BIG Questions About The BIG BANG Theory. By Suzi Wong [copyright. all rights reserved]
Many new scientific facts discovered about our universe over the last 20 years, appear to pull larger and larger holes in fabric of the ever popular big bang theory.
Please see below for a summary of eleven of the current and significant flaws in the theory.
A slow and steady unraveling of the assumptions which underpin the theory have not however deterred the overriding support, teaching practices or vast expenditure in pursuit of evidence of its theoretical assertions – to the detriment of the many alternative scientific theories, however plausible.
So why should this be?
What is it that makes the big bang theory remain so popular?
Possibly because the concept of the creation of everything from “nothing”, goes some way to bridge a historic gap between science and religion, a common ground, an uncharacteristic harmony that allows both scientific and spiritual minds to support the theory.
From the perspective of religion, the big bang speaks of a creation, which as yet, lacks scientific clarification– this falls in line with religious doctrine – as confirmed in the Pope Benedicts address in St Peter’s Basilica in January 2011 , headlines from this speech read “Pope says that God created the Big Bang” - "The universe is not the result of chance, as some would want to make us believe". "Contemplating it (the universe) we are invited to read something profound into it: the wisdom of the creator, the inexhaustible creativity of God". He said scientific theories on the origin and development of the universe and humans, while not in conflict with faith, left many questions unanswered. "In the beauty of the world, in its mystery, in its greatness and in its rationality ... we can only let ourselves be guided toward God, creator of heaven and earth".
From the perspective of science, the big bang theory is hugely beneficial as it takes the universe from it’s previous infinite state –impossible to quantify – extremely difficult to work with, and transforms it into a universe with boundaries, a framework within which information can be collated, estimates can be made to fill in the blanks, data can be transferred into mathematical formulas and equally importantly, there is a timeframe reference, a history of the universe with a beginning, middle and eventual end.
Some say that the big bang theory is the best model of the universe that we have and the many alterations to it are purely scientific evolution as data is gathered – and this would seem acceptable …if the flaws were not so fundamental and the many alternative theories not so frequently pushed aside, mocked because they do not fit with the consensus, and with no consideration of funding, alternative models are swept under the rug
An extract from the link “Getting Past the Big Bang – Alternative view” sums up the frustrating position well:-
“According to Burbidge, among others, the big bang is more of a belief system than a dispassionate description based on observation. “Literally everyone I know who is doing observations of the CMB believes from the time they start on the project that they know where it comes from,” he says. “There is nobody in the group (and they wouldn’t let anyone into the group) who is skeptical, who would say ‘Maybe this is the wrong interpretation.’ Those people do not exist. They are not allowed to exist. You couldn’t become a graduate student if you didn’t believe what they believe.”
If the big bang is indeed a belief system, is it about to unravel? “You can believe something all you want; you may be right, you may be wrong,” adds Burbidge. “But the fact that lots of people believe it does not make it right.”
However, there may be another, more “commercially attractive” reason why the theory is pedaled so vigorously to the public
Maybe, they have sold the unsupported theory as a public smokescreen..... All to justify the millions (perhaps billions) of tax payers money spent in the building, management and maintenance of the Large Hadron Collider (along with numerous other similar scientific facilities), the machine sold to the public as a scientific instrument built to mimic the increasingly dubious “Big Bang”. There is no doubt that the machine/s will provide new and valuable scientific data, but, the big question is - if there was no “Big Bang”, would this massive expenditure have been so readily accepted by the public tax payer?
Perhaps the LHC (along with many other labs of this design) have another purpose......perhaps, the real purpose of the machines is primarily for the creation of antimatter for commercial purposes.
Antimatter is the most costly substance in existence, $ 25 billion dollars per gram of positrons, $ 62.5 trillion per gram of antihydron – and antimatter is in high demand, as is the optimum space travel energy source – and there is still a space race going on.
In this link to the CERN website,
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/spotlight/SpotlightAandD-en.htmlIt states that antimatter is regularly produced by the LCH and stored, although they state that adequate storage containers are still in development. The website also states “The reason for building the LHC accelerator is not to make antimatter but to produce an energy concentration high enough to study effects that will help us to understand some of the remaining questions in physics”. They also state that the amounts of anti-matter produced by the LHC are not dangerous to the general public and are not enough to create bombs.
“At CERN we make quantities of the order of 107 antiprotons per second and there are 6x1023 of them in a single gram of antihydrogen. You can easily calculate how long it would take to get one gram: we would need 6x1023/107=6x1016 seconds. There are only 365 (days) x 24 (h) x 60 (min) x 60 (sec) = around 3x107 seconds in a year, so it would take roughly 6x1016 / 3x107 = 2x109 = two billion years! It is quite unlikely that anyone wants to wait that long.”
However, in light of the following link to a NASA report, the CERN lab must be only one of many in production:-
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/740Howe.pdf“Our system analysis indicates that that a 10 kg instrument payload could be sent to 250 AU in 10 years using 30 milligrams of antihydrogen. This amount of antimatter is clearly within the production potential of the US within the next 40 years using currently accepted accelerator technologies”
Based upon NASA’s figures, if it takes 40 years to produce 30 milligrams (possibly in a number of particle accelerators, not just the LHC), then a gram of antihydrogen could be produced within 1334 years (unless production becomes more proficient over time/ more labs are built), a far cry from two billion years.
However, antihydron is only one aspect of antimatter creation (made up from an anti proton and an anti-electron), so their reassurances may not be so comforting – as the production of positrons (anti electrons) alone, in small numbers can be extremely dangerous (which the site remains deafeningly silent about production of and potential risk).
This article looks at the potential impact of positrons (or anti-electrons) – Link
http://thefutureofthings.com/articles/33/new-antimatter-engine-design.html“10 milligrams (mg) (a Mars mission) of positrons contains the energy of 428 tons of TNT. Or, to put it another way, 10 mg of positrons contains the energy of 23 external fuel tanks on the Space Shuttle”
“We are working on production of positrons in large quantities. We are getting a big boost from work being done for the International Linear Collider (ILC). The production rates required for the ILC are just a factor of 10-100 below those required for propulsion systems”
This article is dated 2006 – prior to the completion of CERN’s LHC – and it remains unclear whether the LHC is producing positrons – and if it is, in what quantities – however, it is clear that they are being manufactured in significant quantities somewhere.
The link below is a US patent, dated May 2010, for apparatus to contain and store antimatter.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7709819.PN.&OS=PN/7709819&RS=PN/7709819The patent was originally filed by Gerald A Smith (Scottsdale, AZ) in July 2008. Who founded the company Positronics Research LLC, Link http://www.pr-llc.com/ who are involved in:-
· Engineering devices for high-density storage of antimatter.
· Engineering devices that convert antimatter annihilation products to useful forms of energy
· Performing measurements vital to the development of national defense (weapons – See link - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/10/04/MNGM393GPK1.DTL ) medical, propulsion, and space applications.
· Basic research in symmetries, gravity, and antimatter-matter interactions
Gerald A Smith “was the Principal Investigator and spokesperson for several major national and international collaborations involving university groups working at Brookhaven National Laboratory, CERN, Fermilab and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.”
“Positronics Research LLC's core business strategy is to partner with market leaders in their three strategic business areas of national defense, medicine and energy”
Positronics Research LLC'swas awarded $ 4,799,379 in Government Defense contracts (specified as non discernable weapons) between 2002 and 2007 Link ; http://www.governmentcontractswon.com/department/defense/positronics_research_llc_005546408.asp?yr=07“Unlike regular nuclear bombs, positron bombs wouldn't eject plumes of radioactive debris. When large numbers of positrons and antielectrons collide, the primary product is an invisible but extremely dangerous burst of gamma radiation. Thus, in principle, a positron bomb could be a step toward one of the military's dreams from the early Cold War: a so-called "clean" superbomb that could kill large numbers of soldiers without ejecting radioactive contaminants over the countryside.”Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/04/MNGM393GPK1.DTL&ao=2#ixzz1AaaK20RwNASA have been working on craft which use antimatter as a propulsion system for space travel - see the link below
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/740Howe.pdf“The new electrical-power concept may have applicability to nearer-term
space missions as a power supply if the availability of antiprotons becomes common. In developing the Technology Roadmap, we have examined the potential 1) for using recent developments in antiproton storage and anithydrogen formation to cerate a path to ultra-highdensity antihydrogen storage, and 2) for increasing production of antiprotons by modifying the
existing Fermilab facility.”
There is no doubt that the production, storage and use of antimatter is a scientific technological advancement, and, depending upon its developed practical applications, could be of the benefit of the whole of society.
However, the lack of transparency as to where and how it is created (which could have significance in terms of health and safety to the surrounding community), how it is funded, who benefits from its sale and the determination of its use is taken away from the general public who fund it (in the name of science, and in particular in the case of the LHC, in the name of the big bang theory) – and appears to be wholly ruled by external corporate bodies.
Flaws of the Big Bang Theory
Problem 1 –
The Composition and Temperature of the Universe
Computer modeling of a “big bang” reveals an unfamiliar picture of a chaotic, lumpy, uneven universe – A universe where matter is clumped together in large areas, intersected by vast expanses of emptiness…a universe where the temperature varies significantly from area to area – The model does not represent the factual observations of our structured and even temperatured universe.
This instantly throws into question the validity of the big bang theory – so a further hypothesis is proposed to fit the observable facts:-
Inflation Theory is an abstract theory - if, in the early stages of the big bang, the expansion were held in some kind of a bubble for a fraction of a second, then this would allow for the even distribution of matter and temperature.
But, it would then have to inflate outwards – a massive expansion or inflation – but not to big, as it had to stop just in time to prevent the universe from exploding into nothingness.
But then this begs the question, what scientific force would have stopped the big bang for a fraction of a second and held the universe in a bubble? What scientific force would have caused the bubble to re-inflate?
There is no scientific evidence to support Inflation theory – only a stubbornness to reject the original big bang theory.
Problem 2 –
The lack of Gravity in the Universe
The big bang theory states that after the initial explosion, the universe cools and the building blocks of matter are formed, and then gravity takes effect. The gravitational pull of matter affects other matter – for example, in our solar system, the planet furthest from the sun (the sun being the largest mass of matter in the solar system) has the slowest rate of spin. However, observations of distant galaxies, shows that in some solar systems, this is not the case, planets have differing rates of spin that are not proportional to their distance from their sun or any other large body of matter nearby, this flies in the face of our entire understanding of the laws of physics and based upon current scientific doctrines, suggests that over 90% of matter our universe is missing . However, rather than review the current scientific understanding of gravity, spin and the big bang theory – science proposes:-
Dark Matter – Dark matter is a recent scientific invention. It is called “dark” because no-one can see it as It neither reflects, nor absorbs light – it is wholly invisible and does not consist of atoms.
Dark matter cannot be any sub-atomic particles that we know of, so they invented new ones, 24 identical sub atomic particles “super symmetry” which they deem new particles, yet to be discovered. The invisible particles can pass through solid objects, which supposedly, they do all the time and have no observable reaction upon anything which they pass through
A huge amount of money has been spent in research grants, to detect the existence of what is deemed to constitute over 90% of the mass of our universe. A few anomalous atoms have been reported – not enough to constitute even a hint of proof that dark matter is anything more than a stab in the dark.
Problem 3
The Universe Continues to expand
The big bang theory states that the initial energy created from the big bang would eventually diminish and the expansion of the universe would slow and then eventually stop.
However, this does not match actual observations of the universe. For the last ten years, telescopic equipment in New Mexico has been reporting results which indicate that the universe has been expanding…..at an increasing rate.
To maintain the theory, a new concept was proposed:-
Dark Energy
To keep the big bang theory alive, scientists proposed the concept of dark energy. No one knows can explain what it is, or provide any evidence of its existence, but scientists insist that dark energy (that is supposed to make up 74% of the energy in the universe) was created in the big bang and it is the force that keeps the universe expanding.
But this hypothesis in itself contradicts the laws of physics - as it supposes that there must be something in nothing.
As the universe expands into the “nothing” outside our universe, dark energy is created to fill the gaps - the energy of nothing.....which cannot be nothing as it has a force.
Dark energy (Like dark matter discussed earlier) is just a name for an abstract concept that cannot be substantiated – invented pieces to make a flawed jigsaw complete.
Note
It is worthy of note that even the calculation methods used to estimate the required amounts of dark matter and dark energy within the universe (to fit with the big bang theory) have recently been found to be fatally flawed – see the link below.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7827674/Dark-energy-may-not-exist-in-space-scientists-claim.htmlThere is significant funding in place however to try to find evidence to support the theory – see the link below
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000722
Problem 4
Separate areas of independent and significant movement within the universe.
The big bang theory describes uniform expansion from a single point of explosion, however, actual observations indicate that there are areas of the universe that are not moving in the same direction, or at the same rate as the rest of the universe.
The observation was made whilst analyzing the “cosmic microwave background”
which clearly indicates independent movement of whole clusters of galaxies – these are not driven by the”big bang” force – so if large chunks of the universe are moving in opposition to what is supposed to be the single driving force in the universe, then, this flies in the face of the theory.
However, it is only with the invention of a random concept, named “Dark Flow” that the big bang theory can be maintained.
Dark Flow
Dark flow is a mysterious unproven concept (like dark matter and dark energy) a new unseen force!
To keep dark flow within the limits of our current understanding of physics, scientists put dark flow down to gravitational pull – from large bodies of matter outside our own universe.
Problem 5
The Existence of Organised Structures which Defy the Timescales proposed in the Big Bang Theory
A recent report highlights yet another flaw in the big bang theory – an observation of an organized superstructure within the universe that, if based upon the proposed date of the big bang, and the quantified rate of expansion within the theory, simply would not have had sufficient time to form.
EXTRACT
“A team of the British, American, and Hungarian astronomers have reported that the universe is crossed by at least 13 'Great Walls', apparent rivers of galaxies 100Mpc long in the surveyed domain of seven billion light years. They found galaxies clustered into bands spaced about 600 million light years apart that stretch across about one-fourth of the diameter of the universe, or about seven billion light years. This huge shell and void pattern would have required nearly 150 billion years to form, based on their speed of movement, if produced by the standard Big Bang cosmology.
Discovery of the Great Walls of galaxies and filamentary clumping of galactic mater has greatly upset the traditional notion that galactic matter should be uniformly distributed. If the universe began with a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, the awesome size of these large-scale structures is baffling because there is apparently not sufficient time available for such massive objects to form and to become organized.”
Problem 6
Mature Galaxies in close proximity to Developing Galaxies
The further out we look with a telescope, the longer the light has taken to travel from a distant galaxy to our eyes – therefore the further out into the universe we look…… the further back in time we see. If the big bang theory is correct, then the further out we look, we should see the galaxy’s in earlier, primitive stages of formation. This however is not the case.
In some observed areas of the universe, mature, fully formed galaxies are observed alongside galaxies which are in the early stages of being formed. Thus indicating that there is no relationship in time and distance from the position of the big bang – there are possibly other forces at work in either the creation of matter or movement of the universe..
LINK:-
http://journalofcosmology.com/BigBang101.html
Problem 7
The Quasar Anomaly
Quasars are the most luminous objects in the universe. They are thought to be huge pulsating rings of energy formed around super-massive black holes as they attract matter towards them.
The results of a recent study of 900 quasars by astronomer Mike Hawkins, from the Edinburgh observatory has given some bizarre and unexpected results
.If the universe is expanding, (in line with the big bang theory), then distant quasars should be moving away from earth (the observation point) at an ever increasing rate. The further the distance from earth, the more “redshift” should occur – “redshift” is a elongation of light waves, caused as objects, at distance, move away from the observer.
The further away an object is, the more “time dilation” occurs – “events occurring in distant parts of the universe should appear to occur more slowly than events located closer to us. For example, when observing supernovae, scientists have found that distant explosions seem to fade more slowly than the quickly-fading nearby supernovae” http://www.physorg.com/news190027752.html
Therefore, the pulse of light produced by the quasar, should also slow over time as the object moves away from the earth.
The report indicated that, as expected, the more distant quasars had greater redshift – BUT the length of time that it took the pulses of light to reach the earth from quasars from supposedly massively different distances from the earth remained exactly the same, – therefore, the lack of time dilation would suggest that the quasars are in fact, not moving away from the earth but are all at the same distance from earth.
Scientists are currently working on paper to indicate that either:-
a) in fact, quasars are moving in line within the expanding universe – but the time dilation effect is not applicable to quasars – which would allow the big bang theory to remain intact.
Rather than looking at the alternative anomaly raised by the results of this study
b) Observable redshift may not be indicative of distance from the observer – or in fact evidence that a body is moving away from the observer –(Edwin Hubble’s 1929 theory) in which case, the fundamental basis of the big bang theory would be, again, brought into question.
Problem 8
What Happened to all Anti-matter?
The big bang theory suggests that equal amounts of matter and anti-matter would have been created simultaneously in the “bang”, the two would have annihilated each other instantaneously – leaving ….nothing.
“At the beginning, equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created [in the “big bang”]. Now there seems to be only matter. There have been theoretical speculations about the disappearance of antimatter, but no experimental support”
Samual Ting
As our universe is full of observable matter, so how can the big bang theory possibly be correct?
The only way to get around the facts is to hypothesize that, for some reason, there was slightly more matter than antimatter created.
There is however, recent evidence to support the asymmetry theory, but only a one percent asymmetry has been observed, and only mesons (sub-atomic particles containing one quark and one anti-quark) – in see the link below
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/CP-violation-20100518.html
Problem 9
The General Relativity Problem
The big bang theory contradicts one of the standing laws of physics – in the form of “General Relativity” - which states that super-massive objects would have gravity fields so strong that even light would not be able to escape, and matter would not be able to dissipate from it at all. If, during the big bang, the entire matter of our universe existed at one single point then this would constitute a super-massive object, and as such, our universe could not have been born.
To combat this, scientists propose, that at some moments (specified by themselves) - the laws of physics do not apply.
Problem 10
The Anomalies of the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
Everything in our universe is spinning; however, computer models of the big bang do not reproduce this observable fact. It would take an enormous amount of energy to initiate spin – so it is hypothesized that the point of singularity from which the big bang was initiated, must have been spinning, therefore all matter flung out from this point, must also be spinning.
However, it is the case that some planets, galaxies, stars & moons spin in a clockwise motion, whilst others spin in an anti-clockwise motion, as yet, there is no satisfactory explanation within the big bang theory for this anomaly.
Problem 11
If nothing existed prior to the big bang, then what caused the big bang?
This is the most obvious paradox of the big bang theory – and a concept that was largely ignored by scientists for some time, and even today, despite the numerous theories, is remains a difficult concept to.
- Some postulate that the big bang occurred from the remnants of pre-existing universe.
- Others argue that the definition of “nothing” is flawed, and it would always include “something”? But then, where did that “something” come from? what forces propelled it?
- Others propose that our universe was created at the point of collision between other universes ….but other universes were created, how?
But these theories just avoid the “big” question - how did matter come into being? How do you get something out of nothing?
Science is avidly in search of the theoretical “God particle” or Higgs Mechanism – whereby particles, under a specific set of circumstances (not yet observed) become heavy / become mass. Experiments are being conducted in the Large Hadron Collider, aimed to provide evidence to support this theory. However, particles under force must be in existence before the Higgs mechanism can work – so the question remains…..how did these particles (without mass) come into existence in the first place.
References.
- TV Programme - HORIZON: “Is Everything We Know About the Universe Wrong?” – 09/03/10
· The Telegraph – “Dark energy may not exist in space, scientists claim” 15/06/10
- Big Bang? A Critical Review - Ashwini Kumar Lal, Ph.D)Deputy Adviser, Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation New Delhi, India)
· Glimpse at Early Universe Reveals Surprisingly Mature Galaxies – Space Ref – 07/07/04 http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14524
· Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers – Physicsorg.com 04/04/10 http://www.physorg.com/news190027752.html
- Antimatter mystery – New Scientist 02/09/09
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.600-13-more-things-antimatter-mystery.html
- “God was Behind big bang, Pope says”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40945242/ns/technology_and_science-science/