"Big Bang: Tweak it or throw it out? "

[RedshiftDrift]

Eric Lerner on YouTube https://youtu.be/FhqqJGYw9Fw

In the sixth episode of our video series, “JWST and the Big Bang Never Happened Debate”, LPPFusion Chief Scientist Eric J. Lerner replies to those who say “there are just a few things wrong with the Big Bang — just needs tweaking”. In fact, there are far more wrong predictions that right ones for the Big Bang theory, something that is widely known in the field, but not widely acknowledged...

[khuramonline]

Even more fundamental problems ... Maybe ACG also might not acknowledge.

When Expanding Universe has so many problems then it is better to assume a non-expanding universe.

When it is non-expanding universe then first need is to get rid of ramnants of all the Expanding Universe based methods, formulas or expectations.

There can be ACG members who, after acknowledging that universe is not expanding, may continue to expect "bang" or even "bangs".

Alternative group may discard the idea of Expanding Universe but distance of any galaxy may continued to be determined by the expanding universe based formulas ...

A galaxy with redshift 13 may continued to be acknowledged to be located at distance of 13.5 billion light years.

The need to remove the formula z=v/c or any further derivation of this formula may not be recognized even by the alternative group.

Alternative group may continue to think that after 13.6 billion light years there is some real "dark ages" (which is expanding universe based idea) and anything visible within or beyond such distance may be continued to be regarded as "noise".

At least it is better stance than that of official science mainstream group. Because they do not even call it noise. They only pretend that anything or any noise or whatever does not even exist. They do not talk about any such thing using any term. They just pretend to be blind about those things which an alternative group may acknowledge as "noise".

[OlliSant]

Of course there are bangs. Every star is from some cloud, and every cloud is from some explosion or crunch. That is the dynamic of the universe, but explosions are local. No beginning, no expansion for the whole universe. We can suppose that, and then make a theory that is better. If it is not better then it is not better, but must try.

[HanDeBruijn]

It's not that simple. There exist cosmological theories where in one (time) reference frame there is a beginning (say "bang") and in another reference frame the universe is eternal, without bangs. And by the way, why can't a beginning start quietly?
More in general, I think that the glorification of violence is bankrupting physics and cosmology. Think about particle accelerators for example, especially the Large Hadron Collider. As if Depth of Truth is proportional to Heaviness of Bombardment. As if all this smashing of matter can reveal anything else than space debris.
It is clear, however, that modern science is herewith just following a common trend in our nowadays "civilized" society, where you can hardly watch a movie without violent bangs in it :-(

[OlliSant]

The solution is so simple. The universe is eternal, but the local part- universes begin. Think of this thoroughly.

The local is those galaxies that are from the same beginning as our Milky Way. And there is other local universes too. It does not matter if the beginnings are bangs or something else. A smoke anyway.

For our brains it is difficult to understand "all", "everything", "everywhere", "always", but in the universe there are such things, and they are not absolutes, "all" makes them not absolutes.

The universe, the whole universe is eternal, and the space of the whole universe is static. But our local universe is dynamic. Bangs and smokes and forming of stars, and bangs again. Eternally, locally.

So simple, to make difference between the whole and the parts, when you understand this, but so impossible to understand for people and cosmologists and everybody. In science we must make a theory and prove it, otherwise all this thinking is of no use. I admit that.

[khuramonline]

In year 2017, I had preliminary ideas about local universes in the form of various sectors of the total universe. I so far consider these ideas not mature enough and I did not include these preliminary things in my books (2018) and (2019).

But If I get time in life to actually sort out these matters in details then I will review and improve these preliminary ideas. I am sharing here but with the provision that I treat it as a preliminary and not a finalized stance:

Are there multiple universes?

Second issue is about local explosions. Yes Supernovas are reality but it is not universal reality. Not all stars go through this stage or process and number of actually observed supernovas are quite limited. Here again, I have a preliminary thing in the form of a question. To me, for a non-expanding and much older universe than just 14 billion years, the right answer to following question is YES i.e. heavior elements can be "cooked" over long time as well. So following is the question that I asked on quora:

If supernova is 10 billion times more energetic than the base star then why are heavier elements produced only through supernova and not due to continuous exposure of star's own energy over the period of 10 billion years?

[khuramonline]

If initially there were only scattered particles that prevailed everywhere then it is not the case of explosions. In such a case, more likely is the case of condensation. And for the initial phase, that was very slow condensation.

Rather than an "expanding universe", it is actually a "condensing universe".

For example today's clusters are condensing to form bigger galaxies. In earlier times, smaller galaxies were formed by condensing the smaller clusters of that time.

My estimate is that in the current universe that we see, 4-5 or even more major cluster mergers already have taken place at observable universe scale. Future galaxies are going to be even larger with greater in-between distances. That is what I mean by "condensing universe".

[OlliSant]

Rationally best philosophical theory is eternal and boundless universe. Space is immensely big, boundless, and has no outside, everything is there. Matter is galaxies and forces. Galaxies move as they move, and are in equilibrium. Time is eternal. No more space coming, no more matter. Time is what is coming more, and everything is relative.

The whole universe, the observable universe and the local part- universe are all existing and are different things, not the same thing. The whole universe is much bigger than the observable universe. The theory of the whole universe is different as the theory of the local universe. Both are made by studying the observable universe and by making these two theories. BB is rationally wrong and impossible, not a theory of the whole universe as it should be.

So, philosophy is most important and physics comes next and mathematics is only a tool, and language in physics, not in philosophy.

[ftessier]

@OlliSant Are space and time fundamental — philosophically? Are they axiomatic in this ontology?

[OlliSant]

Space and time (movement) and matter are the concepts (and objective things in the reality) what we need. Or we must invent better concepts for the things in the reality. And they are relative to each others in the universe. But in the case of the universe everything is different as in every other things. People always forget that universe is universe. It is somehow eternal and infinite, otherwise it is not universe but a smaller and different thing. Eternity might be fundamental, absolute, but space definitely is not, and time is what is coming more, not space, not matter. In the case of the universe. Part- universes, parallel part- universes and observable universe are different things. Only one whole, total, eternal universe.

[ftessier]

Our conception of space and time, it seems to me, are derived from a uniquely human perspective; I mean specific to the scale of our detectors, brains included. In the past, large shifts in philosophy have been correlated to escaping the narrow human experience: Thales, Anaximander, Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Feynman, to name the usual suspects. I trust that disentangling space and time from our human view will be no exception and allow a richer way to contemplate the world. I consider it precarious to found philosophies on human-specific perceptions.

[HanDeBruijn]

I wrote: It's not that simple. There exist cosmological theories where in one (time) reference frame there is a beginning (say "bang") and in another reference frame the universe is eternal, without bangs. And by the way, why can't a beginning start quietly?

With the variable mass theory we have two clocks, an Orbital clock and an Atomic clock. It's a matter of taste which one of the two you are willing to accept as the "true" timekeeper. Other names for the two timeframes are "Kinematic/Dynamic time" (: Arthur Milne) and "Einstein/Minkowski frame" (: Fred Hoyle).
Now let $H=$ Hubble parameter, $T=$ orbital time, $t=$ atomic time, $T_0=t_0$ synchronization timestamp of the two clocks. Then the following formula is valid, as is proved in A Basic Equation.

$$ \left[1+\frac{1}{2}H(T-T_0)\right]^2 = \Large e^{H(t-t_0)} $$

In Atomic time (right hand side) there is no beginning: the universe is eternal. In Orbital time (left hand side) there is a beginning !! And that beginning is smooth. Let's call this "bang" $A$ . Our smooth start is found by putting the left hand side to zero for $T=A$ . Then we easily find that $T_0-A=2/H$, meaning that the current "age of the universe" is $2/H$, not $1/H$ as according to many other models.

OlliSant writes: philosophy is better than physics to study the universe.
HanDeBruijn says: mathematics is better than philosophy to study the universe.

[HanDeBruijn]

@marmetl @sahil5d @PatrGT . I know that Patrick G. Tonin has subscribed too but can't find his nickname here.
Anyway. Let LHS be the left hand side and RHS be the right hand side in Sahil's Large Numbers Coincidence formula, then:

$$ \large \frac{1}{\mbox{LHS}} = \frac{1}{\mbox{RHS}} \hspace{1pt} \mbox{(Gupta)} = \frac{\alpha_G}{2} \hspace{1pt} \mbox{(Tonin)} $$

Here $\alpha_G$ is a dimensionless number in Patrick's theory. It can be (re)written as desired:

$\alpha_G=$ ( Newton's law ) / ( Coulomb's law ) $\times$ ( Fine-structure constant )

Details as usual at my website: Physical dimensions .

[RedshiftDrift]

@PatrGT is Patrick, this mention should reach him...

[HanDeBruijn]

@marmetl : Couldn't resist to check dimensions and calculate the value of $H_0$ with your formula.

$$ H_0 = \zeta \ \frac{\alpha h^2}{m_e^2 c} \ n_e \mbox{\hspace{10pt} (: STz)} $$

Check on physical dimensions correctness (with $1=$ dimensionless) is OK:

$$ 1/time = 1 \times \frac{1 \times (length^2\times mass/time)^2}{mass^2 \times length/time} \times 1/length^3 $$

alpha := 1/137.035999084;
h := 6.62607015*10^(-34);
c := 299792458;
m_e := 9.1093837*10^(-31);
zeta := 0.6;
n_e := 0.3;
H := zeta*(alpha*h^2)/(m_e^2*c)*n_e;
Mpc := 3.08567758*10^22;
H := H*Mpc/1000;

And the outcome is $H_0=71.\enclose{horizontalstrike}{53222672}\hspace{1pt} (km/s)/Mpc$ , which is in close agreement with most other values for the Hubble.
But I kow that the formulas as presented by me are often used he other way around, namely to get an estimate for the age of the universe and for the mean mass density $\rho_0$ around us.
So I'm wondering if the same is not the case for your formula as well: do you have independent sources for the geometrical factor $\zeta$ and for the average number-density $n_e$ of free electrons in the observation path?

[RedshiftDrift]

@HanDeBruijn Dimensional analysis is the name of what you do when you "check dimensions". Scientists learn that in kindergarden, so there is no need to explicitly show how the calculation is done. I have been doing this for 52 years and every scientist does it.

To the physicist, equations have a physical meaning [dimension]. The equation above

$$ H_0 = \zeta \frac{\alpha h^2}{m_e^2 c} n_e \quad \mbox{is the product of} \quad \begin{cases} \delta_z = \zeta \frac{h\nu}{mc^2} & \mbox{the redshift per scattering events } [1], \\ \sigma = \frac{\alpha h}{m_e \nu} & \mbox{the scattering cross section } [area], \\ n_e & \mbox{the electron number-density } [1/length^3], \\ c & \mbox{the speed of light } [length/time], \end{cases} $$

which gives inverse $[time]$ as the dimension of the Hubble constant.

When an article presents equations with incoherent units, it means that the author did not understand the physical meaning of the equation. Unless it's an obvious typo, the article is probably meaningless.

Scientists also learn in kindergarden that the displayed digits of a number also have a physical meaning. The digits represent knowledge. In maths, in makes sense to write $\pi = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971...$ (I can't remember the rest 😄)

However in the physical sciences, the most accurate measurements rarely have an absolute accuracy below $1\times 10^{-6}$, and in cosmology numbers are presented on a $\log_{10}$-scale because most astronomical measurements give "order-of-magnitude" results. When engineers and mathematicians copy the output of their calculators to convey the result of their calculations 😮 it is a mistake that is just as bad as using incoherent [dimensions]. This shows that the author doesn't understand the physical meaning of the numbers they give.

That being said, I gave the values of $\zeta$ and $n_e$ to one significant digit because they have no physical meaning below 10% uncertainty. The result $H_0 = 71.53222672$ km/s/Mpc is meaningless since even the best measurements of the Hubble constant by Riess have >1% uncertainties!

[RedshiftDrift]

@HanDeBruijn The geometrical factor $\zeta$ is obtained from:

$$ \zeta = \frac{\int_0^\pi R(\Theta) \ \sin^2 \left( \frac{\theta}{2} \right) \ \rm d \Theta}{\int_0^\pi R(\Theta) \ \rm d \Theta} \approx 0.6174... $$

where

$$ R(\Theta) = \sin \frac{\Theta}{2} \ \sin \Theta \ \left[ 1 - \left( 1-\frac{2}{\pi} \right) \sin^2 \Theta \right] $$

Each term has a physical meaning (light interference, intensity gradient, momentum recoil, etc.) However, this equation is an approximation for isotropic and polarized light. A more precise calculation would have to consider that between galaxies, light is not perfectly isotropic and is usually not polarized (the $1-2/\pi$ term is the result of another integral over polarization states.)

So although the value of $\zeta$ is mathematically defined exactly by the model, it depends on conditions in space that are not well known. When the actual conditions found in space are considered in this calculation, the value should be near $\zeta = 0.6$.

The number-density of free electrons in the observation path is a measured quantity. The integrated value $\int n_e(r) dr$ along the path from source to us is obtained from Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) dispersion. Again, a constant $n_e$ is an approximation since the density varies as a function of position in space. Variations by a factor of two can be seen from one FRB to another. I analyzed 12 FRBs a few years ago using the Euclidean metric of a static cosmology and obtained an average $n_e = 0.25_{-0.1}^{+0.2}$, a value comparable to the published values obtained in the ΛCDM framework. There are now about 20(?) FRBs with a known redshift, but a new analysis would not reduce the uncertainty significantly.

To answer your question, the STz model has no adjustable parameter but depends on measurements of the light distribution along the observation path for $\zeta$ and the electron number-density $n_e$. It predicts a value for the Hubble constant $\log_{10}(h) = 1.8\pm 0.3$ consistent with observations (the dimensionless Hubble constant $h$ is defined from $H_0 = h \times 100 km/s/Mpc$).

[OlliSant]

Scientific method is making theories and testing them. Mathematics is a tool in exact sciences but not in philosophy. And cosmology is always philosophy and astronomy, both. It was a big mistake to leave it to physicists.