Elemental Puzzle

[davar55]

Originally Posted by ccorn

...
My impression from the cosmo1.txt is that its author has a serious desire for a beautiful theory. That's not a bad thing actually. Now, davar55 may or may not like this, but I'd like to point out that the big picture of his so-called "new cosmology" seems to be not so new at all, as it resembles yet another offspring of the steady-state-principle. That principle has had quite a few renowned proponents, and it is not an easy one to sneer about.

There are some problems with steady-state theories in general, however, and at least two of them have shown up here:

First, the idea of a steady-state universe is a very strong hypothesis. By stating that there is no way to derive a definite age or size of the universe, and that its evolutional history is an infinite repetition of the present, steady-state theory is like a relativistic theory on steroids. Among other things, this leads to problems with entropy considerations, as we can see here.

Second, that strong steadyness actually has axiomatic character for its proponents. According to them, strong steadyness shall not be subject to verification by experiment, but taken as a basic principle for any further consideration. "Steady-statesmen" seem to be prepared to fit any part of their cosmology to experimental evidence except for the steadyness principle. In that view, allowing the strength of the steady-state hypothesis to be reduced would mean losing the principle, that is, losing the reason for developing a cosmological model at all. Therefore, any theoretic capriole is undertaken to support the strong steady-state hypothesis.
...

Here is the latest version of my "A New Cosmology" monograph.
It's been given a partial makeover, and updated to include some
additional material. It's ~ 20 pages long. It's still a work in progress.

The cosmology it presents is indeed a kind of steady-state
explanation of the Universe, but with the concepts of a
porous fourth spatial dimension and the fixed finiteness of
the Universe, it explains HRS, CBMR, and the neutrino background
bombardment, while avoiding positing expanding Space.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Thank you for your response!
...
I genuinely invite you to request that you send me a reminder if I haven't responded before the first week of May. TIA!

As you requested.

I've tried to address your's and others' scientific concerns in
my posts and the newest version of the paper, attached above.
I'll be treading on thicker ice if I can satisfactorily answer all
your "objections", and I welcome comments and questions.

TIA.

[cheesehead]

Thank you for your reminder.

In another forum, last week, someone posted a similar reminder about a topic I'd promised two years ago to finish addressing there. I wish I could concentrate productively on each at the same time, but my concentration power isn't what it used to be. I regret that the other matter has seniority, and I sorta owe the other guy for something else anyway.

So, I humbly ask that you remind me again if I haven't responded here by ... mid-June. :-(

[davar55]

No problem. I look forward to this discussion.

And the Universe will certainly wait.

[davar55]

Does anyone have an objection to the cosmology monograph's
description of the Universe being of fixed, finite spatial extent,
based on anything other than the big bang's "expansion" which
is conceptually based on an interpretation of red-shift data
that may be explainable in another way, e.g. as in the monograph?

IOW is the red-shift the only "solid" evidence for the big bang?
The alternate explanation of the red-shift as made in the monograph
challenges the expansion and thus the basic support of the big bang.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

IOW is the red-shift the only "solid" evidence for the big bang?
The alternate explanation of the red-shift as made in the monograph challenges the expansion and thus the basic support of the big bang.

The large scale chemical composition of the universe is widely held to be "solid" evidence for the hot big bang model.

The black body thermal spectrum and the almost but not perfect spatial isotropy of the cosmic microwave background is widely held to be "solid" evidence for a hot big bang and subsequent expansion.

Other supporting evidence, though much weaker, is the constraint that the big band model places on the number of different kinds of low-mass particles (and so relativistic even at 1-3 Kelvin) to four plus or minus one. We know of precisely three neutrino flavours together with their associated three generations of heavy leptons. Investigating the term "dark radiation" might prove interesting in this regard.


The very fact that you felt the need to ask this question reduces still further my confidence that your model better explains the present universe than the widely accepted hot big bang model.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by xilman

the constraint that the big band model places on the number of different kinds of low-mass particles (and so relativistic even at 1-3 Kelvin) to four plus or minus one. We know of precisely three neutrino flavours together with their associated three generations of heavy leptons.

Benny Goodman? Duke Ellington? Ella Fitzgerald?

It don't get a pass, if it ain't got that mass (but not too much)...

Getting back to the elemental puzzles theme, is anyone here available for drinks next Beryllium?

[davar55]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Thank you for your reminder.

In another forum, last week, someone posted a similar reminder about a topic I'd promised two years ago to finish addressing there. I wish I could concentrate productively on each at the same time, but my concentration power isn't what it used to be. I regret that the other matter has seniority, and I sorta owe the other guy for something else anyway.

So, I humbly ask that you remind me again if I haven't responded here by ... mid-June. :-(

Originally Posted by davar55

No problem. I look forward to this discussion.

And the Universe will certainly wait.

Hope you're feeling better. The Universe has waited, as I predicted.

Only two posters recently. I would like to address them.

(1) Nucleosynthesis explains the manufacture of the heavier elements
(heavier than H and He and I think Li). It is not a monopoly of the
Big Bang theory and standard model. In fact, the BBT involves an
evolution to the current state of affairs, of proportions of different
elements, which is almost coincidental in the values of these ratios.
The monograph describes a basically steady state universe in terms of
the relative proportions of elements (not exacrly to the atom, but
generally overall). In the section that describes black holes, it
suggests that galactic central black holes may eventually explode,
initiating a galactic generational cycle. This and nucleosynthesis
combined explain the general nearly constant proportions of the
various elements among the mass of the Universe.

(2) The monograph explains the CBMR as well as (or better) than
the idea of leftover echos of the big bang.

(3) I'll get back to you.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

Hope you're feeling better. The Universe has waited, as I predicted.

Only two posters recently. I would like to address them.

(1) Nucleosynthesis explains the manufacture of the heavier elements
(heavier than H and He and I think Li). It is not a monopoly of the
Big Bang theory and standard model. In fact, the BBT involves an
evolution to the current state of affairs, of proportions of different
elements, which is almost coincidental in the values of these ratios.

I did say large scale chemical composition. The baryonic universe is made of H, He and a small amount of pollutants. The relative proportions of the various isotopes of H and He are very well predicted by the hot big bang theory. All other theories so far taken at least slightly seriously have difficulty predicting those proportions.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by xilman

I did say large scale chemical composition. The baryonic universe is made of H, He and a small amount of pollutants. The relative proportions of the various isotopes of H and He are very well predicted by the hot big bang theory. All other theories so far taken at least slightly seriously have difficulty predicting those proportions.

AIUI, the "pollutants" (like oxygen, carbon, etc.) are ultimately
the product of nucleosynthesis, which just means fusion into
larger and larger nuclei along reaction chains that we currently
only partially know and understand. If the big bang theory's
explosion (or temporal starting point) included matter, and there
was (early on) just H and He, then the progress of the universe
produced evolutionarily the current cosmological proportions of
the elements, different in values before now and different again
in the future. The present is then just an accident of proportions.

OTOH, the monograph partialy describes a galactic generation
cycle, from black hole explosion to formation of stars to
nucleosynthetic atomic formations to black hole formations.
Evened out across the universe, this implies a relatively constant
set of proportions univerally among all the elements. The
exact valiues may perhaps be measurable, but the reason for
their steady relativity is the nature of the "steady-state" processes
inherent in the finite, fixed size universe the monograph begins
to describe.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

AIUI, the "pollutants" (like oxygen, carbon, etc.) are ultimately
the product of nucleosynthesis, which just means fusion into
larger and larger nuclei along reaction chains that we currently
only partially know and understand. If the big bang theory's
explosion (or temporal starting point) included matter, and there
was (early on) just H and He

That's the whole point.

Early on (in the hot BB model) there was just a sea of fundamental particles in thermal equilibrium. No helium at all. When the temperature fell low enough for neutrons and protons to bind with each other without immediately being evaporated away from each other, D, T, He-3, He-4, smaller amounts of Li-6, Li-7 and sundry isotopes of Be and B were formed. The radioactive ones decayed essentially at once (on the time scale of the present age of the universe) leaving H, D, He-3 and He-4, with small amounts (very small amounts in some cases) of the other nuclei. The hot BB model predicts their relative proportions remarkably well. Your model needs to do at least as well in order for it to be taken seriously.

Incidentally, at even earlier epochs (again in the hot BB model) the temperature was so high that even protons and neutrons were evaporated back into their constituent quarks and gluons as soon as they formed. There wasn't even hydrogen at that time.