|
Our ideas about the
history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance
rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method, according to
Eric J Lerner, mathematician Michael Ibison of
Earthtech.org, and dozens of other scientists from around the world.
An Open Letter to the
Scientific Community
Cosmology Statement.org
(Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)
The big bang today relies
on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never
observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent
examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the
observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang
theory.
In no other field of
physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be
accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It
would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE
UNDERLYING THEORY.
But the big bang theory
can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical
inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic
background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for
parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky
to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave
radiation.
Without some kind of dark
matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of
experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the
density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times
larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis,
the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without
dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion
years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in
our galaxy.
What is more, the big
bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently
been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's
supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with
a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old
Earth-centred cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer
upon layer of epicycles.
Yet the big bang is not
the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe.
Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise
an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative
approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including
the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure,
the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift
of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new
phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has
failed to do.
Supporters of the big
bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every
cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their
development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding.
Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed
and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream
conferences.
Whereas Richard Feynman
could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology
today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to
remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big
bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them
their funding.
Even observations are now
interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on
whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts,
lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics,
are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is
alien to the spirit of free scientific enquiry.
Today, virtually all
financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang
studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review
committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang.
As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become
self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
Giving support only to
projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of
the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against
observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research
impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in
cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for
investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions
of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates
such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the
field of cosmology.
Allocating funding to
investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would
allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the
history of the universe.
Signed:
(Institutions for
identification only)
Eric J. Lerner,
Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA) /
Earthtech.org
www.earthtech.org
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302273
http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf
John L. West, Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology (USA)
James F. Woodward, California State
University, Fullerton
(USA)
Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik
(Germany)
Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University
of Campinas (Brazil)
Yuri Baryshev,
Astronomical Institute, St.
Petersburg State
University
(Russia)
Ari Brynjolfsson,
Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
Hermann Bondi, Churchill
College, University of Cambridge (UK)
Timothy Eastman, Plasmas
International (USA)
Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)
Thomas Gold, Cornell University
(emeritus) (USA)
Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute
of Technology, Kanpur (India)
Walter J. Heikkila, University
of Texas at Dallas
(USA)
Thomas Jarboe, University
of Washington (USA)
Jerry W. Jensen, ATK
Propulsion (USA)
Menas Kafatos, George Mason
University (USA)
Paul Marmet,
Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)
Paola Marziani,
Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio
Astronomico di Padova
(Italy)
Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université
Dijon (retired) (France)
Jayant Narlikar,
IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)
Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory (USA)
R. David Pace, Lyon College
(USA)
Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon
(France)
Jean-Claude Pecker,
College de France (France)
Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
Bill Peter, BAE Systems
Advanced Technologies (USA)
David Roscoe, Sheffield University
(UK)
Malabika Roy, George
Mason University
(USA)
Sisir Roy, George
Mason University
(USA)
Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
|