Cosmic Concerns - Theories of CosmologyCosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology
Cosmic Concerns - Theories of CosmologyCosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology
A CRITIQUE OF THE H-B-N UNIVERSE
The H-B-N Universe or Quasi Steady state model of the Universe, a refreshing challenge to the Big bang paradigm is described in a new book ’A different approach to Cosmology by Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge and Jayant Narlikar (Cambridge Univ Press, 2000). First, it is a very good history of the last century’s astronomic revelations and interplay of ideas of early cosmology but second, an accusation of a railroading of one theory over another, ignoring not only some personalities but also suppressing certain observation data. Justifiably, Hoyle and Burbidge, old stalwarts of astronomy and Narlikar a younger cosmologist, have restructured the older Steady state concept into a cyclic rebounding universe with limitations in size & duration with a mass creation process associated with QSO’s - quasars, including a reinterpretation of Black holes.
Where to start! My challenge here is to reconcile what I’ve tried to deal with in the previous essays and reiterate my essential objections to understanding the Big bang and their possible reconciliation with the H-B-N concepts. In addition there are further interpretations or observations that might be worthy of endeavor if the question were again to become open.
QSO’s and Creation sources
More than a few years ago, the astronomer Halton Arp convincingly-unconvincingly demonstrated that QSO’s - Quasi-stellar-objects, now known as quasars were relatively nearby objects, often paired, with high Z#’s and associated with much closer galaxies, hence their Z value was attributable to something else and not at cosmologic Hubble distances. I recall the controversy. H-B-N argue further that these objects are possible ejecta of near-Black-holes - their negation term for a Black hole, and a mass creation event. This conjecture puts into question the meaning and use of high Z values, particularly quasars leading back to a Big bang scenario and reestablishes a mass creation pulse to the original Steady state concept.
While I can’t pretend to fully fathom their math, I do highly recommend reading their monograph for all its nuances. Briefly the H-B-N universe model suggests: The Hubble expansion is valid but observation and interpretations are limited by modest recessional Z#’s. The looking-back universe age, 1/Ho represents a cyclic bounce and re-expansion about 15 Billion years ago (Byrs) with a general space compression maybe only four times greater than the present and with a universe full cycle age of 100 Byrs. Earlier cycles existed and may have representation with observational objects older than 1/Ho and similar aspects of galaxies in random stages of development like stars in a Russel-Hertzsprung diagram, again some greater in age than 1/Ho. (See Figure 3 at bottom)
This diagram, Figure1, is simplified from the authors QSS model. Quasi in the sense the present universe is expanding but cyclic and Steady state over a much longer period. Overall time is endless but space compression (or expansion) is bounded. In the same linear scales the Big bang model would go off the diagram in endless reams of paper.
Two other major differences are an alternative view of the CBR - Cosmic background radiation, and a new basis for the initial element creation - hydrogen thru lithium. The Big bang paradigm heralds the CBR as the relic of a highly hot compressed state, about 300 kyrs age (D=14) expanding and cooling to 2.7 K blackbody radiation today with the initial set of H, He and lithium as the product of a great annihilation event of 1010 particles & antiparticles to but one particle, now a ratio of positive matter only, at a universe age of about 10 seconds (D=55). H-B-N think thermally degenerated starlight over ageless time can also create the CBR blackbody profile form and that early element ratios can be derived by the QSO creation process with spalling of some of the heavier species developing the intergalactic quantitative abundances without invoking antimatter. Who might be most guilty of massaging numbers could be a ticklish debate but possibly a very fruitful one.
Consequently to me, another great difference would be to open the investigation possibilities into a broader spectrum of interpretations that have undoubtedly been suppressed. My objections to the present consensus cosmology, probably rests greatest with singularities - great & practical ideas in mathematics, but to me physical unrealities - Specifically numerous aspects of the Big bang and Black holes, and here hitched together in the same paradigm.
My previous discussions has dealt with 59 doublings of time and space from a universe age of one second as D #’s, doubling of time segments and its correspondence to features of the physical universe. Now feeling a little relieved from the ‘only-game-in-town’, I’ve argued the necessity of a connection of space, mass and energy to the space fabric . Most notable, H-B-N’s possible three or four doubling of space is plausible compared to the 259 doublings, an inordinate strain on this belief and its greatest enigma. The H-B-N concept reduces this expansion to about 12 times overall, something feasible and a possible variable of numerous parameters over place and time.
Now included as appropriate topic, the other mathematical difficulties with a Black hole are the gravitational singularity at the origin and the Schwartzchild radius itself, simply another mathematical boundary - the limit of relativistic space-time but not real space (there is an inside). I have argued the concept of the mass-Roche limit to question the meaning of mass survival at deeper gravitational gradients and the possibility of more dense elemental-particle soups. A QSO ejection from a near-black-hole (their term) or Gray hole (my term) could well be that super-super-nova transition similar to what we see for Nova and Super-nova transitions from atomic to neutron to Black hole transitions. Here we may see new ways that dense mass & space may balk before becoming a mathematical oddity More commonly recognized accretion disk phenomena of so called Black holes become just part of the picture.
Further interpretations In contrast to a Velocity of light (Voc) measurement - always invariant for a single observer, a Z measurement is a recognized difference between two places with a number of possible causes. Not a new idea, H-B-N refer to Zd as Doppler shift, Zc as cosmic expansion - the Hubble relationship and Zi as intrinsic as a residual from other not necessarily known factors as found in a QSO. One recognized factor might be a gravitational well. I prefer to introduce the Bio-rate factor as an observational constraint like the Voc for each observer but with interpretive comprehension thru communication. If we had an observer located at a possibly hellacious QSO, what part of the intrinsic shift might be bio-rate, our set of standard conditions?
Also interesting, if the higher Z#’s of QSO’s are not deeper space, the working span of the Hubble relationship is significantly reduced. I previously theorized that higher Z value objects should also be seen as larger - a product of both their ‘Where-they-were” distance with image expansion equally proportional to the wavelength expansion and then questioned why we don’t see it. This is depicted in the previous D# essay. On re-examination, I think the Hubble Deep Field image begins to refute that idea on size but rather shows smaller & smaller galaxies , some bluer than redder - not new stars vs old necessarily but less likely red shifted. This would be a significant observational difference between the Big bang and H-B-N models
Other questions H-B-N finished their monograph with other questions worth exploring, particularly a needed inquiry and possible connection of angular momentum and manifest magnetic fields in galactic evolution. They also noticed a strange Z# periodicy variation in galaxies and QSO’s, again all with questionable Hubble distance interpretations. I add my own. Can we think of an infinite universe with gravity nulled on the large scale but manifest at all lesser scales? Similarly, within this vast domain as implied with stellar objects being older than 1/Ho, our universe age since the bounce, and as suggested above, we might have older galactic structures too. What might be the effects on all cosmic structures during the transition - some surviving scales of mass organization, some destruction or modifications, again related to local mass densities? Conceptually, a QSO from a Gray hole could be a continuation of nova type physics on a local scale or overall and possibly on a larger scale, between galaxies and the space fabric.
I‘m not sure I can explain as much as question possibilities within the H-B-N model. Broadly accepted within the Big bang model, certain evolutionary trends have good observational basis. This includes the Hubble expansion and increase in stellar metalicity over time. Some less certain trends are galactic evolution and very old star-cluster ages, but all together imply a one way evolution. The challenge of the HBN model is to include these trends with plausible explanations as to why they are cyclic and what are the larger issues in the cyclic process itself.
Dealing with this evolution, Fig. 2 is a H-B-N universe thru a bounce with some structural elements in change. It is a conjectural balance between these observational ideas and evolutionary changes that might be expected in a cyclic closed loop. It is bounded by our universe size over time. First going back with the linear Hubble expansion to a linear BB time (just 1/Ho), a cosmologic equational BB (about 1/3 earlier) and a bounce from contraction to expansion of the HBN universe for purpose of comparison. The internal objects, structure and process are HBN conjecture.
Metalicity in stars refers to any of the heavier elements including Fe and beyond, assumed to be derived and expelled to space in Nova type processes and later contained in second generation Type I stars - the Type I & II concept is reversed as a quirk of which was discovered first. Metalicity is low in ancient stellar clusters. If indeed QSO’s produce primary H, He concentrations, they might condense in such primitive Type II stars. Can these two be brought together? Hold that thought.
The beginning H-B-N universe suggests a type of ‘tabla rasa’ yet not pure and has some mass structure carry over. This then evolves into a mass excess - space dilution that has a disruptive reaction to cause a recycle phase of mass simplification and higher space density. This may correlate with the question of Dark matter. Dark matter suggested to reside within galactic disks could be more dense space with gravitational association as compared to the average less dense space between galaxies
To me the big question, the raison d’etre, is the why of the compression of space followed by the expansion. Thinning of space could have two factors - the dilution itself but also a dilution of space substance directed to galactic and mass concentration as a sponge absorbs water. The galactic mass concentrations could be local extravagances of mass-energy with QSO expulsion as we see now from some galactic centers and maybe a harbinger of more extensive conversion at the maximum space expansion or maybe at the maximum space density - two states with two different trend changes.
There is no definitive argument to settle the issue as to whether the universe is finite or infinite, as to why there is space & time vs no space or no time, or by god or by God we exist to discuss it. Entropic or a-entropic, timeless or ephemeral, free lunches or not. Present cosmology leaves a lot to be desired. Certainly everybody knows the Little red hen is incapable of planting, harvesting and baking bread, other than the realization someone has to do it. A Big bang from nothing and a Black hole singularity are incongruous and somehow must null one another into some other unapparent cosmology. This, with a gut feeling of a few more subtlies to whit, I’ll try.
Concerning space, even the present ‘now’ of the Big bang is bizarre. The endless expansion of nothing into many times more of nothing is problematic with what kind of change to the nature of the space fabric. The H-B-N model suggests there is a conversion of some kind of space in a thinner or thicker type within actual limits of physical observation. Hence I interpret space is real and not just nothing - it gives, it takes, stresses and strains, a persistent variable.
With minor exception, our view of distant objects is across empty space. First because the universe is largely empty and secondly with obscured views thru our own galaxy by which further circumstance we are located near the outside edge. The most of what we know of cosmology is looking at other island universes, not a lot different than as small atolls in a vast Pacific Ocean. Consequently we must judge the nature of the ocean as well. The analogy can be drawn further - does the depth matter, does the viscosity of sea water change with time, is the bio-rate faster in the tropics and is all this hidden by the temptuous local environment that seems to smooth to a uniform flat horizon of a tranquil paradise in the distance? Can we visualize a more comprehensive picture?
I think the starting point is the enigmatic (diabolical) constant velocity of light. Objectively we know it goes faster or slower but subjectively, always measures constant. What else is tucked into or hidden from this determination - raw space, mass density or mass velocity in raw space. Uniquely, light manages this phenomenon but only ‘now’. Similarly, can a combination of things yield a linear Hubble relationship in a physically real but evolving space over time? How do we reconcile that lookback into space and time in which its linearity is equally bizarre? First by knowing what creates it and secondly by being aware of how to interpret its contents.
To its credit, the H-B-N model has introduced Z-intrinsic, meaning undetermined but not cosmic, possibly Z-doppler or Z-gravitational. In the case of QSO’s this is more than fair but in explanation I would start out simpler by adding Z-biorate as possible unknown components of any net Z value. On this issue. Z-biorate, the observer factor, as a basic acknowledgment of the potential unknowns of any determination with the apparent constant value of Z-biorate = 0, ‘here & now’. The frequency of our local standards null just as Voc = c and our living heart rate seems intrinsically tied to it. Yet we know another observer ‘there & then’ could confirm his biorate standards equally null, regardless of how we measure them here. This is not a revelation but a simple double-check on interpreting the remaining Z factors and recognizing the observer has a certain handicap or bias when he looks out beyond his immediate world. While we don’t have observers or communication with them at notable places around the universe, we can still hypothesize their basic environment and what’s tied to it.
So how might these differences be sorted when all we have is our incipient lookback ‘now’ with its net Z values combining all the possibilities from different pasts? The first separation asks if the Z wavelength modification is at the source, during the transmission or at the receiving end.
The easy example is Z-doppler vs Z-cosmic. Doppler shift is an expansion of wavelength by true velocity in real space, either at the source or the receiver and unchanged over the transmission Cosmic wavelength by definition is the opposite - wavelength changed by space expansion over time but constant at the source or the receiver. Trains whistling thru town with multiple observers readily establish the doppler effect. For various reasons, the consensus of cosmologists conclude distant starlight contains the cosmic factor. HBN feel this might be untrue for QSO’s and I feel the issue can be expanded further.
It’s hard to imagine anything but an absolute space of some type - a metric of nothing, a container of something, the space fabric. If there was such a space can we associate a number of constraints over its existence with time? It may be a product of numerous variables of stress and strain over place and duration. Is the Hubble relationship an effect of a variable space density and mass concentration such that Voc and other factors of bio-rate, time rate and atomic frequency yield the appearance of space expansion?
I have related Space-time to that endless look-back with D#’s and ultimately closer ‘Where-they-were’ distances in the Big bang scenario. With the H-B-N bounce, ‘Where-they-were’ could be ever farther away with Z#’s not forever increasing but changing with the space expansion environment the light has encountered, even back to lower values. While I admit such a universe reduces the relevance of the D# concept, it can still remain useful as a comparison. In the case with the H-B-N model, we could switch to negative values at a suitable time interval at the maximum crunch, say D=4 about a universe age of 1 Byrs and duration, and a point significantly deviating from the linear Hubble curve. Such an observation may be lurking in the Hubble Deep Field view presently or the near future with finer and more precise instruments. See Fig. 3
The dynamic universe is a great integral of minute space cubes over time, probably pulsing with various relaxation constants over vast distances. Just as we constrain the size of any object to its dynamics - as in a Cephid variable - the whole universe could have multiple & proportional relaxation domains. Some of these ideas might be visualized in my extrapolation of the H-B-N model. If our universe is cyclic with a real maximum-minimum size and duration, an adjacent universe could be in a different phase of its cycle. It also brings up the possibility of an absolute space over a multi-universe scale with possible push-pull interfaces. Our lookback, could have wandered out from a farther and different space density environment, the universe next-door. Each view direction would reveal a different space history.
On a larger scale, Fig. 3 is a depiction of multi-universes in various stages of their local cycles. Here the grand Universe is infinite (no boundaries as shown here) and the large scale universe is Euclidian and Steady state overall. The Hubble relationship would differ locally as determined by the cycle phase and be arbitrary to the particular direction of the trace into antiquity.
In conclusion, Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar may have a challenge diverting the Big bang bandwagon. I wish them well, but they have convinced me of a more physical & realistic Universe rather than a mathematical contrivance of weird concepts.
Cosmic Concerns - Theories of CosmologyCosmic Concerns - Theories of Cosmology