What's wrong with the Steady State Theory of the Universe?

BC

The Big Bang and the Steady Theory are both 20th century theories about the origin of the universe.

"The steady-state theory is a view that the universe is always expanding but maintaining a constant average density, matter being continuously created to form new stars and galaxies at the same rate that old ones become unobservable as a consequence of their increasing distance and velocity of recession."

So, I read that there are numerous problems with the steady state theory that arose because of observations. Does anybody have a 5¢ explanation for what the problems are? Like, where is new matter arising? Does the average density of the universe have to be maintained? Why can't it thin out as the eons pass? Why would the average density have to be maintained? (I'm assuming it will keep thinning out forever, and that there won't be a rebound back to the beginning.)

The universe will, thus, end in a whimper, not a bang, and of the two -- fire and ice -- it looks like ice is more likely.

noAxioms

Entropy?

Distant places look younger. There are no quazars nearby since they've all burned out.
Really distant galaxies don't have stars yet.

Also the rate of expansion is not constant, and I would think it would need to be in the steady state scenario you describe.

BC

↪noAxioms

Distant places look younger because their light just reached us, which of course it was anxious to do. The more distant the objects, the older they are--isn't that the case?

What do galaxies with out stars look like? Bright blobs? Or can we see them at all?

noAxioms

Distant places look younger because their light just reached us, which of course it was anxious to do. The more distant the objects, the older they are--isn't that the case? — Bitter Crank

Yes, the most distant objects are from the longest time ago. The CMB is the oldest thing visible. It is a wall beyond which nothing can be seen, at least not with the light to which our instruments are sensitive. The CMB is older than any galaxy.

I think the stars are what give galaxies light, so can't see them. Hence the dark ages for the first 0.4 billion years or so, sort of like our early solar system before the sun ignited. The mass is still under the process of collective gathering into one place.

Quasars are super-bright because of all the stars falling into the initial formation of the galactic black holes. That settles down after a while and there seem to be none left 'now'. The nearest one is only about 2 billion years away, and if there were quasars at age 11.7 billion years old, there might be a few that are the age of our galaxy here.

What's wrong with the Steady State Theory of the Universe?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions