Quote:
Originally Posted by HydrogenBond
One way to explain very early galaxy formation with a BB theory is to have the orginal primordial atom break apart into quantum chunks before inflation. Under those conditons one would not have a single BB but a multitude of mini-BB, all at the same time. This would not only explain how the universe expands uniformly with respect to the galaxies, i.e., each expanding mini BB is giving off energy pressure that pushing all the rest of the mini-BB, but the high pressure energy waves from all the mini-BB, keep the expanding matter of each mini-BB highly contained, while adding turbulance.
The quantum division before inflation occurs analogously to what is observed when particles reach extreme energy. At extreme energy, the mass/energy density of particles is higher than cool temperature particles. If we cool extreme particles they break into multitudes of smaller particles of lower mass/energy. With respect to the primordial atom, it can only exist at limiting temp. If it cools slightly, it breaks into smaller primordial molecular composites (to extend the terminology). Since the uniform expansion of the universe is known to occur at the galaxy level and not at the superstructure level, this would suggest the lowest quanta of primordial composites has subunits at the galaxy level. Their expansion will occur with extreme energy pressure waves coming inward from the exterior, from all the rest of the mini-BB. This will contain the expanding galaxy in limited space, while making turbulence, allowing galaxies and even stars to form in a couple hundred millions years, as is observed.
|
One can continue modifying a theory, ad infinitium, to make it homogeneous with observations. It never really works though. The fact of the matter is, theories make predictions. When those predictions turn out to be erroneous (as they have been ever since the inception of the BB, that's why inflation was invented) a theory should be discarded or modified. Modifying theories endlessly, however, serves no purpose (unless it is just a little fine tuning) to anyone.
That by the way goes for any theory: Arp, QSSC, Segal's Chronometric Cosmology and, too, Cold Creation theory (or coldcreation).
Example: Coldcreation makes a very definite prediction. If it turns out otherwise, Coldcreation will be dumped in the trash. I hope the same scientific method would apply to all hypotheses.
Here are two opposing views, the BB prediction and CC predictions:
The results should come in soon if they are not already here.
BB: There is a region near the visible horizon called the redshift desert (or dark ages) where protostar and protogalaxy formation is soon to come, or has only just begun.
(Heavy metals are to be synthesized during main sequence stellar processes, well after the fusing of helium from young hydrogen-burning stars).
CC: Stars and galaxies located on the visible horizon are almost identical to those of the Local Group (the cluster of galaxies including our Milky Way). Certainly matallicity increases with time t, thus, 15 Gyrs ago there were fewer heavy elements (the difference is almost insignificant). Galaxies are therefore well formed, including all catagories, spirals, barred spirals, bar galaxies etc. (some of which take several Gyrs to form), with high metallicity from stellar fusion, white dwarfs and supernovea that have spread debrie into interstellar and intergalactic space. Both should be detectable.
Note that there is galactic formation locally, viz the Magellan Clouds, so there will be galaxy formation at great distance too. The key is to look for old, metal rich objects that can be used as clocks (some have been located already). If we find a galaxy that is 10 Gyrs old and is 10 Gyrs away, then the universe is at least 20 Gyrs old.
My own feeling is that the universe has no age. Galaxies at great distances should have old globular clusters with stellar elements that are 18 to 20 Gyrs old, just as the Milky Way does.
More to come, i.e., other prediction for coroboration, soon.
Gotta run.......
