Big bang theory.
The Big Bang theory has received far more than it's share of attention by debaters both within and without science. This attention is not just by the usual lounge chair experts; much of it is from people with a strong religious interest and there appear to be significant numbers of them that are both for and against the theory. One thing good scientists learn is to not be too attached to a theory. If those with a theological interest only knew how tenuous the theory is they might spend less time debating the pro's and con's so animatedly. Even theories that become scientific law may be found wanting for such a minor infraction as not accounting for the perihelion of the planet mercury. The big bang theory is found wanting for a large number of much more significant reasons. (see significant reasons below) There are a growing number of scientists who are extremely concerned that the peer review system has become nothing more than a conformity check. This does not stand well for the progress of science, indeed many scientists who make discoveries that do not support the current paradigm, and this applies not just to cosmology and astronomy but most of the sciences and related fields of inquiry; even archaeology does not escape untarnished. A little history. The Doppler effect. In 1842 Christian Doppler offered the first known physical explanation for changes in the apparent pitches of sounds and frequency of the sound waves heard as a sound source speeds passed an observer. A train whistle as it goes past, sounds like it changes in pitch, but it does not. The Doppler effect is now in routine use in police radar guns. Shortly after, in 1848, French physicist Hippolyte Fizeau described the first Doppler redshift for light; he pointed to the shift in spectral lines seen in stars as being due to the Doppler effect. The effect is sometimes called the "Doppler–Fizeau effect" A shorter descriptor, now mostly used is Redshift. That we can measure the speed of stellar objects moving away from an observer by determining the extent of redshift is unchallenged. In 1871 the speed of the receding edge of the sun was determined using redshift observed in Fraunhofer lines and since then countless confirming observations have been made. A little over a hundred years ago the view of most if not all astronomers was that our milky way galaxy was the entire universe and that it was a static universe. In 1915 Einstein proposed his theory of general relativity, which is a theory of gravity. Einstein found that his equations did not allow for a static universe unless he inserted a certain constant in the mathematics which became know as the cosmological constant. Shortly after the Russian revolution in 1922 behind the iron curtain, Aleksandr Friedmann (1888 – 1925) found solutions to Einstein's equations which allowed the universe to either expand, contract or be static. In 1927 Belgian priest/scientist Georges Lemaitre also discovered these solutions, possibly independently and choosing to promote the expansion rather than the static universe put forward his "Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation" theory which Fred Hoyle disparagingly called the big bang. This is the name that has stuck. To present his case Lemaitre went to London; a luxury Friedmann could not afford given the post revolution hostility between his country and Britain. In 1929 Hubble made possibly the most important astronomical discovery of the twentieth century, that the shift in the spectra of the faint spiral nebulae, as galaxies were called then, (they were finding it a bit hard to come to terms with the idea of galaxies other than our own populated the universe) are proportional to their apparent brightness. The most obvious interpretation of this was that the more distant and therefore fainter the galaxy, and the greater the redshift ergo the faster they are moving away from us. Not only did the universe appear to be expanding but it's expansion was accelerating. By the 1930s the front page of the New York times stated that we live in an expanding
Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. Same with galaxies.Ds. G is a galaxy with perhaps two billion stars." from wikipedia. "Edwin Hubble 1889–1953"
This is not the first time that the media has swayed public opinion ahead of scientific consensus. favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists. and what were these objects anyway? They certainly did not seem to be galaxies. or to put it an another way. Quasi Stellar Objects. Hubble's Law was created from the observation that. To add to this though.E. If this experiment is repeated with the balloon carrying a billion one candela L. must be spectacularly bright. Allan (1989). Imagine you put a one candela Light Emitting Diode on a helium balloon with altimeter and allow it to ascend in the darkness until the light is no longer visible and call this altitude or distance from the observer X. quasars are small.000 light-years across whilst quasars are typically less than one light-year across and often not much larger than our solar system. or some other extra ordinary means of creating brightness. after ascension be clearly visible at altitude/distance X.universe though for almost the next forty years the scientific community remained undecided between the static or the expanding universe. Imagine a Quasar Q that we see near a normal galaxy which we will call G. that according to their redshift distances. including Hubble himself until he died in 1953. A star's apparent brightness (its flux) decreases with the square of the distance. puts Q very much further away. By comparison. Since Q is much further away but has similar brightness to G. our galaxy is 100. To make it clear. By the nineteen sixties when it was discovered that there were now a large number of objects out there that were not respectably close to the line. if you took all of the stars of one hundred milky way galaxies and crammed them all together. if we take them to be at the distance the redshift suggests.
Einstein. as they have the same brightness. reluctantly accepted that the evidence for an expanding universe was persuasive. Q's much greater redshift. it must have a different means of creating it's brightness than G. and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognised principle of nature. The result was a nice straight line with the data respectably close to the line. To continue to accept that quasars are at the distance suggested by their redshift. Theoreticians. (average galaxy has way over a billion stars in it) they will. It is the writers opinion that the status of law should have been revoked when in the 1960's Quasi Stellar Objects or Quasars were discovered which thoroughly defy Hubble's Law and brought with them such anomalous results that the law should have been de-merited to a theory. Stars become fainter with increasing distance because their energy is spread out over a larger and larger surface. the fainter the galaxy. So what are these defiant little rebels we call Quasars? Before we consider quasars. Sandage. it would be good to just remind ourselves of a fact of nature. both have a similar brightness and would be assumed to be the same distance from the observer. This speculative contrivance is completely un-testable and verges on the metaphysical. Significant Reasons. So we called these peculiar objects. convinced by Hubble's data. then you may have sufficient luminosity. because they appeared to be star like and yet have more calculated luminance than two trillion stars all together. such as super massive black holes. astronomers and cosmologists may not have been reluctant to take on the challenge of creating a new theory to
. However. The only way to make it brighter is to have more stars. so getting all those stars from one hundred galaxies to fit into that rather small space is just not on. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position. and yet the only thing we should be able to see at those distances are galaxies. the greater the redshift ergo the faster they are moving away from us. Hubble created a graph of brightness vs redshift for galaxies. it is necessary to contrive a whole new mechanism. In fact Quasars. must have a luminosity 2 trillion times that of our sun.
it has been necessary to speculate mathematically and create a model around a super massive black hole. Halton Arp made interesting observations of quasars in the 1960's which for those with eyes that see. and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all. Apparently there is a turgid resistance to fostering research in any area that may threaten or undermine the big bang theory. particularly those with apparent association with quasars which forced Arp to resign. the Hubble space telescope. This from some of his supporters:
Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"). and energetic objects known in the universe. Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. They tend to inhabit the very centres of active. equivalent to 2 trillion (2×1012) suns.htm The anomalies of quasars are these: If they are as far away their redshift predicts. To explain this. Imagine one small light source putting out as much light as two thousand times all the stars in our galaxy. Arp is seen as a hero by some and references are made of a twentieth century Galileo. Halton's discovery has since been resoundingly confirmed by Martin Corredoira and Carlos Gutierrez (2002) in observations of galaxy NGC7603. In conformity with mainstream science wikipedia suggests that the “red shift controversy” is over.org/arp. This much light cannot come from any sources we know of. and are among the most luminous. The caltech head of the telescope allocation committee disallowed Arp telescope time for pusuing his interest in peculiar galaxies. Those familiar with the Galileo story will remember the priests who refused to look through his telescope. young galaxies. This mainstream view remains contentious. a thing which to date no astronomer admits to having seen anywhere in the observable universe. From
electric-cosmos. powerful. What happened to astronomer Halton Arp is a case in point. emitting up to a thousand times the energy output of the Milky Way.
.account for the different redshifts of quasars but having witnessed the treatment of one of their colleagues they may now be very reluctant. these objects have been completely excluded from examination. These speculations are untestable and border on the metaphysical. To quote wikipedia. Instead. then they are extremely remarkable objects. Corredoira and Gutierrez's measurements are truly startling. make it clear that some other factor accounts for the unusually high redshift of quasars. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope. The symbol for redshift is 'z'. The most luminous quasars radiate at a rate that can exceed the output of average galaxies. Official photographs are routinely cropped to exclude them.
um. Of the two theories there is no doubt that those who can't resist a little conflation of science and religion would favour the big bang theory for obvious reasons.
Einstein's first universe was a static one. Then. No doubt those trying to accumulate scientific evidence to support the bible. Hubble's law calculations for distance away from us puts QS Objects 2 and 3 at extreme distances from both us and NGC7603.It is perfectly clear that at least two quasars.
. in 1934. are indisputably associated with NGC7603.029.. Big Bang priests. Einstein accepted that the data supported the expanding universe hypothesis. 'In the beginning there was nothing. the calculation tells us that object 1 is much further away from us than NGC7603. To compound matters. as is the fact that they 'appear' to be in the stream of matter between host and companion. does not deny what is in the bible. The stream of luminous matter linking NGC7603 to its companion Object 1. Lemaître described his theory as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation" and Fred Hoyle disparagingly gave it the name big bang. and then there was light' may be dismayed if the big bang theory looses mass support but this would only be by neglecting the fact that the absence of the big bang. Hannes Alfvén said he heard Lemaître say in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. I mean scientists assure us that objects 2 and 3 are no where near NGC7603 and are way off in the distance behind it and that the apparent matching of luminosity is just a fluke of nature. This suggested two possibilities. object 2 and 3. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo #creation out of nothing. to determine the distance of the of the companion.. yet if we use Hubble's Law and the redshift 'z' of 0. It simply has nothing to do with the bible. convinced by Hubble's data on redshift. The big bang or a cyclic universe. is plain for all to see and clearly indicates that NGC7603 and it's companion are approximately the same distance from us. This is science. father of the big bang hypothesis was also known as father in the catholic church. Perhaps it is not surprising that Lemaitre.
17-20). Literal and non-literal. Big bang and string theory scientists alike are devoted to and get funding for following the idea that there is only one possible explanation for redshift. The interpretation of redshift is the founding premise for a large number of jobs in physics. for want of a better word. Such noted astronomers as Vera Rubin (cosmology prize winner)
. At some time in the not too distant future we will look upon the big bang theory as we now look upon the earth centric view of the universe. it is surprising to learn that certain ideas are not just ignored but actively discouraged. We are unable to even read Chaucer's Canterbury Tales for the English language has changed so much in fi
Rather surprisingly competing theories. Twentieth Century media was addicted to sensationalism. Perhaps.. in a world where one assumes that Scientists seek.There are other religious folk who don't want to support the big bang because it contradicts Genesis. There are two ways to view the bible. God is for people.. Something that is discussed little is notion of aether.” He then quotes Ernan McMullin of Notre Dame University: What one cannot say is. that the Christian doctrine of creation “supports” the Big Bang model. simply unsupportable with better theories to explain the observed universe. that the Big Bang model “supports” the doctrine of creation (1983. or second. died or were abandonded on much less grounds than those used to support the big bang theory. The moment one considers other possible explanations for redshift then the very foundations are shaken. The absence of the big bang should affect neither party. There is another kind of momentum in science. I have no stake in this fight. first. The big bang is a scientific theory. Evolutionist Paul Davies. astronomy and cosmology. String theory can accommodate a big bang like theory though a cyclic model has more favour amongst string theorists. The bible that we have today has come to us from people of a different age. The outcome does not affect me. no less so in it's coverage of science and this can no doubt explain the common conflation of science and religion. in a discussion of the big bang. What does affect me is that science and the scientific method is being vigorously and intentionally corrupted and it would seem to be coming from within. Religion and Science are not competing ideas. There is no reason why one's view of God cannot be described by a new set of words which more accurately reflect a view. viz a viz dark matter and dark energy. says that this theory of origins “differs greatly in detail from the biblical version. truth. what they need him to be.
unused The Big Bang 1. Scientists don't know that there was a beginning of the universe. there are still well supported contending theories for a possible
. 2. Scientists don't know that if there was a beginning to the universe that it happened in the form of a big bang.
states that objects that appear to be near NGC7603 with redshifts as measured must be thousands or millions of light-years further away. Science Were Arp's views to gain widespread acceptance. behind NGC7603 which in this image is very very highly improbable. They are even Science and Religion are not mutually exclusive! 4.243 and 0. Most people seeing the image will acknowledge that there is clearly a bridge of matter between two galaxies. it would be very difficult for mainstream scientists to take the big bang theory seriously.
Created. seeks to explain from observation the nature of the universe.391. Mainstream science. have redshifts of 0. 3. in denial. Hubble's Law for these objects infers that they are moving away from us at tremendous speed and it was assumed that since they had the highest speed away from us that they would also be the most distant but this has proved to be not so. for their brightness In science one should not get too comfortable with theories. Static and Cyclic are the three contenders. be an as star like objects often with huge redshifts.057. while two other objects in the stream of matter between these two.beginning. Since scientists know that there
. sureferred to as a companion galaxy has a has a stream of matter reaching a nearby much smaller galaxy of z 0. The cyclic universe. Conflating Science and Religion is not unlike trying to mate a horse with an SUV. with some unknown source of illumination. .