mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/
For complete access to all the files of this collection
see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php
==========================================================
Get this book
Other books
BIG BANG THEORY UNDER FIRE 1 William C. Mitchel* *
( As Published in Physics Essays Volume 10, Number 2, June 1997)
*Abstract *
The very old big bang problems (of the singularity, smoothness, horizon,
and flatness) and the failed solutions of inflation theory; newer BB
problems relating to missing mass (as required for a flat inflationary
universe), the age of the universe, radiation from the "decoupling"
("smearing" of black body spectrum), a contrived BB chronology, the
abundances of light elements, and red shift anomalies; and problems,
newer yet, regarding inconsistencies of red shift interpretation, curved
space, inflation theory, the decelerating expansion of a BB universe,
and some additional logical inconsistencies of BB theory are presented.
Key words: singularity, smooth universe, flat universe, average
density, age, black body radiation, neutrinos, chronology, light
elements, red shift, curved space, quasars, inflation,
decelerating expansion
*In one of its several variations the big bang cosmological theory is
almost universally accepted as the most reasonable theory for the origin
and evolution of the universe. In fact, it is so well accepted that
virtually every media article, story or program that touches on the
subjects of astronomy or cosmology presents the big bang (BB) as a
virtual proven fact. As a result, the great majority of the literate
populace of the world, including most of the scientists of the world,
accepts big bang theory (BBT) as scientific fact.
Education establishments involved in the fields of astronomy,
astrophysics, theoretical physics and cosmology are dominated by those
who have accepted BB as the theory to be pursued. Scientists who
seriously question the BB are generally considered disruptive, ridiculed
and derogatorily referred to as big bang bashers.
As a result of that attitude alternate cosmological possibilities are
left uninvestigated. Untold man-hours and vast sums of money are spent
in pursuit of data in support of the prevailing theory. Such endeavors
are not in keeping with the ideals of impartial scientific
investigation. It is all but forgotten that the BB is not fact, but an
unproven theory.*
*Fortunately there long has been an unindoctrinated minority of
scientists, both amateur and professional, who continue to discover and
present observational evidence and logic that provides reason to doubt
the accepted paradigm. Some of better known and most effective of the
scientists in this struggle are Halton Arp of the Max Planck Institute
for Astrophysics in Germany, Anthony Peratt of the Los Alamos National
Laboratories, and Jayant Narlikar of the Centre for Astronomy and
Astrophysics in India. Other well known astronomers/cosmologists who
have long fought for the proper consideration of alternate cosmologies
include Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge, Fred Hoyle, Herman Bondi, Thomas
Gold and Eric Lerner.
Due to the efforts of those and other fighters for evenhanded
cosmological investigation and, despite the powerful influence of
mainstream BB cosmologists, evidence against the BB has been building to
the point where the world may soon start to doubt it. Some of that
evidence is briefly reviewed in this paper.*
1. IS A SINGULARITY ACCEPTABLE?
The oldest and perhaps best known problem of BBT is that of the
singularity. At the first instant of the BB universe, in which its
density and temperature were infinitely high, is what is known to
mathematicians as a singularity. That situation is considered to be a
breakdown of theory. That is, it cannot be assumed that the laws of
physics as we know them can apply to that event, thus presenting serious
questions about it.
In addition, the postulated creation of the entire mass and energy of
the universe out of nothing in the first instant of time, seems to
represent an extreme violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy.
According to prevailing theory, before that instant, space and time did
not exist. Although to some, who confuse their religious ideas with
science, this is seen as a reasonable interpretation of their religious
beliefs, to others the beginning of space and time might represent a
significant problem.
If there were a BB, it would seem that events during the first instant
of time would involve the instantaneous acceleration of the enormous
number of particles (the entire mass) of the universe to relativistic
velocity; and some variations of BBT postulate velocities well above the
speed of light.(1) Because the acceleration of even a minute particle to
the speed of light requires an infinite amount of energy, the BB might
have required on the order of an infinity times and infinity of ergs;
not to mention the additional energy that would be required to overcome
the gravitational attraction of the entire mass of the universe.
It has been suggested that this singularity problem can be solved by
postulating a universe of zero net energy;(2) a universe wherein the
positive kinetic energy, the potential energy, and the Einsteinian
equivalent energy of the mass of the universe is equal and opposite to
the negative energy of gravity. Somehow, if the universe is to collapse
in the future as some believe, all the energy that was expended in the
birth and expansion of the BB universe was only borrowed; someday to be
paid back. However, that doesn't provide an adequate explanation for the
source of the energy requirement described above.
It should be noted that this zero net energy explanation couldn't
reasonably be postulated for other than a recollapsing universe.
However, as will be discussed further on, observational evidence has all
but ruled out the possibility of the collapsing BB universe case, thus
adding to the incredibility of zero net energy; and certainly it would
seem that the positive energy of the potential, kinetic and the enormous
mass equivalent energy of the of the universe must be far greater than
the negative energy of its gravity. For any BB universe case the
postulated zero net energy idea appears to be unrealistic.
Inflation theory,(3,4) which will be discussed further on, has claimed
to solve the singularity problem (and other BB problems as well) but it
requires an enormous quantum theory vacuum fluctuation(2) and, according
to some, an enormous cosmic repulsive force to provide for a BB. These
are purely speculative ideas that have no known means of experimental
verification.
Get One ! 2.
IS THE UNIVERSE SMOOTH?
One of the older problems of BBT, that of its postulated large-scale
smoothness of the universe, appears to be the result of what was
originally a simplifying assumption(5-8) that was made to aid in the
solution of Einstein's equations of general relativity on which the BB
is based. That apparently resulted in the establishment of smoothness as
a basic tenet of BBT; that is, the universe is isotropic (the same in
all directions) and homogeneous (the same everywhere). Those ideas,
combined with curved space, provide the basis for the BB concepts of
space expansion (rather than simple expansion of matter in space), for a
"BB that happened everywhere", and for a centerless universe.
However, the observed irregularities of the universe, which include vast
galactic formations,(9) gigantic voids and sheets of galaxies,(10) and
the "Great Wall",(11,12) that is estimated to stretch across one half
billion light years of space, tend to deny that smoothness.
The smoothness of the distribution of the matter of the universe is said
to be verified by the smoothness of microwave background radiation (MBR)
that is received from all directions of space. That radiation is
believed by adherents of BBT to have come directly from a smooth BB.
However, it would seem that both the improbability of a smooth BB
explosion (explosions experienced in our time certainly are not smooth),
and presently observed irregularities of the universe, tend to deny a BB
as the direct source of MBR.
(Regarding the plasma universe explosion postulated by Hannes Alfven, a
leading advocate of BB cosmology P. J. E. Peebles wrote, "It would be
hard to imagine that the explosion produced a spherically symmetric
expanding system of galaxies...." (13) One wonders why similar doubt is
not expressed about a smooth BB.)
The enormous expansion of the early universe at speeds far in excess of
that of light, in accordance with inflation theory, is said to solve the
BB smoothness problem. However, postulating a different form of
expansion doesn't change the present state of the universe, and, as will
be discussed further on, it is not clear that inflation can provide an
adequate explanation for the expansion of the universe at speeds far in
excess of that of light.
3. ORIGINAL SMOOTHNESS OR SMOOTHING?
Another old BB problem that is related to the smoothness problem is
called the horizon problem. In the event, however unlikely, that the
universe should ultimately prove to be smooth (on an extremely large
scale), an additional problem would have to be faced. Regardless of
whether the BB was chaotic or smooth, how it might have become smooth or
remained smooth is not explained. Because of the enormous initial rate
of expansion of a BB universe, faster-than-light signaling would have
been necessary for gravitational (or other) forces to produce or retain
that smoothness over billions of years. However, even the transmission
of information at or above the speed of light is a violation of the
theory of relativity.
The rapid expansion of the very early BB universe in accordance with
inflation theory is thought to provide a solution to this horizon
problem. As Peebles has also written, "The recent tendency is to assume
this embarrassment can be resolved by inflation or some other adjustment
of the physics of the very early universe".(13) But again, it is not
clear just how the more rapid expansion of inflation might solve this
problem.
4. IS THE UNIVERSE FLAT?
An additional older problem of BBT is the flatness problem. A special
theory is required to explain a flat "Euclidian" BB universe of uncurved
space that is accepted by many mainstream cosmologists. In that universe
the average density would be at a critical level, that is, at a balance
between the average density of a "closed" BB universe (expanding at less
than escape velocity) that would eventually collapse, and the average
density of an "open" BB universe (expanding at greater than escape
velocity) whose expansion would continue to increase, but at an ever
decreasing rate. The postulated expansion of this flat BB universe (just
at escape velocity) would eventually cease to increase, and thereafter
remain at a fixed size.
It has been postulated that a universe of zero net energy, in addition
to solving the singularity problem, might solve this flatness problem.
However, as mentioned above, that concept is highly suspect.
Additionally, the observed low average density of the universe, probably
not more than a few percent of the critical amount, appears to deny the
possibility of the flat universe case.
As in the case of the previously mentioned problems, the enormous rate
of expansion of the early BB universe as postulated by inflation theory,
is said to provide a solution to the flatness problem. However, it is
not clear how an enormously fast rate of expansion might result in an
average density at the critical level; and the low observed density of
the universe represents an especially severe problem to inflation
theory. That situation has provided the incentive for a frantic search
for the "missing mass" that would be necessary to increase the average
density to the expectations of inflation theory.
5. IS DENSITY TOO LOW?
Actually, the density of the universe appears to be insufficient to
support any BB universe case: closed, flat or somewhat open. That
situation presents what is called the missing mass problem.
The directly observed density of the universe is estimated at only one
to two percent of the required density for the above cases. Calculations
based on observed dynamics of galactic rotation of a small sample of
galaxies indicate there may be as much as ten times that amount of
matter in their vicinities.
There is insufficient evidence to indicate that is true of the majority
of galaxies, and little evidence that the average density of
intergalactic space is nearly that high. However, even if the density of
all of space were found to be as high as in the vicinity of those sample
galaxies, resulting in an average density on the order of ten percent of
the critical amount, that is still far short of the level necessary for
the usual BB cases.
If the BB universe is flat, requiring its average density to be at the
critical level (somewhat less for the open BB universe and somewhat more
for the closed BB universe), as much as 99 percent of its mass might
consist of non-baryonic matter of no known characteristics other than
gravitational attraction. Investigators have made valiant efforts, both
theoretical and observational, to find that missing matter, both cold
dark matter (CDM) and hot dark matter (HDM). All sorts of exotic stuff,
including photinos, gravitinos, small black holes, magnetic monopoles,
solitons, cosmic strings and sheets, MACHOS (massive astrophysical halo
objects), WIMPS (weakly interacting massive particles), massive
neutrinos (meaning neutrinos that have mass), and several others have
been proposed, but no significant observational evidence in support of
those has been discovered.
[Because it has been said that the universe, in addition to photons, is
flooded with neutrinos from the BB, some theorists had suggested that
electron neutrinos are more massive than previously thought by particle
physicists; possibly as much as 30 eV (rather than less than 10 eV)
which might be sufficient to solve the missing mass problem. For the
same reason, it has more recently been suggested that muon neutrinos
might have a mass of about 2500 MeV, more than 10,000 times greater than
previously estimated. However, experiments failed to support an electron
neutrino of 30 eV,(14) and there is noexperimental evidence in support
of a muon neutrino of 2500 MeV.]
Inflation theory, that is claimed to solve several of the major problems
of conventional BBT, postulates a flat universe.(15) For that reason the
significance of the missing mass problem has in recent years increased
in the minds of those who support that theory. As mentioned, that has
provided increased incentive for the as yet unsuccessful search for
missing mass.
6. UNIVERSE TOO OLD?
A major problem, known as the age paradox,(16) plagues BBT: The
postulated age of the BB universe may be incompatible with observations.
Despite the insistence of some BB advocates on a lower value, recent
observations of distant galaxies have confirmed the Hubble constant to
be approximately 80 km/sec/Megaparsec (about 24.5 km/sec/million light
years).(13,17) Hubble time, the age 2 billion years. The age of a flat
or near flat BB universe, as postulated by BB theorists in recent years,
would be two thirds of that, or about 8 billion years; somewhat more
than that for an open BB universe, and somewhat less than that for a
closed BB universe. That age is only about one half of the known age of
some stars and galaxies,(18,19) presenting an obviously impossible
situation.
Conversely, a flat BB universe having an age of 15 billion years, would
require a Hubbletime of 22.5 billion years and a Hubble constant of
about 42.2 km/sec/Mpc; little more than one half of the observed value.
Even if the age of the BB universe was considerably more than 8 billion
years (and the Hubble constant correspondingly smaller), there may not
have been time for the formation of observed gigantic galactic
configurations. The time required for those to form (due to gravity Ð in
accordance with BBT) has been estimated to be on the order of 100
billion years.
The heavy elements observed in the solar system, and in other stars and
galaxies, require at least one previous stellar cycle.(20,21)The
formation of those stars, their life time, their collapse, explosion and
dispersal, and the subsequent formation of our galaxy, sun and planets
might well have required a period considerably greater than 8 billion
years. Because of the high probability of more than one previous stellar
cycle in this process, an age of at least tens of billions of years may
have been required.
Astronomical observations support a period of rotation of our galaxy of
1/4 billion years.(22,23) At that rate, if the BB had occurred on the
order of 10 billion years ago, there would have been time for only 40
rotations. However, astronomical theory tells us that the rate of
rotation has increased from a much lower rate as the galaxy has
evolved,(24) providing time for considerably less than 40 rotations. As
judged by the present spiral form of the galaxy, it might be expected
that an order of magnitude more revolutions, and thus an order of
magnitude more that 10 billion years, may have been required for the
formation of our galaxy. These comments apply to other spiral galaxies
as well as our own.
Possibly adding to this age problem, there have been observations of
polarization of radiation received from distant quasars indicating the
presence of relatively strong magnetic fields. Some of those quasars are
reckoned by BB theorists to be observed as they were at less than one
tenth of the age of the universe,(25) far sooner than such fields might
have developed in accordance with BBT.
On the whole it would seem that the age of the universe is more likely
to be at least several tens of billions of years, rather than 10 to 15
billion years as believed by BB advocates. As in the case of the missing
mass problem, BB age problems alone appear to provide convincing
evidence against all of BBT.
It should be noted that BB theorists' estimates of the age of the
universe are based on their belief in an expanding universe. That in
turn is based on the accepted Doppler interpretation of red shift which,
as we will see, may present additional difficulties.
7. SOURCE OF RADIATION?
The microwave background radiation (MBR), that is received uniformly
from all directions of space, considered by many to be the most
important evidence in support of BBT, may be inconsistent with that theory.
In addition to the previous comment that one would expect the observed
gigantic galactic formations to cause irregularities in the isotropy of
MBR reception, the observed spectrum of the MBR, corresponding to a near
perfect black body temperature of 2.7 K, doesn't agree very well with
temperatures predicted by various BB theorists. Those predictions had
varied over a range of 5 to 50 K.(26) History also shows that some BB
cosmologists' "predictions" of MBR temperature have been "adjusted"
after-the-fact to agree with observed temperatures.
The prediction of 5 K (by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in 1948),(27)
which has been selected as a basis for agreement with the observed
temperature, was made by those who had accepted a BB scenario that
included concepts that were incorrect. Those included the idea that all
of the elements of the universe were produced in the BB, which was later
determined to be erroneous.
If the temperature of the universe was at absolute zero, all matter
would collapse. The temperature of radiation from space might reasonably
be expected to be some small number of degrees above that temperature.
In fact, some physicists (including Sir Arthur Eddington in 1926 and
Andrew McKeller in 1942)(28) had estimated temperatures in the range of
2 to 3 K; closer to that of the MBR than has been estimated by BB
cosmologists.
According to BB theorists, the "decoupling era", from whence MBR is said
to have originated, may have lasted at least several hundred thousand
years.(29) It has occurred to me that, if radiation comes to us directly
from that period, later radiation would have lower source temperature
and less red shift, resulting in distortion, "smearing",(24)of the
postulated black body spectrum from the decoupling. Bers may have
assumed that the temperature and red shift changes of that period would
cancel; but unless the universe had linear (fixed-rate) expansion, that
cancellation could not be perfect. Because BB theorists believe, not in
a fixed rate of expansion, but in a nonlinear decelerating expansion, it
would seem reasonable to suppose that a less than perfect black body
spectrum might be received from the BB decoupling than that which is
observed.
Smearing of a black body spectrum from the decoupling would also result
if the shape of the BB universe were less than perfectly spherical
during that period. Although BB advocates believe in that smoothness, it
may be difficult for others to accept an explosion of such symmetry.
If MBR from the decoupling had caused thermal equalization
(thermalization) of the matter of the space that surrounds us, as other
theorists have suggested, and that matter were quite remote, the large
irregularities of galactic formations might be expected to cause fairly
large directional variations of the MBR. If the MBR is radiated from
thermalized matter relatively close to us (but perhaps outside of our
galaxy), the MBR might possess the observed isotropy. However, the
possibility should not be overlooked that, as the work of Eddington,
McKeller and others indicates, the observed MBR may be the result of
sources of
energy other than the BB decoupling.
Some BB cosmologists have contended that thermalization of surrounding
space could not produce a spectrum so closely resembling that of black
body radiation. However there is theoretical support for the existence
of particles in space (called whiskers) (30-32) that in turn supports
the possibility of thermalization. Physical evidence of these particles
has been found in meteorites that have struck the earth.(33,34)
Further doubt about the BB as a source of the MBR results from
consideration of the amplitude of MBR signal strength received here on
earth. Calculations indicate that the received energy may be orders of
magnitude lower than would be expected from the enormous energy release
of the postulated BB decoupling.(24)
According to BBT, positively curved space provides the explanation for
omnidirectional reception of MBR from the decoupling. However,
characteristics of the positively curved space of a closed universe
cannot be ascribed to the flat or somewhat open universe that is
accepted by the majority of BB theorists.
As presented above, the closed BB universe would seem to be ruled out by
age and density considerations. But if that had not been the case, and
space were positively curved as postulated for the closed BB universe
case, neutrinos from the BB would be raining on us as well as photons.
Those have not been detected. By similar reasoning, in a BB universe of
positively curved space, rather than being "clumped" at great distances
(as they are perceived to be by the presently accepted interpretation of
red shift data), quasars would be more evenly distributed in direction,
distance and speed. If that were found to be true it might tend to deny
one of the alleged proofs of BBT, that of an evolving universe.
Photons [that is, electromagnetic radiation (EMR) in the infrared
region] are believed to originate from the BB decoupling, to be
red-shifted by about 1,000, and to be received from all directions of
space as MBR. According to BBT, neutrinos are also said to originate
from the BB, but at a much earlier time. They, like the MBR, are
believed to fill the space that surrounds us. According to quantum wave
theory, although they are particles rather than EMR, they are considered
to have a red shift much greater than that of BB photons. Their energy
is therefore too low to allow their detection: their frequency below the
capability of available technology. Although neutrinos from nearby
sources (from the sun and from Supernova 1987A) have been detected, the
treatment of BB neutrinos as waves is said to provide an explanation for
the lack of their detection. However, the application of wave theory to
neutrinos, but not to other particles (electrons, protons, neutrons,
etc.) believed to have originated in the BB at or before the time of the
decoupling, appears to present a logical inconsistency.
It would seem that, upon consideration of the available evidence, rather
than supporting BBT, the presence of MBR might actually be counted
against it. It seems more reasonable to postulate natural radiation from
matter or energetic processes in relatively nearby space as the source
of MBR.
8. CONTRIVED CHRONOLOGY?
The time line of events from the first instant of the BB until the
present time, as presented by various cosmologists in their attempts to
reconcile BBT with quantum theory, have been inconsistent with their own
versions of BBT thus presenting serious chronology problems.
As an example of this, although there are few if any BB adherents who
believe in a universe that has expanded at a constant rate since the BB,
the chronology that is most often presented indicates a fixed-rate
universe that is 10 billion years old.(3,35,36)
That chronology, indicating a Hubble time of 10 billion years, requires
a Hubble constant of almost 100 km/sec/mpc (30 km/sec/million light
years), a value far in excess of that accepted by BB supporters. For a
Hubble constant of that value, all of the usual BB cosmological cases
(somewhat open, flat or closed) would require the BB to have occurred at
about 2/3 of Hubble time, or approximately 6-2/3 billion years ago,
which is incompatible with current BB thinking.
The great majority of BB advocates believe in a considerable degree of
gravitational deceleration of the expansion of the universe since the BB
for either a somewhat open, a flat or a closed universe. For those cases
the plot of energy and temperature vs. time would require considerable
decreasing slope as time progresses, rather than the linear expansion
that is usually depicted.
Furthermore, the nonlinearity required for a decelerating expansion,
would require considerable modification to the occurrence of quantum
theory events (and other events, such as the decoupling), in the BB
chronology as customarily presented.
Study of this matter leads one to suspect that the timing of the events
of the BBT chronology as usually shown may merely have been contrived.
Any amount of energy, measured or theoretical, required for the creation
of particles of quantum theory can be placed between the infinite energy
(infinite temperature and density) of the BB singularity and the present
low energy level of space (a temperature of 2.7 K).
Adding to these inconsistencies is the lack of consideration of the
impact of inflation theory on BB chronology. Although many of those who
present chronological information have accepted inflation theory, and
must be aware of its impact, they continue to describe BB events
essentially in accordance with a chronology, already inconsistent with
pre-inflation BBT, that shows a linear decrease in energy and a linear
increase in size as functions of time.
9. SOURCE OF LIGHT ELEMENTS?
The agreement of the observed abundances of light elements in the
universe with those predicted by various BB cosmologists is frequently
cited as one of the primary proofs of their theory, but this proof also
faces some difficulties.
The study of historical data shows that over the years predictions of
the ratio of helium to hydrogen in a BB universe have been repeatedly
adjusted to agree with the latest available estimates of that ratio as
observed in the real universe. The estimated ratio is dependent on a
ratio of baryons to photons (the baryon number) that has also been
arbitrarily adjusted to agree with the currently established helium to
hydrogen ratio. These appear to have not been predictions, but merely
adjustments of theory ("retrodictions") to accommodate current data.
BB cosmologists tell us that the observed ratio of helium to hydrogen in
the universe could only have been the result of BB
thermonucleosynthesis. However, that presumes, not only a precise
knowledge of the the processes of a BB, but a precise knowledge of the
processes of other possible cosmologies. If, for example, another
cosmology should suggest that helium has accumulated as a result of
other processes(37,38) (such as stellar nucleosynthesis over tens of
billions of years), having given other cosmological possibilities little
or no consideration, on what basis might a BB theorist deny that?
In addition to helium, BB theorists have in the past maintained that
other light elements including boron, beryllium and lithium, can only
have been produced by BB nucleosynthesis (fusion). However, it has been
found that these elements can be produced by cosmic rays acting on
supernovae remnants (fission).(29) It is also possible for deuterium to
have been produced by processes in the formation of galaxies, rather
than in BB nucleosynthesis as claimed by those theorists.
Adding to those problems, recent observations have shown that the
abundance of helium is less than that indicated by standard BBT, and
that the ratios of beryllium and boron are inconsistent with that
theory.(39-41)
10. DOPPLER RED SHIFT?
Inconsistencies regarding the current interpretation of observed red
shift present many problems to BBT. Many of those have to do with the
distant massive bodies that are called quasars.
As presently utilized, red shift data results in the perception of
extremely great masses and brilliances of quasars. Variations in the
level of radiation from these sources(27,42) require their size to be
extremely small and their densities to be extremely great. These extreme
characteristics suggest that the present interpretation of red shift
data as Doppler shift doesn't tell the whole story about the speed and
distance of remote massive bodies in space.
Red shift data as presently used also shows quasars to be "clumped" at
great distances (great relative velocities). According to BBT that would
require the formation of large numbers of quasars too soon after the BB.
That interpretation of red shift data also results in the anomaly of
quasars at various distances, and thus of various ages, that are
observed to have similar electromagnetic spectrums.
But perhaps even in greater conflict with BBT, the clumping of distant
quasars in all directions would appear to put us at the center of the
universe. That situation, known as the Copernican Problem, is in direct
conflict with the basic BBT tenet of smoothness; that is, isotropy and
homogeneity.
Dependence on Doppler red shift for the determination of velocity and
distance also results in the perception of an unreasonably large number
of distant quasars having associated superluminal flares.(32,43) Some
simple mathematics can show that, if the perceived distance of those
quasars was less, fewer of such flares would be indicated.
(Also, mathematical investigation of the velocity relationships between
quasars perceived to be at great distances and their perceived
superluminal flares, has provided unintelligible results.)
BB theorists accept special relativity, and thus the application of the
Lorentz transformations to the red shift of radiation from galaxies and
quasars that are believe to be at great distances and receding from us
at "relativistic" speeds. Those speeds are thus believed to result in
red shifts that are greater than would be expected by the linear
application of a Hubble constant. That would appear to be reasonable for
a universe consisting of matter that is expanding as the normal result
of an explosion. However, because BB theorists insist that it is not the
matter of the universe, but the space of the universe that is expanding,
I have suggested an additional problem: Although the Lorentz
transformations may apply to matter, they do not apply to massless
space. It is therefore inappropriate to apply them to a BB universe.
In addition to quasar related problems, there is considerable
observational evidence indicating that the presently accepted
interpretation of red shift data is to some degree erroneous.
Observations over many years by highly regarded astronomers have shown
many "companion galaxies"(27) to have considerably higher red shifts
than those of unmistakably neighboring galaxies. Most notable among
those astronomers is Halton Arp, who has also provided considerable
evidence that radiation from newly formed galaxies is in some manner red
shifted by other than Doppler effect.(44)
There are a number of highly regarded scientists, including Dr. Grote
Reber of the University of Tasmania and Dr. Paul Marmet of the Herzberg
Institute of Astrophysics in Ottawa, who support "tired light" or
Compton scattering concepts.(45-48) They postulate that, as radiation
travels through intergalactic space, it looses energy and its wavelength
is increased, perhaps adding to the Doppler shift that is the result of
relative speed. However, some of those scientists believe that all red
shift is due to causes other than expansion, in other words, that the
universe is static.
Although it has long ago been ruled out by BB cosmologists as an
important factor, massive dense bodies, that may not be massive enough
and dense enough to become black holes, may be massive enough and dense
enough to cause appreciable amounts of gravitational red shift (Einstein
shift)(24,49) of their radiation.
In support of this it is known, for example, that even our sun has a
small gravitational red shift (z Å 0.000002); and it is suggested that
the differences in masses and radii of stars of some binary pairs(50)
may be the cause of observed differences in their average red shift.
Any of these possible causes of red shift may add to Doppler red shift
(if that exists) and thus cause the appearance of greater relative speed
and distance of quasars and other massive bodies in space. If that
should prove to be so, problems regarding the interpretation of red
shift data might be eased or eliminated.
It seems obvious that, if other causes of the red shift of radiation
from massive bodies were given consideration, problems resulting from
the conventional interpretation of red shift might be eased. Quasars
might be found to be much closer and their velocity much lower, thus
solving the perception of excessive brilliance, mass, density, large
numbers of superluminal flares and other problems, including the
clumping of quasars at great distances.
(If red shift were found to have causes other than or in addition to
Doppler effects, the velocity of distant quasars would fall on a lower,
more linear portion of a plot of velocity vs. red shift that
incorporates relativistic effects [as derived from the Einstein- Lorentz
transformations]. The perception of clumping would thus be reduced.)
It should be pointed out that Hubble himself was not convinced that red
shift was exclusively due to Doppler effect. Up to the time of his death
he maintained that velocities inferred from red shift measurements
should be referred to as apparent velocities.(45,51)
11. WHAT SPACE CURVATURE?
No references to negatively curved space can be found in Einstein's
Relativity, The Special and General Theories, or in other early books on
Einstein's work such as Biography of Physics by George Gamow or
Understanding Relativity by Stanley Goldberg. In all of those there is
only discussion of positively curved space resulting from gravitational
attraction (or equivalent acceleration).
Not only have BBers thoroughly accepted the questionable concept of
positively curved space but, based on some later interpretations of
relativity,(5,8) they have decided that space may be negatively curved.
Accordingly, the closed BB universe has positively curved space, the
flat BB universe has uncurved space, and the open BB universe has
negatively curved "saddle shaped" space. (In the second two of these
space doesn't close on itself, and it has no edge.)
According to Einstein, space is curved due to the presence of matter,
but is only positively curved. Therefore, if it is believed that space
is uncurved or negatively curved, it has occurred to me that there must
be something in the BB universe to overcome the positive curvature
resulting from the presence of the matter of the universe.
If the universe is flat, that "something" must be just sufficient to
compensate for the gravitational influence of the matter of the universe
and, if the universe is open, it must be sufficient to overpower that
influence.
In other words, logic would seem to indicate that BB theorists'
acceptance of uncurved space of a flat universe, or the negatively
curved space of an open universe, implicitly acknowledges the existence
of negative gravity. There must be more than an equation to provide the
rationale for flat or negative curvature in a universe of significant
mass; the mathematics must represent some physical phenomena; something
like cosmic repulsion.(24)
For many years it had been thought that a term in Einstein's equations
known as cosmic repulsion was his "greatest mistake"; even he had
reached that conclusion. But it would seem that BB cosmologists have
changed their minds on that score. Some of them have now accepted cosmic
repulsion, now called the cosmological constant, as an essential feature
of inflation theory.(1)
Some BB theorists have also suggested (quite logically) that cosmic
repulsion provides the solution to the age paradox. If it is like
negative gravity, and of sufficient magnitude, the expansion of the
universe in the past may have been slower than indicated by the
presently observed Hubble constant. If that is so, the BB may have
occurred sufficiently long ago for their universe to be older than some
stars are observed to be, thus rescuing the BB from its age problem.
That, of course, would result in a kind of universe not normally
envisioned by BB enthusiasts; one that has an ever increasing rate of
expansion.
(As interpreted from red shift data in the usual manner, out to a red
shift of one [z = 1], astronomical evidence would appear to indicate a
universe having a fixed rate of expansion.(13) However, because of
measurement uncertainties and possible relativistic effects at a
relative distance of about one billion light years and beyond, there is
considerable doubt concerning the constancy of the Hubble "constant".)
It would seem that logical inconsistencies regarding the curvature of
space might tend to discredit the prevailing BB cosmology.
12. DOES INFLATION FIX THE BIG BANG?
Inflation theory, that was invented for the purpose, is said to provide
simple solutions to some of the problems of pre-inflation BBT.(3,4)
However, convincing support for claims of solutions to the singularity,
smoothness, horizon, and flatness problems is lacking.
Inflation theorists have alleged that the inflationary expansion of the
early BB universe, involving speeds orders of magnitude greater than
that of light,(3,4) did not involve the travel of mass or energy, and
thus did not violate the theory of relativity in solving the singularity
problem. But how inflation, as opposed to ordinary expansion, can in
some manner displace all the mass or energy of the universe without
physically moving it, defies common understanding. A violation of
Einstein's prohibition of speeds in excess of that of light seems to be
inherent in that process.
The quantum concept of false vacuum, previously postulated only to deal
with the spontaneous generation of the tiny fundamental particles of
modern physics, is called upon by inflation theory to instantaneously
produce the mass and energy of the entire universe. But this sudden
appearance of the universe from the energy of vacuum,(1) still
essentially out-of-nothing, does not escape the perception of an
enormous violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy.
Inflation theorists have also explained that an enormous cosmic
repulsive force (an enormously large cosmological constant)(1) provided
the expansive force necessary for an exponential expansion of the
universe. However, as previously noted, both the birth of the universe
from a gigantic vacuum fluctuation(2,52) and the expansion of the
universe from a gigantic cosmic repulsive force are speculations that
have no means of verification.
Perhaps as a form of insurance for their claim of inflation's enormous
expansion of the early universe without violation of the conservation of
mass/energy, some inflation theorists have borrowed the BB zero net
energy idea that an equivalent amount of energy is merely on loan from
the energy of the vacuum; that loan to be repaid upon the ultimate
collapse of the universe.
Because of the apparent impossibility of a collapsing closed universe,
that repayment might be put off indefinitely. However, even if the BB
universe were some day to collapse, that wouldn't happen for many
billions of years: seemingly a long time for the loan of all of its mass
and energy to go unpaid. Furthermore, those who support inflation theory
espouse, not a closed universe, but a flat one, so the zero-net-energy
idea appears to conflict with their own beliefs.
It would seem that inflation has also failed to solve the other old
problems of BBT. To state that inflation smoothed the universe by
stretching out irregularities of the first instant of the BB, but left
just enough of them to provide the "seeds" for the later formation of
galaxies may be a matter of faith , not science.
To state that inflation at orders of magnitude faster than the speed of
light solved the horizon problem that had been attributed to the high
rate of expansion of pre-inflation BBT, may be illogical. To state that
inflation, that is said to result in an exponential expansion of
somewhere between 10 to the 50th power (Guth's original inflation)(3)
and 10 to the 1,000,000th power (Linde's new inflation),(4) would cause
anything greater than a minutely low average density, far less than the
critical density required for a flat BB universe, seems difficult to accept.
Inflation theorists postulate a universe that expanded to unimaginable
size, and thus claim that we can observe only a tiny portion of it. But
they continue to tell us that quasars can be seen to within a small
percentage of the distance to the BB; two very conflicting ideas. In
addition, some BB cosmologists who have accepted inflation, continue to
describe events essentially in accordance with the typical chronology of
pre-inflation BB, having a linear decrease in temperature (energy) and a
linear increase in size as functions of time, without consideration of
the appropriate changes necessary to accommodate inflation.
In addition to its apparent failure to solve pre-inflation BB problems,
it would seem that inflation has introduced some new problems and
complexities.
As an example of new complexities, multiple domains(4) (multiple worlds
or universes)(52,53) are introduced, and with them, massive walls. But
domain walls, along with magnetic monopoles(3,4) (a theoretical problem
of early inflation theory), are dispersed by the greatly increased
exponential expansion of new inflation theory, to the edge of our domain
where they no longer trouble us. These are just a couple of the many
fanciful ideas that have resulted from speculation about such things as
grand unified theories (GUTs) and a theory of everything (TOE) in the
quest for support of BBT.
13. WHAT IS DECELERATING?
A new quandary, that I have called the BB deceleration problem, has
occurred to me.(24) If the universe is expanding and, if that
expansion is decelerating due to gravitational attraction of the mass of
the universe, as BB theorists believe, they have not made it clear
whether the expansion of space is decelerating, or whether the expansion
of the matter of space is decelerating.
Most BBers agree that, rather than the matter of space, space itself is
expanding. However, if the expansion of space is decelerating, the
physical law that relates the deceleration of space with gravitation has
not been made clear.
It would seem reasonable to expect the expansion of the matter of a BB
universe to be decelerating, but, if that is so, matter must have an
increasing inward velocity relative to expanding space; or perhaps the
expansion of both matter and space is decelerating possibly doubling the
effect of gravity. A lack of clarity regarding this matter would seem to
add to the difficulties of BBT.
14. DOES LOGIC PREVAIL?
In addition to those suggested above, some miscellaneous logical
oversights regarding BBT are presented in the these closing paragraphs.
The first of these has been alluded to, but is repeated for emphasis. BB
cosmologists repeatedly ascribe closed universe attributes to the flat
and open BB universe cases. Those attributes include the concepts of
closed, curved, expanding space that has no edge, and a centerless
universe in which the BB happened everywhere: ideas that do not apply to
a flat Euclidian universe or an open universe of saddle shaped space. It
would seem that in those cases the universe must have a center at which
the BB once occurred, thus denying a basic tenet of BBT.
Because they believe it solves one of BBT's major problems (despite its
apparent unlikelihood), some BB cosmologists still favor a closed
cycling BB universe. They feel that, because it didn't come
out-of-nothing, but from the remains of a previous universe, the
explosion of a collapsed universe avoids the singularity problem.
However, there is no theory in physics that can account for the
re-explosion, or "bounce", of the universe.(2) Famous physics professor
John Archibald Wheeler, who believed in the bounce, once said that black
holes are "laboratory models" for the collapsing universe case.(54)
However, prevailing theory denies that a giant black hole might
explode.(55)
BB advocates have criticized the once competing steady state cosmology
of Hoyle, Bondi and Gold because it provided no explanation for the
origin of the universe. However, at the same time, some of those espouse
a cycling BB universe, that has repeatedly collapsed and re-exploded in
the past (and that might continue to do so in the future), which
exhibits the same no-origin flaw that they ascribed to steady state theory.
BB theorists have in the past indicated that all galactic formation had
started in the same early era, that is, within the first billion years
following the BB. However, recent evidence has increasingly indicated
much later and continuing formation of galaxies.(56,57) In the light of
this evidence the previous view is no longer stressed. However, it would
seem that such "waffling" might tend to discredit BBT.
Furthermore, it seems unlikely for galaxies to have formed from
particles of matter that were initially departing from each other at or
above the speed of light. No known force, gravity, electrodynamic or
other, may have been strong enough to cause those particles to accrete.
This problem has been recognized by some BB theorists in the past who
have postulated that turbulence in the early BB could have started the
necessary accumulation. However, it is difficult to imagine, even in the
presence of turbulence, how the great departing speed of particles could
allow their accretion. Furthermore, the insistence of most BB theorists
on extreme smoothness of the BB explosion would also seem to deny that
possibility.
Theorists insist that an expanding universe provides important evidence
in support of BBT. However, they seem to ignore the fact that expansion
(if true) might support other cosmologies, including the rejected steady
state cosmology.
Recent convincing evidence that the number of families of fundamental
particles in the universe is limited to just three, and recently
observed "lensing"(49,58) of radiation from distant matter by the
gravitational fields of closer matter in space (as predicted by
Einstein) have both been cited as added proof of BBT. However, as in the
cases of Hubble expansion, the presence of MBR, and the abundance of
light elements, these observations might provide support to alternate
cosmologies equally well.
BB theorists have implied that their solution to Olber's
paradox,(24,27,59) that the relativistic speeds (large red shifts) of
distant bodies of the universe dim the sky, provides proof of BBT. But,
instead of relying on that solution, it might be more reasonable to
accept the straightforward solution that Olber himself had long ago
offered, that closer, smaller, cooler matter can obscure visible
radiation from more distant, larger, warmer matter of space. In his
discussion of C. V. L. Charlier's clustering hierarchical universe(13),
P. J. E. Peebles has recognized that the view of distant galaxies is
obscured by dust in our galaxy. And certainly telescopic images of
supernovae appear to show that "dust" hides more distant matter. If
correct, that solution would seem to support no cosmology in particular.
There has been a consistent pattern of neglect of evidence that might
tend to discredit the prevailing BB cosmology. Examples of this are the
vast amount of data compiled over many years by Halton Arp that shows
the proximity of objects of higher red shifts to galaxies of lower red
shift,(44) and by Anthony Peratt regarding the role of plasma physics in
the formation of galaxies.(60) Although that data is well known, its
impact on the field of cosmology is all but ignored.
15. WHAT TO DO?
Although the problems presented here may seem overwhelming to those who
question big bang theory, mainstream cosmologists insist that, like Dr.
Pangloss, theirs is the best of all possible worlds. They are confident
that all BB problems will ultimately be overcome by further pursuit of
evidence in support of that theory. However, on the chance that they
could be wrong, it might be prudent to also pursue some alternate paths
of investigation.
One of the more prominent alternate cosmologies that deserves more
attention is that presented by Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner(61); a
plasma cosmology based on the earlier work of Hannes Alfven, wherein
electromagnetic forces have determined the evolution of the universe
rather than gravitational force in accordance with General Relativity.
The tired light concepts that deny Doppler red shift, and the vast
amount of "anomalous red shift" data that has been presented by Halton
Arp, both of which tend to deny a major premise of big bang theory,
certainly should be taken more seriously.
Some BB dissenters, including those who support tired light theories,
postulate a static steady state universe. However, I feel that the
evidence for expansion, at least in the "near universe" (out to many
thousands of light years?) is quite convincing, and therefore, have
proposed a new steady state cosmology(24) similar to the old SS
cosmology of Hoyle, Gold, and Bondi.(62)
In addition to the apparent imperfection of its perfect cosmological
principle, a lack of rationale for either the generation of new matter
in space or for expansion of the universe, appears to have caused the
failure of old SS theory failed to win acceptance. This newly postulated
SS cosmology overcomes those failings by proposing the generation of new
matter from the energy of space in accordance with quantum theory, and
expansion due to Einstein's previously condemned Ð but now accepted in
inflation theory Ð cosmic repulsion.
(These are proposed, not on the incredibly enormous scales required by
inflation theory, but on scales just sufficient for the generation of
fundamental particles and to overcome the force of gravity in remote
empty space.)
One of these postulated alternate cosmologies, combinations or portions
of those or others, unknown or omitted here, may or may not prove to be
viable but, in view of the many problems of big bang theory, alternates
possibilities certainly deserve more serious consideration.
*You can get Bill Mitchell's
"/The Cult of the Big Bang: Was There a Bang?/
"
From Amazon.com. *
________________________________________
*Endnotes*
1 Much of this paper is from The Cult of the Big Bang (Cosmic Sense
Books, 1995, ISBN 0-9643188-0-6) by the same author.
________________________________________
*References*
1. P. Davies, Superforce (Simon & Schuster, NY, 1984).
2. E. P. Tryon, Nature (14 December 1973).
3. A. H. Guth, and Paul J. Steinhardt, Sci. Am. (May 1984).
4. A. Linde, New Scientist (7 March 1985).
5. M. Rees and J. Silk, Sci. Am. (June 1970).
6. E. McMullin, Am. Philos. Quarterly (July 1881).
7. G. Gamow, Sci. Am. (March 1954).
8. J. V. Narlikar, New Scientist (2 July 1981).
9. F. Flam, Science (November 1991).
10. S. A. Gregory, and L. A. Thompson, Sci. Am. (March 1982).
11. A. Fisher, Popular Science (May 1991).
12. A. Chaikin, Omni (August 1991).
13. P.J.E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology
(Princeton University Press, 1993).
14. D. Goldsmith, Discover (October 1992).
15. A. F. Davidsen, Science (15 January 1993).16. R. Jayawardhana,
Astronomy (June 1993).
17. W. Freedman, Sci. Am. (November 1992).
18. J. R. Gott III, J. E. Gunn, D. N. Schramm and B. M. Tinsley,
Sci. Am. (March 1976).
19. G. Abell, D. Morrison and S. Wolfe, Realm of the Universe
(Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia, 1988).
20. S. Gilkis, P. M. Lubin, S. S. Meyer, and R. F. Silverberg, Sci.
Am. (January 1990).
21. D. Hegyi, "Interstellar Medium" in Encyclopedia of Physics, 2nd
ed. (VCH Publishers, NY, 991).
22. J. Silk, The Big Bang
(W. H.
Freeman, NY, 1989). (Hardcover
)
23. S. van der Bergh anmd J. Hesser, Sci. Am. (January 1993).
24. W. C. Mitchell, The Cult of the Big Bang
(Cosmic
Sense Books, NV, 1995).
25. J. Boslough, Masters of Time
(Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1992).
26. D. Sciama, "Cosmology Before and After Quasars" in Cosmology +1
(W. H. Freeman, NY,1977).
27. H. Friedman, The Amazing Universe
(The
National Geographic Society, Washington, DC,1985).
28. S. G. Brush, Sci. Am. (August 1992).
29. S. Weinberg, The First Three Minutes
(Basic
Books, NY, 1977).
30. R. V. Coleman, "Whiskers" in Encyclopedia of Physics, 2nd ed.
(VCH Publishers, NY, 1991).
31. J. Kanipe, Astronomy (April 1992).
32. H. C. Arp, G. Burbidge, J. V. Narlikar, N. C. Wickramasinghe,
Nature (30 August 1990).
33. P. Yam, Sci. Am. (October 1990).
34. "Before There Was Earth, There Was Lightning" in Discover (July
1993).
35. J. D. Barrow and J. Silk, Sci. Am. (April 1980).
36. D. N. Schramm, and G. Steigman, Sci. Am. (June 1988).
37. R. Cowen, Science News (19 October 1991).
38. S. Bowyer, Sci. Am. (August 1994).
39. A. Gibbons, Sci. Am. (January 1992).
40. M. Bartusiak, Discover (August 1992).
41. J. A. Frieman, and B.-A. Gradwohl, Science (4 June 1993).
42. M. Schmidt, and F. Bello, "The Evolution of Quasars" in
Cosmology + 1 (W. H. Freeman, NY, 1977).
43. C. D. Dermer, and R. Schlickeiser, Science (18 September 1992).
44. H. C. Arp, "Fitting Theory to Observation Ð From Stars to
Cosmology" in Progress in New Cosmologies: Beyond the Big Bang
(Plenum Press, NY, 1993).
45. E. Hubble, Observational Approach to Cosmology, (Oxford
University Press, 1937). (/see also/
)
46. G. Reber, "Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe," in University
of Tasmania Occasional Paper, (University of Tasmania,1977).
47. P. Marmet and G. Reber, IEEE Trans. on Plasma Sci. (April 1989).
48. P. Marmet, Phys. Essays 1,24, (1988).
49. P. J. E. Peebles, D. N. Schramm, E. L. Turner and R. G. Kron,
Nature (29 August 1991).
50. P. Marmet, IEEE Trans. on Plasma Phys. (February 1990).
51. D. E. Osterbrock, J. A. Gwinn and R. S. Brashear, Sci. Am. (July
1993).
52. G. Gale, "Cosmological Fecundity: Theories of Multiple
Universes" in Physical Cosmology and Philosophy edited by J. Leslie
(Macmillan, NY, 1990)
53. B. J. Carr, Irish Astron. J. (March 1982).
54. J. A. Wheeler, "Beyond the End of Time" in C. W. Misner, K. A.
Throne and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (W. H. Freeman, NY, 1971).
(/see also/
)
55. T. J.-L. Courvoisier, and E. I. Robson, Sci. Am. (June 1991).
56. F. Flam, Science (28 February 1992).
57. S. Flamsteed, Discover (24 June 1992).
58. Jacqueline N. Hewitt, "Gravitational Lenses" in Encyclopedia of
Physics , 2nd ed. (VCH Publishers, NY, 1991).
59. A. Webster, "The Cosmic Background Radiation" in Cosmology +1
(W. H. Freeman, NY,1977).
60. A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. of Plasma Sci. (December 1996).
61. E. J. Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened
(Times
Books, 1991).
62. H. Bondi , F. Hoyle, and T. Gold, Rival Theories of Cosmology
(Oxford University Press,1960). (/see also/
)
William C. Mitchell
P. O. Box 3472
Carson City, NV 89702 U.S.A.