Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-vgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-vgr!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: Re: big banging Message-ID: <1522@brl-vgr.ARPA> Date: Mon, 7-May-84 21:44:59 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-vgr.1522 Posted: Mon May 7 21:44:59 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 13-May-84 00:38:06 EDT References: <246@utastro.UUCP> Organization: Ballistics Research Lab Lines: 76 utastro!ethan has summarized the consensus viewpoint on cosmology fairly well. I would like to expand on a minority viewpoint: The Hubble effect does not have to be Doppler (involving relative longitudinal velocities) in nature. The same spectral line shifts etc. can be explained in other ways, e.g. gravitational red-shift, tiring photons, and others harder to explain simply. The idea that quasars are ancient objects is entirely based on the idea that they are far away and that there is some form of global time frame. I don't know whether the Burbidges ever changed their minds about the matter, but they used to think that quasars are relatively close (in which case their energy output is no longer so hard to explain, nor is the periodicity of the pulsars). The idea of a global time frame is so repugnant to the relativist that it must be seriously challenged. This matter of the 3-degree K blackbody background radiation is interesting. The blackbody spectrum does not appear to be invariant even under Lorentz transformation (I would appreciate any proof to the contrary), so if it really is (a) blackbody-spectral and (b) isotropic as observed from Earth, then it singles out the Earth as a privileged reference frame. Not impossible, but highly suspicious. I bet there would be some alternative explanations if people really sought after them. Similarly, I don't think that only the "big bang" is capable of explaining the current abundances of the elements. It seems likely that any cosmic cataclysm would produce similar results (I would like more discussion on this since I don't know that much about the current ideas on this topic). The claim that the general theory of relativity is safe to use except within the first 10^-43 sec. of the "big bang" is simply incorrect. Einstein was well aware of the deficiencies of the symmetric gravitational theory when applied to cosmological issues. Although he is often quoted as saying that the "cosmological constant" was the biggest mistake he ever made, I think that is taken out of context. I believe his intention was more to say that the WAY in which he fudged his theory in the original introduction of this constant, because he didn't like what his theory seemed to be predicting without it, was inappropriate. The drastic effect on one's cosmological models of introducing such a "minor" change in the field equations should make one cautious about applying the simple, special-case general theory. In fact, if one carefully removes some of the special assumptions of the general theory (as did Schr"\odinger in the late 40's and early 50's), the field equations when cast into a form comparable with those of classical general relativity NATURALLY ACQUIRE A "COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT" TERM. The "cosmological constant" appears in such a way that it definitely cannot be exactly zero, and a careful analysis of its meaning ties it to one's choice of measurement units relative to the natural cosmological scale; thus it is NOT "arbitrary" but is susceptible of measurement in terms of our conventional laboratory system of units (e.g. cm^-2, in terms of which it is a very small number). For the same reasons that cosmologists normally assume that they can apply general relativity to the problem of the large-scale structure of the universe, one can use the generalized theory for a wider range of possibilities for cosmology. I for one am extremely dissatisfied with the way in which only one point of view on these (by no means settled) issues are taught in our universities. The only thing to be said for the consensus point of view in science is that future developments will almost surely make it "obviously" wrong. I attribute a large part of the intellectual stagnation to the way in which research funding is centralized in a bureaucracy, so that the good opinion of one's "peers" becomes more important than the cogency of one's ideas. The lack of a guiding philosophy founded in reality also shows quite heavily in some of the theoretical work now fashionable.. Sorry if I have stepped on any toes or bored anyone with this long note, but I would rather see discussions of fundamental issues in the field in this list than questions about how thermostats work (kudos to the guy who finally took one apart to find out!).