What would it take to falsify the "big bang" model of cosmology?

[Robotron]

I believe that the big bang model has been falsified repeatedly by evidence brought forth by Halton Arp (Harvard, Caltech) and the former Chief of the USNO's Celestial Mechanics Branch, Tom Van Flandern (Yale). Eric Lerner also provides abundant evidence that the big bang has been on shaky ground since its wholesale acceptance by "mainstream" astronomers, arguing mainly that it has far too many adjustable parameters (several dozen, at last count) to be considered useful in terms of predictions.

Van Flandern, for example, suggested many dozen tests of the model, virtually all of which the big bang fails without the usual ad hoc rescue measures. He outlined the top 30 problems with the model here: https://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

From an objective stance, there is no doubt whatsoever that the big bang model has been in trouble for decades. Practically every week there is a new finding that contradicts one or more aspects of it. And yet, big bang proponents cannot be deterred in their quest to confirm it, even in the face of so much contradictory evidence. Someone on a different thread mentioned the "cult" of the big bang theorists. Judging by the mental gymnastics performed by BB proponents on this board, it's hard to argue that the term cult does not apply.

However, I am not interested in arguing with BB proponents; it's clear that they are always willing to add new parameters, or even invent new forms of matter, in order to save the model. Instead, I have a single question that I hope will be answered with total honesty:

What, in your mind, would serve to falsify the big bang model? In other words, name a specific observation, or set of observations, that should cause cosmologists to discard the big bang theory in favor of an alternative.

 

[rod]

Falsify is a big issue in science and the scientific method. The BB has three major pillars used to support it as I understand. H/He abundance, redshifts of galaxies and quasars for example, and the CMBR, the cornerstone or foundation. If there is an alternative, that model should explain all three pillars as well or better than current BB model and fix cracks that are currently reported. My thinking, I would knock over the answer for the origin of the CMBR and show the current model is wrong and the BB falls apart. Arp reported redshifts of quasars and galaxies that could be physically connected, thus showing potential cracks in the cosmological redshift interpretation used in the BB model but others reject this. The big one here is the CMBR. Falsify the current answer for the origin of the CMBR and bang, goes the BB

 

[Robotron]

Yes, I (and many others) would argue that all three of these pillars have been thoroughly demolished.

Van Flandern said this about the hypothesized microwave background:

The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball. [https://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm]

The worse problem is that, when the BB did make explicit predictions, there were often wildly wrong.

But my question, still, is what specifically could prove the BB or any of its pillars wrong, according to the model's supporters. You mention that falsifying "the current answer for the...CMBR" would do it. But what does that mean, exactly? What observation(s) would satisfy that criterion?

This is the problem with many or most of the accepted models of cosmology. The proponents need to set themselves up to fail, so to speak. If you don't put your model at risk by specifically outlining the potential future observations that will invalidate your model, you are merely professing a faith rather than a true hypothesis.

An unwillingness to put a model at risk leads to a never-ending series of patches, the invention, out of whole cloth, of undetectable and un-predicted things like "dark matter" and "dark energy," and deep, contradictory rabbit holes that end up making a mockery out of the scientific method, as well as the proponents who can no longer de-commit from the model because there is no possible way to dismiss it via observation.

Again I ask, what observation would cause you, BB adherents, to consider the BB falsified? What could arise that would cause you to abandon parts or all of it in favor of an alternative? Or is that the problem...that there is no alternative? If the latter is the case, then we are in serious trouble, because science dictates that we discard all false hypotheses, even IF we don't have a replacement. Who would stick to falsehoods merely to avoid having to admit that we don't know the answer?

 

[Helio]

I would expect any alternative theory that better fit the observations would become accepted. Here are some things the alternative theory would need to address:

The Expansion of the Universe.
....> Hubble Constant (redshift)
....> Einstein's field equations (1916) predicted an expanding (or contracting) universe
....> Time Dilation of Supernova
....> Gamma Ray Bursts
....> The CMBR - Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
...…......> The wavelength (microwave)
......…...> The Temperature (2.73K).
......…...> The Blackbody Results.
......…...> The "smoothness" (isotropy) [Inflation required]
...……...> The very small "roughness" (anisotropy) in this radiation.
......…...> The angular size of the "hot" spots matching predictions.
......…...> The power spectrum
....> Distant Cloud temperatures
....> The Element Abundances from Nucleosynthesis.
....> Helium (25%)
....> Deuterium, its relative abundance.
....> The observed Differences in Galaxies between today's and earlier ones.
......…..> Paucity of distant Barred Spirals.
......…..> Less organized distant Spirals.
......…..> No local Quasars.
....> The Age of the Universe in relation to Stellar Compositions.
....> Olber's Paradox resolved.
....> Entropy - "The universe is dying" (Helmholtz & 2nd Law).
....> Galactic Superstructure of Super Clusters and Galactic Strands
....> No Ancient Objects older than 15 billion years.
....> The anisotropy found in background neutrino maping, probably.
....> The Lyman Forest morphology

 

[rod]

Helio, nice list. I still have some doubts about the CMBR and *Blackbody Results*. I am not totally confident that different measurements clearly document this about the CMBR but see frequent claims used though. See this NASA site, https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/arcade/cmb_spectrum.html,

"A more compact way to plot these data is to show the thermodynamic temperature corresponding to the measured intensity of each data point. The second plot shows the result. Although the data still cluster around a temperature of 2.725 K, in agreement with the intensity data above, it is apparent that the experimental uncertainies become large at long wavelengths. Deviations from a perfect blackbody curve as large as several percent could exist at wavelengths longer than 1 cm and would have escaped detection. ARCADE is designed to measure the CMB spectrum at centimeter wavelengths a decade below FIRAS..."

Keep in mind the original calculation by George Gamow and Ralpha Alpher in the late 1940s predicted a 51K background temperature that would be seen today, many reworked equations followed since then to support CMBR observations. The redshift for the CMBR must be z~1,000 to 1100 or so. I am not aware that the redshift used to explain the CMBR is supported by direct spectroscopic measurements like what is reported for different quasars and galaxies.

 

[Robotron]

I would expect any alternative theory that better fit the observations would become accepted. Here are some things the alternative theory would need to address:

That's fine. So a few questions remain:

1) How many of the items you've noted were expressly *predicted* by the BB model--as opposed to being folded into the BB model *after* they were observed?

2) If observations were incorporated into the BB model *after* they were made, were there alternate models that would also have incorporated them with fewer "tweaks" (or no tweaks at all)?

3) What observation could be made that would invalidate the BB? Ancient objects older than 15 billion years? Local quasars? "Too evolved" distant objects? Evidence that redshift does not always indicate distance?

Or would every new observation outside the already largely arbitrary boundaries simply be folded into the expanding universe model under the assumption that "some variable is missing"? In other words, what could *possibly* be observed that would cause cosmologists to seriously question the BB's fundamental premise?

My point is that I don't think there's anything that could possibly be discovered or observed that would not be massaged into the model. That's very thin ice vis-a-vis the scientific method.

Personally, I think a static universe model is consistent with the observations, and it doesn't require the miraculous "breath of god" beginning to the universe. Yes, the BB is careful to avoid talking about that everything-out-of-nothing moment because of the mystical implications, but you can't get around the fact that BB proponents really do require a miracle that violates fundamental laws of thermodynamics before they even get around to discussing the scant details of the BB model.

 

[rod]

*expressly predicted* is a key concept Robotron and Helio. When it comes to BBN, the neutron lifetime is an adjustable parameter that can alter the abundance of He4 and some of the claimed BBN abundances. https://phys.org/news/2020-06-scientists-space-based-neutron-lifetime.html, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990ApJ...358...47K/abstract, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995PhLB..347..347K/abstract

Adjusting parameters to match H/He/Li abundances is not a genuine prediction of BBN.

 

[Helio]

Helio, nice list. I still have some doubts about the CMBR and *Blackbody Results*. I am not totally confident that different measurements clearly document this about the CMBR but see frequent claims used though. See this NASA site, https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/arcade/cmb_spectrum.html,

Hawking said that it was the discovery of the CMBR that put the "final nail in the coffin" of the competing model, which I assume was the Steady State model (Gold, Bondi, Hoyle). [Two of those never conceded to BBT, not surprisingly. ]

"A more compact way to plot these data is to show the thermodynamic temperature corresponding to the measured intensity of each data point. The second plot shows the result. Although the data still cluster around a temperature of 2.725 K, in agreement with the intensity data above, it is apparent that the experimental uncertainies become large at long wavelengths. Deviations from a perfect blackbody curve as large as several percent could exist at wavelengths longer than 1 cm and would have escaped detection. ARCADE is designed to measure the CMB spectrum at centimeter wavelengths a decade below FIRAS..."

The CMBR is radiation from more than far away so all the variations in its spectrum will alter its original emission due to gas, dust, gravity wells, and other phenomena, but not to the extent that they can't tickle-out a very close resolution to its original form. I would expect once tweaking is done, there will be more tweaking needed to make it better, then will come more tweaking. The efforts to do sseen justified given the vastness of this overarching theory.

Keep in mind the original calculation by George Gamow and Ralpha Alpher in the late 1940s predicted a 51K background temperature that would be seen today, many reworked equations followed since then to support CMBR observations.

This should surprise no one given how little we had in observations. Redshift data was very limited. It took supernova data to greatly improve the model, and when the theory was introduced astronomers were debating whether or not we were the only galaxy in the universe. [Hubble always called them nebulae; he didn't like the word galaxy, IIRC.]

..red dshift for the CMBR must be z~1,000 to 1100 or so. I am not aware that the redshift used to explain the CMBR is supported by direct spectroscopic measurements like what is reported for different quasars and galaxies.

It is close to z = 1089, IIRC. Once physicists spent serious time trying to calculate early densities, temperatures, atomic phases, etc. they reallized that when, under all those circumstances, the expansion cooled the nearly perfectly isotropic young universe down to about 3000 K, the something amazing would happen -- electrons would suddenly, almost simultaneously become attached to hydrogen to form the first atoms. This allowed the flood of light that had been stuck inside, so to speak, to break free and travel onward, eventually reaching us. Only the more distant photons can we now observe since it has taken this long for them to reach us... 13.8 B yrs. The universe was about 380,000 yrs of age when reaching that temperature. No doubt, with better observations and computers, both the temp. and age will get tweaked. A year ago the age was 13.7 B yrs. and today it is tweaked to 13.8 B yrs, though the 13.8 number was in the margin of error of the early estimate.

 

[rod]

Helio, what you just presented about the CMBR and *tweaking* is exactly what Robotron addresses about the BB cosmology. Note what Robotron said "1) How many of the items you've noted were expressly *predicted* by the BB model--as opposed to being folded into the BB model *after* they were observed?"

The tweaking of the CMBR is no different than tweaking in BBN that proceeds the origin of the CMBR and 3000K temperature to explain H/He/Li abundances. It is clear that free parameters are used in the BB model, including the CMBR that are not *expressly predicted*. As I far as I know, there is no independent spectroscopic study that verifies the CMBR redshift or z = 1089 like quasar or galaxy redshift values reported. That is a tweaked calculation then, not a direct observation or validated independently by direct spectroscopic measurements. My concern is the tweaking involved in the BB cosmology. For some, tweaking and adjustments are acceptable science modeling, however for me, it looks like tampering with the scientific method to get the results you need to support the paradigm rather than acknowledge the paradigm is flawed as currently accepted.

 

[Helio]

That's fine. So a few questions remain:

1) How many of the items you've noted were expressly *predicted* by the BB model--as opposed to being folded into the BB model *after* they were observed?

The story of how the model came to us is very interesting, IMO. It's not often one theory gets introduced (ie GR) and new ones come about from it prior to observations. Isaac Asimov noted that "the most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but 'That's funny...’

In the days of Einstein, the Static Model was all but cast in stone for all of science.; the universe was infinite, or beyond our ability to tell otherwise. I'm not aware of a competing model at that time.

So, when he began applying his GR theory to the cosmos he had no way to address the recently observed redshifts by the astronomer (a farmer boy) with one of the coolest names ever -- Vesto Slipher. The long, hard nights he had to endure to get enough photons to get a useful spectrum had to be very difficult and I read he had to lean into the telescope to help hold alignment. And all this from Flagstaff which was built primarily to look for Martians. [This may not even qualify as hyperbole.]

2) If observations were incorporated into the BB model *after* they were made, were there alternate models that would also have incorporated them with fewer "tweaks" (or no tweaks at all)?

Yes, and in once case no tweak was necessary, but....

So, it helps to recognize how impactful Einstein's General Relativity (GR) was in the world. When Eddington conducted one of the first tests of the theory regarding the calculated amount of bending of starlight passing near the Sun (during a solar eclipse) -- Newton's theory also predicted bending but not as much - and determined that Einstein nailed it, then Einstein quickly became famous throughout the world, along with this theory, of course. This prompted many brilliant scientists, including astrophysicists, to apply GR to the cosmos. Besides Einstein in GR clout was deSitter. They both had different models and both from GR, which isn't surprising.

Einstein's model was great but it "predicted" no redshifts since he was stuck on the Static model.

DeSitter's model held the Static model as well but did include redshift. But, he wasn't able to include any mass in the universe to make his equations work, apparently.

A little known Belgium priest (out of MIT), Georges Lemaitre, had left Europe due to WWII and was able to meet folks like Slipher and others who gave him great appreciation for the recent redshift results of Slipher. Once again, it was his knowledge of GR that was applied to the cosmos but he dropped the Static model since expansion was the best logical explanation for it. He published in French in an obscure Belgium physics publication and it was completely ignored. But Lemaitre had studied under Eddington and that relationship was used to wake-up Eddington, and the world, to his theory - The Primeval Atom.

Eddington was quick to recognize its importance and he soon got Einstein and others to recognize it, including deSitter who really liked it. It became somewhat famous and even the Pope tried to use it to help address Genesis, though Lemaitre sent a letter to him pointing out the problems with that idea.

3) What observation could be made that would invalidate the BB? Ancient objects older than 15 billion years? Local quasars? "Too evolved" distant objects? Evidence that redshift does not always indicate distance?

A theory this big can have many sorts of things falsify it. Only one falsification is needed to kill or injure a theory. There were two "injuries" two it that required tweaking. The Inflation Theory was incorporated to address the almost perfect isotropy found in the CMBR. This is still a bit controversial. It holds that the universe expanded well past the speed of light -- this part isn't a problem since space is expanding -- to a size about that of a grapefruit. This kept quantum fluctuations from producing greater anisotropy, for instance.

The list I gave all help affirm BBT. It's possible that something will be observed that kills BBT. Tired Light was supposed to, but it was respected for a while, but more studies diminished its likelihood.

Or would every new observation outside the already largely arbitrary boundaries simply be folded into the expanding universe model under the assumption that "some variable is missing"? In other words, what could *possibly* be observed that would cause cosmologists to seriously question the BB's fundamental premise?

I don't know but you can bet they are looking. Imagine if your that scientists that debunks one of the greatest theories of all time. Science is all about falsifying ideas to bring us new and better ideas. The Aristotle model got debunked by Galileo and the heliocentric model (first from the Greeks) has removed most if not all the capriciousness of those planets and points of lights going around us every day.

My point is that I don't think there's anything that could possibly be discovered or observed that would not be massaged into the model. That's very thin ice vis-a-vis the scientific method.

The more they look and find kinks in the armor the better the armor will become or new armor will be found. I respect all who do so, though I lack the skills to assist them since GR itself, as the foundation for any serious model, is very difficult and not something I'm interested in attempting to learn.

Personally, I think a static universe model is consistent with the observations, and it doesn't require the miraculous "breath of god" beginning to the universe.

You may not be alone, but it will be difficult to tackle many of those items listed. Redshifts were just the first challenge, but with the discovery of the CMBR, you will likely find many cosmologists who could help you revert to those good old days before Slipher and Einstein.

Yes, the BB is careful to avoid talking about that everything-out-of-nothing moment because of the mystical implications,

Yes, because physics itself falls apart when it tries to cross the first Planck unit of time. It is mystical, though many prefer to call it metaphsyics, though many also love to call them scientific theories since it is their theory they want everyone to respect and, often, buy there book. I am one who doesn't mind taking heat for calling them out, even if I am just an amateur since I see the need to keep science itself safe and secure by keeping within its self-assigned lines in the sand.

...but you can't get around the fact that BB proponents really do require a miracle that violates fundamental laws of thermodynamics before they even get around to discussing the scant details of the BB model.

This is indeed the realm of philosophy (metaphysics at best) and religion, which are subjective-based reasoning. I think many scientists stated that the validity of the BBT put a real dent in atheism.

As of for the laws of thermodynamics, physicists have stated that they don't apply so well to an entire cosmos, yet they aren't ignored either. The theory we have gone through many Big Bangs, after each collapse, has the 2nd law arguing against it and this seems to be a reasonable argument. It's over my head, admittedly.

 

[Helio]

Helio, what you just presented about the CMBR and *tweaking* is exactly what Robotron addresses about the BB cosmology. Note what Robotron said "1) How many of the items you've noted were expressly *predicted* by the BB model--as opposed to being folded into the BB model *after* they were observed?"

Sorry I was a little slow in my response to him, but you see that I did want to address some of those great points and questions.

The tweaking of the CMBR is no different than tweaking in BBN that proceeds the origin of the CMBR and 3000K temperature to explain H/He/Li abundances. It is clear that free parameters are used in the BB model, including the CMBR that are not *expressly predicted*. As I far as I know, there is no independent spectroscopic study that verifies the CMBR redshift or z = 1089 like quasar or galaxy redshift values reported.

I'm not sure I understand what you are stating here. The physics of the BBT gives us a temperature of about 3000K and it must necessarily have almost a perfect Planck Distribution (ie blackbody). All those wavelengths when stretched by the z value (1089) will put it in that 2.73K Planck distributor. Princeton was building a microwave receiver to try and find it at the same time Bell folks finally, after testing their pigeon poop hypothesis for all the noise, were directed to call Princeton about it. The scientists at Princeton -- I think it was Dickey (?) -- knew immediately they had been scooped.

That is a tweaked calculation then, not a direct observation or validated independently by direct spectroscopic measurements.

Well, the microwave telescopes give us direct observation of the CMBR, first from balloons scopes, then later by space scopes (e.g COBE) then improved by susbsequent others. Each improved observation affirmed the theory.

My concern is the tweaking involved in the BB cosmology. For some, tweaking and adjustments are acceptable science modeling, however for me, it looks like tampering with the scientific method to get the results you need to support the paradigm rather than acknowledge the paradigm is flawed as currently accepted.

Your scrutiny is just what science is all about, IMO. This is clearly the case when the Earth-centered universe model was falsified by Galileo, but the goofy Tychonic model replaced it since it was the only compromise to an overly literal biblical interpretation or two. The problem was it wasn't really good for either party - science or religion. It too was "ad hoc" and full of odd tweaks. Even today, surprisngly, I don't think anyone has found a way to debunk a modified version of the Tychonic model since GR allows any one place to be called a center of the universe. [GR does not allow any one place to be called "the" center for the same reason.]

But the question then becomes whether or not there are hard tests that can justify specific scrutiny. Part of the reluctance, assuming some have it, comes from the lack of any real altermative to nicely fit those in the list above that I gave -- I call them Big Bang Bullets.

 

[rod]

FYI, Helio you said about the CMBR, "A theory this big can have many sorts of things falsify it. Only one falsification is needed to kill or injure a theory. There were two "injuries" two it that required tweaking. The Inflation Theory was incorporated to address the almost perfect isotropy found in the CMBR. This is still a bit controversial. It holds that the universe expanded well past the speed of light -- this part isn't a problem since space is expanding -- to a size about that of a grapefruit. This kept quantum fluctuations from producing greater anisotropy, for instance."

The smoothness of the CMBR is known as the Horizon problem. In BB cosmology, there is a light-travel-time problem. BBN creates a cosmic fireball that the universe evolves from but as 3D space expands, Special Relativity places a speed limit constraint on the temperature smoothness for that evolution. The CMBR does not evolve uniformly but with wide temperature differences, not near 2.7K or 3K degrees smoothness today. We should see a very lumpy CMBR and this is not observed. Alan Guth addressed this in the early 1980s. A more recent statement was published in May this year by Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/custom-media/biggest-questions-in-science/the-founder-of-cosmic-inflation-theory-on-cosmologys-next-big-ideas/, "Physicist Alan Guth, the father of cosmic inflation theory, describes emerging ideas about where our universe comes from, what else is out there, and what caused it to exist in the first place."

My note, the brief report has some interesting graphs. This *origin model* uses repulsive gravity force *in the beginning* and space expanding > 1E+20 c. My observation - without tweaking in BB cosmology like this, the CMBR observed is not what is predicted by BBN and 3D space expanding using Special Relativity. We should see a very lumpy temperature for the CMBR, not smooth. The inflation model was developed as a tweak to fix this problem in the CMBR measurements obtained. Others pursued the Variable Speed of Light or VSL theory approach.

The thread question here is "What would it take to falsify the "big bang" model of cosmology?"

My answer, given the tweaking in BB cosmology, e.g. inflation using repulsive gravity and 3D space expanding > 1E+20 c, falsifying the BB model does not appear possible, my opinion.

 

[rod]

Oops, try this link for the SciAm report, https://www.scientificamerican.com/...nflation-theory-on-cosmologys-next-big-ideas/

 

[Robotron]

Thanks for the well thought out replies, guys. It appears to me, as an "outsider" (my degrees are not in physics or hard sciences) who's spent a lot of time weeding through these arguments, that there is waaaaaay too much justifying and complicating of what should be relatively simple concepts to falsify. No, really! I looked carefully at your prose and I still find no hint of anything that would suggest the BB model can be falsified under any circumstance. Isn't this concerning to scientists? It should be.

If your model rests upon the idea that redshift-indicates-velocity, it only takes one Arp galaxy to implode the whole model. He's got an entire book full of them. Stephan's Quintet, for example, is a clear instance of the often ridiculous mental gymnastics (see https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/07/20/another-fogged-image-of-stephans-quintet/) scientists need to perform in order to save the BB. It would save us all a lot of trouble if we just admitted what Harp proved decades ago: there is such a thing as *intrinsic* redshift.

However, I understand that that admission blows apart giant swaths of "settled science." So it cannot be allowed.

Consider a recent report about a fast radio burst (FRB 121102) that produced a burst that allegedly released as much energy in one millisecond as Earth’s sun releases in nearly a hundred years. Outrageous phenomena like this are routinely reported in the literature and, while always accompanied by the standard "astronomers didn't expect" this platitude, they never seem to trigger any serious reconsideration of the underlying model that utterly failed to predict them.

To me, the obvious answer to objects that are "too old" or "too powerful" is that their age and/or distance calculations are in error, not that they mysteriously produced unexpected, mind boggling energy bursts equivalent to 500 million times our sun's power. Come on. Imagine living on a lake and viewing a small light source on the distant shore. If you know you're on a lake, you (correctly) assume the light is probably a normal flashlight, or a campfire, or a candle flame. If you assume you're viewing a light that resides on the surface of Pluto, you're going to assume the light source has fantastic, unbelievable power and you'll scream from the rooftops that you've found an incredible anomaly. You'd also be an idiot.

The redshift-as-distance assumption has backed us into so many corners I fear we'll never get out of them.

However, that's moving off into another area. For now, I'm still interested in understanding what, if anything, could possibly cause BB theorists to dump their model. Or is the fix in?

 

[rod]

Robotron said "For now, I'm still interested in understanding what, if anything, could possibly cause BB theorists to dump their model. Or is the fix in?"

My only comment is consider the amount of money invested now in BB cosmology and studies, e.g. JWST looking for Population III stars, etc. Money should not influence the scientific method though.

 

[Catastrophe]

"What would it take to falsify the "big bang" model of cosmology?"

Done job.

If, like me, one distrusts the 'linear' regression backwards from expansion.

Even so, it is not linear. Linear is not Nature's option.

If one were to consider regression, a gentle curve through t = 0 (whatever that means) is obviously better than a wonked 'straight' line . . . . . .

 

[Helio]

If, like me, one distrusts the 'linear' regression backwards from expansion.

You might like to know that Lemaitre in his 1927 original paper -- which started the whole show --included his graph of a non-linear expansion.

 

[Robotron]

I was really hoping a strong big bang proponent would enter the discussion and provide some guidance in terms of what he or she thinks could cause them to change their minds about the BB. But maybe that just isn't going to happen.

Given that the scientific method is about ruling OUT hypotheses, it's disturbing that more astronomers don't make it a focus of their work to create tests designed to rigorously challenge the BB model. Instead, it seems that cosmologists are only concerned about force-fitting every new observation into the BB framework.

Funding is granted on projects with a declared purpose of finding some verification of the model (e.g., the search for "missing" matter, gravitational waves or whatever), but doesn't it make more sense to fund quests to eliminate weak portions of accepted theories, or to get rid of models that don't predict accurately?

If I'm to make a list of things that invalidate the big bang, I'm surely going to include Halton Arp's work. Arp showed definitively (in my opinion) that low redshift galaxies are sometimes physically connected with high redshift galaxies. If this is true, then redshift cannot always indicate velocity (and hence distance), and the entire premise of the BB is thrown into serious doubt. But there are many more problems that seem insurmountable. See, for example: https://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

 

[Helio]

The serious attempts to counter the BBT are mainly from the past and before the CMBR came along. All those "lines of evidence" produce a strong confluence that favors the model.

Nevertheless, the extensive number of theories being introduced for DM and DE will be significant in their own right, and will likely be the best new tests of the BBT, which requires both. So I suspect they are putting their efforts there and it will be what they discover with these that will either strengthen or injure the model.

 

[Truthseeker007]

I believe that the big bang model has been falsified repeatedly by evidence brought forth by Halton Arp (Harvard, Caltech) and the former Chief of the USNO's Celestial Mechanics Branch, Tom Van Flandern (Yale). Eric Lerner also provides abundant evidence that the big bang has been on shaky ground since its wholesale acceptance by "mainstream" astronomers, arguing mainly that it has far too many adjustable parameters (several dozen, at last count) to be considered useful in terms of predictions.

Van Flandern, for example, suggested many dozen tests of the model, virtually all of which the big bang fails without the usual ad hoc rescue measures. He outlined the top 30 problems with the model here: https://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

From an objective stance, there is no doubt whatsoever that the big bang model has been in trouble for decades. Practically every week there is a new finding that contradicts one or more aspects of it. And yet, big bang proponents cannot be deterred in their quest to confirm it, even in the face of so much contradictory evidence. Someone on a different thread mentioned the "cult" of the big bang theorists. Judging by the mental gymnastics performed by BB proponents on this board, it's hard to argue that the term cult does not apply.

However, I am not interested in arguing with BB proponents; it's clear that they are always willing to add new parameters, or even invent new forms of matter, in order to save the model. Instead, I have a single question that I hope will be answered with total honesty:

What, in your mind, would serve to falsify the big bang model? In other words, name a specific observation, or set of observations, that should cause cosmologists to discard the big bang theory in favor of an alternative.

They don't want to ever say they were wrong and it would make their whole system of "BIG BANG" science fall apart. So I wouldn't count on it happening suddenly but overtime as the new generations take over with clear heads, hearts and minds. You know as they say hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

Even though science is supposed to be trial and error and seeing what works and what does not. But that is not how it really works as they say it is supposed to. As always all you have to do is Follow The Money.

 

[Robotron]

Even though science is supposed to be trial and error and seeing what works and what does not. But that is not how it really works as they say it is supposed to. As always all you have to do is Follow The Money.

I mean, yes, but I don't think most scientists are operating on the idea that if they just support this unsupportable model, they will make a ton of money. Most of them actually, truly believe the BB is the best model. Yet where in the literature (or on this forum, or anywhere) can you find a BB supporter designing tests to challenge his model, as opposed to setting up tests to confirm it?

This is backwards. It's not the scientific method I learned.

Again, I ask: what possible observation could be made that would fundamentally undermine the BB model and cause its adherents to seriously question its validity?

 

[IG2007]

Well, if we want to prove the model wrong. We have to come up with a more better model and I guess, there is no better model than the BB one which can clearly pass the following challenges:

The Expansion of the Universe.
....> Hubble Constant (redshift)
....> Einstein's field equations (1916) predicted an expanding (or contracting) universe
....> Time Dilation of Supernova
....> Gamma Ray Bursts
....> The CMBR - Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.
...…......> The wavelength (microwave)
......…...> The Temperature (2.73K).
......…...> The Blackbody Results.
......…...> The "smoothness" (isotropy) [Inflation required]
...……...> The very small "roughness" (anisotropy) in this radiation.
......…...> The angular size of the "hot" spots matching predictions.
......…...> The power spectrum
....> Distant Cloud temperatures
....> The Element Abundances from Nucleosynthesis.
....> Helium (25%)
....> Deuterium, its relative abundance.
....> The observed Differences in Galaxies between today's and earlier ones.
......…..> Paucity of distant Barred Spirals.
......…..> Less organized distant Spirals.
......…..> No local Quasars.
....> The Age of the Universe in relation to Stellar Compositions.
....> Olber's Paradox resolved.
....> Entropy - "The universe is dying" (Helmholtz & 2nd Law).
....> Galactic Superstructure of Super Clusters and Galactic Strands
....> No Ancient Objects older than 15 billion years.
....> The anisotropy found in background neutrino maping, probably.
....> The Lyman Forest morphology

If you or any other physicist has a hypothesis for a model that follows each and every of the above stated criteria, then only we can think about falsifying the BB model otherwise it would just be chucked into the dustbin of imagination.

 

[wingedhippo]

Falsify is a big issue in science and the scientific method. The BB has three major pillars used to support it as I understand. H/He abundance, redshifts of galaxies and quasars for example, and the CMBR, the cornerstone or foundation. If there is an alternative, that model should explain all three pillars as well or better than current BB model and fix cracks that are currently reported. My thinking, I would knock over the answer for the origin of the CMBR and show the current model is wrong and the BB falls apart. Arp reported redshifts of quasars and galaxies that could be physically connected, thus showing potential cracks in the cosmological redshift interpretation used in the BB model but others reject this. The big one here is the CMBR. Falsify the current answer for the origin of the CMBR and bang, goes the BB

The first thing one should bear in mind is:
NOTHING cannot create SOMETHING and SOMETHING cannot turn into NOTHING.
Inference:
The universe/nature = Something & Nothing - it has no time point of its origin (time is a concept and synonym among others of motion/change).
According to me the universe is finite, does not expand and is of the unchanged magnitude.
As to the CMBR, please jump to

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8FsfFs_nvM
and watch Stephen Crothers' investigation.
However, what happened about 14 billion years ago (if correctly calculated) was, in my opinion, the accidental transformation of part of the ether into the mass of matter that balanced it. Ether should be understood as a prematter, i.e. the primordial basic building block of all forms of matter (in terms of a structure identical to what we commonly call the magnetic field).

--
My quality is lack of faults and my fault is nothing but qualities
In addition, I trace - unfortunately - scientific absurdities

 

[Robotron]

Well, if we want to prove the model wrong. We have to come up with a more better model and I guess, there is no better model than the BB one which can clearly pass the following challenges:

No. You prove a model wrong by conducting tests designed to falsify your model (i.e. rejecting the null hypothesis). You don't observe things and then force fit them into the model you *think* is the best one because you can't think of alternatives.

Arp showed definitively that redshift does not always indicate recessional velocity. Therefore, the very first "proof" of BB is thrown into doubt. Likewise, there was no version of the BB that predicted the energies of fast radio bursts, gamma ray bursts, "pulsars" or any of the other impossibly energetic phenomena we've observed recently. According to Lerner in "The Big Bang Never Happened", even the fundamental element distribution predicted by the BB was embarrassingly off target unless multiple adjustable parameters are included in the model.

Astronomers are constantly discovering objects and characteristics that were never predicted by the BB and the alleged age of the universe has consistently been pushed back over the decades. The consensus age is 13.8 billion years (supposedly within a very small tolerance), so how is the bullet point above ("No object older than 15 billion years") even a valid criterion? Any object older than 13.8 billion years would immediately invalidate the BB...or at least you would think. But I suspect it wouldn't. Scientists would merely add another adjustable parameter to include that anomaly--like they always do with regard to the BB.

Once again, I'll include Van Flandern's list. Any accurate model of cosmology must reconcile these points to be viable: https://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm

Because nobody's been able to answer the question I posed in the initial post, I'll answer it myself. Observation of physically connected objects with widely varying redshift values will immediately call into question the BB, given that the BB relies on redshift being a reliable indicator of recessional velocity (and hence distance). In my opinion, Halton Arp's work falsifies the BB.

However, even if we discount Arp completely, Van Flandern's list includes other seemingly insurmountable problems for the BB. If I recall, TVF has a much longer list, but he limited it to the top 30 because, well, isn't 30 enough to cause some consternation amid BB proponents? (The answer: no, apparently not. But it should!)

 

[IG2007]

Yeah, but we need a better model. And that problem is still not solved. Have one in mind?