This level-5 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

PhysicsMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofPhysics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. Astronomy:CosmologyMid‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related toAstronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy Mid This article has been rated asMid-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byCosmology task force.

Changed a bit of wording. Saying that no one takes the bb theory seriously as a theory of everything is a bit misleading.

Yes, There are some problems with the big bang. Possibly an all neutron universe was initially here and we had a beta decay big bang which then produced the first electrons, protons and the very first atoms and molecules. But the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation proves that something extraordinary did indeed happen.

Saul Perlmutter's Group has shown us an acceleration to this supposed expansion of the universe. Saul Perlmutter, himself, claims this proves the existance of Einstein's original cosmological constant (a repulsive force equal to gravity holding all the stars and galaxies apart). But this can only mean we are now back to a steady-state universe once again. While this sounds unreasonable, you must understand that the Newton-Einstein principle of equivalence states that one cannot discern gravity from an accelerating contraction. This also means that you cannot discern Einstein's original cosmological constant from an accelerating expansion. So is Perlmutter right? Is the redshift indicating Einstein's repulsive force between the stars and galaxies and not an expanding universe?

---

This isn't true

However,Halton Arp claims to have observed the outpouring of matter from active galactic nuclei, and uses the steady-state theory as a basis for theoretical understanding of his observations.

Steady state assumes that general relativity is correct.Arp has a non standard theory of gravity.

Also

Proponents of the steady-state theory also predicted values of the CMB throughout the 1900s, however inertia was with the Big Bang at the time the CMB was finally observed.

Citations? I don't know of any steady state theorists who have published papers explaining the CMB. Not to say that there aren't.

Check out Chandra Wickramasinghe / Fred Hoyle on radiation absorption - re-emission by iron 'whiskers'119.175.1.214 (talk)02:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Mark Warner[reply]

Never mind. Found them. Also, I need to read more about Arp. I found some papers by Narlikar which mention Arp, but these were old. Maybe Arp has changed his mind. Narlikar writes some excellent and coherent papers, unlike Arp, who tends to be incoherent, at least to me.

Roadrunner 19:56, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The last paragraph of this article seems to be NPOV. I mean, it looks like the writer is basically saying, "Anyone who subscribes to the steady-state theory is a moron." Maybe say something like, "The big bang theory is generally accepted as authoritative (or a more appropriate word)."D. F. Schmidt(talk)17:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that it didn't need to be changed after all. I've reread that paragraph, and it looks fine.D. F. Schmidt(talk)06:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was a rather confused anti-redshift rant, that seemed to be confused with the cosmic microwave background. So I deleted it. --Michael C. Price^talk12:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully it was not the so called "rant" which was confused, but you're misreading of it. Redshift and CMBR are two seperate issues, redshift being the premise, and CMBR being after-the-fact evidence for BBT. There was never a statement to the effect that steady state rejects doppler redshift, simply that it allows it. Furthermore there is more than one steady state theory, steady state is by no means a new idea, and at least one steady state theory interprets redshift as gravitational drag, since you're objective is to promote BBT and it's interpretation of redshift in order to persuade readers that Big Bang Theory is the "unquestionably correct" theory, this article has failed to be objective.

You have misunderstood: of course I agree that the redshift and CMBR are different issues -- that was why I deleted the irrelevant redshift material. Alternative and decidedly non-mainstream interpretations of the redshift belong over atredshift, not here. Also please do not assume my "objective is to promote BBT" -- I have also deleted some irrelevant material about the BBT. My only concern was to remove irrelevant material from the preview section. If you feel that a particular subset of steady state theory that rejects the mainstream interpretation of the redshift deserves mention, then create a new section (or preferably article) for "gravitational drag", but please do not start talking about it in the introduction here. Steady state normally refers to Hoyle/Gold/Bondi's conception which accepted the Hubble expansion. --Michael C. Price^talk09:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for misunderstanding your intentions, I suppose that's what happens when one jumps to conclusions without discussion. You're correct in stating that steady state normally refers to the Hoyle/Gold/Bondi model, I had hoped to find at least some reference to variant SSTs, other than the Hoyle model, as well as a passing reference to Sir Arthur Eddington's prediction of the mean ambient temperature of stellar radiation being (3 K), which predates BBT, and undermines it's claim to CMBR as the afterglow of the Big Bang. Shapiro's discovery of gravitation delay effecting mars telemetry was extremely strong evidence against the Doppler interpretation of redshift, and by default - evidence against BBT. Lastly I would also hope to find some disclamer regarding both theories, stating to the effect that neither cosmological model has been proved or disproved. For those inexperienced in science it's far too easy to regard everything they read on paradigm theories as axiom, or worse yet.. even dogma. Once science stops being emperically objective and unbiased, it ceases to be science, and becomes mythology.

The statement in the overview:

only very little matter needs to be formed, roughly a few hundred atoms of hydrogen in the Milky Way Galaxy each year,

is way way out by many orders of magnitude. --Michael C. Price^talk13:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement has been corrected, but now the claim is being made this rate (of a hydrogen atom per m^3 per billion years) is detectable, contrary to all the sources I see. Are there any sources that state otherwise? Remember this claim is the equivalent of one solar mass per year per (Mpc)^3,not M(pc)^3; i.e. much, much less than one star per galactic volume per year. --Michael C. Price^talk22:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ConsultCosmological Physics by Peacock, pg. 81, 99, 442-443 for various observational discussions and references, but the basic idea is that making a solar mass per year of baryons in one cubic megaparsec (and the required ~10x of dark matter) would cause rather grievous observational effects:

• There are voids (regions of very low matter density) which have volumes of megaparsecs cubed. Over ~5 billion years, all such voids should fill with matter and collapse to form stars (this is compared to ~15 billion years for theHubble flow to expand the volume). This is contrary to observations of large scale structure.
• There are large galaxies and clusters thereof accelerating towards each other under the gravitational influence of their dark matter halos. If mass were continually being added, the velocities of these systems wouldn't add up properly.
• Continuously adding matter would produce astronomical sources with the wrong distribution with distance (consider quasars and stellar metallicities)

Of course, the final nail in the steady-state coffin was the CMB, with a near-perfect blackbody at 2.78 K, at a distance of approximately 13.7 billion ltyr.Michaelbusch23:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I completely agree: the CMB is the final nail. But as for voids not filling up -- well perhaps the steady state theory could be tweaked to avoid that particular problem - I don't know, but it is far from obvious that their existence alone disproves SS. Perhap the matter creation is spatially uneven? The counter arguments offered seem rather dependent on specific galactic formation models. --Michael C. Price^talk23:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last point is indepedent of galactic scale structure: you can't be continously adding hydrogen to the universe and have the metallicity be lower in the past. It is hard to justify adding lots of hydrogen to the universe in a dispersed fashion because of the first two, and making the matter creation spatially clumpy doesn't help because then we shouldn't see a gradient in galaxy morphology as we look back in time.Michaelbusch23:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The article already concedes that some higher elements require direct formation -- do you wish to explicitly add other metals to the list? --Michael C. Price^talk08:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As written is fine for the moment.Michaelbusch08:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me, one of the strongest arguments against the Steady State theory has always been Olber's Paradox. The Big Bang answers it quite neatly.

Should I mention it in the article?Jhobson110:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it is not true. See Olber's article - explained by the redshift. --Michael C. Price^talk21:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that even if the light were redshifted, it would still be as bright as day. Did anyone ever explain the meaning of the term "spectrum" to you?Jhobson100:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? i.e. find a source that says that. Ever considered what happens to the peak${\displaystyle {\lambda }_{max}}$ under redshift? --Michael C. Price^talk02:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually came to this article expecting to see an exposition of the Steady State response to Olber's paradox and was surprised not to see it. I think it should menition this as it is an obvious question. Could just copy over the relevant section of the Olber's paradox article:Olbers' paradox#Steady_state There is an answer but it is not so immediately obvious that you can expect the reader to see it immediately and not even ask the question.Robert Walker (talk)04:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obler's paradox only proves (1) that the speed of light is not infinite and (2) that if we can trust the evidence of expansion, then a STATIC universe is not the case. "Steady State" theory is NOT defined as "static", although it CAN permit either a static or dynamic expansion. The 'steady' in "Steady State" means that we have to assume a physics that we also know through time. This is the Perfect Cosmological principle versus the normal Cosmlogical principle.Scott Mayers (talk)02:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the main argument that there isnt a steady state universe with black holes / white holes redispursing the radiation?

I was also looking into why we belive that the universe is expanding. Is it merely because of the redshift of standard candles? If so would it be possible that the gravitational fields from dark matter create red shifts of light that has traveled long distances? The proof to this should be fairly easy if near and far objects have the same red shift then this theory doesnt work. It wouldnt work because the amount of dark matter the light passes through would be greater with the greater distances.

In any case if space time is effected by gravity an expanding universe could be from the effects of more gravity right? It would have to be taken in relative terms ( I guess relative to earth ).

--Tommac2—Precedingunsigned comment added by69.249.66.67 (talk)05:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this section is a bit POV. It is worth pointing out that the Big Bang theory has some major problems too - namely the large amounts of dark matter/energy required to keep the universe "together", but which aren't proven at all.—Precedingunsigned comment added by213.208.114.164 (talk)17:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While this is true that there are things that are a problem in the Big Bang Theory, it should not be mentioned in this article, but in the Big Bang article.Astrojon (talk)17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While alsothat is true, it would be suitable to mention the points where the Steady State was considered to be superior in comparison to its main rivalBug Bing. ... said:Rursus (^mbork³)15:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saul Perlmutter's Group has shown us an acceleration to this supposed expansion of the universe. Saul Perlmutter, himself, claims this proves the existance of Einstein's original cosmological constant (a repulsive force equal to gravity holding all the stars and galaxies apart). But this can only mean we are now back to a steady-state universe once again. While this sounds unreasonable, you must understand that the Newton-Einstein principle of equivalence states that one cannot discern gravity from an accelerating contraction.This also means that you cannot discern Einstein's original cosmological constant from anaccelerating expansion. So is Perlmutter right? Is the redshift indicating Einstein's repulsive force between the stars and galaxies and not an expanding universe?

keya 14:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Action <=> reaction Gavity <=> expansion Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Waziyata"
keya16:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)—Precedingunsigned comment added byWaziyata (talk •contribs)[reply]

Just a few questions but if the universe was infinitely creating matter, wouldn't there need to be infinite energy, per the Law of Conservation of Matter and energy? Also, wouldn't we see much more stars since there should be infinite of them, and we have infinite amount of time? And lastly, wouldn't the mass of the universe quicly ascend to another Big Bang due to the Oscilating Universe Hypothesis? I hope I'm not misunderstanding209.129.112.6 (talk)20:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my note above on "Obler's Paradox" regarding your apparent assumption that Steady State is identical to the Static state of expansion. As to 'conservation', the actual conservation that the Steady State supports is to the 'density' of energy being equal in all parts of space. This assures that normal conservation is still apparent. In contrast, the BB-model has a SPECIAL bias to favor MATTER as what defines all that 'matters' ignoring that space itself IS a 'something'. That convenient dismissal hides the point that the label, "big bang" was referring to: that some 'special' quantity of matter and energy goes from absolutely nothing to absolutely something in an instant 'bang'. THAT to me is absurdly more anti-conserving than having a constant density of energy. Most of it is relatively unavailable to us because we base our reality upon the MATTER that gets created BY empty space. That 'dark matter' issue: the pre-material 'empty' space that hides its 'energy' because we only know energy that is based upon matter existing. The 'dark energy' is expansion of space itself.Scott Mayers (talk)07:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I could tell, the three edits made to this article earlier this month (5, 13 & 15 January 2010), from three different IP addresses and altering three different parts of the article in different ways, were all vandalism. Regarding the citation URLs, while it's possible someone with privileges at that university would indeed be able to access the cited articles after logging in, I — along with the vast majority of Wikipedia users — cannot log in there; moreover, the original URLs do work for at least abstracts of the cited articles. Possibly the "waas" was a simple accident, and even the "Mason" interpolation could have an innocent explanation. Regardless, I reverted to the last version which appeared vandalism-free.Makingyouhungry (talk)02:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence sez:

Incosmology, theSteady State theory (also known as theInfinite Universe theory ...

I do not ever recall hearing this theory called the "infinite universe theory", and it would be a silly name, given that the big bang is also consistent with an infinite universe. Any sources, or is this just something someone threw in there? --Trovatore (talk)21:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The universe must be infinite in space and time. That stands to reason. The big bang theory is largely discredited thanks to it preposterous fiddle factors. The cosmic background radiation was correctly theorised by the steady state advocates and the BBT theoreticians got it wrong. However after another fiddle factor the BBT was made to fit the measured temperature. And now the BBT advocates have come up with a boson that somehow gives mass to some particles! Good thing none of this makes any difference to our pathetic lives.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2.101.238.207 (talk)22:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The universe must be infinite in space and time. That stands to reason."

Really?What reason? Remember that space and time are attributes of the universe itself; the universe does not existwithin space and time. If the complete set of "things" disperses, obviously space expands; if more stuff happens, time expands, pushes forward. There's no fundamental reason space or time needs to be infinite.TheScotch (talk)11:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some thought process brought me to this article or subject for the first time. If this theory is about continuous creation of matter and still universe maintain steady state, does old matter gets vanished? If info about this is in sources, it should be added. I am new to the subject. Perhaps I will add info after studying.neo (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)___________Yes. As I understand from Gavin Wince, Higgs Boson can decay out of universe. Then back in from the 'Field.' (realm of potential/statistical quantum possibilities) This happens all the time. -1337cshacker— Precedingunsigned comment added by108.167.118.252 (talk)18:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very poor article. Its more a critique of Steady State Theory from beginning to end than an explaination of it.108.60.192.147 (talk)18:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true but did you expect any different? The Steady State theory has little evidence and most evidence discovered argues in favour of The Big Bang theory so a critique is to be expected here. In fact I think it's safe to say that the steady state theory has been debunked altogether. --86.21.101.169 (talk)03:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Steady State theory still has evidence that argues for it, just because it can also argue for the Big Bang theory does not mean it isn't evidence either for the Steady State theory, this needs article needs expansion regardless.Bozo33 (talk)04:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

__________Completely agree.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2azFOX9P0fcThis guy rips big bang a new one. Destroys any notion of dark matter/energy as well. Explained logically in another way not thought yet.

Nothing disproving simulation or bio-centrism, of sorts, either. To my knowledge.-1337cshacker— Precedingunsigned comment added by108.167.118.252 (talk)18:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a poor article. Not that I am a proponent, but the Steady State theory such as it is must have more detail. This article needs some more meat. After all, this was considered a serious competitor to Big Bang at one time, and deserves a little more serious treatment.Asgrrr (talk)18:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article now seems to me to cite plenty of sources, so I've removed the more footnotes template.--76.169.116.244 (talk)17:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As perCosmic microwave background, CMB was discovered in 1964 (″The accidental discovery of CMB in 1964 by American radio astronomers″), but this article claims it happened in 1965 (″the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965″). Which one is correct (or, did I misunderstand something!)?

Anubhab91 (talk)08:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that this was the Status quo model from the time of the Greeks, they always believed in an eternal universe that was always there. And also, that it requires a universe that is Eternally there, and therefore has supernaturalistic qualities1.144.96.46 (talk)12:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it is reported that the QSS-proponents say that "radio data were suspect"; no further explanation, source is given... can you please scientifically and fairly report the arguments also and give the source?

the article, as has been said above repeatedly, seems heavily biased... the QSS-theory - developed by some of the most reknown and serious scientists of out-standing merit - deserves indeed a more adequate representation, not just a short shrift "debunking"... so the whole methodological criticism of QSS-theorists of the BBM, in the light of the 'history of (religious and philosophical) ideas', pointing out its overly complicated and speculative genesis and structure, is withheld... the same is true for a detailed representation of the concrete QSS-suggestions as to the mechanisms of light-transformation (origin of red-shift and CBR - if I remember well...) through a specific kind of interstellar matter...

furthermore: "bright radio sources (quasars and radio galaxies) were found only at large distances (therefore could have existed only in the distant past)" - could you please explain for a non-(astro)physicist (and for such poor under-exposed creatures an encyclopedia is written) why it would be not natural for short-wave electromagnetic radiation to be transformed into longer-wave radiation, sort of "tired light", as it was called (so energy-radiation, arriving here, would be ever more long-wave, less energetic, 'cooler' and more blurred the further the origin is away... [whole galaxies appear as 'light-blobs'; impossibility to 'zoom in' to see neatly resolved stars...]), assuming that there is some sort of red-shift- and/or scattering-effect caused by interferences with 'light' over distance (be it the interference with interstellar gas and dust, or the mechanism suggested by QSS or dark-matter - the BIG supposed unknown hanging around there in the way - or even a sort of doppler effect)...?

is there a 'religious war' going on?? --HilmarHansWerner (talk)12:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks that way to me. But since this is an article about the Steady-State theory, that's what should be discussed. The article seems biased in favor of the Big Bang. Instead of spending so much time and effort promoting the Big Bang theory, more effort should be given to explaining what the Steady-State theory consists of. The technical explanation is vague, extremely brief and it needs clarification. The language used is too subjective. What does it mean that "the observable universe is practically the same at any time and any place?" The question is, how does the newly created matter and energy fit into the existing universe? Does it occupy empty space? Or does it somehow rejuvenate matter and energy that is slowly dissipating? Taking a snapshot in time, the present moment for example, objects in space -- stars, galaxies, quasars, etc. -- are each in a particular state of decay, some further along than others. Does Steady-State mean that each object remains eternally in its present state -- a sort of homeostasis -- due to the constant creation of new matter and energy?2600:8801:BE26:2700:6C61:14F3:1591:AFDF (talk)13:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC) James[reply]

This isn't actually an article about the Steady-State Model. This is an article about how the Steady-State model is wrong for *all these reasons* and is subversively insinuating that people shouldn't believe in it.

It'd probably be more reasonable to update the title to reflect this in a way such as "Reasons Against the Steady-State Model" or "The Big Bang Theory is a Better Opinion". Or maybe cull the hyperscientific dogma doctrine of "The Consensus®️". It sorta reads like The Bible, and I'm kinda getting the idea that there are people who'd prefer we idolize a different opinion than Steady-State.66.168.55.6 (talk)01:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The quote by Steven Weinberg in the section "Cosmic microwave background" is neither indented nor enclosed by quotation marks, though it contains ellipses. It is thus unclear which parts are quotations from the source vs. editorialization. Someone with access to the source should delimit the cited text clearly in the article.Al Begamut (talk)21:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added quotes and corrected the page numbers in the reference. I'm not sure such a long quote is necessary, rather than just summarizing what Weinberg said.StarryGrandma (talk)18:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"significant dipole anisotropy"? could this be please better explained for encyclopedia-readers, i.e. non-specialists?! what is it and why expected? and please not only via links (that make articles more and more unreadable...).HilmarHansWerner (talk)16:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit, please review. (I did a spot check on some references and the article seems biased BTW)Johnjbarton (talk)16:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the article mentions "our motion with respect to distant radio galaxies and quasars differs from our motion with respect to the CMB." could this be please better explained including its relevance for the SS-model?HilmarHansWerner (talk)17:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure what is unclear about the paragraph. The SS model assumes the cosmological principle, which predicts that measurements of quasars and CMB would give the same relative motion.

I guess the idea of the section is evidence against SS model, but there is so much other evidence that this section seems pointless.Johnjbarton (talk)17:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the ideal-isotropy-argument was an argument for the SS-model, but a) would abandoning this ideal kill the model and b) could isotropy not be saved by changing the scale within which it should be the case?HilmarHansWerner (talk)17:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are on to something. That section was [added] by copying fromLambda-CDM. The section is not relevant to SS model. I will remove it.Johnjbarton (talk)17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 DoneJohnjbarton (talk)17:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if I remember well then the existence of these "large scale structures" is used as an argument against BBT - because it doesn't grant enough time for their development -, and not against the SST which could far better explain them (more time 'at hand' and - with sufficiently large scales - isotropy still there...). any comments?HilmarHansWerner (talk)18:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class level-5 vital articles
• Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Physical sciences
• C-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
• C-Class physics articles
• Mid-importance physics articles
• C-Class physics articles of Mid-importance
• C-Class Astronomy articles
• Mid-importance Astronomy articles
• C-Class Astronomy articles of Mid-importance
• C-Class Cosmology articles

• All Wikipedia vital articles