The relic radiation

[Ignat]

The relic radiation is a consequence of the inflationary hypothesis, and the hypothesis itself, mistakenly called the theory, does not depend on whether there was a big bang or not. Therefore, it is at least incorrect to say that the microwave background confirms the big bang theory.According to the inflationary hypothesis, the hot universe was a plasma, and huge energy is needed to keep the plasma in a stable state, where did it come from?

 

[Classical Motion]

The only thing we know for sure is that the CMBR is omni-directional.

As is our solar system. As is our galaxy.

The solar winds form a particle density around our solar system and around our galaxy.

These are very rarefied fluxes. If the wind particles are recombining and emitting, it would be a very rarefied omni directional flux, much different than normal starlight flux.

The particles recombining to form dipoles, the H1 atom. Raw fuel for new dust and stars.

Part of the emissions might be H1 interactions too. Too rarefied for single detections. Too thin for observable and detectable for light.

And no one has ever studied omni directional spacial wave superposition. The APPARENT detection.

I’ll betting the CMBR is more local. And more present.

Would the CMBR be the same intensity on Pluto? Let’s put calibrated CMBR detectors on all future probes. Track it like a heartbeat. Integrate it with our probe radios.

 

[Helio]

Therefore, it is at least incorrect to say that the microwave background confirms the big bang theory.

Well, the CMBR doesn't prove the BBT because no theory, for one reason, can be proven. A scientific theory must not only allow itself to fail, it must make predictions that would falsify it. But, if the predictions are discovered to match the theory, then the theory gets stronger. The greater the level of the prediction, the more impact it has on the theory.

The CMBR was predicted following the work of Gamow and Alpher who together determined that the universe must be mostly made of mostly hydrogen nuclei, assuming a hot Big Bang.

Not long thereafter, Alpher and Hermann realized that the BBT's expansion would allow the nuclei to allow electron, thus forming the first atom. They realized that such an event would stop the huge photon scattering and a CMBR would be observable. It was a huge prediction, but it took great effort to find it.

Inflation "theory" was added to explain only the smoothness of the CMBR, as well as the "flatness" problem.

According to the inflationary hypothesis, the hot universe was a plasma, and huge energy is needed to keep the plasma in a stable state, where did it come from?

The Hot BBT, unlike Lemaitre's cold version, gave us plasma. Inflation "theory" was not a temperature adjusting idea.

But, as you ask, where did all that energy/matter come from? It is likely beyond the purview of science since science is objective-based, where we must be able to test ideas with direct or indirect observations.

 

[Gibsense]

the hot universe was a plasma, and huge energy is needed to keep the plasma in a stable state

It wasn't in a stable state, was it?

 

[Gibsense]

Inflation "theory" was added to explain only the smoothness of the CMBR, as well as the "flatness" problem.

Although I like your previous response the speed of expansion can only avoid irregularities spoiling smoothness if there is a physical time difference between fast and slow within the inflationary period. This looks like a nonsense statement - maybe it is - but if a second passes quickly compared to a second passing slowly how would we know?

 

[Helio]

The original model of Inflation deals with a specific time period, ~ 1E-35 sec and lasted for about that time amount. This was a special period for quantum physics that would allow this special action that is observed in the CMBR.

 

[Ignat]

Well, the CMBR doesn't prove the BBT because no theory, for one reason, can be proven. A scientific theory must not only allow itself to fail, it must make predictions that would falsify it. But, if the predictions are discovered to match the theory, then the theory gets stronger. The greater the level of the prediction, the more impact it has on the theory.

The fact of the matter is that many astronomers and cosmologists consider relic radiation to be one of the proofs of the big bang. At the same time, they associate the inflationary hypothesis with relic radiation, and relic radiation with the big bang. Thus, one of the proofs of the big bang is not proof.

 

[Ignat]

But, as you ask, where did all that energy/matter come from? It is likely beyond the purview of science since science is objective-based, where we must be able to test ideas with direct or indirect observations.

And the idea of the big bang and inflation are not beyond the scope of science? In my opinion, these ideas are closer to the biblical creation of the world, and not to science.