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!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-vgr!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: net.physics,net.astro.expert Subject: Re: very big bangs Message-ID: <2070@brl-vgr.ARPA> Date: Tue, 15-May-84 10:04:22 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-vgr.2070 Posted: Tue May 15 10:04:22 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 16-May-84 03:40:18 EDT References: <275@utastro.UUCP> Organization: Ballistics Research Lab Lines: 109 I too have been urged to keep the discussion going, but since I haven't worked in cosmology for a long time (my job title is now Computer Scientist), I am running out of things to say on the topic. My objections to the generally-accepted cosmology are primarily based on theoretical considerations as a long-time student and disciple of Einstein. I especially object to the use of classical General Relativity in the discussion of such things as Black Holes and cosmology. General Relativity is a very special case of a more general geometric fundamental theory called "unified field theory" (from the expectation that other fields than gravitation would be encompassed by the theory). Unified field theory is "classical" in the sense that it explicitly ignores conventional quantum theory, but that is entirely appropriate for its intended purpose, which is to get at the root causes of the universal structure known as laws of physics. There are obvious mechanisms for quantum effects to appear later in the development of the theory, so there is no need to arbitrarily stick them in at the beginning. Indeed, the hallmark of the unified field theory is its reluctance to incorporate ANY "ad hoc" physical principles; only things forced on us as necessary considerations are to be included in the setting up of the theory. This is clearly a radical departure from textbook physics, and so far as I have been able to determine, textbook writers have never understood the rules of this game or what its goals really are. Far from "complicating" General Relativity, the Einstein-Schr"odinger unified field theory REMOVES restrictions imposed for General Relativity (which becomes a VERY special case of the extended theory). There is a formal technique for measuring the degree to which a field theory constrains the subject fields; this shows General Relativity to be relatively highly constraining. Certainly it needs to be "relaxed" if it is going to include more phenomena than gravitation. The E-S unified field theory is based on: (a) a four-dimensional continuum (although this feature has little to do with determining the form of the theory and needs further explanation itself); (b) the principal affine connection of the natural tangent bundle; (c) precious little else. If E-S is invalid, then General Relativity should be even more so. One consequence of the removal of unnecessary restrictions is that the resulting field laws (NOT arbitrary! - see my thesis) are different IN CHARACTER from those of General Relativity, with the expected impact precisely in the areas of cosmology and the very small (nuclear scale). Back to cosmology: Why the night sky is dark (mistakenly called Olber's Paradox) is a very interesting question that is by no means settled. There are explanations besides the finite extent of the observable universe; see Mandelbrot for one such (based on recursive clustering). In any case, almost any sensible cosmological model is going to agree with the Hubble effect so this is not an important point for distinguishing between most cosmologies. The closed, bounded, perfect-cosmological-principle cosmology is actually simpler in any measurable sense of which I am aware than the expanding "big bang" universe. Although I am not convinced that the evidence that quasars are remote is conclusive, this question does not seem to be to bear directly on the question of which cosmology to choose. Nor do I have any problem with stellar or galactic ages. New stars are constantly being born (we have direct photographic evidence for this) and I see no reason that the aging process cannot have a counterbalancing birth process. I was never a "steady state universe" (`a la Hoyle) fan, but that serves as one attempt to show that this might actually happen. I should state that I have not been following the "first N seconds after the big bang" developments, so I do not know to what extent the current elemental abundances depend on the details of that theory of their formation. I do know that there are so many theoretical objections to a "big bang" that I would reserve it for a theory of last resort. The (rough) isotropy and homogeneity of the observed universe is just fine. It makes cosmological modeling easier. The last point of this posting is that THE 2.7oK ISOTROPIC BLACK- BODY BACKGROUND RADIATION ESTABLISHES A PARTICULAR FRAME OF REFERENCE AS "DISTINGUISHED". This is contrary even to the Special Theory of Relativity and needs a VERY skeptical examination. Unfortunately, even from the first detection of this phenomenon (which is known ONLY for this solar system) there was little adverse reaction to this suggestion. This, and the lack of objection to the idea of a universal time reference (which is implicit in the Big Bang model), make me think that our current crop of physicists have either not been well trained in the concepts of relativity, or that they do not understand their fundamental significance. To give one VERY SIMPLISTIC alternative explanation of the 2.7oK radiation, just to show that alternatives to the conventional idea that it is a remnant of the Big Bang are possible, consider that this region of space may be immersed in a gas (which it is) that has some source of energy being supplied to it by local objects (galactic magnetic field, for example). Then the gas would be expected to have a black-body spectrum and it would be expected to be stationary (relatively) with respect to the solar system. There is no need to postulate a UNIVERSAL privileged reference frame for this radiation, just a source tied to local objects such as our galaxy. Enough for now. I merely wish to urge people to keep an open mind with respect to such (difficult to test) theories. Just because the experts believe something does not mean that they have the right answer, as the history of science has shown.