Talk:Steady state theory
|
|
Changed a bit of wording. Saying that no one takes the bb theory seriously as a theory of everything is a bit misleading.
Yes, There are some problems with the big bang. Possibly an all neutron universe was initially here and we had a beta decay big bang which then produced the first electrons, protons and the very first atoms and molecules. But the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation proves that something extraordinary did indeed happen.
Saul Perlmutter's Group has shown us an acceleration to this supposed expansion of the universe. Saul Perlmutter, himself, claims this proves the existance of Einstein's original cosmological constant (a repulsive force equal to gravity holding all the stars and galaxies apart). But this can only mean we are now back to a steady-state universe once again. While this sounds unreasonable, you must understand that the Newton-Einstein principle of equivalence states that one cannot discern gravity from an accelerating contraction. This also means that you cannot discern Einstein's original cosmological constant from an accelerating expansion. So is Perlmutter right? Is the redshift indicating Einstein's repulsive force between the stars and galaxies and not an expanding universe?
---
This isn't true
- However, Halton Arp claims to have observed the outpouring of matter from active galactic nuclei, and uses the steady-state theory as a basis for theoretical understanding of his observations.
Steady state assumes that general relativity is correct. Arp has a non standard theory of gravity.
Also
- Proponents of the steady-state theory also predicted values of the CMB throughout the 1900s, however inertia was with the Big Bang at the time the CMB was finally observed.
Citations? I don't know of any steady state theorists who have published papers explaining the CMB. Not to say that there aren't.
- Never mind. Found them. Also, I need to read more about Arp. I found some papers by Narlikar which mention Arp, but these were old. Maybe Arp has changed his mind. Narlikar writes some excellent and coherent papers, unlike Arp, who tends to be incoherent, at least to me.
Roadrunner 19:56, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)