Hoyle Vs. Gamow. Steady State or Big Bang?

5wize

Well-known member
Been reading a bit on the war of Steady State vs. Big Bang. Simple question for someone more studied in Big Bang vs. Steady State theory.

Hoyle's problem in Steady State theory was that he couldn't show the science, or isolate an observable instance behind the engine of all the new stuff forming in a C-field.

Doesn't the Big Bang merely kick that same dilemma into a singularity and just assume it was all there? Is the honestly given "non-explaination" of that dilemma the claim that we can't see past Plank-time so we assume that the engine is tucked back in there somewhere?
 

inertia

New Member
Been reading a bit on the war of Steady State vs. Big Bang. Simple question for someone more studied in Big Bang vs. Steady State theory.

Hoyle's problem in Steady State theory was that he couldn't show the science, or isolate an observable instance behind the engine of all the new stuff forming in a C-field.

Doesn't the Big Bang merely kick that same dilemma into a singularity and just assume it was all there? Is the honestly given "non-explaination" of that dilemma the claim that we can't see past Plank-time so we assume that the engine is tucked back in there somewhere?
If one could demonstrate through measurement that very distant objects like quasars are limited to a redshift of 2.5, both the steady-state and the cosmic pause models would have been viable. As it turns out, redshifts greater than 2.5 have been discovered ruling out steady-state and cosmic pause theories.
 

5wize

Well-known member
If one could demonstrate through measurement that very distant objects like quasars are limited to a redshift of 2.5, both the steady-state and the cosmic pause models would have been viable. As it turns out, redshifts greater than 2.5 have been discovered ruling out steady-state and cosmic pause theories.
Thanks for the reply. Yes, I agree that the Big Bang is the more plausible model for many reasons, that being one, but this question is specifically about the "engine" of the base particle "stuff". That still seems as hidden behind Planck-time in the Big Bang theory as it was hidden somewhere in the C-field in the steady state model. Big Bang didn't solve that yet, right?
 

inertia

New Member
Thanks for the reply. Yes, I agree that the Big Bang is the more plausible model for many reasons, that being one, but this question is specifically about the "engine" of the base particle "stuff". That still seems as hidden behind Planck-time in the Big Bang theory as it was hidden somewhere in the C-field in the steady state model. Big Bang didn't solve that yet, right?
As you probably know, at this point in mankind's journey, we simply do not have instruments that can produce measurements (observations) beyond 10^-35 seconds of the universe's history. Ultimately, it is hard-won physical measurements that arbitrate physics. Many models don't make it to the theory stage for this reason.

Knowledge limits and unanswered questions are the stuff, the fuel, that drives scientific exploration.

- Will our universe continuously stretch out forever?
- Will it rebound to its initial state and then reignite another sequence for yet another go-round?

What's real to date is that the uncertainty in our measurements allows both. Along these lines, Alan Guth of MIT provided a calculation showing that it would take a 40 trillion mile particle accelerator to penetrate the physics beyond 10^-35 seconds. Of course, this fact does not stop speculation - even the beautiful kind. String theory, with quantum gravity (younger than the Planck time ), provide predictions that need verification but continue as plausible physical models.

It's very clear that the "particle stuff" is important in obtaining an understanding. Based on what we understand about event horizons and uncertainty in quantum theory the time it takes to traverse the Compton wavelength is 1.35 * 10^-43 seconds.

Can we someday account for the value of a proton's mass or why gravitational force is so weak?

maybe - maybe not
 
Last edited:

5wize

Well-known member
As you probably know, at this point in mankind's journey, we simply do not have instruments that can produce measurements (observations) beyond 10^-35 seconds of the universe's history. Ultimately, it is hard-won physical measurements that arbitrate physics. Many models don't make it to the theory stage for this reason.

Knowledge limits and unanswered questions are the stuff, the fuel, that drives scientific exploration.

- Will our universe continuously stretch out forever?
- Will it rebound to its initial state and then reignite another sequence for yet another go-round?

What's real to date is that the uncertainty in our measurements allows both. Along these lines, Alan Guth of MIT provided a calculation showing that it would take a 40 trillion mile particle accelerator to penetrate the physics beyond 10^-35 seconds. Of course, this fact does not stop speculation - even the beautiful kind. String theory, with quantum gravity (younger than the Planck time ), provide predictions that need verification but continue as plausible physical models.

It's very clear that the "particle stuff" is important in obtaining an understanding. Based on what we understand about event horizons and uncertainty in quantum theory the time it takes to traverse the Compton wavelength is 1.35 * 10^-43 seconds. Can we someday account for the value of a proton's mass or why gravitational force is so weak?

maybe - maybe not
Cool... Thanks. Lot's of insight as well as some new directions for me to look into after this stage of personal study. As far as my question... answered.... Thank you.
 
Top