Abstract
This paper attempts to consider all known scientific observations and data published to date, in order to show support for an alternative explanation of the creation of the universe, which shall be termed “the big collapse”. While the idea of everything in the visible universe came from a singularity holds the current majority rule, many people do not interpret the results of Einstein’s gravity and Hubble’s red shift in the same manner.
Why the big bang?
Einstein came up with equations that Friedmann and Lamaitre solved for gravity (XXX), and Hubble discovered red shift (XXX). Gravity and red shift combined gave rise to the notion expansion of the universe (Burbidge, Hoyle, & Narlikar, 1999). It took ten years for the scientific community to conclude the big bang, which occurred around 1930 (XXX). A blackbody remnant prediction originated sometime after WW2 (XXX). Once Penzias and Wilson discovered the microwave background radiation (XXX), and the COBE satellite confirmed it (XXX), the big bang became ‘the’ explanation of the creation of the universe. In addition, helium and deuterium abundances seemed correct for nucleosynthesis (XXX).
Why question the big bang?
One sign of trouble with BB theory begins with the COBE findings; the background temperature of T=2.73K which gives 2x10−31 g/cm3 as the average density of the modern universe; the result is almost two order of magnitude less than the standard model’s closure density (XXX). To explain the difference of the expected; dark matter that came from the baryonic matter at the beginning of the universe gave explanation. This had to be, as cosmological theory requires that density/temperature relation of space remain constant. If nonbaryonic matter were real, then support for BB is a case closed. However, considering the large degree of dark matter that should exist, no one has proven it yet.
Another problem is that the amount of observed hydrogen and helium (about 12:1) produces an average 4.34x10-13 erg/cm3, which is very close to the amount of background radiation produced by stellar radiation. This means that stars and not BB nucleosynthesis created the energy. Since microwave background radiation and the abundances of helium form the basis of argument for BB theory, this opens the way for alternative explanations of cosmological origin.
“Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is now in a phase of accelerated expansion; the physical cause of which is a mystery” (Guzzo et al., 2008, p. 541).
Point by point
· Non-Gaussianity of the CMB
· Excessive apparent ages of high-z galaxies: “Discoveries announced at the January, 2004 American Astronomical Society meeting showed that the Universe looks very similar billions of years ago (i.e. at high redshifts), to its appearance today, in contraction to the Big Bang idea that the Universe looked quite different in the past. For example, galaxies from 10-billion-years-ago appear to have a similar distribution of stellar ages and a similar spectrum of chemical elements produced by stars as our present-day galaxy. If the Big Bang had really happened, these galaxies should appear much younger, with fewer heavy metals and mostly young stars. Instead they look much the same as today.” (The Association for Skeptical Investigations, n.d., ¶ 16)
· Discrepancies in dark matter observations: “It is rather frustrating that the only component of the universe which we understand theoretically is the radiation!” (T. Padmanabhan, 2006, p. 153)
· Early formation of large-scale structure: “In 2003, a survey of clusters of galaxies made using data acquired by the ROSAT x-ray satellite showed what seems to be a huge concentration of matter some 12 billion light years across. A concentration of this size could not possibly have formed during the time since the supposed Big Bang (10-20 billion years)” (The Association for Skeptical Investigations, n.d., ¶ 16).
· Increasingly discordant results for light element abundances
· Angular-size/redshift relation: “A recent Astronomy & Astrophysics report, based on observations at La Palma, has endorsed the notion that a galaxy (NGC 7603) and its nearby companion of very different redshift, are physically linked: it is its authors found 'the most impressive case of a system of anomalous redshifts discovered so far.’” (XXX M.Lopez-Corredoira & C.Gutierrez, A&A 2002 390, L15-18)
· CMBR anisotropy
· Biases in high-z SN Ia observations
· Discrepancies in Dark Matter Observations
· Old massive galaxies at large redshifts
· Fractality of large-scale structure
· Origin of galaxies and structure in the universe
· Galaxies, quasars and disparate red shifts: Results of Guzzo et al. (2008, p. 544), suggest that redshift-space distortions will become a primary method in the quest
· Identify the nature of cosmic acceleration
· Astrophysical testing of gravity theories
· Discriminating observational tests of alternative models
· Cosmic anisotropy to electromagnetic wave propagation
· Constancy of fundamental physical constants
· Discordant results for light element abundances
· Angular size/redshift relation: 'It is clear that over the past 20 years a great deal of evidence has been found which shows that many QSOs [quasi-stellar objects = quasars] with large redshifts are physically associated with galaxies having much smaller redshifts 9 (XXX Arp, Halton Seeing Red Apeiron Montreal 1998 p.4)
Conclusions
Interpretation of data can come to erroneous conclusions.
Big Collapse Theory Support Outline
http://cosmologystatement.org/
“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” (Alternate Cosmology Group, 2004, ¶ 1). In fact, leading researchers in the field claim that: “If these are actually measured in future it could act as a consistency check of the inflationary paradigm” (T. Padmanabhan, 2006, p. 153).
Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe.
Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements.
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.
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 of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end.
These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance.
They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.
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.
Discordant data on red shifts
Lithium and helium abundances
Galaxy distribution
This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.
Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation.
Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.
“What makes good
science isn’t whether you can see it or not, but whether you can rule out the
theory or not.” Max Tegmark, Cosmologist http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7044753105944203252&hl=en
References
T. Padmanabhan. (2006). Advanced topics in cosmology: a pedagogical
introduction (American Institute of Physics).
