New Results Challenge Big Bang theory at
Portugal Conference
For Immediate Release
Contacts:
Eric J. Lerner Lawrenceville Plasma
Physics 973-736-0522 elerner@igc.org
Jose Almeida University of Minho 351 962
951 423 bda@fisica.uminho.pt
Riccardo Scarpa European Southern
Observatory rscarpa@eso.org
Three dozen physicists and
astronomers reviewed the evidence for and against the Big Bang theory of the
universe and alternatives to it at the first Crisis in Cosmology Conference in
Moncao, Portugal, June 23-25, 2005. The conference, organized by the Alternative Cosmology Group, was
a response to a flood of new observations that challenge the predictions of the
Big Bang, the dominant theory of cosmology, and that have led increasing
numbers of astronomers to think that the field has entered a crisis.
Important new
data was presented at the conference for the first time. Observation on
globular clusters analyzed by Riccardo Scarpa of the European Southern
Observatory cast doubt on the existence of dark matter, a key component of the
Big Bang theory. In the theory, dark matter, different from any observed on
earth, is needed because the gravitational field provided by ordinary matter is
too small to create the galaxies and clusters of galaxies observed in the 14
billion years since the Big Bang is supposed to have happened. The main
evidence for dark matter is in the measurements of the rotation speeds of galaxies.
These speeds, it is argued, imply the existence of more gravitating matter than
can be accounted for by ordinary matter.
But Scarpa
showed that in globular clusters of stars, where the Big Bang theory says there
should be no dark matter, the same excessive velocities occur among the cluster
stars. What’s more, the deviation from the expected velocity always occurs when
the acceleration due to gravity is at a certain critical value. “The results
are much more consistent with the idea that there is some modification of
gravitational force, than with the existence of dark matter,” Scarpa concludes.
The very basis
of the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe, was called into serious
question by data presented by Eric Lerner of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, the
conference chair. The Big Bang theory produces strange predictions about the
apparent size of objects, very different from those produced by a non-expanding
universe. In ordinary, static space, objects appear smaller in proportion to
their distance, and their surface brightness – brightness per unit area –
appears to be a constant no matter how far away they are. But in the expanding
universe, objects at large distance actually appear larger not smaller, and the
surface brightness falls sharply with distance. Since the redshift of light is
know to be proportional to distance, at least at low redshifts, the two
predictions can be tested by comparing the surface brightness of galaxies at
high and low redshift.
Lerner made
this test using new data form the Hubble Ultra Deep Field images, which show
the most distant known galaxies, up to a redshift of 6. The data showed that
surface brightness was a constant with increasing redshift within small
statistical uncertainties of a few percent, exactly in accord with the
prediction of the non-expanding universe model.
The Big bang
predictions that distant galaxies would appear to have hundreds of times less
surface brightness was completely contradicted. “The data clearly show that the
universe is not expanding, and that the redshift of light must be due to some
other cause, perhaps in the properties of light itself”, comments Lerner. “This
also means that the universe that we can see is not limited in space or time –
the most distant galaxies we see right now are 70 billion years old, much older
than the supposed age of the Big Bang, and we will be able to see older and
more distant ones with future telescopes.”
A third new
result also contradicted the idea that the universe is expanding. Astronomers
have used supernovae as “standard candles” to measure distances and thus to
measure the expansion of space itself. The idea is that by measuring the
apparent brightness of supernova at different redshifts, we are measuring the
distance to supernovae at various times, thus measuring universal
expansion. But Thomas Andrews, a
retired engineer, compared the supernovae data, with data measuring the
luminosity of the brightest galaxies in cluster of galaxies, a “standard candle”
which had been widely used in astronomy up to fifteen years ago. He found that
distance determined by supernovae and by the brightest cluster galaxies
contradicted each other if the expansion of the universe was assumed. The
problem, Andrew found, lay in the basic assumption that pulses of light spread
out as they traveled in an expanding universe, making distant events, like a
supernovae explosion appear to take longer. When the data was re-analyzed
without this assumption (assuming a non-expanding universe), the discrepancy
between the distance determined with galaxies and supernovae disappeared.
Other
scientists at the conference reviewed recently announced results that posed
other serious challenges for the Big Bang. Francesco Sylos-Labini of the Enrico
Fermi Institute showed how the ongoing Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) had
found large scale structure in galaxies on scales up to 70 Mpc (210 million
light years). With typical galaxy velocities being only 1/1500 the speed of
light, it is very difficult to see how such large structures had time to form
in the time since the Big Bang – they appear to be far older.
One of the
firmest predictions of the current “inflationary” Big Bang is that the
fluctuations in the intensity of the cosmic microwave background at different
points into the sky should be random. Yet a presentation by Glenn Starkman of
Case Western Reserve University reviewed detailed analyses that demonstrate the
fluctuations are far from random and are in fact aligned with structures in the
nearby universe such as the local supercluster of galaxies and perhaps even
with the plane of the solar system. Such alignments would contradict the
concept, central to the Big Bang, that the background radiation originated in
universal fireball and has been unchanged since then. Tom Van Flandren of Meta
Research pointed out the growing gap between observations and Big Bang
predictions of light element abundances, another key test of the theory.
A second
session of the conference dealt with conceptual and methodological difficulties
in the conventional approach to cosmology. The Big Bang theory has long been
characterized by an increasing array of hypothetical entities, like dark matter
and dark energy that have been added to overcome contradictions with
observation. Mike Disney of Cardiff University traced the history of the
theory, demonstrating that the number of adjustable parameters in the theory
always equaled or exceed the number of measurable quantities, so that the
theory makes few or no meaningful predictions. In a poster presentation,
Geoffrey Burbidge of University of California, San Diego elaborated on the same
point showing that at critical junctures, evidence claiming to verify Big Bang
predictions in fact did not. Part of the problem, in the view of Timothy
Eastman of Plasmas International, is the deductive methods used in cosmology
that attempt to derive new “laws of the universe” mathematically, rather than
focusing on what can be learned from observations with instruments that today
return vast quantities of data. Another methodological problem highlighted by
Donald Scott is that most cosmologists do not understand or correctly apply the
physics of plasma—electrically conducting gases that constitute nearly all the
matter in the universe.
Given the
difficulties of the Big Bang, what are the alternatives? The third session of
the conference turned to this topic, including a spirited defense of the Big
Bang by Alain Blanchard of the Astrophysical Laboratory of Tarbes and Toulouse.
Among the main alternatives presented were plasma cosmology, which postulates
an evolving universe without a beginning in time, where electromagnetism is
equally important to gravitation; various versions of steady-state,
non-evolving universes; and expanding universes in which all objects, even
small ones, expand together, so the universe never goes through a hot dense
period. Many of these alternative models can explain and predict such key
phenomena of the universe as large scale structure, the abundance of light
elements, the cosmic microwave background and the Hubble relationship between
redshift and distance. In discussion periods, a number of observational and
laboratory tests were posed to distinguish between the models.
A final session
of general discussion led to a lively debate on several points. One thing that
became clear during the conference was that few participants were familiar with
the all the fields needed to comprehend modern cosmology: plasma physics,
general relativity and rival theories of gravitation, and the major facts of
extra-galactic observations.
Participants intensely discussed how the pervasive fear especially young
researchers face in criticizing the Big Bang can be overcome, and the related
problem of how funding, long denied to alternative cosmology research can be
provided.
The Alternative
Cosmology Group will be attempting to raise money itself for funding selected
research projects. Some specific scientific questions also entered into the
final discussion. For example participants argued over whether black holes
could exist and one pointed to Einstein’s own reasoning that such objects would
need an infinite amount of time to form, so could not exist in the real world.
There was
general agreement that a similar, possibly larger conference should be planned
for next year. The conference received
financial support from the University of Minho, The Institute for Advanced
Studies at Austin, Domingos Silva Teixeira, the Fundação para a Ciência e a
Tecnologia and the Luso-American Foundation. Details and program are available
at http://www.cosmology.info/2005conference/. Articles on the
conference research will appear in New Scientist and Physics World, publication
of the British Institute of Physics, among other publications. The proceedings
of the conference will be published by the American Institute of Physics.