The steady state theory VS the big bang

[Vesayen]

I was introduced to the "steady state theory" for the first time today.


At first glance the theory sounded asinine, then I realized it has the same fundamental flaw the expansionist big bang model has.

If you have never heard of it, the steady state theory is basically this: There is a center to the universe and in that center matter is continuously being made and expelled.

This model explains many of the same phenomena the big bang model explains.

Now what is the biggest criticism most people would say about the steady state theory? "Its silly! There is no proof matter is still being made in the center of the universe! Conservation of mass and energy, that defies the laws of physics!"

Unfortunately the big bang has fundamentally the same problem..... you can analyze the expansionist big bang model and it can explain a lot but in the end you still have the problem that the unknown variable at the base of the theory fundamentally defies the laws of physics as we understand it.

I fail to see how saying matter is spontaneously created once, is any less probable or any less “silly” then saying it is created continuously by a persistent phenomena.

Is there anyone here who can point out some more flaws in the steady state theory to me, in relatively simple terms? From the little bit I learned today it sounds roughly as plausible as the big bang, but seemingly for the idea it is "silly", it fell out of favor.

Note; If not abundantly clear I am not in any way trying to say " YOU SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG AND TOOLS OF THE DEVIL! THIS PROOVES GOD IS REAL!". An unknown is an unknown, not necessarily, god.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: The steady state theory VS the big bang

Originally posted by Vesayen
If you have never heard of it, the steady state theory is basically this: There is a center to the universe and in that center matter is continuously being made and expelled.

Wrong.

[Vesayen]

Then apparently it was explained incorrectly to me. Tht was what they said was the core of the model, which sounded interesting to me.

[KrazyHorse]

The steady state theory does not violate the cosmological principle. What it proposes is the constant creation of matter at all points in the universe.

[KrazyHorse]

And who is "they"

[KrazyHorse]

To answer your question, the best proof that the steady state theory is wrong is the existence of the cosmic microwave background.

[Vesayen]

If the idea is it is created in many places and not *ONE* place, the backround radiation from the big bang would do it .

I'm sleepy. I'll post a theory based on the original idea(continous creation in one point) tommorow for us to poke holes in.

One brief thought in response then; I'm thinking along the lines that if creation is continous from one central spot, who says it creates at a steady rate? Who says it is not steadily creating less, or follows cycles?

What if the bursts, are large and periodic?

Depending on the amount created, the time it was created and the speed at which it left the central point, it could explain what *LOOKS* like a sea of near constant background radiation dating to what the big bang model places at 380,000 years after the universe was created.

When in fact, there is other background radiation from these cyclical bursts which permeates the visible universe on the same frequency but because they are older, they are overpowered by other sources and not detectible by current instruments.

[KrazyHorse]

Depending on the amount created, the time it was created and the speed at which it left the central point, it could explain what *LOOKS* like a sea of near constant background radiation dating to what the big bang model places at 380,000 years after the universe was created.

What? Why? Are you proposing that the light scatters off...what? The Universe as a whole is very optically thin. We would see an enormous asymmetry in the cmb if this were the case. We don't. We see a cmb which is unbelievably uniform. CMB anisotropies are ~10^-5 times the size of the absolute temperature. Also, we see a power spectrum of the CMB which precisely follows the curve we expect from the plasma physics taking place at the surface of last scattering. Plus we see quasars only at large redshift (and isotropically). Plus...

[KrazyHorse]

Basically, Ves, you're wrong. Better cosmologists than you tried to rescue the steady-state theory. It died a godawful death over 30 years ago.

[The Mad Monk]

The Big Bang was hailed by the church when it was proposed, because it falls neatly in place with creationism -- as opposed to the theory it replaced.

[KrazyHorse]

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Depending on the amount created, the time it was created and the speed at which it left the central point, it could explain what *LOOKS* like a sea of near constant background radiation dating to what the big bang model places at 380,000 years after the universe was created.

What? Why? Are you proposing that the light scatters off...what? The Universe as a whole is very optically thin. We would see an enormous asymmetry in the cmb if this were the case. We don't. We see a cmb which is unbelievably uniform. CMB anisotropies are ~10^-5 times the size of the absolute temperature. Also, we see a power spectrum of the CMB which precisely follows the curve we expect from the plasma physics taking place at the surface of last scattering. Plus we see quasars only at large redshift (and isotropically). Plus...

The light does not need to scatter off anything. The energy can be so distant that it is overwhelmed by significantly more powerfull sources, namley the backround radiation we see more easily which was created more recently.

If it is the same frequency(why not heh? so much in cosmological models make assumptions and "what ifs"), and the age of it was large enough, and the "backround" radiation we see now was *FAR* more recent in comparison, we would never see it.

Our instruments are accurate as hell.

20 years ago before COBE we thought the background radiation was completley uniform, now we know it is not.

Who knows what we will find out in 20 years when our instruments are even stronger? If my idea(I'm sure others have proposed this, it is hardly "mine) is right, we simply can not observe it with current tools.

[KrazyHorse]

The real question is what is happening at the low-l limit of that T-T cross power spectrum. Which is what I'm working on, indirectly...

[Vesayen]

I'm strong in some areas and weak in others I'm not familliar with those terms....

[KrazyHorse]

The light does not need to scatter off anything. The energy can be so distant that it is overwhelmed by significantly more powerfull sources, namley the backround radiation we see more easily which was created more recently.

WTF are you on about? The light is created at your so-called "central point". It leaves there travelling at the speed of light. How the **** do we see it as being uniform (almost)?