Astronomy and CosmologyFrom before the Big Bang to the Multiverse...and everything in between.
Advertisement (please log in or register to remove this ad)
Notices
Welcome to the Hypography Science Forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, take quizzes, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
I've posted news here myself about old galaxies in the early universe and Tormod posted here as well. There also seems to be some evidence for globular clusters that are older than the supposed 13.5 billion year age of the universe, i.e. 15 - 18 billion years. As a result, I personally believe there was some event (a big bang?) around 13.5 billion years ago in a universe that already existed. We can never know though because, as a result of that event, we can never see beyond that event horizon. I think the closest we could come to proof would be to positively date objects within the bounds of that horizon, our local universe, as being older than that event.
If there are globular clusters that preceded whatever the "Big Bang" event turns out to be then the "event horizon" is somewhat bogus. Clearly in that case we CAN gain information from prior to the BB. The existence of these clusters is information.
There is more. If these clusters truly started prior to the BB then I can't see how we can salvage the idea of an expanding universe because we would have to postulate globular clusters evolving in a universe of microscopic size or zero size. Ether that or totally rethink the nature of the expansion. Could you vote for a universe that started large and then suddenly started getting bigger?
The "tired light" theory needs to be looked at again. Perhaps red shifting is a property of space?
Could you vote for a universe that started large and then suddenly started getting bigger?
Probably not. I personally believe in an infinite universe that has existed for eternity. I accept the possibility that there was some event approximately 13 billion years ago, that theorists have interpretted as the big bang, that resulted in our local universe. There are too many loose ends for my taste though. The analysis of the CMB radiation does not agree with the dating of old globular clusters or galaxies that are thought to have been dying from 13 billion years ago. Redshift in the NASA/IPAC Extragalatic Database is all over the place with over 2K objects having a negative redshift. With nothing more than dark matter and dark energy to explain the variation and no concrete proof that the quantities required of these items even exists it is hard to give much weight to the expansion theory. I accept it as a possibility but that's all.
I feel that some of the pieces we have collected to this puzzle are being forced to fit other pieces we have collected while there are still many pieces out there that we have not collected yet. We need some of those uncollected pieces so that the pieces we have already collected can fall into their proper places instead of the places we have put them in. Until then I'm open to the possibilities we have not even imagined yet.
Editor and Forum Administrator stego anyone?
Add yourself to Hypography's Frappr. "There are only 10 kinds of people in the world -- .....Those who understand binary, and those who don't."
"Draw no conclusions before their time."
As a result, I personally believe there was some event (a big bang?) around 13.5 billion years ago in a universe that already existed..
Very thought provoking C1ay; Several years ago, I was considering a theory that viewed universal evolution as such. An eternal state with occasional events that we might look upon as intermediate bangs, as our member Little Bang suggests with his member name. I have often wondered if black holes have a limit to the amount of mass they can aggregate? Perhaps our universe is eternal, collecting matter in localized areas and forming black holes which when reaching a critical size, erupt into little bangs as it were. A universe in equilibrium, not in oscilation nor in expansion but living and dying and being reborn in localized areas resulting in the illusion of expansion. If this is the case, we should see variations in the strength of the cosmic background radiation. However if these events are few and far between, the evidence of this would trend toward a homogeneous state reducing the noticeable effect. Like all theories of universal evolution, there always seems to be inconsistencies with observable evdence. It is still fun to think out of the box on occasion, understanding that there are many things we still don't have answers for. This is what makes scientific investigation so much fun. It is after-all the chance possibility that one will stumble onto the truth and discover the evidence to support their views that makes the chase worth the effort.
__________________ Tolstoy wrote; "men only learn when they're suffering". The question is; how much do you want to learn?
According to the standard model of evolution the cosmic microwave background CMB radiation is redshifted as all other radiation in the 19 octave spectrum. So if the universe in the past was 1000 times smaller the temperature T of the CMB was 1000 greater. It follows that, temperature T = 2.726(1 + z) K, so at redshift 1500 the corresponding temperature was about 4000 K. Therefore the CMB has cooled by a factor or 1500into the observed millimeter waveband. (Longair, M.S. 1993, The Deep Universe, 1994, Saas-Fee Advanced Course 23, Lecture Notes 1993, Swiss Society for Astrophysics and Astronomy, section 2.1, p. 355).
The problem remains: what reconciliation can be made between the gross irregularities observed in the large-scale distribution of matter and the extraordinary isotropy of the CMB?
The CMB is a thermal blackbody. If its origin was not associated with an era called the ‘last scattering surface’ what is its origin. Is it produced locally, and therefore not redshifted? Is is warming with time, cooling with time, or as postulated by some worldviews, is the temperature constant? And finally, what is the best way to determine which of these scenarios best fits observations?
My own nagging suspicion is that like the universe itself, the CMB has no age, so it does not come from a specific epoch, i.e. it is not a redshifted relic with a specific origin... Almost as the background noise reverberating in all directions at a shopping mall. Where each source contributes to the overall millimeter spectrum. Remove all the undifferentiated matter and energy in the universe, including the ZPE and ZPF (this is a thought experiment) and the temperature T drops off to absolute zero. Of course, there is matter and energy in the universe, and so a minimum of temperatures is likely to persist. Now, depending on the adopted theory, the evolution of the thermal radiation is subject to active debate.
BlameTheEx, tired light theory are kaput. Where do you see scattering, absorption, or refraction? Redshift isn’t a property. One could say it is a effect on the properties of a photon packet and get away with it. Globular cluster didn’t exist before a hot BB. My point was that because object appear older than the supposed age of the universe, it is evidence that the concept of age, and the origin of the universe, and, you guessed it, the big bang, and flat wrong.
Speaking of space though, empty space precisely, the de Sitter effect shows redshift of a test particle even in an empty universe, hmm.
Almost as the background noise reverberating in all directions at a shopping mall. Where each source contributes to the overall millimeter spectrum. Remove all the undifferentiated matter and energy in the universe, including the ZPE and ZPF (this is a thought experiment) and the temperature T drops off to absolute zero.
Coldc, I am a bit short of time atm but I would like to point your attention to the following:
UVES Measures the Cosmic Temperature 12 Billion Years Ago
A fundamental prediction of the Big Bang theory has finally been verified.
For the first time, an actual measurement has been made of the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation, at a time when the Universe was only about 2.5 billion years old . This fundamental and very difficult observation was achieved by a team of astronomers from India, France and ESO [1]. They obtained a detailed spectrum of a quasar in the distant Universe, using the UV-Visual Echelle Spectrograph (UVES) instrument at the ESO 8.2-m VLT KUEYEN telescope at the Paranal Observatory .
If the Universe was indeed formed in a Big Bang, as most astrophysicists believe, the glow of this primeval fireball should have been warmer in the past. This is exactly what is found by the new measurements.
The analysis of the VLT spectrum of the distant quasar not only gives the definitive proof of the presence of the relict radiation in the early Universe, it also shows that it was indeed significantly warmer than it is today, as predicted by the theory.
Thank you, I checked out the press release and downloaded the full paper. I will review it and see if I can find a snag. I think I've already found one but I need to read the full text first.
Aside from that, I wish this type of experiment could be (and it can) with objects that are less problematic than quasars. There is much debate as to the actual distances of these objects, and today quasars are far from being used as standard candles. In another way, the physics surrounding quasars is much more speculative than it is for supernovae Type Ia, spiral galaxies, globular clusters, etc. Remember when gamma-ray bursts were though to be extremely far and high powered, then an article was published showing that they came from within the Milky Way...I'm sure that scoop is not over yet.
If this CMB report is indeed verified, and I would wait for some corroborative observations from say, the Hubble Space telescope. Or even better, proof of this should come in 2011 after NASA and ESA launch the James Webb Space Telescope (with much higher resolution than the Hubble ST) this would be the first successful prediction of the standard model as far back as I can remember.
For some strange reason, I would not pass out cigars yet. I've seen rush-to-judgment interpretations in the past fizzle out as fast as they came to light. Hopefully for theorists this one too will not go up in smoke.
Yes LB, if they are in the Milky Way they occur in other galaxies too, good observation. My point was that they are not the furthest objects we can see, as previously thought according to their redshift.
Big bang cosmology is kind of like Schrödinger’s cat, it is both dead and alive at the same time. As for the CMB-quasar data, I see at least two huge snags:
(A) One quasars was used for the analysis. Not two, or three, just one quasar PKS1232+0815. This type of claim, of “the first real proof that the CMBR was indeed warmer in the past” is not unique is the annals of science. Others have made the similar rash rush to judgments that were never corroborated by other independent (and preferably impartial) groups. For example, the cold fusion claim. In retrospect they seem more like wishful thinking than solid re-verifiable evidence. (I’d like to see a more recent paper backing it up with several object, any more links on the same subject? I will search on my end.)
When Halton Arp shows one quasar associated by a luminous bridge to a low redshift galaxy, the redshifts of which do not jive with Hubble’s law, it is described as a chance association, objects in the same line of sight. So he searchs and finds another, and another, and another, until his catalogue is filled with hundreds of associated objects, and the response is still the same: chance. In the paper I read that claims to have “definitive proof” for the first time that the “relict” was hotter in the past had one example, i.e., 1 example. I wouldn’t count my lucky stars. But I wouldn’t discount them either. Further research is required, corroborative or not
(B) Quasars have never fit the linear redshift-distance (or redshift-apparent magnitude) relation; instead, their plots on a graph resemble a shotgun blast. Today, quasars remain an unsolved enigma. Quasars are very luminous almost point-like sources of light with extremely large redshifts. They are often a source of radio and x-ray emission and are thought to be extreme forms of active galactic nuclei. Quasars have a stellar appearance on photographic plates. They were first discovered through the optical identification of extragalactic radio source, and are believed to be extragalactic objects, nicknamed ‘quasi-stellar radio sources,’ abbreviated quasar.
Another major problem for modern cosmology is that quasars possess large amounts of iron. There appear to be only two and a half possible explanations, and both are a disappointment to most expansion theorists. They are either much older than expected, and so too is the universe, or they are much closer than their redshifts indicate, contradicting the Hubble law and the Doppler interpretation. The explanation few are likely to adhere to is that iron was produced very early on by unknown physical means.
All of the evidence indicates that quasars show non-cosmological or non-velocity redshifts, i.e. the redshifts are not caused by velocity of recession in a hypothetically expanding frame and are therefore not proof of expansion. Most detrimental to the proponents of the expanding universe scenario, Halton (Chip) Arp has found an endless number of galaxies and quasars that are seemingly connected by luminous bridges. In many cases, the quasars are clearly associated (ejected from?) the parent or progenitor galaxy according to Arp. Hubble’s law implies that connected objects cannot show extreme differences in redshift, as the objects should be separated by great distance, receding at different velocities. In another way, two objects that are connected should have the same (or nearly the same) redshift if Hubble’s law is real.
The skeptics say that these are chance association and that the objects in question just look as if they were connected because they are in the same line of sight or even in circumambulation. This type of argument would have passed if few associations had been discovered, but the empirical evidence shows large quantities of associated aggregates. Halton Arp has calculated the probabilities of chance associations for every group of connected bodies. An example (and there are many) is the case of NGC4258; the chance of accidental association is one in 2.5 million. Another example has raised the ante to a chance of one in 4 million (M31). There are examples of discordant redshifts of connected objects that if calculated in velocity, show thousands of kilometers per second higher redshift than their associated companion. Some extreme examples of discordant redshift ‘velocities’ have ranged from 1,000 to 30,000 kilometers per second. These are the types of discoveries that ‘Chip’ says turned out to be “a lift-you-out-of-your-chair thrill.”
Identifying luminous connections between galaxies and quasars of greatly disparate redshifts is a decisive way of establishing their non-velocity character and clear evidence that the Hubble redshift-apparent magnitude relation is violated.
Discordant redshifts show that the universe is not expanding, that a Doppler effect in non-operational, that the BB never occurred. These observations establish a platform for the development of new theories, new world-models.
Simply put, discordant redshifts indicate that many objects do not lie at the distance expected according to Hubble's law. The standard model expansion is based on the Hubble diagram that tells us the recessional velocities increase linearly with distance.
Other observations contradict Hubble’s law, vis, the supernovae Type Ia data from the late 1990s, interpreted as an acceleration of expansion.
Arp is funny though, he hates general relativity, does not believe in curved spacetime and has no cosmological theory of his own. He adhered to the quasi-steady state cosmology QSSC model for a while, when Hoyle was still alive and kicking. Now he's gone, and so too is QSSC. It's a pity that there is no visible young generation to question today the validity of modern cosmology, to come up with a viable alternative, one that does agree with observations, one where the laws of physics never break down, one with no spacetime boundary condition, one with no time t = 0.
Hmmm, I'm not even sure they would get any funding, or telescope time to make crucial observational tests. They probably wouldn't even graduate.
Even if this CMB data is confirmed using more reliable distance indicators, I’m not sure one correct prediction will save the big bang (or a form of it). There are still so many holes in the model. Albeit, if the universe turns out to be warmer in the past several alternative theories will be discarded; including Cold Creation.
Nice to be in agreement with someone for a change.
The evidence that the universe is not steady state is overwhelming. Something pretty dramatic happened about 13 billion years ago. Also it happened more or less evenly over the entire universe at the same time.
Lets assume that there were globular clusters before this event.
That gives us a large pre-existing universe complete with stars. The easiest way to explain that is assume at least one earlier BB and probably (as 2 is an unlikely number) a whole series of them. It also beings back some version of "tired light" as clearly the universe can't be expanding as much as it appears.
The BB is then an injection of matter spread more or less evenly over the universe and all at the same time. As the universe was large enough to contain globular clusters we have to solve the question of how the event was synchronised over so much distance. My best guess is something like an interaction with another universe that doesn't share spatial dimensions with ours. If that was the case the interaction could not be defined in space and might well occur throughout.
Nice to be in agreement with someone for a change.
The evidence that the universe is not steady state is overwhelming. Something pretty dramatic happened about 13 billion years ago. Also it happened more or less evenly over the entire universe at the same time.
... It also beings back some version of "tired light" as clearly the universe can't be expanding as much as it appears.
.
BTX, yes it might be comforting to be in agreement with someone, but the tired light concept you seems to stick to has been ruled out by observation. What do you have against the Doppler interpretation. I fail to understand. If you agree with BB expansion cosmology you don't need a spurious scattering process that is not observed, do you?
Astronomical instruments needed to answer crucial questions, such as the search for Earth-like planets or the way the Universe expands, have come a step closer with the first demonstration at the telescope of a new calibration system for precise spectrographs. The method uses a Nobel Prize-winning technology called a 'laser frequency comb', and is published in this week's issue of Science. Read » | 0 comments
Stanford computer scientists have developed an artificial intelligence system that enables robotic helicopters to teach themselves to fly difficult stunts by watching other helicopters perform the same maneuvers. The result is an autonomous helicopter than can perform a complete airshow of complex tricks on its own. Read » | 0 comments
2D Memory Champion!
Your Friendly Neighborhood Administrator
