The Steady State Theory

65 thoughts on “The Steady State Theory”

1. […] there were many other ideas proposed to explain the origins of the universe. One such theory is the steady-state theory, which posited that the universe has always existed and is continually expanding without any […]

   LikeLike

2. […] springing up periodically to fill in the gaps. This picture of our Universe is referred to as the Steady State […]

   LikeLike

3. The energy density of non-expanding universe filled with ordinary matter is:

   rau (ordinary matter) = 0.99 x 10^ – 29 gcm^-3

   While the energy density of non-expanding universe filled with radiation is:

   rau (radiation) = 1.26 x 10^-27 gcm^-3

   That is rau (radiation) = 65 x rau (matter)

   the coefficient 65 comes from the connection between the speed of light and the Hubble velocity at the event horizon surface of a black hole universe that is:

   c = 65^(1/2) x v(H)

   v (H) = 37200 km/s is the Hubble velocity at the event horizon surface

   LikeLike

4. Both ‘The’ Big Bang (SCM-LCDM) and Steady State be it Static or Cyclical oscillations have issues.
   One way to help reconcile all the empirical observations is ‘a’ big bang, hyper dense start into static (mature size and density universe relatively early in history and where the visible universe approximates the entire universe.
   start consideration of SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model at:
   http://www.academia.edu/44650180/Pearlman_SPIRAL_on_the_Keating_Big_Bang_Checklist

   LikeLike

5. […] https://explainingscience.org/2015/07/25/the-steady-state-theory/ […]

   LikeLike

6. Yes, I completely agree with this article, but may I bring attention to a few articles that I have found about steady state theory and big bang theory

   Article 1. (NASA)
   Astronomers combine mathematical models with observations to develop workable theories of how the Universe came to be. The mathematical underpinnings of the Big Bang theory include Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity along with standard theories of fundamental particles. Today NASA spacecraft such as the Hubble Space Telescope and the Spitzer Space Telescope continue measuring the expansion of the Universe. One of the goals has long been to decide whether the Universe will expand forever, or whether it will someday stop, turn around, and collapse in a “Big Crunch?”

   Background Radiation
   According to the theories of physics, if we were to look at the Universe one second after the Big Bang, what we would see is a 10-billion degree sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons, and neutrinos. Then, as time went on, we would see the Universe cool, the neutrons either decaying into protons and electrons or combining with protons to make deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen). As it continued to cool, it would eventually reach the temperature where electrons combined with nuclei to form neutral atoms. Before this “recombination” occurred, the Universe would have been opaque because the free electrons would have caused light (photons) to scatter the way sunlight scatters from the water droplets in clouds. But when the free electrons were absorbed to form neutral atoms, the Universe suddenly became transparent. Those same photons – the afterglow of the Big Bang known as cosmic background radiation – can be observed today.

   Missions Study Cosmic Background Radiation
   NASA has launched two missions to study the cosmic background radiation, taking “baby pictures” of the Universe only 400,000 years after it was born. The first of these was the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE). In 1992, the COBE team announced that they had mapped the primordial hot and cold spots in cosmic background radiation. These spots are related to the gravitational field in the early Universe and form the seeds of the giant clusters of galaxies that stretch hundreds of millions of light years across the Universe. This work earned NASA’s Dr. John C. Mather and George F. Smoot of the University of California the 2006 Nobel Prize for Physics.

   The second mission to examine the cosmic background radiation was the Wilkinson Microware Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). With greatly improved resolution compared to COBE, WMAP surveyed the entire sky, measuring temperature differences of the microwave radiation that is nearly uniformly distributed across the Universe. The picture shows a map of the sky, with hot regions in red and cooler regions in blue. By combining this evidence with theoretical models of the Universe, scientists have concluded that the Universe is “flat,” meaning that, on cosmological scales, the geometry of space satisfies the rules of Euclidean geometry (e.g., parallel lines never meet, the ratio of circle circumference to diameter is pi, etc).

   A third mission, Planck, led by the European Space Agency with significant participation from NASA, was. launched in 2009. Planck is making the most accurate maps of the microwave background radiation yet. With instruments sensitive to temperature variations of a few millionths of a degree, and mapping the full sky over 9 wavelength bands, it measures the fluctuations of the temperature of the CMB with an accuracy set by fundamental astrophysical limits.

   Inflation
   One problem that arose from the original COBE results, and that persists with the higher-resolution WMAP data, was that the Universe was too homogeneous. How could pieces of the Universe that had never been in contact with each other have come to equilibrium at the very same temperature? This and other cosmological problems could be solved, however, if there had been a very short period immediately after the Big Bang where the Universe experienced an incredible burst of expansion called “inflation.” For this inflation to have taken place, the Universe at the time of the Big Bang must have been filled with an unstable form of energy whose nature is not yet known. Whatever its nature, the inflationary model predicts that this primordial energy would have been unevenly distributed in space due to a kind of quantum noise that arose when the Universe was extremely small. This pattern would have been transferred to the matter of the Universe and would show up in the photons that began streaming away freely at the moment of recombination. As a result, we would expect to see, and do see, this kind of pattern in the COBE and WMAP pictures of the Universe.

   But all this leaves unanswered the question of what powered inflation. One difficulty in answering this question is that inflation was over well before recombination, and so the opacity of the Universe before recombination is, in effect, a curtain drawn over those interesting very early events. Fortunately, there is a way to observe the Universe that does not involve photons at all. Gravitational waves, the only known form of information that can reach us undistorted from the instant of the Big Bang, can carry information that we can get no other way. Several missions are being considered by NASA and ESA that will look for the gravitational waves from the epoch of inflation.

   Dark Energy
   During the years following Hubble and COBE, the picture of the Big Bang gradually became clearer. But in 1996, observations of very distant supernovae required a dramatic change in the picture. It had always been assumed that the matter of the Universe would slow its rate of expansion. Mass creates gravity, gravity creates pull, the pulling must slow the expansion. But supernovae observations showed that the expansion of the Universe, rather than slowing, is accelerating. Something, not like matter and not like ordinary energy, is pushing the galaxies apart. This “stuff” has been dubbed dark energy, but to give it a name is not to understand it. Whether dark energy is a type of dynamical fluid, heretofore unknown to physics, or whether it is a property of the vacuum of empty space, or whether it is some modification to general relativity is not yet known.

   Article 2. (Errors in steady state and quasi-ss theory)
   The Steady State model of the Universe was proposed in 1948 by Bondi and Gold and by Hoyle. Bondi and Gold adopted the “Perfect Cosmological Principle”, and added the assumption that the Universe was the same at all times to homogeneity (the same in all places) and isotropy (the same in all directions). The Universe is observed to be expanding, so if the density remains the same, matter must be continuously created. This radical assumption is not the reason that the Steady State model is now rejected. Like any good scientific model, the Steady State made many quantitative testable predictions, and these predictions inspired many observational campaigns. As a result of these observations it became clear that the Steady State model predictions were not correct.

   At the time the Steady State model was proposed, the Big Bang model was in trouble because the value of the Hubble constant was clearly bigger than the inverse of the age of the Universe. If the Universe is the same at all times, the value of the Hubble constant must really be constant, so v = dD/dt = HD has an exponential solution and the scale factor varies like

   a(t) = exp(H(t-to))
   Furthermore, since the radius of curvature of the Universe can not change, but must expand, the radius has to be infinite. Thus the Steady State model has flat spatial sections like the critical density Big Bang model. Since the expansion of the Universe spreads the existing matter over a larger and larger volume, but the density stays constant, the Steady State model requires continuous creation of matter. The average age of matter in the Steady State model is = 1/(3*Ho) but some galaxies are much older than the average, so the age of the globular clusters can be accommodated if the Milky Way is older than the average.

   The past light cone of the central galaxy (“us”) is shown in red. Note the continual creation of galaxies so the average density remains the same.
   The Steady State model makes some definite predictions. The first one to be tested involved the number of faint radio sources. In the 1950’s astronomers found that radio sources were typically much more distant than typical optical galaxies, so modifications to the usual source count law due to cosmology were expected. For the standard Big Bang model the counts were expected to fall below the usual “8 times more sources for 4 times fainter limit” law by an amount given approximately by 1/(1+z)4 where z is the redshift of the sources. This law assumes that radio sources are conserved, so a given section of the Universe has the same number of radio sources at all times. Because the volume of the section was smaller by a factor of (1+z)3 at early times, the actual density of radio sources was higher by a factor of (1+z)3. The density was constant in the Steady State model, of course, so the count correction factor would be given by 1/(1+z)7.

   The Big Bang should have a deficit of faint sources, the Steady State should have an even bigger deficit, but the observations showed a surplus of faint sources. The Steady State model has no adjustable parameters to correct for this error, but the Big Bang does. The assumption of conserved radio sources (CRS) can be dropped in favor of an excess of radio sources 1-3 Gyr after the Big Bang. Thus the Steady State failed the radio source count test, while the Big Bang passed by “winning ugly” – introducing a new parameter to describe a new datum. See Maran’s review of Hoyle’s book, Galaxies, Nuclei, and Quasars. Maran describes the birth and death of the Steady State theory without reference to the microwave background.
   He/H vs O/HThe Big Bang was originally proposed in the context of making all the elements. But the lack of a stable nucleus with atomic weight A=5 meant that only isotopes of hydrogen, helium and a trace of lithium are produced in Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. In the original Steady State proposal, all of the heavy elements were produced in stars by burning hydrogen into helium and then combining several helium nuclei [alpha particles] into heavier nuclei like carbon (3 alpha particles) and oxygen (4 alpha particles). In general the heavy element abundances relative to hydrogen are proportional to each other. Some stars have very little oxygen and these usually also have very little iron, and so on. But helium is definitely an exception to this rule. There is a non-zero floor to the helium abundance as the oxygen abundance goes to zero. This is shown in the plot at right which shows the helium and oxygen abundances relative to hydrogen by number of nuclei in the Sun and several ionized hydrogen nebulae [H II regions] in our Milky Way [M42 is the Orion nebula, M17 is the Omega nebula], in the nearby dwarf galaxies known as the Large and Small Magellanic clouds [LMC and SMC], and in other extragalactic H II regions. This plot clearly shows that solid line, which allows for the primordial helium produced in the Big Bang, is a much better fit than the dashed line which is the prediction of the Steady State model with no primordial helium. The data for this plot were taken from Figure 1b of a recent paper on the element abundances in the Sun. Shortly before the discovery of the CMB killed the Steady State model, Hoyle & Tayler (1964, Nature, 203, 1008) wrote “The Mystery of the Cosmic Helium Abundance” in which they decided that most of the helium in the Universe was not produced in stars. Hoyle held open the possibility of explosions in supermassive objects instead of a single Big Bang, but ordinary stars were ruled out.

   The discovery of the cosmic background blackbody radiation came later, and completed the death of the Steady State. The Universe now is not producing a blackbody since it is not isothermal and it is transparent instead of opaque. In the Steady State the Universe was always the same so it never produced a blackbody. Hence the existence of a blackbody background ruled out the Steady State. In addition, the temperature of the cosmic background can be measured in some very distant clouds that produce absorption lines in the spectra of quasars. The neutral carbon atoms in these clouds are excited to an excitation temperature that can be measured using line ratios. These excitation temperatures are upper limits to the CMB temperature and are shown as triangular data points at right. In some clouds corrections for other sources of excitation can be made, giving a direct measure of TCMB, shown as a round data point. This data agrees very well with the evolution expected in the Big Bang model: TCMB = To(1+z), which is shown as the red line in the figure. Even if there were some unknown mechanism for producing a blackbody radiation field in the Steady State model, its temperature would have to be constant as a function of redshift as shown by the blue line and these observations reject this model. Noterdaeme et al. (2010) give several of the points in the plot and find that TCMB(z) agrees very well with the Big Bang prediction, but differs from the Steady State prediction by 37 standard deviations. Saro et al. use South Pole Telescope observations of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect cross-over frequency for cluster of galaxies versus their redshifts. to find that TCMB = To(1+z)1-α with α = 0.017 ± 0.029 which is 32 standard deviations away from the Steady State prediction of α = 1. Hurier et al. used Planck data to get α = 0.009 ± 0.017 which is 58 standard deviations away from the Steady State prediction.

   The Quasi-Steady State Cosmology is an attempt by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar to allow for the evolution of the CMB temperature and to explain the surplus of faint radio sources in a Universe that is always the same over the very long term. A sinusoidal pulsation is superimposed over the exponential growth of the scale factor a(t), giving the space-time diagram below.

   Quasi-steady state space time diagram

   During the previous large phase of the Universe, our past light cone (in red) was very large, and this gives a large number of faint sources. Unfortunately for Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar these sources are blueshifted — as indicated by the blue tint on the space-time diagram, and NO faint radio source has ever been observed to have a blueshift. This data disproving the QSSC model existed before Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar published — so the QSSC model was definitely an error by formerly great cosmologists.
   The NEW QSSC
   Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar have not abandoned the QSSC but have continued to develop it. In recent papers they have presented a new version of the QSSC that has a greater connection to standard physics. In this model, there is a creation field that gives an energy density that is negative and scales like radiation. This negative energy density becomes dominant at high redshifts and causes the bounce in the QSSC. The recollapse that leads to the periodic nature of the QSSC is caused by a negative vacuum energy density. As a result the evolution of the scale factor is no longer a sinusoid modulated by an exponential [the red dashed curve at right], but rather a considerably more cuspy function shown in blue.

   Some of what follows will be fairly technical, since many astronomers will not want to spend the time needed to understand what the QSSC is saying. Given that the expansion rate of the Universe goes to zero at amin and amax, and that the curvature is zero, one can easily solve for all three of the relevant densities, finding for zmax=5 and amax/amin=(1+0.811)/(1-0.811) that Omegavac = -0.358, Omegam = 1.623, and Omegarad = -0.271. These parameters thus give a deceleration parameter qo = 1.623/2+0.358-2*0.271 = 0.63.

   Given that the deceleration parameter is close to the Einstein-de Sitter value of qo = 0.5, it is not surprising that evolution of the scale factor a(t) from the last minimum until now follows the EdS curve quite closely. The figure at right shows the EdS curve in red and the Steady State curve in blue.

   Note that the new QSSC is accelerating only during the bounce. At other times it is decelerating. Also note that the matter density in the QSSC is about 5 times larger than most current estimates.

   The units for the time axis in the figure are 1/Ho, so the time since the last bounce for the QSSC with the chosen parameters is almost exactly the same as the age of the EdS Universe: Hot = 2/3.

   If the QSSC is decelerating instead of accelerating, how is it that Banerjee et al. (2000, AJ, 119, 2583) claim to be able to fit the distant supernova data that is evidence for an accelerating expansion? The answer lies in extinction by the carbon and iron whiskers that the QSSC uses to convert star light into CMB photons. Since the QSSC has a larger deceleration than the EdS model, it requires much more gray dust than the open model and slightly more than the EdS model considered by Aguirre (1999, ApJL, 512, L19). The figure at right shows the distance modulus relative to c/Ho, DM = 5 log10(DL Ho/c), plotted vs redshift for the models shown in the previous figure. The red curve is the EdS model, while the black curve is the QSSC without absorption. The blue curve is for the Steady State model. The magenta curve is for the best fit OmegaM=0.3 vacuum dominated flat model. The green curve is the QSSC model with one magnitude of extinction per Hubble radius locally. The green curve crosses the magenta curve at z = 0.45, so it will fit the supernova data quite well. But Aguirre and Haiman (2000, ApJ, 532, 28) find that the amount of dust needed to go from the EdS model to the supernova observations is not allowed by the Cosmic Infrared Background data, so the slightly greater amount of dust needed by the QSSC would also be ruled out.

   At larger redshifts the extinction grows quite rapidly. Note that Equation (30) of Banerjee et al. which gives the extinction as a function of redshift has a serious error which greatly affects the answer at high redshifts. But using the corrected equation gives the DM vs z curves shown in the figure at right. The black curve, the QSSC without extinction, shows the loop back to low DM [brighter sources] during the previous maximum of a(t) that the old QSSC used to explain the excess of faint radio sources. But with the amount of dust required to fit the supernova data, there is so much extinction through the minimum size epoch that it becomes impossible to see anything prior to the minimum.

   In the QSSC, the dust opacity in the millimeter waveband is higher than the optical opacity, so the Universe would have to be optically thick at z=0.3 for CMB radiation. But the recent preprint by Narlikar et al., which miscalculates the small angular scale CMB anisotropies, assumes the Universe is transparent up to zmax. So if Narlikar et al. is right, then Banerjee et al. must be wrong, and vice-versa. These papers cannot both be right, since Banerjee et al. requires a high opacity while Narlikar et al. requires a low opacity. But actually both these papers are wrong. The Narlikar et al. model should give a small-scale anisotropy in the CMB that is the Fourier transform of the two-point correlation function of galaxies. But the two-point correlation function of galaxies is a power law, so the angular power spectrum of the CMB would be a power law, and not have a peak. Narlikar et al. just assert there would be a peak without any reference or justification.

   In 2002, Narlikar et al. again present an “Interpretation of the Accelerating Universe” that requires a large opacity, while Narlikar et al. presents an interpretation of the CMB anisotropy that requires a low opacity. These articles were submitted to different journals, and refer to each other as successful calculations of the QSSC model, but they in fact contradict each other. Presumably this is a deliberate attempt to deceive the casual reader, since Narlikar et al. should know what Narlikar et al. is doing.

   The claim by Narlikar et al. (2003, ApJ, 585, 1) to fit the CMB anisotropy data is false as well. The graph above shows the pre-WMAP compilation of CMB data, along with red and blue curves which are versions of the cold dark matter dominated models with different parameters, and the solid curve from Figure 4 of Narlikar et al. This model obviously does not fit the COBE data which were published in 1992. Narlikar et al. hide this discrepancy by only plotting binned CMB data.

   The claim by Narlikar, Burbidge and Vishwakarma (2007, J. Astr. & Ap., 28, 67) to fit the CMB anisotropy data is also false. To make this claim Narlikar made a poorly justified change in his 2003 model to better fit the data. But since the motivation for the model was rather ad hoc to start, it is pointless to complain about an unjustified change. Narlikar et al. noted that their model did not fit the high ell data very well, but noted that these points changed quite a bit between the first year WMAP data and the three year WMAP data. However, the failure of the model to fit the high ell points in the three-year WMAP power spectrum is not because the high ell data had not settled down, but is rather a failure of the model at high ell, that can be seen better by fitting to a combined dataset with both WMAP data and data from the ground-based and balloon-borne experiments that have smaller beam sizes and work better at high ell.

   The plot above shows this fit: the ΛCDM model in green fits all the data very well, while the QSSC model in orange fits rather poorly. There is a difference in χ2 of 516.3 between the two models, which both have 6 free parameters. Narlikar et al. chose the CMB angular power spectrum as the one and only plot in their paper, but their model does not fit the WMAP three year data nor does it fit the CBI and ACBAR data that were already published. It is very clear that the QSSC CMB angular power spectrum model proposed by Narlikar et al. does not fit the CMB data.
   The nucleosynthesis theory in the QSSC leading to the standard helium abundance is frozen in the 1960’s, based on the eight-fold way or flavor SU(3). For some reason only up, down and strange quarks are produced. The suppression of flavor changing neutral currents means that all the strange quarks decay to up quarks, leading to a large excess of protons over neutrons. But if one allows for charmed quarks, or for all six quark flavors, then this proton excess goes away, and one gets the wrong ratio of H to He in the final products.

   Also, do you really believe that the Earth is round, or are you awoken and believe the illuminati made a flat earth? Here is proof that the flat earth theory is true.

   1. Flat Water – Water always seeks to maintain its level
   Natural physics easily proves that water always seeks to find and maintain its level. If Earth was a big tilted ball, hurdling through space then consistently level surfaces of water would not exist here. Since Earth is in fact an extended plane, the fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with simple scientific experiments and common sense.

   2. Magnetic North – The North central Pole is the only proven fixed point on our flat Earth
   The mariner’s compass is an impossible instrument to use on a ball-Earth: it makes no sense. It simultaneously points North and South over a flat surface, yet the accepted claim is that it is trying to point in the direction of two constantly moving geomagnetic poles. In addition, these poles are located at opposite ends of a spinning sphere originating from a hypothetical molten metal core. If compass needles were actually drawn to the North pole of a globe, the opposing “South” needle would actually be pointing up and off into outer-space.

   3. Flat Earth – Time Zones
   The Sun brings noon to every time-zone as it passes directly over-head every 15 degree demarcation point, 24 times per day in its circular path over and around the Earth. If time-zones were caused by the uniform spinning of the ball-Earth around the Sun, every 6 months as Earth found itself on the opposite side of the Sun, clocks all over Earth would have to flip 12 hours. Day would be night and night would be day.

   4. The magic of gravity with spinning balls
   There has never been a single experiment in history showing an object massive enough to, by virtue of its mass alone, cause another smaller mass to orbit around it. The magic theory of gravity allows for oceans, buildings and people to remain forever stuck to the underside of a spinning ball while simultaneously causing objects like the Moon and satellites to remain locked in perpetual circular orbits around the Earth. If these were both true then people should be able to jump up and start orbiting circles around the Earth, or the Moon should have long ago been sucked into the Earth. Neither of these theories have ever been experimentally verified and their alleged results are mutually exclusive.

   5. Flat stationary Earth – trust your common sense and your own eyes
   When you observe the Sun and Moon you see two equally-sized equidistant circles tracing similar paths at similar speeds around a flat, stationary Earth. The “experts” at NASA claim your common sense every day experience is false on all counts!

   First off, they say the Earth is not flat but a big ball; not stationary but spinning around 19 miles per second; they say the Sun does not revolve around the Earth as it appears, but Earth revolves around the Sun; the Moon, on the other hand, does revolve around the Earth. Next, they claim it revolves around the Earth not East to West as it appears, but West to East. Meanwhile the Sun is supposedly 400 times larger than the Moon and 400 times farther away!

   You can clearly see they are the same size and distance, you can see the Earth is flat, you can feel the Earth is stationary, but according to the gospel of modern astronomy, you are wrong and a simpleton worthy of endless ridicule if you dare to trust your own eyes and experience.

   7. Rivers run to sea-level on the stationary flat Earth
   Rivers run down to sea-level finding the easiest course, North, South, East, West and all other intermediary directions over the Earth at the same time. If Earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill. For example the Mississippi river in its 3000 miles would have to ascend 11 miles before reaching the Gulf of Mexico.

   One portion of the Nile River flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot. Parts of the West African Congo, according to the supposed inclination and movement of the ball-Earth, would be sometimes running uphill and sometimes down. This would also be the case for the Parana, Paraguay and other long rivers.

   Thank you for reading my comment and I hope you are now enlightened so you can be saved by the holy flying turtle at the day of the apocalypse when the vaccines turn us into government slaves.

   LikeLike

7. So, for the sake of newcomers to astronomy who are just becoming acquainted with these concepts, in the Steady State model it’s not as if, for example, a star that is halfway burnt out remains half burnt out forever, because new matter and energy is being created to maintain its appearance. That’s what I couldn’t quite understand. But this article seems to clear up that confusion. New matter and energy are being created, yes. But the phenomenon is happening in open space. New stars, etc., are being created to replace the old ones. Have I got that right? Because the other way, stars, planets, quasars, galaxies, etc., would retain their same appearance “in a steady state” forever and ever.

   LikeLike

   1. Yes your understanding is absolutely correct, new matter is created which eventually makes new objects. Hopefully you found that the video at the end of my post illustrated this concept well

      LikeLike

8. I’ve always, since the idea was introduced to me, liked the idea of matter appearing from out of nowhere. Because no reason, seems to me.
   I believe there has to be an error in that idea someplace, or there exists at least one parallel universe between which all those atoms port. But that cannot yet be verified.
   The static state theory, of the two, freaks me out more. The big bang theory has less infinity in it, you know.

   LikeLike

9. Nice article.
   from my perspective curtain three ie SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model’s a big bang (Hyper dense start and proto-galactic formation followed by cosmic inflation expansion into a static (stable – no ongoing cosmic expansion universe. The CR does not represent ongoing distancing of the CR’ed objects but is evidence of the distancing during the cosmic inflation expansion epoch.

   LikeLike

10. Fascinating post. I quite enjoyed it. Interesting that this idea is coming back in fashion since this was one of the many theories about the universe that was explored by the ancient philosophers of Greece and Rome. No doubt the reason that the Big Bang Theory was accepted was due to our Christian heritage. This is obviously changing though.

    LikeLike

    1. Thank you.

       The Steady State theory is certainly more elegant than the big bang

       LikeLiked by 1 person

11. Interesting. Both theories call for matter to form from nothing… the big bang theory, all at once… steady state, a little at a time. I think quantum physics could eventually explain the steady state creation of matter; however, I’m not sure the big bang could be explained on a quantum level…

    LikeLike

12. I have a fresh theory on the formation of spiral galaxies. The theory is by a lay man to another lay man. It will be hard to understand and follow up. There are some unnecessary assumptions which are not correct. But the part starting from the birth of stars and the formation of spiral arms of the galaxy is beautiful and reasonable and correct. Can anyone go through it thoroughly and appreciate the theory. I am waiting for a kind remark. The theory is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvW3bI5JCEc&feature=youtu.be

    LikeLike

    1. Nice work, ‘great minds think alike’, reference the ‘SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model’, with it’s ‘magnetic repulsion’ ‘Black hole illusion resolution’ and Cosmological ‘blue-shift’ hypotheses, and adds in he mechanism of your double black holes..
       http://www.amazon.com/dp/B07DP4TBZ5

       LikeLike

13. […] (Credits: https://thesciencegeek.org/2015/07/25/the-steady-state-theory/) […]

    LikeLike

14. As a writer, I’m a literalist.
    I’ve observed the universe from my back porch for a few decades and while the city around me and my mid-section have expanded, when I eyeball the heavens I see no evidence that the universe has emulated either middle-age or urban sprawl.
    Therefore the steady state theory appeals to me.
    Doubtless, I will be criticized for basing my opinion on information from mostly shiftless believers rather than documented evidence about shifty celestial bodies.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

15. Nice explaination!

    LikeLiked by 1 person

16. […] spotted the signal from the first pulsar. The British astronomer Fred Hoyle (who readers of a previous post may recall was a founder of the steady state theory of the origin of the Universe) was particularly […]

    LikeLike

17. This is quite interesting. Thank you for being so detailed.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

18. It is a pity that so many good theories turn out to be wrong, but that is the way of the world. The important thing is, when proven wrong, admit it.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

    1. Yes, very true, the steady state theory is a far more elegant theory than the big bang. I particularly like the fact that the questions of the origin and the ultimate fate of the UNiverse doesn’t arise.

       It is a shame that it didn’t fit the observations

       The Science Geek

       LikeLiked by 1 person

19. per SPIRAL CR hypothesis we (the universe) are in a ‘stable steady state oscillation’, on the first plateu..

    LikeLiked by 1 person

20. Enjoyed your article, but I have to point our a couple points where you unintentionally misrepresented Steady State Theory, particularly the “evidence against”. First of all, perhaps the most elegant formulation of SST is actually the Hoyle-Narlikar theory, which included the profound insights and mathematical prowess of the great Indian astrophysicist, Dr. Jayant Narlikar (JN), who collaborated with Hoyle for years at Cambridge.

    Narlikar derived an alternative solution of Einstein’s GR equations in which he allowed mass to be variable, leading to an equation, m=at^2 which not many people are aware of. Doing so avoided the complex geometry of “space-time” of Friedman’s 1922 solution that led towards inflation and “big bang” enthusiasm going into the 1965 CMBR observations. I will get back to that in a moment, as I can hear you saying to your computer “this idiot doesn’t know that particle mass does not vary”.

    You cited “quasars” as evidence against SST, but actually, you assumed that the red shift of quasars proves they are extremely distant. Halton Arp and others have proved beyond any reasonable statistical doubt that quasars are actually ejected by certain active galaxies, at literally million to one odds that the correlations of their optical, xrap, and radio emissions to the morphology of their parent galaxies is just a coincidence–that they are “far in the distance” behind the putative source galaxy.

    “Why are they so red-shifted?” you ask. Just assume that the conditions inside the super active, hundred-million+ solar mass objects at the cores of these active galaxies are so intense, comparable in scale to what is claimed for black holes, that they somehow create ideal conditions for pair production or a similar process for creating “new” matter directly from the quantum vacuum. Pair production is Paul Dirac’s idea, not mine, and not Halton Arp’s. If you run with Narlikar’s m=at^2 derivation, you see that as time increases, mass increases. Lower mass means photons emitted have lower energies and lower wavelengths, hence their spectra are “redshifted”. As “young” matter accumulates, the core becomes unstable and large hot masses of young matter are ejected, often in opposite directions along a common axis. These grow to become new galaxies, as the matter generating processes continue.

    Keep in mind that the Doppler effect had to be discarded years ago–trying to explain redshift as recessions velocity implied superluminal (faster than light) velocities. What replaced Doppler? Apparently time-space itself is being created–out of the same quantuum vacuum but not by a lab-proven process like pair production, and not locally where we can observe it, but out beyond even out local supercluster of galaxies, ONLY in the spaces between such masses. Convenient, but like dark matter, dark energy, and all the other ad-hoc bells and whistles added to keep “big bang” alive, not exactly the kind of “science” they told you about in high school.

    The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation that is supposed to be such a deal killer for SST has many possible alternative explanations, sich that one wonders why so much effort has been put into blacklisting Halton Arp and other academically qualified pro-SST dissenters. Surely the current orthodoxy could stand up to complex and nuanced scrutiny without having to resort to tactics reminiscent of the Inquisition to defend itself.

    LikeLiked by 3 people

    1. Pardon my typo, I meant to say “longer” wavelengths, not “lower”, in paragraph 4.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

21. […] doesn’t evolve or change over time.  This is described in more detail in my post the steady state theory. However, in the 1960s evidence was beginning to mount against the steady state theory, as […]

    LikeLike

22. Reblogged this on News Aggregator Web.

    LikeLike

23. At the moment, the generally accepted view by most cosmologists is that the Universe (or at least the portion that we can see- the visible Universe ) is homogeneous when viewed on very large scales, i.e 50-200 Megapasecs or larger.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

24. Hi Geek, I was trying to find the relevant place for my question and this post seems as close as I can get.

    I have recently heard that the Visible Universe is not as homogeneous as previously thought, and at the very large scale has cooler and hotter regions. The experts are calling this the “axis of evil” since it’s not what was expected. I also heard the Planck Satalite recently confirmed this.

    Is this true, and what are the implications on inflation theory? What are the general implications on the current theories if this is the case?

    Thanks, love your site.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

25. My Dad was an engineer, worked with nuclear power and tested metals and alloys for their resistance to heat. I feel bad since I would half listen to him when he would be so informative about rockets parts! He worked for NASA but left when aged 55, blaming Nixon for taking away the money to fund space program.
    I will enjoy having you visit my posts and your input is invaluable, but I may just read and push like, unless I have something to add to your educational and informative posts! Smiles, Robin

    LikeLike

26. The best theory which fit the observations in a steady state universe is the shrinking matter theory. If the matter shrinks, the distances become larger in atomics radius, giving the illusion of an expanding universe.
    There are a lot of theories or hypothesis proposing a shrinking universe, but most (not all) lack for mathematical consistence. This took me to develop the “shrinking matter theory”.
    The end result can be summarized by the graphic 02 in the chapter 6, which shows that dark energy is not required to justify the excess of dimming in the luminosity of the SN1As.

    For further information: https://shrinkingmattertheory.blogspot.com

    LikeLike

27. The best theory which fit the observations in a steady state universe is the shrinking matter theory. If the matter shrinks, the distances become larger in atomic radius, giving the illusion of an expanding universe.
    There are a lot of theories or hypothesis proposing a shrinking universe, but most (not all) lack for mathematical consistence. This took me to develop the “shrinking matter theory”.
    The end result can be summarized by the graphic 02 in the chapter 6, which shows that dark energy is not required to justify the excess of dimming in the luminosity of the SN1As.

    For further information: https://shrinkingmattertheory.blogspot.com

    LikeLike

28. thank you you have really helped me for my science homework xx

    LikeLike

    1. Glad you found my post of value. Please fee free to look at any of my other post or pass on to your fellow students.

       The Science Geek

       LikeLike

29. Secrets of the Universe
    In the beginning was infinite geometric space. This space became filled with Static Time at absolute rest and absolute cold. Static time is strictly quantitative, and does not differentiate between past, present and future. Being quantifiable and measurable, static time is a scientific concept. Static time of 0.0033 microseconds per meter will be measured regardless of the direction chosen.
    Stars move through static time, which does not disrupt their motion. Static time exists but is imperceptible. Static time is the deepest secret of the universe.
    Static time fills all infinite space, eliminating the possibility of a vacuum. Static Time Waves (STW) travel through static time. The speed of STW is 300,000 km/second.

    LikeLike

30. Thanks for your continuing support for sciencesprings. I appreciate it very much.

    LikeLike

31. The Newtonian universe is based on matter and force.
    The Einsteinian universe is based on matter and energy.
    The Aetzbarian universe is based on static time and energy.

    LikeLike

32. What are your thoughts on the big question in cosmology? Did the universe have an absolute beginning?

    LikeLike

    1. In the standard big bang model, before the Big Bang the Universe did not exist.
       In this model trying to go back in time before the Big Bang is a bit like trying get further South on the surface of the Earth when you are sitting on the South pole. So there is no time before the Big Bang

       There are other models of the Universe in which it does evolve or change of time and for which
       there is no Big Bang. I am planning to write about these in further posts on cosmology next year

       LikeLike

33. Great post!

    LikeLike

34. Excellent post !

    The steady state theory (sort of) fits what I understand quantum physics is all about.

    Perhaps there can be both solid state universes and big bang universes existing within the cosmos, which would allow for the multiverse(s), also.

    I’m no cosmologist (or any kind of scientist for that matter) but I certainly enjoy reading about this sort of thing.

    Keep the posts coming !

    PS: Thanks for the “like” on my blog !

    LikeLike

35. Excellent post. I would only add the interesting aspect of random fluctuation in a vacuum that is inevitable given infinite time. That’s enough to start stuff in the middle of nowhere, which smacks of steady statehood. Also, I would not expect to see any quasars anywhere nearby on a cosmic scale. If we did “see” one nearby it would only be a flash, ’cause we’d be disintegrated.

    LikeLike

36. Reblogged this on LexaLovesFUNFASHIONFOOD.

    LikeLike

37. […] http://thesciencegeek.org/2015/07/25/the-steady-state-theory/ […]

    LikeLike

38. An excellent and informative post – really well done 🙂

    LikeLike

39. Excellent, concise explanation. I do enjoy looking into the past.

    LikeLike

40. thank you for teaching me the Steady State theory.

    LikeLike

41. Below is a message posted yesterday on ResearchGate in response to Professor Matts Roos saying the universe is not expanding on all scales.

    The universe is currently expanding on all scales, including the very solar system where we live, because life is built into the basic structure of matter:

    1. Mass (m) is stored energy (E), E = mc^2

    2. The entire universe is composed of two forms of one fundamental particle:

    Neutrons are compacted electron-proton pairs
    H-1 atoms are expanded electron-proton pairs, with the radius 100,000 times greater and the mass 0.08% less than those of neutrons.
    3. These two forms of one fundamental particle are naturally and reversibly converted by natural opposing forces:

    SHORT-RANGE REPULSIVE FORCES BETWEEN NEUTRONS versus
    LONG-RANGE GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION BETWEEN H-1 ATOMS
    4. The universe currently expands as SHORT-RANGE REPULSIVE FORCES BETWEEN NEUTRONS in the cores of galaxies and ordinary stars like the Sun cause neutron emission and decay into the H-1 atoms that fill interstellar space, then

    5. The universe will collapse as LONG-RANGE GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION BETWEEN H-1 ATOMS reverses the process for the next cosmic breath of our INFINITELY BEAUTIFUL, BOUNTIFUL AND BENEVOLENT UNIVERSE that endowed humans with “inalienable rights to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

    6. This is a summary of humanity’s path from Fear in 1945 to Assurance in 2015:

    _ a.) An international transformation of society was triggered by CHAOS and FEAR of events during a news blackout in Aug-Sept 1945:

    Click to access CHAOS_and_FEAR.pdf

    _ b.) Frightened world leaders secretly agreed to unite nations (UN) and national academies of science (NAS) into a worldwide “Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Science (UN)Truths” to prevent public knowledge of the source of energy in cores of heavy atoms on 24 Oct 1945.

    Kuroda realized in Aug 1945 the same source of energy in the core of the Sun made our elements and sustains our lives, NEUTRON REPULSION:

    Click to access Solar_Energy.pdf

    Thanks to Max Planck’s 1944 insight into the nature of matter, we now have assurance humanity will survive this seventy-year (1945-2015) effort to take totalitarian control of the globe by combining all sovereign nations into one United Nation.

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850 /Assurance.pdf

    LikeLike

42. Thanks Geek!

    LikeLike

43. What is the relationship of the steady state to the cosmological constant?

    LikeLike

    1. The Cosmological Constant is the simplest and probably most widely accepted explanation of dark energy. THis is described in much more detail as is described in my following post
       http://thesciencegeek.org/2015/01/12/dark-energy/

       In summary, Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that gravity will pull the galaxies together and slow down the expansion, there must something stronger than gravity acting to push the galaxies apart. This force is called dark energy and counteracts the force of gravity. The reason for the name “dark” is that it is invisible and fills the whole of space.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

       1. Is the cosmological constant is the same which Einstein declared as “His biggest folly” afterwards? And nowadays again gaining reputation of being true.

          LikeLike

44. Lovely article. It is well presented in your article that when Steady Stat theory was proposed, not Hoyle but lot other cosmologists were inclined towards it as this theory right away removes the hurdle of answering the question of “Initiation of Universe” which was very comfortable and easy way to avoid the question. But CMBR and all other proofs had pushed the theory out of the minds of scientists.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

    1. Very true and it was an elegant theory and in my opinion a much more elegant theory than the Big Bang. The problem is it was shown to be false.

       The Science Geek

       LikeLike

45. Pretty nice article…. Wonderfully written and of course informational

    LikeLiked by 1 person

    1. A more recent steady state model says the universe is constantly growing ever more massive singularities, two of which eventually collide head-on at light speed. It’s called the Big Bash model and each big bash looks much like our own big bang. The primary difference is that each big bang takes place in the same old universe and overlays some of the old, cold, lumpy matter of prior bashes.
       This explains why we’re finding cosmic structures that are both too large and too old to have been created by our big bang. Our big bang is surrounded by so many massive structures that their gravitational pull eventually overpowers our big bang’s own thinning central gravity and causes the re-acceleration of its expansion; the phenomenon referred to as dark energy. This model explains many of the big bang anomalies that trouble so many astrophysicists.
       Its details are posted at ghmickeythompson.com.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

    2. Thank you

       LikeLiked by 1 person

46. I believe this long time rival to acute or secular rapid expansion was, at the time, called “Continuous Creation”, and was championed by the late Fred Hoyle. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle.) Hoyle is also credited with giving secular rapid expansion its then popular and present name, the “Big Bang”. He intended it to be pejorative.

    LikeLiked by 1 person

    1. I agree that the universe is infinite and cyclic, information hidden from the public after national academies of science were united into a worldwide “Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Science (UN)Truths” when nations were united (UN) on 24 Oct 1945.

       The internal composition of the Sun was immediately changed from:
       _ a.) Mostly iron (Fe) in 1945 to
       _ b.) Mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946,

       and George Orwell also started writing “Nineteen Eighty-Four” In 1946.

       The pulsar core of the iron Sun offers ASSURANCE humanity will survive this 70-year voyage on a ship of fools guided by frightened, but incompetent world leaders.

       The 2009 Climategate emails and six years of official excuses for deception disguised as 97% consensus science conclusively demonstrate that humanity has been captive passengers on Spaceship Earth for seventy years, guided by world leaders who lost contact with reality in 1945!

       Fortunately for humanity, Nobel Laureate Max Planck recognized and pointed out in 1944 that a “conscious and intelligent Mind” directs the force that creates and sustains atoms, lives and planets in the solar system, . . .

       the same force that endowed humans with inalienable rights to self-governance in order to insure “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

       Click to access Assurance.pdf

       That is my assurance that BIG BROTHER IS GOING DOWN.

       LikeLiked by 2 people

       1. Events that changed the course of world history during a NEWS BLACKOUT in Aug-Sept 1945.

          Click to access STALINS_SCIENCE.pdf

          LikeLike

47. Very informative, thank you!

    LikeLiked by 1 person

48. very interesting, though scientists and cosmologists, last year admitted, something was there before the big bang 🙂
    and now with the revelations of rosetta, that life, human, animal and vegetable could not have come from comets 😦
    which means, all their documentaries, books and experts who thought and said, it did, must re-write, re-do, and recant the truth they thought was set in stone 😦

    best wishes 🙂

    LikeLiked by 1 person

    1. I have not seen this data you talk about, I have seen data that says they have, and I quote from a Wikipedia article, “Preliminary analyses strongly suggest the carbon is present as polyaromatic organic solids mixed with sulfides and iron-nickel alloys.[94] In turn, the Philae lander’s COSAC instrument detected organic molecules in the comet’s atmosphere as it descended to its surface.” Now carbon was not found by the orbiter in the tail of the comet as of yet, but the comet and findings by the lander are a different matter. I am curious about these things, could you suggest reading sources for me because all I find does not support your statement.

       LikeLiked by 1 person

       1. i picked it up from watching or reading them on tv,or science mag, it is like chicken eggs have all been found to contain female protein, meaning they all begin female, before either becoming chicken or rooster 🙂

          LikeLike

       2. I found two websites – not wiki driven:

          http://www.space.com/6303-glimpse-big-bang.html
          and
          http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm

          both suggest a non-uniform universe and definite areas not in balance with “the universe” but separate from anything but a steady state.

          LikeLike

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.