The expansion of the universe could be a mirage, new theoretical study suggests

After reading this article and 29-page PDF cited, I ask, is the Big Bang model ready to be thrown out? :)

Ref - Cosmology in Minkowski space, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/acdb41, 02-June-2023.

My note, from the 29-page PDF report cited, from the introduction. “This article explores the implications of casting cosmology into different spacetime geometries as a simple mathematical manipulation that leaves physical measurements unaffected but can reveal new physical insights. Clearly, the Minkowski spacetime occupies a special place among the metrics one can transform the cosmic geometry into, being static and flat as well as the spacetime of special relativity and quantum field theory or indeed of the entire Standard Model. Hence, a particular focus is put on casting cosmology into Minkowski space. “3.1.2 Redshift Importantly, as shown in the following, despite the static geometry of the Universe in Sec. 3.1.1, cosmological observations are still redshifted. However, rather than due to the expanding space, redshift is caused here by evolving particle masses [21, 22] (also see Ref. [23]).”

My thought. Plenty here to chew on for the Big Bang. CMB is referenced 10x and inflation, 15x in the paper. It seems that GR math can be used to explain much in cosmology without an expanding universe model used 😊 The points in “6 Conclusion” are interesting reading, example: “(1) Rather than due to an expanding Cosmos, observed redshifts to distant galaxies can be interpreted as the evolution of particle masses after conformal transformation of the FLRW metric into static or Minkowski space. This recovers the Friedmann equations and the evolution of energy densities, and importantly, leaves measurements such as redshifts invariant.” “(7) Finally, the presence of conformal inhomogeneities in our Universe can offer a simultaneous solution to the Hubble tension, the discrepant measurements in the amplitude of matter fluctuations as well as the preference for a non-standard lensing amplitude in CMB anisotropies, provided we are located in an underdense conformal region of space. Conformal inhomogeneities can furthermore enhance redshifts to distant galaxies, causing larger distances and older ages to be attributed to galaxies in clusters and consequently larger masses and population sizes than otherwise expected for those. Another effect is a mass bias for the inferred masses of galaxy clusters, where masses inferred from lensing are larger than those inferred dynamically or kinematically. It is worth highlighting that these predictions agree qualitatively with trends identified in current observations and may thus be worthwhile further investigating.” My note, if we use this new cosmology model, it seems the cosmology calculators based upon FLRW metric would not provide reliable distances for objects showing look back or light-time distances or comoving radial distances as measured from Earth. Such distance measurements, energies claimed, and masses, would be *inflated* 😊
 
After reading this article and 29-page PDF cited, I ask, is the Big Bang model ready to be thrown out? :)

Nope, most definitely not. While it makes for some interesting conjecture, that's all it is, and as the article states, it can't be empirically proven through experimentation. So as it stands, inflation still has a lot more data supporting it. Nothing about this theory disapproves any of it, it just offers a possible alternative, without any proof. Sorry, but even clever ideas have to disprove the accepted ones in order to be relevant. Furthermore, it is my experience that those most excited about any theory that questions inflation are typically overzealous pseudo-science fan boys with little to no expertise and zero credibility. Good science isn't about over hyping an idea that deep down you really really want to be true. That's not how discovery typically works. Just say'n.
 
Ryan F. Mercer comments in post #3 opens the door here for much :) The 29-page PDF does briefly discuss testing. "This multitude of possibilities motivates generally testing, across the vast spacetime, for phenomenological variations in the effective time, length and mass scales of the observed behaviour of different matter species as in Eq. (48), or likewise in the fundamental couplings. Note in this context that while the Minkowskian picture is physically equivalent to the standard cosmological picture both at the classical and quantum level [24] and observationally indistinguishable from it, it offers a different basis for theoretical
extensions. These may appear more natural in one picture over the other and if verified, could
favour one framework over the other."

The space.com article near end does state: "The paper is pretty interesting, and it provides an unusual outcome for multiple problems in cosmology," García, who was not involved in the research, told Live Science. "The theory provides an outlet for the current tensions in cosmology." However, García urged caution in assessing the paper's findings, saying it contains elements in its theoretical model that likely can't be tested observationally, at least in the near future."

There are many discussions on the space.com forums about BB cosmology and inflation. Here is an example where BB model violates the conservation law of energy, Lawrence Krauss acknowledged this back in a 2012 book. https://forums.space.com/threads/wh...energy-cannot-be-created-nor-destroyed.61360/

Just my simple observation. If the redshifts seen in astronomy turn out to have an alternative explanation, the Big Bang will be in real trouble, including distance measurements for billions of light years and outcomes. Even inflation theory requires the existence of exotic objects like the inflaton, including producing many other exotic particles like magnetic monopoles that flood the expanding universe in the early period, Alan Guth writings and some from 1984 in Scientific American.
 
Jun 21, 2023
3
3
15
Visit site
Good that you covered the theoretical paper on the non-expansion of the universe. But your readers should know there is great observational evidence against expansion and the Big Bang hypothesis. Observations are the key test, after all, of scientific validity. See here: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 3185, 2018

Also here: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21108.63366

And here: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26141.79844

As these papers detail expansion-hypothesis predictions are contradicted by 16 sets of observational data and are only confirmed by one, deuterium abundance. I challenge anyone to find more examples of expansion/Big Bang predictions that are quantitatively confirmed by subsequent observations.

JWST has made this a lot worse for expansion. We have not yet published on this, but see the video series starting here: https://youtu.be/360aZiIWdjQ
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
The basis to this math model requires mass fluctuations....
"The effects we observe that point to expansion are instead explained by the evolution of the masses of particles — such as protons and electrons — over time.

In this picture, these particles arise from a field that permeates space-time. The cosmological constant is set by the field's mass and because this field fluctuates, the masses of the particles it gives birth to also fluctuate. The cosmological constant still varies with time, but in this model that variation is due to changing particle mass over time, not the expansion of the universe
. "

As Steve Martin would comically quip on "How to make a million dollars: First, get a million dollars."

What science supports an isotropic evolving mass fluctuation? This might be fine in math, but where's the physics?

It is interesting that they seem to claim that the universe is static but exhibits redshift. This isn't as silly as it might sound, admittedly. DeSitter's original GR model was of a static universe that demonstrated redshift, but his model had no mass in the universe to make this work.

Where is the science that support mass "evolution"? How many separate lines of evidence argue this model?

The article's claim that we know of expansion because of redshift, is incomplete. The time dilation found in Type 1a SN makes a strong case for expansion. Then there are a dozen more lines of evidence including the powerful CMBR. How does this model explain the CMBR, which was a prediction of BBT due explicitly to expansion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: murgatroyd
Good that you covered the theoretical paper on the non-expansion of the universe. But your readers should know there is great observational evidence against expansion and the Big Bang hypothesis. Observations are the key test, after all, of scientific validity. See here: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 477, 3185, 2018

Also here: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21108.63366

And here: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26141.79844

As these papers detail expansion-hypothesis predictions are contradicted by 16 sets of observational data and are only confirmed by one, deuterium abundance. I challenge anyone to find more examples of expansion/Big Bang predictions that are quantitatively confirmed by subsequent observations.

JWST has made this a lot worse for expansion. We have not yet published on this, but see the video series starting here:
View: https://youtu.be/360aZiIWdjQ
The reference 'Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the expanding universe hypothesis', "...the angular radius of an object in a non-expanding universe declines with redshift, while in an expanding universe this radius increases for redshifts z > 1.25."

Interesting here. Angular sizes of various objects with their redshifts, it would seem galaxy sizes in arcminutes and arcsecond will get smaller and smaller as their distances from Earth increases using redshift expansion math from GR, e.g. cosmology calculators. Example, 1 arcsecond at 4 x 10^9 pc from Earth = 4 x 10^9 AU diameter or 63250 LY. Using cosmology calculators, when z=1.4 or larger, space expands faster than c velocity and comoving radial distances, objects cannot be seen on Earth today, thus any angular size measurements apparently cannot be made.
 
Jun 21, 2023
3
3
15
Visit site
No, if you look at cosmology calculators like New Wright's it gives angular dimensions at any redshift. JWST is measuring angular radii at confirmed redshifts up to around 12.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
No, if you look at cosmology calculators like New Wright's it gives angular dimensions at any redshift. JWST is measuring angular radii at confirmed redshifts up to around 12.
I use Ned Wright calculator, https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/calculators.html

and others too like, https://www.kempner.net/cosmic.php

The calculators show the angular size for the z value and H0 value used too. As far as I understand, the angular size distance is not the physical size of a galaxy like at redshift 12, otherwise a galaxy would be some 2.5 billion light years across. I believe this is the Universe size at z and we have the age of the Universe at z too including light time or look back time distance and the comoving radial distance where the galaxy should be today if it could be visible from Earth. Space will expand faster than c velocity for all redshifts of 1.4 or larger, Ned Wright calculator and others will show this using the comoving radial distances. If I use Ned Wright with z=1100 for the CMBR postulated redshift and H0 = 69 km/s/Mpc, the angular size distance is a bit more than 41 million light years, thus the size of the Universe or at least radius when the CMBR appears as light. Thus, when z=1100, angular size distance a bit more than 41 Mly for the Universe and at z=12.0, angular size distance a bit more than 2.5 Gly. This shows the expanding Universe size I believe for the redshift values used.
 
Jun 21, 2023
3
3
15
Visit site
No that is not what angular size distance is defined as. It is the distance in non-expanding space that an object should be at to have the same angular size that an object in an expanding universe actually has at that redshift. Look at the scale. For example at z=10 and the default parameters the scale is 4.2 kpc per arc second--so a galaxy 4.2 kpc in radius would have and angular radius of 1 arcsec. This of course is the predction. Observations show that galxy size are much smaller than predicted by expansion, but just right for non-expansion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
No that is not what angular size distance is defined as. It is the distance in non-expanding space that an object should be at to have the same angular size that an object in an expanding universe actually has at that redshift. Look at the scale. For example at z=10 and the default parameters the scale is 4.2 kpc per arc second--so a galaxy 4.2 kpc in radius would have and angular radius of 1 arcsec. This of course is the predction. Observations show that galxy size are much smaller than predicted by expansion, but just right for non-expansion.
Thanks, I see this now using the calculator like Ned Wright. "This gives a scale of 4.255 kpc/" and the other I listed. I am surprised I do not see much discussion or reporting on this issue concerning BB cosmology as well as the very large comoving radial distances where space expands much faster than c velocity.
 
My observation, after reviewing Ned Wright calculator and some others based upon what EricLerner said in post #11, I learned this. Using the angular size distance in Mpc and 1 arcsecond, I get the same scale size using my astronomy spreadsheet as the calculators. Using the look back distance or light travel time distance in the BB model, I get a larger size for 1 arcsecond vs. the angular size distance scale provided. Using the comoving radial distance, still larger size :) If the BB expanding Universe model has problems with galaxy sizes mapped to specific redshift values, it would be good to see this clearly explained to the public IMO.
 
Keep in mind that galaxies do not exhibit a linear size change with distance. This is due to the finite speed of light. At a given moment in time, a distant galaxy's size will produce a certain angle to us. But it takes light time to reach us, thus the now more distant galaxy will appear larger than it really is now. I'm confident Wright's calculator will demonstrate this.

There is a graph I've seen, somewhere, that shows how size varies with distance. But it does argue for expansion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Jun 11, 2023
181
8
85
Visit site
Nope, most definitely not. While it makes for some interesting conjecture, that's all it is, and as the article states, it can't be empirically proven through experimentation. So as it stands, inflation still has a lot more data supporting it. Nothing about this theory disapproves any of it, it just offers a possible alternative, without any proof. Sorry, but even clever ideas have to disprove the accepted ones in order to be relevant. Furthermore, it is my experience that those most excited about any theory that questions inflation are typically overzealous pseudo-science fan boys with little to no expertise and zero credibility. Good science isn't about over hyping an idea that deep down you really really want to be true. That's not how discovery typically works. Just say'n.
I agree with Edwin Hubble without disgreeing with your analysis of " New research looking at the cosmological constant problem suggests the expansion of the universe could be an illusion"
You correctly reject this new researh but what do say about Edwin Hubble's postulates that his redshift discovery is not doppler redshift?? and that the universe is not expanding??
Hubble for the entirety of his life said): "If you are believing that my redshift discovery for determining the distance that a star or galaxy was when its light was emitted is Doppler Redshift, then, you are reading too much into my redshift discovery!!

Once you come to understand that the cosmological redshift is not doppler redshift, then, you should understand that the expanding accelerating universe is not happening and did not happen!!
Plus): A perpetual energy imaginary fictituous singularity could not possibly have existed nor power an expanding accelerating universe by unknown means!!
Now, modern cosmologists throw a confusing mix into the pot!! Modern cosmologists paradoxically say that the galaxies physically stand still while the space between the galaxies expands like as if space expansion can separate galaxies that are given to be physically standing still!! What Nonsense!!
 
Last edited:
It is very simple to be lazy and say it is nothing but a 1-, 2-, dimensional rubber flat universe stretch. That there are no such things as vertical hyper-and sub- spatiality, vertical vector-eigenvectors, or vertical fractal zooming, to the universe. That anything but the flat-lazy view of 1-, 2-, dimensional stretching -- they come within a hair but no further of saying has been proved -- is too stupid, too multi-plex multi-dimensional universe and brainwork, for any real consideration.
 
Keep in mind that galaxies do not exhibit a linear size change with distance. This is due to the finite speed of light. At a given moment in time, a distant galaxy's size will produce a certain angle to us. But it takes light time to reach us, thus the now more distant galaxy will appear larger than it really is now. I'm confident Wright's calculator will demonstrate this.

There is a graph I've seen, somewhere, that shows how size varies with distance. But it does argue for expansion.
Helio, Ned Wright calculator does show this (along with others) when looking at the angular size distance and scale map to 1 arcsecond size shown. However, as the redshifts get larger and larger, the size gets smaller and smaller :) From what I could gather from EricLerner comments (post #10), somewhere around redshift 1.25 or larger, angular sizes mapped to redshift values apparently runs into problems. Some may enjoy this information on the Hubble Constant and how difficult that measurement has been through the decades.

THE HUBBLE CONSTANT, https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~dfabricant/huchra/hubble/

My observation. Some very good history here on measuring the Hubble Constant. Early values for H0 in the 1920s-1930s suggested H0 = 500 km/s/Mpc with age for the universe about 2 Gyr while radioactive dating of Earth rocks suggested 3 Gyr rocks. The expanding universe model with Big Bang event does violate the conservation law of energy because the universe has a finite age and distinct beginning.
 
Helio, Ned Wright calculator does show this (along with others) when looking at the angular size distance and scale map to 1 arcsecond size shown. However, as the redshifts get larger and larger, the size gets smaller and smaller :) From what I could gather from EricLerner comments (post #10), somewhere around redshift 1.25 or larger, angular sizes mapped to redshift values apparently runs into problems. Some may enjoy this information on the Hubble Constant and how difficult that measurement has been through the decades.
.Thanks. It‘s logical that galaxies appear smaller for greater distances after this “sweet spot”.

My observation. Some very good history here on measuring the Hubble Constant. Early values for H0 in the 1920s-1930s suggested H0 = 500 km/s/Mpc with age for the universe about 2 Gyr while radioactive dating of Earth rocks suggested 3 Gyr rocks.
Yes, the first years of measuring distances had some temporary hiccups. Cepheid variables were soon understood, which produced far more accurate results. Recall that those excessive rates were based on Slipher’s small set of redshift data. Hubble and Humason soon produced a far more robust redshift-distance data.


The expanding universe model with Big Bang event does violate the conservation law of energy because the universe has a finite age and distinct beginning.
The beginning of the science of BBT is about 1E-12 sec from the true t=0 beginning. Physics seems to work fine here; religion and philosophy offer the better stories for t=0, IMO.
 
Nope, most definitely not. While it makes for some interesting conjecture, that's all it is, and as the article states, it can't be empirically proven through experimentation. So as it stands, inflation still has a lot more data supporting it. Nothing about this theory disapproves any of it, it just offers a possible alternative, without any proof. Sorry, but even clever ideas have to disprove the accepted ones in order to be relevant. Furthermore, it is my experience that those most excited about any theory that questions inflation are typically overzealous pseudo-science fan boys with little to no expertise and zero credibility. Good science isn't about over hyping an idea that deep down you really really want to be true. That's not how discovery typically works. Just say'n.
This post seems to suffer from its own criticism. In particular, so much of the BBT is just conjectures at this point that it is definitely inappropriate to call it "the accepted one". In reality, it is the one that is taught in college courses, and, in order to pass college courses, you need to at least appear to have accepted it and be able to manipulate info with it. But, there are obvious problems with it, and, unless and until "dark matter" and "dark energy" can be discovered and given equations of state like the other parameters in General Relativity or some successor theory, it is definitely good science to look for other explanations of our observations. Too much of the BBT itself is just "conjectures" that are tuned to observations without any other basis for their existences. (Yes, I have read the BBT bullets posts.)

So, while studies like this one do not disprove the BBT, there is no reason to reject them form further consideration, either. The "fanboys" of the BBT are being entirely too smug about their favorite theory, considering the problems it actually has with matching observations and the need to "conjecture up" 20 times more matter and energy than we can actually observe to make it hold together.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Jun 23, 2023
1
1
15
Visit site
After reading this article and 29-page PDF cited, I ask, is the Big Bang model ready to be thrown out? :)

Ref - Cosmology in Minkowski space, https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/acdb41, 02-June-2023.

My note, from the 29-page PDF report cited, from the introduction. “This article explores the implications of casting cosmology into different spacetime geometries as a simple mathematical manipulation that leaves physical measurements unaffected but can reveal new physical insights. Clearly, the Minkowski spacetime occupies a special place among the metrics one can transform the cosmic geometry into, being static and flat as well as the spacetime of special relativity and quantum field theory or indeed of the entire Standard Model. Hence, a particular focus is put on casting cosmology into Minkowski space. “3.1.2 Redshift Importantly, as shown in the following, despite the static geometry of the Universe in Sec. 3.1.1, cosmological observations are still redshifted. However, rather than due to the expanding space, redshift is caused here by evolving particle masses [21, 22] (also see Ref. [23]).”

My thought. Plenty here to chew on for the Big Bang. CMB is referenced 10x and inflation, 15x in the paper. It seems that GR math can be used to explain much in cosmology without an expanding universe model used 😊 The points in “6 Conclusion” are interesting reading, example: “(1) Rather than due to an expanding Cosmos, observed redshifts to distant galaxies can be interpreted as the evolution of particle masses after conformal transformation of the FLRW metric into static or Minkowski space. This recovers the Friedmann equations and the evolution of energy densities, and importantly, leaves measurements such as redshifts invariant.” “(7) Finally, the presence of conformal inhomogeneities in our Universe can offer a simultaneous solution to the Hubble tension, the discrepant measurements in the amplitude of matter fluctuations as well as the preference for a non-standard lensing amplitude in CMB anisotropies, provided we are located in an underdense conformal region of space. Conformal inhomogeneities can furthermore enhance redshifts to distant galaxies, causing larger distances and older ages to be attributed to galaxies in clusters and consequently larger masses and population sizes than otherwise expected for those. Another effect is a mass bias for the inferred masses of galaxy clusters, where masses inferred from lensing are larger than those inferred dynamically or kinematically. It is worth highlighting that these predictions agree qualitatively with trends identified in current observations and may thus be worthwhile further investigating.” My note, if we use this new cosmology model, it seems the cosmology calculators based upon FLRW metric would not provide reliable distances for objects showing look back or light-time distances or comoving radial distances as measured from Earth. Such distance measurements, energies claimed, and masses, would be *inflated* 😊
Thanks for your comments and the convenient link. I took a quick look at the pdf and my first impression is there is nothing really new here. The fact that the k= 0 FLRW solution is conformal to Minkowski space is well known, The mathematics is all "straightforward." The fly in the ointment is that the interpretation of the solution in terms of the static Minkowksi metric seems to be a lapse into a version of "bimetric" model. The solution when interpreted in terms of the actual proper distances and times is still an expanding cosmology. In short "tau" is not proper time, a(tau) * d tau is the time recorded by local clocks. The metric of the cosmos is still g_ab = Omega^2 * eta_ab, not eta_ab. I don't think such a "bimetric" interpretation is convincing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
BBT is not conjecture but demonstrable. The multiple lines of evidence that support the theory has made it a very powerful theory. No other theory predicted the CMBR, which, when discovered, made BBT the only viable theory. It was born out of GR, also not mere conjecture.

Being a scientific theory, it’s falsifiable. It also lacks hard data for regions for z > 10, hence the JWST is working to improve this, which should tweak certain parameters.

Nevertheless, a better theory, not just math hand-waving, is welcome, and I will enjoy seeing Noble Prizes given to the authors. But the safe bet is for BBT. Any static model must address things like entropy. The Steady State model did by having new hydrogen precipitate into space to allow for new stars to form. But, as mentioned, the CMBR discovery put a final nail in its coffin, though Hoyle would never agree.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your comments and the convenient link. I took a quick look at the pdf and my first impression is there is nothing really new here. The fact that the k= 0 FLRW solution is conformal to Minkowski space is well known, The mathematics is all "straightforward." The fly in the ointment is that the interpretation of the solution in terms of the static Minkowksi metric seems to be a lapse into a "bi-metric" model. The solution when interpreted in terms of the actual proper distances and times is still an expanding cosmology. In short "tau" is not proper time, a(tau) * d tau is the time recorded by local clocks. The metric of the cosmos is still g_ab = Omega^2 * eta_ab, not eta_ab. I don't think such a "bi-metric" interpretation is convincing.
Welcome aboard! [ I like your hat. 😀]
 
BBT is not "demonstrable" even all the way out to the CMBR. And the observations much closer (or later or however you want to interpret redshift and faintness) have some major problems as well, which requires "dark matter" that does what makes the model fit, and avoids doing anything that doesn't make the model fit the observations. Beyond the CMBR, extrapolations down to a singularity, or just short of it at "Planck Space", are based on violating GRT with the conjecture of space "inflating" at amazing rates. But, I am not seeing anybody address how time itself is not altered in calculating those rates, despite the indication from GRT that proximity to mass slows time rate. The whole effort of the BBT "fan boys" (to quote the OP) is to make the BBT fit, not to ask what those fitting efforts imply about things that would make it not fit.

I think it is not "good science" to be so comfortable with a theory that has so many red flags that are born from our previous experiences of models that turned out to be off when we learned more. Once the BBT gets to the eras where it takes quantum level thinking to explain astronomical observations, I think the BBT is on very thin ice. If the same amount of effort and imagination (willingness to accept conjectures) had been focused on developing alternative theories, some might be saying the same things about them that we are hearing said about the BBT these days.

The basic truth is that our astronomy observations are not consistent with what we have figured out about how matter and energy act here in our local Earth observation point in space and time. Our assumptions/conjectures about how everything must behave the same way at other places in the cosmos as it does here might even be the problem. Or, we may be misinterpreting some of our observations. Redshift could be coming from velocity of recession through space, or "expansion of space", or "increase in the rate of time passage", or some combination of those effects.

"Good science" requires and open mind. And it also requires that the things passing in and out of minds have an observation-based filter that distinguishes between what is observable and what is conjecture.
 
BBT is not "demonstrable" even all the way out to the CMBR.
That's not in dispute since, as I said, it is weak around z > 10. The CMBR is z = 1089, but the CMBR is itself demonstrable and has met the predictions of the BBT on many levels, including the isotropy, anisotropy, power spectrum, wavelength, etc. The CMBR was about to be discovered with microwave antennae by Peeples & Dicke (Princeton), but the Bell scientists stumbled into it as a noise problem. The Princeton team knew, as did others (e.g. Gamow), that the Recombination event necessarily would be in the microwave band to reveal the event when expansion cooled the universe down to about 3000K.

Hawking once stated that it was the greatest discovery of all time, IIRC.

And the observations much closer (or later or however you want to interpret redshift and faintness) have some major problems as well, which requires "dark matter" that does what makes the model fit, and avoids doing anything that doesn't make the model fit the observations.
I too don't like anything that appears as ad hoc science. The current model works very well, which does require dark matter. So was DM invented to accommodate BBT, or was the model made more robust after its discovery? DM was first discovered in 1933 (Fritz Zwicky), but there were not other lines of evidence to support Zwicky's hypothesis. Once the velocity distribution of stars orbiting Andromeda revealed far more matter had to be incorporated to explain their non-Keplerian motions, the DM began to get some real attention. I was fortunate on a McDonald tour to meet with an astronomer during his run to measure DM around dwarf galaxies in order to improve the distribution of DM models for various size galaxies.

Just because we can't measure DM directly doesn't negate its existence. Black holes also cannot be measured directly. Both of these, however, can be measured indirectly. It's fact.

But, being science hypotheses, perhaps something better than, say, MOND, will come along and make science better. But to suggest something is feeble that is tougher than iron is unfair.

DE, however, is conjecture. It is a problem because there only seems to be one way to measure it.... acceleration rate of the expansion. The error bars likely need to shrink in SN studies to better determine its strength, perhaps even its existence. But it is installed in the current model of BBT, so it has something going for it, though your suggestion that it may be a problem may not be invalid.

Beyond the CMBR, extrapolations down to a singularity, or just short of it at "Planck Space", are based on violating GRT with the conjecture of space "inflating" at amazing rates.
It's pointless to argue, IMO, any theory that has a t=0 beginning, IMO. BBT does not come close to addressing the pre-Planck time moments because science is likely never going to be able to do this. Of course, some scientists pretend otherwise because it has brings attention and notoriety, perhaps.

But, I am not seeing anybody address how time itself is not altered in calculating those rates, despite the indication from GRT that proximity to mass slows time rate. The whole effort of the BBT "fan boys" (to quote the OP) is to make the BBT fit, not to ask what those fitting efforts imply about things that would make it not fit.
Better still would be demonstrate how the "not fitting" would falsify the theory, and win the Nobel. The tons of efforts to tweak the BB model are rarely as ad hoc as you suggest. Any new discovery needs to see both how it fits BBT and how it doesn't. If it does fit the theory, then this is less valuable than if it doesn't. Anomalies will reveal more than another item on the Big Bang Bullet list, not that I would object. :)

I Once the BBT gets to the eras where it takes quantum level thinking to explain astronomical observations, I think the BBT is on very thin ice.
When in high school, we drug a John boat out to the middle of an iced lake in order to ice fish with some way to safely return if the ice broke. It was a little tiring to drag it out but more tiring to chop through the thick ice, which we never accomplished. ;) It doesn't hurt to assume the ice is thin, but it is wise to consider all the given data for how robust it is.

"Good science" requires and open mind. And it also requires that the things passing in and out of minds have an observation-based filter that distinguishes between what is observable and what is conjecture.
Astronomers are well-aware of observational bias. BBT is not conjecture; this is a closed-minded viewpoint.
 
Helio,

I agree that observations make it look like there is more matter than we can account for. But, we don't even know for sure that it is actually matter. Or, if it is, that it is only one form of matter. But, that doesn't stop people from assuming that it has had effects on the evolution of the universe that make BBT fit the other data we can get from observations. That is where "conjecture" comes in, rather than some actual equation of state for dark matter that can be included directly in physical calculations about how it behaves when compressed, exposed to magnetic fields or electric fields, how it loses and gains energy (dark photons, anyone?), etc.

As for the CMBR, yes, it has been detected and studied, so it is real. But is it really what is left over from the Big Bang? It took some effort to get the prior theoretical predictions to fit the measurements for temperature. And there are other issues on distribution, for example, see https://scitechdaily.com/the-universe-throws-a-curveball-the-dark-matter-distribution-paradox/ .

And don't forget the Hubble Paradox.

In the BBT the conjectures about dark matter get woven into the conjectures about dark energy in order to describe the evolution of the universe beyond Z>10 or so. And, at least in the media, there is a lot of disagreement evident on things like whether space expands uniformly everywhere, including the atoms in our bodies, or just between galaxies. I am not even sure what the BBT is "officially" at any given time, due to the conflicting absolute statements that I see in print and realize are really just competing conjectures being stated with overstatement of the confidence that they are correct.

I often wonder is there is something about the physics of the universe that is variable by location and/or time that we think is everywhere like we measure it on Earth, os that we are misperceiving reality in some way. But, that thought scares cosmologists, because it opens up so many possibilities that we are never going to be able to travel far enough from our single location in space/time to determine what it is that varies and how it does so. But, if theorists can accept that space can vary in scale, why can't they consider that time can vary in rate, and why do both have to be the same everywhere at any point we think of in times past and locations "today"? Since we have no idea how or why space "inflated", how can we be so sure it happened everywhere exactly the same way at exactly the same time?
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts