• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Big Bang "proved" wrong??

IANLAA (I Am No Longer An Astrophysicist) but,

The scientific discovery may be legit but the conclusion that this "disproves" big bang is not consistent with the longer article.

All the longer article says is that they think that theyve found quasars close by, whose red shift is not due to the expansion of the universe. Instead, it would be due to the motion of the quasar relative to the general expansion of the universe.
 
No, it's a rather intruiging problem with one specific type of object.

Quasars, which are assumed to be extremely distant objects because of their highly redshifted spectra, have been found to be aligned with relatively nearby galaxies more often than you would expect by chance. This may mean that they are actually associated with those galaxies, in which case someone needs to work out what the hell is going on with their spectra. Alternatively, the calculations of how frequently they should be aligned with nearby galaxies are wrong, or our detection techniques aren't as good as we thought, or (unlikely, but possible) they really are very distant objects that tend to be aligned with nearby galaxies more often than you would expect by chance.

This doesn't affect the Big Bang model, because there are plenty of other distance indicators which are reliable. Also, to the best of my knowledge, quasars have never been used to determine a distance to anything used to calibrate the Hubble constant, which is the core of the Big Bang model.

The only thing this news suggests is that we may be wrong about the nature of quasars.
 
Come on guys, since when is the big bang confirmed?? It is not "right" nor "wrong", it is just the current theory.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Come on guys, since when is the big bang confirmed?? It is not "right" nor "wrong", it is just the current theory.
Click to expand...
Who said it was "confirmed"? It may be the current theory, but it has reigned alone for a long time, it has massive supporting evidence, and all attempts to topple it have come come to naught. In your sense, no theory will ever be "right" or "wrong".
 
I think the issue is, that religious people view science in a different way. If we, say, suddenly discovered proof that jesus never turned water into wine, it would threaten the ENTIRE religion. Or if we discovered that god has a special place in his heart for homosexuals, and the bible just misspoke.

Whereas science, if an observation or a theory about something is wrong, big deal, you don't need to throw out everything. The knowledge about electron orbits and energy levels constantly changed over the past century.

I really don't think our understanding of quasars is complete in the first place. It is assumed that they are stars that are just really far away, but that assumption gives them the brightness of 10 trillion suns. If their redshift was due to another reason (maybe something cool, like its a forming black hole), then that would bring the predicted brightness down considerably. Or it could be something as simple as what they are observing is a new, unknown object, and not a quasar.

There are also other problems currently in quasar theory, like that they burn elements heavier than helium, which shouldn't exist yet. The wikipedia article mentions a few alternate theories for quasars.
 
RussDill said:
I think the issue is, that religious people view science in a different way. If we, say, suddenly discovered proof that jesus never turned water into wine, it would threaten the ENTIRE religion. Or if we discovered that god has a special place in his heart for homosexuals, and the bible just misspoke.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the OP but, since you mentioned it, I would like to make a comment.
Even if someone could prove those things, it would not threaten the ENTIRE religion. It would only threaten the literalist view of religion.
I am not religious, but I have several friends that are and they view the bible as a source of enlightenment, but not as a historical document. Most of them believe that miracles as the transformation of water into wine is something that the croniclers made up as examples of the power of the son of god and not as facts.
 
RussDill said:
snip...

I really don't think our understanding of quasars is complete in the first place. It is assumed that they are stars that are just really far away, but that assumption gives them the brightness of 10 trillion suns.
Click to expand...
:confused:
Sorry RussDill, while it's true that no-one knows exactly what quasars are, they certainly are not stars! They just look like it in the optical part of the spectrum.
If their redshift was due to another reason (maybe something cool, like its a forming black hole), then that would bring the predicted brightness down considerably. Or it could be something as simple as what they are observing is a new, unknown object, and not a quasar.

There are also other problems currently in quasar theory, like that they burn elements heavier than helium, which shouldn't exist yet. The wikipedia article mentions a few alternate theories for quasars.
Click to expand...
I assume you mean this article?

The heavy elements objection comes from the fact that no-one has observed any population III stars. But these stars would have formed at such an early epoch (i.e. they'd be very far away) and be so short lived, that they would be virtually impossible to observe anyway!
 
Gosh. You mean there are still things we don't know about cosmology? Wow. There's a surprise.
And there was me thinking it was all sewn up.

Is it second generation stars that stop at irony , or did I get that wrong too?
:p
 
wollery said:
:confused:
Sorry RussDill, while it's true that no-one knows exactly what quasars are, they certainly are not stars! They just look like it in the optical part of the spectrum.
I assume you mean this article?

The heavy elements objection comes from the fact that no-one has observed any population III stars. But these stars would have formed at such an early epoch (i.e. they'd be very far away) and be so short lived, that they would be virtually impossible to observe anyway!
Click to expand...

thanks for the corrections
 
steenkh said:
In your sense, no theory will ever be "right" or "wrong".
Click to expand...

Well of course. Being right or wrong implies subjective acceptance, I would say that it is more important if a theory makes accurate predictions or not. Being married with a theory (any theory) is not very bright, imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom