Posts by Rod P
-
95Questioning the Big Bang Theory
by Rod P inbut halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.
or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?
gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.
-
-
-
95
Questioning the Big Bang Theory
by Rod P inbut halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.
or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?
gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.
-
-
Rod P
My apologies to the readers who may find some of these articles perhaps too lengthy and technical.
I have noticed that when shorter articles are presented primarily for "public consumption", that readers tend to respond with ready-made dismissals of catchy and sometimes apparently "loaded" statements and language by the contributors. The danger of these reactions is that when something is all too easily dismissed outright, it often leads to premature conclusions that the scientists who make these glib remarks are necessarily wrong.
Therefore, I have found it necessary to provide longer and more in-depth articles by these same scientists, who are swimming against the tide of prevailing opinion of their fellow scientists. It is my hopes that in doing so, the readers here will give pause to consider or reconsider what they have to say. IMO, at a much deeper level, the "mavericks" presented here have some very challenging evidence that has been synthesized into a harmonious whole, and that is at least as reasonable an alternative model as anything presented by the Big Bang school for a plausible explanation of the Universe.
At the same time, as we carry on with this discussion, I do feel there needs to be some succinct, non-technical articles included on this thread. This should allow us to stand back a little bit from all the technical details, and get a kind of thumb-nail sketch of an overall perspective of alternatives to the Big Bang.
This will, perhaps, create a better perspective from which to grasp what these astronomers and astro-physicists are trying to tell us. At the same time, we are now in a better position to appreciate the other technical background they have contributed (in the articles above), from which the information can be distilled and presented into a simpler, non-technical version of the same thing.
So to that end, here is one such article which is clearly written in non-technical language and which I am optimistic is realtively easy to for the readers grasp:
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)T he big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.
Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.
Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.
Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.
Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.Signed:
(Institutions for identification only)Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)
Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University (Russia)
Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)
Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)
Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)
Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)
Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA)
Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)
Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)
Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)
Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)
Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA)
James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)From: http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
Redshifts, Cosmology and New Scientist
In the article “The world turned inside out” (NS 20 March, p.35) science writer Amanda Gefter states that: “Smolin is not suggesting that the big bang never happened: astronomical observations and Einstein’s general theory of relativity leave little doubt that it did”.
Others, some of them world famous scientists, are not so certain.
I have often wondered why New Scientists have been reticent in reporting on the fundamental disagreement in today’s cosmology, where the ‘main stream’ theories of the physics of Big Bang, only able to explain a few percent of the observable universe with its predictions, meets with increasing criticism from a growing number of renown scientists. People like Sir Fred Hoyle, Nobel laureate Hannes Alfvén, astronomer Halton Arp, physicist Geoffrey Burbridge, astronomer Margaret Burbridge and plasma physicist Tony Peratt, to mention but a few.
I do hope that New Scientist will re-evaluate this practice, and allow the proponents of the Plasma Universe to present their view.Stein Jarving
Tvedestrand, NorwayBig Bang Never Happened
In 1991, my book, the Big Bang Never Happened(Vintage), presented evidence that the Big Bang theory was contradicted by observations and that another approach, plasma cosmology, which hypothesized a universe without begin or end, far better explained what we know of the cosmos. The book set off a considerable debate. Since then, observations have only further confirmed these conclusions, although the Big Bang remains by far the most widely accepted theory of cosmology.
This website provides an update on the evidence and the debate over the Big Bang, including the latest technical review and a reply to a widely- circulated criticism as well as a technical reading list, a report on a recent workshop and links to other relevant sites, including one that described my own work on fusion power, which is closely linked to my work in cosmology.
What is the evidence against the Big Bang?
Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
The Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion.Large-scale Voids are too old
The Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.Angular diameters don't increase
A third important prediction is that the angular diameters of galaxies will start to increase at high redshifts, rather than decrease as they do at low redshifts. Yet observations have shown that the angular diameters of high redshift galaxies approach a constant value with increasing redshift, and show no evidence for the predicted increase.Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy.No room for dark matter
While the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter.No Conservation of Energy
The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.Alignment of CBR with the Local Supercluster
The largest angular scale components of the fluctuations(anisotropy) of the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. (Big Bang theorists have implausibly labeled the coincidence of the preferred CBR direction and the direction to Virgo to be mere accident and have scrambled to produce new ad-hoc assumptions, including that the universe is finite only in one spatial direction, an assumption that entirely contradicts the assumptions of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, the only model generally accepted by Big Bang supporters.)Evidence for Plasma Cosmology
Plasma theory correctly predicts light element abundances
Plasma filamentation theory allows the prediction of the mass of condensed objects formed as a function of density. This leads to predictions of the formation of large numbers of intermediate mass stars during the formations of galaxies. These stars produce and emit to the environment the observed amounts of 4He, but very little C, N and O. In addition cosmic rays from these stars can produce by collisions with ambient H and He the observed amounts of D and 7Li.Plasma theory predicts from basic physics the large scale structure of the universe
In the plasma model, superclusters, clusters and galaxies are formed from magnetically confined plasma vortex filaments. The plasma cosmology approach can easily accommodate large scale structures, and in fact firmly predicts from basic physical principles a fractal distribution of matter, with density being inversely proportional to the distance of separation of objects. This fractal scaling relationship has been borne out by many studies on all observable scales of the universe. Naturally, since the plasma approach hypothesizes no origin in time for the universe, the large amounts of time need to create large-scale structures present no problems for the theory.Plasma theory of the CBR predict absorption of radio waves, which is observed
The plasma alternative views the energy for the CBR as provided by the radiation released by early generations of stars in the course of producing the observed 4He. The energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium. It has accurately matched the spectrum of the CBR using the best-quality data set from the COBE sattelite. Since this theory hypotheses filaments that efficiently scatter radiation longer than about 100 microns, it predicts that radiation longer than this from distant sources will be absorbed, or to be more precise scattered, and thus will decrease more rapidly with distance than radiation shorter than 100 microns. Such an absorption has been demonstrated by comparing radio and far-infrared radiation from galaxies at various distances--the more distant, the greater the absorption effect. New observations have shown the exact same absorption at a wavelength of 850 microns, just as predicted by plasma theory.The alignment of the CBR anisotropy and the local Supercluster confirms the plasma theory of CBR
If the density of the absorbing filaments follows the overall density of matter, as assumed by this theory, then the degree of absorption should be higher locally in the direction along the axis of the (roughly cylindrical) Local Supercluster and lower at right angles to this axis, where less high-density matter is encountered. This in turn means that concentrations of the filaments outside the Local Supercluster, which slightly enhances CBR power, will be more obscured in the direction along the supercluster axis and less obscured at right angle to this axis, as observed.From: http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/
Eric J. Lerner
President, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics,Inc. advanced technology research, consulting and communications firm.
-- Scientific research in plasma physics and desalination. Developing advanced approach to economical fusion and new theories of quasars and cosmology. Since 1994 carrying out research of fusion and fusion propulsion funded by NASA through Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Development of Atomizing Desalination Process. (see list of scientific papers)Writing and editing on high technology
-- Over 600 articles publishedThe Big Bang Never Happened
Eric J. Lerner
Paperback - 1st Vintage Books Edition, August 1992
$17.00Rod P.
-
95
Questioning the Big Bang Theory
by Rod P inbut halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.
or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?
gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.
-
-
Rod P
Danny,
Your last article rebutting Eric Lerner was by Edward L. (Ned) Wright, Professor at UCLA.
Here is Lerner's response to Professor Wright:
Dr. Wright is Wrong-- a reply to Ned Wright's "Errors in The Big Bang Never Happened"
A number of people have asked me to reply to Ned Wright's critique of the BBN. Observation since the last edition of the book was published in 1992 have only served to make the arguments in it stronger and to further contradict Wright's assertions.
Large Scale Structures
Wright claims that large scale structures in the universe can be created in the time since the Big Bang given the existence of dark (non-baryonic) matter in the right amounts. There are two errors here. Even calculations by advocates of the Big Bang show that the structures we observe would take about 5 times as long as the Hubble time(the hypothetical time since the Big Bang) to form, even with dark matter. And, second, there is no evidence that dark matter exists.
Galaxies are organized into filaments and walls that surround large voids that are apparently nearly devoid of all matter. These voids typically have diameters around 140-170Mpc(taking H=70km/sec/Mpc) and occur with some regularity[E. Saar, et al, The supercluster-void network V: The regularity periodogram", Astr. And Astrophys., vol. 393, pp1-23 (2002)]. These are merely the largest structures commonly observed in present-day surveys of galaxies. Still larger structures exist, but are few in number for the simple reason that they are comparable in size with the scope of the surveys themselves.
Since the observed voids have galactic densities that are 10% or less of the average for the entire observed volume, nearly all the matter would have to be moved out of the voids[F. Hoyle and M.S. Vogeley, "Voids in the Point Source Catalog Survey and the Updated Zwicky Catalog", Astrophys. J., vol 566, pp.641-651, Feb. 20, 2002].
Measurements of the large scale bulk streaming velocities of galaxies indicate average velocities around 200-250km/sec[L.N. Da Costa et al, "Redshift-Distance survey of Early-type galaxies: dipole of the velocity field' Astrophys. J., vol 537, ppL81-L84, July 10, 2000], a factor for 5 less than the 1,000 km/sec I conservatively used in my book.
To answer Dr. Wright's objections, let's look at results of large scale structure formation obtained by his colleagues who support the Big Bang, and whose calculations assume that the Big Bang happened.
To give the maximum leeway to the BB theory, we look at work that assumes some explosive mechanism created the voids, which would be much faster than if they were formed by gravitational attraction. For a cold dark matter Big Bang model, the time T in years, of formation of a void R cm in diameter in matter with density n/cm 3 and final, present-day, velocity V cm/s is[ J.J. Levin et al, Astrophys J. vol 389, p464]:
T=1.03n -1/4 V -1/2 R 1/2
For V=220Km/sec, R=85 Mpc and n =2.4x10 -7 /cm 3 (assuming the ratio of baryons to photons, h= 6.14x 10 -10 ), T= 158Gy. This is 11.6 times as long as the Hubble time. Even if we increase n to reflect current assumptions about dark matter being some 6 times as abundant as ordinary matter, we still get 100 Gy, or 7.4 times the Hubble time. This is actually a bit worse than the figure we arrive at by just diving the distance moved by the current velocity, which ends up as 6.3 time the Hubble time.
Detailed computer simulations, which also include the hypothesized "cosmological constant" run into the same contradictions, in that they produce voids that are far too small. Simulations with a variety of assumptions can produce voids as large typically as about 35 Mpc[S. Arbabi-Bidgoli, and V. Muller, arXiv:astrop-ph/0111581 Nov. 30, 2001], a factor of 5 smaller than those actually observed on the largest scales. In addition, such simulated voids have bulk flow velocities that are typically 10% of the Hubble flow velocities[J. D. Schmidt, B.S. Ryden and A.L. Melott, Astrophys. J., vol. 546, pp609-619] which mean that voids larger than 60Mpc, even if they could be produced in Big Bang simulations, would generate final velocities in excess of those observed, and voids as large as 170 Mpc would generate velocities of over 600km/s, nearly 3 times the observed velocities.
Thus even with dark mater AND a cosmological constant, it is impossible for the Big Bang theory to produce voids as large as those observed today with galactic velocities as small as those today. As was true in 1991, the large-scale structures are too big for the Big Bang. They in fact must be far older than the "Big Bang".
The existence of "dark matter"
Dark matter, or "non-baryonic" matter is a hypothetical form of matter different from any observed on Earth but which is nonetheless required by the Big Bang. Current versions of the (ever-changing) theory require that total gravitating matter density be equal to 0.3 of the critical density but that of ordinary, baryon matter be only 0.05 of the critical density. This means that 0.25 of the critical density has to be in the form of some undiscovered, non-baryonic matter, generally described as Wimps, weakly interacting massive particles.
This "cold dark matter" or CDM, was hypothesized as essential for the Big Bang theory back in 1980--23 years ago. Since then physicists have searched diligently with dozens of experiments for any evidence of the existence of these dark matter particle here on Earth. Oddly enough every one of the experiments has had negative results. In fields of research other than cosmology this would have long ago led to the conclusion that CDM does not exist. But Big Bang cosmology does not taken "NO" for an answer. So the failure to find the CDM after so many experiments does not in any way shake the faith of Big Bangers in such CDM. This is evidence that what we are dealing with here is a religious faith, not a scientific theory that can be refuted by experiment or observation.
The idea that neutrinos might form a bath of Hot Dark Matter has also been undermined by experiments that indicate that while neutrons do probably have some mass, it is of the order of 0.1 eV (energy equivalent), which means that total neutrino mass in the universe is likely to be around one tenth of the mass of ordinary matter.
Wright argues that the existence of dark matter if proved by the difference between the total gravitating mass inferred for galaxies and cluster of galaxies and the mass in observable stars. But this is an absurd non-sequitor. Observations have demonstrated that stars constitute only a small fraction of the total mass of ordinary matter that can be observed. In clusters of galaxies we can observe by X-ray emissions huge clouds of hot plasma, which have masses far greater than that of bright stars.
There is extensive observational evidence for ordinary matter in two other forms that are relatively dim, One is white dwarfs in the halos of spiral galaxies. Recent observations of high proper motion stars have shown that halo white dwarfs constitute a mass of about 10 11 solar masses, comparable to about half the total estimated mass of the Galaxy [R.A. Mendez and D. Minnitti ,Astrophys. J., vol. 529, p.911; B.R. Oppenheimer et al Science, 292, p. 698]. While these observations have been sharply criticized, they have been confirmed by new observations [R. A. Mendez ,arXiv:astrop-ph/0207569].
Observations of ultraviolet and soft x-ray absorption has revealed the existence of "warm plasma' with a temperature of only about 0.2keV, which amounts to a mass comparable to that of the entire Local group of galaxies.(Nature 421, 719). If we adds up the warm plasma, which is sufficiently dim to be observable only as it absorbs radiation from more dint objects, the hot plasma, and the white dwarfs, we have enough matter to equal that which is inferred by the gravitational mass of cluster of galaxies. So there is no need for non-baryonic matter and there is no room for it either.
Conclusion: the evidence against the existence of non-baryonic"dark" matter is stronger than ever. Ordinary matter is only the only type of matter that exists.
A few points on Wright's misunderstanding of the plasma theory of the CBR
Wright argues that extended radio sources contradict the absorption of radio waves by filaments in the intergalactic medium. He points to Cygnus A and says that no absorbing filaments can be seen. This indicate Wright has not read the relevant papers, which make it clear that the absorbing filamtsn are quite small by astronomical standards. Except for an initial 1987 paper, where the idea was worked out only in rough way, my elaboration of the hypothesis of absorbing magnetic filaments have made clear that the filaments in general are too small to be observed directly. From the formulae in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol.20, pp. 935-938, for example, it can be calculated that filaments that absorb 21 cm radio waves will be no more than 7,000 km in diameter, far too small to be resolved. Wright's arguing that the inability to resolve the filaments shows their nonexistence is similar to arguing that the inability to resolve individual dust particles in a dust storm contradict the idea that dust absorbs light from the sun.
Wright completely ignores the strong observational evidence that radio emission from galaxies does indeed drop off sharply with distance, relative to emission at IR wavelengths [E.J. Lerner, Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol 207, p.17-26], which are too short to be absorbed by the filaments. He offers no alternative explanation for these observations. This is characteristic of BB theorists, who simply ingrown inconvenient observations.
Wright's second objection, that a fractal inhomogenous collection of absorbers would lead to a non-isotropic distortion of radio sources is simply mathematically wrong. Fractal distributions are inhomogeneous in three-space, but their projection on to 2-space, the sky, tend to be isotropic.
However, we would expect some fairly small variations in the CBR because of the inhomogenous IGM--where there is more density of matter, we would expect a slightly brighter CBR. This would only be slight, because scattering and the contribution of the IGM along the same line of sight but at different distance would greatly reduce anisotropies, as described in [E. J. Lerner, Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol.227. p.61-81]
This is what is found. There is indeed a slight correlation between galaxy density and CBR intensity, as expected. What is particularly interesting is that this correlation extends over all angular scales, as would be expected from the plasma viewpoint. But in the BB hypothesis, which assumes the CBR originated BEHIND all clusters of galaxies and other very dense concentrations of matter, interactions with electrons will decrease the CBR luminosity. So there should be an anti-correlation of galaxies and CBR on small angular scales. Just the opposite is observed[Scranton et al, arXiv:astrop-ph/0307335]. The correlation continues to be positive even on small angular scales--as expected in the plasma hypothesis.
In addition, The WMAP results contradict the Big Bang theory and support the plasma cosmology theory in another extremely important respect. Tegmark et al [arXiv:astro-ph/0302496] have shown that the quadruple and octopole component of the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadruple and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part.
This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. Big Bang theorists have implausibly labeled the coincidence of the preferred CBR direction and the direction to Virgo to be mere accident and have scrambled to produce new ad-hoc assumptions, including that the universe is finite only in one spatial direction, an assumption that entirely contradicts the assumptions of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, the only model generally accepted by Big Bang supporters.
However, the plasma explanation is far simpler. If the density of the absorbing filaments follows the overall density of matter, as assumed by this theory, then the degree of absorption should be higher locally in the direction along the axis of the (roughly cylindrical) Local Supercluster and lower at right angles to this axis, where less high-density matter is encountered. This in turn means that concentrations of the filaments outside the Local Supercluster, which slightly enhances CBR power, will be more obscured in the direction along the supercluster axis and less obscured at right angle to this axis, as observed. More work will be needed to estimate the magnitude of this effect, but it is in qualitative agreement with the new observations.
Wright's third objection illustrates the essential sloppiness of Big Bang thinking. He claims that statistics of flux vs number counts contradict the absorption hysptheises. In fact they confirm it. Contrary to Wright's claims that N~ F -1.8 , where N is the number of sources brighter than F, the actual distribution is quite different. Wright's formula is roughly true ONLY for the very brightest sources, those stronger than about 200mJy. For sources dimmer than that, the relationship is very close to N~F-0.82, almost exactly the relationship Wright himself says is predicted by the plasma hypothesis [Windhorst, R., ApJ 405, 498]. Wright either is ignorant of this well-known fact, or deliberately ignores it.
There is no real mystery as to why the brighter sources follow a different relationship. As Sylos Labini et al{Physica A 226,195] demonstrate, for very bright sources, the number-flux relationship is distorted by finite size effects. Put simply, very bright sources or either very close or, if distant and intrinsically bright, very rare. For small volumes there will be too few of these very bright objects--for small enough volumes there will be none of them. As the volume increases to the size at which a fair sample of very bright objects occurs, the apparent density increases. This creates a purely apparent, statistical tendency for a more rapid growth in the number of objects with decreasing flux. The true relationship is only revealed with the more numerous dimmer objects.
A very similar change in the number flux slope occurs in the counts of optical sources, basically galaxies, with one important different. For bright galaxies, the relationship has an exponent of -1.5, but for dim galaxies, the exponent changes to -1.0. That exponent is just what one would expect for a fractal distribution of dimension D=2 with NO absorption. The fact that the radio sources have an exponent of -0.82, not -1.0, implies an absorption almost identical to that hypothesized in the plasma theory of the CBR. Without absorption, one would have to explain why more distant radio sources become systematically dimmer and less numerous compared with optical course--even at distances of tens of Mpc, far too small to be affected by evolutionary effects.
A Brief Note on the Hubble relationship
Wright says that my book endorses Alfven's explanation of the Hubble relationship. But again, that implies that Wright did not even read the book he criticizes. In the book, I present Alfven's, AND several other explanations of the Hubble relationship in the Appendix to the book (which was in both editions), as well as in Chapter 6. I concluded that "the question of the Hubble relationship remains unanswered" (p.279) and that none of the possible explanations were without problems, a conclusion that still stands. However, the one explanation that can be ruled out, because of its many contradictions with observation, is the Big Bang. We are not stuck with the Big Bang by default.Light element productionIn considering the arguments against the BB, Wright entirely ignores the contradictions between observations and BB predictions of light element abundances, pointed out in the preface to my book. These contradictions have only gotten sharper since the book was written (See my new review, Two World Systems--link to that document here). Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) predicts the abundance of four light isotopes( 4 He, 3 He, D and 7 Li) given only the density of baryons in the universe. These predictions are central to the theory, since they flow from the hypothesis that the universe went through a period of high temperature and density--the Big Bang. In practice, the baryon density has been treated as a free variable, adjusted to match the observed abundances. Since four abundances must be matched with only a single free variable, the light element abundances are a clear-cut test of the theory. In 1992, there was no value for the baryon density that could give an acceptable agreement with observed abundances, and this situation has only worsened in the ensuing decade. The current observations of just three of the four predicted BBN light elements preclude BBN at a level of at least 7 s . In other words, the odds against BBN being a correct theory are about 100 billion to oneWright's comments on the plasma theory of generating light elements in stars show, again, that he has not read the relevant papers that he is criticizing. He assumes that the distribution of stellar masses in the early formative periods of galactic history are the same as today, when supernovae produce considerable amounts of CNO compared to helium. However, the detailed models and calculations presented in my papers showed that the early galaxies were dominated by intermediate mass stars too small to create supernovae. These stars produce and blow off an outer layer of helium but very little or no CNO is released to the interstellar medium [E.J. Lerner, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 17, , pp. 259-263].Similar errors occur in Wright's comments on production of lithium in cosmic rays. Since this occurs when protons in cosmic rays collide with CNO atoms, naturally the abundance of lithium is relatively high in current cosmic rays, give the interstellar medium contains a few percent CNO. But in very young, formative galaxies, where only one ten-thousandth of the current levels of CNO were yet produced, Li production was reduced by a comparable amount. Indeed we find that stars with heavy element abundance 10 -4 that of the sun, and a few thousand times less than the ISM, have D/Li ratios that are also a few thousand times less than the 80-to-1 ratio Wright quotes. Typically, he misquotes the ratio of D to Li observed in the oldest stars, which is about 150,000 to 1, not 6 million to 1. But to a true Big Bang believer like Dr. Wright, making an error of a factor of forty in regards to mere observations is no cause of concern. Observations, after all, do not affect faith. -
95
Questioning the Big Bang Theory
by Rod P inbut halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.
or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?
gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.
-
-
Rod P
I would like to post one more article by Eric Lerner, just so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle:Cosmology in 2004: A bad year for the Big Bang
By Eric J. Lerner
Lawrenceville Plasma Physics
The past year brought a steady drum beat of observational and theoretical bad news for the Big Bang theory, making that hypothesis more untenable then ever. Data on the cosmic microwave background (CMB), on distant and near galaxies, on the abundances of light elements, added to the evidence that the universe is much older than the hypothetical Big Bang, that dark matter does not exist, and that the universe is not expanding.
While Big Bang supporters relied more and more on their control over funding and open suppression of alternative views, the debate over cosmology burst into public view with the publication in May of an Open Letter on Cosmology in New Scientist, among the most prominent of popular science magazines. The open letter, denouncing the orthodoxy of conventional cosmology, urges the funding of alterative approaches. It has now been signed by hundreds of scientists from countries around the globe.
The following review just touches on some of the mass of new data published in the past year and is in no way comprehensive.
WMAP Gives Big Bang a Slap
The biggest of many headaches supplied to Big Bang theorists last year has been the data from the WMAP satellite, which provides high resolution mapping of the intensity of the CMB across the sky. Intially, the results were hailed as a "complete confirmation of the Big Bang inflationary" theory. But subsequent analysis has shown that even the most basic predictions of the theory were contradicted by the data. To put it simply, the theory predicted that the tiny fluctuations in intensity of the radiation would be randomly scattered across the sky. In fact, they are anything but random.
The inflationary Big Bang hypothesis states that fluctuations in the CMB originated in the first 10 -35 seconds of the Big Bang from random, quantum variations in the still purely hypothetical inflation field. So a firm prediction of the theory is that the fluctuations we see will be random, or follow a Gaussian distribution, not correlated with each other in any way. As leading Big Banger Michael Turner wrote in Dec. 2002, "The inflation-produced density perturbations arise from quantum fluctuations in a very weakly coupled (essentially free) scalar field and hence should be Gaussian to a high degree of precision." (ArXiv: astro-ph/0212281). Many other theorists said the same thing.
But WMAP showed something very different. Researchers analyzed the fluctuations in intensity of temperature in terms of spherical modes, breaking down the fluctuations into those with two peaks of valleys in the entire sphere (dipole); three (tripole); four (quadrupole), etc. up to thousands of poles. If the fluctuations were random, there should be not special alignment among any of the modes. Each direction should look more or less the same as any other. Instead the WMAP data showed that large scale fluctuations—octopole through dipole-- were oriented not randomly but in a plane. In addition, what fluctuations there were in the direction perpendicular to the plane were much larger in the South direction than the North. The two hemispheres of the sky did not look the same—one was much "smoother" than the other. More, the fluctuations in the dipole, tripole quadrupole and octopole modes were all closely aligned with each other. This alignment had only a one in ten thousand chance of being a random coincidence.
What was worse for the Big Bang was that the axis of this alignment was the axis of the Local Superclsuter, a massive array of clusters of galaxies centered on the Virgo cluster. In the direction of the Virgo cluster, large-scale fluctuations were far less than away from Virgo. This local alignment entirely contradicted the Big Bang hypotheses that the CMB originated in the far distant universe, many billions of years ago. (There are a large number of papers here, but the most significant are: ApJ 605, 14; arXiv:astro-ph/0311430; arXiv:astro-ph/0310511; arXiv:astro-ph/0402399; arXiv:astro-ph/0403353; arXiv:astro-ph/0405187).
While such alignments contradict the basic prediction of the Big Bang, they are completely consistent with plasma cosmology theories. These theories explain the CMB as being produced by light from stars, thermalized and isotropisized (smoothed) by scattering in dense magnetic filaments throughout the universe. Since the last surface of scattering is only about 6 Mpc away, it is to be expected that fluctuations lithe CMB aligned with the Local superclsuter, which is about 10 Mpc in diameter and points toward Virgo.
Additional evidence of non-randomness is that the hotspots and cold spots in the CMB tend to be highly elliptical, not circular as they should be in Gaussian distribution.
And there is further evidence that, as the plasma hypothesis predicts, the alignment of the CMB has to do with the alignment of magnetic fields in the Local supercluster. Studies by Pankaj Jain of the Indian Institute of Technology, John Ralston of Kansas University (arXiv:astro-ph/0301530) and others (arXiv: astro-ph/0501043) have shown that the polarization of light from quasar is not randomly oriented, but has a preferred direction—the direction of the Virgo cluster, the same preferred direction of the CMB. This would make sense if the CMB is scattered by magnetic filaments that are aligned with a large scale supercluster magnetic field, but is very difficult to explain if it travels unchanged from billions of light years away, as the BB hypothesizes.Theoretical calculations added to the contradictions. Richard Lieu of the University of Alabama demonstrated mathematically that if the CMB originates at great distance, gravitational lensing will magnify its intensity for any observer by about 1.5% compared with a perfect blackbody spectrum with the same peak frequency (arXiv:astro-ph/0409655). This is in gross contradiction with observations, which show an agreement at least a thousand times better with a perfect black body. This implies again than the surface of last scattering of the CMB is a few Mpc away, not a few thousand Mpcs as in the BB theory.
Big Bang Gets Geometry Wrong
One of the striking predictions of the Big bang theory is that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances. In the space around us, on earth, in the solar system and the galaxy, non-expanding space, as objects get farther away, they get smaller. Since distance correlates with redshift, the product of angular size and red shift, q z, is constant. Similarly the surface brightness of objects, brightness per unit area on the sky, measured as photons per second, is a constant with increasing distance for similar objects.
But the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above, decreases as (z+1) -3 , while q z actually increases as (z+1)f(z) where f(z) is a slowly varying function depending on the exact cosmological model.
Observations at intermediate red shifts up to z~3 had shown that observed surface brightness remains roughly constant while angular size continues to decrease as 1/z, resulting in approximately constant q z, in agreement with the non-expanding (Euclidean) model. But BB supporters interpreted this as evidence for evolution of the galaxies observed. High-z galaxies are assumed to be much smaller and much brighter than present day galaxies, comparable to the very brightest starburst galaxies, so that their intrinsic evolution compensates for the predicted drop in surface brightness and increase in angular size. Conventional cosmologists anticipated that the still higher red shift data from Hubble Ultra Deep Field would reveal the expected (z+1) -3 surface brightness scaling and (z+1) angular size scaling.
But a preliminary analysis of the HUDF data that I presented at Goddard Space Flight Center in August shows that even out to z=6, the data is an excellent fit to the non-expanding model with distance proportional to redshift and a terrible fit for the Big Bang model. The figure below shows the average observed q z data as trapezoids and the Big Bang predictions as squares. The fit to the horizontal, non-expanding Euclidean model is excellent. By contrast, the BB model requires that galaxies observed at z=6 be 20 times smaller in radius and 340 times brighter in UV surface brightness than existing average galaxies. For some of the new data, see arXiv: astro-ph/0406562.
A universe getting older—fastThe Big Bang has always been dogged by observations of objects—galaxies, stars, large scale structures—that seem much older than the hypothesized age of the Big Bang itself. This situation has continued to get worse over the past year. On the theoretical side, an team of researchers at University of Warsaw and University of Cape Town carried out BB simulations with a wide variety of cosmological parameters tried try to create realistic voids in the distribution of galaxies (arXiv:astro-ph/0411126). They were trying to generate voids that are as empty as those actually observed, where the voids have 20 times less density (galaxies per cubic Mpc) than the average density. They were trying to create voids that were only 20 Mpc in radius, considerably smaller than the largest voids observed, which 80-90 Mpc in radius. They also did not attempt to limit the current velocity of galaxies moving out of the voids to below the velocities actually observed. Yet they found that it was utterly impossible to get such voids in the time since the Big Bang. Using the "concordance model" with dark matter and dark energy, and starting with fluctuations that are consistent, in the BB model, with observations of the background radiation, they were able to produce voids that had about half the average density at their centers, instead of the observed 5% of average. In addition the outflow velocities would be around 700 km/sec, far above the maximum outflow velocities observed of 250 km/sec.
To produce anything like the emptiness of present day voids, the models had to start out with fluctuations some 800 times larger than those assumed in the currently popular Big Bang model. Thus density fluctuations would have to be about 8x10 -3 , not 10 -5 and velocities would have to be of the order of 2,400 km/sec, not 30 km/sec. Such large fluctuations would, in the BB models, create fluctuations in the CMB brightness 800 times larger than those observed. And the galaxies would be fleeing from these voids today at 2,000 km/sec, ten times that observed.
The only way to avoid these results, the researchers found, would be to abandon the inflation model, with W =1 and set up a "daschund" universe with a careful balance of dark energy and dark matter that would make the universe 32 billion years old, not 14 billion years. In private communication, the authors agreed that this model was not at all realistic. For one thing, the abandonment of inflation would create massive contradictions between BB predictions and observations of the CMB. Alternatively, if one eliminated dark energy, the model could create suitable voids—given nine HUNDRED billion years. In short, there was absolutely no way to reconcile any BB model with the existence of voids, a conclusion I had pointed out in my Dec. 2003 Paper, "Two World Systems" and much earlier in my 1991 book.
Observations did not help the "age crisis" either. Not only is there not enough time for the BB to create large scale structure by the present time, such structures actually existed many billions of year ago. A Japanese collaboration using the Subaru telescope saw voids as big as 50-100Mpc in radius at a red shifts of 6 (arXiv: astro-ph/0412648). According to BB theory, this would be at a time when the universe was only 800 million years old, making the formation of large scale structures an even worse problem than creating them in 14 billion years. In addition, the similarity of large scale structure at z=6 and at the present is strong confirmation of the idea, explained in the plasma cosmology model, that the universe is evolving on far slower times scales than that envisions in the Big Bang.
Individual galaxies are also turning up that are "older than the Big Bang". Galaxy age can be determined from galactic spectra, since older stars are smaller, cooler and redder than younger ones. In addition older galaxies have more metals than younger ones. Studies released in May by two different groups of researchers, (arXiv:astro-ph/0405187; arXiv: astro-ph/0405432) showed that galaxies at z=2 and z=3 had metallicities comparable to or above that of our own galaxy at the present. In addition, the ages of the galaxies exceed the "age of the universe" at those redshifts, sometimes by a billion years or more. Again, the evidence showed that the universe at high-z looks remarkably like that of the present.
Disappearing dark matter
The BB theory relies on the existence of non-baryonic or dark matter to resolve blatant contractions with observation. Yet data has accumulated that the dark mater is not just invisible—it is non-existent. Last year this trend continued. A pair of Russian observers completed a survey of galaxies within 10 Mpc of the Milky Way using infrared radiation. (ArXiv: astro-ph/0412369) Since visible starlight is absorbed by dust and re-emitted as IR radiation, such radiation is a better measure of how much radiation is being emitted from stars. In turn this gives good indications of the mass of stars. By comparing this mass with the gravitating mass, it can be determined how much matter is still unaccounted for or "dark". The new study leaves little room for the dark matter.
For galaxies, the ratio of mass to light was just 1.5 times that of the sun, indicating that all the mass could be accounted for by stars alone. For clusters of galaxies, the ratio was considerably higher—since such clusters have large amounts of gas in them. But the average ratio for the region within 10 Mpc of earth was about 20 times that of the sun. This indicates that W for all matter was 0.09, far less than the 0.27 of the concordance theory and not much more than the 0.05 the BB allows for ordinary baryonic matter.
This result is broadly confirmed by another study of the velocities that galaxies move within the Local superclsuter—about 75km/sec. (arXiv: astro-ph/0412090). This low velocity implies a local W of only 0.025.
The situation is actually considerably worse for the BB , since much earlier research shows that the density of matter declines with increasing scale, at least up to scales of 50 Mpc, making total W for matter on these scales far less than BB predictions for baryonic matter alone.
Light elements problems worsen
While BB nucleosyntheis predictions have been contradicted by observation for some time, new data in the past year has made this contradiction worse. For one thing, measurements of deuterium in intergalactic clouds with low metallicities, presumably close to pre-galactic abundances, keep coming up with different results, a scatter not at all predicted by the BB. In addition, the latest measurement (arXiv: astro-ph/0403512) shows an abundance of only 1.6x10 -5 , which disagrees at a 99.5% statistical level with the BB prediction of 2.6x10 -5 . For He3 things are no better. Theoretical calculations have long indicated that He3 is produced in stars on net, so He3 should be more abundant today than before the galaxy formed. But current measurements are almost the same as BB predictions for "primordial" He3. Contorted fudging attempts to explain the discrepancy as the result of ‘extra mixing’ of material in stars which conveniently destroys the extra He3. But a recent analysis of data from planetary nebulae (arXiv:astro-ph/0412380) shows that stars do indeed emit He3-enriched gas to the environment, implying little or none was created before the galaxy formed.Repression comes out into the openWith data pelting them from all sides; the leaders of the BB community are resorting to repression of competing ideas, as they have in the past. But now the repression is coming more out into the open, and more openly discussed. For example a paper by C. S. Kochanek of Ohio State University refers to the "Party’s" value of the Hubble constant, and goes on to say "the Party says the value of H is known and should not be challenged unless you want to count trees in Siberia". (arXiv:astro-ph/0412089) Certainly when researchers write in this way, the fact that dissent is punished has become a very open secret. Nor do the keepers of the government’s funds disguise their own complicity in this enforced orthodoxy. I recently made the experiment of applying for some funds from NSF to study the above-mentioned size-z relationship. In rejecting my proposal, Nigel Sharp, program manager for Astrophysics wrote that I was not alone: "Let me also point out that you are not the only proposer we have with unconventional ideas. Some of them have no qualms about submitting to the full review process, with a full 15-page proposal with enough space to make their case. I can then do the external review in the normal way and I have more leeway to consider possible prejudices. So far, none of the cosmology proposals treated in this way has been funded, and of course I will argue that was because of serious flaws in their work unrelated to the unconventional aspects. On the other hand, we have funded one or two maverick ideas in other areas of astronomy. We're never going to support a lot of heterodoxy because then we get accused of wasting government money, but it's not true that we support none." So although maverick ideas are allowed in some parts of astronomy they will "never" be allowed in cosmology. On the bright side, the Open Letter on Cosmology, which now has over 200 signatories, has been read seemingly by nearly everyone in the cosmology community. From all reports it is stirring a good deal of healthy debate. No longer can those who seek to protect the orthodox cosmology of the Big Bang with control over funding and threats to scientists’ careers hope to operate in the dark As more data streams in, and as more researchers dare to express doubts that the BB is valid, we can expect more progress in 2005.edited to remove large blank spot in article
-
95
Questioning the Big Bang Theory
by Rod P inbut halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.
or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?
gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.
-
-
Rod P
Zagor,
This is a bit of a follow-up to your sites against Eric Lerner.
I thought it would be best to bring things a little more up-to-date by allowing Eric Lerner himself to respond with his own article:
Big Bang Never Happened Home Page and SummaryIn 1991, my book, the Big Bang Never Happened(Vintage), presented evidence that the Big Bang theory was contradicted by observations and that another approach, plasma cosmology, which hypothesized a universe without begin or end, far better explained what we know of the cosmos. The book set off a considerable debate. Since then, observations have only further confirmed these conclusions, although the Big Bang remains by far the most widely accepted theory of cosmology.
This website provides an update on the evidence and the debate over the Big Bang, including the latest technical review and a reply to a widely- circulated criticism as well as a technical reading list, a report on a recent workshop and links to other relevant sites, including one that described my own work on fusion power, which is closely linked to my work in cosmology. What is the evidence against the Big Bang? Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densitiesThe Big bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion. Large-scale Voids are too oldThe Big bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. Yet the large-scale voids observed in the distortion of galaxies cannot have been formed in the time since the Big Bang, without resulting in velocities of present-day galaxies far in excess of those observed. Given the observed velocities, these voids must have taken at least 70 billion years to form, five times as long as the theorized time since the Big Bang.
Surface brightness is constant
One of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory is that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances. In the space around us, on earth, in the solar system and the galaxy (non-expanding space), as objects get farther away, they get smaller. Since distance correlates with redshift, the product of angular size and red shift, qz, is constant. Similarly the surface brightness of objects, brightness per unit area on the sky, measured as photons per second, is a constant with increasing distance for similar objects.
In contrast, the Big Bang expanding universe predicts that surface brightness, defined as above, decreases as (z+1) -3 . More distant objects actually should appear bigger. But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies up to a redshift of 6 are exactly constant, as predicted by a non-expanding universe and in sharp contradiction to the Big Bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution--early galxies are different than those today-- lead to predictions of galaxies that are impossibly bright and dense.”Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation The Big Bang theory requires THREE hypothetical entities--the inflation field, non-baryonic (dark) matter and the dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. Indeed, there have been many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not predict an isotropic (smooth) cosmic background radiation(CBR). Without non-baryonic matter, the predictions of the theory for the density of matter are in self-contradiction, inflation predicting a density 20 times larger than any predicted by light element abundances (which are in contradiction with each other). Without dark energy, the theory predicts an age of the universe younger than that of many stars in our galaxy. No room for dark matterWhile the Big bang theory requires that there is far more dark matter than ordinary matter, discoveries of white dwarfs(dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and of warm plasma clouds in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the gravitational effects observed, so there is no room for extra dark matter.No Conservation of EnergyThe hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics.Alignment of CBR with the Local SuperclusterThe largest angular scale components of the fluctuations(anisotropy) of the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. (Big Bang theorists have implausibly labeled the coincidence of the preferred CBR direction and the direction to Virgo to be mere accident and have scrambled to produce new ad-hoc assumptions, including that the universe is finite only in one spatial direction, an assumption that entirely contradicts the assumptions of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, the only model generally accepted by Big Bang supporters.) Evidence for Plasma cosmology Plasma theory correctly predicts light element abundancesPlasma filamentation theory allows the prediction of the mass of condensed objects formed as a function of density. This leads to predictions of the formation of large numbers of intermediate mass stars during the formations of galaxies. These stars produce and emit to the environment the observed amounts of 4He, but very little C, N and O. In addition cosmic rays from these stars can produce by collisions with ambient H and He the observed amounts of D and 7Li.Plasma theory predicts from basic physics the large scale structure of the universeIn the plasma model, superclusters, clusters and galaxies are formed from magnetically confined plasma vortex filaments. The plasma cosmology approach can easily accommodate large scale structures, and in fact firmly predicts from basic physical principles a fractal distribution of matter, with density being inversely proportional to the distance of separation of objects. This fractal scaling relationship has been borne out by many studies on all observable scales of the universe. Naturally, since the plasma approach hypothesizes no origin in time for the universe, the large amounts of time need to create large-scale structures present no problems for the theory.Plasma theory of the CBR predict absorption of radio waves, which is observedThe plasma alternative views the energy for the CBR as provided by the radiation released by early generations of stars in the course of producing the observed 4He. The energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium. It has accurately matched the spectrum of the CBR using the best-quality data set from the COBE sattelite. Since this theory hypotheses filaments that efficiently scatter radiation longer than about 100 microns, it predicts that radiation longer than this from distant sources will be absorbed, or to be more precise scattered, and thus will decrease more rapidly with distance than radiation shorter than 100 microns. Such an absorption has been demonstrated by comparing radio and far-infrared radiation from galaxies at various distances--the more distant, the greater the absorption effect. New observations have shown the exact same absorption at a wavelength of 850 microns, just as predicted by plasma theory.
The alignment of the CBR anisotropy and the local Supercluster confirms the plasma theory of CBR
If the density of the absorbing filaments follows the overall density of matter, as assumed by this theory, then the degree of absorption should be higher locally in the direction along the axis of the (roughly cylindrical) Local Supercluster and lower at right angles to this axis, where less high-density matter is encountered. This in turn means that concentrations of the filaments outside the Local Supercluster, which slightly enhances CBR power, will be more obscured in the direction along the supercluster axis and less obscured at right angle to this axis, as observed.[Mail] Send EMail [Contents] Contents -
7
The Christian Paradox
by Valis ini showed this article to some of our friends at the fish fry i had this past weekend and thought i would share some of it with you all as i found it interesting and thought maybe some of you would find it so as well... excerpt]the christian paradoxhow a faithful nation gets jesus wrongposted on wednesday, july 27, 2005. what it means to be christian in america.
an excerpt.
originally from august 2005. by bill mckibben.
-
-
Rod P
Valis,
That was an excellent article. Some pretty asture observations, I think. Thanks for sharing.
Terry,
If religion was about actually knowing something it would have vanished by now.
If Scripture was about actual data transmission from a Supreme Being it would have been debunked by now.
If faith were about anything other than deciding something without a shred of evidence we would have outgrown faith.
I don't always agree with you, but the above has really got me thinking.
At first, I thought it was just the opposite:
1) If religion was actually about knowing something, it would be dominating the education system and preached in all the media and around the world. (But it isn't.)
2) If Scripture was about actual data transmission from a Supreme Being, it would have been PROVEN by now. (But it hasn't.)
3) If faith were about anything other than deciding something without a shred of evidence we would have understood it clearly by now, and would be employing it all the more. (But we don't, and we haven't).
Then I realized that you are saying we cannot know something thru religion, that the Scriptures do not contain any data that is transmitted from a Supreme Being, and that faith is nothing more than deciding (believing?) something without a shred of evidence.
Then I realized, perhaps we are both saying the same thing from the opposite side of the same coin.
Anyway, thank you for the analogy.
Rod P.
-
95
Questioning the Big Bang Theory
by Rod P inbut halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.
or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?
gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.
-
-
Rod P
Danny,
Yes, I had a good laugh over that one too!
Rod P.
-
56
What songs stand the test of time?
by JV inseeing as i'm dowloading songs so i can blast them at the neighbour kids, i was thinking, what songs stand the test of time?
what songs do you listen to over and over again and never get tired of.
here's my list.. if you tolerate this - manic street preachers.
-
-
Rod P
I Did It My Way written by Paul Anka for Frank Sinatra, but also sung by Paul Anka and Elvis
Volare- sung by Dean Martin
That's Amore - sung by Dean Martin (When the moon hits your eye, like a big pizza pie, that's amore.....)
Climb Every Mountain- sung by too many to name, but done in The Sound of Music
The Impossible Dream
Song Sung Blue- by Neil Diamond
I Am, I Said- by Neil Diamond
Little Bitty Tear Let Me Down- by Burl Ives
I've Looked at Clouds From Both Sides Now- sung by Judy Collins
Yellow Submarine- by The Beatles
Across the Universe- by The Beatles
Twist Again- by Chubby Checker
Wooden Heart- sung by Elvis
Suspicious Minds- sung by Elvis
Love Me Tender- sung by Elvis
You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'- by the Righteous Brothers
Candles in the Wind- by Elton John, and also sung at Princess Diana's funeral
Take Five- by Dave Brubeck (Jazz piece)
Matilda- by Harry Belafonte
Waltzing Matilda- from Australia
The Unicorn- by the Irish Rovers
Hawaiian Wedding Song- by too many to name, but Don Ho is one that comes to mind
Tiny Bubbles- by Don Ho
Pearly Shells- by Don Ho and others, including Burl Ives
Off the Wall- by Pink Floyd
Danny Boy- by thousands of singers
Battle Hymn of the Republic- by Mormon Tabernacle Choir and others
Ring of Fire- by Johnny Cash
Foulsom Prison Blues- by Johnny Cash
Take Me Out to the Ball Game
My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean
Silent Night, Holy Night- Xmas hymn
Oh Christmas Tree
Here Comes Santa Clause- by Gene Autry
Jingle Bell Rock- by Brenda Lee
Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire (The Christmas Song)- by Nat King Cole
Frosty the Snowman-
Walking in a Winter Wonderland
Dancing Queen- by ABBA
Massachusettes- by the BeeGees
This Land is Your Land- by Peter, Paul and Mary
Certain theme songs such as:
Diamonds Are Forever- James Bond 007 movie "Diamonds Are Forever"
Goldfinger- James Bond 007 movie "Goldfinger"
On the Road Again- by Willie Nelson in the movie by the same title
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly- with Clint Eastwood
Magnificent Seven- with Yule Brenner and other well known actors
Sound of Music- sung by Julie Andrews in the movie by the same title
American in Paris- with Gene Kelly
Singin in the Rain- by Gene Kelly
Phantom of the Opera Theme
Theme from Les Miserables
Various National Anthems from around the world.
Rod P.
-
95
Questioning the Big Bang Theory
by Rod P inbut halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.
or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?
gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.
-
-
Rod P
Danny,
Here is a very interesting article that provides a lot more detail about Halton Arp's position on the meaning of Red-Shift in relation to Quasars and Galaxies. There are even more in-depth links at the bottom of this article that are also well worth reading.
Redshift
What is redshift?
If the lines in the spectrum of the light from a star or galaxy appear at a lower frequency (shifted toward the red) than where they are observed in the spectrum of the Sun, we say this object has "positive redshift". The accepted explanation for this effect is that the object must be moving away from us. This interpretation is drawn by analogy with the downward shift in the pitch of a train whistle as it passes through a railroad crossing and then speeds away from us. The question is: "Is recessional velocity the only thing that can produce a redshift, as modern astrophysicists presume?" It has become clear that the answer to that question is an emphatic " NO!away from Earth.
But a high redshift value does not necessarily mean the object is far away. There is another, more important cause of high redshift values.
Halton Arp
Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For years he worked at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he developed his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are misshapen or irregular in appearance.Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars ("quasi-stellar objects") which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by . Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often
Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified.
NGC 4319 and Markarian 205
A prime example of Arp's challenge is the connected pair of objects NGC 4319 and Markarian 205.
Dr. Arp has shown in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" that there is a physical connection between the barred spiral galaxy NGC 4319 and the quasar like object Markarian 205. This connection is between two objects that have vastly different redshift values. Mainstream astronomers deny
the existence of this physical link. They claim these two objects are not close together - they are "coincidentally aligned".On April 4, 2002 amateur astronomer John Smith of Oro Valley, AZ obtained an image of the two objects. The author of these pages then quantized that image to show isophote contours. This result is shown below. The isophotes in the central section of 4319 suggest that the galaxy is indeed a barred spiral. Also the main arms seem to be coming off at their roots. Both of these observations were first noted by Arp and stated as such in his book.
This image was obtained by using level quantization (staircase gray curves in the Picture Window Pro 3.1software package) followed by the "Edge tool". Notice that only Mark 205's isophotes are stretched back toward NGC 4319. None of the other objects in close proximity to 4319 are distorted in this manner.
Then on October 7, 2002 the Astronomy Picture of the Day issued a Hubble Space Telescope image of these same objects. The orientation is different. After processing this HST image in the same way as the above amateur image, the following were obtained:
(a)
(b)Notice, in the magnified isophote view, (b), that there is a distention of the shape of the Mark 205 inner isophotes back toward NGC 4319. There are also a series of secondary masses within Mark 205 on a line connecting 4319 and the center of Mark 205. But NASA scientists "cannot see any connection between these two objects."
The official explanation of the NASA image states, "Appearances can be deceiving. In this NASA Hubble Space Telescope image, an odd celestial duo, the spiral galaxy NGC 4319 [center] and a quasar called Markarian 205 [upper right], appear to be neighbors. In reality, the two objects don't even live in the same city. They are separated by time and space. NGC 4319 is 80 million light-years from Earth. Markarian 205 (Mrk 205) is more than 14 times farther away, residing 1 billion light-years from Earth. The apparent close alignment of Mrk 205 and NGC 4319 is simply a matter of chance." Professional astronomers seem to be so enamored of their "redshift equals distance" theory that it damages their eyesight.
Stephan's Quintet
In "Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies" (p. 96-101) Halton Arp discusses the five interacting galaxies NGC 7317, 7318A, 7318B, 7319, and 7320 that constitute Stephan's Quintet. The last one, NGC 7320, has a redshift value of 800 km/sec. The other four have redshifts of either 5700 km/sec or 6700 km/sec. Mainstream astronomers therefore claim those last four are about eight times farther away from us than NGC 7320. Therefore, they say, there cannot be any interaction between 7320 and the others.
Arp states "The deepest 200 inch (Mt. Palomar) plates that I have been able to obtain clearly show a 'tail' coming out of the southeast end of NGC 7320." He points out, "A tail like this from NGC 7320... must be an interaction tail - which could arise only from physical interaction with the adjacent high-redshift members of the Quintet."
He then states that at least one amateur has been able to see the tail but, "it is amazing that so many professionals have difficulty seeing it." NASA routinely crops their images of Stephan's Quintet to exclude the area where this tail would be seen.
However, my good friend, amateur astronomer John Smith acquired a full image of the Quintet.
The large, dark galaxy on the left is the low redshift NGC 7320. Then going counter-clockwise we have 7317, 7318A, 7318B, and 7319. At the top of the image is the small galaxy NGC 7320C. After some digital image processing (which only increased contrast), the result shown below was obtained.
It is apparent that a "tail" does indeed extend out from NGC 7320 toward the left. In fact it appears to curve around and connect to the small galaxy NGC 7320C. The redshift of this small companion galaxy is z = 0.02 which is about 10 times that of NGC 7320.
So, once again Arp has visual evidence of a physical connection between two objects that have vastly different redshift values.
Inherent Redshift
Arp believes that the observed redshift value of any object is made up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity component. The velocity component is the only one recognized by mainstream astronomers. The inherent redshift is a property of the matter in the object. It apparently changes over time in discrete steps. He suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their parent galaxies with inherent i redshift values of up to z = 2. They continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing inherent redshift. Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its parent. He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings. Any additional redshift (over and above its inherent value) is indeed indicative of the object's velocity. But the inherent part is an indication of the object's youth and usually makes up the larger fraction of a quasar's total redshift.
Mathematically, an object's total redshift value is the product of the inherent factor times the velocity factor. (e.g., If an object's inherent redshift value is, say, 0.3, and its velocity redshift is 0.06, then the total redshift that will be measured in light coming from this object is given by (1+0.3)(1+0.06) = 1.378. Which is 1+ z ; making its total redshift value, z = 0.378. In other words, for this example, the object's light is redshifted 30% due to its youth and then that light is shifted another 6% due to its velocity. The total is not the sum (36%) but rather 37.8%.
The total multiplying factor (1+ zt) is, therefore, made up of two multiplicative factors. Mathematically:
(1+ zt) = (1+ zi) (1+ zv) (1)
where zi is called the "intrinsic red shift of the object" and zv is the "red shift due to velocity of the object".Consider, as an example, a pair of quasars symmetrically placed on either side of their parent galaxy. Both have the same intrinsic redshift value and their velocity redshift values are equal in magnitude but opposite in sign (one is approaching us and one is receding). Let their measured values of total redshift be z1 and z2 respectively. From the above equation we have (1+ zi) (1+ zv) = (1+ z1) and (1+ zi) (1- zv) = (1+ z2)
Expanding each yields 1 + zi + zv + zi zv = (1+ z1)
and 1 + zi - zv - zi zv = (1+ z2)
Adding the last two gives 2 + 2 zi = 2+ z1 + z2
Or zi = (z1 + z2)/2 (2)
So the intrinsic redshift value of a pair of symmetrically placed quasars is simply the arithmetic mean of the individual raw measured values.
averageus and the one with positive velocity red shift is receding.
In addition, the inherent redshift z values of quasars seem to be quantized! Unusually tight groupings of those calculated values occur centered around values of z = 0.061, 0.3, 0.6, 0.96, 1.41, 1.96, etc... such that (1+ z 2) = 1.23(1+ z 1). [For example, 1.23(1+0.3) = 1.60]. The very existence of this quantization alone, is sufficient proof of the failure of the idea that redshift is only an indicator of recessional speed (and therefore distance). This quantization means (under the redshift equals distance interpretation) that quasars all must lie in a series of concentric shells with Earth at the center of the entire arrangement . Copernicus found out a long time ago that Earth isn't at the center of anything!Recently mainstream astronomers have joyfully announced that they can find no quantization effects in the observed redshift values of quasars. Of course not! The raw measured total redshift values of the universal set of all known quasars are not quantized. It is the inherent redshift z values that are!
Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all. Instead, these objects have been completely excluded from examination. Official photographs are routinely cropped to exclude them. Those familiar with the Galileo story will remember the priests who refused to look through his telescope.
Evidence Says Arp is Right
An image taken by the Chandra orbiting x-ray telescope shows what may be exactly the quasar emission phenomenon Arp suggests is happening.
The official caption says: Chandra Images Seething Cauldron of
Starburst Galaxy
Notice that, even though no "black hole" has ever been directly observed, the presence of one is often proclaimed. In the image shown above there is obviously a line of five or more high intensity, young, X-ray emitting objects being symmetrically formed along the spin axis of M82. No black-hole magic is needed. There is a high level of plasma activity - it is not just "multimillion degree gas" . There are undoubtedly high amplitude electrical currents producing large pinch forces that create these objects. If there is a black hole in the middle of everything, why is matter pouring OUT rather than IN? There is an old saying: "When you hear hoof beats, do not only look for zebras." When there is a powerful emission of material occurring, it might be wise not to immediately postulate the presence of a black hole that sucks everything, including light, IN.Chandra X-ray Image of M82, at a distance of 11 million light years from Earth, is the nearest starburst galaxy. Massive stars are forming and expiring in M82 at a rate ten times higher than in our galaxy. The bright spots in the center are supernova remnants and X-ray binaries. These are some of the brightest such objects known. The luminosity of the X-ray binaries suggests that most contain a black hole . The diffuse X-ray light in the image extends over several thousand light years, and is caused by multimillion degree gas flowing out of M82. A close encounter with a large galaxy, M81, in the last 100 million years is thought to be the cause of the starburst activity. Image made with the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS)
There are many images taken by the Hubble space telescope available on the internet. Here is one example. The typical official commentary is shown ( in color ).Hubble astronomers conducting research on a class of galaxies called ultra-luminous infrared galaxies (ULIRG) have discovered that over two dozen of these are found within "nests" of galaxies, apparently engaged in multiple collisions that lead to fiery pile-ups of three, four or even five galaxies smashing together.
If you read official explanations usually placed on images such as these, you will see a preoccupation with the DEATH of stars and descriptions of COLLIDING and MERGING and CANABALISING galaxies that are SMASHING together. In actuality it is highly likely, in view of Arp's observations, that what we are actually seeing most often is the birth of galaxies and quasars not their deaths. And, instead of collision, the separation of parent and offspring. Anyone looking at these images in an unbiased way will see "fireworks!" - the birth and ejection of new galaxies. And, if the universe is really expanding as Big Bang proponents say, everything should be getting farther away from everything else. Collisions of previously unrelated objects should be highly improbable.Mainstream astronomy is presently trying to explain away a large set of high redshift quasars that are closely associated with low redshift galaxies as being optical illusions caused by "gravitational lensing". Here, below, are ten examples of such groupings. The only way such an optical illusion could occur is if Earth, a nearby galaxy, and a distant quasar (all three) precisely fall on a single straight line . Could this happen once? Surely. But dozens of times?! Not likely. In fact the probability is vanishingly small. And if Halton Arp is correct, the quasars are not that far away in the first place. These sets of objects are not illusions or mirages - rather, they are visual proof that Arp is indeed correct in what he says: Young, high redshift objects are ejected from the centers of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) and Seyfert galaxies. The images show exactly that happening. The most (in)famous of these supposed "mirages" is the so-called "Einstein Cross" which is simply another example of objects in the process of being formed and ejected from the nucleus of an active galaxy. Arp has observed plasma clouds (whose light is strongly redshifted) connecting the ejected objects in the Einstein Cross. So, modern mainstream astronomy is full of "illusions" and "mirages" (their explanation of why we should not believe our eyes) and "strange and dark" energy, matter, "neutron stars" and "black holes", none of which have ever been seen or photographed but whose existence they continually invoke in order to save their otherwise failed theories. Their attitude is, "Don't believe what you see; believe what we tell you!"Arp says w e should believe our own eyes rather than the tall tales of black-holes, and gravitational lensing told by the defenders of mainstream astronomy and cosmology whose continued research funding depends on their not rocking the boat of established theory. The "Fingers of God" The diagram above is an attempt to plot the positions of the galaxies we can see from Earth that are located in a ninety degree field of view centered on the Virgo Galaxy Cluster. The distance of each galaxy that was used to make this plot is computed by presuming that its actual distance is proportional to its redshift value - as modern astronomers do. As a result, the Virgo cluster itself takes on the shape of two long fingers pointed directly at Earth. These have become known as "The Fingers of God". (Shown here in red.) Long cosmic sized fingers pointed directly at Earth! This result is false on its face. It is independent proof that the "redshift equals distance" assumption is nonsense. Again - Copernicus discovered many years ago that the Earth was not the center of anything! A galaxy cluster should have a more symmetrical shape than this. Arp demonstrates that the Virgo cluster is much more compact than it appears in this diagram. The high redshift galaxies in the upper regions of the diagram are not far away - they are just very young! And much closer to us than this diagram would indicate. How astrophysicists can continue to look at this diagram and not see that something is very wrong with their theory is evidence of how disconnected from reality they have become. It is ironic to remember that Galileo got into trouble with the Church by defending the work of Copernicus. Copernicus' voice is coming down to us today through the ages - "If you think that all the galaxies in the Virgo Cluster are in a couple of straight lines that point directly at Earth, you are wrong!" Arp is, indeed, today's Galileo. A Quasar In Front of a Nearby Galaxy
The final stake through the heart of the "Redshift equals distance" assumption is the following image of galaxy NGC 7319 (Redshift = 0.0225). The small object indicated by the arrow is a quasar (Redshift z = 2.11) This observation of a quasar between the galaxy and Earth is impossible if the quasar is over ninety times farther away than the galaxy.In fact, a higher magnification image of the quasar (below) shows a "jet" of matter extending out from the center of NGC 7319 toward the quasar.
/P>
So, Arp is correct in his contention that redshift is caused mainly by an object's being young, and only secondarily because of its velocity. Therefore, quasars are not the brightest, most distant and rapidly moving things in the observed universe - but they are among the youngest. And the Virgo galaxy cluster most certainly does not take the shape of long "Fingers of God" pointed directly at Earth. The Big Bang Theory is false.Halton C. Arp is now at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. Occasionally he returns to the United States to give lectures and visit family.Books and Links:
For those who are interested in reading more about this topic:- "Seeing Red - Red shifts, Cosmology and Academic Science" by Halton Arp, 1998, Apeiron, Montreal ISBN 0-9683689-0-5
- "Quasars, Red shifts and Controversies", by Halton Arp 1987, Interstellar Media
- IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science - Dec. 1986; Anthony L. Peratt (ed.)
Mel & Amy Acheson on Arp and the mindset of science
Arp's Peculiar Galaxies
NGC4319 & Markarian205
Exploding the Big Bang
Redshifts & the Hubble law -
95
Questioning the Big Bang Theory
by Rod P inbut halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.
or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?
gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.
-
-
Rod P
Here is an interesting article taken from the following site:http://chalu.netfirms.com/bigquestionsabout.htm I just want to make it quite clear at the outset, that this is not an endorsement on my part. I just think there may be some good food for thought here, that is worth considering in the overall discussion. That is all! Rod P.
BIG QUESTIONS about the BIG BANG
When examined closely, the cosmologists' confident explanation of the origin and structure of the universe falls apart...
Look up at the night sky, full of stars and planets. Where did it all come from? These days most scientists will answer that question with some version of the big bang theory. In the beginning, you'll hear, all matter in the universe was concentrated into a single point at an extremely high temperature, and then it exploded with tremendous force. From an expanding superheated cloud of subatomic particles, atoms gradually formed, then stars, galaxies, planets, and finally life. This litany has now assumed the status of revealed truth. In accounts that deliberately evoke the atmosphere of Genesis, the tale of primal origins is elaborately presented in countless textbooks, paperback popularizations, slick science magazines, and television specials complete with computer-generated effects.
As an exciting, mindgrabbing story it certainly works. And because the big bang story does seem to be based on factual observation and the scientific method, it seems to many people more reasonable than religious accounts of creation. This big bang theory of cosmology is, however, only the latest in a series of attempts to explain the universe in a mechanistic way, a way that sees the world--and man--solely as the products of matter working according to materialistic laws.
Scientists traditionally reject supernatural explanations of the origin of the universe, especially ones involving a Supreme Person who creates it, saying that they would contradict their scientific method. In the mechanistic world view, God, if He exists at all, is reduced to the role of a petty servant who merely winds up the clock of the universe. Thereafter He has no choice but to allow everything to happen according to physical laws. This makes these laws, in effect, more powerful than God Himself. Or else God becomes simply a formless universal energy. There is definitely not much room for a personal God, a supreme designer and controller, in the universe described by the big bang theorists. Erwin Schrodinger, the Nobel-prize-winning Austrian theoretical physicist who discovered the basic equation of quantum mechanics, states in *Mind and Matter, "No personal god can form part of a world model that has only become accessible at the cost of removing everything personal from it." 1 Thus we should not think that it is by their empirical findings that scientists have eliminated God from the universe or restricted His role in it. Rather from the very start their chosen method rules out God.
The scientists' attempt to understand the origin of the universe in purely physical terms is based on three assumptions: (1) that all phenomena can be completely explained by natutal laws expressed in the language of mathematics, (2) that these physical laws apply everywhere and at all times, and (3) that the fundamental natural laws are simple.
Many people take these assumptions for granted, but they have not been proven to be facts--nor is it possible to easily prove them. They are simply part of one strategy for approaching reality. Looking at the complex phenomena that confront any observer of the universe, scientists have decided to try a reductionistic approach. They say, "Let's try to reduce everything to measurements and try to explain them by simple, universal physical laws." But there is no logical reason for ruling out in advance alternative strategies for comprehending the universe, strategies that might involve laws and principles of irreducible complexity. Yet many scientists, confusing their strategy for trying to understand the universe with the actual nature of the universe, rule out a priori any such alternative approaches. They insist that the universe can be completely described by simple mathematical laws. "We hope to explain the entire universe in a single, simple formula that you can wear on your T-shirt," 2 says Leon Lederman, director of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois.
There are several reasons why the scientists feel compelled to adopt their strategy of simplification. If the underlying reality of the universe can be described by simple quantitative laws, then there is some chance that they can understand it (and manipulate it), even considering the limitations of the human mind. So they assume it can be so described and invent a myriad of theories to do this. But if the universe is infinitely complex, it would be very difficult for us to understand it with the limited powers of the human mind and senses. For example, suppose you were given a set of one million numbers and asked to describe their pattern with an equation. If the pattern were simple, you might be able to do it. But if the pattern were extremely complex, you might not even be able to guess what the equation would be. And of course the scientists' strategy will also be unsuccessful in coping with features of the universe that cannot be described in mathematical terms at all.
Thus it is not any wonder that the great majority of scientists cling so tenaciously to their present strategy to the exclusion of all other approaches. They could well be like the man who lost his car keys in his driveway and went to look for them by the streetlight, where the light was better.
However, the scientists' belief that the physical laws discovered in laboratory experiments on earth apply throughout all time and space is certainly open to question. For example, just because electrical fields are seen to behave a certain way in the laboratory does not insure that they also operate in the same way at vast distances and at times billions of years ago. Yet such assumptions are crucial to the scientists' attempts to explain such things as the origin of the universe and the nature of faraway objects such as quasars. After all, we can't really go back billions of years in time to the origin of the universe, and we have practically no firsthand evidence at all of anything beyond our own solar system.
Even some prominent scientists recognize the risks involved in extrapolating conclusions about the universe as a whole from our limited knowledge. In 1980, Kenneth E. Boulding, in his presidential address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said: "Cosmology ... is likely to be very insecure, simply because it studies a very large universe with a very small and biased sample. We have only been looking at it carefully for a very small fraction of its total time span, and we know intimately an even smaller fraction of its total space." 3 But not only are the cosmologists' conclusions insecure--it also seems that their whole attempt to make a simple mathematical model of the universe consistent with its observable features is fraught with fundamental difficulties, which we will now describe.
The Dreaded Singularity
One of the greatest problems faced by the big bang theorists is that although they are attempting to explain the "origin of the universe," the origin they propose is mathematically indescribable. According to the standard big bang theories, the initial condition of the universe was a point of infinitesimal circumference and infinite density and temperature. An initial condition such as this is beyond mathematical description. Nothing can be said about it. All calculations go haywire. It's like trying to divide a number by 0--what do you get? 1? ... 5? ... 5 trillion? ... ??? It's impossible to say. Technically, such a phenomenon is called a "singularity."
Sir Bernard Lovell, professor of radio astronomy at the University of Manchester, wrote of singularities, "In the approach to a physical description of the beginning of time, we reach a barrier at this point. The problem as to whether or not this really is a fundamental barrier to a scientific description of the initial state of the universe, and the associated conceptual difficulties in the consideration of a single entity at the beginning of time, are questions of outstanding importance in modern thought." 4
As of yet, the barrier has not been surmounted by even the greatest exponents of the big bang theory. Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg laments, "Unfortunately, I cannot start the film [his colorful description of the big bang] at zero time and infinite temperature." 5 So we find that the big bang theory does not describe the origin of the universe at all, because the initial singularity is by definition indescribable.
Quite literally, therefore, the big bang theory is in trouble right from the very start. While the difficulty about the initial singularity is ignored or glossed over in popular accounts of the big bang, it is recognized as a major stumbling block in the more technical accounts by scientists attempting to deal with its actual mathematical implications. Stephen Hawking, Lucian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, and G.F.R. Ellis, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cape Town, in their authoritative book The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time point out, "It seems to be a good principle that the prediction of a singularity by a physical theory indicates that the theory has broken down."6 They add, "The results we have obtained support the idea that the universe began a finite time ago. However the actual point of creation, the singularity, is outside the scope of presently known laws of physics." 7
Any explanation of the origin of the universe that begins with something physically indescribable is certainly open to question. And then there is a further difficulty. Where did the singularity come from? Here the scientists face the same difficulty as the religionists they taunt with the question, "Where did God come from?" And just as the religionist responds with the answer that God is the causeless cause of all causes, the scientists are now faced with the prospect of declaring a mathematically indescribable point of infinite density and infinitesimal size, existing before all conceptions of time and space, as the causeless cause of all causes. At this point, the hapless scientist stands convicted of the same unforgivable intellectual crime that he has always accused the saints and mystics of committing--making physically unverifiable supernatural claims. If he is to know anything at all about the origin of the universe, it would seem he would now have to consider the possibility of accepting methods of inquiry and experiment transcending the physical.
Attempted Solutions
Unwilling to face this distasteful prospect, theorists have proposed a multitude of variations on the big bang theory in an effort to sidestep the singularity problem. One approach has been to postulate that the universe did not begin with a perfect singularity. Sir Bernard Lovell states that the singularity in the big bang universe "has often been regarded as a mathematical difficulty arising from the assumption that the universe is uniform." 8 The standard models for the big bang universe have perfect mathematical symmetry, and some physicists thought this was the cause of a singularity when they worked out the mathematical answers to the equations for the big bang's initial state at time zero. As a correction, some theorists introduced into their models irregularities similar to those of the observed universe. This, it was hoped, would give the initial state enough irregularity to prevent everything from being reduced to a single point. But this hope was dashed by Hawking and Ellis, who state that according to their calculations a big bang model with irregularities in the distribution of matter on the observed scale must still have a singularity in the beginning. 9
The Question of Origins
The problem of the singularity is simply part of the larger problem of understanding the origin of the initial condition of the universe, whatever it may have happened to be. If a model of universal origins involves a singularity, that certainly creates severe theoretical difficulties. But even if the singularity can somehow be avoided, we are still confronted with the question of where the universe came from. Hoping to sidestep the whole issue of origins, some scientists have proposed the so-called "infinitely rebounding universe," a universe that expands, contracts to a singularity, and then again expands and contracts continually through the course of unlimited time. There is no beginning and no end, only an endless cycle. This resolves the problem of the origin of the universe by proposing that there is no origin and that the material universe has always existed.
But there are some serious problems with this model. First of all, no one has ever proposed a satisfactory mechanism for the bouncing. Futhermore, in The First Three Minutes physicist Steven Weinberg points out that with each successive bounce progressive changes must take place in the universe. This indicates that at some point there must be a beginning and not a regress extending over an infinite period of time. 10 And thus again you confront the question of origins.
Another creative attempt to escape the necessity of dealing with the question of origins is the time-reverse rebounding universe model proposed by English astrophysicist Paul Davies. The universe would expand with time flowing forward and then collapse to a singularity. During the rebound, time flows backward as the universe expands and collapses again into a singularity, the same singularity from which it began its previous forward cycle. In this model, the past becomes the future, and the future becomes the past, thus making the statement "in the beginning" meaningless. This scenario gives one small indication of the many imaginative schemes the cosmologists have been forced to resort to in order to explain the origin of the universe.
The Inflationary Universe
Quite apart from the question of where the initial condition of the universe comes from, there are other problems troubling modern cosmologists. In order for the standard big bang theory to predict the distribution of matter we observe within the universe, the initial state has to be fine tuned to an incredible degree. The question then arises, how did the initial state get that way? Physicist Alan H. Guth of M.I.T. has proposed a version of the big bang model that automatically produces the required fine tunings, doing away with the necessity for artificially introducing them into the equations. Called the inflationary model, it assumes that within a rapidly expanding, superheated region of the universe a tiny section cools off and then begins to expand much more violently, just as supercooled water rapidly expands when it freezes. It is this phase of rapid expansion that resolves some of the difficulties inherent in the standard big bang theories.
But Guth's version has difficulties of its own. Guth has been forced to fine tune his own equations in order to get them to yield his inflationary universe. Thus he is confronted with the same difficulty his model was supposed to overcome. He had hoped to explain the fine tuning required in the big bang universe, but he requires unexplained tuning of his own. Guth and his collaborator Paul J. Steinhardt admit that in their model "calculations yield reasonable predictions only if the parameters are assigned values in a narrow range. Most theorists (including both of us) regard such fine tuning as implausible." 11 They go on to express a hope that in the future mathematical theories will be developed that will enable them to give a plausible expression of their model.
This dependence on as yet unrealized future developments highlights another difficulty with Guth's model. The grand unified theories (GUTs) upon which the inflationary universe is based are completely hypothetical and "have little support from controlled experiments because most of their implications are impossible to measure in the laboratory." 12 (The grand unified theories are very speculative attempts to tie together some of the basic forces of the universe.)
Another problem with Guth's theory is that it does not even attempt to explain the origin of the superheated expanding condition necessary for his inflation to take place. He has toyed with three hypothetical origins. The first is the standard big bang--according to Guth the inflationary episode would take place within the very early stages of it. This model, however, leaves us with the knotty singularity problem already discussed. The second option is to assume an initial condition of random chaos, in which some regions would be hot, others cold, some expanding, some contracting. The inflation would begin in an area that was superheated and expanding. But Guth admits there is no explanation for the origin of the imagined primordial random chaos.
The third alternative, favored by Guth himself, is that the superheated expanding region emerges quantum-mechanically from nothing. In an article that appeared in 1984 in Scientific American, Guth and Paul J. Steinhardt state, "The inflationary model of the universe provides a possible mechanism by which the observed universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It is then tempting to go one step further and speculate that *the entire universe evolvedfrom literally nothing." 13
As attractive as this idea may seem to scientists who balk at any suggestion of a supreme intelligence that designed the universe, it doesn't hold up under close examination. The literal "nothing" Guth is speaking of is a hypothetical quantum-mechanical vacuum state occurring in a still-to-be-formulated ultimate grand unified theory combining the equations of both quantum mechanics and general relativity. In other words, this vacuum state cannot now be described, even theoretically.
However, physicists have already come up with a description of a simpler kind of quantum-mechanical vacuum state, which can be visualized as containing a sea of "virtual particles," atomic fragments that almost but not quite exist. From time to time some of these subatomic particles pop out of the vacuum into material reality.
Such occurrences are called vacuum fluctuations. The fluctuations cannot be directly observed, but theories based upon them have been corroborated by laboratory experiments. What theoretically occurs is that a particle and antiparticle appear without cause from the vacuum and almost instantaneously negate each other and disappear. Guth and his colleagues postulate that instead of just a tiny particle, the entire universe popped out of the vacuum. And instead of instantaneously disappearing, our universe has somehow persisted for billions of years. The singularity problem is avoided by having the universe pop into being a little bit beyond the stage of singularity.
There are two basic shortcomings in this scenario. First, it involves a truly impressive speculative leap from our limited experience with subatomic particles in the laboratory to the universe as a whole. Stephen Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis sagely warn their colleagues who would without hesitation hurl themselves headlong into such wild speculation, "There is of course a large extrapolation in the assumption that the physical laws one determines in the laboratory should apply to other points of space-time where conditions may be different." 14 Second, it is actually misleading to speak of the quantum-mechanical vacuum as "literally nothing." To describe a quantum-mechanical vacuum, even the relatively simple one of currently existing theory, requires chapters upon chapters of highly abstract mathematics. Such an entity is certainly "something," and this raises the interesting question of where such a complicated "vacuum" might come from.
At this point let us return to the original problem Guth was trying to solve with his inflationary model: trying to eliminate the need. for fine tuning the initial conditions in order to obtain the observed universe. As we have seen, he hasn't succeeded. But another problem is this: does any version of the big bang theory, including Guth's, really predict the observed universe? What Guth says he finally gets out of his complicated initial state is a universe about 4 inches across, filled with nothing more than a uniform superdense, superheated gas. This will expand and cool, but there is no reason to suppose that it will ever become more than a cloud of uniformly distributed gas. In fact, this is all that any of the big bang theories leave you with. So if Guth's present theory requires implausible tinkering simply to yield a universe consisting of uniformly distributed gas, then we can just imagine what would be necessary to get it to yield the universe as we know it today. In a good scientific explanation many complex phenomena can be deduced from a simple theoretical scheme, but in Guth's inflationary universe--and indeed in the standard big bang theories--we have just the opposite: from a very complex tangle of equations, we just get an expanding uniform ball of gas. Despite this, science magazines run articles about. the inflationary model, complete with pages of hightech illustrations, that give the impression Guth has finally achieved the ultimate goal--explaining the origin of the universe. Not quite, it seems. Perhaps they should run regular columns in the science magazines featuring the universal origin theories of the month.
We can just imagine the complexity of the initial conditions necessary to produce the universe as we know it, with all its varied structures and organisms. In our own universe, these conditions seem to have been arranged far too precisely to be explained simply by physical laws. Thus one could conceivably argue in favor of a designer. At this point some noted theorists, unable even to consider such an idea, take shelter of what they call "the anthropic principle."
They propose that the quantum-mechanical vacuum is producing universes by the millions. The great majority are not constituted so as to produce life. These universes therefore do not contain observers who could study their conditions. However, other universes, including our own, are constituted so as to have produced observers, and it is therefore not surprising that these observers would discover that their universe possesses some rather startlingly precise conditions to allow for the existence of life. According to this line of reasoning, the observers should not expect to find anything other than such improbably complex conditions. In effect, supporters of the anthropic principle take the very existence of human beings as the explanation of why the universe is so constituted as to have produced human beings. But this logical sleight of hand isn't an explanation of anything.
Another form of verbal jugglery is to say straight out, as many scientists do, that the universe has occurred by causeless chance. But it must be pointed out that this also is not at all an explanation. To say that something happens once by chance is in essence no different than simply saying "it happened"' or "there it is." And these statements do not qualify as scientific explanations. In the end you wind up knowing no more than you did before. In other words, by invoking either chance or the anthropic principle the scientists have not actually explained anything about the origin of the universe.
At this point, the theorists could perhaps forgive us for suggesting that their chosen methods might not be quite adequate for the task at hand. Indeed it appears, in addition to the problems we have already discussed, that general relativity and quantum mechanics, the two intellectual tools with which the cosmologists are attempting to define the development of the universe, contain certain flaws. It is true that these theories have been very successful in describing certain physical phenomena, but this does not prove they are perfect in all respects.
General relativity describes curved space-time and is an integral part of every current theory of universal origins, including the big bang theory and Guth's inflationary model. If general relativity is in need of revision in any way, then any universal theories based on it will also need to be revised.
One major difficulty with general relativity and Einstein's earlier theory of special relativity is that they rule out time as we commonly understand it. In Newtonian physics, time is treated as a variable separate from space. In this way, it is possible to chart the path of an object moving in space and time in the following way. At a particular point in time, the object is located at a particular point in space. As time varies, the position of the object in space varies.
But in Einstein's theory of relativity, this conception evaporates. Instead, time and space are wedded together in a fourdimensional space-time continuum. It is no longer possible to describe an object as occupying a particular point in space at a particular point in time. A relativistic description of an object will show its spatial and temporal existence in its entirety, merged from beginning to end, wherever it is happening. For instance, a human being would be depicted as the entire progression from embryo to corpse. Such constructs are labeled "space-time worms." And physics does not permit the space-time worm to say, "Now I am an adult and I used to be a child." There is no passage of time; the whole sequence exists as one unit. If we are space-time worms, we are just configurations of matter, not personalities with consciousness. Defining human beings in that way invalidates our individual perception of past, present, and future, and thus leads to the conclusion that such perceptions are unreal.
In a letter to Michael Besso, Einstein wrote, "You have to accept the idea that subjective time with its emphasis on the now has no objective meaning. 15 When Besso died, Einstein tried to console his widow by writing, "Michael has preceded me a little in leaving this strange world. This is not important. For us who are convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent." 16 This is in effect a denial of consciousness, which entails the reality of the present experienced moment. We experience our present form as real, whereas our infant form exists only in memory. As conscious beings we can definitely experience that we do occupy a particular bodily form at a particular point in time. Despite the fact that relativity theory converts a series of events into a single unified spatio-temporal entity, we actually experience in sequence different points in time. What all this means is that every theory of universal origins built around relativity theory fails to explain our conscious experience of time, thus making these theories, as they stand, incomplete and unacceptable.
Quantum Physics and Reality
All of the current cosmological theories also depend upon quantum mechanics, which defines the activity of atomic and subatomic particles. Quantum physics differs in fundamental ways from classical Newtonian physics. Classical physics concerns itself with the behavior of solid matter, but quantum physics is concerned only with mathematical expressions of observations and measurements. Solid material reality evaporates. Nobel-laureate physicist Werner Heisenberg declared, "It turns out that we can no longer talk of the behavior of the particle apart from the process of observation. In consequence, we are finally led to believe that the laws of nature which we formulate mathematically in quantum theory no longer deal with the particles themselves but with our knowledge of elementary particles." 17 In addition to the experimental apparatus, the observer had to be brought into the analysis as an explicit element distinct from the apparatus.
But there are fundamental problems in applying quantum mechanics to the universe. By definition, the universe includes all observers, so you cannot have an outside observer of a universal physical system. In an attempt to formulate a version of quantum mechanics that does not require an outside observer, eminent physicists such as John Wheeler have proposed that the universe continuously splits into innumerable copies. Each parallel universe contains observers to see that particular set of quantum alternatives, and according to this theory all of these universes are real.
Reacting to this, Bryce D. Witt, writing in Physics Today, states, "I still recall the shock I experienced on first encountering the multiworld concept. The idea of 10 to the 100th plus slightly imperfect copies of oneself all constantly splitting into further copies, which ultimately become unrecognizable, is not easy to reconcile with common sense. Here is schizophrenia with a vengeance." 18 If scientists want a big bang theory of the origin of the universe that can be consistent with quantum mechanics, this is one of the bizarre hypotheses they are forced to come up with.
But even more problems lie ahead on the path of materialistic reduction that most scientists are treading. It's bad enough that both general relativity and quantum mechanics lead to bizarre and unrealistic consequences when applied to cosmological questions. But these difficulties are compounded to an exasperating degree by the fact that scientists' hopes to properly describe the universe and its beginning depend upon combining both theories. The proposed result would be a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) capable of describing all the forces at work in the universe by a single comprehensive mathematical expresssion. General relativity is required to explain the basic structure of space-time. Quantum mechanics is needed in order to explain the behavior of subatomic particles. Unfortunately these two theories apparently contradict each other.
The first step toward this mathematical integration is quantum field theory, which attempts to describe the behavior of electrons by a combination of quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of special relativity. This theory has scored some remarkable successes. Yet P.A.M. Dirac, the Nobel-prize-winning English physicist
who invented the theory, confessed, "It seems to be quite impossible to put the theory on a sound mathematical basis." 19 The second and much more difficult step would be to combine general relativity with quantum mechanics, and no one has the faintest idea how to do this. No less an authority than Nobel-laureate physicist Steven Weinberg admits that it may take a century or two to get the mathematics together.20 The cosmologists say they need the GUT to describe the origin of the universe, and they don't have it yet. So that can only mean their big bang and inflationary models are without solid foundation.
Since the days of Newton and Galileo, the program of physical science has been to express everything in mathematical terms. Furthermore the mathematical description must be confirmed by observation and controlled experiments. We have shown that the big bang theories fail to conform to these requirements. Simplicity has also been stressed as a requirement of physical theories, and the big bang theories also fail in that respect, for they are becoming, as we have seen, progressively more outlandishly contorted with each new formulation. They are just what Galileo and Newton would have disliked--storytelling to fill in the gaps of knowledge.
The big bang theories would therefore appear to be something less than actual scientific explanations of the origin of the universe. Nevertheless, in popular magazines and television specials, as well as in the classroom, scientists deliberately give the public the impression that they have already succeeded in demonstrating exactly how the universe originated simply by physical laws. Nothing could be further from the truth.
What About Galaxies?
We have seen that the cosmologists' attempt to comprehend the universe within the narrow bounds of their narrow materialistic conceptions has failed to explain its origins. Moreover, we have seen that their theories do not even account for what they say is present in the universe now.
For instance, the big bang theory does not account for the existence of galaxies. Imagine a scientist of great genius who had knowledge of the current cosmological theories but no knowledge of observational astronomy. Would he be able to predict that galaxies would form? The answer is no. A universe made up of a uniformly distributed cloud of gas is the only result consistent with the standard formulations of the theory. This cloud would have a density of perhaps one atom per several cubic feet, making it little better than a perfect vacuum. To get anything else requires special modifications of the initial conditions of the universe, and scientists find such modifications difficult to justify. Traditionally, a scientific theory is considered acceptable if starting from the initial framework you can straightforwardly predict things. A theory that has to be monkeyed around with to a considerable degree to obtain valid predictions is of questionable value.
As Steven Weinberg says in The First Three Minutes, "The theory of the formation of galaxies is one of the great outstanding problems in astrophysics, a problem that today seems far from solution." 21 Then without skipping a beat he says, "But that is another story." But no, wait a minute--that is exactly the story! If the big bang theory can't explain the initial cause of the universe or major features of the universe such as galaxies, then what does it explain? Not very much, it would seem.
Missing Mass
The big bang theory is supposed to explain the universe, but a major problem is that many features of the universe are not understood clearly enough to be the subject of such explanation. One big mystery is the problem of missing mass. Physicist David Schramm of the University of Chicago explains, "From all the light being emitted by the Milky Way, we can estimate that our galaxy contains the mass of about one hundred billion suns. But once we take this same object [the Milky Way] and see how it interacts with another galaxy, such as our neighbor Andromeda, we find that our galaxy is gravitating toward Andromeda as though it had a mass almost ten times as great." 22 It thus appears that over 90% of the mass of the universe is missing. Ghostly subatomic particles called neutrinos have been put forward as the solution. Originally, however, the invisible neutrino was assigned no mass by physicists, but now it has suddenly been assigned mass sufficient to account for the missing matter in the universe as a whole. How convenient.
So even when we leave aside the questions of primal origins and get down to the picture of the universe as it is today, there are still many unanswered questions. The scientists will assert to the public with an air of absolute conviction that they know the universe extends x millions of light years and that it has existed for a total of y billion years. They say that they have identified all the major bodies in the universe for what they are--distant stars, galaxies, nebulae, quasars, and so forth. Yet even the local Milky Way galaxy is not clearly understood.
For example, in Scientific American noted astronomer Bart J. Bok wrote, "I remember the mid 1970s as a time when I and my fellow [Milky Way] watchers were notably self-assured ... we did not suspect it would soon be necessary to revise the radius of the Milky Way upward by a factor of three or more and to increase its mass by as much as a factor of 10." 23 If such basic measurements recently had to be drastically revised after so many decades of observation, then what might the future hold? Will there be even more drastic revisions?
Even when we get down to our own solar system, we find there are fundamental problems. The traditional account for the origin of planets--that they have condensed from clouds of cosmic dust and gas--is on very shaky ground because the equations for the interactions of the gas clouds have never been satisfactorily solved. William McRae, professor of astronomy at England's Sussex University and past president of the Royal Astronomical Society, states, "The problem of the origin of the solar system is perhaps the most notable of all unsolved problems in astronomy." 24
It should be clear at this point to any impartial onlooker that the strategy of materialistic reduction followed by cosmologists has not allowed them to arrive at firm conclusions about the origin and nature of the universe, despite their public posturing. There is certainly no compelling reason for anyone to insist that the ultimate answers to cosmological questions must be contained in simple mathematically expressed physical laws. Indeed, the quantitative method has proved inadequate for explaining many phenomena very close at hand, what to speak of explaining the vast universe. Therefore it is certainly too early to exclude alternative approaches, approaches that may involve nonphysical explanations--explanations involving principles that go beyond the known laws of physics.
A Different Picture of Reality
There may in fact be nonphysical causes at work in the history of the universe, and there may even be nonphysical regions of the cosmos as well. Physicist David Bohm admits, "The possibility is always open that there may exist an unlimited variety of additional properties, qualities, entities, systems, levels, etc., to which apply correspondingly new kinds of laws of nature." 25 Thus it is quite possible that as our understanding of natural laws continues to evolve, a picture of reality quite different from the one most people now accept may emerge.
As we have already seen, with infinitely rebounding and infinitely splitting universes, some of the models and concepts proposed by the cosmologists already challenge our commonsense conception of things. Do not think that these strange ideas are out of the mainstream of scientific thought. All the notions we have considered so far are actually the most staid and respectable speculations.
Let us now look at some even more outlandish ideas currently running loose in the world of modern cosmology. Scientist John Gribbin, author of White Holes, a book summarizing these topics, admiringly calls them "the latest series of imaginative leaps made by the creative thinkers today we call scientists--rather than prophets, seers, or oracles." 26 One is the white hole--a quasar that pours out galaxies in a cosmic gusher. Gribbin says, "Could the white holes actually fragment themselves so that galaxies would reproduce themselves like amoebas, by parthenogenesis? That sounds so unlikely in terms of our everyday experience of the behavior of matter that it's worth looking at the standard theories of galaxy formation to show just how hopeless they are as explanations of the real Universe. Fissioning white holes might seem like a solution of last resort, but when no other theory provides any kind of satisfactory solution, that solution is surely the one we must accept." 27
Another idea seriously entertained by cosmologists is space-time tunnels or "cosmic wormholes." First seriously discussed in 1962 by physicist John Wheeler in his book Geometrodynamics, the idea has entered into popular consciousness through fantasy movies such as the Star Wars series, where starships hurtle through hyperspace, thus making intergalactic journeys that would normally take millions of years at the speed of light. Some versions of the wormholes see them as entrances to the past and future, or even to other universes.
In the early part of this century, Einstein posited a fourth dimension; now, as the implications of his gravitational field equations are being more fully explored, extra dimensions are being added. Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist, writes, "In addition to the three space dimensions and the one time dimension we perceive in daily life, there are seven extra space dimensions that have hitherto gone unnoticed." 28
The point of these descriptions is to show that even the material scientists are being compelled to put forward explanations of the universe that stretch the mind to an incredible degree. But must we stretch our minds' only in the directions pointed out by material science? Perhaps minds can be stretched in even other directions. If we can contemplate higher material dimensions, then why not dimensions of an entirely different sort? There is a definite need for new categories of ideas, ideas that will undoubtedly challenge the currently held reductionistic scientific strategy for understanding the universe . That strategy includes the idea that the universe is ultimately simple and can be exhaustively described in terms of quantitative laws.
But suppose this is not so. It certainly appears that the universe is unlimitedly complex and has aspects that may not be approached by quantitative methods. If so, what strategy can be used to gain knowledge about it? The many complex and orderly features of the universe suggest that its cause is an intelligent designer. This idea brings to mind the following possible strategy. If the underlying cause of the universe is a supreme intelligent being, then there is hope that we can understand the ultimate nature of reality by obtaining information from this being. That there is such a being is certainly a bold proposition, but no more so than the proposal that everything can be explained by simple, mathematically expressed physical laws. And just as in the case of the quantitative strategy, the value of this alternative strategy can only be judged by how successfully it can be applied. It would be unfair to reject it without seeing how well it can be used to gain practical knowledge about reality.
To many the idea of a supreme intelligence will bring to mind the world view of Christian fundamentalism, to which people will have varying reactions. But alternatives to the current theories of cosmologists are not limited to the fundamentalist Christian interpretation of Genesis. Just as there are many possible materialistic explanations of the origin of the universe, there are many possible explanations involving a personal creator.
For those seeking to broaden their intellectual options, one very rich source of ideas for understanding the cosmos and our place in it is the Vedic knowledge of ancient India. The Vedas include an extremely sophisticated cosmology. Some of the concepts will be radically different from those now being propagated; others will be surprisingly complementary with current scientific findings. For example, Carl Sagan, while in India filming a segment for his Cosmos television series, said, "The most sophisticated ancient cosmological ideas come from India. Hinduism [based on the Vedas] is the only religion in which time scales correspond to scientific cosmology." He noted that the sages of ancient India held that the universe undergoes progressive cycles of creation and destruction over time scales lasting billions of years.
As in modern science, a basic unit of matter is the atom (in Sanskrit, the aëu), but the Vedas also include particles of consciousness called jivatmas as well as an integrated superior conscious principle called the paramatma (Supersoul). The Supreme Being, seen as the source of a variety of physical and universal energies, is described as a personality simultaneously omnipresent and localized, in whom the universe exists and who exists within every atom of the universe. As we shall see throughout this magazine, such ideas may give a more complete and coherent understanding of the origin and nature of the universe. Consciousness in particular is a fundamental aspect of reality that cannot be ignored in theories that attempt to comprehensively explain the cosmos.
At a time when scientists are proposing such things as multiply-splitting universes, cosmic wormholes for traveling from one space-time region to another, universes in which time reverses, an eleventh dimension of space-time, etc., the ancient transcendental conceptions found in the Vedas should not be dismissed without due consideration. The big bang and inflationary models, which rest on the shakiest of mathematical and theoretical foundations, have certainly failed to provide adequate answers to fundamental questions about the the universe and the galaxies and planets and life forms we find within it today. Perhaps a superconsciousness, a supremely intelligent designer--and not a set of impersonal mathematical equations--is the ultimate explanation for the universe that now seems so inexplicable.
REFERENCES
1. Erwin Schrodinger, What Is Life? and Mind and Matter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), p. 68.
2. Richard Wolkomir, "Quark City," Omni, (February 198,4), p. 41.
3. Kenneth E. Boulding, "Science: Our Common Heritage, Science, Vol. 207 (February 22, 1980), p. 834.
4. Sir Bernard Lovell, "The Universe," The Random House Encyclopedia (New York: Random House, Inc., 1977), p.37.
5. Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (New York: Bantam, 1977), p. 94.
6. S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp. 362--63.
7. S.W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, p. 364.
8. Sir Bernard Lovell, "The Universe" The Random House Encyclopedia, p. 37.
9. S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, p. 360.
10. Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes, p. 143
11. Alan H. Guth and Paul J. Steinhardt, "The Inflationary Universe," Scientific American, (May 1984), p. 127.
12. Mitchell Waldrop, "Before the Beginning," Science 84 (January/February 1984), p. 51.
13. Alan H. Guth and Paul J. Steinhardt, "The Inflationary Universe," Scientific American, p. 128.
14. S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-time, p. 1.
15. Ilya Prigogine, From Being to Becoming (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1980), p. 20.
16. Ilya Prigogine, From Being to Becoming, p. 20.
17. Werner Heisenberg, "The Representation of Nature in Contemporary Physics," Daedalus, Vol. 87, No. 3 (1958), pp. 95--108.
18. Bryce D. Witt, "Quantum Mechanics and Reality," Physics Today (September 1970), p. 33.
19. P. A. M. Dirac, "The Evolution of the Physicist's Picture of Nature," Scientific American (May 1963), pp. 45--53.
20. David Hunter, "The Grand Unification of Physics" Softalk (March 1984), p. 91.
21. Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes, p. 68.
22. Marcia Bartusiak, "Missing: 97 % of the Universe," Science Digest (December 1983), p. 53.
23. Bart J. Bok, "The Milky Way Galaxy," Scientific American (March 1981), p. 94.
24. William McRae, "The Origin of Earth, Moon, and Planets," in The Encyclopedia of Ignorance, ed. Ronald Duncan and Miranda Weston-Smith (New York: Pergamon Press, Ltd., 1977), p. 48.
25. David Bohm, Causality and Chance in Modern Physics (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1957) p. 133.
26. John Gribbin, White Holes (New York: Delacorte Press. 1977), p. 9.
27. John Gribbin, White Holes, p. 107.
28. Paul Davies, "The Eleventh Dimension," Science Digest (January 1984), p. 72.Courtesy Origins Magazine
(b)
The diagram above is an attempt to plot the positions of the galaxies we can see from Earth that are located in a ninety degree field of view centered on the Virgo Galaxy Cluster. The distance of each galaxy that was used to make this plot is computed by presuming that its actual distance is proportional to its redshift value - as modern astronomers do. As a result, the Virgo cluster itself takes on the shape of two long fingers pointed directly at Earth. These have become known as "The Fingers of God". (Shown here in red.) Long cosmic sized fingers pointed directly at Earth! This result is false on its face. It is independent proof that the "redshift equals distance" assumption is nonsense. Again - Copernicus discovered many years ago that the Earth was not the center of anything! A galaxy cluster should have a more symmetrical shape than this. Arp demonstrates that the Virgo cluster is much more compact than it appears in this diagram. The high redshift galaxies in the upper regions of the diagram are not far away - they are just very young! And much closer to us than this diagram would indicate. How astrophysicists can continue to look at this diagram and not see that something is very wrong with their theory is evidence of how disconnected from reality they have become. It is ironic to remember that Galileo got into trouble with the Church by defending the work of Copernicus. Copernicus' voice is coming down to us today through the ages - "If you think that all the galaxies in the Virgo Cluster are in a couple of straight lines that point directly at Earth, you are wrong!" Arp is, indeed, today's Galileo. 
