No Big Bang

Big bang has many evidences in its support. But before we look into evidence, we have to also look for what the evidence is against. The Big Bang theory is in effect two theories. One that about 13 billion light years ago, all the matter was on a single point. And the other is, we have not been here since infinite time, which was the predominant model of universe before big bang came along, the steady state, universe has always been there. Both of them mean the same, but when we look at evidences to support big bang, some evidences appear to support the first while the other support the other.

For example the Hubble expansion. It proves that at some point of time we must have all been on a single point, if we extrapolate things backwards based on expansion as observed. This supports the former.

Then we have evidence like we have cloud of gas which is only composed of hydrogen and no other elements. How does that prove big bang happen and we were at same point at one point. It kind of doesn’t prove we were at the same point at some point of time, it just proves that we can’t be infinite year old. Else the star material (every element other than hydrogen is forged in stars), must have reached and polluted that patch of gas.

Hubble Expansion

Compared to all other evidences, the Hubble one is most “direct” and convincing. Hubble is how it started. So lets look at that. Now Mr Hubble measured distance of stars, and red shift of those stars, and found that further away the star is, the faster it is going from us. And we confirmed this again and again. If this is true, as it appears to be, and we go back in time, it follows that the further in past we go, the closer the stars must have been, and its logical to assume this happened indefinitely and at some point we were all at the same point.

Now I am here too tell you this is incorrect.

The observations made by Hubble are all fine. There is redshift. The further the star is from us the more redshifted it is. All fine. Problem is not the observation but the explanation. The explanation is that the redshift represents how fast the star is moving away from us. Doppler effect. Thats cool. Doppler effect would have explained it. Not disputing that bit.

There is an alternate, and much simpler explanation of the redshift, this is how light is supposed to behave when moving through a constant density medium. Its that simple.

Let me clarify. When light leaves from Sun and reaches Earth, there too there is a redshift. It is not because of Doppler effect. Earth is not moving away from Sun (it is not moving in circle, so it is moving away and moving towards Sun depending on season, but lets ignore that as that Doppler effect is too small, and observed redshift is much bigger to be explained by that doppler effect). That redshift is called “gravitational redshift”.

And to give them credit, scientists/we do consider gravitational redshifts when computing speed of stars. We consider redshift due to the gravity of Star. We also consider redshift due to gravity of the entire galaxy, as even at that stage gravitational redshift is much larger compared to doppler effect redshift. We even further, when light leaves a galaxy cluster, that too has gravitational redshift, and that too is understood and accounted for.

The problem is we stop there. Then we assume there is no more body that has any discernible gravitation pull on the light, and light then onwards travels over billions of light years without any further gravitational redshift and the only further redshift is because of doppler effect. This part or assumption is wrong.

Lets look at things from lights point of view. Well light experiences no time, so that can’t make sense, but lets assume for simplicity that it did experience time (from outside it does, light does take time to travel from our point of view). So when light was very near the surface of star, just left the star, the light is predominantly working against the gravity of the star alone. You see the net effect of galaxy more or less cancels out (assuming its near the centre of the galaxy and not at the edge). Some stars are ahead of the light and some stars behind. So the gravity of these two stars will cancel out. Only when light reaches far enough away from centre of galaxy, the cancellations will stop.

Now lets look at the light that has just left the galaxy. It is now primarily working against the gravity of stars in the galaxy, and some galaxy in the local cluster are ahead of the galaxy in the direction light is travelling, and some behind, so these two galaxies gravity cancels each other out, and till light reaches the edge of galaxy cluster, it only works against the galaxy it originated from.

What happens next is interesting. We do not have a name of any structure bigger than galaxy cluster. And in fact in many cases galaxies are not party of any cluster at all. This entire cluster bit is nebulous, hard to define what is a cluster and what is not. So we/scientists get bored and say that its. No more redshifts due to gravity. But imagine the poor light. From lights point of view, at this point, there are two regions of universe. Imagine a sphere, with the star from where the light originated from, and surface is where the light is currently. In that sphere, whatever gravitational material is there, it exerts a net force on light, but outside that sphere, the entire universe (assuming constant density of universe at large scale), it cancels out. Now in this explanation I did not use the words galaxy and galaxy cluster, but both of them are accounted for in this. And in this explanation I am not limited by vocabulary to say oh I do not have a name for something bigger than galaxy cluster, so I will end physics there. No matter how big the sphere is, no matter how far has the light travelled from the star, there is constantly a growing sphere of stars or gravitational material (anything which exerts gravity, could be mass or energy or pressure) to be more accurate.

The gravitational potential energy for a sphere of a constant density is known, its directly proportional to radius squared. And this is it, this is our answer. No doppler shift, but only radius squared gravitational redshift. Stars are not moving away, we are just experiencing what we would have experienced if the universe can be approximated as a constant density gravitational material, which it is.

A Note On Dark Energy

When first discovered, the Hubble equation was linear. Even today the unit we use to measure Hubble’s constant is linear, km/s/Mpc. If the star is twice as far away, it is moving twice as fast. Which appears to be true in our “locality”, but at larger scales, what we observe is stars are moving at a faster rate. I am here to say that actual distribution of stars distance and redshift is not linear but quadratic. This is what is required for my explanation to be correct, and this if correct will do away with the need of dark energy altogether.

Yes at short distances a quadratic graph may look linear, but we know for sure, that far away stars are definitely not falling on that linear graph and would fall better on a higher order graph, and if they indeed fall on quadratic graph then there would be no need for big band or dark energy.

But Why Is Sky Dark?

One of the first arguments against steady state universe, a universe that extends infinitely in all directions and has been there since forever was placed by Plato. He said if universe is indeed infinite, and indeed there has been infinite amount of time, where ever we see in the sky, lets say at any point in the sky, there would be some star there at some point. And given the nature of infinites, there must have been a star far enough in the past that its light got time to reach us (now Plato did not know that light takes time, so just being there was enough, we know better and we would require this extra clause). So whatever point we look at, we must see a star, but we see lots of dark areas.

One possible explanation for sky not being white in night is dust in our galaxy, which will absorb that light. But if that was true, and that dust has been absorbing light since forever, that dust will heat up, and eventually start radiation of its own, and we are back to white sky.

You see, the answer to that question is very simple. The gravitational redshift. The light that leaves Sun, it keeps losing energy, as a function of square of distance it travels. And a photon does not have infinite energy, so at some distance the light will get completely redshifted. The wavelength will keep on increasing and at some point it will be undetectable weak.

So We Really Are In An Infinite Universe Since Infinite Time?

I find that hard to imagine. Further some evidences kind of cause problem with this theory, like the abundance of hydrogen in the Universe. An Universe that was forever there would have by now sucked up all the hydrogen. Also all the stars must have been burnt out, unless there is some mechanism that is producing some new hydrogen, and eating up the heavier stable elements, this can not be so, and we do not know of any mechanism in theory for that yet.

Or may be we are there at just a convenient time. Anyways, I do not really have an alternate theory here to explain, but doppler effect as the only explanation of redshift observed is flawed and gravitational redshift of a constant density medium, and the quadratic graph, so we don’t need big bang nor dark energy is all I am proposing right now.

Wait, What About The Cosmic Background Radiation?

Cosmic Microwave Bacground is basically a particularly uniform ratiation coming from all over the sky, even from places where there are no stars. How did the Universe became so "uniform"?

Why or how Universe became uniform is indeed a hard question, but how can radiation be coming from a place where there seems to be no stars is explainable by all redshift if gravitational redshift theory I am suggesting. What happens if the Universe is infinite? CMB. This is what Plato said. Just that the sky is not white, but have very high wavelength. CMB is a prediction of my theory.

Uniformity presents a challenge. How can Universe be uniform at large scale if it is so big that light barely reached it across. But this is a very young universe mind set. If Universe is infinite both in space and time, then there is no such trouble. Such universe will be uniform, and the CMB we observe correspond with the density of our Universe. The density of Universe could be used to predict star density (how many stars we have in any given space), and which in turn will tell us what is the expcted leftover radiation that reaches us (we know how many stars are at any given radius away from us, what is the typical radiation coming out from them, and the redshit due to gravity in that sphere, integrate it, we get a constant frequency, which only depends on density of universe, and speed of light and other fundamental constants).

Biggest Black Hole In Universe Supports This Theory

There exists a black hole, quasar SDSS J0100+2802:

Some 12.8 billion light years away, astronomers have spotted an object of almost impossible brightness — the most luminous object ever seen in such ancient space. It's from just 900 million years after the big bang, and the old quasar — a shining object produced by a massive black hole — is 420 trillion times more luminous than our sun.

But there is a problem with this blackhole.

For the black hole to grow to such a staggering size in less than a billion years, the astronomers posit, it must have been pulling in interstellar mass from its surroundings at the maximum rate the whole time. Even so, the radiation of the quasar formed by the black hole should have started to limit that mass accumulation before such a size was reached.

So there are puzzles left to be solved.

If we assume that the bigbang did not happen, then this blackhole poses no problem. Its not doing anything special, universe is older than we think.