Steady State hypothesis? any evidence?

cj.23 · 21st December 2006, 10:38 AM

Being used to woo of all kinds, I was wondering today - The Steady State theory (I associate it mainly with Hoyle...) is there actually any good reason to consider it? Please bear in mind i know nothing about astrophysics,and have not the slightest idea where to start looking to answer my question.

I tend to take the Big Bang as an article of faith (it suits my theistic prejudices after all) but I did wonder if there were any dissident voices in modern cosmology?

It's probably a dumb question but enquiring minds want to know! A link or two will be just fine...

cj x

EDIT: obviously I have read the wikipedia articles. I'm not that lazy!

It's the state of play I'm looking for...

Yllanes · 21st December 2006, 02:05 PM

The short answer is no, it doesn't work. Bear in mind that what you can read on Wikpiedia or pop physics books are qualitative descriptions, analogies, etc. but that the standard cosmological model gives concrete quantitative predictions that work very well. If you want to know why the Steady State model fails, read Fads and fallacies in Cosmology (it may be a bit hard if you haven't read the tutorial on that page, but you can ask questions about it here).

Fnord · 21st December 2006, 02:29 PM

Quote:

"The Steady State theory ... is there actually any good reason to consider it?" -- cj.23

Yes.

1) You are an astrophysicist.
2) Your income depends on grants, speaking engagements, teaching, and prolifically writing on this subject.

Otherwise, it makes no practical difference.

-Fnord of Dyscordia-

cj.23 · 21st December 2006, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

Yes.

1) You are an astrophysicist.
2) Your income depends on grants, speaking engagements, teaching, and prolifically writing on this subject.

Otherwise, it makes no practical difference.

-Fnord of Dyscordia-

Serves me right! Obvious what I meant was "is it credible?", but hey. Hail Eris!

cj x

Fnord · 21st December 2006, 02:40 PM

Ahh ... the difference between truth and credibility!

Personally, I took up engineering for it's more credible ('formulaic') aspects, wherein the proof of a theory lies in its applications.

Big Bang vs. Steady State? Wonderful argument for those whose work depends on acceptance of one or the other, but completely irrelevant for someone who makes his living designing practical items on a human scale.

-Fnord of Dyscordia-

qayak · 21st December 2006, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by cj.23

Obvious what I meant was "is it credible?

No. The Big Bang is based on the idea of an expanding universe. If the universe is expanding, obviously it is not a "steady state." When all the evidence showed that the universe was indeed expanding, the Big Bang Theory was the victor and the Steady State Theory, the loser.

The reason for the two theories was that the evidence could be interpreted to support both. As instruments improved and new evidence came in, red shifting, back ground radiation, etc., the Big Bang Theory was the only one that accounted for it.

cj.23 · 21st December 2006, 03:07 PM

Thanks Qayak for clear and concise explanation, and to the other posters too.

cj x

rjh01 · 22nd December 2006, 12:16 AM

Actually the evidence that convinced everyone that the big bang happened rather than steady state is the discovery of background radiation at the microwave frequencies. This cannot be explained by the steady state theory and is a requirement for the big bang theory.

Red shift can be explained by the steady state theory.

The amazing thing is that it is believed that the expansion is accelerating!

qayak · 22nd December 2006, 12:24 AM

Originally Posted by cj.23

Thanks Qayak for clear and concise explanation, and to the other posters too.

An excellent book on the subject is Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe by Simon Singh. It is the history of how the theory came about and other theories that have existed and been discarded through the years.

Dustin Kesselberg · 22nd December 2006, 08:59 AM

Not adding much input to this thread I thought i'd post this poem by George Gammow...to the tune of “Oh Christmas tree".

Your years of toil,’ said Ryle to Hoyle, ‘Are wasted years, believe me.
The steady state is out of date; Unless my eyes deceive me,
My telescope has dashed your hope; Your tenets are refuted.
Let me be terse: Our universe Grows daily more diluted!’

Said Hoyle, ‘You quote Lemaitre, Inote, And Gamow. Well forget them!
That errant gang And their Big Bang – Why aid them and abet them?
You see, my friend, It has no end And there was no beginning,
As Bondi, Gold, and I will hold Until our hair is thinning!’

‘Not so!’ cried Ryle With rising bile And straining at the tether;
‘Far galaxies Are, as one sees, More tightly packet together!”
‘You make me boil! Exploded Hoyle, His statement rearranging:
‘New matter’s born Each night and morn, The picture is unchanging!’

‘Come off it, Hoyle! I aim to foil You yet’ (The fun commences)
‘And in a while,’ Continued Ryle, ‘I’ll bring you to your senses’

21st December 2006, 10:38 AM	#1
cj.23 Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Kadath in the Cold Waste Posts: 2,222	Steady State hypothesis? any evidence? Being used to woo of all kinds, I was wondering today - The Steady State theory (I associate it mainly with Hoyle...) is there actually any good reason to consider it? Please bear in mind i know nothing about astrophysics,and have not the slightest idea where to start looking to answer my question. I tend to take the Big Bang as an article of faith (it suits my theistic prejudices after all) but I did wonder if there were any dissident voices in modern cosmology? It's probably a dumb question but enquiring minds want to know! A link or two will be just fine... cj x EDIT: obviously I have read the wikipedia articles. I'm not that lazy! It's the state of play I'm looking for...
	__________________ I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell My dull life blogged http://jerome23.wordpress.com Last edited by cj.23; 21st December 2006 at 10:41 AM.

21st December 2006, 02:29 PM	#3
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Pantopia Posts: 4,911	Quote: "The Steady State theory ... is there actually any good reason to consider it?" -- cj.23 Yes. 1) You are an astrophysicist. 2) Your income depends on grants, speaking engagements, teaching, and prolifically writing on this subject. Otherwise, it makes no practical difference. -Fnord of Dyscordia-
	__________________ *"When I say, "Evidence, Please?" I am not asking for another statement of faith.* *I am asking for the evidence that supports that faith.* *Faith proves nothing."* -- Fnord, Pointing Out the Obvious to the Oblivious Since 1957.

21st December 2006, 02:32 PM	#4
cj.23 Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Kadath in the Cold Waste Posts: 2,222	Originally Posted by Fnord Yes. 1) You are an astrophysicist. 2) Your income depends on grants, speaking engagements, teaching, and prolifically writing on this subject. Otherwise, it makes no practical difference. -Fnord of Dyscordia- Serves me right! Obvious what I meant was "is it credible?", but hey. Hail Eris! cj x
	__________________ I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell My dull life blogged http://jerome23.wordpress.com

21st December 2006, 02:40 PM	#5
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Pantopia Posts: 4,911	Ahh ... the difference between truth and credibility! Personally, I took up engineering for it's more credible ('formulaic') aspects, wherein the proof of a theory lies in its applications. Big Bang vs. Steady State? Wonderful argument for those whose work depends on acceptance of one or the other, but completely irrelevant for someone who makes his living designing practical items on a human scale. -Fnord of Dyscordia-
	__________________ *"When I say, "Evidence, Please?" I am not asking for another statement of faith.* *I am asking for the evidence that supports that faith.* *Faith proves nothing."* -- Fnord, Pointing Out the Obvious to the Oblivious Since 1957. Last edited by Fnord; 21st December 2006 at 03:25 PM.

21st December 2006, 02:51 PM	#6
qayak Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,829	Originally Posted by cj.23 Obvious what I meant was "is it credible? No. The Big Bang is based on the idea of an expanding universe. If the universe is expanding, obviously it is not a "steady state." When all the evidence showed that the universe was indeed expanding, the Big Bang Theory was the victor and the Steady State Theory, the loser. The reason for the two theories was that the evidence could be interpreted to support both. As instruments improved and new evidence came in, red shifting, back ground radiation, etc., the Big Bang Theory was the only one that accounted for it.
qayak Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,829	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

21st December 2006, 02:05 PM	#2
Yllanes Muse Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madrid Posts: 826	The short answer is no, it doesn't work. Bear in mind that what you can read on Wikpiedia or pop physics books are qualitative descriptions, analogies, etc. but that the standard cosmological model gives concrete quantitative predictions that work very well. If you want to know why the Steady State model fails, read Fads and fallacies in Cosmology (it may be a bit hard if you haven't read the tutorial on that page, but you can ask questions about it here).

21st December 2006, 03:07 PM	#7
cj.23 Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Kadath in the Cold Waste Posts: 2,222	Thanks Qayak for clear and concise explanation, and to the other posters too. cj x
	__________________ I'm an Anglican Christian, so I declare my prejudice here. Please take it in to account when reading my posts. "Most people would rather die than think: many do." - Betrand Russell My dull life blogged http://jerome23.wordpress.com

22nd December 2006, 12:16 AM	#8
rjh01 Fire Warden Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 10,819	Actually the evidence that convinced everyone that the big bang happened rather than steady state is the discovery of background radiation at the microwave frequencies. This cannot be explained by the steady state theory and is a requirement for the big bang theory. Red shift can be explained by the steady state theory. The amazing thing is that it is believed that the expansion is accelerating!

22nd December 2006, 12:24 AM	#9
qayak Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,829	Originally Posted by cj.23 Thanks Qayak for clear and concise explanation, and to the other posters too. An excellent book on the subject is Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe by Simon Singh. It is the history of how the theory came about and other theories that have existed and been discarded through the years.
qayak Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,829	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

22nd December 2006, 08:59 AM	#10
Dustin Kesselberg Usus magister est optimus Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Al Jumahiriyah al Arabiyah al Libiyah ash Shabiyah al Ishtirakiyah al Uzma Posts: 4,673	Not adding much input to this thread I thought i'd post this poem by George Gammow...to the tune of “Oh Christmas tree". Your years of toil,’ said Ryle to Hoyle, ‘Are wasted years, believe me. The steady state is out of date; Unless my eyes deceive me, My telescope has dashed your hope; Your tenets are refuted. Let me be terse: Our universe Grows daily more diluted!’ Said Hoyle, ‘You quote Lemaitre, Inote, And Gamow. Well forget them! That errant gang And their Big Bang – Why aid them and abet them? You see, my friend, It has no end And there was no beginning, As Bondi, Gold, and I will hold Until our hair is thinning!’ ‘Not so!’ cried Ryle With rising bile And straining at the tether; ‘Far galaxies Are, as one sees, More tightly packet together!” ‘You make me boil! Exploded Hoyle, His statement rearranging: ‘New matter’s born Each night and morn, The picture is unchanging!’ ‘Come off it, Hoyle! I aim to foil You yet’ (The fun commences) ‘And in a while,’ Continued Ryle, ‘I’ll bring you to your senses’
	__________________