home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!gatech!destroyer!news.itd.umich.edu!pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu!metzler
- From: metzler@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu (Chris Metzler)
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Subject: Re: The Big Bang Never Happened
- Date: 7 Jan 1993 16:50:33 GMT
- Organization: University of Michigan Department of Physics
- Lines: 51
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <1ihn0pINNl4j@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>
- References: <1ifqfrINNd6l@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> <1993Jan7.090448.14353@nuscc.nus.sg>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu
-
- In article <1993Jan7.090448.14353@nuscc.nus.sg>, scip2124@nusunix1.nus.sg (MARC PAUL JOREF VAN LOO) writes:
- |> To say that there is no observation against the
- |> Big-bang is simply wrong.
- |> Read Sandage's overview paper (1988 or 1989) in
- |> annual review of astronomy and astrophysics
- |> (or something close to that title).
- |>
- |>
-
- I presume that you are referring to Sandage's "Observational Tests
- of World Models," Ann Rev Astron Astrophys, v26 pp561-630 (1988).
- I have a copy of it bound and above my desk, and I recommend it to
- anyone interested in physical cosmology. This well-written review
- essentially goes over the observational techniques used to determine
- the free parameters of the hot Big Bang model, and what those
- results are. I repeat what I said earlier -- it is important to
- not confuse the hot Big Bang model with certain scientists'
- specific versions of the hot Big Bang model. If \Omega = 1 is
- observationally ruled out, for instance, that says nothing about
- whether or not the hot Big Bang model is valid. Sandage makes
- it fairly clear in this review that there is certainly uncertainty
- in the free parameters of the model (\Omega_0 or q_o, H_o, t_o,
- etc.), but remember that these free parameters are tied together
- by the fundamental definition of t_o, f(\Omega) * t_o * H_o = 1,
- where f is a known function, and within this they are quite
- consistent with each other. Anyway, if there's something else
- you get out of this review that you think falsifies the Big Bang,
- please let me know, because I don't know what it is, and I definitely
- don't get that impression from the review. In fact, I think
- Sandage's personal opinions are made fairly clear in the quote
- from the first page: "In this review a prejudice in favor of the
- hot Big Bang can hardly be suppressed, successful as the model
- has become in providing an understanding of the abundance of He^4
- and the 3K radiation. Nevertheless, if a description of beginnings
- in this sense is to be confined within the methods of science rather
- than to be colored by teleological metaphysics, the model must pass
- the tests normal to science rather than to be accepted as revealed
- truth." In other words, I don't think Sandage takes the HBB model
- on faith; and yet still (and since this review came out) he
- argues in favor of the model.
-
- -- Chris
-
- --
- SNAILMAIL: AT&TMAIL:
- Chris Metzler 313-764-4607 (office)
- Department of Physics, University of Michigan 313-996-9249 (home)
- Randall Lab, 500 E. University
- Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1120 USA
-
- E-MAIL: metzler@pablo.physics.lsa.umich.edu
-