Sorry that Steady State was junked.

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Dinosaur, Oct 24, 2015.

  1. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    There was a time when there was controversy relating to Big Bang, Steady State, & Alternating Bangs/Crunches.

    I was fond of Steady State & sorry when it lost out to the Big Bang. I do not remember why Bang Crunch lost to the Big Bang.

    Steady State aka Continuous Creation was my favorite. It was given up when Quasars were discovered. They were from the distant past; None were more recent than circa 5-6 billion years. Steady State predicted a universe which was unchanging except for small details.
    danshawen likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    The "alternating bangs" was termed the Oscillating model.
    And I was fond of that in the early part of my interest in cosmology.
    The steady state I believe lost favour when Hubble found the Universe was expanding. The Steady State model, envisaged an unchanging Universe with a center or position where matter was created.
    Hoyle, Gold and Bondi disliked the BB simply because it envisaged a beginning, which then gave religious people an excuse to invoke God or some other omnipotent deity that started it all.
    I believe that the Oscillating model lost out because it was thought that if that were true, we would see distant galaxies near the edge of the observable Universe being blue shifted. Plus of course the Oscillating model, is somewhat discredited by the discovery of the acceleration in the expansion.

    Other than Hubble's discovery of expansion, data of course from COBE, WMAP and the discovery of the CMBR support the BB MODEL.

    It's worth noting though that the Oscillating model in actual fact though, is encompassing the BB model, while extending the parameters of what our laws of physics and GR are curtailed by.

    To explain the "beginning" as predicted by the BB, we need to probably look forward to a validated QGT.
    While admittedly speculative, I like the following "ultimate free lunch" rundown.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    The CMBR was discovered in the 1940s and was followed up by WMAP and Planck, none of which support anything like steady state as a viable theory any more.

    Inflation is having a good run, and I support it now that I understand where it comes from. It's something that can be built upon as we explore deeper into the origin of the cosmos. Either the current understandings will be elaborated by deeper observation, or else they will be modified by new discoveries. The steady state theory had the major downside that it just didn't seem to be going anywhere. It didn't explain where all the antimatter went, and this is a particularly annoying flaw.

    I am certain, there will be much more information coming on this topic early this century.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. John Connellan Valued Senior Member

    How were things like entropy and the arrow of time (thermodynamics) explained within the steady state context?
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I don't believe "Steady State"stands up to observations, period, and that's why it dropped out of favour, after being on equal footing with the BB in the early 50's. state theory and entropy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBDgUahUKEwiNhoTkrt_IAhVHG6YKHQ9YA_8#v=onepage&q=steady state theory and entropy&f=false

    Hope those links help.
  9. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    From PaddoBoy Post # 2
    Steady State was considered defunct when Quasars were discovered, not when expansion was discovered. There were no recent Quasars: All were circa 6 billion or more years old. Steady State claimed that the Continuous Creation fueled the expansion due to a small volume of space created with each bit of created matter.

    Steady State (aka Continuous Creation) assumed creation of particles in every finite volume of space, not at some central location. I do not remember the details of the size of the volumes nor the type of matter created (I assume hydrogen atoms or neutrons which decayed to hydrogen atoms).

    I call myself the Dinosaur not because I am a multi-ton reptile-like creature. I claim the title because I once used slide rules & mechanical calculators. In the 1950's, I remember & engaged in various discussions/controversies relating to Big Bang, Steady State, & Bang/Crunch cosmologies. As mentioned in a previous Post, I was sad when Steady State lost out to the Big Bang.

    BTW: Fred Hoyle clung to Steady State long after it was a lost cause. I gave it up reluctantly before he did. The creator of a theory is often more tenacious than his followers.

    Hoyle coined the term Big Bang as a derogatory remark.

    There were some interesting remarks between the antagonists.

    Big Bang advocate
    Fred Hoyle
    BTW: The Steady State theory claimed that the rate of creation matched the matter lost at the horizon of the observable universe & that it fueled the expansion due to a small amount of space created with each bit of created matter.
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    When expansion was discovered, around the same time it was found that the further we looked, the older stars/QUasars were.
    Quasars was certainly evidence to invalidate Steady State but so was expansion and the apparent ages of stars the further we looked out into the Universe and back into time.

    I accept that, it was a process to maintain a consistent volume of matter etc in the Universe.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    'This was probably Hoyle's downfall in formulating SS. He could not accept the fact that the BB proposed a beginning, giving our God botherers a leg in by claiming that beginning was the work of God.
    An otherwise great scientist that did immeasurable work for astronomy/cosmology.

  11. brucep Valued Senior Member

    For the most part he seems to have enjoyed being a crank.
  12. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Not really fair, I think. He, like quite a number of eminent scientists, went a bit nuts towards the end of his life, cf. Linus Pauling, for example.

    But B²FH was a crucial paper for cosmology.
  13. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    From PaddoBoy Post #7
    I disagree with the blue phrase. Steady State cosmology included expansion, claiming that Continuous Creation of matter fueled the expansion. Both Steady State & Big Bang theory included expansion.

    The expansion was well known by Hoyle when he put forth his steady State cosmology, which included an explanation for the expansion.

    Steady State claimed that the universe was unchanging in time except for local details. The observed fact that the youngest Quasars were circa 6 billion years refuted that claim.

  14. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Yes and Hoyle came up with one of the best ever "rejoiners" to his BB critics, who asked:
    "And where do all those new hydrogen atoms come from?"
    Hoyle repied:
    " From the same place you get them all at once."
  15. brucep Valued Senior Member

    I don't think he went a bit crazy late in life. He was on the theoretical fringe to much for me. None of it panned out. Regardless he made great contribution to Big Bang cosmology. This is something I've thought about. LOL. Could any theoretical cosmologist actually believe there was any chance that the classical theory could describe the origin of our universe? It predicts that the universe is 'so closed' it would have collapsed long ago. Amoungst other clearly erroneous predictions that were fixed by the inflation event. Every cosmologist knows this. So why would a cosmologist suggest the Big Bang Theory could only be the work of a God, tongue in cheek or not tongue in cheek? Because they're the author of a competing cosmology? Sir Fred Hoyle did some amazing work. The history of cosmology is pretty interesting.
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Except that the first fundamental particles were thought to have been created through conditions brought about by phase transitions and false vacuums when the Superforce started to decouple as per the BB.
    Somehow I have difficulty picturing that scenario with Steady State.
  17. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Steady State theory predicted that in an expanding universe the observed cosmological density of matter could be maintained by the spontaneous creation of one hydrogen atom per liter of space every 10⁹ years. The proposed method of such creation also predicted that protons would decay with a half life of 10[sup]14[/sup] years. This decay would be detectable using detectors like the
    Super Kamiokande. It was never observed.
  18. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Why? It is happening with great frequency with positron electron pair production. I forget the H production rate the steady state theory required, but it was very low - one H atom net in a cublic light year every month or so?

    Don't miss understand. I'm not supporting the SS theory - I just posted, post 11, as it tell one of the best ever re-joiners to ones critics.
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Because according to the BB it took the decoupling of the Superforce and subsequent phase transitions and false vacuums to create the first fundamental...probably electrons and/or quarks.
    Phase transitions cannot be happening all the time, [I don't believe] and wouldn't that donate a center or preferred position?
  20. brucep Valued Senior Member

    When Penzias and Wilson detected the CMBR that should have been the end of Hoyle's steady state cosmology. He never gave up. Sometimes a bad trait for a scientist.
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    The above of course is explained with the BB but not Steady State.
  22. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Didn't Hoyle attempt to explain the expansion as...we just happen to be living where there is expansion and that this is not true for most of the universe???
    Can't find a reference for this.
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Not sure sweetpea, other than to say that as of the late 20th/21st century cosmology, one of the biggest validations of the BB, is how it, along with GR, fit like a hand in a glove or the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, with the particle/matter physics explanations.

Share This Page