Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory (infographic)

[Admin]

Most astronomers believe the universe began 13.8 billion years ago in a sudden explosion called the Big Bang. Other theorists have invented alternatives and extensions to this idea.

Alternatives to the Big Bang Theory (infographic) : Read more

 

[rod]

The article states, "Due to the connection between distance and speed of light, scientists can peer at a region of space that light 13.8 billion light-years away meaning we can look 13.8 billion light-years in every direction. But it isn't that simple. Due to the expansion of the universe, recent estimations place the diameter of the observable universe sphere at over 90 billion light-years, according to Forbes."

Using the cosmology calculators will explain this. When z=1100 (what the redshift for the CMBR must be if BB model is correct or at least assumed more accurate than other views), the comoving radial distance of 4D space expanding is about 46 billion light-years radius as seen from Earth. LAMBDA - Links to Calculators (nasa.gov) , Cosmology calculator | kempner.net, Cosmology Calculators (caltech.edu)

All objects with redshifts => 1.4 as seen from Earth are moving in 4D space faster than c velocity (their comoving radial distance as measured from Earth). Verifying science like this is difficult, not as secure and solid like making an asteroid parallax measurement and showing its distance from Earth or observing Galilean moon transits at Jupiter.

Interesting in the article the other views as alternatives to the Big Bang presented.

"One alternative theory is the Steady State universe."
"Another alternative is the Eternal Inflation theory."
"The Oscillating model of the universe involved an endless series of Big Bangs, followed by Big Crunches that restarted the cycle, endlessly."

Concerning measuring the age of the universe as 13.8 billion years old, other reports show problems with this view. Example, https://forums.space.com/threads/methuselah-the-oldest-star-in-the-universe.54321/

 

[Helio]

The article states, "Due to the connection between distance and speed of light, scientists can peer at a region of space that light 13.8 billion light-years away meaning we can look 13.8 billion light-years in every direction. But it isn't that simple. Due to the expansion of the universe, recent estimations place the diameter of the observable universe sphere at over 90 billion light-years, according to Forbes."

Well, it isn't that simple admittedly, but one should not infer a paradox, not that such was implied, but it came with no explanation.

The CMBR took place 13.8 billion years ago. That is the farthest we can see in time, but that doesn't equate to distance.

All objects with redshifts => 1.4 as seen from Earth are moving in 4D space faster than c velocity (their comoving radial distance as measured from Earth). Verifying science like this is difficult, not as secure and solid like making an asteroid parallax measurement and showing its distance from Earth or observing Galilean moon transits at Jupiter.

This helps explain why we can see the CMBR at a distance of ~45 billion lyrs.

Interesting in the article the other views as alternatives to the Big Bang presented.

"One alternative theory is the Steady State universe."
"Another alternative is the Eternal Inflation theory."
"The Oscillating model of the universe involved an endless series of Big Bangs, followed by Big Crunches that restarted the cycle, endlessly."

The predicted CMBR discovery was the final nail for most cosmologists for the Steady State model, though Hoyle held it to the end.

I don't see the science in the others mentioned. Objective-based reasoning and testable predictions must come from supposition to get from the realm of philosophy and into the science realm.

Some hold that the one large area in the CMBR map may be evidence for a brane impact, but that was 13.8 billion years ago, so why not more evidence since? But at least they have some objective evidence to work with, just far too little and too speculative at this point, IMO.

They all will be subject to explaining those pesky Big Bang Bullets.

Concerning measuring the age of the universe as 13.8 billion years old, other reports show problems with this view. Example, https://forums.space.com/threads/methuselah-the-oldest-star-in-the-universe.54321/

Thanks, that's one I missed, and it shows how scientists can differ on their views. Bond argues that results give support to the BBT, but Mathews sees a potential discrepancy.

 

[rod]

Helio, in your post #3 you stated, "This helps explain why we can see the CMBR at a distance of ~45 billion lyrs."

This is the CMBR *comoving radial distance* using redshift 1100, something that cannot directly be observed from our location (Earth) and 4D space out there must expand much faster than c velocity (something else that cannot be directly seen and measured). This is true for all objects with z => 1.4. Their comoving radial distances are where the object is today as seen from Earth and we do not see that distance in the BB model expanding universe. We see only the look back time distance so limited to about 13.8 billion light years distance according to the age of the universe in the BB model.

I feel issues like this in the BB model should be clearly presented to the public because the model has areas that remain untested and unverified in my opinion.