Another Problem With Big Bang?

BeAChooser

Banned
B
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
11,716
I found this article interesting:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/cxc-dmm081607.php "Dark matter mystery deepens in cosmic 'train wreck, Public release date: 16-Aug-2007"

It states that

Astronomers have discovered a chaotic scene unlike any witnessed before in a cosmic “train wreck” between giant galaxy clusters. NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory and optical telescopes revealed a dark matter core that was mostly devoid of galaxies, which may pose problems for current theories of dark matter behavior.
Click to expand...

Then it notes two possible explanations.

Mahdavi and his colleagues have two possible explanations for their findings, both of which are uncomfortable for prevailing theories. The first option is that the galaxies were separated from the dark matter through a complex set of gravitational "slingshots.” This explanation is problematic because computer simulations have not been able to produce slingshots that are nearly powerful enough to cause such a separation.

The second option is that dark matter is affected not only by gravity, but also by an as-yet-unknown interaction between dark matter particles. This exciting alternative would require new physics and could be difficult to reconcile with observations of other galaxies and galaxy clusters, such as the aforementioned Bullet Cluster.
Click to expand...

If the second is what it takes, then the Big Bang menagerie of invisible particles, forces and interactions just keeps growing. :D
 
Strange universe, isn't it? Let's see how it all settles out. Nobody knows exactly what Dark matter is yet anyway.
 
While theories about dark matter are interesting, I can't see anything in that article that actually suggests any problem with the big bang.
 
Cuddles said:
I can't see anything in that article that actually suggests any problem with the big bang.
Click to expand...

Dark matter (along with dark energy, inflation, strings, black holes and other phenomena that may be nothing but mathematical constructs) are the foundations of the current Big Bang theory. If there's a problem with dark matter, there's a significant problem with Big Bang.
 
BeAChooser said:
Dark matter (along with dark energy, inflation, strings, black holes and other phenomena that may be nothing but mathematical constructs) are the foundations of the current Big Bang theory. If there's a problem with dark matter, there's a significant problem with Big Bang.
Click to expand...

Don't get too carried away. Strings, for example (be they cosmic strings or strings as in String Theory) are not at all necessary for the standard cosmological model.
 
Yllanes said:
Strings, for example (be they cosmic strings or strings as in String Theory) are not at all necessary for the standard cosmological model.
Click to expand...

But they are being used to address some of the problems observed with the standard model and domains where the standard models leaves off.

One problem is that the standard model requires lots and lots of parameters. It's VERY complex. Complex is often wrong.

Gravitational forces have not been successfully incorporated in the standard model. String theory is trying to address this.

The standard model describes low energy events but the Big Bang was a high energy event. String theory is an attempt to explain the physics of the Big Bang ... and perhaps what came before it, ASSUMING that it actually occurred.

Strings theory, via the movement of branes, is trying to explain inflation, a key ingredient of the Big Bang.

There is a theory that collisions between branes create Big Bangs.

There are even attempts to explain dark energy as a manifestation of strings.

So I wouldn't say that strings are unnecessary to the Big Bang theory.
 
BeAChooser said:
Or even if it exists.
Click to expand...

But I've seen pitchers!!!1!! :eye-poppi

Seriously, I'm no astronomer or physicist but Phil Plaitt has some pictures up on his weblog that he insists capture DM. Here's one of them.

Please let me know what you think of them. Is he wrong or is it just inconclusive?
 
Someone correct me, if I am wrong, but it seems that Dark Matter was really a work-around to reconcile the differences between what the Big Bang implies, and the observations made about celestrial objects.

If that is true, then a problem-with-dark-matter, once resolved, could actually help explain the Big Bang more accurately, rather than become "another problem" for it.
 
BeAChooser said:
If the second is what it takes, then the Big Bang menagerie of invisible particles, forces and interactions just keeps growing. :D
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but can you explain how this proves problematic for the Big Bang Theory? The theory is not even mentioned in the article, and you do not articulate at all on it. Should I suggest why?
 
BeAChooser said:
So I wouldn't say that strings are unnecessary to the Big Bang theory.
Click to expand...

Cosmic strings and other topological defects such as magnetic monopoles or domain walls are possible explanations for very precise phenomena (ultra high energy cosmic rays, etc.)

You know what string theory is.

None of these things is needed by the current cosmological model, based on general relativity. This model explains with great accuracy everything that happened to the large scale structure of spacetime after the first 10-6 seconds (I don't care about the precise moment, some people are more optimistic and go to smaller fractions of a second). The things you are talking about would explain what happened before that.

When we talk about the Big Bang theory we usually mean what I mentioned in the last paragraph, not the Big Bang itself but what happened since a very short time after it. This is what I meant by the standard cosmological model, which doesn't need topological defects, etc. (but does need dark matter).

If you want to push our understanding beyond to a smaller fraction of a second maybe you need strings or loop quantum cosmology or whatever. But they are not an ingredient of our current theory and certainly not one of the foundations of it.
 
Slimething said:
I'm no astronomer or physicist but Phil Plaitt has some pictures up on his weblog that he insists capture DM. Here's one of them.

Please let me know what you think of them. Is he wrong or is it just inconclusive?
Click to expand...

They didn't actually "observe" DM. They inferred it must exist from some observations they otherwise couldn't explain using what they know about observable matter and gravity. And to explain it, DM has to have some rather amazing properties. And as you can see from what I posted at the start of this thread, even those properties may need to be even more amazing still. :)

It's important to realize that they first inferred the presence of dark matter in our galaxy in order to explain the rotation curve for the stars in our galaxy around its center. But there is another possible explanation in that case besides dark matter. One that the Big Bang community largely ignores. That is the one promoted by plasma cosmologists which can be demonstrated in the lab and in computer models using well understood physics.

The issue in your question is whether gravitational lensing can only be caused by dark matter. Some plasma cosmologists appear to question that notion too. For example, here are a couple sources that discuss alternative explanations and problems with the dark matter lensing notion:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050822lensagain.htm

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=stb9s0ye

If you search around, you can find other discussions.

The examples that are being labeled as "proof of dark matter", such as the colliding galaxy observation by Clowe, make a major assumption ... that all of the baryonic, ordinary matter is in the form of hot plasma or bright stars in galaxies. But most of the mass of galaxies may well be in the form of dwarf stars. Several studies of galaxies have shown that they have ”red halos” that are mostly red dwarfs. Other studies have indicated halos filled with white dwarfs. In addition, there is evidence that a huge amount of mass may be found in relatively cool clouds of plasma.

I guess I believe the verdict is out and what makes me uncomfortable with Big Bang is that one phenomena after another is being explained only via bizarre particles, forces, energies and interactions that we haven't been able to demonstrate or see in a lab here on earth. At this point they are purely mathematical constructs. On the other hand, Plasma Cosmologists have a built a rather interesting theory that seems to explain many if not most of those observations with physics that can be duplicated in the lab. So I guess you will have to decide which you are more comfortable with.

By the way, there's another possible explanation for the lensing observations apparently ... that our theory of gravity is wrong: http://www.physorg.com/news85310822.html In fact, I read that Clowe himself says "I personally would prefer a pure modified gravity solution to the mass discrepancy question."
 
Thanks, BeAChooser, that's a lot of information and you went to a lot of trouble. As for me, I'm still too enthralled with the cosmos in general to really get into the nitty gritty but I do admire those who do. :)
 
strathmeyer said:
I'm sorry, but can you explain how this proves problematic for the Big Bang Theory?
Click to expand...

So you don't think a bunch of particle, forces, interactions and physics that have only been inferred from observations in distant galaxies, and that have not observed or reproduced in our labs is not problematic? What if one could offer an explanation for those observations that does not involve such particles, forces, interactions and physics, but instead is based on physics that has been observed, reproduced and studied in labs here on earth for decades? Maybe we should apply Occam's Razor?
 
Yeah, as others have pointed out, there is a difference between big bang theory and the standard cosmological model. The standard cosmological model is big bang+inflation+dark matter+dark energy. What makes/causes dark matter/energy or drives inflation is up for debate (somewhat), but this simple model describes an enormous amount of phenomena. Big bang describes the state of the early universe, inflation solves other issues, dark matter gives us the correct picture of structure formation, and dark energy...is...well, observationally unavoidable.

Now, the current Hot Topic is trying to figure what the heck dark matter/energy really IS. One possibility: the dark energy is caused by a slowly-rolling scalar field (quintessence, for you fans out there), and it might couple to a dark matter particle via a Yukawa interaction. This would lead to a 5th force among dark matter particles ONLY. Why would we care about this possibility? Well, 5th forces are in principle OBSERVABLE, so by searching for clues to a 5th force we can see if these kinds of ideas are on the right track. Essentially, we like theories that make 5th forces because they are falsifiable!

**begin shameless plug**
It's not like finding 5th forces are easy or anything. We have to look for subtle clues in, say, the evolution of structure, that would differ from the standard picture. Now, if only some forum member were engaged in exactly this sort of research....hrm....

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.2968

Muhahahahahaha!
**end shameless plug**

If we do find strong evidence for a 5th force, it would in no way invalidate big bang theory, but it would modify our picture of the standard cosmological model.

As an interesting aside, Joel Primack has suggested calling it "double dark theory", but I think that's pretty silly.
 
From a page linked to in BeAChooser's link (http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm):

"The 'Deep Impact' mission by NASA produced information that astounded the project cometologists, yet these key findings were predicted by the Thunderbolts group to which author/lecturer Donald Scott belongs."

Hahahahahahahahahaha. Bonus points for spotting the funny bit (and the point where I stopped reading).

Question for BeAChooser: If I were to say enough things, providing enough references and evidence, would you ever decide that the standard cosmological model is the current best way to describe the universe, and that the electric universe is..well...bunk? If you're preparing an essay reponse, note that I only need a yes/no answer.
 
Yllanes said:
the current cosmological model, based on general relativity. This model explains with great accuracy everything that happened to the large scale structure of spacetime after the first 10-6 seconds
Click to expand...

Only by inferring a bunch of forces, particles, energies, interactions and physics that so far no one has actually observed or reproduced in labs here on earth. Inflation, which is an essential part of the Big Bang theory at this time, is nothing more than a mathematical notion. You may claim that COBE proves it but plasma cosmology can also explain the COBE data. String theory is trying to explain how inflation occurred but strings themselves are something that some physicists will also admit may never be observable. They are again nothing more than mathematical abstractions at this point in time.

Yllanes said:
This is what I meant by the standard cosmological model, which doesn't need topological defects, etc. (but does need dark matter).
Click to expand...

Plus dark energy, magnetic monopoles, ubiquitous black holes, and I'm sure I've missed a few other ghosts that Big Bang astronomers have had to introduce to explain observations because of their insistance that gravity explain it all.

Why is it that I can pick almost any current book on the big bang and I will likely find hardly a mention of plasma and electromagnetism? Plasma comprises almost all of the matter in the observable universe and electromagetic fields are everywhere and demonstrably have a very powerful effect on plasmas (in fact, far more than gravity). Plasma cosmologists do not ignore gravity. Why is it that Big Bang cosmologists consistently ignore plasmas and the effect of electromagnetism on them? Is it because they are too invested in their *cool* mathematical ghosts?
 
TV's Frank said:
What makes/causes dark matter/energy or drives inflation is up for debate (somewhat)
Click to expand...

Somewhat? ROTFLOL!

TV's Frank said:
this simple model describes an enormous amount of phenomena.
Click to expand...

So does plasma cosmology. The standard model depends on Big Bang. If Bang Bang is ultimately found to be unreal, then the standard model may be significantly flawed. Perhaps our understanding of matter may have to be revised ... and doing that might open doors we didn't suspect existed. That's why the stakes are high in this game of cosmology.

TV's Frank said:
Big bang describes the state of the early universe
Click to expand...

So does plasma cosmology.

TV's Frank said:
inflation solves other issues
Click to expand...

Inflation is essential to make Big Bang fit the observed data. Without it, Big Bang cosmologists can't explain certain things we actually see out there. And in reality, they have no clue what inflation actually is or what made it happen. It is purely a mathematical construct. That's ALL. Only in Big Bang cosmology is it acceptable to simply make up A to explain B, then claim B proves the existance of A. And then when it turns out that A doesn't fully explain B, make up C and D, and then repeat the circular logic while overlooking the fact that neither A, C or D has ever been observed in the lab. No other area of science works like this.


TV's Frank said:
dark matter gives us the correct picture of structure formation
Click to expand...

Does it? The article at the beginning of this thread suggests the current picture of dark matter isn't right. Why not? The reality is that many observations contradict Big Bang expectations ... hence the many kludges. And for the record, plasma cosmology claims to give us the correct picture of structure formation. It explains the formation of the sun. It explains the formation of galaxies. Why can't it explain what we see as the interactions of galaxies?

TV's Frank said:
dark energy...is...well, observationally unavoidable.
Click to expand...

What can I do but laugh at that statement? Dark energy is needed because without it, Big Bang predicts an age for the universe less than that of stars in our own galaxy. It is just another unobserved mathematical notion.

TV's Frank said:
Now, the current Hot Topic is trying to figure what the heck dark matter/energy really IS.
Click to expand...

Well good luck. But if the explanation involves yet another unobservable, untestable particle, field, interaction or physical principle, what do you do then?

TV's Frank said:
This would lead to a 5th force among dark matter particles ONLY.
Click to expand...

Do you folks ever listen to yourselves? :D
 
TV's Frank said:
Question for BeAChooser: If I were to say enough things, providing enough references and evidence, would you ever decide that the standard cosmological model is the current best way to describe the universe,
Click to expand...

I'll be satisfied if you can tell us what inflation, dark matter, and dark energy are ... besides mathematical constructs (i.e., kludges) to fit observed data.

Tell me, sir ... why do Big Bang proponents think plasma and electromagnetism are not worth mentioning in a universe where what we do see is almost all plasma and where electromagnetic effects are ubiquitous? Let's see you explain the formation of the sun without saying plasma and electromagnetic forces. Let's see you explain the workings of our galaxy without mentioning them. You can't do it. So why do you think you can explain the interactions of galaxies without mentioning them? And if one could explain the interaction of galaxies ... ;)
 
Zep said:
You are having a problem with reality?
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who needs a menagerie of invisible particles and forces with utterly bizarre properties, as well as bizarre events like inflation, to explain what we see out there (i.e., reality). :D
 
BeAChooser said:
I'm not the one who needs a menagerie of invisible particles and forces with utterly bizarre properties, as well as bizarre events like inflation, to explain what we see out there (i.e., reality). :D
Click to expand...
Indeed not! All you seem to need is an imaginary, petulant, self-important sky-daddy with an ugly temper and no consistent plan to magically woof stuff into being in the wrong order, including himself.

Yep, that's really scientific, that is! :D

Just because you don't understand a subject doesn't make the information you read on it nonsense. That sort of thinking powers fundies of all sorts in this world - they are ugly, sad, ignorant and often violent people. You don't want to align yourself with them, now, do you?
 
BeAChooser said:
Yllanes said:
This model explains with great accuracy everything that happened to the large scale structure of spacetime after the first 10-6 seconds
Click to expand...
Only by inferring a bunch of forces, particles, energies, interactions and physics that so far no one has actually observed or reproduced in labs here on earth. Inflation, which is an essential part of the Big Bang theory at this time, is nothing more than a mathematical notion.
Click to expand...

The inflation was before that. As I said, exotic theories may be needed for that period, but after the first 10-6 s you don't need any of that. I don't claim we understand the inflation, I'm being conservative.
 
Dark matter is affected by gravity, but not by the other fundamental forces. That's why we can only infer its presence by the gravitational effect it has, we have no other way of detecting it. But since it is reasonable to presume that it exists, and baryonic matter is affected by forces which do not affect dark matter, how hard is it to imagine that dark matter could well be affected by forces that do not affect baryonic matter?

Having said that, I'd like to see how MOND copes with this interesting phenomenon.
 
BeAChooser said:
I'll be satisfied if you can tell us what inflation, dark matter, and dark energy are ... besides mathematical constructs (i.e., kludges) to fit observed data.

Tell me, sir ... why do Big Bang proponents think plasma and electromagnetism are not worth mentioning in a universe where what we do see is almost all plasma and where electromagnetic effects are ubiquitous? Let's see you explain the formation of the sun without saying plasma and electromagnetic forces. Let's see you explain the workings of our galaxy without mentioning them. You can't do it. So why do you think you can explain the interactions of galaxies without mentioning them? And if one could explain the interaction of galaxies ... ;)
Click to expand...


I think it is the way that things work.

The biggest kludge is the VanderHooft (I may misremember the name) canceling of infinities, however it provides solutions to particle physics.

And as far as the big bang event, it is a theory. It is currently the theory that approximates the behavior of reality rather well. If there are competing theories that is great, that is the way science works. When the plasma cosmology makes a prediction that matches the data better than the current theory, then it will become the standard theory.

That is the way science works.

There is a crucial point that I always drive around, science is a method for testing which theories approximate the behavior of the universe the best, and it is not a tool for deriving the ultimate answer.

So the extra particles (and I am curious which ones you feel haven't been observed?) are based upon the way the theory seems to work out. When Gell-Mann predicted the resonances they weren't observed, now they are.

There sure were plenty of other theories at the time. It just happens that his made the most accurate approximation.

So there are other competing theories to the BBM, so? When they have the best fit to observation then they will become the standard model. That is the way it works.

So the BBM may fall it may not.
 
By the way, in case someone hasn't heard of it, here's a Wikipedia article on plasma cosmology. Basically, it is a theory that when first proposed could have some interest, because at that time cosmology was almost devoid of precise observations. Nowadays, we have very good observations and a qualitative picture such as that provided by plasma cosmology is not enough. We need quantitative predictions to match the accuracy of the observations. Big Bang cosmology survives and plasma cosmology doesn't.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology
Alfvén's models do not provide any predictions that can account for any cosmological observations including Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements, or the existence of the cosmic microwave background
…..
Although no plasma cosmology proposal explaining the cosmic microwave background radiation has been published since COBE results were announced, explanations relying on integrated starlight do not provide any indication of how to explain the observed angular power spectrum of one part in 105 CMB anisotropies. The sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of these anisotropies was greatly advanced by WMAP
and was subsequently heralded as a major confirmation of the Big Bang to the detriment of alternatives
Click to expand...

It does not appear that plasma cosmology has yet been refined to explain certain observations, although it certainly could be. Baryon assymetry is way cool!

Wow Yllanes, we did the same thing, wierd.
 
I don't know why BeAChooser keeps going on about how cosmologists "ignore" plasma physics. Plasma physics plays a large role in cosmology, from the Cosmic Microwave Background to Baryon Acoustic Oscillations to Reionization to First Stars to Active Galatic Nuclei Jets/Bubbles to galaxy disk formation to....you get the idea. The universe contains a whole lot of physics, but at large scales everything is dominated by gravity.

Plasma cosmology is hampered by two things: it's inability to make predicitons that match observations (see the wikipedia article), and the fact that there just aren't any large-scale electric fields! None! Nada! There are tons of electric fields out there, but no big ones. Sorry!

ETA: And by "large-scale" I mean cosmological scale: of the order of the Hubble length, or at least cluster-sized.
 
Last edited:
Zep said:
Just because you don't understand a subject doesn't make the information you read on it nonsense.
Click to expand...

I notice that you haven't even attempted to dispute any of the facts I mentioned. All you've done is just claim victory. Is that going to be typical of *debates* with you? :D

If you want to have an honest discussion of the subject, I'll be more than happy to cooperate but if this is going to be typical of your offerings, you will probably just be ignored.

I tell you what ... I'll give you another chance to dialog.

If 99% of the matter in the observed universe consists of plasmas which respond to electromagnetic forces and electromagnetic forces have been observed everywhere we've looked in the universe, and they are vastly stronger than gravity forces, why do you think that electromagnetic forces have played no role in the formation and operation of galaxies or the interactions between galaxies? That certainly seems to be what the Big Bang Astronomers are saying since they hardly ever mention electric plasmas and electric forces in anything they write. :D
 
Yllanes said:
The inflation was before that.
Click to expand...

Don't get hung up on this time thing you have. The fact is that inflation is an essential part of the Big Bang theory. Without it, certain fundamental observations simply cannot be explained by Big Bang proponents. Yet you can't tell us what physics was involved in inflation ... i.e., what caused it. So is belief in inflation science or magic?
 
BeAChooser said:
If 99% of the matter in the observed universe consists of plasmas
Click to expand...

99% of the visible matter.

which respond to electromagnetic forces and electromagnetic forces have been observed everywhere we've looked in the universe, and they are vastly stronger than gravity forces, why do you think that electromagnetic forces have played no role in the formation and operation of galaxies or the interactions between galaxies?
Click to expand...

Because matter is neutral. There are no large scale EM fields, as TV's Frank said. The intergalactic magnetic field is of the order of the microgauss and consists of random clusters of no more than 1 MPc. At larger scales (cosmological scales) there is no discernible EM field.
 
BeAChooser said:
Don't get hung up on this time thing you have. The fact is that inflation is an essential part of the Big Bang theory. Without it, certain fundamental observations simply cannot be explained by Big Bang proponents. Yet you can't tell us what physics was involved in inflation ... i.e., what caused it. So is belief in inflation science or magic?
Click to expand...

It's needed to explain how we got to that time, not so much for what happened afterwards. Big Bang cosmology works after that time, plasma cosmology doesn't.

Also, on the plasma thing: have you heard the terms 'quasineutral' and 'Debye length'?
 
Last edited:
wollery said:
Dark matter is affected by gravity, but not by the other fundamental forces.
Click to expand...

How utterly BIZARRE. It's almost like magic powder!

wollery said:
But since it is reasonable to presume that it exists
Click to expand...

Why is it reasonable if other more mundane explanations for phenomena it is said to explain exist? Take the rotation curve data I mentioned earlier. Plasma cosmologists have an explanation that doesn't involve this mysterious dark matter, that involves physics that we have immense experience with over the last hundred years, that involves physics we can (and have) demonstrated in the lab as producing such a rotation curve. Yet read any Big Bang astronomy book and you find no mention of this. Why is that reasonable?
 
BeAChooser said:
How utterly BIZARRE. It's almost like magic powder!



Why is it reasonable if other more mundane explanations for phenomena it is said to explain exist? Take the rotation curve data I mentioned earlier. Plasma cosmologists have an explanation that doesn't involve this mysterious dark matter, that involves physics that we have immense experience with over the last hundred years, that involves physics we can (and have) demonstrated in the lab as producing such a rotation curve. Yet read any Big Bang astronomy book and you find no mention of this. Why is that reasonable?
Click to expand...
Does plasma physics explain all galaxy rotation curves? If not then it fails as a theory in that regard.
 
BeAChooser said:
Plasma cosmologists have an explanation that doesn't involve this mysterious dark matter, that involves physics that we have immense experience with over the last hundred years, that involves physics we can (and have) demonstrated in the lab as producing such a rotation curve.
Click to expand...
Does it involve any actual math?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom