May 9, 2005
Note: The dominant paradigm is currently big bang cosmology but there are a few scientists who are critical of big bang cosmology (BBC) and instead believe in an eternal universe. Although these critiques of big bang cosmology are useful we in no way support such alternative speculative theories unless they are consistent with Torah. These alternative proposals are not the current dominant paradigm and hence there is no need to present a detailed evaluation of them at this time.
On May 17th, 2004, Alan Guth of MIT made a presentation at ICCS'04. His slides
from the presentation state that “We
have never had a model of the universe that works so well” (p17),
referring to the current inflationary hot big bang model[1].
As a major piece of evidence for his claim, Guth states that “Latest
Observations by WMAP Satellite: Ω = 1.02 ±02.” (p8)
which matched the BBC prediction of Ω = 1.000000000000000 which is the
critical density.
This sounds impressive!
“Ω” is the Greek
letter Omega which stands for the density of the universe. The density of the
universe means the amount of matter there is per unit volume, averaged for the
entire universe. The critical density corresponds to approximately one hydrogen
atom per cubic meter, a density that is more than ten million times lower than
that of the best vacuum that can be achieved in an earthbound laboratory.[2] Thus
big bang cosmology predicts that the universe is close to the critical density
and the claim is that observational evidence confirms this claim.
However, on the 22nd of May, 2004, thirty three scientists signed a letter
stating that BBC had already been refuted by experimental observation[3].
Confused? Of course! At least I am. As a layman, I usually rely on the experts.
But if the experts argue or omit relevant data and assumptions in their
presentation, then we need to investigate for ourselves especially on matters
that contradict our mesora.
Here is my understanding of what the dissident scientists object to and what
Alan Guth omitted to make clear in his slides, viz. the proliferation of
hypothetical entities which were introduced without much physical justification
to address contradictions with observations that would otherwise have led to
the rejection of the Big Bang theory.
In no other field of physics would the introduction of three hypothetical entities, each unconfirmed by experimental evidence, be allowed to save a theory. In addition, the hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics-the conservation of energy and matter-since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. [Lerner, E.J. Two World Systems Revisited: A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 31(6), p.1268-1275, 2003.]
1. The big bang flatness and horizon problems in the standard model (involving
a contradiction between theory and observation) forced Guth and other
cosmologists to postulate inflation over twenty years ago.
2. In all that time inflation has never been experimentally confirmed –
nobody has ever observed an inflaton!
3. With the hypothetical inflation, the model predicts Omega = 1.0.
4. This means that there has to be vast amounts of matter in the universe --
but current observed and predicted values are an order of magnitude less (about
5% of the predicted amount).
5. To solve this problem cosmologists hypothesize that there is some
missing matter called “dark matter”. This missing and unobservable
matter supposedly makes up most of the mass of the universe.
6. Dark matter has never been directly observed – in a variety of
experiments conducted in the 20 years since it was first postulated.
7. Such a large amount of dark matter would make the universe at most 8 GY[4] old
considerably less than the oldest stars (12 GY). This is because the gravity of
the extra mass would slow the expansion of the universe.
8. To resolve this contradiction cosmologists postulate an unconfirmed
dark energy field (based on a cosmological constant) to speed up the expansion.
This force is totally unlike any force that has ever been observed. Like the
other hypothetical entities it has not been directly detected.
9. What about the WMAP data quoted by Guth for his value of Omega?
According to [Lerner[5]]:
Recent measurements
of the anisotropy of the CBR by the WMAP spacecraft have been claimed to be a
major confirmation of the Big Bang theory. Yet on examination, these claims of
an excellent fit of theory and observation are dubious. First of all, the curve
that was fitted to the data had seven adjustable parameters, the majority of
which could not be checked by other observations [see reference 43 in the
original]. Fitting a body of data with an arbitrarily large number of free
parameters is not difficult and can be done independently of the validity of
any underlying theory. Indeed, even with seven free parameters, the fit was
not statistically good, with the probability that the curve actually fits the
data being under 5%, a rejection at the 2s level.
Significantly, even with seven freely adjustable parameters, the model greatly
overestimated the anisotropy on the largest angular scales. In addition, the
Big Bang model’s prediction for the angular correlation function did not
at all resemble the WMAP data. It is therefore difficult to view this new data
set as a confirmation of the Big Bang theory of the CBR.
A partial quote from the above article follows below (full article available here). The last two
paragraphs make for interesting reading in a peer-reviewed journal, although
the author is not the first to make such accusations.
II. FUNDAMENTAL METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS OF THE BIG BANG
The Big Bang theory requires three hypothetical entities-the inflation field,
nonbaryonic (dark) matter, and the dark energy field-to overcome gross
contradictions between theory and observation. Yet no evidence has ever
confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities.
In each of these cases, the hypothetical entities were introduced without any
physical justification purely to address contradictions with observations that
would have otherwise led to the rejection of the Big Bang theory. The inflation
field, which causes a super-rapid expansion of the early universe, was
introduced after it was realized that the "horizon problem" prevented
parts of the universe that are currently more than a few degrees apart on the
sky from coming to the same equilibrium temperature, and thus producing the
same temperature background radiation, as observed. Without this field, the Big
Bang does not predict an isotropic CBR.
But the inflation hypothesis predicted a matter-energy density for the universe
equal to the critical closure density, \Omega = 1.0. Unfortunately, Big Bang
nucleosynthesis predictions of the abundance of ordinary baryonic matter
predicts [approximately] \Omega < .05, a gross self-contradiction. The idea
of nonbaryonic (dark) matter was introduced to overcome this contradiction. By
this hypothesis, 95% of the matter in the universe did not participate in the
reactions that formed the light elements.
However, such a large amount of matter would cause a marked deceleration of the
expansion of the universe and led to predictions that the age of the universe
was less than 10 GY, considerably less that the age of the oldest globular
clusters in the Milky Way. To overcome this problem, as well as growing
evidence that there could not be anywhere near this much gravitating matter,
cosmologists introduced the cosmological constant and the corresponding dark
energy field, which would account for 70% of the matter-energy in the universe,
accelerate expansion, and increase the predicted age of the universe to 14 GY.
In no other field of physics would the introduction of three hypothetical
entities, each unconfirmed by experimental evidence, be allowed to save a
theory. In addition, the hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the
best-tested laws of physics-the conservation of energy and matter-since the
field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. No evidence has
ever indicated the existence of nonbaryonic matter. Indeed, there have been
many lab experiments over the past 23 years that have searched for nonbaryonic
matter, all with negative results [15]. Continued discovery of more ordinary
matter in the form of white dwarfs [16] and diffuse plasma clouds [17] has
further decreased the ability of theorists to claim that there is far more
matter detected by gravitational attraction than can be accounted for by
ordinary matter.
Moreover, the Big Bang theory relies fundamentally on the violation of another
very well-confirmed conservation law-conservation of baryon number. This law
dictates that baryons and antibaryons are always produced from energy in equal
numbers, and has been confirmed up to Tev energies. Yet an equal mixture of
baryons and antibaryons at high density as in the Big Bang would result in an extremely
dilute universe [1], so the Big Bang requires baryon nonconservation, in
conflict with all existing observations. Such baryon nonconservation also
implies a finite lifetime for the proton, a prediction also contradicted by
extensive experiments unsuccessfully seeking proton decay.
...
VI. WHY IS THE BIG BANG STILL DOMINANT?
All the basic predictions of the Big Bang theory have been repeatedly refuted
by observation. The plasma cosmology approach has been supported by thousands
of times less resources than has the Big Bang, but it has presented alternative
explanations for many of the basic phenomena of the universe, has predicted new
phenomena, and has not been contradicted by any evidence. Yet the Big Bang
remains by far the domain cosmological model. It is appropriate to ask why this
is so.
Even the most blunt contradictions of theory and observation are viewed by Big
Bang advocates as, at most, the indications of "new physics," never a
refutation of the theory. For example, Peebles, in considering the void
phenomenon, admits that there is an "apparent inconsistency between theory
and observation," but does not conclude that theory is in any way
imperiled [48], rather only that an "adjustment of the model" may be
necessary. Similarly, Cyburt et al. [15] agree that there are "clear
contradictions" between BBN predictions and light element abundances, but
conclude that "systematic uncertainties have been underestimated,"
not that the theory is wrong. Consistently new observations have led to new parameters,
such as dark matter and dark energy, so that the number of adjustable
parameters in cosmological theories has increased exponentially with time,
approximately doubling each decade.
Four hundred years ago, a similar situation existed, at least in Catholic
countries. Sixty years after the formulation of Copernican hypothesis, the
Ptolemaic view of the solar system remained the dominant one among Continental
astronomers. Galileo's elegant comparison of the Copernican and Ptolemaic
systems, his Dialog on Two World Systems, should have ended any scientific
doubt as to the validity of the Copernican approach. Yet many additional
decades would pass before the Copernican system, already accepted at that time
in
There is no mystery as to why this was so in the 16th century. The Ptolemaic
theory was a state-supported scientific theory. The Catholic Church's advocacy
of this theory would not have much mattered if the Catholic states had not given
the Church the power to enforce, with state backing, its ideological edicts.
Galileo, for his pro-Copernican writing, was subject to a civil penalty-house
arrest-and famously forced to recant under threat of far worse penalties.
Today, the situation is similar, although the penalties for dissent are milder:
loss of funding rather than loss of liberty or life. The Big Bang survives not
because of its scientific merits, but overwhelmingly because it has effectively
become a state supported theory. Funds for astronomical research and time on
astronomical satellites are allocated almost exclusively by various
governmental bodies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) in the
It is beyond the scope of this review to discuss how the Big Bang came to be
state-supported theory (see [49] for a more detailed treatment). However, as
long as such bias in the funding process continues, it will be extremely
difficult for cosmology to extricate itself from the dead-end of the Big Bang.
“Proof
of dark matter papers”
Who’s right? Douglas Clowe’s team at University
of Arizona claimed in August 2006 that they found dark matter in the Bullet
Cluster. They even had a picture of it.
The
===
From: Eric Lerner [elerner@igc.org]
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 10:42 PM
To: paulw16@verizon.net; Aaron.Blake@hanscom.af.mil; rscarpa@eso.org;
damonjure@earthlink.net;
Subject: no proof of dark matter
I’m responding to many
inquiries about the “proof of dark matter” papers, astro-ph0608407
and 0608408 by Clowe et al. and Bradac et al. Data in the second paper is
needed to understand fully the first one.
The first paper is very
inappropriately titled and does not at all prove what it claims--the existence
of dakr matter. The term “dark matter” is used in the scientific
literature, and in this paper, as a synonym for non-baryonic matter, matter
which is different from the ordinary matter observed anywhere on earth,
including in particle accelerators. This paper does nothing to prove the
existence of such matter.
What this paper actually provides
evidence for is something very different: that in the case of this particular
pair of colliding clusters of galaxies, the greater part of the mass is
spatially associated with the galaxies and not with the hot intracluster gas.
This evidence is that gravitational-lensing measures of total mass outline the
concentrations of galaxies, which are physically separate from the main hot gas
concentrations.
How do Clowe et al get from what
was actually indicated to what they claimed? Only though a big assumption,
which is in no way supported by their data.
The major assumption is that all
of the baryonic, ordinary, matter is in the form of hot plasma or bright stars
in galaxies. The paper shows that the total amount of gravitating matter,
as measured by gravitational lensing, does not correlate with the amount of hot
plasma, as measured by x-rays. Therefore, the authors argue, the
gravitating matter is instead associated with the galaxies. Since the
gravitating mass is much greater than the mass in easily-visible stars, and by
assumption, there is no other baryonic matter, the mass must be
non-baryonic or dark matter.
The flaw in this argument is this
assumption that all the ordinary matter in galaxies is in easily-visible,
bright, stars. Instead, most of the mass of galaxies may well be in the form of
dwarf stars, which produce very little light per unit mass—in other words
have a very high mass-to-light ratio. Several studies of galaxies using very
long exposures have shown that they have ”red halos”, halos of
stars that are mostly red dwarfs. Other studies have indicated that the
halos may be filled with white dwarfs, the dead remains of burnt-out stars. In
addition, there is evidence that a huge amount of mass may be tied up in
relatively cool clouds of plasma that do not radiate much x-ray radiation, and
would be in closer proximity to the galaxies than the hot plasma.
The Clowe paper in no way
contradict these possibilities, so in no way prove the existence of dark, or
non-baryonic matter. Instead, they assume that any mass associated with
the galaxies that is not in bright stars is non-baryonic, dark matter. They
assume what they seek to prove.
Clowe et al also argues that
their results refute the idea that there could be a modified gravitational law
such as MOND. Yet if the measurements of gravitating mass are accurate, the
clusters are all in the non-MOND regime, where the gravitational acceleration
is more than 10^-8 cm/sec^2, so the clusters don’t provide a test of
MOND.
<>
In short, this paper really adds
almost nothing to the debate about dark matter. It was already well known that
hot plasma and bright stars in galaxies do not contain most of the mass in most
clusters.
<>
Eric Lerner
[1] http://www-ctp.mit.edu/~guth/iccs/iccs-guth.pdf
[2] Guth, Alan H. The Inflationary Universe.
Ω = 2q0 = (2/3Λ)(c2/H2)
where
Ω = density
q0 = Deceleration Parameter
Λ = Cosmological Constant
c = speed of light
H = Hubble Constant
Solving the equation for omega requires knowing four numbers, three of
which are currently not known with certainty. The only number that is known is
the velocity of light. No one yet knows the value for the deceleration
parameter or the cosmological constant and there are still disagreements over
the Hubble constant. The deceleration parameter measures the rate at which the
expansion is slowing down due to the gravitational attraction among all the
clusters of galaxies. The Hubble constant denotes the rate at which the
universe is expanding. The density of the universe affects the future of the
universe. If omega turns out to be more than one (i.e. there is more
than one hydrogen atom per cubic meter) then the universe will eventually stop
expanding and contract forming a "closed" universe, i.e. a universe
with finite volume and mass. If omega is less than one (i.e. there is
less than one hydrogen atom per cubic meter) the universe will expand forever
and will eventually thin out forming an "open" universe. According to
Einstein's theory, an "open" universe has an infinite volume and an
infinite number of hydrogen atoms. However, if omega equals one, the universe
is at the "critical density." When the universe is at the critical
density, it means that the universe will expand at precisely the right rate to
avoid recollapse thus forming a “flat” universe.
[3] Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004. There are now 229 signatures.
[4] See the New Scientist Letter for the
8GY.
[5] Lerner, E.J. Two World Systems Revisited: A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 31(6), p.1268-1275, 2003. The quote is from pages 1271-2, but the emphasis is added.