by Introduction by Jonathan Tennenbaum:
The Big Bang theory states (among other things) that our universe was born in a big explosion 13.8 billion years ago. The Big Bang is one of the most stubborn theories in science today. Thousands of scientific papers, textbooks, popular books and articles have treated the Big Bang theory as if it were an established fact.
The opposite is true. In a special four-part interview for November 2020 with Asia Times under the banner “The Big Bang never happened.,” the famous astronomer and plasma scientist Eric Lerner revealed how the Big Bang theory is contradicted by a lot of astronomical evidence – evidence that is constantly accumulating – while mainstream cosmologists continue to twist and turn in an attempt to save the theory and criticize its critics. .
On September 3, the New York Times published a guest essay by physicists Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser titled “The Story of Our Universe May Be Beginning to Unfold.”
The authors suggest that the recent observations made by the James Web Space Telescope, in addition to other pieces of astronomical evidence, contradict the so-called “standard model” of cosmology and therefore ask scientists to “rethink the main features of the origin and development of the universe.” A ““a conceptual change” may be needed, they say.
Frank and Gleiser are familiar to the public through their books and media appearances but not, so far, as critics of the Big Bang theory. Surprisingly, despite the sensational title, the authors do not ask about the Big Bang itself, but only one “Normal model” assertions that are opposed to observation.
But, needless to say, the Big Bang is the most important feature of the “story of our universe” that cosmologists have been telling us. Whether Frank and Gleiser wanted it to or not, their essay provides more evidence that the Big Bang theory is on its way out.
We asked Eric Lerner, a prominent figure in the Big Bang science debate, what he thought of Frank and Gleiser’s essay. He kindly submitted the comments below for publication in the Asia Times. – JT
Eric Lernerhis comments:
Another big step towards the public debate about the validity of the Big Bang, the extended universe hypothesis came on September 3 with the publication in the Opinion section of the New York Times of an article entitled “Crisis in Cosmology” (and it is also called online as in. “The story of our Creation may begin to unfold“ ) by Adam Frank and Marcelo Gleiser.
Now, it is not news that there is a problem in cosmology. Researchers have been debating this for almost 30 years and it has been big in the media since 2019.
But what is new and important is the recognition by well-known cosmologists such as Frank and Gleiser that the new observations mean that we may need to “depart completely from the standard model” of cosmology, which requires us to “change the way we think about the universe.” the basic elements of the universe, perhaps even space and time.”
After all, these authors say, we may need a “new story of the universe.”
What the authors don’t mention is that there is already another “universe story” that is widely discussed among researchers: the story of an evolving universe without the Big Bang or the expansion of space.
This is a scientific concept – sometimes called “plasma cosmology,” developed by Noble Laureate Hannes Alfven and explained by me and many others – that the things we see in the universe can be explained by the physics we see in the laboratory: Physics that explains electromagnetism, plasma, gravitation and nuclear fusion reactions.
No universal origin in time, no inflation, no dark matter or dark energy required. On this basis we have published technical papers that describe precisely what the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) will reveal and explain with evidence against the Big Bang and the universe that does not grow without dark matter or dark energy.
Frank knows this way. In December last year, he wrote an opinion piece in the Spectator where he cited me extensively as an advocate of an “alternative model of cosmology” and as the author of an August 2022 article on the website of the Center for Arts and Sciences, titled “The Big Bang Isn’t Happening,” which sparked a wide-ranging discussion. in the cosmology community and among the social sectors.
At the time, Frank wrote that the new images from the James Webb Space Telescope did not result in a “standard model.”
“Is there a challenge to the Big Bang itself?” he asked, sneaking around. “Not in the least. If we know that the Big Bang means the idea that the Universe began in a smooth, hot, dense environment that was determined by the expansion that led to structural evolution, then no, the Big Bang was not approved. If anything, it proved the most basic of theories: cosmic evolution. The results of the James Webb telescope reinforce the idea that the universe has a story and, more importantly, we are learning that it is somehow telling.
It’s clear that Frank’s views have evolved a bit over the past nine months as new data has flooded in from JWST, dampening the hopes of Big Bang cosmologists that the theory will only need a “tweak.” After that, Frank was convinced that the Big Bang it was Story, but now you think we might need a “new story,” or “a new way of telling stories.”
So why does he not directly say that there is a possibility that the Big Bang never happened, that the universe did not grow, so that the story of its evolution is one without a beginning?
Part of the problem is that experts areBig Bang must not only abandon the idea that they have always said is unquestionable; they also have to give up the way they used to, and Frank and Gleiser aren’t ready to do that. They wrote: “Natural science is not like other sciences.
This is where they go wrong. There is only one scientific method and it applies to cosmology and all sciences. That method starts with observations, makes general predictions about these observations (hypotheses) and then tests these general predictions by making predictions about unobserved observations – precise, quantitative predictions about the future.
The predictions of the Big Bang theory have not been reliably correct for decades:
- negative about cosmic microwave background, is temperature and smoothness;
- wrong about the size of the largest structures in the universe;
- negative about the abundance of lithium and helium;
- wrong about the size, age and brightness of distant galaxies.
Instead of abandoning the theory, naturalists have often modified it, as Frank and Geisel correctly point out, to fit (just like the Emperor’s New Clothes) what has been seen and smoothed over previous contradictions.
This “rearview mirror” method is not a scientific method. Looking only in the rearview mirror is no better way to learn about the universe than driving a car.
It is also the only Ptolemaic method of epicycles that supports the geocentric – the earth-center – view of the cosmos, a method completely disapproved by the scientific revolution.
Science is useful to mankind only because it enables us to accurately predict the future. The difference between the scientific method and the Ptolemaic method is the difference between an airline that correctly predicts that its planes will cross the ocean safely and one whose plane crashes all the time but gives you an explanation for each accident after it happens.
More than 30 years ago Sky and Telescope published my essay entitled “New Clothes for Cosmologists.” Unfortunately, the “new ruler effect” is still strong in cosmology.
As I wrote then, the central basis of funding the research of the universe and the strong competition for such funds ensured that if you wrote that the Big Bang did not happen, or if you raised doubts about it, you are considered “stupid or not good for your job” and you will not receive any funding.
In recent years, as more and more gaps appear between the predictions and observations based on the Big Bang theory, it has become acceptable to publish articles about direct contradictions of the Big Bang theory (as I and my colleagues have) but not the theory. everything was wrong.
This, as I wrote, is like the people in Andersen’s fairy tale are allowed to say “I see the King’s elbow” or “I see the Lion’s knee” or “I see the Lion’s bottom” – but they are not. “The Emperor is not wearing clothes.”
Frank and Geisel have taken that one step further by writing that we may need an entirely new “universe story.” This is like saying, “You can see through the Emperor’s clothes.”
But free and open discussion is essential to discovering scientific truth. It is long past time for cosmologists to abandon this view and openly state that the Big Bang/expansion theory may be completely wrong.
It is also past time to stop ignoring the alternative – that the universe is evolving, but not expanding, and there was no hot, dense state of the cosmos or the origin of the entire cosmos.
Let’s start that open debate, in scientific publications and conferences, and in the media. It seems that Frank and Gleisel are wearing their life jackets in the sinking cosmic ship “Big Bang” but they are not ready to get into the lifeboats.
They need not doubt more. The rescue ship – “No Big Bang” – is standing by and ready. Time to get on board and take a new course in cosmos science.
Apart from his work in astrophysics, Eric Lerner is experimenting with one of the most promising methods of combining energy, based on the so-called dense plasma concentration..
As Lerner argued in his previous Asia Times interview ‘The Big Bang Never Happened’, this same self-organization we see in plasma observation experiments here on Earth provides the key to understanding the astronomical scale processes of our Universe, apart from the Big Bang. Bang. and apart from various strange entities, such as dark matter, which have been invented ad hoc in an attempt to rescue the Big Bang theory.
AT+ Premium subscribers can find details about integration in a series of articles by Jonathan Tennenbaum here and here..
Related
#goodbye #Big #Bang
