Big Bang on Shaky Ground

7/31/2019 Big Bang on Shaky Ground

1/10

Big Bang on Shaky Ground

By James R. Walker

Professor Allen BundyApril 30, 1991

English 1


2/10

Cosmology has changed dramatically in the past decade. The advent of high techsatellites such as the CO BE, articulate scientists with advanced telescopes, and the data

received from both have turned the subject from an impressive synthesis of models of the

universe with evidence for the Big Bang, into a hot bed of wild speculations. Whats

happening is that a field that was really data poor is becoming data rich. Whats more, this

new information is in direct contrast to any interpretation (classic or quantum) of the Big

Bang model. In fact, recent observations have supplanted the theorys two most integral

supports; the cosmic microwave background radiation and the expansion of the universe, as

well as other supports.

On November 18, 1989 NASA launched the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer)

satellite into orbit 560 miles above the Earth. Its purpose is to examine the cosmic

background radiation which is the remnant fossil of the Big Bang explosion (in COBE 16).

The Big Bang theory postulates a somewhat uniform bath of radiation throughout the

universe originating from the moment of its birth. This radiation was initially hotter than

imaginable. As the universe expanded, the radiation cooled until it reached its present

temperature of three degrees Kelvin or -270 Celsius. This is so cold that it wouldnt be able

to boil liquid air (Abell, Morrison and Wolff 474). Slight fluctuations in the background

radiation are expected, scientists say, because these slight fluctuations seeded future

galaxies (Cook, Schroeder 55). Within the first nine minutes of receiving COBE data many

scientists were disappointed. The new data blew away mountains of theories, reports

Robert C. Cowen of the Christian Science Monitor (7). Its very plain, says COBE


3/10

project scientist John Mather of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.,

COBE has seen no irregularities at all--not even the tiniest amount. Mather further states,

This primordial radiation is the most important fossil available to prove the Big Bang

theory and that it is far too isotropic or smooth to create galaxies (in Cowen 7). Robert P.

Kirshner, an astronomer at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge,

Mass. confirms Mathers report. Kirshner states that the Background radiation varies by

less than 30-millionth of a degree far below the amount necessary for galaxy creation (A6).

Kirshner and Mather are not alone in their belief concerning this matter. Their ranks are

increased by well respected and world renowned astrophysicists such as Fred Hoyle andStephen W. Hawking. Hoyle, for example, in further support states that, There is no

possibility in the (Big Bang) theory of forming galaxies (33). Hawking approaches the

problem a bit differently. He discusses that isotropic background radiation is a bit like

asking a number of students an exam question. If they all give the same answer you can be

pretty sure they have communicated with each other. Yet, in the Big Bang model there

would not have been time since the initial big bang for light to get from one distant region

to another, even though the regions were close together in the early universe. According to

the theory of relativity, if light cannot get from one region to another, no other information

can.

So there would be no way in which different regions in the early universe could have come

to have had the same degree of background radiation (121). It has been a little over a year

since these data were received and still some astronomers and astrophysicists struggle to

support the Big Bang theory. Astute scientists utilizing the delicate and more finely


4/10

calibrated telescopes have been studying the expansion of the universe and have made

surprising discoveries.

To understand the principle of an expanding universe and how it is measured

astronomers rely on the Doppler effect. Websters dictionary defines this as the principle in

physics whereby the pitch of sound or the wavelength of light is altered by the velocity and

direction of motion of the emitting object. In 1929 the American astronomer Edwin Powell

Hubble had this in mind when he observed that some stars displayed a short wavelength

(blue) while at the opposite extreme some displayed a long wavelength (red). Since the

Doppler principle dictates longer wavelengths emitted from objects receding from the

observer Hubble deduced that many stars were traveling away from us. Furthermore, he

believed that the velocity of any given star or galaxy receding from us is directly

proportional to its distance from us. That is, if galaxy A is receding from us at 5.6 times the

velocity of galaxy B, then galaxy A is 5.6 times as far from us as galaxy B (in Asimov 87).

Redshift is the term given this phenomenon and it is the corner stone for Hubbles Constant

or the expanding universe theory. Corey S. Powell states that redshifts are to the Big Bang

what tape measures are to carpentry (17). All of this seemed to confirm George Lemaitres

prediction, made two years prior, that the universe began as an infinitely dense point, hence

the birth of the Big Bang theory. The 1930s witnessed the scientific community nodding

their heads in agreement with this theory and since then all cosmological research was

launched in the light of this theory, until today. There are numerous scientists who are

beginning to scratch their chins in doubt.

Dr. Hannes Alfren, a Swedish physicist and Nobel Prize Laureate, is one of these

scientists. Cautioning against faulty reasoning he said, If there were a Big Bang, you had


5/10

to have the Hubble expansion. But it does not follow that because theres an expansion

there was a Big Bang. Thats the same logic that says, all dogs are animals, and therefore

all animals are dogs (in Wilford Cl). Moreover, Hubble himself suggested originally in

1936 that, There may be no speeding away of outer nebulae, and the (red) tail lights

indicate a new principle in nature (in Smaller). Little did Hubble know that an astronomer

in the near future would establish through numerous documented observations backed by

accurate calculations that in fact there is an unknown principle that can create an illusion of

redshift which supports the belief in an expanding universe.

Using the four meter KPNO telescope with the newest highly quantum efficient

CCDs (charged coupled devices) for direct imaging, Halton C. Arp has compiled an

astonishing amount of data proving just that (34). He explains, for example, that we expect

to see galaxies near each other in groups. When we measure their spectra lines, we expect

to find redshifts of these galaxies to be very close. When we do see a much larger redshift

in one galaxy we instinctively feel that it is an unrelated object at a much greater distance

in the background. In contrast, Arp felt enormous shock when he measured the spectra of

two galaxies which are well established as interacting and therefore in proximity of each

other and found that they have vastly different red shifts. He also found the inverse of the

preceding example to be true (81). Over the years Arp has documented numerous examples

of stars and galaxies which have exhibited the same false redshift phenomenon (175).

Another discovery which further baffled the cosmological community was that many

quasars have been found with the same misleading or intrinsic redshift phenomenon.

Quasars register radio emissions just as stars do, for this reason they are called

quasi stellar or quasar. It has been determined, however, that these are actually galaxies


6/10

with superluminous nuclei which enable them to be seen at great distances in the universe

(Arp 63). Quasars are thought to be one of the oldest heavenly bodies in space. Until

recently they were not associated with any other galaxies and it was believed their lines

measured considerably low redshifts indicating extreme distance in which case it would

logically follow that they are very old. However, Arp once again sent shock waves through

the scientific community when he observed, measured and documented the umbilical

connections between dozens of quasars and galaxies of drastically higher redshifts and

therefore younger age and closer proximity to Earth (33). Observations of identical

material content of mother galaxies and quasars, and complex probability equations havestrongly suggested that quasars are actually ejected from galaxy nuclei (Arp 49). Emil Wolf

of the University of Rochester and Jack W. Sulentic of the University of Alabama at

Tuscaloosa, both maintain that these apparently red shifted quasars reveal some kind of

non-Dopplerian effect (in Powell 18). Wolf suggests in Physical Review Letters that,

Light can be redshifted if it passes through a scattering medium in which refraction varies

randomly over both space and time. This would cause the light frequencies to change even

though the source is at rest (in Powell 17).

There is another very important fact that can explain intrinsic redshift.

Whilliam J. Kaufmann of the California Institute of Technology and Jet Propulsion

Laboratory in Pasadena, discusses a fact largely ignored by physicists. Kaufmann explains,

Spectral lines are caused by electrons jumping between allowed orbits in atoms. In calculating the structureof atoms, physicists find that the wavelength of a particular spectral line is inversely proportional to themass of the electrons orbiting atoms (139).

Simply put, the size of the electrons determine the amount of redshift. Kaufmann concludes

his discussion by reminding us that by measuring redshift we do not measure velocity or


7/10

distance instead we can only infer these (139). Moreover, Arp reveals a particularly

embarrassing erroneous component of redshift estimation which casts doubt on the

currently accepted cosmological model. It is known as Heliocentric redshifts.

To accurately measure the speed of anything one must first adjust for ones own

motion. Accomplishing this in astronomy is difficult at best. There are three motions we

must correct for when formulating an equation to measure the velocities of bodies in space.

First we must consider the Earths axial revolutions. Then make allowances for the Earths

solar revolution and finally the velocity and direction of the local galaxy cluster. These

three variables together are known to cause Heliocentric redshifts which can distort our

measurement of redshifts emitted further out in space. Until recently it was accepted that

one value derived from complex computations corrected for Heliocentric redshifts. Since

Arps discovery of intrinsic redshift of local galaxies in our cluster the value for the

Heliocentric motion is in heated dispute (115). Many astronomers now doubt that any

measured redshift, velocity or distance obtained in the past is correct. This has caused no

little distress within the scientific community. While proponents of the Big Bang are still

recovering from the shock of seeing the pivotal supports of the theory slowly crumble, still

other less integral yet just as profound supports fall by the way side as our high tech

machines search the cosmos.

Analysis of a highly accurate survey by the Infrared Astronomical Satellite now

shows a supercluster of galaxies so colossal it boggles the mind. Appropriately named, The

Great Wall, it measures 500 million light years long, 200 million light years wide and 30

million light years deep. Mind you, one light year is approximately equivalent to six trillion


8/10

miles (McDonald A5). John P. Huchra who conducted the survey with Margaret J. Geller

states,

The reason our discovery seems to be incompatible with current models of the universe is that

such a structure which is in a part of the universe that is about 10 billion years old would need 100 billion years to develop to its present size according to those models (in McDonald A6).

Another supercluster in space poses the same problem for the Big Bang model, it is called

The Great Attractor.

The Great Attractor is a concentration of gravity so strong that it is thought to be

pulling our Milky Way galaxy and other neighboring galaxies towards it. It Dwarfs the

Great Wall by measuring one billion light years long. John Noble Wilford relates, Like the

Great Wall, this gravitational force seems too large to have formed in the time believed to

have elapsed since the Big Bang, 10 to 20 billion years ago (A19).

The aforementioned scientific observational data place the Big Bang on shaky

ground. Here only the most significant scientific (physical) proofs have been highlighted.

However, there is another point antagonistic to the accepted model which has its basis in

pure logic and tends to be a bit on the esoteric side.

John Maddox has rejected the Big Bang model as unacceptable. His argument is

predicated on the occurrence of the cosmic cataclysm at a well defined instant, t 0 (time

zero) also know as the singularity. This was before all space and before all time--before

anything existed at all. The Big Bang theory postulates this singularity as occurring just at

the moment of the big bang. It is this premise which is logically impossible. Maddox

relates, By (this) hypothesis, there simply did not exist any instants before it. But precisely

this total absence of times earlier than t 0 also rules out the very existence of an earlier cause

of any event that does occur at the hypothesized instant t 0 (in Grunbaum 821). In other


9/10

words, if the big bang happened at t 0 and at t 0 there was absolute nothingness then how

could an entire universe be caused by nothing as well as come from nothing? This is

illogical and demonstrates a sui generis fallacy, or constituting a class alone. Perhaps the

cosmological argument developed by the late great philosopher St. Augustine states it best.

It affirms that there is no object known to be the cause of it self. Furthermore, Grunbaum of

the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, informs that the general relativity theory

does not allow t 0 as a bona fide instant of the Big Bang space-time. Yet the Big Bang of

necessity needs t 0 to be feasible (821).

The knowledge gathered through observation in the last ten years has initiated a

change in scientific beliefs and theories in terms of the origin of the universe. This

exemplifies the scientific method which allows for constant change of and addition to any

theory or belief. The ultimate goal is truth. It is not unlike human behavior to resist change

but in time as we observe and understand more accurately, change is inevitable. Each

theory is seen as a stepping stone. We must have the courage to step off one stone to go

forward to the next, each stone as important as the next. Its likely that the Big Bang will be

taught to future generations as one of the former most important cosmological vehicles to

higher understanding of our universe.

Works Cited

Abell, George O., David Morrison and Sidney c. Wolff. Realm of the Universe.

Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing, 1988.

Arp, Halton C. Ouasars, Redshifts, and Controversies. Berkeley: Interstellar Media, 1987.


10/10

Asimov, Isaac. The Collapsing Universe. New York: Walker Publishing Company, 1977.

Cobe Mission Launched. Astronomy 18.2 (1990): 16-18.

Cook, William J., and Joannie Schrof. Journey to the Beginning of Time. U. S. News

and World Report. 108.12 (1990): 52-61.

Cowen, Robert C. Cobe Satellite Finds Puzzling Smoothness in Scans of Universe.

Christian Science Monitor (May 17, 1990): p7, col. 4.

Grunbaum, Adolf, Pseudo-Creation of the Big Bang. Nature 334 (1990): 821-822.

Hawking, Stephen W. A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. New

York: Bantam Books, 1988.

Hoyle, Fred. Steady-State Cosmology Revisited. Wales: University College Cardiff

Press, 1980.

Kaufmann, William J. Relativity and Cosmology. New York: Harper and Row, 1977.

McDonald, Kim. Astronomers Findings Challenge Main Theory of Cosmic Evolution.

The Chronicle of Higher Education 30 (1990): A5 & A8.

Powell, Corey S. The Redshift Blues. Scientific American 282 (1990): 17-18.

Smaller Universe is Seen by Hubble. New York Times (November 27, 1936).

Wilford, John Noble. Novel Theory Challenges the Big Bang. New York Times

(February 28, 1989): C1.

Astronomers New Data Jolt Vital Part of Big Bang. New York Times (January

3, 1990): A1 & A19.

Big Bang on Shaky Ground

Documents

Transcript of Big Bang on Shaky Ground