Response to Ten Plus Cosmological Problems
Posed by the Meta Research Foundation
By R. Rydin
For a recent chat discussion ( Meta Research Bulletin, Volume 6, Number 4, December 15, 1997), Meta prepared a list of the leading problems faced by the Big Bang in its struggle for viability as a theory. The list was updated by about twenty more points in Volume 11, Number 1, March 15, 2002. Their original ten questions, plus a selected few from the new list and then the remaining questions, are numbered. My answers are italicized:
1) Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.
I don't believe in either the static or dynamic mass expansion models. I think that the Big Bang event was a spherical wave of matter creation, and that the universe will eventually collapse to begin a new wave.
2) The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
The production of the CMB only requires a cooling of a hot plasma over a long period of time. The conventional model made all the matter at the "origin" in a few minutes at the beginning, and then the matter cooled as it expanded. My Big Wave model makes matter in a moving plasma wave front that locally stays ignited for a few minutes before it starts to cool. All of space was at one time covered by plasma. The wave is now very far away, at more than 30 billion light years from Earth.
3) Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
The elemental predictions that I see in Lawrence Krauss' book, Quintessence, depend on having an initial hot plasma at a given value of Omega. If General Relativity is not the governing equation, and density in the universe is not constant, then variations with Omega are meaningless. Then, its a matter of how a moving hot plasma behaves as to what percentages of light elements are produced.
4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
Agreed. My model says that the universe is much more than twice as old as we think. It took 15 billion years for the wave to get to the visible edge and another 15 billion years for the light to return to us. Large scale structure is due to pre-existing black holes from the previous universe which act as seeds of galaxies, and is also due to the fact that the correlated wave produced a damped sinusoid-squared of matter creation. The peaks correspond to walls, and the valleys correspond to voids.
5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
We (Bly and I) think that quasars were formed of hydrogen and helium gas gravitationally trapped by fast moving pre-existing black holes. They are powered and stabilized by a neutrino-induced fission reaction on the protons. Gravity slowly brings the mass together to go critical, producing power and making heat, and the thermal expansion shuts off the reaction. So the quasar stays large and produces slow power pulses, and this process prevents star formation. This is like the prehistoric Oklo nuclear reactor in Gabon, which operated for 100,000 years until it ran out of natural U-235 fuel.
6) The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
Globular clusters are probably older than 15 billion years! They are related to pre-existing black holes, and are not inconsistent with the age of 30 billion plus years in my model.
7) The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
The new model does not assume uniformity, but rather gives a damped sinusoid-squared distribution of mass. I match the NS deep redshift data out to 5 billion LY in both directions with a jo-squared spherical Bessel function times an exponential attenuation of the wave as matter precipitates out. These local variations in mass lead to local streaming caused by gravitational attraction.
8) Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
If it is, it must be distributed in concentrated bodies the size of planets and stars! Otherwise, the motion inside the Solar System would not follow Newton's Law so well.
I believe that dark matter is mostly unobserved ordinary baryonic matter. I believe that each galaxy has a pre-existing central black hole that was spherically surrounded by hydrogen and helium gas. Only the gas in the way of the jets that formed the arms has been triggered to form abundant visible stars. The rest must have formed either planet-like bodies or small stars that are now long since dead. This extra dim mass must be there to produce the observed virial effects (see Quintessence).
9) The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.
Evidence of insufficient evolution in the Deep Field at 15 billion LY is consistent with my estimate that the age of the universe is more than 30 billion years. That light would be coming back just after formation of those galaxies, and they would therefore be immature.
10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.
This incredible ratio is predicated on the validity of the Cosmological Model based on General Relativity. If the conventional model is wrong, the ratio is meaningless. However, a delicate mass balance is an essential condition of a Multi-Universe Cosmos as described by Velan , and is the result of self-balancing between adjacent universes.
Selected Added Questions
11) "Pencil-beam surveys" show large-scale structure out to distances of more than 1 Gpc in both of two opposite directions from us. This appears as a succession of wall-like galaxy features at fairly regular intervals. (sic) There is apparently far more galactic structure in the universe than the Big Bang can explain.
In fact, the 45 degree traverse has exactly the same periodic wall structure! This data is completely explained by the spherical Big Wave model of creation.
16) The Big Bang violates the first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be either created or destroyed, by requiring that new space filled with "zero-point energy" be continually created between the galaxies.
The Big Wave model, by being cyclic, conserves energy. All motion in space is real, and space itself does not expand.
17) In the Las Campanas redshift survey, statistical differences from a homogeneous distribution were found out to a scale of at least 200 Mpc. (sic) The Big Bang, of course, requires large scale homogeneity. The Meta model and other infinite-universe models expect fractal behavior at all scales. Observations remain in agreement with that.
Au contraire, the data are highly regular and correlated, whereas fractal behavior only implies some sort of overlying regular behavior superimposed upon what otherwise looks like random behavior. The Big Wave is a far better explanation for this data.
21) Redshifts are quantized for both galaxies and quasars. So are other properties of galaxies. This should not happen under Big Bang premises.
However, periodicity is predicted by the Big Wave model, with a possible caveat that quasars may contain a redshift bias.
22) The number density of optical quasars peaks at z = 2.5 - 3., and declines toward both higher and lower redshifts. The Big Bang predicts that quasars, the seeds of all galaxies, were most numerous at earliest epochs.
Who says that quasars were the seeds of all galaxies? The Big Wave model predicts that pre-existing black holes from a previous Big Crunch were the seeds of all galaxies and quasars, and that the quasars were formed from the biggest and fastest moving of these black holes and stabilized by a unique energy production mechanism. That is why the quasars are mostly located in a spherical annulus centered near the Milky Way.
25) Measurements of the two-point correlation function for optically selected galaxies follow an almost perfect power law over nearly three orders of magnitude in separation. However, this disagrees with n-body simulations in all of the Big Bang's various modifications. (sic)
This is another piece of evidence for the high correlation produced by the Big Wave.
29) The fundamental question of why it is that at early cosmological times, bound aggregates of order 100,000 stars (globular clusters) were able to form remains unsolved in the Big Bang. It is no mystery in infinite universe models.
Nor is it a mystery in the Big Wave model, which uses a pre-existing black hole as a seed.
Additional, but not as relevant questions
12) Many particles are seen with energies over 60x1018 eV. But that energy is the theoretical energy limit for anything traveling more than 20-50 Mpc because of interaction with microwave background photons. However, this objection assumes the microwave radiation is as the Big Bang expects, instead of being a relatively sparse, local phenomenon.
Assuming that the measurements are accurate, this observation only requires a mechanism to occasionally accelerate particles to high energy that is independent of the origin of the microwave background. In the Big Wave model, the plasma at one time covered all space near and far.
13) The Big Bang predicts that equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created in the initial explosion. Matter dominates the present universe apparently because of some form of asymmetry, such as CP violation asymmetry, that caused most anti-matter to annihilate with matter, but left much matter. Experiments are searching for evidence of this asymmetry, so far without success. Other galaxies can't be antimatter because that would create a matter-antimatter boundary with the intergalactic medium that would create gamma rays, which are not seen.
The Big Wave model predicts that only neutrons need be created, and all else follows. We don't need to begin with a particle "zoo" !
14) Even a small amount of diffuse neutral hydrogen would produce a smooth absorbing trough short-ward of a QSO's Lyman-alpha emission line. This is called the Gunn-Peterson effect, and is rarely seen, implying that most hydrogen in the universe has been re-ionized. A hydrogen Gunn-Peterson trough is now predicted to be present at a redshift z ~ 6.1. Observations of high redshift quasars near z = 6 briefly appeared to confirm this prediction. However, a galaxy lensed by a foreground cluster has now been observed at z = 6.56, prior to the supposed re-ionization epoch and at a time when the Big Bang expects no galaxies to be visible yet. Moreover, if only a few galaxies had turned on by this early point, their light emissions would have been absorbed by the surrounding hydrogen gas, making these early galaxies invisible. So the lensed galaxy observation falsifies this prediction and the theory it was based on. (sic)
This is a nice argument against the Big Bang, but it is irrelevant for the Big Wave model.
15) An excess of QSOs is observed around foreground clusters. Lensing amplification caused by foreground galaxies or clusters is too weak to explain this association between high- and low- redshift objects. This apparent contradiction has no solution under Big Bang premises that does not create some other problem. In particular, dark matter solutions would have to be centrally concentrated, contrary to observations that imply that dark matter increases away from galaxy centers. The high-redshift and low-redshift objects are probably actually at comparable distances, as Arp has maintained for 30 years.
One has to first assume that this association between objects has already been proved. Instead, I believe they are observations in need of an explanation.
18) Elliptical galaxies supposedly bulge along the axis of the most recent galaxy merger. But the angular velocities of stars at different distances from the center are all different, making an elliptical shape formed in that way unstable. Such velocities would shear the elliptical shape until it was smoothed into a circular disk. Where are the galaxies in the process of being sheared?
This requires assumptions about how galaxies are actually made, which is an as yet unsolved problem.
19) The polarization of radio emission rotates as it passes through magnetized extragalactic plasmas. Such Faraday rotations in quasars should increase (on average) with distance. If redshift indicates distance, then rotation and redshift should increase together. However, the mean Faraday rotation is less near z = 2 than near z = 1 (where quasars are apparently intrinsically brightest, according to Arp's model).
This requires assumptions about the meaning of redshift, which may have both a velocity component and a gravitational bias.
20) If the dark matter needed by the Big Bang exists, microwave radiation fluctuations should have "acoustic peaks" on angular scales of 1° and 0.3°, with the latter prominent compared with the former. By contrast, if Milgrom's alternative to dark matter (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) is correct, then the latter peak should be only about 20% of the former. Newly acquired data from the Boomerang balloon-borne instruments clearly favors the MOND interpretation over dark matter.
The point is irrelevant if dark matter doesn't exist and isn't needed!
23) The falloff of the power spectrum at small scales can be used to determine the temperature of the intergalactic medium. It is typically inferred to be 20,000°K, but there is no evidence of evolution with redshift. Yet in the Big Bang, that temperature ought to adiabatically decrease as space expands everywhere. This is another indicator that the universe is not really expanding.
More likely, this is another indication that the Big Bang is wrong.
24) Under Big Bang premises, the fine structure constant must vary with time.
More likely, this is yet another indication that the Big Bang is wrong.
26) Emission lines for z > 4 quasars indicate higher-than-solar quasar metallicities. The iron to magnesium ratio increases at higher redshifts (earlier Big Bang epochs). These results imply substantial star formation at epochs preceding or concurrent with the QSO phenomenon, contrary to normal Big Bang scenarios.
More likely, this is just another indication that the Big Bang is wrong.
27) The absorption lines of damped Lyman-alpha systems are seen in quasars. However, the HSI NICMOS spectrograph has searched to see these objects directly in the infrared, but failed for the most part to detect them. Moreover, the relative abundances have surprising uniformity unexplained in the Big Bang. The simplest explanation is that the absorbers are in the quasar's own environment, not at their redshift distance as the Big Bang requires.
This is evidence that redshift may be biased, and Hubble's law applies in a different way to galaxies and quasars.
28) The luminosity evolution of brightest cluster galaxies (BGCs) cannot be adequately explained by single evolutionary model. For example, BGCs with low x-ray luminosity are consistent with no evolution, while those with high x-ray luminosity are brighter on average at high redshift.
An explanation is needed.
30) Blue galaxy counts show an excess of faint blue galaxies by a factor of 10 at magnitude 28. This implies that the volume of space is larger than in the Big Bang, where it should get smaller as one looks back in time.
The Big Bang is wrong.
Perhaps never in the history of science has so much quality evidence accumulated against a model so widely accepted within a field. Even the most basic elements of the Big Bang theory, i.e., the expansion of the universe and the fireball remnant radiation, remain interpretations with credible alternative explanations. In this circumstance, one must wonder why four other good alternate models (Hoyle's modified steady-state model, Alfven's plasma model, Van Flandern's static Meta model, and Arp-Narliker's growing-mass model) are not even being comparatively discussed by most astronomers.
Why not add the Big Wave model to the list needing discussion?