Crisis in the Big Bang Theory

[smartie]

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community<br />cosmologystatement.org<br /><br />(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)<br /><br />The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.<br /><br />But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. <br /><br />Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.<br /><br />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-centered cosmology

 

[waxy]

There was an article - in american scientist or astronomy <br />magazine, don't recall which - where scientists are proposing<br />that it's not a big bang, but more of a rubberband universe.<br /><br />Let me try an explain it like this - <br />The universe and space expands, but not to infinity.<br />then it contracts, but not completly,<br />then it expands again.<br /><br />if anyone knows where this article is found i'd appericate it.<br /><img &%$#@!="http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/3200/rubberband0cu.gif" /><br />

 

[alkalin]

Smartie,<br /><br />This article made some very agreeable remarks to my own thinking on these issues. The universe is very complicated. If we only choose certain data to look at, then we may only confirm a theory that agrees with our math and philosophy. <br /><br />I do not think this is the way science in the field of cosmology should work. There should be very much more emphasis on simple observation to find out what is there first---then we should perhaps try some kind of math on it in box like fashion. <br /><br />I personally think we are not close to solving any sort of unification of our personal experience in ‘small’ physics, which we do not come close to understand yet, and the larger picture, which is even less understandable.<br /><br />I think this field is rife with mystery, the kind the media and the lay public laps up very frequently, which can contribute a lot to derailing true science. Maybe the upside is that astronomy gets a bunch of funding it would not otherwise. <br /><br />And guess what; there are institutions on all issues on anything you can name more than willing to supply us with all ‘truth’. So what else is new?<br />

 

[savster]

That letter spoke for me, too! The BBT crowd IS becoming rigid and dogmatic and it's not because all the observations support BBT. It's about a belief system that is facing growing opposition in the light of many observations that just simply do not support it. And the questions being raised about the contradictions are not all that complicated in concept. The questions are pretty basic stuff to anyone who follows the subject.<br />

 

[harmonicaman]

I still have a lot of "Faith" in the basic BB Model. Of course, many of the ancillary theories (Inflation, Dark Energy, et. al.) are merely SWAG, IMHO!<br /><br />I still think the BB Model is a good concept -- haven't seen anything better yet; it's just that nobody knows how to explain it... <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[thermionic]

<br />I don't know enough to have an opinion one way or the other, but I thought I'd comment...<br /><br />The letter cites dark matter as being a necessary fudge factor to support BigBang theory. But isn't it also needed to explain the structure of galaxies like ours? So there is suggestion of its presence from an entirely different set of observations than early-universe measurements. Cheers!<br />

 

[bonzelite]

dark matter is like MSG. it makes BB more palatable.

 

[alokmohan]

MSG?

 

[bonzelite]

you know. MSG: some chinese restaurants use it in food to keep it from tasting bland. this is what dark matter is --you sprinkle it over there, over here, and you have a neat-tasting little inflation party going on. <br /><br />all the cosmologists can sleep at night with some warm milk, cookies, and dark matter. <br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

Dark matter is needed to explain the rotational velocity of galaxies, not for the big bang!<br /><br />The big bang can accomodate dark matter but as far as I know it is not nessicary for the therory to be valid.

 

[bonzelite]

for the latest and greatest version of the big bang, with inflation, dark matter is the boy wonder. there is not enough observed matter to hold the cosmos together under this big bang modus operandi. so here comes the dark matter.

 

[yevaud]

Yeah, but that analogy is suspect. Here's what I mean:<br /><br />You draw up plans for a large refrigeration unit - everything from the dimensions, insulation, ability to cool, temperature range, energy requirements, etc.<br /><br />You then construct the unit. And it doesn't cool as well as you'd anticipated. Do you...<br /><br />1. Throw out all of your plans and start from scratch?<br /><br />or<br /><br />2. Find out where you made your error, fix the problem, and continue on?<br /><br />People would have you believe that due to error-creep and unknowns in BB theory, therefore the entire theory should be chucked out and begin again. Why? As the theory goes along, it's refined. That's how it works.<br /><br />Btw, Dark matter has nothing to do with Big Bang theory - it has to do with the behavior of galaxies, who act as if there's far more matter acting on them (which we can determine by their rotation) than we can actually "see."<br /><br />Brief History of Vera Rubin <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

I have seen dark matter invoked in some flavors of Big Bang cosmology, mainly in restraining the rate of expansion. But most don't seem to care about it at all.<br /><br />Bottom line, if you want to refute the Big Bang, dark matter is a red herring. It's like trying to refute the whole of evolution by refuting the dinosaur-bird link. The latter exists within the former, but the former is not dependent on it in any way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[smartie]

Some good points raised above. <br /><br /><br />http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/bigbang.htm

 

[yevaud]

All they show us is that a group of 12-ish have "issues."<br /><br />That's like saying that 6 members of Congress have a problem with a bill that over 500 others have investigated, scrutinized, debated, and assured themselves about.<br /><br />Btw:<br /><br />From that website: <b>Science Obstructed by Dogma</b><br /><br />It works both ways. Or, in the words of the late Hubert Humphrey, when he was running for President, and was heckled by Hippies on various issues (paraphrased):<br /><br />"Oh? What's YOUR solution then? Oh, you don't have any, do you? All you do is point the finger and say 'this is messed up,' but you never, ever, get off of your asses and try to solve it yourself. Just snipe from the sidelines." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[smartie]

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html

 

[yevaud]

As the General said at Bastogne, "Nuts."<br /><br />So Plasmas are present. What, did you think this is a mystery to anyone who has ever taken an Astronomy major? It isn't.<br /><br />This is NOT the same as saying "and they are the driving force behind the entire universe."<br /><br />Which appears to be the incredibly non-scientific linkage you seem to be making. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[smartie]

A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory:<br /><br /><br />Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models. <br /><br />The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball. <br /><br />Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work. <br /><br />The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years. <br /><br />The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely. <br /><br />The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe. <br /><br />The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform. <br /><br />Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe. <br /><br />The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars. <br /><br />If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

 

[bonzelite]

dark matter is but one element of unbelievability for the BB. it has far more damaging points against it than just missing mass. despite what you say, dark matter <i>is</i> needed for the hippest latest greatest incarnation of the theory. it has become the new mainstay pop-sci slogan. <br /><br />bb is an entirely contrived fantasy. nothing subsequent to it's premise can be taken as evidence for it's existence. none of it. at least a refrigerator is real and can be tweaked to make work. bb cannot. it looks more silly the more you make excuses for it. it is an elaborate bible story. <br /><br />

 

[yevaud]

<i>Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.</i><br /><br />Sure they do. Which is why we see an expanding universe. How inconvenient for you.<br /><br /><i>The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.</i><br /><br />Completely insufficient.<br /><br /><i>Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.</i><br /><br />You would know this, how, exactly?<br /><br /><i>The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.</i><br /><br />Those problems have been largely explained. REad some Geller and Huchra, Guth, and a few others who actually know what they're talking about, and get back to me.<br /><br /><i>The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.</i><br /><br />"Exceedingly Unlikely." Please prove that.<br /><br /><i>The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.</i><br /><br />And I have never heard that, not by an entire department of Astronomers. The ones, in fact, who taught me.<br /><br /><i>The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.</i><br /><br />You have never heard of the Great Attractors? (by the way, it's on <b>average</b> uniform)<br /><br /><i>Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.</i><br /><br />How do you know it's not Baryons? Hmmm?<br /><br /><i>The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.</i><br /><br />And?<br /><br /><i>If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the be</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[smartie]

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

 

[yevaud]

<b>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!</b><br /><br />Rense???!!! As a scientific reference???!!!<br /><br />ROTFLMAO!!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

You are following right along a format we all know very, very well. Claim a huge set of problems, link to topical websites, information you yourself don't understand, and even such places as *chortle* Rense. And then demand we explain to you why we're right, not you doing so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[smartie]

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community <br />cosmologystatement.org <br /><br />(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004) <br /><br />The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. <br /><br />But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation. <br /><br />Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy. <br /><br />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-centered cosm

 

[yevaud]

Very well, since you seem to demand it, let’s look at the individuals listed there.<br /><br />Take this one: “Hartmut Warm, Independent Researcher, Germany.” Please, everyone, read his website. Harmut Warm<br /><br />Or let’s examine this one, shall we? “Donald E. Scott Independent_Researcher: USA.” Donald E. Scott<br /><br />Or this? “Edgar Paternina independent researcher, Colombia.” Edgar Paternina (This is one of his papers. Please scroll down, look briefly at the weird picture, and then go all the way to the bottom, and look at his “references” for the paper)<br /><br />How about this gem? “Edward Smith independent researcher, USA.” Edward Smith<br /><br />This, perhaps? “Jack Ruijs independent researcher, The Netherlands.” Jack Ruijis<br /><br />This? “Charles Sven, Independent Researcher, USA.” Charles Sven<br /><br />Or this? “Michael Douglas Thomas, USA.” Michael Douglas Thomas (Scroll down at “Brother Jonathan Speaks,” and see what’s there!)<br /><br />This? “Dr. Vidyardhi Nanduri.” Vidyardhi Nanduri (Cosmology and the Vedhas?)<br /><br />This perhaps? “Debra Foch.” Debra Foch<br /><br />Or this maybe? “Tom Van Flandern.” Tom Van Flandern (I was wondering when he would rear his ugly and wrongthinking head again)<br /><br />Now. Several of these people are well known, notably Arp. But if you notice the n <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>