Big Bang

George Dishman:

I've replied to your criticisms of my blog article in more detail than
I did in my initial e-mail response to you.

http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/blog/2...cosmology.html

That is the address of the original article, click on comments to see
my reply to your comments.

I guess at this point there is no theory that makes sense to me.
The big bang bothers me because of the need for magic, inflation with no
basis in physics, the cosmological constant just because it makes the
formulas work, cause and effect before time began, etc.

Steady state bothers me because there would be a need for a mechanism
to recycle heavy elements generated through nuclear synthesis in the stars
back into hydrogen, else everything would be iron by now. And of coarse the
need for an explanation of red shift other than Doppler.

I did think of one potential explanation for that. Modern string
theories seem to suggest that most forces could not act across the additional
dimensions but that gravity would. So perhaps energy is being extracted from
photons via gravitational influence across these extra dimensions.

--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Eskimo North Linux Friendly Internet Access, Shell Accounts, and Hosting.
Knowledgable human assistance, not telephone trees or script readers.
See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.

"Nanook" wrote in message
...

George Dishman:

I've replied to your criticisms of my blog article in more detail than
I did in my initial e-mail response to you.

http://www.eskimo.com/~nanook/blog/2...cosmology.html

That is the address of the original article, click on comments to see
my reply to your comments.

I'll try to respond soon but it's going to get complex
if we go through point by point. I'll see if I can
come up with a way to make it readable.

I guess at this point there is no theory that makes sense to me.
The big bang bothers me because of the need for magic, inflation with no
basis in physics, the cosmological constant just because it makes the
formulas work, cause and effect before time began, etc.

Inflation and the cosmological constant are empirical
at the moment, I agree, but theory has always been
driven by observation and that's as it should be. They
are pointing the way to more detailed theories but they
are essentially the boundaries of present understanding.
Whwt you have to realise is that big bang starts today
and works backwards. We can see galaxies far back in
time. We can see the CMBR and the ratio of promordial
elements is a good, but not perfect, match to the numbers
projected from high energy physics measurements. Back to
nucleosynthesis the case is pretty solid with the main
unknown being dark energy and the nature of dark matter.

Beyond that however, we don't understand baryogenesis
for me that's where the theory stops and speculation
begins.

Steady state bothers me because there would be a need for a mechanism
to recycle heavy elements generated through nuclear synthesis in the stars
back into hydrogen, else everything would be iron by now.

That recycling would need energy too so is no better
than the need for dark energy in present observations.

Not to mention the problem of deuterium.

And of coarse the
need for an explanation of red shift other than Doppler.

Indeed. Also you need a source for the CMBR which is
problematic.

I did think of one potential explanation for that. Modern string
theories seem to suggest that most forces could not act across the
additional
dimensions but that gravity would. So perhaps energy is being extracted
from
photons via gravitational influence across these extra dimensions.

Hmmm, you think the Big bang needs "magic" and energy
"being extracted from photons via gravitational
influence across .. extra dimensions." is somehow
less magical?

George

"N" == Nanook writes:

N I guess at this point there is no theory that makes sense to me.
N The big bang bothers me because of the need for magic, inflation
N with no basis in physics, the cosmological constant just because it
N makes the formulas work, cause and effect before time began, etc.

The Big Bang model is a straightforward application of general
relativity. Recall that the cosmological constant has reared its
figurative head in the past 10 years only because the data have
demanded it. The cosmological constant appears quite naturally within
general relativity, but a theory cannot predict the value of constants
within it. (Does Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation predict the
value of G? Do Maxwell's equations predict the value of the
electronic charge?)

Inflation is perhaps a bit more problematic, but my recollection is
that it is potentially related to a phase change. Phase changes are
not magic, and are quite commonplace in our everyday experience.
(Drop an ice cube into a drink.)

N Steady state bothers me because there would be a need for a
N mechanism to recycle heavy elements generated through nuclear
N synthesis in the stars back into hydrogen, else everything would be
N iron by now. And of coarse the need for an explanation of red
N shift other than Doppler.

Not really. The original steady state postulated that hydrogen was
being created continuously, and it was quite happy with the standard,
cosmological explanation for redshift. What did in the steady state
model was its prediction that the Universe would not change
dramatically over time. It's now clear that the Universe has changed
over time.

--
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