Hoyle-Narlikar Theory

Dancing David

Penultimate Amazing
Dancing David
Joined
Mar 26, 2003
Messages
39,700
Location
central Illinois
Since a large amount of Arp's ejected QSOs theory rests on the idea that Narlikar somehow said that general relativity has a solution which allows for a quasi-steady state universe and objects that aquire mass and have an intrinsic redshift:

I have to ask, would not this show up in all sorts of ways and all sorts of places, and not just in the redshift of objects?

Would not a changing constant for G have some visible impact on the universe that we can observe?

Does it do away with singularities?

Thanks.
 
Dancing David said:
I have to ask, would not this show up in all sorts of ways and all sorts of places, and not just in the redshift of objects?

Would not a changing constant for G have some visible impact on the universe that we can observe?

Does it do away with singularities?
Click to expand...

David ... I'm puzzled why you ask these question, as the answers were previously discussed on threads where you were present. As was pointed out, Narlikar maintains his cosmology keeps all the successes of general relativity, but eliminates the *need* for singularities, inflation, dark matter and dark energy.

http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/na/Narlikar contains a number of Narlikar's papers. The first one in the list,

Cosmology and Cosmogony in a Cyclic Universe
Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge and R. G. Vishwakarma
Abstract*|*Full text*|*References*|*Citations **arXiv:0801.2965 (January 2008)
Click to expand...

is quite recent and interesting reading. It explains the theory in some detail. So is this one:

Modeling Repulsive Gravity with Creation
R. G. Vishwakarma and J. V. Narlikar
Abstract*|*Full text*|*References*|*Citations **arXiv:0705.0544 (May 2007)
Click to expand...

And David ... you might like this one:

Comparison of cosmological models using Bayesian theory
Moncy V. John and J. V. Narlikar
Abstract*|*Full text*|*References*|*Citations **astro-ph/0111122 (November 2001)
Click to expand...

Finally, note that in addition to Narlikar/Hoyle's theory, there are other theories that posit the creation of mass over time and thus have much the same effect. Self Creation Cosmology (SCC) theory in particular says mass is not constant over time and can be created by mass concentrations. The original SCC paper appeared in 1982 by G.A. Barber. According to http://toolhost.com/Non-standard_cosmology.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-creation_cosmology, "The latest version of the theory is conformally equivalent to canonical GR in vacuo so that test particles follow the geodesics of GR in solar system experiments." They state that SCC theory "does not require unknown dark energy, or exotic dark matter, to be concordant with present cosmological constraints. In particular, as an example of a freely coasting model, in which the universe expands strictly linearly with time, SCC clears basic constraints on nucleosynthesis." And that "in the Jordan conformal frame of the theory the cosmological solution is closed, static, eternal and singularity free. In this frame rulers 'shrink' and atomic clocks 'speed up' as their atoms exponentially gain mass with cosmological time. ... snip ... Finally, SCC predicts a cosmological 'clock-slip' between atomic clock time and ephemeris time. Consequentially, distant spacecraft should appear to suffer a sunwards acceleration equal to cH, as indeed seems to be observed in the Pioneer anomaly."
 
DDavid,

Perhaps a better thread would have been "intrinsic redshift theories"?

I will have to try to read more of the Narlikar papers that BAC posts.

However, I have recently seen some interesting papers about "plasma redshift" that is touted to account for any numbers of things, including intrinsic redshifts of QSO's and galaxies.

For example:http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420
 
Dancing David said:
Since a large amount of Arp's ejected QSOs theory rests on the idea that Narlikar somehow said that general relativity has a solution which allows for a quasi-steady state universe and objects that aquire mass and have an intrinsic redshift:

I have to ask, would not this show up in all sorts of ways and all sorts of places, and not just in the redshift of objects?

Would not a changing constant for G have some visible impact on the universe that we can observe?

Does it do away with singularities?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Hi David. I read the Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge and R. G. Vishwakarma paper and it does do away with singularities. The C-field energy tensor that it introduces causes the collapse of massive bodies to bounce back (see the text starting on page 10). There is a couple of assumptions that they make around equation 16 ending in the statement "In such circumstances black holes do not form".

I did not see that G changes in this theory.
 
BAC, I will read those papers and probably not understand very much, what observations do they predict?

I know that the redshifts are one, should there not be a host of others that should be observable? What could we see in high energy physics?
 
Reality Check said:
Hi David. I read the Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge and R. G. Vishwakarma paper and it does do away with singularities. The C-field energy tensor that it introduces causes the collapse of massive bodies to bounce back (see the text starting on page 10). There is a couple of assumptions that they make around equation 16 ending in the statement "In such circumstances black holes do not form".

I did not see that G changes in this theory.
Click to expand...

I don't get most of the math in these things, I am but a baby who barely gets calculus.

http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#Hoyle-Narlikartheory

makes reference to the G change

this one makes reference to the negative mass possibility

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0080-4630(19650720)286:1406<313:OTHTOG>2.0.CO;2-N

this one talks about negative inertia and possibe negative G

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/4/4/012

And while I can pretend to know what this might mean, i can't say that I really do.
 
Okay Bac:

This one will defintily make me aware of being human:
http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/na/Narlikar/1

In this paper we discuss the properties of the quasi-steady state cosmological model (QSSC) developed in 1993 in its role as a cyclic model of the universe driven by a negative energy scalar field. We discuss the origin of such a scalar field in the primary creation process first described by F. Hoyle and J. V. Narlikar forty years ago. It is shown that the creation processes which takes place in the nuclei of galaxies are closely linked to the high energy and explosive phenomena, which are commonly observed in galaxies at all redshifts. The cyclic nature of the universe provides a natural link between the places of origin of the microwave background radiation (arising in hydrogen burning in stars), and the origin of the lightest nuclei
Click to expand...


it will be like reading a foreign language, I will reconise the words but not get the meaning.

Does this allege to show the black body spectrum that Ziggurat said was a crucial part of the current model?

origin of the microwave background radiation (arising in hydrogen burning in stars)
Click to expand...

As usual I don't ask because I am fighting but because I really would like to know.
 
Wangler said:
DDavid,

Perhaps a better thread would have been "intrinsic redshift theories"?

I will have to try to read more of the Narlikar papers that BAC posts.

However, I have recently seen some interesting papers about "plasma redshift" that is touted to account for any numbers of things, including intrinsic redshifts of QSO's and galaxies.

For example:http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401420
Click to expand...
.
I'm not sure if there is anything more to 'plasma redshift' than the one or two Ari Brynjolfsson preprints, if you know of any, perhaps you could mention them?

In any case, Ari Brynjolfsson has been trying for quite some time to get his ideas published, but has, so far, failed. While his main paper is very long (68 pages?), you don't have to read too much of it to see why he's having difficulty getting it published - the physics is just as bad as any of the 'alternatives' that have been proposed/promoted in this very forum these last few weeks (Null Physics, for example).
 
BeAChooser said:
(parts omitted)

Finally, note that in addition to Narlikar/Hoyle's theory, there are other theories that posit the creation of mass over time and thus have much the same effect. Self Creation Cosmology (SCC) theory in particular says mass is not constant over time and can be created by mass concentrations. The original SCC paper appeared in 1982 by G.A. Barber. According to http://toolhost.com/Non-standard_cosmology.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-creation_cosmology, "The latest version of the theory is conformally equivalent to canonical GR in vacuo so that test particles follow the geodesics of GR in solar system experiments." They state that SCC theory "does not require unknown dark energy, or exotic dark matter, to be concordant with present cosmological constraints. In particular, as an example of a freely coasting model, in which the universe expands strictly linearly with time, SCC clears basic constraints on nucleosynthesis." And that "in the Jordan conformal frame of the theory the cosmological solution is closed, static, eternal and singularity free. In this frame rulers 'shrink' and atomic clocks 'speed up' as their atoms exponentially gain mass with cosmological time. ... snip ... Finally, SCC predicts a cosmological 'clock-slip' between atomic clock time and ephemeris time. Consequentially, distant spacecraft should appear to suffer a sunwards acceleration equal to cH, as indeed seems to be observed in the Pioneer anomaly."
Click to expand...
.

There are quite a lot of alternatives to GR in preprints in the gr-qc part of arXiv, including SCC and variations on Narlikar-Hoyle. If you read some of these, you'll see that papers on any alternative that is developed beyond the simple 'internal consistency' stage will include at least outlines of how the ideas could be tested.

One test that was much discussed was GPB (Gravity Probe B); now that the initial results are in, many alternatives to GR have been abandoned.

Garth Barber's SCC was one such casualty (there's a long thread in PhysicsForums on it, started by Garth), though he may have patched it up since. SCC also had problems with banishing CDM from rich clusters, just as MOND (and derivatives) do; I think he solved it by postulating a huge population of intermediate mass black holes (trillions per cluster?) which got created between the surface of last scattering and z ~ 6.

If I remember correctly, one key reason why Narlikar-Hoyle alternatives have little traction today is their inability to account for the CMB, in particular the angular power spectrum; also, perhaps, the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect; SCC has no difficulty here as the CMB is, to all intents and purposes, the same as in 'the Big Bang Theory'.

In any case, apart from Narlikar-Hoyle, I don't think there are any 'eternal creation' ideas left (not counting multiverses, etc), certainly SCC is just like standard LCDM models (the universe it tracks starts as hot and dense).
 
DeiRenDopa said:
.If I remember correctly, one key reason why Narlikar-Hoyle alternatives have little traction today is their inability to account for the CMB, in particular the angular power spectrum
Click to expand...

I am about halfway through the big Narlilkar et. al. paper, the one pre-printed earlier this year.

I may be mistaken, but I thought they showed a CMB power spectrum plot that showed a reasonable fit of their theory to the WMAP results, with the caveat that they did not count some of the end points of the WMAP data set, due to them being less accurate, apparently.

So, if additional data is collected that would firm up these areas of the CMB spectrum, their theory would face a good test.

So far, from what I have read, one of their biggest issues appears to be sort of run of the mill-the metallicity of our galaxy. It doesn't seem to jive with their theory very well, because they are using stellar fusion to create the CMB, implying that there should be more metallic elements in our galaxy by now.

They brush over that, saying that this problem is solvable, and their busting through the issue is compared to large assumptions made about early stars in BBT.
 
Wangler said:
I am about halfway through the big Narlilkar et. al. paper, the one pre-printed earlier this year.

I may be mistaken, but I thought they showed a CMB power spectrum plot that showed a reasonable fit of their theory to the WMAP results, with the caveat that they did not count some of the end points of the WMAP data set, due to them being less accurate, apparently.

So, if additional data is collected that would firm up these areas of the CMB spectrum, their theory would face a good test.

So far, from what I have read, one of their biggest issues appears to be sort of run of the mill-the metallicity of our galaxy. It doesn't seem to jive with their theory very well, because they are using stellar fusion to create the CMB, implying that there should be more metallic elements in our galaxy by now.

They brush over that, saying that this problem is solvable, and their busting through the issue is compared to large assumptions made about early stars in BBT.
Click to expand...
.

Indeed, it seems I mis-remembered (or that QSSC has developed some since I last read it).

One curious omission re the mechanism for producing the CMB in this model: where are the 'metallic whisker shaped grains condensed from supernova ejecta'?

Another shortcoming: MACHO, OGLE, etc constraints on MACHOs in our galaxy's halo (QSSC requires the halo 'dark mass' to be burnt out stars, which are exactly the type of MACHO which MACHO and OGLE etc were designed to find).

And the two points I raised in the other thread, several times, seem to rate no mention at all: an absence of 'light' protons in cosmic rays, and no x-ray or radio (or IR, or ...) wakes around the 'ejected quasars'.

Too, the (LCDM models') consistent conclusions from both weakly and strongly lenses quasars are waved away, I wonder why?

QSSC apparently does not, pace BeAChooser, make testable predictions re both alignments and redshift quantisation ... so no matter how much data on quasar and galaxy distributions you get, with or without redshifts, such data cannot, even in principle, be used to rule out QSSC.

Several (other) possible tests were not mentioned, for example:

* proper motion of quasars; for example, at least a good subset of those 'ejected by M82' should have proper motions that will be unambiguously detectable within the next decade or so

* space motion of galaxies: there are already some estimates of these for our galaxy's satellites; within the next decade or so they should be detectable for most of the galaxies in the Local Group; in QSSC, groups such as the Local Group are expanding/exploding, and estimates of their space motions should be able to test the idea.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
(part omitted)

Another shortcoming: MACHO, OGLE, etc constraints on MACHOs in our galaxy's halo (QSSC requires the halo 'dark mass' to be burnt out stars, which are exactly the type of MACHO which MACHO and OGLE etc were designed to find).

(rest also omitted)
Click to expand...
.
Quoting myself ... here is a very recent paper that is quite relevant to Narlikar et al., re MACHOs: The contribution of red dwarfs and white dwarfs to the halo dark matter (bolding added):
The nature of the several microlensing events observed by the MACHO team towards the LMC still remains controversial. Low-mass substellar objects and stars with masses larger than ~1 M_{sun} have been ruled out as major components of a MACHO galactic halo, while stars of half solar masses are the most probable candidates. In this paper we assess jointly the relative contributions of both red dwarfs and white dwarfs to the mass budget of the galactic halo. In doing so we use a Monte Carlo simulator which incorporates up-to-date evolutionary sequences of both red dwarfs and white dwarfs as well as detailed descriptions of our Galaxy and of the LMC. We explore the complete mass range between 0.08 and 1 M_{sun} as possible microlensing candidates and we compare the synthetic populations obtained with our simulator with the results obtained by the MACHO and EROS experiments. Our results indicate that, despite that the contribution of the red dwarf population increases by a factor of 2 the value of the optical depth obtained when taking into account the white dwarf population alone, it is still insufficient to explain the number of events claimed by the MACHO team. Finally, we find that the contribution to the halo dark matter of the whole population under study is smaller than 10% at the 95% conficence level.
Click to expand...
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Finally, we find that the contribution to the halo dark matter of the whole population under study is smaller than 10% at the 95% conficence level.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I imagine they are only considering the population that would be due to the current universe age according to BBT.

If we are talking QSSC, given the CMB and other evidence, we are clearly not in the first cycle.

So, there should be quite a few of these small <Msun stars out there; the paper talks about supposed populations, but they are considering a "single cycle" Big Bang universe.

If we are in cycle 324, for example, their population Monte Carlo may have been based upon the wrong initial conditions. Maybe a Monte Carlo with QSSC assumptions for the population will account for all of the observed events?
 
Last edited:
Wangler said:
Ahh, I imagine they are only considering the population that would be due to the current universe age according to BBT.

If we are talking QSSC, given the CMB and other evidence, we are clearly not in the first cycle.

So, there should be quite a few of these small <Msun stars out there; the paper talks about supposed populations, but they are considering a "single cycle" Big Bang universe.

If we are in cycle 324, for example, their population Monte Carlo may have been based upon the wrong initial conditions. Maybe a Monte Carlo with QSSC assumptions for the population will account for all of the observed events?
Click to expand...
.
OK, I'll bite ... can you explain just how, in any significant way, the number of cycles the universe may, or may not, have gone through affects this paper's main conclusions?

I mean, what's being studied is estimates of red and white dwarf populations as contributors to observed microlensing events ... how the halo population of MACHOs came to be either is irrelevant, surely?
 
I have found a possible problem with this theory.
Black holes always gain mass except for the minor effect of Hawking radiation. If they are the source of mini-creation events where matter is created near them then they will gain mass even faster since some of that mass will fall into them. Given a universe that has always existed then black holes have an infinite mass and size.
This is fairly obvious so I suspect that it has been addressed before. I would be interested in the resolution.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
.
OK, I'll bite ... can you explain just how, in any significant way, the number of cycles the universe may, or may not, have gone through affects this paper's main conclusions?

I mean, what's being studied is estimates of red and white dwarf populations as contributors to observed microlensing events ... how the halo population of MACHOs came to be either is irrelevant, surely?
Click to expand...

Alright, got one on the hook; gotta play 'em carefully.......

The paper you linked uses as a basis for it's estimation of the halo population two primary things: various mass functions and stellar evolution models.

The mass fuctions are assuming a galactic density that is based upon standard model galactic evolution.

The stellar evolution models are considering only the possible stellear evolution contributions from the stellar components of our galaxy as it has evolved in the standard model.

A quote from the paper, with my bolding added:

The main sequence mass is obtained by drawing a pseudo–
random number according to the adopted initial mass function.
The time at which a star was born is randomly choosen, previously
assuming that the halo was formed 14 Gyr ago in an
intense burst of star formation of duration ∼ 1 Gyr.
Click to expand...

In the QSSC, there are dark massive objects in the galactic neighborhood that have certainly been here longer than 14 Gyr.

So, if we assume the cycle time is on the order of 14 Gyr, and if their estimates account for 10% of MACHO events, I state:

We probably are in the 10th or 11th cycle.


Somebody get me the net ....... :D
 
Reality Check said:
I have found a possible problem with this theory.
Black holes always gain mass except for the minor effect of Hawking radiation. If they are the source of mini-creation events where matter is created near them then they will gain mass even faster since some of that mass will fall into them. Given a universe that has always existed then black holes have an infinite mass and size.
This is fairly obvious so I suspect that it has been addressed before. I would be interested in the resolution.
Click to expand...

Again, I have only read half of their paper, but the C-field "bounce-back" prevents this from occurring, I think.

What I am curious about (and probably need to read the paper again) is when a black hole can actually be created...they mention them in their paper, but I don't recall any comments like:

"As we have shown, the C-field "bounce-back" prevents the final collapse to a singularity, except on Tuesdays".
 
Wangler said:
Alright, got one on the hook; gotta play 'em carefully.......

The paper you linked uses as a basis for it's estimation of the halo population two primary things: various mass functions and stellar evolution models.

The mass fuctions are assuming a galactic density that is based upon standard model galactic evolution.

The stellar evolution models are considering only the possible stellear evolution contributions from the stellar components of our galaxy as it has evolved in the standard model.

A quote from the paper, with my bolding added:



In the QSSC, there are dark massive objects in the galactic neighborhood that have certainly been here longer than 14 Gyr.

So, if we assume the cycle time is on the order of 14 Gyr, and if their estimates account for 10% of MACHO events, I state:

We probably are in the 10th or 11th cycle.


Somebody get me the net ....... :D
Click to expand...
.

Um, ah, OK, ... I guess ...

But wait! There's more!!

Are you saying that in QSSC stellar evolution proceeds differently than in standard astrophysics? That solar/stellar models are all wrong? That stars form, from ... whatever, with a different initial mass function (IMF, not to be confused with the institution that holds lots of gold) than in standard theory? That ...

If so, then:

* why are there, apparently, no stars older than ~13 billion years?

* where are the stars which do not conform to standard astrophysical theory?

* where are the QSSC stellar evolution models?

* what, in QSSC, is the IMF?

* where are all the end products of these earlier cycles, the (presumably) great numbers of white dwarfs for example?

and so on ...
 
From the Jayant V. Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge and R. G. Vishwakarma paper:
What happens to such a collapsing object containing a C-field apart from ordinary matter? We argue that such an object does not become a black hole. Instead, the collapse of the object is halted and the object bounces back, thanks to the effect of the C-field. We will refer to such an object as a compact massive object (CMO)or a near-black hole (NBH). In the following section we discuss the problem of gravitational collapse of a dust ball with and without the C-field to illustrate this difference.
Click to expand...
This is the last bit in a section where they argue that there will be creation of matter (mini-creation event - MCE) near compact massive bodies. Near-black holes (NBH) are then sufficient for MCE.

Thus the theory predicts that there will be NBH formed, that they act like black holes and that close to massive NBH there will be MCE sparked by incoming bosons (see page 13 of the paper) creating new matter.

Consider a Hoyle-Narlikar universe that just consists of one NBH that is big enough to have matter being created around it by MCE (there will have to be a seeding boson to start off the MCE). Some of the matter will fall into the NBH. The NBH will become more massive. This will increase the number of MCE. The rate of matter being created will increase. The rate of matter falling into the NBH will increase. The NBH will become more massive even faster. We now have a feedback loop in which the NBH keeps on getting more massive and the rate of matter creation keeps on increasing. There is no limit that I can see for this. Therefore a real universe that contains even one NBH will eventually be dominated by that NBH. Add in an infinite amount of time (no beginning to the universe) then the NBH will have an infinite mass and there will be an infinite rate of matter creation.
 
Do they argue that their theory can prevent black holes from forming, ever?

If so I can falsify that immediately. Roughly, black holes form when the mass/energy M in a region of size R satisfies GM>R (G is Newton's constant). Now imagine a thin spherical shell of light collapsing on a point at the center of the shell. At some time the radius of the shell will satisfy the above relation (M is the total energy in the shell). Because of spherical symmetry and causality, the spacetime at a point inside the shell is not affected by it at all until the light actually reaches that point. It is impossible for anything inside the shell to know about its impending doom.

Therefore nothing can act to slow the shell down, and there cannot be any dynamics in the theory which prevent the shell from crossing R. Therefore a black hole horizon forms before the shell gets there, and a little later a singularity forms at the center.

This is a useful argument, because it falsifies a number of crackpot theories about black holes. The only way to avoid it is if either the theory is acausal and non-local or if it is non-linear in a way completely different from general relativity (so that black holes don't exist as solutions at all).
 
Last edited:
Add in an infinite amount of time (no beginning to the universe) then the NBH will have an infinite mass and there will be an infinite rate of matter creation.
...
What happens then is anyone's guess. But it would certainly be noticeable to the inhabitants of the universe (i.e. us). My guess is that rest of the universe gets sucked into the NBH.

IMHO The existence of black holes causes problems for any steady-state (quasi or not) cosmological theory. If a black hole exists for an infinite amount of time then it will absorb an infinite amount of matter. It's gravitational force will then be infinite. What happens to the rest of the universe? I guess you could get around it by assuming that the universe is infinite in extent and there is room for an infinite number of infinitely massive black holes.
 
sol invictus said:
Do they argue that their theory can prevent black holes from forming, ever?

If so I can falsify that immediately. Roughly, black holes form when the mass/energy M in a region of size R satisfies GM>R (G is Newton's constant). Now imagine a thin spherical shell of light collapsing on a point at the center of the shell. At some time the radius of the shell will satisfy the above relation (M is the total energy in the shell). Because of spherical symmetry and causality, the spacetime at a point inside the shell is not affected by it at all until the light actually reaches that point. It is impossible for anything inside the shell to know about its impending doom.

Therefore nothing can act to slow the shell down, and there cannot be any dynamics in the theory which prevent the shell from crossing R. Therefore a black hole horizon forms before the shell gets there, and a little later a singularity forms at the center.

This is a useful argument, because it falsifies a number of crackpot theories about black holes. The only way to avoid it is if either the theory is acausal and non-local or if it is non-linear in a way completely different from general relativity (so that black holes don't exist as solutions at all).
Click to expand...


The paper looks at the gravitational collapse of a dust ball and states that when an ambient C-field is added to the solution of B. Datt (1938) then
It is immediately clear that in these modified circumstances a(t) cannot reach zero, the spacetime singularity is averted and the ball bounces at a minimum value amin > 0, of the function a(t).​
Click to expand...
​
a(t) is a time varient scale factor.
 
sol invictus said:
Because of spherical symmetry and causality, the spacetime at a point inside the shell is not affected by it at all until the light actually reaches that point. It is impossible for anything inside the shell to know about its impending doom.

.................

Therefore a black hole horizon forms before the shell gets there, and a little later a singularity forms at the center.
Click to expand...

Arrghh, I thought that black holes were relatively simple, but I am having trouble reconciling the two statements of Sol's, shown above.

If it is impossible for anything inside the shell to know about it's impending doom, then they cannot perform the calculations that would say whether there is a black hole or not? Or they can't know for certain, never mind abstract calculations.

Does that mean it would be impossible for us to know if the entire universe is a black hole?

Or, does Sol's description special because he is speaking about a sphere of collapsing light, not dust like Narlikar and Burbidge are talking about?
 
Reality Check said:
The paper looks at the gravitational collapse of a dust ball and states that when an ambient C-field is added to the solution of B. Datt (1938) then
[/LEFT]
a(t) is a time varient scale factor.
Click to expand...

Well, I think that's impossible. I'll have a look when I get a chance.

Wangler said:
If it is impossible for anything inside the shell to know about it's impending doom, then they cannot perform the calculations that would say whether there is a black hole or not? Or they can't know for certain, never mind abstract calculations.
Click to expand...

They cannot know - that's correct.

Does that mean it would be impossible for us to know if the entire universe is a black hole?
Click to expand...

It's impossible for us to know if we are inside a giant black hole, yes, that's correct. Actually in a sense a universe that crunches is like that, and we cannot and do not know whether the universe will crunch in the future.

Or, does Sol's description special because he is speaking about a sphere of collapsing light, not dust like Narlikar and Burbidge are talking about?
Click to expand...

No, it works the same way for dust.
 
sol invictus said:
Well, I think that's impossible. I'll have a look when I get a chance.
Click to expand...

Sol,

I would value your opinion regarding their solution including the C-field.

It seems strange that they just "add something to the right hand side of the equation", and bingo, black holes disappear.

However, they (and you) know alot more about GR than do I.

I guess that it is similar to the cosmological constant, just a different type of field?
 
Reality Check said:
The paper looks at the gravitational collapse of a dust ball...
Click to expand...

Well, OK - I said the theory needed to be local and causal for my argument to go through. This theory is neither, nor is it self-consistent.

The C field they add is what's called a ghost - it has a negative kinetic term. Imagine for a moment a massive particle, but with the sign of the kinetic energy reversed. Such a particle obeys a conservation law -(1/2)mv^2 + V(x) = E, where E is the energy and V(x) is the potential energy. So the particle can increase its velocity while increasing its potential energy. For example, if you start of near a star at rest (so with negative total energy), rather than falling into the star, you will accelerate away from it. So there's a kind of repulsive gravity, and that's what they're relying on to prevent black holes from forming.

There is only one small little problem with that. Because the kinetic energy is negative, the particles propagate along spacelike geodesics - that is, they move faster than light. In a relativistic theory that means they move back in time, thus destroying the sequence of cause and effect. That's bad.

Moreover, we do not live in a world described by classical physics and we must worry about QM. Consider what would happen if two such particles appeared out of the vacuum. Normally, the positive kinetic energy means there is a negative potential which pulls them back together. But negative kinetic energy means they repel each other, leading to a runaway solution.

So this model is dead from the very start.
 
A good experimental test of a cosmological theory is whether it can reproduce the cosmic microwave background (CMB) thermal anisotropy.

The latest paper on the Hoyle-Narlikar theory does include a calculation of the power spectrum of the CMB thermal anisotropy and a plot of the fit to the WMAP three year data. The authors though drop three data points
For the actual fitting, we consider the WMAP-three year data release Spergel, et al, 2006). The data for the mean value of TT power spectrum have been binned into 39 bins in multipole space. We find that the earlier fit (Narlikar, et al, 2003) of the model is worsened when we consider the new data, giving chi-squared= 129.6 at 33 degrees of freedom. However, we should note that while the new data set (WMAP-three year) has generally increased its accuracy, compared with the WMAP-one year observations, for l ≤ 700, the observations for higher l do not seem to agree. This is clear from Figure 1 where we have shown these two observations simultaneously. If we exclude the last three points from the fit, we can have a satisfactory fit giving chi-squared= 83.6 for the best-fitting parameters A1 = 890.439±26.270, A2 = 2402543.93± 3110688.86, A3 = 0.123 ± 0.033, alpha-2 = 0.010 ± 0.0001, alpha-3 = 0.004 ± 0.000004 and gamma = 3.645 ± 0.206, We shall see in the following that the standard cosmology also supplies a similar fit to the data. It should be noted that the above mentioned parameters in the QSSC can be related to the physical dimensions of the sources of inhomogeneities along the lines of Narlikar et al (2003) and are within the broad range of values expected from the physics of the processes.
Click to expand...


So I went looking further and found the following critique of the Steady State and Quasi-SS models - scroll to the bottom to see that the fit should have included all WMAP data points (and other surveys). The relevant statement is
The plot above shows this fit: the ΛCDM model in green fits all the data very well, while the QSSC model in orange fits rather poorly. There is a difference in χ2 of 516.3 between the two models, which both have 6 free parameters. Narlikar et al. chose the CMB angular power spectrum as the one and only plot in their paper, but their model does not fit the WMAP three year data nor does it fit the CBI and ACBAR data that were already published. It is very clear that the QSSC CMB angular power spectrum model proposed by Narlikar et al. does not fit the CMB data.
Click to expand...


Another nail in the coffin of the Hoyle-Narlikar theory.
 
Reality Check said:
A good experimental test of a cosmological theory is whether it can reproduce the cosmic microwave background (CMB) thermal anisotropy.

The latest paper on the Hoyle-Narlikar theory does include a calculation of the power spectrum of the CMB thermal anisotropy and a plot of the fit to the WMAP three year data. The authors though drop three data points


So I went looking further and found the following critique of the Steady State and Quasi-SS models - scroll to the bottom to see that the fit should have included all WMAP data points (and other surveys). The relevant statement is



Another nail in the coffin of the Hoyle-Narlikar theory.
Click to expand...

Good ole Ed Wright; he has apparently had an axe to grind with Hoyle, Narlikar, Arp and the Burbidges for quite some time.

I wish he would have spoken a bit regarding the supposed WMAP errors in the high L portions of the power spectrum that Narlikar et.al. claim. You would think he would have mentioned their claim, and refuted it.

I think it's funny how these guys say about the three dropped data points: "no justification, totally ad hoc"; but clearly our power spectrum, based upon the CDM model, which relies on some sort of undiscovered cold dark matter, of unknown properties or behavior, matches it quite well.

What is the difference between an ad hoc description of cold dark matter (isn't this non-baryonic dark matter?) in terms of material we don't have a clue about, opposed to the exclusion of three data points that may have large amounts of experimental error (I need to check on this though)?

Seems like apples and apples to me.
 
Reality Check said:
A good experimental test of a cosmological theory is whether it can reproduce the cosmic microwave background (CMB) thermal anisotropy.

The latest paper on the Hoyle-Narlikar theory does include a calculation of the power spectrum of the CMB thermal anisotropy and a plot of the fit to the WMAP three year data. The authors though drop three data points


So I went looking further and found the following critique of the Steady State and Quasi-SS models - scroll to the bottom to see that the fit should have included all WMAP data points (and other surveys). The relevant statement is



Another nail in the coffin of the Hoyle-Narlikar theory.
Click to expand...

Good ole Ed Wright; he has apparently had an axe to grind with Hoyle, Narlikar, Arp and the Burbidges for quite some time.

I wish he would have spoken a bit regarding the supposed WMAP errors in the high L portions of the power spectrum that Narlikar et.al. claim. You would think he would have mentioned their claim, and refuted it.

I think it's funny how these guys say about the three dropped data points: "no justification, totally ad hoc"; but clearly our power spectrum, based upon the CDM model, which relies on some sort of undiscovered cold dark matter, of unknown properties or behavior, matches it quite well.

What is the difference between an ad hoc description of cold dark matter (isn't this non-baryonic dark matter?) in terms of material we don't have a clue about, opposed to the exclusion of three data points that may have large amounts of experimental error (I need to check on this though)?

Seems like apples and apples to me.
 
Wangler said:
Seems like apples and apples to me.
Click to expand...

You cannot simply throw out data you don't like and then claim your model fits! The error in those points is known, quantified, and taken into account. And your comparison is wrong - the parameters of dark matter are part of the standard fit to the CMB, not anything extra. But that is really the least of the problems with this model.

Check out page 22 of Narlikar, Burbidge, and Vishwakarma. The discussion around equation (46) is really quite comical. You see, eq. (46) is a totally ad hoc fitting function - it is not derived from their model! In other words they are simply positing - by fiat - that there are fluctuations in the CMB, which they model as a pattern of sharp edged and Gaussian profile spots. With the six parameters in that ad hoc ansatz, they find a best fit - and it's not very good!

It's totally meaningless. Given any data set at all you can always find a fitting function, but without a model for where that fitting function came from... you've got nothing.

In real cosmology there is a set of equations, derived from fundamental laws of physics, from which one can compute the CMB spectrum. It's remarkable - amazing, actually - that such a thing is possible, and it's a very powerful test of the theory. Here, the fundamental laws are inconsistent and there is no derivation of anything - just an ad hoc function with no relation to the underlying theory.

By the way, let me add that the presence of a ghost field which prevents black holes from forming, aside from the fact that it is inconsistent both quantum mechanically and as a classical field theory, will almost certainly affect structure formation dramatically (because it will slow or prevent entirely the gravitational collapse that leads to the formation of stars and galaxies). I see no mention of that in the paper. I could probably estimate the effects in a few hours, but I'm not going to waste my time.

Searching their paper, the following words never appear:

ghost
causality
causal (except once in a different context)
instability (ditto)

They don't mention even once the problems I pointed out, which is a sign of either unforgivable ignorance (since I'm certain these problems have been pointed out to them many times before - they are totally obvious to anyone with any experience in field theory or modified gravity) or extreme intellectual dishonesty.
 
Oh yeah - I forgot to mention unitarity.

In physics, we like it when the probabilities for all the possible results of some process add up to 1. Not more than 1, not less than 1 - precisely 1. If they don't there's clearly a serious problem.

We also like it when that statement remains true all the time - as we say, "probability is conserved". Sensible theories have that property, which is called unitarity.

This theory is not unitary.

EDIT - and neither "unitary" nor "unitarity" appear in their paper.
 
Last edited:
Wangler said:
Good ole Ed Wright; he has apparently had an axe to grind with Hoyle, Narlikar, Arp and the Burbidges for quite some time.

I wish he would have spoken a bit regarding the supposed WMAP errors in the high L portions of the power spectrum that Narlikar et.al. claim. You would think he would have mentioned their claim, and refuted it.
Click to expand...
I've discussed this before on this forum. The WMAP data changed between years 1 and 3 due to an improved method of analysis. The discrepancy between points that results is because WMAP3 is better in that the results are processed in a more correct manner - everyone in the community is aware of this, aware of the change, and how it came about. It was flat out wrong to drop the points.

The data from ACBAR, CBI and other high angular resolution CMB experiments all agree, and all show that the power spectrum in that paper is a very poor fit to the data.
 
Help me understand?

sol invictus said:
Well, OK - I said the theory needed to be local and causal for my argument to go through. This theory is neither, nor is it self-consistent.

The C field they add is what's called a ghost - it has a negative kinetic term. Imagine for a moment a massive particle, but with the sign of the kinetic energy reversed. Such a particle obeys a conservation law -(1/2)mv^2 + V(x) = E, where E is the energy and V(x) is the potential energy. So the particle can increase its velocity while increasing its potential energy. For example, if you start of near a star at rest (so with negative total energy), rather than falling into the star, you will accelerate away from it. So there's a kind of repulsive gravity, and that's what they're relying on to prevent black holes from forming.

There is only one small little problem with that. Because the kinetic energy is negative, the particles propagate along spacelike geodesics - that is, they move faster than light. In a relativistic theory that means they move back in time, thus destroying the sequence of cause and effect. That's bad.

Moreover, we do not live in a world described by classical physics and we must worry about QM. Consider what would happen if two such particles appeared out of the vacuum. Normally, the positive kinetic energy means there is a negative potential which pulls them back together. But negative kinetic energy means they repel each other, leading to a runaway solution.

So this model is dead from the very start.
Click to expand...

Sol,

Once again, I am relying on you to educate me. You talk about problems with the C-field implementation in the Narlikar et. al. paper.

They give an equation as follows:

[latex] R_{ik} - \frac{1}{2} g_{ik} R + \lambda g_{ik} = 8 \pi G[T_{ik} - f (C_i C_k - \frac{1}{4} g_{ik} C^l C_l)] [/latex]

This is their Equation (2). They derive this expression in their appendix, but they have the right hand side negative in their Equation (A22).:confused:

It seems to me that the C-field portion that has to do with the [latex] g_{ik} [/latex] part (the metric portion?) and could be associated with the cosmological constant part of the equation, like so:

[latex] R_{ik} - \frac{1}{2} g_{ik} R + \lambda g_{ik} - \frac{f}{4} g_{ik} C^l C_l = 8 \pi G[T_{ik} - f C_i C_k] [/latex]

In this way, it seems to me that the C-field is acting as a modifier to the expansion being driven by the cosmological constant.

So my question #1: Is that so different from the standard cosmological models that rely on the "classic Einstein" cosmological constant?

Obviously, the [latex] C_i C_k [/latex] part left over with the matter-energy term (?) is their matter creation implementation.

Question #2: Does having this term "hurt" the theory, or create showstoppers? (Right now, I am asking regardless of whether it could physically occur).

They also say that they use a [latex] \lambda [/latex] that is negative, which I think is opposite of the standard signage for the cosmological constant.

Question #3: Will this also do strange things, like forcing massive particles to travel on forbidden geodesics?

Hey, I understand if you have better things to do than answer ill conceived and poorly framed questions from a true math/relativity wimp.
 
CMB Anisotropy modelling?

sol invictus said:
In real cosmology there is a set of equations, derived from fundamental laws of physics, from which one can compute the CMB spectrum. It's remarkable - amazing, actually - that such a thing is possible, and it's a very powerful test of the theory. Here, the fundamental laws are inconsistent and there is no derivation of anything - just an ad hoc function with no relation to the underlying theory.
Click to expand...

Can anyone point me to a source that would describe the physical modelling of the CMB anisotropy in the standard model? I am having a hard time finding anything.

As far as QSSC goes, I checked the 2003 Narlikar paper that is referenced in the 2008 Narlikar et. al. paper that Sol criticizes regarding the CMB modelling.

The 2003 Narlikar seems to try to base some aspect of their CMB predictions to real aspects of their theory, but in the end I think they go right back to the ad hoc solution that Sol (rightly, I deem) criticizes.

I would like to see how the angular spectrum predictions are handled in the standard theory.

Thanks!
 
Reality Check said:
Consider a Hoyle-Narlikar universe that just consists of one NBH that is big enough to have matter being created around it by MCE (there will have to be a seeding boson to start off the MCE). Some of the matter will fall into the NBH. The NBH will become more massive. This will increase the number of MCE. The rate of matter being created will increase. The rate of matter falling into the NBH will increase. The NBH will become more massive even faster. We now have a feedback loop in which the NBH keeps on getting more massive and the rate of matter creation keeps on increasing. There is no limit that I can see for this. Therefore a real universe that contains even one NBH will eventually be dominated by that NBH. Add in an infinite amount of time (no beginning to the universe) then the NBH will have an infinite mass and there will be an infinite rate of matter creation.
Click to expand...

I thought they handled this some way, but I am having trouble finding out how....stay tuned!
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Are you saying that in QSSC stellar evolution proceeds differently than in standard astrophysics? That solar/stellar models are all wrong?
Click to expand...

Not at all. What I am saying is that their estimates are based upon stellar evolution taking place in a single ~13 Gyr time period since the one and only Big Bang. I think that QSSC assumes a number of "dark cinders" from previous cycles. The estimates in that paper don't include these hidden gems.

If so, then:

* why are there, apparently, no stars older than ~13 billion years?
Click to expand...

I am not sure, I will research QSSC some more.

* where are the stars which do not conform to standard astrophysical theory?

* where are the QSSC stellar evolution models?

* what, in QSSC, is the IMF?
Click to expand...

There may be no answers to these, because QSSC may not rely on differences from the standard positions on these subjects.

* where are all the end products of these earlier cycles, the (presumably) great numbers of white dwarfs for example?
Click to expand...

They are mostly in the galactic halos, speeding up radial velocity in the galatic disk, and causing the 90% of MACHO events that the Big Bang time frames for stellar evolution cannot account for.

I think..................I think my lunker threw the hook!
 
Wangler said:
It seems to me that the C-field portion that has to do with the [latex] g_{ik} [/latex] part (the metric portion?) and could be associated with the cosmological constant part of the equation, like so:

[latex] R_{ik} - \frac{1}{2} g_{ik} R + \lambda g_{ik} - \frac{f}{4} g_{ik} C^l C_l = 8 \pi G[T_{ik} - f C_i C_k] [/latex]

In this way, it seems to me that the C-field is acting as a modifier to the expansion being driven by the cosmological constant.
Click to expand...

The C field is not a cosmological constant. Even the term you've moved to the left above does not act like a CC, because its own equation of motion (which I don't think they bothered to write) is such that its value changes with time. The pressure and energy density due to C are not equal, and unlike a CC they will change as the universe expands. It either breaks rotational invariance (bad, and not what they have in mind) or boost invariance (fine, since so does the universe). In the latter case only C_0 will be nonzero.

So my question #1: Is that so different from the standard cosmological models that rely on the "classic Einstein" cosmological constant?
Click to expand...

Yes, very.

Question #2: Does having this term "hurt" the theory, or create showstoppers? (Right now, I am asking regardless of whether it could physically occur).
Click to expand...

Yes - this is what I was saying above. Those terms arise in the equation when you have a ghost field of the type I described. The terms like C_0*C_0 are the kinetic energy of the C field, but they have chosen a sign such that they are negative.

They also say that they use a [latex] \lambda [/latex] that is negative, which I think is opposite of the standard signage for the cosmological constant.
Click to expand...

That's not necessarily a problem - the CC can have either sign in principle. Its measured value is positive, but that interpretation of the data is valid only for a model without this C field.

Question #3: Will this also do strange things, like forcing massive particles to travel on forbidden geodesics?
Click to expand...

C field excitations will propagate back in time, yes. Incidentally there are various ways of trying to handle that. It is unclear whether any of them succeed, but they all require adding quite a bit more physics to the model, and none of them result in an equation anything like the one above.

Wangler said:
Can anyone point me to a source that would describe the physical modelling of the CMB anisotropy in the standard model? I am having a hard time finding anything.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent resource. You might start with "CMB introduction". His Ph.D. thesis (available here) is an almost (from what I recall) complete exposition of the computation.
 
Last edited:
Wangler said:
DeiRenDopa said:
Are you saying that in QSSC stellar evolution proceeds differently than in standard astrophysics? That solar/stellar models are all wrong?
Click to expand...
Not at all. What I am saying is that their estimates are based upon stellar evolution taking place in a single ~13 Gyr time period since the one and only Big Bang. I think that QSSC assumes a number of "dark cinders" from previous cycles. The estimates in that paper don't include these hidden gems.
Click to expand...
.
That's true, such 'hidden gems' are not included.
If so, then:

* why are there, apparently, no stars older than ~13 billion years?
Click to expand...
I am not sure, I will research QSSC some more.
* where are the stars which do not conform to standard astrophysical theory?

* where are the QSSC stellar evolution models?

* what, in QSSC, is the IMF?
Click to expand...
There may be no answers to these, because QSSC may not rely on differences from the standard positions on these subjects.
Click to expand...
.
Actually QSSC, at least as it is described in that 2008 preprint, is quite clear: standard astrophysical theory on the formation and evolution of stars is wrong, or at least requires significant modification. This is clear from Section 5.2 (p21 of the arXiv preprint), where the authors explicitly handwave their way through 'a problem' ... that paragraph is well worth reading, slowly, it is really quite hilarious.
.
* where are all the end products of these earlier cycles, the (presumably) great numbers of white dwarfs for example?
Click to expand...
They are mostly in the galactic halos, speeding up radial velocity in the galatic disk, and causing the 90% of MACHO events that the Big Bang time frames for stellar evolution cannot account for.

I think..................I think my lunker threw the hook!
Click to expand...
.
Well, in addition to an apparent absence of these cinders from earlier cycles, there's also a rather striking absence of the gas and dust that would have been dumped into the ISM (interstellar medium) ... all stars have stellar winds, and during the planetary nebula stage (which stars more massive than 0.5 (?) Msol go through) much mass is expelled. Such gas and dust would be very obvious. Interestingly, the 'metals' content of the IGM (inter-galactic medium) in rich clusters is consistent with the estimated star formation history (plus standard stellar evolution) of the galaxies in those clusters, over ~13 billion years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom