Indian, US scientists question Big Bang theory
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Zero Point Energy examples around Ball Lightning, Comets, Spritesup to Quasars
Next: Connect the 9-11 Dots to Israel
From: Brad Guth on 9 Apr 2010 00:20 On Apr 8, 5:24 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4/8/10 7:09 PM, Brad Guth wrote: > > > > > On Apr 7, 8:21 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 4/7/10 4:59 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote: > > >>> If certain theories about a forever reincarnating universe (eg. > >>> Ekpyrotic Universe) are true, then the particles are probably just > >>> reused over and over again, and they are just 13.7Gyr in their current > >>> incarnation. > > >>> Yousuf Khan > > >> No Center > >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html > > >> Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial > >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm > >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html > >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html > > >> WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory > >> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html > > >> WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology > >> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html > > > Tell us what's within the barycenter called "The Great Attractor"? > > > ~ BG > > Slight concentration of galactic cluster mass... it happens. invisible galactic cluster mass?
From: dlzc on 9 Apr 2010 00:39 Dear BRad Guth: On Apr 8, 9:20 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 8, 5:24 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On 4/8/10 7:09 PM, Brad Guth wrote: .... > > > Tell us what's within the barycenter called "The > > > Great Attractor"? > > > Slight concentration of galactic cluster mass... > > it happens. > > invisible galactic cluster mass? We've discovered entire galaxies that are close, but were invisible simply because they had few hot stars. We've found the missing normal matter in intergalactic space, as ionized hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Dark Matter. The things we cannot see appear to be legion... David A. Smith
From: Surfer on 9 Apr 2010 04:03 On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:01:22 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: >Surfer wrote: >> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:34:05 -0400, Yousuf Khan >> <bbbl67(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> "The Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is >>> evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there were fully formed >>> distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at >>> the time," he added. >>> >> This paper obtains an older age for the universe: >> >> ".....The data and theory together imply an older age for the universe >> of some 14.7Gyrs...." >> http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1569 >> >> Maybe that can resolve the issue. > >There are a number of different measurements that result in different >ages for the universe, but I thought they were all converging around the >13.7 Gyr average. At 14.7 Gyr, that would be quite a bit higher than the >average. > In this case the older age results from using a theory that differs from GR. The same data then gives a different age. If analysis using GR is giving ages that are too young when compared with other observations, that might be a sign that the new theory is better.
From: Sjouke Burry on 9 Apr 2010 13:43 Surfer wrote: > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 09:01:22 -0400, Yousuf Khan > <bbbl67(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Surfer wrote: >>> On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:34:05 -0400, Yousuf Khan >>> <bbbl67(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> "The Big Bang is said to have occurred 13.75 billion years. But there is >>>> evidence, as I have written in my paper, that there were fully formed >>>> distant galaxies that must have already been billions of years old at >>>> the time," he added. >>>> >>> This paper obtains an older age for the universe: >>> >>> ".....The data and theory together imply an older age for the universe >>> of some 14.7Gyrs...." >>> http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.1569 >>> >>> Maybe that can resolve the issue. >> There are a number of different measurements that result in different >> ages for the universe, but I thought they were all converging around the >> 13.7 Gyr average. At 14.7 Gyr, that would be quite a bit higher than the >> average. >> > In this case the older age results from using a theory that differs > from GR. The same data then gives a different age. > > If analysis using GR is giving ages that are too young when compared > with other observations, that might be a sign that the new theory is > better. > Or worse. Different is not automatically better.
From: Yousuf Khan on 9 Apr 2010 13:49
dlzc wrote: > On Apr 7, 2:57 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> That's assuming that a universe needs to be "big". All of >> those "little" blackholes we see in our own universe may >> be the homes of some very fine universes for their own >> inhabitants. And the inhabitants of those universes must >> think that their own universe is absolutely humongous, >> and can't imagine how there could be a bigger one >> outside it. They probably have their own stars and galaxies >> within. > > Agreed, this seems likely. My concern is one of how many levels are > there? It would seem to me that all the holes from one Universe must > link to a single lower Universe. Now whether that is true is > unknowable. The next tenet is if you proceed into a massive black > hole in our Universe, and on into a massive black hole in that > Universe, and so on... do you end up crossing into the Big Bang of > *this* Universe eventually? I think you must, because the "laws of > symmetry" would then "average out" with say, four rotations (space1 -> > time2... space2 -> time3... space3 -> time4... space4 -> time1). This > would generate Universes where antimatter was dominant (perhaps 1 away > in either "direction"), and preference for handedness was opposite > (perhaps 2 away). > > All untestable, tantamount to just SF. Well, going along the SF line, the original universe must be the one which they call "hyperspace" in various SF shows. It would be the universe which Sean Carroll described as having no direction of time, just random fluctuations. It would be the universe in which you can go from one point in it to any other point in it instantaneously, because there would be no temporal causality relationships in it. The speed of light is infinite in that one. Regarding crossing into the Big Bang through a wormhole, I think the original universe *is* the Big Bang of our universe, so you're not just crossing /through/ the Big Bang, you are landing right /into/ the Big Bang. The fact that at the quantum mechanical level that there is no direction of time, gives us a glimpse of the original universe. However, I don't think anything could live in that original universe. Forces wouldn't hold things together and/or make them fly apart. That original universe would be what SF shows call "The Void". >> The speed of light may be slower inside the blackhole >> micro-universes, therefore it would take particles longer >> to travel from one point of the universe to another. > > Maybe. I find it likely that it will still "locally" be a constant, > and that any sort of measure wil be unable to distinguish between c's > in any of the Universes. Yes, exactly, the speed of light is different, but still constant within that local universe. So based on their local speed of light, nearest stars would still be dozens of light years away, galaxies would still be hundreds of thousands of light years away. > This in one problem with describing the behavior of a finite set > (likely) with infinite mathematics... such things "make sense" to > discuss. My feeling is that we're within a century of "seeing" glimpses into other universes. It might be through gravity waves, it might be through quantum entanglement experiments, whatever, but it may be the first steps into other universes. Yousuf Khan |