|
Christian de Quincey |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
COMMUNICATIONS |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Scrapbook |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Sitemap |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
As time after time observations and calculations showed that there simply wasn’t nearly enough ordinary (that is detectable) matter in the universe to account for the slowing of expansion and for the formation of galaxies, and since galaxies existed, the originally wild notion of “dark matter” gained force. It simply had to be there. So the hunt began. And, as noted earlier, by observing the rotational velocities of galaxies it was evident that the galaxies contained more mass than could be accounted for by their visible matter. The observed magnitude of the rotational velocities of the galaxies was indirect evidence for the existence of some kind of invisible mass—the “missing” dark matter. Counter-response. But even if the inference “galactic rotational velocity means presence of dark matter” were correct, the dark matter still amounted to an omega value of only 0.1—not nearly enough to halt the expansion of the universe. However, believing that they had evidence for some dark matter, cosmologists maintained their faith in the Big Bang theory on trust in a sort of “promissory dark materialism”—one day the rest of the missing matter would show up. Cosmologists enlisted the support of particle physicists, who obliged them with a zooful of speculative new, undetected, particles. Speculations abounded that the mysterious matter existed in the form of intergalactic heavy neutrinos, axions, cosmions, gravitinos, higgsinos, and other WIMPS (weakly interacting massive particles). But no evidence for such undetectable particles has come to light. They remain purely the mathematical inventions of imaginative theoretical physicists. Whatever the status of the existence of the alleged dark matter, its nature remains completely mysterious. Now, this mystery may not be intrinsic, like the mystery of the sheer facticity of being. It may well be an altogether more mundane kind of mystery, the kind created by over-zealous human minds that postulate entities which may have no counterpart at all in reality. Rather like the ancient gods of Greece which the Ionians dismissed as mythological figments—absolutely devoid of any explanatory value. According to 1984 data from two researchers, Mauri Valtonen from the University of Turku, Finland, and Gene Byrd from the University of Alabama, observational evidence rules out the inferential evidence for dark matter. Examining galactic clusters, they noted that some galaxies were not part of the observed cluster, but were “interlopers”—galaxies which appeared to be “part of the cluster, but actually [were] far behind it. If these interlopers (which were not in fact part of the cluster) are included in calculations, their velocities would drive up the apparent mass of the cluster, creating apparent mass where there is none—’missing mass’” (Lerner, 1991, pp. 36-37. Emphasis in original.) In other words, a case of mistaken identity, due to line-of-sight error. The perspectival mistake gives the illusion that a far-off galaxy is part of the cluster under observation, and that the additional rotational velocity of the galaxy indicates that the cluster has additional, undetected “dark matter”. Byrd and Valtonen further undermined the “evidence” for dark matter when they demonstrated that galactic clusters tend to be dominated by a pair of very massive elliptical galaxies—up to a thousand times heavier than our own Milky Way. Using computer simulation, Byrd and Valtonen demonstrated that smaller galaxy caught in the gravitational field of the two “Leviathan” galaxies might be flung away at high speed into space away from the parent cluster. If such “escaping” galaxies were included in calculations along with the “interlopers”, the end result be a significant overestimation of the cluster’s mass. “ In fact, Valtonen and Byrd found that these two errors would account for all of the ‘missing mass’: in pairs of galaxies, groups of galaxies, and clusters there is no dark matter. And when they examined the motions of small nearby companions, they found the galaxies themselves weighed just as much as the visible matter composing them. . . There is no room for dark matter—about half the matter is in galaxies and their bright stars, another half in glowing gases tightly bound into the clusters and superclusters, gas that can be observed by radio telescopes. These results have been published in leading journals. . . . They completely eliminate any evidence for dark matter” (Lerner, 1991, p. 39). Summary Faced with the test of scientific observation—and not just ivory tower speculation—the Big Bang theory fails. According to plasma physicist Eric Lerner: It predicts that there should be no objects in the universe older than 20 billion years and larger than 150 million light-years across. There are. It predicts that the universe, on such a large scale, should be smooth and homogeneous. The universe isn’t. The theory predicts that, to produce the galaxies we see around us from the tiny fluctuations evident in the microwave background, there must be a hundred times as much dark matter as visible matter. There’s no evidence that there’s any dark matter at all. And if there is no dark matter, the theory predicts, no galaxies will form. Yet there are, scattered across the sky. We live in one (Lerner, 1991, pp. 39-40). Alternatives to the Big Bang An alternative to the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, has been proposed by Nobel laureate and Swedish cosmologist Hans Alfvén. His theory of “plasma cosmology” assumes that “the universe has always existed and always evolved, and will exist and evolve for an infinite time to come” (Lerner, 1991, p. 41). There is no creation ex nihilo because there is no creation, period. Matter has always existed and evolved. The universe is eternally progressive. A major difference between conventional Big Bang cosmology and Alfvén’s more radical plasma cosmology is that the plasma universe is formed and controlled on the large-scale not only by gravitation (as Big Bang theory, following the theory of relativity assumes), but also by electricity and magnetism. Galactic formation is a natural consequence of plasma dynamics because, as even laboratory experiments demonstrate, plasmas become inhomogeneous spontaneously. Tiny electromagnetic vortices, “plasma whirlwinds”, curl their way through the plasma field, carrying electric currents. According to Lerner: Magnetic fields and currents can concentrate matter and energy far faster and more effectively than can gravity. The magnetic force of a plasma thread increases with the velocity of the plasma. This leads to a feedback effect: as threads are pulled into the vortex, they move faster, which increases the force on the threads of current and pulls them still faster into the filament. . . The idea that space is alive with networks of electrical currents and magnetic fields was confirmed by observation and gradually accepted (Lerner, 1991, p. 44). Some of the predictions from Alfvén’s plasma cosmology include “currents streaming along slender filaments toward the galactic core, from which intense bursts of radiation were emitted” (Lerner, 1991, p. 48). Another plasma cosmologist, Tony Peratt, from San Diego’s Maxwell Laboratory, predicted that galactic filaments should be about 100,000 light years across, and about a billion light-years long. Galaxies should be strung out along these filaments. This is exactly what Brent Tully and J. R. Fischer observed in the seventies. Plasma cosmology accounts for the three central pieces of evidence for the Big Bang: the Hubble expansion (red-shift), 3°K microwave background radiation, and helium abundance. And further, to the extent that Big Bang cosmology encounters observational evidence contrary to the explanations of these phenomena within the Big Bang theory, plasma cosmology can provide ready explanations. Once more Lerner: The first two phenomena [helium abundance and microwave background] can be explained by the same cause—massive stars generated in the formation of galaxies. In 1978 Cambridge astrophysicist Martin J. Rees had proposed that such stars would, in a few hundred million years, produce the 24 percent helium now observed; having transformed part of the hydrogen fuel into helium, they would explode into supernova, distributing the helium through space. Later, smaller stars would then form out of this helium-enriched gas. The energy the massive stars produced would be absorbed by interstellar dust, which would then emit the microwave background (Lerner, 1991, p. 50). Big Bang supporters objected that the events proposed by plasma theory would result in warm spots in the background radiation wherever newly-formed galaxies happened to be. Yet observation shows it to be entirely smooth. Alfvén responded by showing that electrons in intergalactic magnetic fields could absorb microwave radiation and then reemit it. In this way, “the radiation would be smoothed out” (Lerner, 1991, p. 50). As for the Hubble expansion, Alfvén offered a scenario which does not require a Big Bang. Lerner points out that the assumption, held by many cosmologists, that just because the Big Bang requires expansion, that expansion requires a Big Bang is simply bad logic. Thus the observational evidence for cosmic expansion does not necessarily imply a Big Bang. There are other possible explanations, and Alfvén’s plasma cosmology provide one. Many billions of years ago the small corner of the infinite universe that we can observe started to contract, under the influence of its own gravity. When it was about a tenth its present size, matter and antimatter started to mix, annihilating each other and generating huge quantities of energetic electrons and positrons. Trapped in magnetic fields, these particles drove the plasma apart over hundreds of millions of years. The explosions were small enough not to disrupt previously formed filaments of plasma, so these far more ancient objects still exist today, in expanded form—just as designs printed on a balloon persist while it is inflated. . . . But this was in no way a Big Bang that created matter, space, and time. It was just a big bang, an explosion in one par of the universe (Lerner, 1991, p. 52). In other words, given the observational evidence, there are other explanations that do not involve the creation ex nihilo myth, inherited from Augustinian Christianity, central to the Big Bang cosmology story. Besides Alfvén’s plasma cosmology, of infinite space and time, suffused by huge vortices and filaments of electromagnetic energy in addition to gravity, other plausible cosmological scenarios have been put forward. For example, in the 1940s (and recently revised) British astrophysicists Fred Hoyle, Herman Bondi, and Thomas Gold proposed a “steady state” model, which involved the notion of “continuous creation”. Instead of one massive creation event, from nothing, the steady state theory posits an indefinite number of microscopic creations of hydrogen atoms. Hoyle et. al. claim that their theory can account for the observed ratios of hydrogen, helium, and deuterium, and, as in Alfvén’s model, the microwave background is due to a comparatively recent supernova explosions. From this cursory overview and critique of Big Bang cosmology it is clear that the theory has some serious problems where it conflicts with observational evidence. In order to avoid the charge of dogmatism and scientism, Big Bang cosmologists need to address these difficulties. In addition to the problem of a conflict with scientific evidence, the notion of a Big Bang origin of the universe as a creation from nothing, poses a profound philosophical conundrum—if not absurdity. In the space of an essay, it is not possible to present in detail the serious nature of the problems facing Big Bang theory, or to explore the philosophical difficulties. But I hope that I have at least succeeded in establishing a “case for the prosecution”. The Big Bang is under suspicion, there is evidence of illegitimacy, and the case should be brought to trial for open, public scrutiny. Anyone interested in pursuing further either aspect of the controversy—scientific or philosophical—should go to the sources mentioned at the beginning of this essay. For the scientific argument, read Lerner’s The Big Bang Never Happened, and for the philosophical context, read Mendoza’s The Acentric Labyrinth. Each book presents a superb historical context for its respective subject matter. The greatest story of our time—our origins, development, and destiny myth, our cosmology story—may fail us because it cannot offer us the kind of meaning we desire. It cannot offer us a preservation myth. A story that ends by annihilating all trace of its ever having been told, is not the kind of story by which meaning-seeking souls survive and thrive. We need another story. References & Sources Asimov, I. (1984), Asimov’s new guide to science. New York: Basic Books. Childe, V. G. (1942), What happened in history. Baltimore: Penguin. Goswami, A. (1994), Science within consciousness: Developing a science based on the primacy of consciousness. Sausalito, CA: Institute of Noetic Sciences. Jahn, R. G. & Dunne, B. J. (1987). Margins of reality: The role of consciousness in the physical world. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Kauffman, S. A. (1993), The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. New York: Oxford University Press. Koestler, A. (1959), The sleepwalkers: A history of man’s changing vision of the universe. New York: Arkana-Penguin. Kuhn, T. (1962), The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lerner, E. J. (1991), The big bang never happened: A startling refutation of the dominant theory of the origin of the universe. New York: Times Books. Lindberg, D. C. (1992), The beginnings of western science: The European scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context, b00 B.C. to A.D. 1450. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. J. (1987), The tree of life: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston: Shambhala. Mendoza, R. G. (1995), The acentric labyrinth: Giordano Bruno’s prelude to contemporary cosmology. Shaftsbury, UK: Element Books Motz, L. & Weaver, J. H. (1989), The story of physics. New York: Plenum Press. Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I. (1984), Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam. Ronan, C. A. (1991), The natural history of the universe. New York: Macmillan. Russell, B. (1961). A free man’s worship. In R. E. Egner & L. D. Dennon (Eds.). The basic writings of Bertrand Russell 1903-1959. New York: Simon & Schuster. Staguhn, G. (1992), God’s laughter: Physics, religion, and the cosmos. New York: Kodansha International. Swimme, B., & Berry, T. (1992), The universe story: From the primordial flaring forth to the ecozoic era. A celebration of the unfolding of cosmos. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. Thuan, X. T. (1993), The birth of the universe: The big bang and after. New York: Harry N. Abrams. Thuan, X. T. (1995), The secret melody: And man created the universe. New York: Oxford University Press. Tucker, W. & K. (1988), The dark matter: The quest for the mass hidden in our universe. New York: Quill-Morrow. Tully, B. R. (1986), More about clustering on a scale of .1c. The Astrophysical Journal, vol. 303, p. 25. |
|
||