BBC Focus Magazine

[M Paul Lloyd]

Well yes redshift fits and it fits quite well, but it has been noted that various galactic clusters, which appear very old, also appear to be closer to our point of view than other objects which are seemingly much further away and should therefore be older but actually look much younger. It is further complicated by the fact that what we see is no longer actually there as everything has presumably receded away and will eventually become so dim that it will be lost from view for ever. I seem to recall that 32 billion light years is the limit?

I accept that I could be very wrong but the more I look at the complexities being added to the current theory the more I worry that it really doesn't work as well as it should, more 'spheres within spheres' is all I see whilst on the other hand, if we simply accept (just for the sake of argument) that redshift is not what it seems and the universe is not expanding then things become a whole lot less complicated.

[Shadowwolf]

Well yes redshift fits and it fits quite well, but it has been noted that various galactic clusters, which appear very old, also appear to be closer to our point of view than other objects which are seemingly much further away and should therefore be older but actually look much younger.

I'll look up on that one, but I would hazard that our understanding of galactic formation may be more to blame in this case than what appears to be redshift not being so.

It is further complicated by the fact that what we see is no longer actually there as everything has presumably receded away and will eventually become so dim that it will be lost from view for ever. I seem to recall that 32 billion light years is the limit?

Well I don't know the limit meself, however I don't think that this presents much of an issue to the theory, we work with the information that we receive, the physical reality of the observed object is of little consequence in this matter.

I accept that I could be very wrong but the more I look at the complexities being added to the current theory the more I worry that it really doesn't work as well as it should, more 'spheres within spheres' is all I see whilst on the other hand,if we simply accept (just for the sake of argument) that redshift is not what it seems and the universe is not expanding then things become a whole lot less complicated.

Ahh, but how should it work? It may be inherently complex, there is nothing that says it must be simple and the more we find the more it grows and is refined; though as I recall you did recently remark about the Big Bang being overly simplistic The thing is, no one is just going to drop a real and useful observation tool for the sake of it, change must come with a reason to do so and arguing for simplicity is not sufficient impetus. There are valid observational tools, then there are observations that in light of other knowledge lead to certain suggestions, but just because these observations deliver unexpected results does not mean that the whole thing must be thrown out and start again with something completely different to rid us of the unexpected. Besides a non expansion model may also throw up a whole mess of other questions and difficulties that have not arisen merely because it has not been looked at in depth.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Oh I don't expect big bang theory to be thrown out, far too many people have built their respective careers upon it to say that it is a waste of time. I just want the possibility of something else to be considered and worked through without it being condemned as irrational. Not that I'm saying that it does get condemned as irrational but it certainly doesn't get well received does it?

I don't actually recall referring to the big bang as being simplistic other than perhaps in that the description itself is a little short of the mark (but I may have done in which case I was in error) but
you know to go from nothing to everything in less than a blink of an eye involves a lot of rules being seriously bent or broken, just referring to it as a bang does not do it justice. Which as I recall was actually coined, as a derisory remark, by an opponent of the theory.

Also the simple act of disregarding red shift opens up a whole new area of problems to solve that may in turn merely fortify the big bang theory. But that's what science should be about surely?

Here's some links to help with your investigation into anomalous red shifts.
http://arijmaki.wordpress.com/2009/05/2 ... redshifts/
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf027/sf027p03.htm
http://www.livingcosmos.com/quasar.htm

[Shadowwolf]

Thankee Mr M, I shall get to them in time

[Shadowwolf]

...but you know to go from nothing to everything in less than a blink of an eye involves a lot of rules being seriously bent or broken, just referring to it as a bang does not do it justice. Which as I recall was actually coined, as a derisory remark, by an opponent of the theory.

Yes but that is a misunderstanding of what the theory is actually about, and not helped by inaccurate names or descriptions largely stemming from the media or attempts to put complex ideas in simple terms. The Big Bang came from one of its detractors, Fred Hoyle though has since stuck as the most common label for the theory, it also does not actually bend or break that much as far as I can tell, for instance the theory does not actually claim an everything from nothing scenario, it is not about the origin of the verse but its development.

As for redshifts, well that last site is of questionable use as apart from its garish construct it appears to be hocking us a book, and other parts of the site suggest the author is peddling some nature based woo, hence little confidence can be put in anything he has to say without extensive back checking. The first site seems to be talking about anomalies of local shifts which are not related to cosmological redshift. This also means that what I was saying about redshift being useful locally has no bearing on the redshift that goes a long way to backing up expansion. I'm looking up the last one and Arp though the consensus would suggest that his claims have an explanation.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Fair points re the anomalous redshift Mr.S ( I must find better references) but in the meantime as to the breaking of rules.... well I'm not so sure, you see in the beginning........................ at least according to big bang theory, we have something called ‘Planck time’, or more precisely 10-43 (that's ten to the power of minus 43 in case you were wondering which is really a very tiny amount indeed) seconds after time zero, and this is the point at which the big bang hasn’t actually happened yet but is about to. Subsequent to this ‘Planck time’ gravity is said to be a ‘background’ effect (regardless of mass and remember this is the entire universe we are dealing with here) within which ‘particles and fields evolve in line with quantum mechanics’, now then does anyone truly understand quantum mechanics? Apparently if you think you do, well then actually you don’t! On closer examination this is actually nothing more than a convenient let out clause that allows the big bang to occur in the first place, it's basically a bit of imaginative maths that allows it all to happen. Yes gravity is there but it doesn’t count for some reason, clever that, otherwise it would all fall apart right now wouldn’t it?
So the big bang has begun and we now have an isotropic (having the same properties in all directions and essentially uniform) and generally homogeneous (much the same as isotropic really) area of space existing at around 10-36 metres in area and the temperature is a staggering 1,032 Kelvin.
Then……………… inflation begins.
How much of this actually fits with real physics? Not much to be honest.

[Shadowwolf]

Regards redshift once more, the Arp findings of apparently far off (as per redshift) quasars being near much, much closer galaxies is as a result of gravitational lensing. The Sloan survey found a correlation of bright quasars nearby galaxies after checking 200k of them, so they do still appear to be as far off as their cosmological redshift would indicate and redshift still appears to be accurately relating distance.

...and this is the point at which the big bang hasn’t actually happened yet but is about to.

Ahh but my understanding is that the theory does not claim to describe the beginning or origins of the verse but how it developed from a particular point to where we are now. Perhaps it would be easier if you mentioned the salient broken parts that undermine it.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Well the fact that everything would have to exceed the speed of light many times over to have gone from a single point in space to almost its current size in the blink of an eye and then to have, for no particular reason, stopped and then begun gradually accelerating apart again but at a much slower rate without any change in energy levels .... kind of broken do you mean?

[Shadowwolf]

Well the apparent ftl bit is a result of the expansion of spacetime, bit like a balloon being inflated with pennies stuck to it, the fabric of the universe is expanding and carrying along the pennies stuck to it which means nothing is breaking E=MC2. Plus it is not from a single point in space, at least not space as the term currently means.

How is this stop, start broken, seems fairly well explained using physics etc and the predictions of these explanations have as far as I can tell been verified via the CMB and Sloan.

[M Paul Lloyd]

It's wonderful how scientific theory can manipulate space and time so easily isn't it?

The polka dot balloon seems to solve so much but can anyone explain what actually inflated it?

[Shadowwolf]

It's wonderful how scientific theory can manipulate space and time so easily isn't it?

Well technically it does not, the theory just explains the mechanisms that do that

The polka dot balloon seems to solve so much but can anyone explain what actually inflated it?

I think it worth bearing in mind that the balloon analogy is just that, a simple way to represent a concept but one that nonetheless can lead to misunderstanding much like the term 'Big Bang' routinely does. However the expansion or stretching of spacetime is what is making galaxies move away from each other at a rate that gives the illusion that some are traveling faster than light, which answers the question originally asked, what caused that expansion is a different question

[M Paul Lloyd]

I have to concede that you win the argument Mr.S but I'm still not happy about the mechanisms behind the process, and our subsequent need for dark matter and dark energy to make it all still work, that really is sphere's within sphere's to my mind.

[Shadowwolf]

Well one must recall that the Big Bang is by no means a final word and many sites I have looked at including NASA describe it as the best theory so far, and one that has significant observational evidence in addition to the mathematical underpinning, more than other theories have. They do not categorically state that the BBT is exactly what gave rise to the space we inhabit and know beyond all doubt.

The later implications like dark matter etc could just as easily be genuine new discoveries that lead to refinement of the current theory just like new information altered evolution as it er, evolved. When one discovers something new it does not necessarily mean that one throws out the current theory unless there is a severe contradiction. I think that dark matter and so on may well be part and parcel of the system and do not seem abhorrently wrong to the point of tossing out a theory that has a significant amount of supporting evidence. We could and should let it go should something come along that does a better job but until then it should remain the provisional model of explaining the development of the universe.

[jpYB3Gq]

I have just watched this documentary.
I find it strange that we have so many of these stuff:
Black Holes
Dark Matter
Dark Energy
Dark Flow.
will the next thing be Dark Knight or Darth Vader?