This thread is intended to explore the extent and the content of fundamental criticisms of Big Bang cosmology from within the scientific establishment.
It is prompted by
Message 74 of another thread, by buzsaw. Another reference for Big Bang critics is
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community, which appeared in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20, under the title Bucking the Big Bang, by Eric Lerner. It has 34 signatures, all of whom are scientists in one way or another. Since then, the letter has been available for more people to sign. At present there are 215 more names that claim to be scientists or engineers, and 50 names who do not so claim.
I welcome the continued criticism of mainstream ideas, and the raising of unconventional alternatives. The alternatives also must be subject to robust criticism; it is far more common for unconventional ideas to be wrong than for them to become confirmed.
The great advantage of the Internet that mavericks can bypass conventional peer review and make their views available. The disadvantage is that absolute screaming cranks can do the same thing, and it can be hard to tell the difference.
It is crucial for any evaluation to actually
learn about and understand as far as possible the models involved; both the standard and the various alleged alternatives. I list here briefly of some of the major names showing up in buzsaw’s post and in the letter I have cited, but without much detail. I would be very glad for the thread to look into any of these in more detail, by supporters or critics.
1.
Eric Lerner. I read his book years ago, and was initially impressed. Later I was rather dismayed at its distortions. Lerner advocates a plasma cosmology, allegedly developing ideas of the great plasma physicist Hannes Alfvn. Lerner is strongly opposed to an origin in time for the universe, an idea which he considers to be religious. I don’t actually take Lerner very seriously, but he is better than some. I confess that although knowing about Lerner and his ideas, I was not considering him a scientist at all. Others will disagree, and I won’t pursue such a matter of definitions. I would welcome a concrete discussion of any of his ideas.
2.
Hannes Alfvn (1908-1995). Alfvn was an outstanding scientist of enormous ability, a willingness to take on established convention, and an ability to win in the conflict. He won the Nobel prize in 1970 for fundamental work and discoveries in magneto-hydrodynamics with fruitful applications in different parts of plasma physics. Yet all his life he had trouble with recognition and with peer review. The biography I have cited is excellent and inspiring reading. As a particular caution to myself in trying to identify real scientists, note this extract:
Part of the reason that Alfvn's work is neglected in astrophysics may be that Alfvn considered himself, first and foremost, an electrical power engineer and rather enjoyed the accusation of encroachment in astrophysics leveled by other cosmologists and theoreticians.
Alfvn was also a critic of the Big Bang, but this was one area in which he did not manage to prevail against the odds. Like Lerner, Alfvn seemed to consider the Big Bang a basically religious idea proposed to prop up the notion of creation. Quoting the cited biography:
To Alfvn, the Big Bang was a myth - a myth devised to explain creation. "I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory," he recalled. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing.
But if there was no Big Bang, how -and when- did the universe begin? "There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time," Alfvn explained. "It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."
Despite Alfvn’s ability, this is flatly wrong. Big Bang cosmology, right or wrong, is not merely myth, but a plain empirical model, guided and constrained by observations, and however surprising this may be to secular scientists it has managed to restore the notion of an origin in time to the universe in spite of the philosophical difficulties this presented to many unbelievers. Furthermore, although Lerner and others cite Alfvn as their inspiration, Alfvn’s own model has failed and later and less competent supporters have actually made substantial modifications. Stayed tuned on Alfvn; his insights on plasma in the cosmos may continue to be confirmed in various ways as physics continues to develop, even given the basics of Big Bang expansion.
3.
Halton Arp. Arp is who I had in mind when I said, in another thread, that I could think of one living scientist who
might speculate on an infinite universe. Arp does not actually have a clear alternative to the Big Bang. He rather has a particular line of argument or evidence that a major proof of expansion is incorrect, and therefore that the Big Bang is on weak ground. He speculates somewhat on alternative models, but primarily he is concerned with refuting the empirical basis of the existing model. He believes that there are physical connections between objects with very different redshifts, and that this contradicts the link between redshift and expansion. Nearly all astronomers consider that his claim of a physical connection is incorrect, and refuted by careful observation. It is a long running dispute. but most astronomers consider it finished business. My amateur reading of Arp’s papers and those of his critics suggest to me that the critics are right in this.
4.
Tom van Flandern. Tom fits in the category of relativity crank. I don’t take him at all seriously. His argument is primarily based on his involvement with Global Positioning Satellites. He claims that measurements and specifics of information from GPS refute Einsteinian relativity. Actually, it shows that van Flandern does not understand relativity. Nothing on earth will ever persuade him to admit such a thing, so debating him is pointless. But the facts of the matter are unambiguous. He qualifies as a nut. His comments on the Big Bang are not original, or wrong, and usually both. With respect to cosmology we should go to more primary sources for alternatives and criticism.
5.
Vincent Sauv aka SpaceTimer. I had never heard of this guy before buzsaw cited his pages. He is an exclusively secondary source, and does not claim to be either a scientist or an engineer. Hence we can ignore him; his arguments are merely repeated from others.
6.
Edwin Hubble (1884-1953). This is a fun entry, because Hubble’s name is now clearly associated with the rate of expansion of the universe, and he is widely credited as discovering the expansion. Yet Hubble himself had very little to say about expansion, and indeed preferred alternative explanations for the redshift/distance relation he discovered. Many biographies credit him with discovering expansion; which is true in a way. Yet he himself was a sceptic. This is a mere historical curiosity; and cannot be developed into a coherent criticism of modern Big Bang cosmology. Hubble is rightly lauded for his many discoveries and contributions to modern cosmology. But the actual numbers he obtained in the original work were off by a factor of about 8, and interpreted as expansion would have meant a universe only 2 billion years old or so. He had good reason to be sceptical of such a conclusion; but the source of the numeric errors is now understood and resolved.
7.
Andre Koch Torres Assis. This is not a name I had seen previously; but I know the model. Assis is an advocate of a tired light model for redshift, and a universe infinite in space and time. I’ve learned something here; I acknowledge that Assis clearly fits the category of another scientist advocating an infinite non-expanding universe. Tired light is another unconventional idea, which is widely considered to be thoroughly refuted by the evidence, most especially by recent studies of supernova light curves. It was a good idea, and no doubt Assis will continue to try and defend it; but supernova data has put the nail in the coffin of this model. I suspect Assis’ attempt to resurrect the corpse is futile, but good luck to him anyway.
This list is incomplete. I would be glad for others to propose other names or models. I’ve focussed on the people or models I knew of and who appeared somewhere in Buzsaw’s post.
Cheers -- Sylas
™ Version 4.2