CMBR and whatever other force or radiation was generated was done so in one central location and then spread throughout the universe. This is totally wrong. It seems you do not understand the model you are criticising. elfmotat, on 28 Oct 2014 - 11:51 PM, said: He said "quantify." We know what "clumpy" means qualitatively."When looking at the data collected by WMAP, scientists noticed that, in one distant region of space — toward the constellation of Eridanus (about ten billion light-years from Earth) — the CMBR showed evidence of a large “hole” in space. They aren’t traditional holes, mind you, but spots where the temperature in the CMBR varies from the usual temperature of 2.7° above absolute zero. " Can you show (quantitatively) that this is consistent with the predictions of your model? When my book was written a couple of years ago there were a few examples, but some have been explained since. Here's something more recent from NASA But, as that article goes on to say, there is no conflict. Do you think you should withdraw or rewrite your book when it contains such errors? Again, my book was written a couple of years ago. These figures seem to change every now and then. That figure has not changed for many years, as far as I know. Can you provide a source that supports your figure? Or is it another error in your book? I'm not sure what you find was incorrect. An example would help. "When scientists analyze light moving away from them ... it gives off a reddish color called a redshift" As a description written for anyone (layman or otherwise) that description is so egregiously wrong as to be useless. Worse than useless.
joshgreen Posted October 30, 2014 Author Posted October 30, 2014 Strange, you ask some good questions. And I actually would like to answer them. It should give me an opportunity to add stuff that I hesitated to put into this article because I was afraid it was getting too long. But time constraints don't allow me to answer too quickly. I hope I can get to them soon.I'll just say one thing here. My explanation "it gives off a reddish color called a redshift" was meant to be "understood" in a simple way. Should I have taken the time to explain it more on scientific terms? Perhaps.Hope I can get to the others soon.
Mordred Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 Your answers thus far make me wonder how current or accurate your understanding of cosmology is. However that may be just a false reading on my part. A couple of points. Energy does not exist on its own. You had mentioned the universe had energy before particles in one of the posts above. There are over 70 different inflation models all being equally valid to observations. Not all of them suffer the Runaway inflation problem. I still do not understand how your model works The metrics showing how your inflation comes to a halt would help. Again I assume you at least tested your idead via some form of the mathematics and did a comparision to the LCDM concordance model. After all any professional peer reviewed model follows those steps so I honestly hope you didn't simply dream up some ideas, looked for a few supportive articles and then wrote your book without checking if your ideas conform to observational evidence via the applicable mathematics. Does your book include any mathematics to properly explain your model or is it purely verbatum? If my research is correct the book is roughly 140 pages long. Seems a bit short ti me to cover your ideas fully in terms of the metrics etc involved. After all the goal of your book is to teach me the buyer how your model works. In order for me to use your model to make predictions on say expansion those metrics are essential. So please post the metrics on how the universe containing just energy expands rapidly stops then forms particles. and sow how many efolds occur within the time constraints of your model
Strange Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 I'll just say one thing here. My explanation "it gives off a reddish color called a redshift" was meant to be "understood" in a simple way. Should I have taken the time to explain it more on scientific terms? No. You should have just explained it correctly (using plain English).
joshgreen Posted November 2, 2014 Author Posted November 2, 2014 Can you show (quantitatively) that these conditions existed in the early universe described by your theory? How is that different from the big bang model? Why not? This is totally wrong. It seems you do not understand the model you are criticising. Can you show (quantitatively) that this is consistent with the predictions of your model? But, as that article goes on to say, there is no conflict. Do you think you should withdraw or rewrite your book when it contains such errors? That figure has not changed for many years, as far as I know. Can you provide a source that supports your figure? Or is it another error in your book? "When scientists analyze light moving away from them ... it gives off a reddish color called a redshift" As a description written for anyone (layman or otherwise) that description is so egregiously wrong as to be useless. Worse than useless. Virtual particles may exist on borrowed time, but they can become real particles under certain conditions. -Can you show (quantitatively) that these conditions existed in the early universe described by your theory? The key behind virtual particle pairs becoming real particles is a strong force that separates the pair. Being near a black hole would be one such case. "Virtual particle pairs are constantly being created near the horizon of the black hole, as they are everywhere. Normally, they are created as a particle-antiparticle pair and they quickly annihilate each other. But near the horizon of a black hole, it's possible for one to fall in before the annihilation can happen, in which case the other one escapes as Hawking radiation. See: "http: //math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/hawking.html --- The expansion of the universe would have been the strongest force ever to exist in the cosmos' history and would certainly qualify as being a strong enough to separate virtual particles and turn them into real particles. Even the secondary forces, the formation of the celestial bodies set into motion, would, I believe, still be strong enough to create real particles. --- I believe energy, in some primordial form, permeated space in the moment of creation, and it's this energy that manifested itself by giving birth to the massive amount of particles that filled the universe in the first moments. -How is that different from the big bang model? --- In the V-Bang, energy (as we know it) and matter were created in two stages. In the first stage virtual particles were simply carried out into the newly created cosmos with the expansion (similar to the big bang). In the second stage, new virtual particles that entered the universe after the universe stopped expanding collided with those particle still speeding outward as a result of being catapulted by the expansion. This resulted (as I've described) in the initation of the development of celestial objects more or less in their relative positions as we see them in the sky today. One implication of this is that the distance of a celestial object from us has nothing to do with its age or the age of the universe. Furthermore, the V-Bang's scenario of star and galaxy formation explains one of several things that are difficult to explain with the big bang: "The European Southern Observatory (ESO) recently reported a surprise while observing two extremely distant galaxies; at a very high redshift (z = 3.57); so far away that they are seen as they were a long time ago: only 1.8 billion years after Big Bang. "The surprise was to discover that the cool gas in these presumably young galaxies was very rich in heavy elements (all called metals), a chemical composition usually only seen in older galaxies because it takes so long to make heavy elements ... " ... the metallicity is almost ten times higher than the metallicity of objects measured at the same redshift. "... It is difficult to understand how such a high density of heavy elements could have been formed in such a short time [since the big bang]." See: http://cosmologyscience.com/cosblog/observation-of-two-early-mature-galaxies-rare-objects-or-is-big-bang-model-inaccurate/ in the V-Bang distance has nothing to do with age. --- In my "sphere" matter is not uniformly distributed. -Why not? The random collsions of particles that produce massive black holes may possibly form an almost perfect circle as they fly outward. However, the trajectory of such individual bodies will not necessarily be evenly spaced. The same distribution scenario is what we see in the universe today; the distribution of matter is not smooth in the deaitl level. So it was with the initial massive black holes, which would cause gravitational fields of different intensities throughout the universe. Quote With the big bang the CMBR and whatever other force or radiation was generated was done so in one central location and then spread throughout the universe. -This is totally wrong. It seems you do not understand the model you are criticising. I don't believe this is wrong. Perhaps my wording is confusing you. Berkeley Univesriy's description of the CBM: "The CMB is, in effect, the leftover heat of the Big Bang itself - it was released when the universe became cool enough to become transparent to light and other electromagnetic radiation, 100,000 years after its birth." See: http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/CosmologyEssays/The_Cosmic_Microwave_Background.html I think you'll admit that the universe is (according to the big bang) older than 100,000 years. So if the CMB was created at that time, that means the CMB radiation was spread out, stretched, whatever term you want to use, to all corners of the universe, billions of light years away, from that time and place. What is it that you misunderstand? Quote - quantify "clumpy": "When looking at the data collected by WMAP, scientists noticed that, in one distant region of space - toward the constellation of Eridanus (about ten billion light-years from Earth) -- the CMBR showed evidence of a large 'hole' in space ... where the temperature in the CMBR varies from the usual temperature of 2.7 above absolute zero. " Quote ... my book was written a couple of years ago. These figures [of the size of the universe] seem to change every now and then. -That figure has not changed for many years, as far as I know. Can you provide a source that supports your figure? Or is it another error in your book? You're right that it hasn't changed recently, but you're wrong about my figure being off. Although we believe the universe is probably around 92 billion light years in diameter, I'm referring to the observable universe. And my approximation is not off at all. The observable universe "...appears almost 28 billion light-years in diameter." See: http://www.space.com/24073-how-big-is-the-universe.html "the size of the Universe that we can see is about 28 billion light years in diameter" See: http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/237-How-big-is-the-Universe- "the size of the observable universe is nominally 13.798 billion light years [in each direction]" See: http://www.quora.com/How-big-is-the-observable-universe Furthermore, for my V-Bang theory the actual size of the universe is immaterial.
Strange Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 (edited) So, nothing then. The key behind virtual particle pairs becoming real particles is a strong force that separates the pair. Being near a black hole would be one such case. Then you need to show QUANTITATIVELY that conditions similar to "near a black hole" existed in your theory. Can you do that? One implication of this is that the distance of a celestial object from us has nothing to do with its age or the age of the universe. Are you saying that the speed of light is not a factor in what we see? I think you'll admit that the universe is (according to the big bang) older than 100,000 years. So if the CMB was created at that time, that means the CMB radiation was spread out, stretched, whatever term you want to use, to all corners of the universe, billions of light years away, from that time and place. What is it that you misunderstand? You appear to have a gross misunderstanding that the CMB was released from a single location. That is not what the source you quote says (not any other source). - quantify "clumpy": You were asked to quantify clumpiness according to your model, not just quote some other source (which you are not in agreement with, anyway). Although we believe the universe is probably around 92 billion light years in diameter, I'm referring to the observable universe. And my approximation is not off at all. You don't even understand the sources you are quoting: From your first link: "Today, that same spot is 46 billion light-years away, making the diameter of the observable universe a sphere around 92 billion light-years." Sadly, the other two are just plain wrong. This is the problem with relying on popularizations, instead of real science. Wikipedia has a good summary of some of the common misunderstandings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Misconceptions And please learn to use the quote function. It is almost impossible to pick out what you are saying. Furthermore, for my V-Bang theory the actual size of the universe is immaterial. Then that is probably the only valid thing about your model (in other words, that is true of the big bang model as well). Edited November 2, 2014 by Strange
Mordred Posted November 2, 2014 Posted November 2, 2014 I have yet to see any metrics of your model. Please show your version of the FLRW metrics and the related thermodynamic equations. I would like to see how your metrics compare to the observational evidence of LCDM Which is currently the most accurate model to observational evidence
joshgreen Posted November 3, 2014 Author Posted November 3, 2014 I have yet to see any metrics of your model. Please show your version of the FLRW metrics and the related thermodynamic equations. I would like to see how your metrics compare to the observational evidence of LCDM Which is currently the most accurate model to observational evidence D So, nothing then. Then you need to show QUANTITATIVELY that conditions similar to "near a black hole" existed in your theory. Can you do that? ---It's simple logic. The expansion of the universe, for it to catapult all matter on in the universe, would had to have been an enormous power, far greater than anything in it. This is certainly assumed in the big bang and, this aspect of it, is no different in the v-bang. Are you saying that the speed of light is not a factor in what we see? ---That's exactly what I'm saying. The speed of light, and all aspects of nature, including time, moved at a far greater rate in the very early stages of the universe. How and why this was so is described in detail in my book. This is one of the things I didn't get into in the current forum article because of length concerns. (What I probably should do is post my entire theory in a new thread entitled, something like, "The Complete V-Bang Theory." Some of the questions I'm getting here have a lot to do with the incompleteness in the description of my theory. If I could get permission from the moderator, or whoever is in charge here, to post my close to 26,000 word theory, I'll do it.) You appear to have a gross misunderstanding that the CMB was released from a single location. That is not what the source you quote says (not any other source). ---I'm not sure I do. But I'm pretty sure you misunderstand what I'm saying. To simplify things, let's skip the analysis and get to the bottom line. With the big bang the issue is brought up as to how the CMB smoothed out, when different parts of the universe are not in causal contact with each other. Let's forget for the moment how or if this is resolved. The point is that with the v-bang this is not an issue to begin with. The heating and cooling in the v-bang that produce the CMB happened equally throughout the universe. So without being in causal contact with each other, the different regions in the universe took roughly the same course. You were asked to quantify clumpiness according to your model, not just quote some other source (which you are not in agreement with, anyway). ---Clumpiness in my model is the same is in the big bang model; my quote simply saves my an explanation. What I disagree with is the big bang explanation as to why. You don't even understand the sources you are quoting: From your first link: "Today, that same spot is 46 billion light-years away, making the diameter of the observable universe a sphere around 92 billion light-years." Sadly, the other two are just plain wrong. This is the problem with relying on popularizations, instead of real science. Wikipedia has a good summary of some of the common misunderstandings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Misconceptions ---Apparently, my quotes were correct, but not some of the sources I quoted from. Thank you for pointing that out. But I still will not spend much time on this point because, as I mentioned, the size of the universe, visible or otherwise, is totally immaterial to my theory, and especially when the v-bang disagrees with the current methods of measuring the size of the universe. The only thing that's relevant to the v-bang is the fact that there is a visible part of the universe and a non-visible part. And please learn to use the quote function. It is almost impossible to pick out what you are saying. ---I'm trying. Then that is probably the only valid thing about your model (in other words, that is true of the big bang model as well). --- Not quite I have yet to see any metrics of your model. Please show your version of the FLRW metrics and the related thermodynamic equations. I would like to see how your metrics compare to the observational evidence of LCDM Which is currently the most accurate model to observational evidence Do not have any metrics yet.
swansont Posted November 3, 2014 Posted November 3, 2014 Do not have any metrics yet. So I take it you can't show that your model better predicts the "clumpiness" of the CMB than the currently accepted theory. How is it that this can be considered a breakthrough?
Recommended Posts