The Cosmological Constant: a New Law

[coldcreation]

depending on how you fix all the parameters, lambda, omega etc. you end up with a universe between 13.7 and 15 billion years old. Your hypothesis is therefore not solid.

Several predictions of the big bang model have been violated:
the Friedmann models notably: it turns out a fourth was required that made the universe look like it was accelerating.
That concequently is in contrast with inflation (recall: the theory was supposed to fix the problems of the big bang) which predicts a flat universe. A flat universe follows the Hubble law. As it turns out, that law is violated too.

Good try though.

You have potential...

Oh, one other note: your proposal is not based on physical evidence when you say "Or, maybe a big bang event did occur in a space larger than the universe as we know it." The problem you overlay onto science has been around for over five decades. You have no explanation for how a universe could be surronded by something else. It's crazy if you ask me.

It was in 1948 that the opposition made Friedmann, Lemaître and their hot creation its favorite targets, and is was with a precise aim that Fred Hoyle wrote as follows:

An explosive creation of the Universe is not subject to analysis. It is something that must be expressed by way of an arbitrary fiat. In the case of a continuous origin of matter on the other hand the creation must obey a definite law, a law that has just the same sort of logical status as the laws of gravitation, of nuclear physics, of electricity and magnetism. [A few pages further]…we are obliged to suppose that the laws of physics as we know them today are substantially incomplete and that so far unperceived connections must exist between the physics of the ultra-small and the physics of the ultra-large. [And, the final sentence of his book]…It is true that we must not accept a theory on the basis of emotional preference but it is not an emotional preference to attempt to establish a theory that would place us in a position to obtain a complete understanding of the Universe. The stakes are high, and win or lose, are worth playing for.” (Hoyle, 1955, pp. 281, 311, 313)

It was precisely this requisite for explanations that lay behind Hoyle’s entire discourse. That this should be so is clear enough.

Sorry, no holes poked into the Cold Creation concept yet...

A.M. aka coldcreation

[coldcreation]

I'm back,
Just to say that although I quoted Fred Hoyle, I do not actively support the Quasi-Steady State Cosmolgy. The occilations of an expanding / contracting universe every 40 billion years or so strike me as dubious. Though Hoyles work along with Burbidge have done more than detrimental damage to big bang models. And that is so espacially with regard to the following tenents: the origin of the CMB, the premordial creation of light elements, exotic dark matter or strange dark energy. So too has hoyle foiled the idea of black holes.

aloha

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

depending on how you fix all the parameters, lambda, omega etc. you end up with a universe between 13.7 and 15 billion years old. Your hypothesis is therefore not solid.

Oh, one other note: your proposal is not based on physical evidence when you say "Or, maybe a big bang event did occur in a space larger than the universe as we know it." The problem you overlay onto science has been around for over five decades. You have no explanation for how a universe could be surronded by something else. It's crazy if you ask me.

Only our local universe is 13.7 and 15 billion years old. We cannot know what lay beyond it, if anything. I see one difference in our opinions though. I acknowledge that it may be possible for something to be beyond our hubblesphere even if we cannot know what it is. My open mindedness keeps me from declaring impossible or crazy, that which I cannot disprove could be possible. You seem to be OK with such declarations. I would certainly like to see how you could prove that it's not possible for anything to lie beyond the boudary of our hubblesphere.

[BlameTheEx]

We have good evidence that something monumental happened about 14 billion years ago. There are apparent observations of high red shifted galaxies that should be so far away that the light arriving from them is very close to that time. They are apparently more developed than expected but the evidence is far from conclusive. I would call it suggestive.

To my mind the exact nature of the event is uncertain. Perhaps it was the popular Big Bang. However I have had fun considering other possibilities. One is that it was a fairly sudden influx of new matter into the universe but not the first. In this model we start with an almost burned out universe. Most of the matter is in smaller and larger dead bodies in dead galaxies. The new matter is mostly hydrogen ready to form new stars. The observed early galaxies gained form so fast because the new matter condensed on the hulks of old galaxies.

To put it another way - we have plenty of evidence that the visible matter is about 14 billion years old but we have no way of measuring the age of dark matter. That dark matter may well be in the form of ordinary matter in lumps any size greater than dust.

[JerryB]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

PS. Cold Creation is a 350 page book...
stay tunned...

Originally Posted by C1ay

Fair warning. Spamlinks get removed and the poster gets banned. If you have something to discuss that's fine. If you start pitching your book then you're outta here. We'll even discuss what's in your book if you want to discuss it to see if we can poke holes in it. No sales pitches though.

Actually Cold Creation there is an easy way around this limitation.
If you look at the thread New discovery in the Strange Claims
forum you will see that by putting the link to the advertisement for
her book in her signature, one poster was able to effectively advertise
her book with around 100 links as opposed to just one. And she had
one of the longest running threads on this forum. So it all worked out
pretty well for her.

By the way, I am also one who believes that the Big Bang theory is
nonsense and would welcome an alternative. However your vocabulary
is a bit offputting. I get the feeling that you are more focussed on
demonstrating your knowledge than communicating it. If you used
simpler terms more people would understand what you're talking about.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by JerryB

Actually Cold Creation there is an easy way around this limitation.
If you look at the thread New discovery in the Strange Claims
forum you will see that by putting the link to the advertisement for
her book in her signature, one poster was able to effectively advertise
her book with around 100 links as opposed to just one. And she had
one of the longest running threads on this forum. So it all worked out
pretty well for her.

Of course, she also posted a significant portion of the material for debate and offered to email the rest to those that wanted to go over it.

[JerryB]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

I'm still waiting for some constructive criticism.

coldcreation, first, Welcome to Science Forums. Although I can't speak
for others here, I wish you well.

constructive criticism:

1) Take the time to correct spelling and typing errors it will
increase your credibility.

2) Speak as simply as possible and avoid using obscure references
("Einstein's enfant terrible"?). It will increase your audience.

3) Make your posts as short as possible focussing on one point
at a time. It will be easier to respond to and discuss.

[paultrr]

By strict definition, the cosmological constant, conventionally denoted Omega, is a parameter describing the energy density of the vacuum, and a potentially important contributor to the dynamical history of the universe. When we speak today of dark energy this vacuum component is what is being spoken about. The energy density in a cosmological constant is a property of spacetime itself, and under ordinary circumstances is the same everywhere. However, based upon observational evidence this does not seem to be the full case since observationally dark energy seems to dominate over large distances and has little effect in short distances. So some mechanism, yet properly understood, makes it so that it is not the same everywhere.

Cosmologists describe this expansion by defining a scale factor R(t), which specifies the relative distance of galaxies as a function of time. The behavior of the scale factor is governed by the curvature of space, which can be positive, negative, or zero, and the average energy density of the universe. There are actually three different omega values. One is the value for all matter of the normal type, another is for dark matter, and the third is the one we term the cosmological constant. Dark matter works just like regular matter and produces a gravitational field. It just cannot be viewed directly by any current means. Dark energy(the cosmological constant) works opposite of gravity because it is based upon pressure and causes things to expand. In General Relativity, any form of energy affects the gravitational field, so the vacuum energy becomes a crucial ingredient countering gravity itself and helps determine the actual shape of spacetime.

[paultrr]

In general its not that great of a mystery at all. What remains an unsolved mystery is why it appears by observational evidence to not be the same everywhere.

Einstein's infant reference historically was to Newton's aether. Newton's aether was an absolute background reference frame. In some aspects, if one studies Einstein a bit you will find that after the advent of quantum theory Einstein also used the words "Long live the aether". Quantum theory has a different sort of state from Newton when one thinks of an aether. There is no absolute background frame of reference. However, it also means that a vacuum is not really empty as some tend to think either. All of spacetime is filled with what we call virtual particles. Its these virtual particles that give spacetime or the vacuum not only an energy density, but actually are the source of the cosmological constant in the first place. That energy density in turn determines the actual shape of spacetime if one could remove all the normal/dark matter in it.

[coldcreation]

From Coldcreation:

Certainly things exist beyond our horizon. I respect the modern view of the universe but I disagree with it based on empirical evidence.

First: The closer our extrapolations take us to the point of origin, the further back in time we push the clocks, as time tends to zero, the further our theories are removed from the realm of physical description. And at t = 0 all the laws of physics break down.

This is just one reason I disagree with big bang type cosmologies.

What you have is the creation of a series of models based on particular assumptions, interpretations, and extrapolations within which contest remains impossible, for no proof or disproof can claim otherwise. Each addition or change imposed by flagrant fact to a theory (i.e., the deviation from Hubble’s law now interpreted as an acceleration of expansion, and little to no evolution in the look-back time as seen in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image) induces not a return to reason but paradoxically creates a deeper divide between theory and nature. The universal laws are only flexible to a certain threshold beyond which all conjecture passes over from the realm of physical science to the domain of speculation, of metaphysics.

To avoid this serious problem, now seemingly accepted by modern cosmology, changes need to be made. The drastic changes that are imposed are really no radical ideas. On the contrary. They are a return to reason.

Certainly extrapolation is needed if we are to ponder what is beyond our visible horizon. I doubt new physics is needed to explain anything. Physics out there is probably the same as physics here.

In looking at the Hubble Ultra deep field image it is clear the the zone or era called the dark ages (or redshift desert) where galaxies were thought to be forming after the big bang is not there. Either that period needs to be pushed back, leaving very little time for galaxies to mature, and little time for stars to produce metals, or our theory need to change. It seems the results of metallicity and complex structure at those great distances violates several fundamental assumptions held by the standard model (with or without inflation).

Thus, the gross deviation in redshift from the Hubble law, the lack of era where galaxies are supposed to form, constitute proof that the hierarchical evolution according to a hot big bang/cold dark matter, kooky energy universe is faulty, to say the least.

One thing can be said without jumping of the deep end (and here is a reasonable extrapolation) about what resides beyond our horizon: there are obviously galaxies with stars that have produced heavy elements. The next extrapolation is more risky. It has to do with the timescales necessary to produce the observed abundance not just of the light elements (through stellar processes) but also the abundance of heavy elements.

The Hoyle and Burbidge et al calculations show that 100 billion years is sufficient (I have that reference if anyone would like). That is without primordial creation in a big bang event.

I calculate 250 to 600 billion years. The difference with Hoyle estimate and the Cold Creation estimate is a major one. In Hoyle’s universe galaxies have always existed. Material creation is cyclical but steady.

More soon...

A.M. aka Coldcreation