Say What?

Big Bang Cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untestable assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.

Were these lines penned (word processed) by a disgruntled theologian disturbed by the shameless hubris of modern cosmology? No, they appear in an editorial (Feb 1992) by Geoffrey Burbidge which appeared in Scientific American magazine. Burbidge is a professor of physics at the University of California and a former director of Kitt Peak National Observatory. He is a major player in modern astrophysics. Burbidge continues ...

Normally, new ideas in a field of science are advanced by young scientists, who often take a contrary approach. But younger cosmologists are even more intolerant of departures from the big bang faith than their more senior colleagues are. Worst of all, astronomical textbooks no longer treat cosmology as an open subject. Instead the authors take the attitude that the correct theory has been found.

Lets look a little closer at some of the possible problems with the BBC and their suggested BBC resolutions. Here are the problems as they appeared in 1992 when Burbidge wrote the above:

Homogeneity: The BBC predicts that the universe should be homogeneous yet we see an apparently increasing hierarchy of structures. The BBC explains this by invoking one and two dimensional structures such as cosmic strings and sheets which arise from quantum fluctuations.
Time Scales: Some calculations suggest that it would take as much as 60 billion years for the large scale structures of walls and voids to form. This is approximately 3 times the BBC age of the universe.
The 2.7 degree back ground radiation is too smooth. Space is too flat. Inflation is proposed. Inflation requires that the density of matter is from 50 - 100 times the observed density. This is too much dark matter to agree with our discussion of galaxies. Galaxies should be moving at 10 times their observed velocities - ie they'd be going too slow!
Some evidence has been collected suggesting that the observed abundance of deuterium and lithium is about 1/10 th of the BBC prediction.
Some astronomers challenge the idea that quasar redshifts are "cosmological". This means that quasars cannot be assumed to be at very great distances and that the scale of the universe may be much different that the BBC suggests. Further, there are mechanisms other than the Doppler effect which can produce red shifts.

Question: - 15 years later - can we answer some of the above? Are there still some un-answered questions? Science advances by continually subjecting itself to scrutiny!

Weird Science or Strange New Directions...Membranes, Parallel Universes, Worm Holes and Time Travel

If the discussion of the Big Bang and Inflationary Cosmology was not strange enough try this...

Maybe there is nothing "special" about 3-dimensions! Perhaps our 3-D universe is a membrane embedded in a higher dimensioned universe. Preposterous? Maybe not, there are a number of research programs actively pursuing this idea and even exploring ways to experimentally test whether or not we live in a hyper-dimensional universe. Particularly attractive is the idea that this may provide an explanation for:

the "abnormal" weakness of the gravitational force when compared to the 3 other fundamental forces
the origin of dark matter

Some "Cool" Links to Explore...

Paul Steinhard's Site: http://feynman.princeton.edu/~steinh/

And...

if we live in a parallel or sheeted-folded universe just maybe worm holes can connect different universes or distant parts of the same universe

And ...

maybe we can actually create time machines!!!!

The RedShift Controversy

It has become part of the paradigm to equate redshift with recessional velocity. This is the simplest explanation yet there are others. The Wolf Effect , named in honour of Emil Wolf, shows that under appropriate conditions light beams can interact with other light beams in a way that can produce redshifts and directly mimic recession. The appropriate conditions arise when the light originates via a "beam" process which, interestingly is one of the features of active galactic nuclei (quasars?).

The redshift controversy has also been fueled by more conventional astronomical observations. Halton Arp has shown, over the past two decades, that quasars appear to cluster near normal galaxies. Some discount his claimed "clusters" as mere statistical flukes. Arp counters by showing that the odds of finding quasars close to these galaxies in such persistent numbers has an extremely small probability. The argument continues.

Arp has also investigated the curious bridging and linking between galaxies. When such bridges arise one assumes that the galaxies are related. However, sometimes galaxies of very different redshifts are so related. A famous example of this is the object known as Stephan's Quintet. In 1961 Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge measured the redshifts of the 5 members of the quintet and found a rather puzzling result: v = 6700 km/s, 5700 km/s, 6700 km/s, 6700 km/s, 800 km/s. The simplest explanation is that the 800 km/s galaxy is a foreground galaxy but - it would be an unlikely alignment.

There are still other puzzles about redshifts. Perhaps the most bizarre is the suggestion that they are "quantized". This arises from the work William Tifft. When galaxies appear in physical groupings it appears that their redshifts differ by whole multiples of 72 km/s! This is a very strange and unexplained result and is only a "circumstantial" suggestion that perhaps there is something about redshifts that we just don't understand. One of the most imaginative explanations of this effect (and most astronomers still doubt that there really is redshift quantization) is that time itself is quantized! In a theory put forward by the Finnish physicist Ari Lehto time is a multi-dimensional property and two nearby particles (or even entire galaxies) can be on different timelines for which the rate of time is quantized and is different for different timelines. This "time rate difference" could produce a redshift as light produced in one "time-rate-zone" enters a different zone. It is conceivable (at least not impossible) that redshifts have nothing to do with cosmic expansion at all! Be warned, however, these ideas - while interesting are highly speculative. Only more thorough investigations will tell if these ideas have merit.

"Heretical Web Sites"....

Halton Arp's Web Site

The Electric Universe - Arp on Red Shifts

Alternates to the BBC

The Steady State Cosmology and the Perfect Cosmological Principle

The universe is infinitely old having no point of creation. It looks the same at any epoch of time (PCP). This cosmology was put forth by Bondi and Gold and later refined by Hoyle and Narlikar. The model must invoke both a continuous thinning out of matter as well as a continuous creation of matter (ex nihilo). It has recently been suggested that such a creation comes in the form of "mini" big bangs and that inflation and "big bangs" are a characteristic phenomenon of the universe. The Steady State Cosmology was viable until the discovery of the cosmic background radiation. It has fallen into obscurity but recently has shown some signs of "life". In particular, it is possible to explain the cosmic background radiation by other physical effects - a point that many Steady State theorists make.

The Plasma Cosmology

Plasmas are charged gases - exactly what we find in space. Until very recently the operating assumption for cosmology was that gravity is the dominant force over the large scale structure of the universe. We know, however, that gravity is by far the weakest of the 4 fundamental forces. The electrical forces present in plasmas are about 10^36 times as great as gravity and hence, when electrical forces matter, they completely dominate gravity. This means that charged particles tend to "hunt out" their oppositely charged counterparts and assume, together, as state of neutrality which has the effect of "shutting off" large scale electrical forces. Recent studies suggest that such neutralization does not always occur and that to fully understand the cosmology of the universe plasmas must be considered. When this is done several tantalizing results emerge:

large scale filamentary structures emerge as a natural part of plasma cosmology without the need to invoke either inflation or quantum distortions like strings and sheets.
the rotational velocities of galaxies cease to be problematic - plasma cosmologies do not need to postulate dark matter

Check of "The Electric Cosmos" (Warning... the truth may be out there but read web sites (like this one and the one you are on now with healthy skepticism!!)

So why do most astronomers still support the Big Bang? The easiest way to answer this is to point out that the BBC is rooted in conventional physics that explains a huge body of fact including such "secure" things as our understanding of orbital mechanics, the evolution of stars, nebulae etc. Until the more arcane ideas of Plasma Cosmology or Quantized Time Cosmologies can provide the same explanatory sweep of conventional physics, cosmologies based on conventional physics will be dominant. Are scientists intolerant? Perhaps some are - we are human and it is hard to consistently disentangle our presuppositional biases from our science. Is science intolerant? I don't think so - but science is very conservative.

What Have We Learned?

Science is saturated by value and belief. This doesn't mean that you do "bad" science to legitimize your belief but the science that you do arises from a presuppositional base. This is what Burbidge is saying in the quote we started with. Further, there is often a tension between our presuppositions and our science. Sometimes our interpretation on which we base our faith on may need to be modified. Sometimes our faith directs us in ways that shapes our science. A sociological study of competing cosmologies and their adherents would be fascinating and help to reveal the human dimension of science. Lets conclude with another comment by Geoffrey Burbidge:

Why then has the big bang become so deeply entrenched in modern thought? Everything evolves as a function of time except for the laws of physics. Hence, there are two immutables: the act of creation and the laws of physics, which spring forth fully fashioned from that act. The big bang ultimately reflects some cosmologists' search for creation and a beginning. That search properly lies in the realm of metaphysics, not science.

Seeds: Chp18