wyatt@cfa.HARVARD.EDU (Bill Wyatt) (12/19/89)
From article <963@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu>, by HOWGREJ@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu: > In article <822@tahoma.UUCP>, jpg3196@tahoma.UUCP (James P. Galasyn) writes: >>I just heard from a fairly reliable source that CalTech has demonstrated >>the Big Bang never happened. [...] > [...] I really don't know how you could *disprove* the BB; it's > been pretty well accepted since the '60s. There's a lot of data that it > explains real well that you'd have to come up with a better explanation > for... 3 degree background, expansion, primordial nucleosynthesis, etc. > The BB theory, combined with Guth's inflation, does a fine job at the > moment... [...] Well, the BB in general is separate from inflation theory. And no, inflation theory certainly does not do `a fine job': it is a pretty theory completely at odds with observations. Most theorists really *want* the Universe to be closed (i.e. Omega >= 1.0), so much so that they call these the `standard' theories. People ignore the fact that the standard theories currently require exotic (i.e. unknown) physics. The inflation theory predicts Omega is exactly 1.0000... , but every piece of observational evidence says Omega is between 0.1 and 0.3, so the Universe is open. There are lots of truly creative ways of reconciling the discrepancies; shadow matter, tailored particles, etc., etc. None of them has any observational basis; their sole reason for being is to close the Universe. Bill Wyatt, Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (Cambridge, MA, USA) UUCP : {husc6,cmcl2,mit-eddie}!harvard!cfa!wyatt Internet: wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu SPAN: cfa::wyatt BITNET: wyatt@cfa
stubbs@astroatc.UUCP (Dennis J. Kosterman) (12/20/89)
In article <822@tahoma.UUCP> jpg3196@tahoma.UUCP (James P. Galasyn) writes: > >I just heard from a fairly reliable source that CalTech has demonstrated >the Big Bang never happened. I haven't heard anything else about this, but on the surface it sounds suspicious. Scientists don't usually make assertions this dog- matic. I don't see how it's possible to say absolutely that the Big Bang did or did not occur. We can only talk about probabilities. Dennis J. Kosterman uwvax!astroatc!stubbs
panoff@hubcap.clemson.edu (Robert M. Panoff) (12/20/89)
In article <822@tahoma.UUCP>, jpg3196@tahoma.UUCP (James P. Galasyn) writes: > > I just heard from a fairly reliable source that CalTech has demonstrated > the Big Bang never happened. Cjeck out the latest issue of The Sciences, published by the New York Academy of Science. There are a number of fine articles, including one by Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos which discusses how the universe could have come to be the way it is without postulating a Big Bang. This is a far cry from sayong that it ``proves'' the Big Bang never occurred. If there is enough interest, I will summarize this article for the net. The article is titled, ``Not With a Bang -- The Universe May Have Evolved from a Vast Sea of Plasma.'' One quotation is worth including: ``Many physicists believe the time is fast approaching when the big bang must prove its worth anew or step out of the limelight.'' -- rmp, for the Bob's of the World
cet1@cl.cam.ac.uk (C.E. Thompson) (12/20/89)
In article <2951@astroatc.UUCP> stubbs@astroatc.UUCP (Dennis J. Kosterman) writes: >...... I don't see how it's possible to say absolutely that the Big >Bang did or did not occur. We can only talk about probabilities. !!!!!!!!!!!!! Likelihoods, not probabilities, *please*. Or are you all unreformed Bayesians out there? Chris Thompson JANET: cet1@uk.ac.cam.phx Internet: cet1%phx.cam.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
gary@dgcad.SV.DG.COM (Gary Bridgewater) (12/21/89)
What the article - in the San Jose Mercury News, anyway - said was that
CalTech scientists say they have observed large scale structures similar
to or suggesting cell/bubble boundaries. These structures seem to be made of
galaxies at extreme distances. The inference being that they are, therefore
very old - too old to have been formed in the time since the Big Bang. Or,
the time for the Big Bang is way, way off which would also pretty much
invalidates current theories.
The article also alludes to the cell-like structures' being similar to another
theory's predictions. (Hyper Inflation?)
There was an illustration which looked not at all like a picture - possibly an
artistic rendering.
More Science by Press Release?
--
Gary Bridgewater, Data General Corporation, Sunnyvale California
gary@proa.sv.dg.com or {amdahl,aeras,amdcad}!dgcad.SV.DG.COM!gary
Shaken but not stirred.