QUESTION: Not sure how it started, but there appears to be a perception that the Steady State Theory of the Universe refers to a more static state. I believe Steady State was meant to encompass the full realm of a dynamic universe in which matter is consistently created and destroyed. It appears to me that an accelerating model of the universe that is consistently regenerating the building blocks of matter would allow for an ongoing "Steady State Big Bang". As we can only see our small portion of the universe, it appears to be a perfunctory notion that we can deduce anything about the behavior of whole universe or that we should dismiss ideas like the Steady State Theory based on our limited observations from the centric view of our own planet. Anyway, my question is, was the Steady State Theory meant to represent a static condition of the universe or just the notion of a semi-static balance of gravitational forces?
ANSWER: Hi, I happened to read one of the books written by Fred Hoyle himself, and Fred Hoyle was one of the chief propounders of the Continuous creation of matter and steady state theorists. (Alng with Jayant Narlikar from India, and WikramSinghe of SriLanka). The continuous creation of matter had to be brought in to explain the expanding universe so correctly and irrefutably proven by the discovery of the CMB by Panzias in the 60s.
The original steady state model simply proposed that The universe with all its large scale isotropy (sameness in all directions) has existed and will continue to exist througheternity.
Then came the Hubble red shift, and its proof the CMB that threw a spanner in the works! People had to invent strange things like continuous creation of matter etc, but the theory i think died its natural death.
The theory has nothing to say about the balance of gravitation etc. It deems the universe to be infinite in all directions! Period.
And static in the sense that any snapshot of it from any epoch is likely to appear "generally same" over time. Meaning it would show the same randomness with respect to the distribution of the spiral galaxies, ellipticals, etc.
Since the universe was essentially unlimited, there would not be any disposition to expand / contract etc, but matter would be created as it was being lost via the mass defect in stars (lost via the fusion route).
Thus keeping the mass of the universe static over great epochs.
The current model envisages a steady but slight but unrelenting attrition of matter as stars generate "hot" energy via the mass defect route in the fusion reactions in their cores.
P.S. The Book was, "Frontiers of Astronomy" - by Fred Hoyle.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: The use of the Hubble red shift for proof the CMB as a disproof of the Steady State Theory has also illuded me. How can a single moving space time event disprove a concept outside its sphere of relativity. Considering that we are only able to observe a small portion of the universe, can we really postulate beyond our space time event. If our visible view of the universe were liken to a section of space time that is moving with us, then it is no more closer to the considered center of the Big Bang than we are. As all matter is accelerating, that which is faster than us appears to be moving away just as that which is slower than us also appears to be moving away. Question 1: With this model, how does one know from which direction the universe is expanding; i.e., how does one know they are looking at a preceding event or a succeeding event? Question 2: Why would one consider that the acceleration of the matter in the universe represents a disposition to expand rather than a disposition to recycle? It seems to me that the acceleration of the matter in the universe is a condition of its evolutionary state along an altering space time continuum. If imagined visually, where degrees of time alter from maximum to minimum and space alters from minimum to maximum, the net effect is a pronunciation of mass and gravitational influences such that all matter would accelerate toward minimum time and maximum space. In this way the universe could be maintained within a consistent creation and termination cycle without any single section of the space time being the aware of anything else ouside their own relativity from which they would base as the only reality.
ANSWER: Hi, After reading through your latest writeup, I am convinced all the more, neverto take oneself too seriously. Here you are musing all abstract thoughts, and involving in deep concepts, and all the while you are carrying on with a basic fallacy in reasoning / understanding.
The univserse does not expand (away from a physical area in space and time in 3d space at all.
The 3d uinverse shows us space expanding at all points with similar rate of motion. Hubble's law applies isotropically (same in all directions).
Imagine a bubble the surface of which represents 3d space. As the bubble expands, any two points on it will follow a hubbl's law of sorts! (recession rate proportional to actual separation.
Such a universe is centerless. (the center is lies in 4th dimension outside of the 3d surface represented by the balloon, at the heart of the expanding sphere of the 3d space represented by the balloon).
Like wise, in real 3d space, one cannot say.."hey the universe has its center to my east and your west etc. ALL of space we observe is expanding, and the Bang happened "everywhere" 15 billion years ago, when all of space was together in a point.
That is the reason one can think of the CMB as a black body radiation. If the universe hadnt expanded, it wouldnt have cooled, as the energy density would have been immense.
So when you continue to argue about all this, get the concepts right.
This answers your point 1. The last sentences above answer point 2.
We should give some credit to the scientists who have to overcome the most intense scrutiny by equally competent others, to make any "theory" hold. Give credit NOT because they "MIGHT" be smarter than us, but because, their predictions have been often been supported by nature itself. (example the working out of the supernova mechanism, the Cesium generated Gamma ray flash and Nutrino surge just before the shock starts, from the outward rebounding matter from the neutron core. (the implosion of the Iron core post its formation from cesium, in a vast endothermic reaction that saps the core of energy and pressure). These calculations were PROVEN when the SN1987A supernova occured in the Magellanic cloud.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Sorry, I didn't mean to mislead you with my first question. I understand the whole non-centric universe concept. What I was referring to was the centric view of the observer, i.e. where ever in the universe you are, there is a centric perspective of your viewing (or data gathering). Example: If there are 100 balloons being blown up, then for each observer at the balloon's center everything is expanding away from them. So if we skip right to Question 2, in which an ever increasing acceleration leads to a greater relative expansion of overall mass. Could we not also expect that there would be an equivalent propensity for this expanded mass to be dissipated back into the same universe? Perhaps like many black holes by which the universe governs it own fundemental forces, rather than the expectation of one Big Bang and its anthesis of one Big Contraction.
Hi, Ok, understood. But dont get me wrong, again one more fallacy has crept in. NOTHING within the universe ever escapes it! So there does not arise any "propensity for this expanded mass to be dissipated back into the same universe?".
Simply because where it was that the matter was blown, WOULD BE INSIDE the universe. (Caps for emphasis only, as underlining is not possible here).
I think whatever we (you and me and kindred souls) theorize, is just idle child's play.
Something to be indulged in when one is through ones own personal and private looking glass, where wonders dont cease, and we are masters of all we survey! Our own closet world into which we can enter and exit at will, and enjoy playing with our pet theories.
The reason is, most of us simply dont really grasp the ideas that we grapple with. No harm in harmless theorizing, it teaches us thinking outside the box, lateral thinking and generally helps in problem solving.
But one must NEVER think of seriously taking on (meaning challenge) the scientefic community or their ideas, as we soon discover our own clay feet. (Very few of us are Einsteins, and they do get their due)
No offence meant, but there is really nothing meaningful that i can contribute here. except try and set right minor slipups that I can see. The danger being that major slipups will simply give us both the bye and we would never even sense them.
One must bever forget Achilles! And one must be humble. (I try to be that always, preaching having its own pitfalls, like practising what one preaches).