Big Bang Dogma

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
This has nothing to do with "internal consistency", and is certainly not "ad hoc". On the contrary, it makes a specific prediction. Some people have always believed that the size of the universe and the divisibility of matter known to them were all that exists, but until now they have always been mistaken in such beliefs. The Meta Model predicts that ever larger structures in the universe and ever smaller entities in the quantum world will continue to be discovered for as long as we look for them.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Although I have long assumed that this makes sense, present observations in phycis and cosmology present us different facts.

For instance, large scale structure. When we go from structures, like the solar system, galaxy, galaxy cluster, galaxy super cluster, we then have (at present observation) reached an end in structures in the universe.

On the other hand, whem going down on the length scales, we come to structeres that are not any more divisible. We can't see for instance individual quarks, but only pairs or triplets of quarks. If we add energy to break them, the only thing that happens is that we create new quark pairs or triplets.

And then we have the physical notions of Planck length and Planck time and Planck mass, as being the smallest units of measurement for length, time and mass.

How does your theory deal with these facts?


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

heusdens

the only thing i could add is this, have you heard of "chiral condensate" mac let me know about this, its fascinating,it talks about quarks and that they are poping in and out of existence all the time.

i also agree with you about tom's infinite scale,i have not finished his book, so perhaps he explains what he means there,otherwise what could be bigger than a galaxy? the only thing i could come up with is space itself,but this does not seem right.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[heusdens]: When we go from structures, like the solar system, galaxy, galaxy cluster, galaxy super cluster, we then have (at present observation) reached an end in structures in the universe.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is, of course, simply a statement about limits of our ability to observe, not about limits to the universe. We already see hints of much larger structures: "Great Walls" and "voids".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>We can't see for instance individual quarks, but only pairs or triplets of quarks. If we add energy to break them, the only thing that happens is that we create new quark pairs or triplets.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Same comments apply. We already see hints of more structure. See Sci.News 149, 102 (1996): Scattering experiments show more recoil than expected, as if something “solid” within a quark produced a rebound. This suggests substructure to quarks.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>And then we have the physical notions of Planck length and Planck time and Planck mass, as being the smallest units of measurement for length, time and mass.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

See [url] www.space.com/scienceastronomy/quantum_bits_030402.html [/url] or ApJ 587, L1-L4 (2003). Conventional thinking in quantum physics is that space and time have limits to their divisibility (e.g., the Planck length, 10^-36 m, and the Planck time). These limits prevent linear motion on scales comparable to those limits. This "pixelation" effect produces a theoretical blurring of images after light has traveled far enough. HST images of extremely distant objects (4-5 billion lightyears away) should show such blurring, but do not. This implies that quantum theory is not correct in its predictions about the nature of the Planck length, which in turn causes problems for the initial conditions of the Big Bang. For example, without the Planck limits, the Big Bang would involve an infinitely hot and dense condition -- something current theory does not allow.

The Meta Model requires that scale be infinitely divisible, and that the Planck scale is not special. This paper questions the special Planck aspects of quantum mechanics, but fully supports Meta Model expectations.

It is always important to distinguish observational evidence itself from theory-based interpretations of observations. The idea that structure is limited on either the large or small scale is squarely in the latter camp. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[North]
what other causes do you mean? also what do you mean by only a portion of the red shift maybe caused by relative velocities?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

One of the themes of Arp's book is that the red shift we obseve when we peer out into the heavens has multiple causes. Relative velocity obviously causes some of it. For nearby objects, where we can independently determine actual distance and relative velocity, we observe both red and blue shifts in more or less equal (and predictable) amounts. As we look farther out, though, red shifts begin to predominate. Well beyond the point where distance and velocity can be determined accurately we begin to see only red shifts.

But as photons climb out of a gravity well they loose energy and this also shows up as a red shfit. For super massive objects like black holes (or more likely Mitchell stars) this could be a more important source of red shift than velocity. This would cause some objects to appear more red shifted than another, less massive object that was right next to it.

The MM suggests that light traveling through space looses energy to the graviton medium, and this also shows up to any observer as a distance dependant red shift. This would apply to all objects in general.

There are several other proposed mechanisms for energy loss by light waves that I've heard of, but the details excape me now. Most of them are intrinsic to particular objects. Perhaps another reader remembers reading about them and can supply some details.

Bottom line, the simple "observed red shift = velocity of recession" idea seems hopelessly naive. It might be nice if the Universe was really that simple, though.

Regards,
LB

It seems to me a redshift generated by a massive object in space would appear as a bump in the spectrum whereas the mass of the mass of the universe itself would cause a redshift that is smooth. This is what is observed and called the cosmological redshift that is assumed to be caused by recessional velocity-right?