Rod P

Joined

• started 33 topics
• posted 673 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Rod P

• 
  95

  Questioning the Big Bang Theory

  by Rod P in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  but 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rod P

  Danny Haszard,

  Surely you jest!

  Rod P.
• 
  95

  Questioning the Big Bang Theory

  by Rod P in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  but 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rod P

  Danny
• 
  95

  Questioning the Big Bang Theory

  by Rod P in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  but 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rod P

  Here is an article by a Canadian Astrophysicist who does not accept Big Bang:

  Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
  By Paul Marmet New paper related to the same problem Click here Return to: List of Papers on the Web Go to: Frequently Asked Questions
  Published by: 21 st Century, Science and Technology, P.O. Box, 17285, Washington, D.C. 20041. Vol. 3, No. 2 Spring 1990, P. 52-59.

  
  More and more astronomical evidence points to the absurdity of the theory that the universe started with a Big Bang. A Canadian Astrophysicist presents this evidence and explains how the cosmic redshift is caused by gaseous matter in space, not by the Doppler effect.

  Caption for Crab Nebula.
  Interstellar matter, seen here in the Crab Nebula in Taurus, has its counterpart on a larger scale in the rarefied intergalactic medium. The intergalactic medium was first shown to exist in the 1970s. It is impossible, the author says, for the light we see from distant galaxies not to interact with this medium as it passes through it.

  1 --- Introduction.
  We are all so accustomed to reading that the universe "began" once a time in the Big Bang that most people no longer think it necessary to question or scrutinize it. A detailed analysis of the Big Bang theory, however, leads to consequences and implications that are irrational, or are contradicted by astrophysical observations, including important ones.
  At the same time, one of the pillars of the model, the all important cosmic redshift- the shifting of spectral lines toward the red end of the spectrum, in proportion to the distance of the source from us- can be explained without invoking the Doppler velocity interpretation (1) so dear to Big Bang theorists. The redshift is explained instead by taking the intergalactic medium into account, and correcting our understanding of how light interacts with such a medium on its way to the observer. Two different theoretical approaches, semi classical electrodynamics and quantum electrodynamics, have shown that all interactions or collisions of electrodynamics waves (photons) with atoms are inelastic; that is, the photons lose a very small part of their energy as a result of the interaction. Hence, the greater the depth of the intergalactic medium through which a galaxy's light must pass toward the low-energy end of the spectrum - that is, toward the red.
  These considerations eliminate the limit on the size of the universe imposed by the Big Bang theory. Indeed one can say that the universe is unlimited in the sense that no experiment has proven otherwise. Observations of our unlimited universe show it to be compatible with the principle (known as a Perfect Cosmological Principle) that the universe must look the same to any observer who moves with the cosmological fluid, regardless of his position in time or space. Furthermore we can see that an unlimited size of the universe is required when the phenomenon of star aberration is considered.

  2 --- The Big Bang Universe.
  It is widely believed among scientists that the universe was created from an extremely dense concentration of material. The original expansion of this material is described as the Big Bang. Although the primeval soup is thought to have originated at zero volume, quantum physics considerations require that it could not be described before its diameter in centimeter reached about 10 -33 (that is, 1-billion-trillion-trillionth cm). This means that the universe, then expanding at about the speed of light, was about 10 -43 second old.
  After that instant, according to the Big Bang theory, the universe kept expanding and became many billions of billions of times (on the order of 10 20 times) larger and older, until it reached the size of an electron that has a radius of approximately 10 -13 cm, when the universe was 10 -23 second old. During the following 15 billion years, according to the theory, the universe expanded to a radius of 15 billion light-years to the size it is claimed today. (A light-year, the distance traversed by light in a vacuum in one year, is 9.5 ´ 10 12 kilometers.)
  
  The author (center) with the organizers of the Feb. 1989 Plasma Universe conference in La Jolla, Calif., Nobel laureate Hannes Alfvén (right) and Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos National Laboratory (left).

  These are the dimensions and time scale required by the Big bang model, a model that has certainly not been accepted by all scientists because it leads to insurmountable difficulties. Prominent scientists like R. L. Millikan and Edwin Hubble thought that the Big Bang model created more problems for cosmology than it solved, and that photon energy loss was a simpler and "less irrational" explanation of the redshift than its interpretation as a Doppler effect caused by recessional velocity, in keeping with the Big Bang (Reber 1989; Hubble 1937).

  In more recent years, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén, and other students of astrophysical plasma, have challenged the Big Bang with an alternative conception called Plasma Universe. In this cosmology, the universe has always existed and has never been concentrated in a point; galaxies and clusters of galaxies are shaped not only by gravity, but by electrical and magnetic fields over longer times that available in the Big Bang model (Peratt 1988, 1989; Bostick 1989).
  From its birth in the 1930s, the Big Bang theory has been a subject of Controversy (Reber 1989, Cherry 1989). Indeed, our view of the universe must always be open to consideration and reconsideration.
  This article will demonstrate that the big bang model is physically unacceptable, because it is incompatible with important observations. It is not even acceptable philosophically, since it implies that time began to exist at a supposed instant of creation. It is therefore impossible to speak of a cause of the Big Bang (Maddox 1989). Science, however, is dedicated to the discovery of the causes of observed phenomena; the Big Bang model thus leads to the rejection of the principle of causality that is fundamental in philosophy as well as in physics. It is actually a creationist theory that differs from other creationisms (for example, one that claims creation took place about 4000 B.C.) only in the number of years since creation. According to the Big Bang model, creation occurred between 10 and 20 billion years ago.

  3 --- Defective Evidence.
  Support for the Big Bang theory has been built upon three main kinds of evidence:
  First, the Big Bang assumes that the observable universe is expanding. Proof of this is offered by interpreting the redshifts of remote galaxies and many other systems as Doppler shifts. Hence these redshifts "prove" that these systems are all flying away from each other.
  Second, the Big bang theory predicts the cosmic abundance of some light elements like helium-4, deuterium, and lithium-7. The available evidence of cosmic abundances is said to confirm the predictions.
  Third, Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow in 1948 used the Big bang theory to predict the existence of a low temperature background radiation throughout the universe at 25 K as a relic of the initial Big Bang explosion. A background radiation at a temperature of about 3 K (emitting radiation 5000 times less intense, see Planck's law) has indeed been discovered (2) , and is being interpreted as the predicted relic.
  Finally, in addition to these kind of evidence, it is claimed that the Big bang hypothesis agrees with Einstein's theory of relativity.
  The support afforded by the Big bang model by these four arguments is, however, only apparent and does not withstand a serious detailed analysis. In fact, the observational evidence from astrophysics is more in keeping with the model suggested by this author of an unlimited universe. Here, in brief, is the evidence from astrophysics:

  The Redshift.
  A large number of redshift observations cannot be explained by the Doppler theory. Astronomer Halton Arp's 1987 book Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies provides an extensive review of them, as does a lengthy 1989 review article by the Indian astrophysicist J. V. Narlikar. A catalogue of 780 references to redshift observations inexplicable by the Doppler effect was published in 1981 by K. J. Reboul under the title, "Untrivial Redshifts: A Bibliographical Catalogue." Many other papers indicate that non-velocity redshifts have been observed.
  If a non-Doppler redshift mechanism cannot exist, all of these papers published by professional astronomers would have to be erroneous! This arouses suspicion, to say the least. The systematic rejection of more than 1,000 papers related to nonvelocity redshift observations show that many scientists are too comfortable with the established framework to be open to ideas that challenge that framework. A non-Doppler interpretation of the redshift actually leads to better agreement of theory with the actual observations, as shown below.

  Light Element Production.
  It is not necessary to invoke a Big Bang in order to explain the observed abundances of light elements. A plasma model of galaxy formation accomplishes the task very well (Rees 1978; Lerner 1989). The plasma model shows that the elements are produced during galaxy formation in their observed abundances by early massive and intermediate stars. The nuclear reactions and cosmic rays generated in and by these stars lead to production of the elements. As a recent reviewer of plasma theory wrote, the plasma model: "accounts accurately for the observed overabundance of oxygen in the lowest metallicity stars, and deuterium, and does not over-produce the remaining rare light elements - lithium, beryllium, and boron" (Lerner 1989).

  Cosmic Background Radiation.
  The existence of the 3 K microwave radiation is no longer valid evidence for the Big Bang. There is no need to assume, as Big Bang believers do, that this background radiation came from a highly Doppler-redshifted blackbody (3) at about 3,000. K - that is, from the exploding ball of matter - when its density became low enough for energy and matter to decouple. The background radiation is simply Planck's blackbody radiation emitted by our unlimited universe that is also at a temperature of about 3 K (Marmet 1988).
  The inhomogeneity of matter in the universe today means that there should be some inhomogeneity in the cosmic background radiation if it originated in a Big Bang. But no fundamental inhomogeneity in the background has been clearly found, despite tests that are sensitive down to small scales. Matter is concentrated in galaxies, in clusters and super clusters of galaxies, and in what has been called the Great Attractor (a tentatively identified but huge concentration of mass centered 150 million light-years away). These important inhomogeneities in the composition of the universe as we see it today must have first appeared in the early universe (if it exists). In fact, a comparable inhomogeneity must have existed in the matter that emitted the 3 K radiation. That inhomogeneity must appear as a distortion in the Hubble flow (4) (Dressler 1989) and must lead to observable irregularities in the 3 K background. Inhomogeneities in the 3 K radiation have been looked for, but nothing is compatible with the mass observed in the Great Attractor. A. E. Lange recently reported that there is no observable inhomogeneity even with a resolution of 10 seconds of arc and a sensitivity in temperature as high as D T= ± 0.00001 K (Lange 1989).
  Nor can Einstein's general theory of relativity be applied in a consistent manner to the Big Bang model. According to the model, when the universe was the size of an electron and was 10 -23 second old, it was clearly a black hole - a concentration of mass so great that its self-gravitation would prevent the escape of any mass or radiation. Consequently, according to Einsteinian relativity, it could not have expanded. Therefore, one would have to assume that gravity started to exist only gradually after the creation of the universe, but that amounts to changing the laws of physics arbitrarily to save the Big Bang model. In contrast, an unlimited universe as suggested here agrees with Einstein's relativity theory, taking into account the cosmological constant (5) that he proposed in 1917.
  Recent astronomical discoveries pose an additional and very serious problem for the Big Bang theory. Larger and larger structures are being found to exist at greater and greater redshifts, indicating their existence in the increasingly distant past. (Whether one assumes the Big Bang or the theory presented here, the redshift is normally an indicator of distances, and because it takes time for light to travel, the image of a highly redshifted object is seen on Earth today as it was when the light began to travel.)
  In 1988, Simon Lilly of the university of Hawaii reported the discovery of a mature galaxy at the enormous redshift of 3.4; that is, the amount of the redshift for any spectral line from the galaxy is 340 per cent of the line's proper wavelength (Lilly 1988). This puts the galaxy so far in time that the Big Bang scheme does not allow sufficient time for its formation! In a news report on Lilly's work, Sky & Telescope reports: "The appearance of a mature galaxy so soon after the Big Bang poses a serious threat . . ." (Aug. 1988, p. 124).
  In 1989 came the discovery of the "Great Wall" of galaxies, a sheet of Galaxies 500 million light-years long, 200 million light-years wide, and approximately 15 million light-years thick, with the dimensions of the structure being limited only by the scale of the survey (Geller and Huchra 1989). It is located between 200 and 300 million light-years from Earth. In an interview with the Boston Globe (Nov. 17 1989), Margaret Geller of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics offered some frank comments on the implications of her discovery:

  The size of the structure indicates that in present theories of the formation of the universe "something is really wrong that makes a big difference,"

  Geller said in an interview yesterday:
  No known force could produce a structure this big in the time since the universe was formed", She said.

  4 --- The Redshift and the Intergalactic Medium.
  All the observed phenomena cited above can be explained without recourse to the Big Bang theory. But what about the cosmic redshift, the central subject of this article? This author has explained the cosmic redshift by improving our understanding of the interaction of light with atoms and molecules. The observational fact upon which Big Bang advocates and opponents agree is that the redshift of galaxies generally increases with distance. This relationship would arise if the light we receive from galaxies loses some of its energy to the intergalactic medium through which it must pass. In that case, the greater the depth of the intergalactic medium between a galaxy and the observer, the more its light is shifted toward the low-energy (red) end of the spectrum.
  A redshift from the interaction of photons with atoms in the galactic and intergalactic media was previously denied: Most scientists are accustomed to thinking that when photons interact with the medium through which they pass, losing some energy in the process, some significant angular dispersion of the photons must result. Most of the light from other galaxies, they say, cannot undergo any appreciable interaction with the intervening medium, because the resulting angular dispersion would cause their images to become blurred, and our images of other galaxies are, indeed, not blurred.
  The usual explanation of how light travels through gases, however, is inconsistent and incomplete. Physicists understand that when a beam of light passes through the atmosphere, a fraction of the photons interacts with the medium and loses energy to it, undergoing angular dispersion. This is known as Rayleigh scattering after British physicist John Rayleigh. Most physicists assume that the rest of the light, which suffers no dispersion, passes through the medium without interaction. Given the density of the atoms and molecules of the atmosphere, however, this is clearly impossible.
  A more sensible conclusion is that most interactions involve an atom or molecule absorbing a photon and reemitting it in the forward direction. We shall see that these interactions are inelastic; that is, the reemitted photons have lost some of the original energy to the atom or molecule, and hence their wavelengths are longer (redder) (Marmet 1988); (Marmet and Reber (1989). The familiar concept of the index of refraction exposes the problem to view. The velocity of light (group velocity) is reduced in gases, relative to its velocity in a vacuum, as expressed by the index of refraction. The derivation of the index of refraction assumes that matter is homogenous and that one neglects the existence of individual atoms. The reduced velocity applies to all of the light. At atmospheric pressure, one does not easily notice this reduced speed of propagation in air, precisely because almost all photons are transmitted without angular dispersion (scattering).
  At a distance of 100 meters, for example, it is everyday experience that light is transmitted through calm air without any noticeable angular dispersion and does not produce any visible fuzziness - even when images are observed through a telescope. The index of refraction of air (n=1.0003) shows that interactions or collisions of photons on air molecules are such that the photons are delayed by 3 centimeter in a trajectory of 100 meters, with respect to transmission in a vacuum (see Figure 1). Only that small delay of 3 cm can be explained by a large number of photon-molecule collisions.

  
  Figure 1

  MOST PHOTONS DO NOT UNDERGO ANGULAR DISPERSION WHEN THEY INTERACT WITH MOLECULES.

  Light transmitted through air is slowed by its interaction with air molecules. In the same time, that light traverses 100 meters in a vacuum (a), it traverses only 99.97 meters in air (b). This is expressed in the index of refraction for air, 1.0003. Many photon-molecule interactions are required to explain such a long delay. Since an object seen at 100 meters is not fuzzy, one must conclude that these photon-molecule interactions do not lead to angular dispersion of most of the light, although this is still the common assumption. In fact, the photons must be reemitted from such interactions in the forward direction.

  A delay of 3 cm corresponds to about one billion the size of the atom. Therefore we can be sure that not only all photons had more than one interaction with air molecules, but that it must take on the order of one billion collisions to produce such a delay. The photons have undergone about one billion collisions with air molecules without any significant angular dispersion, because the image is not fuzzy. Photon-molecule collision without angular dispersion is an everyday experience that has been completely overlooked.
  In space, where the gas density is lower by more than 20 orders of magnitude, the same phenomenon takes place. A photon undergoes about one interaction (due to the index of refraction, with no angular dispersion) per week.; Rayleigh scattering producing diffusion in all directions, is enormously less frequent just as in the atmosphere. Hence, almost all interactions of photons with gas molecules take place without any measurable angular dispersion.

  5 --- The Consequences of these Interactions.
  What then are the consequences of these interactions? It is necessary to examine the character of photon collisions with individual atoms. We have just seen above that the collisions produce a delay in the transmission of light; Therefore, there is a finite interval of time during which the photons is absorbed before being reemitted.
  An atom is polarized, in a transverse direction, by the passage of electromagnetic waves (photons) moving across it. The positively charged nucleus is attracted on one direction while the negatively charge surrounding electrons cloud is attracted in the other. In this field, at least a part of the energy of the electromagnetic wave is transmitted, in the axial direction, to the electron of the atom. This is called a polarized atom (with an energy of polarization). The momentum (6) of this transferred energy necessarily gives an acceleration to the electron, causing a secondary photon to be emitted, a phenomenon known as bremsstrahlung (braking radiation) (see Figure 2).

  
  Figure 2
  PHOTONS ALWAYS LOSE ENERGY INTERACTING WITH ATOMS.

  It is a very rare physicist who recognizes that photons must always lose energy in interacting with atoms and molecules. The author demonstrates the truth of this assertion however in 1980, using semi classical electrodynamics to explain and calculate the energy loss. In the diagram, a photon is being absorbed and reemitted in the forward direction by an atom, which emits at least one very soft (long-wavelength) secondary photon in the process.

  It has been calculated that under ordinary conditions, the energy loss per collision is about 10 -13 of the energy of the incoming photon (Marmet 1988). Hence the phenomenon produces a redshift that follows the same rule as the Doppler effect: Whatever the wavelength emitted by the source, the relative change of wavelength is constant ( Dl / l =constant). The secondary photon (bremsstrahlung photon), which carries away the lost energy, has a wavelength several thousand kilometers long. Because the longest wavelength observed so far in radio astronomy is 144 meters (Reber 1968, 1977), these secondary photons of very long wavelength cannot yet be detected. They are, however, predicted by electrodynamics theory.

  
  CAPTION OF FIGURE 3
  Marmet's photon-atom interaction theory mentioned above is the only "non ad-hoc" explanation predicting the amount and the rate of change of the solar redshift (solid line labeled Marmet). The experimentally determined redshift on the solar disk, moving from the disk's center (Sin q =0) to its limb (Sin q =1.0), is shown in the dotted and dashed curves. Observational values of Adam (1948) and Finlay-Freundlich (1954). The redshift is given in wavelength units of 10 -13 meters on the y-axis. Other theories that attempt to explain this redshift as a Doppler effect produces the two upper curves: Schatzman and Magnan (1975), motion of gas in the solar granules) and Finlay-Freundlich (1954), motion in the photosphere and chromosphere). Allowances has been made for the differential Doppler shift arising from the Sun's rotation.

  The conclusion that interactions of photons with atoms must always result in the production of secondary photons has been derived from quantum electrodynamics (Jauch and Rohlich 1980); Bethe and Salpeter (1957), and was independently derived by this author from classical electrodynamics (Marmet 1988). However, only the last-mentioned study was able to predict the amount of energy lost in the process.

  6 --- Experimental Confirmation.
  Experimental confirmation of the theory of the redshift developed here has been achieved in several instances, with observations of the Sun (Marmet 1989), binary stars, and other cases (Marmet 1988a; Marmet and Reber 1989). Perhaps the most dramatic of these confirmations is in the case of the Sun, where the theory has been applied to the redshift anomaly associated with the solar chromosphere. When spectroscopic measurements are made of light from the center of the Sun's disk and compared with those from the limb (edge of the disk), the latter are found to be redshifted with respect to the former - Above and beyond the Doppler shift that arise from the Sun's rotation. This anomaly was first reported in 1907, and has been confirmed by all experts in the field.
  Attempts have been made to explain this redshift as a Doppler effect on the basis of the motion of masses of gas in the photosphere and chromosphere, or such motions in the solar granules (convection cells). The inadequate predictive power of these hypotheses can be seen in Figure 3. The figure shows the observed amount of the redshift as a function of the position between the center of the redshift as a function of position between the center of the Sun's disk and the limb, and compares this observed curve to the curves required by two of these theories.
  If, however, the redshift arises from the increasing number of photon-atom interactions between source and observer as the spectroscope sample positions nearer the limb (Figure 4), the theory developed here applies, and provides an accurate prediction of the observed curve) Figure 3). The theory is also successful in explaining the absence of redshifting for several spectral lines in terms of their known origin in very high layers of the Sun, and in explaining a stronger redshift for the iron line at 5,250 angstroms in terms of its known origin in a deeper layer.

  7 --- Is there Enough Matter in Space?
  Is there enough matter in space to account for the observed redshift in terms of the theory offered here? An average concentration of about 0.01 atom/cm 3 is required to produce the observed redshift, as given by the Hubble constant (Marmet 1988b). This required density of matter in space is larger than what has been measured experimentally until presently, but our ability to detect such matter is still very imperfect. Almost all of our methods of detection are selective and can detect only one kind of matter. Most methods use spectroscopy to detect radiation emitted or absorbed by the matter. There are strong reasons for thinking that there is much more matter in space than has been observed.
  Although atomic hydrogen is found extensively in space and can be detected by the emission and absorption of its characteristic radiowaves of 12-cm wavelength, it is likely that cold atomic hydrogen condenses to the molecular form (H 2 ), which must be also present extensively in space. Cold molecular hydrogen and helium, however, are undetectable at visible or radio wavelengths. Since molecular hydrogen (H 2 ) has no permanent electric dipole (7) , it does not easily emit or absorb radiation. Most excited molecules emit photons in about 10 -8 second. However, the spontaneous emission of the first rotational state of molecular hydrogen is practically nonexistent (rotational states are different molecular energy levels) even after many thousands of years. A transition (by spontaneous emission) from the second rotational state of molecular hydrogen is relatively much more probable but would require about 30 billion seconds (about 1,000 years). That is about 18 orders of magnitude less probable than an ordinary dipole transition. At the sixth rotational state the quantum transition still takes as much as one year.
  The extreme rarity of these "forbidden" transitions means that one cannot hope to detect molecular hydrogen spectroscopically. Only in the far ultraviolet portion of the spectrum can some molecular hydrogen be detected in the neighborhood of ultraviolet-emitting stars. Because of its nature, molecular hydrogen is very likely extremely abundant in space - but not detectable with methods now available.

  
  Caption of Figure 4
  Application of the Photon-Atom Interaction Theory to the Solar Redshift.
  Light observed at the center of the solar disk along line of sight A, passes through an amount of solar atmosphere represented by "a". Light observed at the solar limb along line of sight B passes through a much larger amount of solar atmosphere represented by "b". (A and B converge at the observer). Hence the photon-atom interaction theory predicts an increasing redshift toward the limb.
  

  There are other indications of large amounts of invisible matter in the universe. For example, it has been unexpectedly discovered that the matter in galaxies may extend to as much as 10 times the radius of its visible component. This possibility arises from the study of differential rotational velocity of the matter in galaxies. From the laws of orbital motion, we expect the orbital velocity of matter (in kilometers per second, for example) to fall off as the square of the total mass enclosed within the orbit. In other words, in moving from a galaxy's nucleus to its periphery, we expect to encounter ever lower velocities, just as in the solar system the outer planets move more slowly. Instead, it has been found that the velocity remains roughly constant. The conclusion drawn from this apparent deviation from the laws of motion is that there must be an important amount of invisible matter in galaxies, comprising as much as 90 to 99 percent of the whole (Rubin 1983, 1988). It is reasonable to expect that a still much larger amount of invisible matter lies farther out, around galaxies.
  The Big Bang model suffers from crucial failures that are becoming increasingly serious with continuing progress in astronomical observations. These observations, however, are consistent with a universe that is unlimited in time and space. The density of matter that may exist in intergalactic space - allowing for molecular hydrogen - is compatible with the density (about 0.01 atom/cm 3 ) required in the author's cosmological model. At the same time, the background radiation predicted in an unlimited universe is compatible with the high homogeneity of the observed 3 K background (Marmet 1988).It is clear that God did not limit Himself to a finite universe at one time and place, but made the universe in His own image, infinite in space and time.

  ======================== ========================

  About the Author.
  Dr. Paul Marmet was a senior researcher at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics of the National Research Council of Canada, in Ottawa from 1983-1990. From 1967 to 1982, he was director of the laboratory for Atomic and Molecular Physics at Laval University in Québec city. Later, from 1990 to 1999, his teaching and research was at the physics department of the University of Ottawa.
  A past president of the Canadian Association of Physicists, he also served as a member of the executive committee of the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada from 1979 to 1984. Marmet has been elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada in 1973 and was made an Officer of the Order of Canada in 1981 - The Order of Canada is the highest decoration bestowed by the Canadian government.
  
  The Author's Electron Beam Device.
  Paul Marmet (Who's Who) is shown here at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics in Ottawa with the electron spectrometer he pioneered. The spectrometer developed during his Ph. D. thesis (1960), produces a very low-energy monoenergetic electron beam (0 to 100 eV) in vacuum, which is used to study the internal structure of atoms and molecules. That new spectroscopy uses a beam of monoenergetic electrons instead of photons used by most spectroscopists. As in other electron beams devices, the free electrons are produced by heating a filament in high vacuum. Just after emission, electrons in such a beam vary in their individual energies by 1 eV or more. In Marmet's spectrometer, the spread of electron energies is reduced to 10 millivolts, so that the results of the interaction provide information on a scale that is finer by a factor of 100. Also, an electrodynamic quadrupole mass spectrometer with hyperbolic electrodes is used since the sensitive electron source required a complete magnetic field free environment. The ion current is measured counting individual ions.
  In the ion source, the electron beam is fired into a collimated beam of atoms or molecules directed at right angle to it. The number of ions produced in the resulting interactions, as a function of the electron energy, provides the information about the electron configuration in the atoms and molecules. The energy of the electron beam gives the absolute energy of the quantum state.
  The advantages of using an electron beam instead of photons are multiples. Since photons do not carry electric charges, they cannot produce directly negative ions. The absence of an electric charge in photons is responsible for the fact that most of the negative ions are ignored in physics. The energy of excited negative ion states is a very undeveloped field in physics. These negative ions are so important in the experiments in plasma physics.
  Using this electron beam, this instrument measured multiple electronic states of negative ions of Hydrogen, Helium, Nitrogen, Oxygen, all the halogens and also numerous diatomic molecules like carbon monoxide, methane, and many others. Even doubly or triply excited states of negative ions can be measured and identified. For example, using that electron beam, this instrument could discover and measure negative Helium ions with all three electrons in an excited state [i.e. He(2s 2 2p)]. Of course, these short-lived quantum states cannot be measured using photon spectroscopy. It was also interesting to measure different quantum states (and their half-life) of diatomic Argon(minus) molecules, (and all other inert gases), which remain stable long enough to be measured in the mass-spectrometer. Using that monoenergetic electron beam, several hundred states have been discovered in numerous atoms and molecules. Finally, using the filtering power of the mass spectrometer, several free radicals have been studied.
  Marmet and his mentor, Larkin Kerwin, describe their pioneer work on this electron source in Citation Classics, Nov. 23 1987. More than 100 scientific papers (papers) of spectroscopic data and interpretations have been published on this subject. Furthermore, about 200 other papers have been presented in numerous international and national meetings.
  Between 1978 and 1998, the author also published several other papers related to the fundamental principles in physics. Several of these papers are presented on this web site at (list). In 1997-99, physicists of the establishment showed their fierce disagreement with the fact that Marmet’s research implied that the fundamental principles were being questioned. Although the experimental work, which could determine the energy of numerous quantum stated was highly appreciated (and even honored), the physics establishment required that the author should stop questioning the fundamental principles of physics. For example, the author was first informed by the NSERC committee (Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada) to stop doing that fundamental research, despite the fact that, being theoretical, it required no research funds. All research grants were used for the experimental work needed for the electron impact apparatus. Since the fundamental research was still going on the following year, the NSERC committee decided to cut to zero the grant given for the experimental work using the monoenergetic electron beams.
  In May 1999, the head of the physics department (Dr. Bela Joos) of the university of Ottawa, came to Marmet’s office and said: “Ce n’est pas ton bureau que nous voulons, ton problème est que tu remets en question les principes fondamentaux de la physique.” (This statement was immediately noted by writing). This can be translated by: “We do not want your office, your problem is that you keep questioning the fundamental principles of physics.” Three months later, (August, 24 th 1999), I received a letter from Dr. Bela Joos, requiring my office to become unoccupied before the end of the month. Without research grant and being expelled from my office I had to continue my fundamental research alone at home.
  This was the irrevocable death of a unique instrument in the world, which was able to measure the negative ions in the ionization efficiency curve, using a monoenergetic electron beam. A few months later, the instrument was destroyed.
  This is the story of a unique instrument capable of measuring the electronic structure of negative ions. Also, this shows that physics is not a science: It is a doctrine. Therefore, there are heretics.
  How different is it from Galileo’s time? No difference.
  E-Mail address:
  
  ==============
  8 --- References.
  H. Arp, 1987. Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies, Berkeley, Calif.: Interstellar Media (2153 Russell Street, 94705).
  H. A. Bethe and E. Salpeter, 1957 Quantum Mechanics of One and Two Electron Atom, Berlin: Springer-Verlag
  W. Bostick, 1989, "An Outdated History of Time: A Review of A Brief History of Time" by Stephen W. Hawking, "21 st Century, Jan, - Feb. 1989, p. 60.
  D. Cherry, 1989. "Redshifts and the Spirit Of Scientific Inquiries," 21 st Century, May-June 1989, p. 34.
  A. Dressler, 1989. "In the Gap of the Great Attractor," The Sciences, Sept. - Oct. 1989, p. 28.
  M. J. Geller and J. P. Huchra, 1989, "Mapping the Universe", Science 246: 897
  P. S. Henry, 1980. "A Simple Description of the 3 K Cosmic Microwave Background", Science 207:939.
  E. Hubble, 1937, "The Observational Approach to Cosmology", Oxford University Press.
  J. M. Jauch and F. Rohrlich, 1980, "The Theory of Photons and Electrons" 2 nd edition New York: Springer-Verlag.
  A. E. Lange, 1989. "Recent Measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background", Bull. American Astronomical Society, 21:787.
  E. J. Lerner, 1989. "Galactic Model of Elements Formation", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 17:259.
  S. J. Lilly, 1968, "Discovery of a Radio Galaxy at a Redshift of 3.395", Astrophysical Journal 333:161 (Oct 1 1988).
  J. Maddox, 1989. "Down with the Big bang", Nature 340:425.
  P. Marmet, 1988, "The 3 K Microwave Background and Olbers' Paradox:, Science 240:705.
  ------------ 1988a, "A New Non-Doppler Redshift", Physics Essays, 1:24.
  ------------ 1989, "Redshift of Some Spectral Lines in the Sun's Chromosphere", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 17: 238.
  P. Marmet and L. Kerwin, 1987 "An Improved Electrostatic Electron Selector", Citation Classics - Physical, Chemical & Earth Sciences 27:20 (Nov. 23, 1987). Also appears in Citation Classics - Engineering 18:20.
  P. Marmet and G. Reber, 1989, "Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 17:264.
  J. V. Narlikar, 1989, "Noncosmological Redshifts", Space Science Reviews, Vol: 50.
  A. L.Peratt, 1968, "Dean of the Plasma Dissidents" (about Hannes Alfvén). The World & I, May 1988 p. 190.
  ---------- 1989, `Plasma Cosmology - Part I. Interpretations of the Visible World" The World & I, August 1989, p. 295; "Plasma Cosmology - Part II. The Universe is a sea of Electrically Charged Particles," The World & I, Sept, 1989, p. 306.
  G. Reber, 1968, "Cosmic Static at 144 Meters Wavelength", Journal of the Franklin Institute 285; 1.
  ----------- 1977. "Endless, Boundless, Stable Universe, "University of Tasmania (Hobart, Australia) Occasional Paper No: 9.
  ----------- , 1989 "The Big Bang is Bunk" 21 st Century, March-April 1989, p. 43.
  K. J. Reboul, 1981. "Untrivial Redshifts: A Bibliographical Catalogue," Astron. and Astrophys, Supp. Ser. 45-129.
  M. J. Rees, 1978. "Origin of Pregalactic Microwave Background". Nature 275:35.
  V. C. Rubin, 1983. "The Rotation of Spiral Galaxies", Science 220: 1339, (June 24, 1983)
  ----------------1988, "Dark Matter in the Universe" Proceedings of the Americal Philosophical Society, 132:258.
  

  9 --- Notes:
  (1)---
  The wavelength of radiation observed is longer (redshifted) than the wavelength emitted when it comes from a source that is moving away from the observer, a discovery made by J. C. Doppler in 1842. Likewise, the wavelength observed becomes shorter (blueshifted) when the object is approaching the observer. The redshift of light from remote galaxies is usually interpreted as being caused by the relative motion of these galaxies away from our own, in an expanding universe.
  Return to text: note (1) <><><><><><><><><><><><><> (2) ---
  "3 K" means a temperature of 3 degrees on the absolute scale (Kelvin), 3 K is equal to -270 degrees Celsius. All bodies emit electromagnetic radiation in accord with their temperature. For example, a hot filament emits visible light. At 3 K, the electromagnetic radiation emitted is in the microwave range with a wavelength of about 1 mm. The "3 K background radiation" is the radiation observed from all directions in the universe that has the same wavelength distribution as that emitted by a blackbody at a temperature of 3 K.
  Return to text: note (2) <><><><><><><><><><><><><> (3) ---
  When a hot blackbody emits electromagnetic radiation, it emits the range of frequencies at varying rates described by a curve known as the Planck function. Using this function, one can predict the distribution of wavelengths and rates emitted by any blackbody if one knows its temperature. If the surface is not black (such as gray, semitransparent or a mirror) the rates emitted are different.
  Return to text: note (3) <><><><><><><><><><><><><> (4) ---
  In the Big Bang theory, matter flows away from the observer at a velocity that depends on its distance from him. Since the rate of change of his assumed velocity was originally determined from Hubble's observations, the supposed recessional flow of matter in the Universe has been called the Hubble flow.
  Return to text: note (4) <><><><><><><><><><><><><> (5) ---
  Cosmological constant is a force term introduced by Einstein into his field equations to permit static, homogenous, isotropic model of the universe.
  Return to text: note (5) <><><><><><><><><><><><><> (6) ---
  The momentum of a particle is the product of its mass and its velocity. During the interaction (collision) of two particles, total momentum is conserved.
  Return to text: note (6) <><><><><><><><><><><><><> (7)---
  Some molecules, like the water molecule H 2 O, have naturally distorted electron shells. They are naturally polarized without the presence of an external electric field, and are said to have permanent dipole.
  Return to text: note (7) <><><><><><><><><><><><><>

  Return to: Top of this Paper
  Return to: List of Papers on the Web
  About the author
  

  Explaining a Phenomenon Without Fully Recognizing the Principle of Causality is Not Scientific. It Is Absurd.

  Rod P.
• 
  95

  Questioning the Big Bang Theory

  by Rod P in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  but 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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Rod P

  I am now going to supply what looks to me like a good summary comparative analysis between the Big Bang model and Other Non-Conventional Models of the Universe:

  Information of Big Bang

  In astrophysics, the term Big Bang is used both in a narrow sense to refer to the interval of time roughly 13.7 billion years ago when the photons observed in the microwave cosmic background radiation acquired their black-body form, and in a more general sense to refer to a hypothesized point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble's law) began. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe originated in an infinitely dense singularity. Space has expanded with the passage of time, objects being moved farther away from each other.

  In

  cosmology, the Big Bang theory is the prevailing scientific theory about the early development and shape of the universe. The central idea is that the observation that galaxies appear to be receding from each other can be combined with the theory of general relativity to extrapolate the conditions of the universe back in time. This leads to the conclusion that as one goes back in time, the universe becomes increasingly hot and dense.

  There are a number of consequences to this view. One consequence is that the universe now is very different than the universe in the past or in the future. The Big Bang theory predicts that at some point, the matter in the universe was hot and dense enough to prevent light from flowing freely in space. That this period of the universe would be observable in the form of cosmic background radiation (CBR) was first predicted in the 1940s, and the discovery of such radiation in the

  1960s swung most scientific opinion against the Big Bang theory's chief rival, the steady state theory.

  Using current physical theories to extrapolate the Hubble expansion of the universe backwards leads to a

  gravitational singularity, at which all distances become zero and temperatures and pressures become infinite. What this means is unclear, and most physicists believe that this is because of our limited understanding of the laws of physics with regard to this type of situation, and in particular, the lack of a theory of quantum gravity.

  There are actually many theories about the Big Bang. Some theories purport to explain the cause of the Big Bang itself, and as such have been criticized as being modern

  creation myths. Some people believe that the Big Bang theory lends support to traditional views of creation, for example as given in Genesis, while others believe that all Big Bang theories are inconsistent with such views. The relationship between religion and the Big Bang theory is discussed below.

  Overview

  Based on measurements of the expansion of the universe using

  type I supernovae, measurements of the lumpiness of the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, it is currently believed that the universe has an age of 13.7 ? 0.2 billion years. The fact that these three separate measurements of completely different things are all consistent with each other is considered strong evidence for the model.

  The universe as we know it was initially almost uniformly filled with energy and extremely hot. As the distances in the universe rapidly grew, the temperature dropped, leading to the creation of the known

  forces of physics, elementary particles, and eventually hydrogen and helium atoms in a process called Big bang nucleosynthesis.

  Over time, the slightly denser regions of the almost, but not quite, uniformly distributed matter were pulled together by

  gravity into clumps, forming gas clouds, stars, galaxies, and the other astronomical structures seen today. The details of how the process of galaxy formation occurred depends on the type of matter in the universe, and the three competing pictures of how this occurred are based on the properties of three types of matter known as cold dark matter, hot dark matter, and baryonic matter. These three models have been tested through computer simulations and observations of galactic correlation functions. The best measurements available (from WMAP) show that the dominant form of matter in the universe is in the form of cold dark matter. The other two types of matter make up less than 20% of the matter in the universe.

  It is at present unknown whether the

  singularity of spacetime described above is a physical reality or just a mathematical extrapolation of general relativity beyond its limits of applicability. The resolution of this depends on a theory of quantum gravity, which is not currently available. Nevertheless, there has been intense theoretical work on trying to figure out what happened before the Big Bang. Some of these efforts involve the ekpyrotic universe, and there has also been interest in the anthropic principle.

  In general relativity, one usually talks about spacetime and cannot cleanly separate space from time. In the Big Bang theory, this difficulty does not arise;

  Weyl's postulate is assumed and time can be unambiguously measured at any point as the "time since the Big Bang". Measurements in this system rely on so-called conformal distances and times which removes the expansion of the universe from consideration of spacetime measurements.

  The Big Bang was not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe; it is space itself that is expanding. So, bizarre as it may seem, the distance between any two fixed points in our universe is increasing. Intuitively this seems impossible: if the distance between two things increases then it seems that by definition one or both must be moving. But this is not so, as becomes clear if you consider the simplistic but logically equivalent model of a universe of constant size (whether finite or infinite), in which everything is shrinking. The people who live in this universe are shrinking too, as are all their scientific instruments. When these people measure the distance between two points that are sufficiently far apart, the distance will seem to be increasing, because the yardsticks they use to measure with are shrinking along with everything else. The fundamental assumption in this idea is that spacetime on the largest scales is unaffected by locality; objects that are bound together do not expand with spacetime's expansion because local forces keep them together. The expansion of the universe on local scales is so small that the difference of any local forces is unmeasurable by current techniques.

  Because it is space itself that is expanding, and not a case of objects flying apart through space, the distance (in the sense of

  comoving distance) between far removed galaxies can increase faster than the speed of light without violating the laws of special relativity. Literatur:Bye Bye Big Bang: Hello Reality [Authors: William C. Mitchell]
  Insightful and Thought-Provoking From old Omni magazine to current Scientific American and Discover magazines, books and online sources, I have watched Big Bang theory from the sidelines as it has developed over the years. Initially, it made sense, but as the years progressed, especially in the years after the Hubble Space Telescope opened the far heavens to us. I've read the articles, I've seen tweak after tweak over the years, claims of past ability to predict (such as the temperature of the m...

  History of the theory

  In

  1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lema?e was the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a "primeval atom". Earlier, in 1918, the Strasbourg astronomer Wirtz had measured a systematic redshift of certain "nebulae", and called this the K-correction, but he wasn't aware of the cosmological implications, nor that the supposed nebulae were actually galaxies outside our own Milky Way.

  Einstein's theory of

  general relativity developed during this time had the result that the universe could not remain static, a result that he himself considered wrong, and which he attempted to fix by adding a cosmological constant which did not fix the problem. Applying general relativity to cosmology was done by Alexander Friedmann whose equations describe the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker universe.

  In the 1930s,

  Edwin Hubble found experimental evidence to help justify Lema?e's theory. Hubble had also determined that galaxies were receding back in 1913. Again using redshift measurements, Hubble determined that distant galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds (relative to the Earth) directly proportional to their distance, a fact now known as Hubble's law.

  Since galaxies were receding, this suggested two possibilities. One, advocated and developed by

  George Gamow, was that the universe began a finite time in the past and has been expanding ever since. The other was Fred Hoyle's steady state model in which new matter would be created as the galaxies moved away from each other and that the universe at one point in time would look roughly like any other point in time. For a number of years the support for these two opposing theories was evenly divided.

  In the intervening period however, all observational evidence gathered has provided overwhelming support for the Big Bang theory, and since the mid-

  1960s it has been regarded as the best available theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos, and virtually all theoretical work in cosmology involves extensions and refinements to the basic Big Bang theory. Much of the current work in cosmology includes understanding how galaxies form within the context of the Big Bang, understanding what happened at the Big Bang, and reconciling observations with the basic theory.

  Huge advances in Big Bang cosmology were made in the late 1990s and the early 21st century as a result of major advances in

  telescope technology in combination with large amounts of satellite data such as from COBE and WMAP. This data allowed astronomers to calculate many of the parameters of the Big Bang to new precision and opened up a major unexpected finding that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating.

  Over the decades a number of weaknesses have been identified in the Big Bang theory, but these have thus far all been addressed by extensions and refinements such as

  cosmic inflation. As of 2003, there are no weaknesses in the Big Bang theory which are regarded as fatal by most or even a large minority of cosmologists. However, some cosmologists still support non-standard cosmologies in which the Big Bang does not occur.

  Recent research has been refining the Big Bang by including a model for the matter within the universe to understand the process of galaxy formation. Most current models are based on the notion of

  cold dark matter which has supplanted other models of hot dark matter and baryonic matter. As of 2003, theories based on cold dark matter still have some conflicts with observations, namely the Dwarf galaxy problem and the cuspy halo problem.

  See also:

  Timeline of the Big Bang

  Supporting evidence

  In describing the evidence for the Big Bang, it is necessary to distinguish between observations which are also consistent with other theories, and observations which are not easily explained by other theories. The former category includes the observations that the universe appears to be isotropic, that galaxies appear to be receding from each other, and that the sky is dark (see Olbers's paradox). While these observations are all consistent with the Big Bang theory, each of them is also consistent with at least one other theory, such as Fred Hoyle's steady-state universe and Hannes Alfven's plasma universe.

  The observations which are readily explained within the Big Bang framework but which are not so easily explained otherwise are as follows.

  Cosmic background radiation

  WMAP image of the cosmic background radiation

  One feature of the Big Bang hypothesis was the prediction in the 1940s of the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation or CMBR. According to the Big Bang theory, as all the mass/energy of the universe emerged from a primordial explosion, the initial density of the universe must have been incredibly high. Since matter cools when it becomes less dense, the early universe must have been extremely hot. In fact, the temperature of the very early universe must have been so high that matter as we know it could not exist, because the subatomic particles would have been too energetic to aggregate into atoms.

  However, as the temperature of the universe fell, the theory predicted that more familiar forms of matter would form from the

  primordial plasma. At some stage (currently reckoned to be around 500,000 years after the beginning), the temperature would fall below 3000 K. Above this temperature, electrons and protons are separate, making the universe opaque to light. Below 3000 K, atoms form, allowing light to pass freely through the gas of the universe. This is known as photon decoupling.

  The Big Bang theory therefore predicts that if you look far enough into space, and hence far enough back in time, you will eventually see the location at which the universe becomes opaque to radiation. The radiation from this region will be redshifted because of the Hubble expansion. This results in the visible spectrum of the 3000 kelvin radiation from the opaque region to be redshifted to a much lower temperature. The radiation should be almost completely isotropic.

  At the time they were made and for the next 20 years, the predictions of the Big Bang theory regarding CMBR were largely ignored, simply because they remained unverifiable due to inadequate technology. Initially, George Gamow calculated that the CMBR should appear as a black body radiating at 50K. He later revised the calculation and estimated the temperature of the CMBR as about 5K. This was an error being somewhat higher than the 2.73K black body later observed.

  In

  1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson conducted a series of diagnostic observations using a new microwave receiver owned by Bell Laboratories (which was designed for normal telephone communications) and accidentally discovered the cosmic background radiation originally predicted by Gamow. This observation was later confirmed by the Peebles group at Princeton University, who were themselves trying to construct a microwave antenna with a ruby maser to detect the CMBR when Penzias and Wilson made their serendipitous discovery. It was not until Penzias and Wilson consulted with the Peebles group that they understood what it was they had detected. Penzias and Wilson published their findings jointly with the Peebles group in the Astrophysical Journal.

  Their discovery provided substantial confirmation of the general CMBR predictions (though it required correction of inaccurate values), and pitched the balance of opinion in favour of the Big Bang hypothesis. Penzias and Wilson were awarded the Nobel Prize for their discovery.

  In

  1989, NASA launched the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite (COBE), and the initial findings, released in 1990, were consistent with the Big Bang theory's predictions regarding CMBR, finding a local residual temperature of 2.726 K, determining that the CMBR was generally isotropic, and confirming the "haze" effect as distance increased. During the 1990s, CMBR data was studied further to see if small anisotropies predicted by the Big Bang theory would be observed. They were found in the late 1990s.

  In early 2003 the results of the

  Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy satellite (WMAP) were analysed, giving the most accurate cosmological values we have to date. This satellite also disproved several specific inflationary models, but the results were consistent with the inflation theory in general.

  Abundance of primordial elements

  Using the Big Bang model it is possible to calculate the concentration of

  helium-4, helium-3, deuterium and lithium-7 in the universe. All the abundances depend on a single parameter, the ratio of photons to baryons. The abundances predicted are about 25 percent for 4 He, a 2 H/H ratio of about 10 -3 , a 3 He/H of about 10 -4 and a 7 Li/H abundance of about 10 -9 .

  Measurements of primordial abundances for all four

  isotopes are consistent with a unique value of that parameter (see Big Bang nucleosynthesis), and the fact that the measured abundances are in the same range as the predicted ones is considered strong evidence for the Big Bang. There is no obvious reason outside of the Big Bang that, for example, the universe should have more helium than deuterium or more deuterium than 3 He. Thus far, no other theory has attempted to make the nucleosynthetic predictions that the Big Bang does.

  Theories which assert that the universe has an infinite life such as the

  steady state theory fail to account for the abundance of deuterium in the cosmos, because deuterium easily undergoes nuclear fusion in stars and there are no known astrophysical processes other than the Big Bang itself that can produce it in large quantities. Hence the fact that deuterium is not an extremely rare component of the universe suggests that the universe has a finite age.

  Theories which assert that the universe has a finite life but that the Big Bang did not happen have problems with the abundance of

  helium-4. The observed amount of 4 He is far larger than what could be created via stars or any other known process. By contrast, the abundance of 4 He are very insensitive to assumptions about baryon density changing only a few percent, as the baryon density changes by several orders of magnitude. The observed value of 4 He appears to be within the range calculated.

  This having been said, there are three theoretical issues with Big Bang nucleosynthesis which have some potential of undermining the theory. The first is that the baryon concentration necessary to get an exact match with the current abundances is inconsistent with a universe with mostly baryons. The second is that the Big Bang predicts that no elements heavier than lithium would have been created in the Big Bang, yet elements heavier than lithium are observed in quasars, which presumably are some of the oldest galaxies in the universe. The third problem is since big bang nucleosynthesis produces no elements heavier than lithium, then we ought to see some long lived remnant stars which have no heavy elements in them. We don't.

  The standard explanation for the first are that most of the universe isn't composed of baryons. This explanation fits nicely with other evidence of

  dark matter such as galaxy rotation curves. The standard explanation for the second and third is that the universe underwent a period of massive star formation creating large high mass stars and that without heavy elements, forming low mass red dwarf stars is impossible. This explanation has the feature that it predicts a class of stars that, as of 2004, have not been observed. Hence, in a few years we should have either seen them, which would support the big bang scenario, or we won't, in which case there is a possibility that we will have to fundamentally alter our views of the universe.

  Galactic evolution and quasar distribution

  One observation that has become increasingly apparent since the early 1970s is that while the universe appears to be isotropic in space (i.e. the universe in one direction looks very much like the universe in another direction) it is not uniform with respect to distance (due to the finite speed of light, greater distances represent earlier times in the past). As one looks to increasingly large distances, the universe looks very different. For example, there are no nearby

  quasars, but there are many quasars once you pass a given redshift, and then the quasars disappear at a still further distance. Similarly, the types and distribution of galaxies appears to change markedly over time and once one passes a given distance, the number of galaxies fall off considerably.

  Weaknesses and criticisms of the Big Bang theory

  Throughout its history, a number of criticisms have been offered against the Big Bang theory. Some of them are today mainly of historical interest, and have been removed either through modifications to the theory or as the result of better observations. Others issues, such as the

  cuspy halo problem and the dwarf galaxy problem of cold dark matter, are considered to be non-fatal as they can be addressed through relatively minor adjustments to the theory. Finally, there are proponents of non-standard cosmologies who believe that there was no Big Bang at all.

  The initial condition problem

  One unanswered question is how the Big Bang might have occurred. The difficulty of answering this question lies with the absence of a theory of quantum gravity. As one goes back in time, the temperature and the pressures increase to the point where the physical laws governing the behavior of matter are unknown. It is hoped that as we understand these laws that we will better be able to answer the question of what happened "before" the Big Bang.

  Magnetic monopole problem

  The magnetic monopole problem was an objection that was raised in the late-1970s.

  Grand unification theories predicted point defects in space which would manifest themselves as magnetic monopoles, and the density of these monopoles was much higher than what could be accounted for. This problem is resolvable by the addition of cosmic inflation.

  The horizon problem

  The horizon problem results from the premise that information cannot travel faster than light, and hence two regions of space which are expanding at faster than the speed of light relative to each other cannot communicate. This means that there is no mechanism to ensure that they have the same temperature. In the

  1970s, no anisotropies had been observed which contradicted non-inflationary theories of the Big Bang. This problem was partially resolved by cosmic inflation which reduced the horizon problem by arguing that the early universe suddenly underwent a period of massive expansion before which regions that would later not be in contact with each other could equalize their temperatures.

  However, cosmic inflation predicted that the anisotropies in the Big Bang would be reduced but not eliminated. Even with inflation, there would be regions of space that could not be in thermal contact. In the early

  1990s, there was some excitement and nervousness, as satellite detectors such as COBE at first failed to detect any anisotropy, and various inflationary scenarios began to be invalidated. Had another few years passed without any detections of anisotropy, the Big Bang would have been very badly hurt, but this was not the case, and the expected anisotropies were detected.

  The horizon problem is still of major interest because it allows one to deduce large amounts of information from the CMB. Different expansion rates will result in different amounts of lumpiness in the CMB as a result of material falling past the horizons at different times, and this provides much data about the conditions within the universe at the time the CMB was formed.

  Globular cluster age

  One major issue that had the potential of challenging the Big Bang occurred in the mid-1990s. Computer simulations of globular clusters suggested that they were about 15 billion years old, which conflicted with some values of the Hubble constant suggesting that the universe was 10 billion years old. This issue was resolved in the late 1990s with other new computer simulations which included the effects of mass loss due to stellar winds indicated a much younger age for globular clusters.

  Elemental abundance arguments

  During the mid-1990s, measurements of the amount of primordial helium abundance suggested the possibility that the helium abundance of the first stars would have been less than 20%. If this were the case, it would have posed major problems for the Big Bang theory, as it is very difficult to get low amounts of helium from the Big Bang. This potential problem was resolved in the late-1990s by better measurements of helium abundances.

  As mentioned earlier, there are also issues with the baryon density and the observation of heavy elements with quasars. These are widely considered to be less serious challenges to the Big Bang, however, they have the potential to undermine the theory if explanations advanced for them prove inadequate.

  For example, the consensus is that in order to explain heavy elements in quasars, a large burst of massive star formation is needed, and as of 2004, much current research is aimed at trying to find these stars. If these

  population III stars are found, this will strengthen the Big Bang theory.

  Redshift

  There also remain small numbers of astrophysicists, including

  Y.P. Varshni and Halton Arp, who argue that redshifts in galaxies are not strictly due to the Doppler effect, and that this invalidates the need for the Big Bang. However, these astrophysicists propose no alternative mechanism, rather they rely on their own incredulity to criticize the standard cosmological model.

  Dark matter

  During the 1970s, observations were made that - assuming that all of the matter within the universe could be seen - created problems for the Big Bang theory, as it seemed to underestimate the amount of deuterium in the universe and lead to a universe that was much more "lumpy" than observed. These problems are resolved if one assumes that most of the matter in the universe is not visible, and this assumption seems to be consistent with observations that suggest that much of the universe consists of dark matter.

  The effects that dark matter has on Big Bang calculations generally do not depend on the detailed properties of the dark matter. The main property of dark matter which influences cosmology is whether the dark matter consists of particles that are heavy and hence are moving slowly, thereby creating cold dark matter, or whether it consists of particles that are light and hence are moving quickly, thereby creating hot dark matter, or whether the dark matter consists of ordinary matter which is baryonic matter.

  The future according to the Big Bang theory

  All the matter in the universe is gravitationally attracted to other matter which is within the observable horizon (defined by the age of the universe). This should cause the expansion rate of the universe to slow down over time. Exactly how much matter exists in any given volume, relative to how large the horizon is and how fast the universe is currently expanding can lead to one of three scenarios:

  The

  Big Crunch

  If the gravitational attraction of all the matter in the observable horizon is high enough, then it could stop the expansion of the universe, and then reverse it. The universe would then contract, in about the same time as the expansion took. Eventually, all matter and energy would be compressed back into a gravitational singularity. There are theories about what happens after this, but these remain uncertain as the physics of singularities remains in question. Also, the omega point theory suggests that an infinite amount of computational capacity might be available in the finite time before the Crunch.

  The Big Freeze

  If the gravitational attraction of all the matter in the observable horizon is low enough, then the expansion will never stop. As the matter disperses into ever greater and greater volumes, new star formation would drop off. The average temperature of the Universe would asymptotically approach absolute zero, and the Universe would become very still and quiet. Eventually, all the protons would decay, the black holes would evaporate, and the Universe would consist of dispersed subatomic particles. The Big Freeze is also known as the heat death of the universe.

  Balance

  If the gravitational attraction of all the matter in the observable horizon is just right, then the expansion of the universe will asymptotically approach zero. The temperature of the universe would asymptotically approach a stable value slightly above absolute zero. Entropy would increase, and the end result (with protons decaying) would be similar to the Big Freeze.

  Recent observations

  One extremely puzzling recent discovery comes from observations of type I supernovae which allow one to better calculate the distance to galaxies, from observations of the cosmic microwave background, from gravitational lensing, and from the use of large length scale statistics of the distributions of galaxies and quasars as standard rulers for measuring distances. It appears that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, an observation which astrophysicists are currently trying to understand (see accelerating universe). The currently favored approach is to reintroduce a non-zero cosmological constant into Einstein's equations of General Relativity, and adjust the numerical value of that constant to match the observed acceleration. This is akin to postulating a repelling "dark energy", also called quintessence.

  See also the ultimate fate of the Universe.

  Big Bang theory and religion

  When the Big Bang theory was originally proposed, it was rejected by most cosmologists and enthusiastically embraced by the Pope, because it seemed to point to a creation event. A few scientists, for example astronomer Robert Jastrow, also see the Big Bang as confirmation of the account given in Genesis. While most scientists nowadays view the Big Bang theory as the best explanation of the available evidence, and the Catholic Church still accepts it, some conservative Christians (usually Fundamentalists) oppose it because the age of the universe is far higher than the one calculated from a literal reading of the book of Genesis in the Bible. Many ways have been proposed to reconcile the two including denying the fundamentalist reading of Genesis or denying the correctness of the age of the universe - see Day-Age Creationism.

  Similarly, some Muslims claim that a verse in the Qur'an, the holy book of Islam, can be correlated to the Big Bang. The verse in question, the 30th in its 21st chapter, states the following: "Do the disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were joined together, then I split them apart".

  Origin of the term

  The term "Big Bang" was coined in 1949 by Fred Hoyle during a BBC radio program, The Nature of Things; the text was published in 1950. Hoyle did not subscribe to the theory and intended to mock the concept. It may have been in part a joking reference to the fact that George Gamow, the leading proponent of the theory at the time, also worked on the development of the atomic bomb.

  See also

  Main: Timeline of the Big Bang | Dark Ages | Big bounce | Big Crunch (Heat-death of the Universe and Oscillatory Universe) | Big Rip | Big bang nucleosynthesis | Gravitational singularity | Cosmic inflation | Cosmic variance | De Sitter universe

  Creation: creation myths | Creation belief | Creationism | Dating Creation | Young Earth Creationism

  Cosmology and Astrophysics: A Brief History of Time | Beyond the standard Big Bang model | Cosmological arguments | Estimates of the date of Creation | Galaxy formation and evolution | Non-standard cosmology (Creative evolution, Ekpyrotic, Plasma cosmology, Steady state theory) | Magnitude order | Primordial black hole | Primordial helium abundance | Stellar population | Timeline of cosmology | Theoretical astrophysics | Ultimate fate of the Universe

  Astronomy: History of astronomy | CMBR Timeline | Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope | Massive compact halo object | Red dwarf | Shape of the universe | Solar nebula | Stars | Supermassive black hole | Universe (Large-scale structure of the cosmos)

  People: Hannes Alfv?/a> | Albert Einstein | [[ George Gamow]] | Fred Hoyle | Georges Lema?e | Peter Lynds | Arno Allan Penzias | Gerald Schroeder | Janez Strnad | Robert Woodrow Wilson

  List of physics topics: Arrow of time | Electronuclear force | Comoving distance | Compton effect | Dark energy | Dark matter (Cold dark matter and Hot dark matter) | Hubble's law | Integrated Sachs Wolfe effect | Magnetic monopole | Observation | Olbers' paradox | Phase transition | Quantum gravity | Redshift | Theory of everything | Triple-alpha process | Weyl's postulate

  Things: Ambiplasma | Antimatter | Axion | Background radiation | Cosmic light horizon | Cosmic microwave background | Fireball | Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE)

  Atomic Chemical Elements : Beryllium | Carbon | Chemical abundance | Deuterium | Helium | Ylem

  Lists: List of astronomical topics | List of famous experiments | List of time periods | Timeline of the Universe

  Other: Bang | Discworld | Galactus | Horrendous Space Kablooie

  External links and references

  General

  • Wright, Edward L., "Brief History of the Universe (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html)".
  • "Welcome to the History of the Universe (http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/)". Penny Press Ltd.

  Smithsonian Institution, "UNIVERSE! - Beyond the Big Bang: Briefing Room (http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/seuforum/explore/bigbang/briefing.htm)".
• PBS.org, "From the Big Bang to the End of the Universe. The Mysteries of Deep Space Timeline (http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/)"
• D'Agnese, Joseph, "The last Big Bang man left standing, physicist Ralph Alpher devised Big Bang Theory of universe (http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1511/7_20/55030837/p1/article.jhtml)". Discover, July, 1999.
• "Cosmology (http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Astronomy/Cosmology/)" via
Google

Research articles

These are generally full of technical language, but sometimes with introductions in plain English.

• Openly published observational cosmology research article preprints: (http://arxiv.org/archive/astro-ph)
• Openly published theoretical cosmology research articles (http://arxiv.org/archive/gr-qc)

Analysis

• Narlikar, Jayant V. and T. Padmanabhan, "Standard Cosmology and Alternatives: A Critical Appraisal (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?2001ARA&A..39..211N)". Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 39, p. 211-248 (2001).
• Morrison, Philip, and Phylis Morrison, "The Big Bang: Wit or Wisdom (http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00031CF2-1C2D-1C71-84A9809EC588EF21) ?" Scientific American, Inc.
February 18, 2001.
• Whitehouse, David, "Before the Big Bang (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1270726.stm)".
BBC News. April 10, 2001.
• Marmet, Paul, "Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html)".
• Klempner, Geoffrey, "The ten big questions. Big Bang Theory (http://www.123infinity.com/big_bang_theory.html)"
• CosmologyStatement.org (http://cosmologystatement.org)

Information of Non-standard cosmology

The neutrality of this article is disputed. See the article's talk page for more information.

A non-standard cosmology is a cosmological theory that contradicts the standard model of cosmology. The term has been used since the late 1960s after the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson. These observations, combined with the theory of big bang nucleosynthesis and other evidence which suggested that the universe evolved, caused most cosmologists to favor the Big Bang theory over the steady state theory. Since around this time, in practice a non-standard cosmology has primarily meant any cosmological theory which questions the fundamental propositions of the Big Bang theory.

The motivation behind much of non-standard cosmology is the fact that to explain current observations within the framework of the big bang, one must include some seemingly ad-hoc assumptions and inelegant additions. For example, in order to make the big bang consistent with current observations, one would need to postulate the existence of some form of dark matter and dark energy and a phase of rapid expansion known as cosmic inflation. Proponents of non-standard cosmologies argue that these additions to the theory lead to an inelegant system which some have compared to the Ptolematic model of the solar system. By investigating and questioning the basic assumptions of the Big Bang theory, non-standard cosmologies attempt to address these issues from a supposedly empirical framework, even though the foundations of non-standard models might clearly contradict those of the Big Bang theory.

One point that should be noted is that there is not a single non-standard cosmology. Within the category are many different models which often contradict each other. This is in contrast to standard model of cosmology that is designed to be in concordance with the sum total of all cosmological observations (see Lambda-CDM model). While what is considered the standard model of cosmology as opposed to a standard model of cosmology has changed over the years, the general consensus in the scientific community is that with the advent of precision cosmology, model-making in the field is today more of a parameter fitting exercize rather than complete reinvention. Non-standard cosmologies are promoted by a few generally independent researchers and amateurs who disagree with foundational assumptions and so reject the idea of applying concordance criteria to their models.

In addition, the term standard can be slightly misleading. For example, it is the case that all of standard cosmologies under serious consideration in 2004 contain physics which is outside the realm of the standard model of particle physics and presume the existence of some form of particle, field, or object that has not been observed. Conversely, proponents of some non-standard cosmologies assert that their models contain no physics which has not been observed, and in fact often cite this fact as evidence in favor of their models.
Although most astronomers since the 1960s have concluded that observations are best explained by a variation of the big bang model, there have been two periods in which interest in non-standard cosmology increased due to observational data which posed difficulties for the big bang. The first occurred in the late 1970s when there were a number of unsolved problems such as the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and the lack of magnetic monopoles which challenged the models of the big bang then under consideration. These issues were eventually resolved by cosmic inflation in the 1980s which subsequently became part of all future standard cosmologies. The second occurred in the mid-1990s when observations of the ages of globular clusters and the primordial helium abundance showed the potential of seriously challenging the big bang. However by the late 1990s, most astronomers had concluded that these observations did not challenge the big bang and in addition data from COBE and WMAP provided detailed quantitative data which was consistent with standard cosmologies.

Standard Models

The standard cosmologies have asserted that:
• redshifts observed in distant galaxies are due to the expansion of the universe
• this expansion is due to the expansion of space as predicted by
general relativity

Non-standard cosmologies minimally challenge one or both of these, usually asserting that one or the other is incorrect.

Alternative models of cosmology that do not challenge the two assertions above are generally lumped together as standard cosmological models, even if they are not universally accepted. For example, the ekpyrotic universe holds that the expansion of the universe began in the collision of two branes in the higher dimensional "bulk" of brane cosmology. Although radical, this cosmology is an extension of, rather than a detractor of, the big bang theory.

Objections to the Standard Models

There are a number of general objections to the standard models which have been advanced by supporters of non-standard cosmologies, at one time or another. In addition there are specific objections to the Big Bang. One is that the Big Bang pre-supposes a beginning to the universe and fails to answer the question of what happened before the beginning. This point is considered to be moot by most standard cosmologists, since extrapolation of the universe's behavior before the Planck time is considered to be as yet an unknown area of physics. Whether the Big Bang predicts a singular beginning or an alternative universe without a beginning is not something that current theories of physics can answer for certain. Another objection is that the Big Bang requires esoteric and ad-hoc physics to explain observations. However this last point is not very strong, as even the non-standard cosmologies often employ what could be considered exotic physics to some. Many proponents of standard cosmologies do not deny that problematic issues exist in standard cosmologies. However, they argue that standard cosmologies based on the Big Bang theory are better able to explain these issues than non-standard cosmologies.
With the advent of space-based instruments, along with improved ground-based instruments, we have gained a broader view of the electro-magnetic spectrum during the late 20th century. We are now able to detect frequencies of radiation that where not accessible during the primary period that the Big Bang theory took shape. With each new instrument comes new observations of astrophysical process. In some cases there have been observations which the Big Bang theory does not appear to explain well. However, these observations are handled within the standard models by making refinements and enhancements to the basic Big Bang theory, and so the list of observations which most cosmologists feel are unexplained, changes over time.
Supporters of non-standard cosmologies claim that these modifications and enhancements to the Big Bang theory are ad-hoc and incoherent, and have produced an overly complex and inelegant theory. For instance, it is generally agreed by astronomers that the big bang model simply cannot agree with observations without assuming the existence of cosmic inflation which in turn requires the existence of vacuum energy. In addition, it is also agreed that without assuming dark matter that big bang nucleosynthesis produces a massive underabundance of deuterium, and that without assuming dark energy that the big bang massively underestimates the age of the universe.
In an 'Open Letter to the Scientific Coummunity,' signed by thirty-three scientists around the world, including Hermann Bondi, and published in the May 22nd 2004 issue of the New Scientist periodical, they protest that: the observation that the Big Bang theory has not been able to provide a basis for quantitative predictions:

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.

However, it's the lack of funding for the support of non-standard research that they decry the most:

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.

For the most part, the accusation of the ad-hoc nature of the Big Bang theory is rejected by standard cosmologists. The observational evidence for inflation, dark matter, and dark energy comes in many different forms from a variety of independent observations. That these indepedent observations are in concordance with each other and that parameter space likelihood analysis shows no mutually exclusive regions makes the claim that the Lambda-CDM model is ad hoc highly dubious. In addition most cosmologists react very strongly against charges that nonstandard cosmologies are being surpressed for ideological reasons and point out that developing a theoretical model of non-standard cosmology requires no particular large amount of funding, and while observational cosmology does require a great deal of funding and telescope time, the major observational cosmology projects such as COBE, WMAP, and the massive galaxy surveys do not assume the correctness of standard cosmologies.
Obviously, any question of a scientific nature ought to be answered on the basis of the known and established facts, as far as they can be discovered. There is no doubt that the standard model is the most firmly established cosmological model today, but how well it stands up to alternative, or non-standard models, must always depend on the strength of the alternative's merits in comparison with those of the standard model.
For instance, besides the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), a non-standard cosmology must deal with the observation of cosmic redshift (ie., the apparent expansion of the universe.) Also, element distribution and "correlation functions" for the statistics of galactic distribution in the universe, are observations/theory that the standard model successfully addresses, and which big bang cosmologists insist that any non-standard model should be able to answer as well.

Dark matter and dark energy

During the 1970s and 1980s various observations (notably of galactic rotation curves) showed that there was not sufficient visible matter in the universe to account for the apparent strength of gravitational forces within and between galaxies. Since only gravitational forces are taken into account within the standard model, this led to the idea that up to 90% of the matter in the universe is non-baryonic dark matter. In addition, assuming that the universe was mostly regular matter led to predictions that were strongly inconsistent with observations. In particular, the universe is far less lumpy and contains far less deuterium than can be accounted for without dark matter. While this idea was initially controversial, it is now a widely accepted part of standard cosmology due to observations in the anisotropies in the CMB, gravitational lensing studies, and x-ray measurements from galaxy clusters.
However, quasi steady-state theory and plasma cosmology have been put forward as alternatives that do not require dark matter to explain the observations of galactic curves. In some versions of plasma cosmology, for instance, the observed galaxy rotation curves are accounted for by the additional electro-magnetic forces and interactions. By treating the arms of galaxies as plasma filaments interacting with electromagnetic fields, the filamentary structure of galaxy clusters and superclusters can be viewed as a result of the self-amplifying nature of currents in plasmas. In this way, plasma cosmology proports to explain two observations often attributed in the standard cosmological models as due to dark matter. However, proponents of the Big Bang theory claim that there has not been offered any non-standard cosmology which explains in detail the totality of proposed evidence for dark matter.
While it is true that in astrophysics plasma and magnetic effects are considered very important in determining the structure of gas and dust within a galaxy, it is unclear by what mechanism magnetic fields would change galaxy rotation curves and velocity dispersions. Galaxy velocity dispersion measurement come in part from observations of halo stars and it is unclear how a magnetic field would change the orbital motion of a star in an area where there is very little gas and dust. Furthermore the structure of the filaments seen in cosmological galaxy surveys are very different than the structure of filaments seen in most plasma processes, and there is no proposed mechanism offered by the alternative model as to why the size of the structures has an upper-limit.
More recently (since 1997), observations of supernovae in the distant universe have suggested that a large part of the energy density of the universe consists of a repulsive dark energy (perhaps simply "vacuum energy", but possibly something more complicated) which is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. This conclusion has been accepted by most standard cosmologists since it matches the predictions that can be obtained for this effect from completely independent observations of the anisotropies in the CMB. An explanation of the proposed existence of dark matter and dark energy is required in order for any cosmological model to be successfull. Advocates of non-standard models claim there is no need to invoke dark matter or dark energy as gravity is not taken to be the only acting force in the universe.

Cosmic Microwave Background

Any cosmological theory should be able to explain the near-isotropy of the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) and should also be able to explain the micro-Kelvin CMB anisotropies measured in detail by the WMAP mission. Standard models invoke a period of inflation in the early universe, the underlying mechanism, although efforts to associate that period of inflation with a specific physical mechanism have been unfruitful.

Alfven, Lerner and others working within plasma cosmology have claimed that the temperature, isotropy, and non-polarisation of the CMB can be readily explained as the diffusion of galactic radio emission by the magnetic fields of intervening plasma filaments. Electrons travelling along the large, weak magnetic field lines of a galaxy can absorb radio, and re-emit it in a different direction. This scatters the radiation, much as light from the sun is scattered in a dense fog. This can also explain the observed decrease in radio brightness of galaxies relative to their IR luminosity with increasing redshift. Lerner explains that radiation from distant galaxies successively interacts with the magnetic fields of many intervening galaxies, nebulae, supernova remnants and so on, resulting in an isotropic scatter. What Lerner fails to explain is why the electrons should reemit in the best measured blackbody spectrum observed in all of science and how the entire plasma can become thermalized with anisotropic radiation fields.

Standard cosmologists also calculate the anisotropies in the CMB and identify a number of features such as peaks and valleys in its power spectrum which correspond to cosmological quantities. WMAP has been especially fruitful in providing a goldmine of data that is interpreted easily by the standard cosmological models. The inability thus far of plasma cosmologies to come up with a theory that replicates these features in detail has led most astrophysicists to dismiss them. There was recently some excitement on the part of certain plasma cosmology adherents over an analysis of WMAP results by researchers at the University of Durham. This analysis proported to show certain micro-Kelvin anisotropies in the WMAP data correspond to the locations of local galactic clusters and superclusters. This association was just as predicted by the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect and was the purpose of the investigation. However, some fans of Eric Lerner claim that his model predicted similar types of associations.

A second alternative explanation, favoured by Steady State theorists, is that the intergalactic medium contains microscopic iron dust particles or whiskers, which can also scatter radio in the same manner to produce an isotropic CMB. However, observational evidence for the existence of these iron particles is yet to appear.
Either of these explanations could potentially free other alternative cosmological models such as general time dilation, steady state models, and so on from the need to explain the isotropy of the CMB, because they transform it into a local effect rather than a cosmological feature.

Redshift, AGN, and Quasars

In the meantime, there are other issues that some non-standard cosmologists insist must also be considered. A good example is the observations made since the 1960s by the astronomer Halton Arp, which offer an alternative to the standard interpretation of quasar formation, redshift and Hubble's Law.
Arp has observed a handful of correlations between quasars (and more recently, X-ray sources from Chandra data) and AGN (Active Galactic Nuclei) which he claims demonstrates that quasar redshifts are not entirely due to the expansion of the universe, but contain a local, or non-cosmological, component. Arp claims that clusters of quasars have been observed around many galaxies (examples include NGC 3516 (http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Images&Image=4) and NGC 5985 (http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Images&Image=5) as well as M51, NGC 7603, NGC 3370, NGC 4319, NGC 4235, NGC 4258) which all have some properties in common:
• The active galaxy always has a lower redshift than any of its associated quasars.
• The quasars tend to lie within a narrow conical zone centered about the minor (rotational) axis of the associated active galaxy.
• Schematically, the quasars' redshifts are inversely proportional to their angular distances from the AGN, i.e. as apparent distance from the AGN increases, the redshift of the quasars decrease.
• Some of the quasars occur as pairs on either side of an AGN, particularly the X-ray sources appearing in the Chandra data.
Some astrophysicists believe that gravitational lensing might responsible for some examples of quasars in the immediate vicinity of AGN, but Arp and others argue that gravitational lensing cannot account for the quasars' tendency to align along the host galaxies minor axis.
These observations indicate to Arp that a relationship may exist between quasars (or at least a certain type of quasar) and AGN. Arp claims that these quasars originate as very high redshift objects ejected from the nuclei of active galaxies, and gradually lose their non-cosmological redshift component as they evolve into galaxies.
The biggest problem with this analysis is that today there are tens of thousands of quasars with known redshifts discovered by various sky surveys. The vast majority of these quasars are not correlated in any way with nearby AGN. Indeed, with improved observing techniques, a number of host galaxies have been observed around quasars which indicates that those quasars at least really are at cosmological distances and are not the kind of objects Arp proposes. Arp's analysis, according to most scientists, suffers from being based on small number statistics and hunting for peculiar coincidences and odd associations. In a vast universe such as our own, peculiarities and oddities are bound to appear if one looks in enough places. Unbiased samples of sources, taken from numerous galaxy surveys of the sky show none of the proposed 'irregularities' nor any statistically significant correlations that Arp suggests exist.
In fact, the question of whether quasars are cosmological or not was an active controversy in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but by the late 1970s most astronomers had considered the issue settled. The main argument against cosmological distances for quasars was that the energy required was far too high to be explainable by nuclear fusion, but this objection was removed by the proposal of gravity powered accretion disks.
In addition, it is not clear what mechanism would be responsible for such high initial redshifts, or indeed its gradual dissipation over time as the quasar evolves. It is also unclear why objects ejected from a galaxy should never seem to produce a blue shift. Moreover it is unclear how nearby quasars would explain some features in the spectrum of quasars which the standard model easily explains. In the standard cosmology, the clouds of neutral hydrogen between the quasar and the earth at different red shifts spikes between the quasar redshift and the rest frequency of Lyman alpha in a feature known as the Lyman-alpha forest. Moreover, in extreme quasars one can observe the absorbion of neutral hydrogen which has not yet been reionized in a feature known as the Gunn-Peterson trough. Most cosmologists see this missing theoretical work as sufficient reason to ignore the observations as either chance or error. Arp himself proposes Narlikar's variable mass hypothesis, which contains alternative explanations of various observed cosmological features, but it remains, at best, incomplete.
A consequence of Arp's proposed AGN-origin of quasars would be that quasars would be much closer, much larger, and much less luminous than currently supposed and their heavy element composition would no longer require primaeval Population III stars. Such a theory would predict that the heavy element composition of quasars would be similar to the associated AGN, though observed metal lines in quasars are notoriously weaker than AGN. Variable luminosity and absorption phenomena such as the Lyman-alpha forest would both be explained by as yet theoretically undeveloped "local means".
A further anomaly comes from the magnitude-redshift relation first discovered by Hubble. Plotting absolute galactic magnitudes against their redshift produces a clear linear relation, which in 1929 led Hubble to propose an expanding universe and Fritz Zwicky to propose the tired light hypothesis. However, quasars were discovered much later, and the same plot done using quasar data produces a much more diffuse scatter with no such clear linear relation. However, since the absolute magnitudes can only be calibrated using a size constraints from variability and an Eddington luminosity limit, it is likely that quasars are exhibbiting differing absolute luminosities that cannot neccessarily be derived from such simplistic first principles. Arp, Burbidge, and others maintain that the scatter in these plots further supports the idea that quasars have a non-cosmological component to their redshift, but nearly everyone else in the field accepts that quasars have variable luminosity.

Non-standard Models

There have been a number of non-standard models which have been proposed.

Quasi Steady State Models

ADD MORE HERE
Although the original steady state model is now considered to be contrary to observations even by its originators, a modification of the steady state model has been proposed which envisions the universe as originating through many little bangs rather than one big bang.

Tired Light Models

The tired light effect was proposed by Fritz Zwicky in 1929 to explain the observed cosmological redshift. It has been found incompatible with the observed time dilation that is associated with the cosmological redshift. In 1985 it was found that this incompatibility is removed if energy is strictly conserved since then the Einsteinian gravitation simulates exactly the tired light effect together with the associated time dilation. However, conservation of coordinate energy cannot reproduce the isotropic blackbody spectrum observed for the Cosmic Microwave Background.

Plasma Cosmology VS Steady State

Halton Arp attributes his observations to the "variable-mass hypothesis", which has its foundations within the frame of steady-state theory and Machian physics. Plasma cosmology is one non-standard model that may be able to account for Arp's empirical data, possibly without the need for the variable-mass. One difference between plasma cosmology and steady-state is that plasma cosmology does not invoke matter creation; rather it invokes the flow of matter between different areas of the universe. In some versions of plasma cosmology, matter is explicitly assumed to have always existed. However, it is noted that matter may have been created at some time in the past, but that confirmation of this is currently and may forever be beyond our empirical methods of investigation. In contrast with plasma cosmology, the variable-mass theory instead invokes constant matter creation from active galactic nuclei, which puts it into the class of steady-state theory.

The general time dilation

One rather unobtrusive non-standard cosmology, an extension of Einsteinian gravitaton, is based on a principle of conservation of energy. It turns out that if the principle of conservation of energy is valid then there must exist general time dilation, an effect of exponential with distance from the observer slowing of the rate of time.
This effect looks almost exactly as the hypothetical tired light effect except that it produces also an exponential time dilation and by that it is undistinguishable from an accelerating expansion of space.
Despite that the possibility of the effect is known at least since 1985 it isn't accepted as real because conservation of energy across macroscopic coordinates (known in physics simply as the principle of conservation of energy) isn't accepted in cosmology. Instead the expansion of space is accepted as real. Both effects can't coexist for observational reasons as there doesn't seem to be enough Hubble redshift to satisfy both.
Generally the violation of the coordinate conservation of energy is accepted as required in standard cosmologies because in general the energy densities are frame dependent. Incidentally it doesn't hurt the principle of coordinate conservation of energy in all the rest of physics. Standard cosmologies are the only physical theories that can't accept the strict coordinate conservation of energy. In this aspect they present a non-trivial physics that allows creation of energy from nothing.
Allowing for general time dilation effectively recasts the stress-energy tensor in Einstein's Field Equations which non-trivially effects the curvature of spacetime. This would have the effect of giving up the Riemannian geometry as the geometry of spacetime and it would require to replace it with Finsler geometry. It would require to drop the condition of symmetry of metric tensor. Einstein postulated dropping this condition in his "On the General Theory of Gravitation" (Scientific American, April 1950).
General time dilation doesn't explain features of the Cosmic Microwave Background therefore an additional explanation would be needed to reproduce an isotropic radiation field that approximates a blackbody of temperature 2.73 K to the level of one part in one hundred thousand. Also an additional explanation of the abundances of light elements would be required if the principle of coordinate conservation of energy were accepted also in cosmology.
If this principle were valid though it would simulate accelerating expansion of space with Hubble's constant at observer H 0 = c / R , where c is speed of light and R is Einstein's radius of the universe. It might also justify, providing a mechanism for large redshift in dense clouds of dust, the postulated by Halton Arp non cosmological origin of quasars.
The predicted numbers for testing the viability of the effect for our universe, assuming its density as km / s / Mpc for the apparent expansion and

See also

Types:

Ekpyrotic, Plasma cosmology, Steady state theory, Quasi steady state cosmology, Machian Cosmology
Related: Unsolved problems in physics, Solar neutrino problem, Dirac large numbers hypothesis, De Sitter universe
Creation:
Creative evolution, Creation myths, Creationism
Other:
Presocratic philosophers, Anthropic principle

Bibliography

• Narlikar, Jayant Vishnu, "Introduction to Cosmology". Jones & Bartlett Pub. January 1983. IUCAA. ISBN 0867200154
• Lerner. Eric J., "Big Bang Never Happened", Vintage Books, October 1992. ISBN 067974049X
• Mitchell, William C., "Bye Bye Big Bang: Hello Reality". Cosmic Sense Books. January 2002. ISBN 0964318814
• Hoyle, Fred, and Geoffrey Burbidge, and Jayant V. Narlikar, "A Different Approach to Cosmology : From a Static Universe through the Big Bang towards Reality". Cambridge University Press. February 17, 2000. ISBN 0521662230
• Hannes, Alfven D., "Cosmic Plasma". Reidel Pub Co., February 1981. ISBN 9027711518
• Peratt, Anthony L., "Physics of the Plasma Universe". Springer-Verlag, 1991, ISBN 0387975756
• Arp, Halton, "Seeing Red". Apeiron, Montreal. August 1998. ISBN 0968368905

External links and references

General

• Shanks, T., "Problems with the Current Cosmological Paradigm (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401409)". Astrophysics, astro-ph/0401409. University of Durham, England.
• An Open Letter to the Scientific Community (http://www.cosmologystatement.org)
• Narlikar, Jayant V. and T. Padmanabhan, "Standard Cosmology and Alternatives: A Critical Appraisal (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?2001ARA&A..39..211N)".
Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 39, p. 211-248 (2001).
• Lerner, E. J. "Radio absorption by the intergalactic medium." ApJ 361 (1990), 63-68.
• Klempner, Geoffrey, "The ten big questions. Big Bang Theory (http://www.123infinity.com/big_bang_theory.html)"
• Marmet, Paul, "Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html)".
• Whitehouse, David, "Before the Big Bang (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1270726.stm)". BBC News. April 10, 2001.
• Rosania, Gustavo, "AntiBigBang.com (http://antibigbang.com/) Come Discover The New Cosmology"!
• Jastrzebski, W. Jim, "The General Time Dilation (http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/3263.htm) Einsteinian reason for illusion of accelerating expansion of space"

Informational

• Kane, Gordon L., "Perspectives on Issues Beyond the Standard Model (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0403040)". (
ArXiv)
• Wright, Edward L. "Cosmological Fads and Fallacies: (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/errors.html)" Errors in some popular attacks on the Big Bang
• "Cosmology (http://directory.google.com/Top/Science/Astronomy/Cosmology/)" via
Google

Research articles [ed. full of technical language, but sometimes with introductions in plain English]

• Openly published observational cosmology research article preprints: (http://arxiv.org/archive/astro-ph)
• Openly published theoretical cosmology research articles (http://arxiv.org/archive/gr-qc)
• Burbidge, G., "Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0108051.)".
University of California, San Diego. Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences and Department of Physics La Jolla, CA. [aXvir.org : astro-ph/0108051]
• Lopez-Corredoira, Martin, "Observational Cosmology: caveats and open questions in the standard model (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310214.)". Astronomisches Institut der
Universit?Basel. [aXvir.org : astro-ph/0310214] (part of "Recent Research Developments in Astronomy & Astrophysics")