#139 NYT Opinion - Is There a Crisis in Cosmology ?
NYT opinion - Is there a crisis in cosmology?
“Two serious issues with the standard model of cosmology would be concerning enough. But the model has already been patched up numerous times over the past half century to better conform with the best available data - alterations that may well be necessary and correct, but which, in light of the problems we are now confronting, could strike a skeptic as a bit too convenient.”
Too convenient indeed.
I received a .pdf copy the article from the ASSA.1 I am sharing it here for those who do not have access to the New York Times.
Opinion _ Is There a Crisis in Cosmology.pdf
1
Astronomical Society of Southern Africa
2👍 1👀 1
This is a fantastic essay! Thank you for sharing.
Ethan is not going to be happy.
You know him well!
Starts With A Bang — September 6, 2023 The “crisis in cosmology” is pure exaggeration https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/crisis-cosmology-exaggerated-lie/
Have you reached out to the authors? They are quite aligned with ACG.
Not IMO. With phrases like “ Edwin Hubble’s discovery in the 1920s that the universe was expanding “ and the possibility that “ the laws of physics can evolve and change over time “, they disqualify for ACG. Agreed, they made a giant step in the right direction, but the leap of faith needed is much greater.
It would be so simple to just consider the universe as not having had a beginning…
Indeed @Pierre314159 is right. I follow Adam Frank from mastodon, he would not want to join ACG.
This kind of article appears frequently, always giving hope to Big Bang deniers, but is forgotten the next day… see discussion 140
Eric Lerner strikes back Saying goodbye to the Big Bang *The prevailing story of our universe is starting to unravel * https://asiatimes.com/2023/09/saying-goodbye-to-the-big-bang/
Eric Lerner’s new video: “Episode 8 Goodbye to the Big Bang” https://youtu.be/KIDMFgrM3us with a promise to interview Dr. Rajendra Gupta of the University of Ottawa about his article; stay tuned.
Rajendra Gupta’s paper might help mainstream scienc ease its way out of the Big Bang Concept, by minimizing controversy
I think we can agree with the authors on the JWST findings, but is the Hubble Tension really a serious crisis for them? For those of us who support a static model, how do we explain this divergence in values for the Hubble constant?
The NYTimes article on alternative cosmology theories gives important credability to the alternative cosmology movement.it makes it acceptable for certain elements of the establishment to support research, that before they would not support.
@ExpEarth how do you explain this divergence in values for the Hubble constant?
I can’t account for it either. But part of the reason is that I have never taken the CMB-based measurement of H too seriously, as it is based on false premises concerning the origin of the CMB. I would be curious to hear your take on it, here or in other discussions about the Hubble Tension.
My take on the CMB is the same as yours, the CMB is not the afterglow of the Big Bang. My explanation was discussed here and earlier on the Gaggle.mail forum, and is based on the Stimulated-Transfer-Redshift (STR) model described here. A new paper on STR is in the works (about 2/3 written); I’ll post it here when it is published.
I really enjoyed your 2009 asp paper, such clarity and conciseness! 👍🏻
@RedshiftDrift But what about the Hubble Tension? Do you suppose that it is a serious concern for the Big bang model? Do you think a similar discrepancy could arise in your static model? Can we assume you would favour the higher H value, as it is based on local observations?
My feeling is that the same tension could show up in a static model and so we should not rejoice at this tension in the BB model.
Looking forward to seeing your published paper!
Agreed for sure. By the way, my take on the CMB is 3/3 written and has been published here. Summarizing. Solve the CMB temperature $\Theta$ from
$$ \frac{4\sigma}{c}\Theta^4 = \frac{(B.c.H)^2}{G} \quad \mbox{with} \quad B = \sqrt{\frac{3.\mbox{VMT}}{32\pi.W}} = 0.004170942703 $$
$c=$ lightspeed, $H=$ Hubble parameter, $G=$ gravitational constant, $4\sigma/c=$ radiation constant. Only four constants of nature (one with a tension) and a pure number $B$ with an order of magnitude of the Fine-structure constant.
Hubble’s constant isn’t actually what’s being measured. The time dilation of supernovae and their distance is measured. When one tries to fit LCDM to those measurements, the model’s best fist is H0 = 73.0 km/s/Mpc. When aspects of the CMB are measured, fitting LCDM to that data says H0 = 67.4 km/s/Mpc.
In a static universe, the luminosity distance (dL) is a different function than in LCDM. I have dL = c/H0 (1 + z) log(1 + z), which gives a best fit to the supernovae data at H0 = 70.5 km/s/Mpc.
The question then is, in this static universe, what is the CMB?
@mikehelland
The CMB is from photons reaching an equilibrium between redshift and the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect As mentioned above this was discussed in more details last year when ACG used a private discussion forum, so I am not going to repeat the argument here.
Interestingly the two functions are very similar. Plot (in Hubble distance units)
$$ D_L^{static} = (1+z) ln(1+z) $$
and
$$ D_L^{LCDM} = (1+z) \int_0^z \frac{{\rm d}z’}{\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z’)^3 + \Omega_\Lambda}} $$
with $\Omega_m = 0.286$ and $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.714$, up to redshift $z \simeq 6$, and the curves overlap quite well.
That is the luminosity distance - redshift relationship in my pet hypothesis.
Is that the same one you use?
A couple other questions, that I hope are no inappropriate?
I’m not familiar with this group. Is there a “consensus” model promoted here? Or more of a non-expanding free for all?
Are you adding TEX to the post or attaching images?
@mikehelland
Please familiarize yourself with the group by exploring the website (click here), read the last page of one Newsletter, read the Cosmology Statement and the discussions Welcome notice. Have a look at the discussions and select “Filter:All” to see all of them.
Yes, there is an example of how to add tex to a post in the Welcome notice and a link to the Markdown Syntax page that explains how to attach images.
No consensus model is promoted here. Any model can be discussed as long as you abide by the Code of Conduct and the Guidelines
Most discussions are about the problems of the Big Bang model, but there are as many solutions as there are participants 😄 some of them are listed here but not limited to this list!
Yes, that’s the luminosity-distance I use for supernovae. I use $D_{L \ ga} = \sqrt{1+z} \ ln(1+z)$ for galaxies and $D_A = ln(1+z)$.
I’ll read about your algorithm and comment on it… a bit later.
@mikehelland . >some of them are listed here but not limited to this list!
One of the participants not in this list is a strong proponent of Halton Arp’s Ideas.
@mikehelland . >The CMB is from photons reaching an equilibrium between redshift and the Sunyaev-Zel’dovich effect
Not that I know of. The CMB is explained by Halton Arp’s Variable Mass Theory together with straightforward conversion of the gravitational self energy of the observable universe into heat radiation: Let there be CMB.
I think its times to test Alternative explanations of CMB’s origin, but the main obstacle is finding funding
On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 11:09 AM Louis Marmet @.***> wrote:
Funding? I would say, act like Albert Einstein and become an assistant at the local patent office. It’s easy. You can do the work you must do with one finger in your nose, say within half a day. And then you can use the rest of the day and the other half of your brain for doing the real thing. No funding needed at all. After one Annus mirabilis at the office you’re there.
One possibility could be the quantum world, i read about particles coming in and out of our visible universe, it could be a way that matter is recycled and can have several layers-dimensions of its own. a deeper investigation might find out many surprises
Sure. Why not make up more mysteries than we already have.
I think some our current mysteries can be solved without making more up, only a few new ones would be found since 21st century instermentscould not go that deep