Big Bang on Shaky Ground

By James R. Walker

Professor Allen Bundy April 30, 1991 English 1

Cosmology has changed dramatically in the past decade. The advent of high tech satellites 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

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 and Stephen 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

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

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

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 have strongly 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 structure of atoms, physicists find that the wavelength of a particular spectral line is inversely proportional to the mass 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

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

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, t0 (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 t0 also rules out the very existence of an earlier cause of any event that does occur at the hypothesized instant t0 (in Grunbaum 821). In other

words, if the big bang happened at t0 and at t0 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 t0 as a bona fide instant of the Big Bang space-time. Yet the Big Bang of necessity needs t0 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.

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.