From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: The Big Bang Never Happened
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:21:43 GMT

In article <C0JL5B.6s4@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern) writes:
>
>wwadge@csr.UVic.CA (Bill  Wadge) writes:
>
: [Lerner's] book is very persuasive, but I'm not a physicist - any opinions?

>and rhine@bigbird.csd.scarolina.edu (Andrew P. Rhine) writes:

: it would seem that opposition to the big bang would have been dealt a major
: blow by this year's results from COBE and recent observations (by the
: balloon-based instruments) supporting it.

>     Not at all, Andrew.  Finding marginal but significant fluctuations in
>the microwave background radiation saved the big bang for the moment, but did
>no damage to alternatives.  Especially, it does not bear on Lerner's "proof"
>that the microwave radiation must be coming from relatively local sources,
>and can have nothing to do with a big bang fireball.  The essence of his
>argument is that galaxy luminosity differences between infrared and radio
>wavelengths show intergalactic absorption at such a level that the microwave
>radiation could not penetrate through more than about z = 1 or so, let alone
>the z = 10,000 or so required by the big bang.  [E.J. Lerner, Astrophys. J.
>361, 63-68 (1990).]

	But then, how would Lerner explain the pattern of
fluctuations?

	IR/radio luminosities? I'm not terribly familiar with that
question, but I would presume that resolving it requires a detail
prediction of what the zero-intergalactic-extinction spectrum ought to
be.

	Furthermore, in general, the optical depth is NOT proportional
to the redshift, though this is true to first approximation for small
redshifts. Looks like you need a refresher course in GR.

	The metric for an isotropic, homogeneous cosmology is

ds^2 = - dt^2 + a(t)^2*(dx^2 + s(x)^2*(d(theta)^2 + sin(theta)^2*d(phi)^2))

	where a(t) is the current "Universe size" and x is a radial
coordinate. s(x) = sin(x) for curvature = +1, x for 0, and sinh(x) for -1.

	The Hubble constant is H = (1/a)*(da/dt) and the deceleration
parameter is q = - a*(d^2(a)/dt^2)/((da/dt)^2).

	a(t) may be found from the familiar Newtonian equation,
interestingly enough:

	d^2(a)/dt^2 = - 4*pi*G*rho*a

	The quantity (omega) = (8*pi*G*rho)/(3*H^2).

	It is >1 for positive curvature (expansion will reverse), 1
for zero curvature (borderline expansion), and <1 for negative
curvature (expansion that settles down for constant velocity) in a
matter-dominated Universe.

	where rho ~ 1/a^3 in the matter-dominated regime, rho ~ 1/a^4
in the radiation-dominated regime, and rho ~ constant in the
vacuum-energy-dominated regime (if there ever is such a thing).

	The redshift from time t to time t0 is

	1 + z = a(t)/a(t0)

	and the path length is

	dl = a(t) dx

	   = dt for light.

	So to get back to z = 10,000 does not require traveling a
distance 10,000 times greater, but only about 50% greater for a
standard, matter-dominated cosmology. However, the opacity does
increase with increasing density, giving a path length of about

	t/a^3 or about 1/t or about 1/a^(3/2), for a ~ t^(2/3)
(matter dominated), if the opacity is proportional to the density.

>     In fact, critics such as Lerner have argued that the big bang has yet to
>make a single successful prediction.  For example, Lerner discusses the
>history of the supposed prediction of a microwave background radiation.  The
>various predictions were well off the mark in temperature.  By contrast,
>Eddington in 1926 (in Internal Constitution of the Stars) predicted that all
>interstellar material with time to cool to equilibrium would reach a
>temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin, since that is the radiation temperature of
>starlight.

	Starlight in the interstellar medium inside a galaxy, yes. The
intergalactic medium? Almost certainly too big.

>     At present, every one of the big bang's element abundance predictions is
>off the mark by several sigma, and has had to be "restored" with ad hoc
>helper hypotheses.  For example, the beryllium abundance was found to be 1000
>times too high, so cosmic ray spallation was invoked.  None of the original
>predictions stand without such help.

	Are you implying that stellar nucleosynthesis and cosmic-ray
spallation are _not_ legitimate hypotheses?

	The helium-4 abundance actually turns out rather good, which
is a counterexample to this particular contention.

: There is not one single observation -- not one -- that falsifies the hot
: Big Bang model.

>     "Proof" is in the eye of the beholder.  But Tifft's observations of the
>quantization of redshift (recently confirmed by Guthrie and Napier), and the
>time variability of redshifts, are potentially just such a falsification.  I
>would add the following list:

>  -  Lerner's observations indicating intergalactic absorption at a level far
>     too high for the big bang;

	[see above]

>  -  The "pencil-beam" surveys that show "great Wall"-like structures at
>     regular intervals out to seven billion lightyears on either side of us
>     [e.g., Science News 137, 287 (1990)];
>  -  Bulk streaming of local galaxies in one direction out to at least 500
>     million lightyears, and on the opposite side of the sky too [D. Lindley,
>     Nature 356, 657 (1992)].  This would disappear if the microwave
>     radiation were not used as a standard of rest.

	I don't see how these are supposed to be fatal objections.

	These observations only indicate that there is something or
other, such as cosmic strings, which makes _very_ large-scale
structures.

>Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
>Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
>supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.

	Well, I think that you need to understand what you are
criticizing a little bit better, so you will know what it is you are
criticizing instead of tilting at windmills.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: sci.physics