Occasionally I visit Eric Weinstein’s Discord server and try to engage on NPQG physics and cosmology. In general it’s a fairly skeptical audience. I posted in regards to points in this post Missed Opportunities to Discover Nature
If the photons we are measuring as CMB are really ~13.8B years old (how do we know by the way?) then that’s fine as a steady state NPQG universe would have plenty of galaxies emitting mini-bang radiation at any point in time and those photons would distribute and scatter and constantly reach our observational equipment.
From my perspective it is very odd to be asked to decipher the story science has created about a fictitious big bang and a narrative of a power spectrum in the big bang model, when I am fairly certain that had any of the five missed opportunities I listed above been found, that science would have adapted its narrative to fit just fine. Again, I am NOT saying to disbelieve your observations. I AM saying science needs a new narrative, i.e., paradigm.
I believe the idea of a “one-time” big bang to be both a mistake and a fiction, hence narrative. Think about how many galaxies, think about the distances, think about the time. I think there is plenty of time and space for a pretty thorough cooling down of spacetime at 1/r^2 plus dual jets to spread it out to start with.
Here is the key question: When GUTH (and others?) had that moment of intuition about a bang and inflation why did that intuition settle out into a single event at a single time? Physicists are kind of fast and loose in the outreach material about a single place but they let it be known that it is really distributed. (Is this another one of those magic fields that just happen?)
So, if we could go back in time and be in the room, could we have immediately insisted to Guth and others that they generalize into N events at N times in N locations? Why did they choose N = 1? I mean the issue is whether N is 1 or “a lot” If N is “a lot” then we have many more science questions to ask aimed at solving for our observations :
- How often must this happen per bang/inflation event to match our observations?
- What kind of spatial distribution of these bang/inflation events would we need in the universe?
- What would a bang/inflation event look like?
- Where might we find these bang/inflation events?
I’ll go out on a limb here and say had we been in the room and influenced the questions, the answer would have been obvious within a decade as SMBH were discovered.
By the way axions may be the same thing as my spacetime aether particle. The match to what they think they are looking for is almost identical to how I describe my spacetime particle. I wrote an article on it : Is SpaceTime Made of Axions?
So that would be kind of cool if axions are discovered, but still physics would be missing the foundation, because axions are still composite particles and physics hasn’t yet embraced the electrino and positrino. If we can attack through galaxy-local mini-bang/inflation events it will really help the physicists see the way.
Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, calling his theory that of the “primeval atom”.Wikipedia
Not sure when the Big Bang idea was formulated, but Hoyle who was a steady-state universe supporter coined the name “Big Bang” in the pejorative. The CMB was discovered in 1964, Guth inflation was formulated in 1981, SMBH Natarajan/Rees 1993?, LCDM 1998-2003 per Peebles. It is actually amazing how these things lined up to just miss solving nature. There are fatal basic conceptual errors in each theory. But you can see how the error propagated from theory to theory. It’s really quite amazing and the historians are going to have a ‘field’ day.
p.s. Axions were 1977. Peccei-Quinn theory. See Is SpaceTime Made of Axions?
J Mark Morris : San Diego : California