Author’s reaction: Big bang habits is actually obtained from GR by the presupposing that modeled market remains homogeneously filled up with a liquid out of matter and you may light. The newest denied contradiction was absent due to the fact in the Big bang models brand new almost everywhere is limited to help you a limited volume.
Reviewer’s comment: The author is wrong in writing: “The homogeneity assumption is drastically incompatible with a Big Bang in flat space, in which radiation from past events, such as from last scattering, cannot fail to separate ever more from the material content of the universe.” The author assumes that the material content of the universe is of limited extent, but the “Big Bang” model does not assume such a thing. Figure 1 shows a possible “Big Bang” model but not the only possible “Big Bang” model.
But not, for the popular traditions, the latest homogeneity of your own CMB is was able perhaps not by
Author’s response: My statement holds for what I (and most others) mean with the “Big Bang”, in which everything can be traced back to a compact primeval fireball. The Reviewer appears, instead, to prescribe an Expanding View model, in which the spatial extension of the universe was never limited while more of it came gradually into view. expanding the universe like this (model 5), but by narrowing it to a region with the comoving diameter of the last scattering surface (model 4). This is the relic radiation blunder.
https://datingranking.net/little-armenia-review/
Reviewer’s review: This is simply not the fresh new “Big bang” model but “Design step one” that’s supplemented which have an inconsistent presumption because of the copywriter.
Author’s effect: My “model step 1” represents a huge Shag design which is neither marred by relic rays mistake neither confused with a growing View model.
Reviewer’s comment: According to the citation, Tolman considered the “model of the expanding universe with which we deal . containing a homogeneous, isotropic mixture of matter and blackbody radiation,” which clearly means that Tolman assumes there is no maximum to the extent of the radiation distribution in space. This is compatible with the “Big Bang” model.
Author’s response: The citation is actually taken from Alpher and Herman (1975). It reads like a warning: do not take our conclusions as valid if the universe is not like this. In believing that it is, the authors appear to have followed Tolman (1934), who had begun his studies of the thermal properties of the universe just before he had become familiar with GR based models. He thought erroneously that his earlier conclusions would still hold also in these, and none of his followers corrected this.
Reviewer’s feedback: The past scattering epidermis we come across now was a two-dimensional spherical cut out of whole world at the time out-of last sprinkling. When you look at the an effective billion ages, we are searching white off a more impressive last sprinkling surface at the a great comoving distance around forty-eight Gly in which amount and you may light was also expose.
Author’s reaction: The fresh “past sprinkling epidermis” simply a theoretic create within this good cosmogonic Big-bang model, and that i imagine We managed to get clear one to eg a model doesn’t allow us to come across so it facial skin. We come across something else entirely.
As a result the writer improperly believes this particular customer (and others) “misinterprets” exactly what the blogger states, while in reality it will be the publisher who misinterprets this is of the “Big bang” design
Reviewer’s comment: The “Standard Model of Cosmology” is based on the “Big Bang” model (not on “Model 1″) and on a possible FLRW solution that fits best the current astronomical observations. The “Standard Model of Cosmology” posits that matter and radiation are distributed uniformly everywhere in the universe. This new supplemented assumption is not contrary to the “Big Bang” model because the latter does not say anything about the distribution of matter.
댓글을 남겨주세요