Ned Wright's TBBNH Page (B1)

This post continues the discussion of 'Ned' Wright's website "Errors in The
Big Bang Never Happened."

Several people have independently pointed me to Ned Wright's website "Errors
in The Big Bang Never Happened." One of those was the sci.physics.research
moderator -- who used this website as justification for refusing any mention
of TBBNH -- or any references contained therein. The crank.dot.net site
lists "Ed (sic) Wright's invaluable page detailing the errors in ... Eric
Lerner's arguments from The Big Bang Never Happened." So I guess it's time
to discuss "Ned Wright's TBBNH Page. Last modified 4-May-2000, © 1997-2000"
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html


Ned separated his site into three sections:

A: Errors in Lerner's Criticism of the Big Bang
B: Errors in Lerner's Alternative to the Big Bang
C: Miscellaneous Errors


Now to the details of Ned's argument B (Lerner's alternative to the Big
Bang) :
================================================
What alternative does Lerner give for the Big Bang? Since the Big Bang is
based on

1.the redshift of galaxies
2.the blackbody microwave background
3.the abundance of the light elements

Lerner should give alternative explanations for these three observed
phenomena. What are his alternatives?
=============================================== =

Just to note that, as Lerner pointed out in TBBNH, these are three of the
arbitrary observations used to 'fix' the Big Bang. Redshift was the BB 1.0
(p136). Light element abundances was BB 2.0 (p140). CMBR was BB 3.0
(p150). Inflation is BB 4.0 (p157). None of them were predicted by the Big
Bang. The Big Bang was adjusted to match AFTER these observations were made
by the addition of new assumptions (and sometimes entirely new physics, like
'dark matter' and 'inflation').


This is part 1:
================================================
Lerner's model for the redshift

In the BBNH, Lerner presents the Alfven-Klein model which explains the
redshift using a portion of the Universe that starts to collapse, then the
collapse is reversed. This model requires new physics to generate the force
necessary reverse the collapse. Figure 6.2 of BBNH shows the collapse,
reversal, and later expansion of a region of space.
=============================================== =

Ned completely mis-states Lerner's (Alfven-Klein) model. "The universe"
does not collapse at all in this model! (Ned later morphs 'the universe'
into 'space', so this is literally a BB cosmology.) Apparently Ned didn't
grasp the difference between the gravitational collapse of
uniformly-distributed gas WITHIN a prexisting space, and the Big Bang
'spacetime creation' (i.e. a 'big crunch'). No 'new physics' is needed for
the A-K model (Ned didn't identify any, either). It appears that Ned
skimmed over to Figure 6.2 and mis-interpreted it in a Big Bang manner.

================================================
The figure below shows
space-time diagrams based on this idea. In a space-time diagram, time is
plotted going upward, with the bottom being the distant past. The black
lines show the paths of different clumps of matter (galaxies) as function of
time. These are called "world-lines". The red lines show the position of
light rays that reach us now at the top center of the diagrams. These are
called "light cones". Lerner says that only a small region of space
collapsed: only a few hundred million light-years across. This is shown on
the left. But if this were the case, then the distant galaxy at G would have
a recession velocity smaller than the recession velocity of the nearby
galaxy A. This is not what we observe. Thus a much larger region must have
collapsed. This is shown on the right. Now G has a larger recession velocity
than A which matches the observations.
=============================================== =

Space-time diagrams are not needed at all for this analysis. Again, because
it is not 'space' that is collapsing! It is simply matter condensing
matter. Second, Lerner does not state that only a region of only a few
hundred million years is involved. Figure 6.2 (for example) clearly shows
the original material in our current 'metagalaxy' (visible universe) as
originally being larger than it's current size (prior to the gravitational
condensation).

The Alfven-Klein model has an explosion due to matter-antimatter mixing.
This results in faster-moving clouds of gas moving farther than
slower-moving clouds of gas. Ned's 'space-time diagram' is simply
incorrect.


================================================
What causes the reversal from collapse to re-expansion? Lerner claims that
it is the pressure caused by the annihilation of matter and antimatter
during the collapse. The green ellipse shows this high pressure region. But
only pressure differences cause forces. A pressure gradient is needed to
generate an acceleration. In the case of a large region of collapse, which
is needed to match the observations, a larger acceleration requires a larger
pressure gradient, and this gradient exists over a larger distance, leader
to a greatly increased pressure.
=============================================== =

Neb provides an unnecessarily roundabout way of saying 'there is an
explosion.' Explosions are merely releases of energy that cause there
surroundings to expand. The time constant of the expansion may differ for
different types of explosions. For example, we arbitrarily identify
explosions in air as those with a combination of energy and time constant
that create shock waves.

================================================
But in relativity pressure has "weight" and causes stronger gravitational
attraction. This can be seen using work W = PdV, so the pressure is similar
to an energy density. Then through E = mc2, this energy density is similar
to a mass density. If the collapsing region is big enough to match the
observations, then the pressure must be so large that a black hole forms and
the region does not re-expand. Peebles discusses this problem with the
plasma cosmology in his book "Principles of Physical Cosmology".
=============================================== =

This book by Peebles was first published in 1993 (Princeton University
Press) -- two years AFTER TBBNH. Thus, it is not an "error" in TBBNH if
Lerner was unaware of Peebles' future work! I haven't yet had a chance to
get to the library to check out Peebles' book and analysis. But I'm curious
why Ned was so vague about what "observations" were used in Peebles'
analysis.

The main problem I see offhand with Peebles' and/or Ned's claim is that the
above 'problem' would be the case if the material all entered an arbitrarily
small region and an arbitrarily small time. But if this IS a 'problem',
then the big bang seems to have the same 'problem' -- and a far worse case
of it. For in the BB, the energy is arbitrarily close to a mathematical
point for a given instant in time -- and the BB supposedly has 50 times the
matter/energy ('dark matter') than needed for 'plasma cosmology.' Thus, if
expansion without being sucked into a black hole is possible for the BB,
then expansion without a black hole is also possible for an explosion with a
factor of 50 less mass/energy, over a far larger space, and over a far
longer time for the A-K model.


================================================
Remarkably, Lerner now disowns the the Alfven-Klein model which plays such a
big part in the BBNH, and wants me to give the proper attribution!
=============================================== =

This indicates that Ned has been in communication with Lerner with regards
to TBBNH. Presumably because Lerner has attempted to rebut some of Ned's
charges against Lerner and TBBNH. In all fairness to Lerner -- and to be
even minimally 'scientific' -- Ned should at least have the decency to
provide a link to that communication. Especially since Ned claims that
Lerner now "disowns" the A-K model.

================================================
He points
out that he listed problems with the Alfven-Klein model in the Appendix of
BBNH, but these were rather minor problems compared to the fact that it just
won't work!
=============================================== =

It would be not at all remarkable that a scientist would abandon a model
when faced with a major contradiction. The unwillingness to abandon a
failed model is one of the habits for which Lerner chastises Big Bang
cosmologists. So it is not surprising that Lerner would abandon a model --
if he did so, and if it was for reason of a perceived major failure of the
model.

And the question of course is WHY 'it won't work'. It is never sufficient
just to claim that 'it won't work.' Lerner does indeed discuss several
possible causes of Hubble shift in the Appendix:

1- The Alfven antimatter theory.

Lerner discusses uncertainties (and possible solutions) in overcoming
Leidenfrost layers (via plasmoids), driving the secondary explosions with
less force than earlier ones (frequency and size), and -- most serious to
Lerner -- the tendency of the initial collapse to 'fizzle' and blow itself
to pieces prior to gaining the Hubble velocity (variations in the
matter-antimatter mixing). The last is the same kind of problem that Big
Bangers deal with in the 'flatness problem'.

Lerner (in his Appendix) prefers the A-K theory, because it does not involve
any new physics. And he provides a possible test:

Lerner predicts that if the A-K theory is correct, then as the Hubble
constant is actually mapped to farther and farther distances, a distortion
in the constant (showed by flattening or elongation relative to the Earth)
will be discovered. The correct 'hubble relation' will preserve the
structures.

Has this been done in the ensuing 12 years? Has Lerner abandoned the A-K
model for this reason?


================================================
If the Alfven-Klein model doesn't work, Lerner's fall back is
tired light, which is another total failure.
=============================================== =

2- Tired light. Lerner notes that this is a CLASS of theories. Lerner
discusses the tired light theory of Marmet and Reber (interaction of photons
with electrons) -- which requires electron/matter densities 100,000 times
that observed; the modified QM theory of JP Vigier -- which works, but
Lerner considers ad hoc; and Dirac's 1938 theory of changing scale of all
objects -- which Lerner also considers ad hoc.

The above content of Lerner's Appendix is apparently Ned's source for
'Lerner's fallback'.

Ned provides no discussion -- only offhand dismissal. Now, Lerner -- unlike
Ned -- provides a specific reason why he doesn't care for each of the three
'tired light' theories that he listed. Two of the three theories that
Lerner listed in TBBNH work quite well for the 1991 Hubble shift. These are
Vigier's theory and Dirac's theory. Both matched the observed Hubble shift
precisely. Lerner didn't like them because he considered them 'ad hoc.'
(Which is the same reason Lerner doesn't like the Big Bang.) We have no
idea why Ned considered ALL such theories 'total failures.' Ned obviously
doesn't mind ad hoc theories (the Big Bang).

However, there has been a change since 1991 (TBBNH) and 2000 (Ned's page).
By looking at the light from supernovae, it was discovered that the Hubble
shift was not a straight line, but a curve. It is in fact a curve of the
type predicted by Vigier's theory. So Vigier's theory covers the Hubble
shift in it's entirety. It's still 'ad hoc', but it's only one ad hoc. The
BB theorists have had to create yet another new ad hoc form of physics to
'explain' the new observations: 'dark energy' (wich has negative
gravitation, unlike any other prior form of energy or matter) -- to add to
the already impressive list of ad hoc additions to
the BB ('dark matter', 'inflation', ...).

Yet, Vigier's theory is not 'new physics'. It is old physics. All Vigier
did was remove one (as yet unproven) assumption in QM theory. That
assumption is that photons are perfect, and do not interact in any fashion
whatsoever with the 'space-time continuum' or with the 'sea of virtual
particles' or with the 'zero point energy.' (Whatever one wants to label
it.) Since QM was derived for short-range interactions, there is no
theoretical reason that some energy might not be lost to the 'sea' in which
a photon travels, over long ranges.

Perhaps it is time to re-examine Vigier's theory in cosmology. Of course
the Big Bang would certainly not be needed if Vigier's theory is correct in
any substantial way.


See "Ned Wright's TBBNH Page (B2) for 'The source of the microwave
background.'

A courtesy copy of this post is provided to Ned Wright.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

greywolf42 wrote in message news:...

I have now had the opportunity to get to the library and check out Peebles'
"Principles of Physical Cosmology," 1993.

{snip stuff not related to Peebles' book.}

================================================
But in relativity pressure has "weight" and causes stronger gravitational
attraction. This can be seen using work W = PdV, so the pressure is
similar to an energy density. Then through E = mc2, this energy density
is similar to a mass density. If the collapsing region is big enough to
match the observations, then the pressure must be so large that a
black hole forms and the region does not re-expand. Peebles discusses
this problem with the plasma cosmology in his book
"Principles of Physical Cosmology".
=============================================== =

This book by Peebles was first published in 1993 (Princeton University
Press) -- two years AFTER TBBNH. Thus, it is not an "error" in TBBNH if
Lerner was unaware of Peebles' future work! I haven't yet had a chance to
get to the library to check out Peebles' book and analysis. But I'm
curious why Ned was so vague about what "observations" were used in
Peebles' analysis.

The main problem I see offhand with Peebles' and/or Ned's claim is that
the above 'problem' would be the case if the material all entered an
arbitrarily small region and an arbitrarily small time. But if this IS a
'problem', then the big bang seems to have the same 'problem' --
and a far worse case of it. For in the BB, the energy is arbitrarily
close to a mathematical point for a given instant in time -- and the BB
supposedly has 50 times the matter/energy ('dark matter') than needed
for 'plasma cosmology.' Thus, if expansion without being sucked into
a black hole is possible for the BB, then expansion without a black hole
is also possible for an explosion with a factor of 50 less mass/energy,
over a far larger space, and over a far longer time for the A-K model.

Peebles devotes just two pages to 'plasma universe' theory (pp 207-209).
(He devotes 16 pages to a pure-math 'fractal universe,' and 1 1/2 page to
'noncosmological redshift.')

The first two paragraphs note that the theory is fundamentally consistent
and physical -- and has many advantages over the Big Bang theory. Peebles
does note the limits on the plasma cosmology theory via the possible
collapse into a black hole -- but Peebles does not come even close to Ned
Wright's claim that "If the collapsing region is big enough to match the
observations, then the pressure must be so large that a black hole forms."

From Peebles' text:

"The beginning assumption of the plasma universe is that the material in the
galaxies we observe originated as a dilute, slowly contracting cloud of
matter and antimatter. That goes considerably beyond what is observed, but
the big bang is by far the greater extrapolation. As the cloud contracts,
matter and antimatter would start to annihilate. The pressure of the
annihilation radiation eventually would become high enough to reverse the
contraction and turn it into a violent explosion. One can imagine* that
instabilities in this explosion are capable of piling matter into clumps
such as galaxies, and perhaps also capable of segregating matter and
antimatter well enough to avoid violating the limits on the present rate of
annihilation from bounds on the gammar ray luminosities of well-mixed system
such as the plasma in rich clusters of galaxies (Steigman 1976; eq. [18.114]
below). The Milne velocity sorting process would ensure that the galaxy
motions approach Hubble's law well after the explosion (eq. [7.1])."

* Of course, it's not necessary to 'imagine' this. The processes of
clumping and segregation can be found in TBBNH -- published two years prior
to Peebles' book -- as well as the other sources for 'plasma cosmology'.

"The size of the cloud of gas and galaxies in this picture is limited by the
condition that during the collapse phase the gravitational potential energy
per unit mass, phi, cannot exceed the critical value for relativistic
collapse of the bulk of the material to a black hole, for the remnant would
be hard to miss. On writing the present mean mass density within the system
in terms of the density parameter in equation (5.55), and the present radius
of the system as r ~ c z_r / H_0, where z_r is the redshift at the edge, we
have that the present potential energy per unit mass is

phi ~ GM/rc^2 ~ Omega z_r^2 / 2 (7.23)

The dynamical estimates to be discussed in section 20 indicate that the
density parameter is not less than about Omega ~ 0.1. Galaxies are seen in
abundance in redshift surveys to at least z ~ 0.5. (Many more galaxies are
observed at higher redshifts, but let us suppose this high velocity tail
carries relatively little net mass.) The present value of the dimensionless
potential phi is then at least phi ~ 0.01. This means that, if the cloud
radius at maximum collapse were less than a few percent of the present
value, the conventional physics of general relativity theory says the cloud
would have suffered relativistic collapse, however violent the explosion.
...."

There are a couple of problems with Peebles' "collapse into a black hole"
analysis. The first being that he uses a big-bang parameter -- omega -- to
evaluate a non-big-bang theory. The second is that Omega is observed to be
0.02 to 0.03 -- NOT the 0.5 that Peebles mentions, above. What we find in
Table 20.1 of Peebles' book is that there are many different indicators of
Omega -- NONE of which require a value as high as 0.5. The highest non-BB
value is "upper limit of" 0.04. And even the big-bang values ("dynamics")
range from 0.05 to 0.2. So Peebles' "anti-plasma" section is off by a minium
of a factor of 10.

This changes Peebles' conclusion to ".. if the cloud radius at maximum
collapse were less than a few TENTHS OF A percent of the present value, ...
general relativity theory says the cloud would have suffered relativistic
collapse." Of course, there is no a priori reason for the 'collapsed' cloud
to be less than a few percent of the current universe size (100 Mly) -- let
alone a few tenths of a percent (10Mly).

Yet, even taking Peebles' argument at face value, as I originally noted
above, the Big Bang would suffer the same fate, and far more easily.
Recalling Peebles' own words, the big bang is by far the greater
extrapolation towards a singularity.


Peebles does not credit any prior author for this 'discovery' that a
plasma universe (discussed since Alfven's work in 1966) could possibly
collapse into a black hole. This implies that Peebles was the first to
create this argument -- in 1993. And this clearly shows the falseness of
Ned Wright's claim that plasma cosmology was "... known to be incorrect in
1991 when Lerner wrote his book."

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

"g" == greywolf42 writes:

"The size of the cloud of gas and galaxies in this picture is
limited by the condition that during the collapse phase the
gravitational potential energy per unit mass, phi, cannot exceed
the critical value for relativistic collapse of the bulk of the
material to a black hole, for the remnant would be hard to miss.
[...]
phi ~ GM/rc^2 ~ Omega z_r^2 / 2 (7.23)

The dynamical estimates to be discussed in section 20 indicate that
the density parameter is not less than about Omega ~ 0.1. Galaxies
are seen in abundance in redshift surveys to at least z ~ 0.5.
(...) The present value of the dimensionless potential phi is
then at least phi ~ 0.01. This means that, if the cloud radius at
maximum collapse were less than a few percent of the present value,
the conventional physics of general relativity theory says the
cloud would have suffered relativistic collapse, however violent
the explosion. ..."

g There are a couple of problems with Peebles' "collapse into a black
g hole" analysis. The first being that he uses a big-bang parameter
g -- omega -- to evaluate a non-big-bang theory.

Omega is defined as Omega = rho/rho_c, where rho is a density and
rho_c is the critical density. rho_c is certainly a result of BB
theory, but it is also a value that one can predict. It turns out to
be about 1E-29 g/cm^3. Thus, Omega ~ 0.1 is equivalent to saying a
density of 1E-30 g/cm^3. A density of rho ~ 1E-30 g/cm^3 is not
dependent upon the BB theory.

g The second is that Omega is observed to be 0.02 to 0.03 -- NOT the
g 0.5 that Peebles mentions, above. [...]

I could not find this statement by Peebles. Where does he state Omega
~ 0.5? He does state that the redshift range over which galaxies is
observed is z ~ 0.5.


g Peebles does not credit any prior author for this 'discovery' that
g a plasma universe (discussed since Alfven's work in 1966) could
g possibly collapse into a black hole. This implies that Peebles was
g the first to create this argument -- in 1993.

Alternately, this idea is so widely known that it is no longer
necessary to provide a reference. If I describe an orbit of an object
as elliptical, do I have to reference Kepler (1609)?

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...
"g" == greywolf42 writes:

"The size of the cloud of gas and galaxies in this picture is
limited by the condition that during the collapse phase the
gravitational potential energy per unit mass, phi, cannot exceed
the critical value for relativistic collapse of the bulk of the
material to a black hole, for the remnant would be hard to miss.
[...]
phi ~ GM/rc^2 ~ Omega z_r^2 / 2 (7.23)

The dynamical estimates to be discussed in section 20 indicate that
the density parameter is not less than about Omega ~ 0.1. Galaxies
are seen in abundance in redshift surveys to at least z ~ 0.5.
(...) The present value of the dimensionless potential phi is
then at least phi ~ 0.01. This means that, if the cloud radius at
maximum collapse were less than a few percent of the present value,
the conventional physics of general relativity theory says the
cloud would have suffered relativistic collapse, however violent
the explosion. ..."

g There are a couple of problems with Peebles' "collapse into a black
g hole" analysis. The first being that he uses a big-bang parameter
g -- omega -- to evaluate a non-big-bang theory.

Omega is defined as Omega = rho/rho_c, where rho is a density and
rho_c is the critical density. rho_c is certainly a result of BB
theory, but it is also a value that one can predict.

Well, yes. It can be predicted by using the big bang theory. However,
since this relies upon the big bang theory, then one cannot rely upon it to
critique a non-Big-Bang theory -- which has different assumptions.

It turns out to
be about 1E-29 g/cm^3. Thus, Omega ~ 0.1 is equivalent to saying a
density of 1E-30 g/cm^3. A density of rho ~ 1E-30 g/cm^3 is not
dependent upon the BB theory.

If 1E-29 is dependent upon BB, and you then multiply it by 0.1, then your
value is still dependent on the BB.

g The second is that Omega is observed to be 0.02 to 0.03 -- NOT the
g 0.5 that Peebles mentions, above. [...]

I could not find this statement by Peebles. Where does he state Omega
~ 0.5? He does state that the redshift range over which galaxies is
observed is z ~ 0.5.

My apologies for the mistake. He said "not less than about Omega ~ 0.1".

So my ratio, instead of being 0.5/.02 (at least 10), becomes 0.1/.02-3 or
about a factor of four.

And my conclusion (which you snipped) becomes:

This changes Peebles' conclusion to ".. if the cloud radius at maximum
collapse were less than a percent of the present value, ... general
relativity theory says the cloud would have suffered relativistic collapse."
Of course, there is no a priori reason for the 'collapsed' cloud to be less
than a few percent of the current universe size (100 Mly) -- let alone less
than a percent (40Mly)."

No significant change in conclusion.


g Peebles does not credit any prior author for this 'discovery' that
g a plasma universe (discussed since Alfven's work in 1966) could
g possibly collapse into a black hole. This implies that Peebles was
g the first to create this argument -- in 1993.

Alternately, this idea is so widely known that it is no longer
necessary to provide a reference. If I describe an orbit of an object
as elliptical, do I have to reference Kepler (1609)?

What an amusing strawman. Not.

Are you claiming this was 'so widely known that it wasn't necessary to
provide a reference?' I didn't think so, or you would have clearly stated
this. And it would have been trivial to provide a reference -- which you
can't.

And Peebles' certainly didn't think so -- as he mentioned Alfven (1966),
Klein (1971), Steigman (1976) and Milne. Had the 'plasma universe' been
'widely known' it would not have been necessary to provide references. One
can't have a 'well known' "disproof" of a theory -- if the theory itself is
not at least as 'well known.'

Besides, Ned would have referred to an earlier work than Peebles, if he knew
of one.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas