THE CASE AGAINST THE BIG BANG (A critique of "The case for the relativistic hot Big Bang cosmology") by Tom Van Flandern Meta Research [The contents of this note are Copyright 1991 by the author because an article based on them is in preparation for a journal. Permission is granted to quote freely for purposes of discussion on this network, and to repost (including this notice) to other networks. Permission to print extensive excrpts in media which are not in competition with astronomy research journals will probably be granted upon request.] The invited review article by P.J.E. Peebles, D.N. Schramm, E.L. Turner & R.G. Kron with the cited title was published in the 29 August issue of NATURE, v. 352, pp. 769-776 (1991). Although the following rebuttal criticizes many points about the Big Bang model, it should in no way be taken as a criticism of the authors themselves, who are clearly know- ledgeable and sincere authorities writing in their fields of expertise. In their introduction, the authors (henceforth abbreviated "PSTK") cite three criteria of the Big Bang which they suggest are essential to a good world model: (1) It fits and even predicts the observations well. (2) There is no known feasible alternative model. (3) Although there are unsolved puzzles, nothing contradicts the model. We will argue here that: (1) The Big Bang's predictions are of a narrow, ad hoc, unconvincing variety. (2) Some alternative models are feasible. (3) There would be contradictions but for narrowing of the definition of the standard model so as to exclude known contradictions. We also contend that the Big Bang model merely attempts to explain what we observe today, but does not truly explain very much about the origin of the universe. Section I: The standard model PSTK begin by defining the standard Big Bang cosmology as one which expands according to Hubble's law. This is overly broad, since some alternative cosmologies also have expanding universes. By defining the Big Bang in this way, existing and potential future contradictions to it are avoided. For example, if the cosmic background radiation (CBR) were found to be a local phenomenon, PSTK would apparently not count that as a strike against the Big Bang model itself, but only against certain variations of the basic model. The PSTK exposition of the standard model has several problematical concepts. Their primordial fireball provides a reference frame for the measurement of absolute velocities, in contradiction to a premise of the theory of relativity. Their expanding universe has a mass density such that it met the criteria for being a "black hole" until it had expanded to about 1000 Mpc in size. Now, depending on the values of certain parameters, much of the universe's matter may have escaped its event horizon, or will in the future. And the extrapolated starting conditions imply increasing temperatures approaching infinity at the origin. This seems opposed to the Big Bang concept of a beginning to time itself, which implies an unchanging (zero temperature) condition at the moment of the origin of time. But PSTK avoid the most important question of all for a cosmological model, stating that "whatever started the expansion ... is not intrinsic to the standard model". There is an old math concept that one and a google (a huge number) are both infinitely far away from infinity. By taking reciprocals, it follows that 10^17 seconds and 10^-40 seconds are both infinitely far away from being infinitesimal. So in that sense, the standard model still leaves us infinitely far from understanding the origins of the universe. The problem is not so much that the model doesn't deal with the question of the origin moment, as it is that a miracle still seems required to start such a universe. It is no coincidence that the Big Bang model has been declared theologically acceptable in certain religions, as Hawking has noted. Another fundamental problem here is that the observed cosmological redshift is not known to be due to velocity. That interpretation is an ad hoc assumption of the standard model. But in the standard model this assumption implies that, for the universe to have expanded from a singularity, it would have to overcome gravitational forces near the origin which indefinitely exceed in strength any known forces in physics. If such mega-forces were to exist, then how could we have confidence in the rest of physics (e.g. the theory of black holes)? Section II. Cosmic background radiation PSTK cite the Big Bang's interpretation of this radiation as a primordial fireball. This interpretation is neither unique nor compelling. Specific problems with it are: (1) the smoothness of the radiation is in unexpectedly sharp contrast with the lumpiness in the distribution of galaxies. (2) The 2.8 degree temperature of the radiation is well below theoretical predictions of what that temperature was expected to be in the Big Bang model (10-30 degrees). (3) The radiation provides a frame of reference against which absolute velocities can be measured. (4) Lerner has shown that the brightness of radio galaxies is sufficiently attenuated at radio wavelengths as compared with infrared wavelengths, that no microwave radiation could possibly get through the intergalactic medium without absorption and re-emission many times. So the radiation we observe cannot be coming to us directly from the "background". Section III. Light element abundances and neutrino counting The abundances of heavy elements used to be an argument against the Big Bang. Now that the standard model has accepted that heavy elements must come from multiple generations of stellar nucleosynthesis, it concentrates only on the light elements. Rejecting cosmic ray spallation (the explanation for light elements in other cosmologies), the Big Bang uses an adjustable parameter (photon to baryon ratio) to secure good agreement among four light elements. But the predicted helium 4 abundance is close to the value expected from multiple generation stellar nucleosynthesis, and is therefore not significant. The deuterium abundance is difficult to estimate, with the latest Hubble Space Telescope values coming out smaller than Big Bang predictions. The implied photon to baryon ratio requires that the curvature parameter, omega, be less than 0.1 (i.e. the universe is open, in contradiction with certain popular versions of the Big Bang). And a recent determination of the Beryllium abundance indicates that element may be 1000 times more abundant than the Big Bang predicts. A representation that the Big Bang predicts the abundances of the elements significantly better than any other model is presently unjustified. Section IV. The evolution of quasars and galaxies PSTK suggest that distant blue galaxies represent the predicted proto- galaxies expected by the Big Bang model. The problem is that the Big Bang did not predict that its proto-galaxies would look anything like the blue galaxies, whose true nature is still quite unknown. PSTK likewise assume that radio galaxies are an evolutionary stage in the development of mature galaxies. But this is not consistent with the morphologically distinct differences between high-redshift and low-redshift radio galaxies, suggesting that they are two different classes of object. Similarly, if quasars and AGN's are also evolutionary stages, it would not have been expected that their principal radiations would be non-thermal. Incorporating all of these objects into the standard model requires ad hoc hypotheses, and therefore cannot be taken as "evidence" for the Big Bang. A more serious difficulty is the time required for formation of superclusters of galaxies -- structures so large that, at typical galaxy relative velocities, perhaps an order of magnitude more time than the Hubble age of the universe is required. Section V. Quasar distances and lensing PSTK cite Arp's argument that 20 quasars out of 4500 have a magnitude 15 or brighter galaxy within 2 arc minutes, whereas only 2 would be expected by chance. They then argue for discovery bias, since quasars are looked for more often near bright galaxies. But this argument, if true, implies that the true quasar population to be discovered away from bright galaxies is actually at least ten times greater, even if all known quasars were found by only while looking near bright galaxies. I think the observers will be surprised to hear this. PSTK argue that high-redshift quasars near low-redshift galaxies have absorption lines, thereby implying that the quasars are more distant than the galaxies. But the absorption lines show no metalicity, and therefore cannot be caused by a galaxy halo. And the excessive number of absorption line systems in the nearby, bright quasar 3C273 argues against the idea that intergalactic clouds cause these absorption lines. The meaning of the absorption lines is different in different alternative models; but is unlikely to be as simple as the standard Big Bang model suggests. PSTK argue that multiple images of some quasars imply gravitational lensing by foreground galaxies, proving that quasars are much farther away than the galaxies, as the standard model indicates. The difficulty is that the images are not quite what the lensing model suggests. The optical quasar images fail to form into Einstein rings or substantial ring arcs; are inconsistent in the numbers of images formed; and generally fail to be distorted or align with the hypothetical lensing galaxy, even when a nearby galaxy can be seen at all. The observed properties of the suggested lensing systems are not inconsistent with multiple images formed by refraction as quasar light shines through an intervening nebulosity. It might even be fair to suggest that the later idea better represents what is observed than the gravitational lens hypothesis. PSTK state that "indications of associations between objects with very different redshifts are well-worth following up", yet they omit the most striking of all such examples to date, Markarian 205, from their discussion. The unusual luminous bridge connecting this quasar to a galaxy arm, found in long-exposure optical images, has been confirmed in striking detail with computer processing of the latest CCD images. PSTK agree that, if lensing of quasar images were not observed, it would be a serious problem for the standard model. But the cases they call "lensing" often require chance alignments too close to be real. For example, in Q2237+0305, the hypothetical lensing galaxy and the background quasar must be aligned to within about 0.1 arc seconds or so. But the total area of the sky is 5 x 10^11 arc seconds, which is about 10^13 times greater than the area containing the "lensing" galaxy and "background" quasar. And the quasar is not even unusually far away, at redshift 1.7. With fewer than 10^4 quasars known, one can readily see the statistical problems of an alignment to within a part in 10^13 for this whole interpretation and its requirement of chance alignments of unassociated objects. Section VI. The timescale problem PSTK discuss the mild inconsistency between the Hubble age of the Big Bang universe, 10 +/- 1.3 billion years (by), versus the radioactive decay age of the galaxy of 15 +/- 4 by, and the globular cluster ages of 15 +/- 3 by. They point out the unpleasant implications for simplicity of the standard model if these ages stand up to further scrutiny. They do not discuss the minimum time required for the formation of galactic superclusters and voids, which appears to be far larger yet. Section VII. Origin of galaxies PSTK note the unexpected smoothness of the background radiation in comparison with the highly structured distribution of galaxies. Here they cite limits on the smoothness which, if violated by future observations, would put the entire standard model "in trouble". Earlier estimates of this "trouble" threshold have already been violated. PSTK then note that the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) version of the standard model is apparently already in trouble, which they describe as a "blow to simplicity" for our understanding of the universe. Section VIII. Alternative cosmologies PSTK may be less familiar with alternative cosmologies than with the standard model, because this is the only section in which I would argue with their "facts" instead of just their interpretation. For example, by comparing infrared and radio wavelengths, Lerner has shown that radio galaxy luminosities do attenuate with distance, contrary to what PSTK say. And PSTK have applied their own equation (6), the assumption that the background radiation (CBR) is due to a cooling fireball with a distance-dependent temperature, to "prove" that the CBR spectrum is inconsistent with certain other models. But most alternative cosmologies expect a thermalized radiation source of uniform temperature at all distances, which yields a blackbody spectrum; so this PSTK argument is invalid. PSTK give no consideration to alternative cosmologies in which the cosmological redshift is due to something other than velocity. This is certainly a serious limitation of their discussion. Section IX. Evaluation and opportunity Here PSTK list possible future observations which would tend to falsify the standard model: an important criterion for any viable theory. These include findings of inhomogeneity in matter distribution greater than one part in 10^4 over distances comparable with the Hubble distance; the finding of objects with helium 4 abundances well under 24%; or the determination of cluster ages well in excess of the Hubble age. The difficulty, of course, is the irresistible urge to add new hypotheses to the model to keep it compatible with observations, no matter what may be found in the future, as has already happened numerous times in the history of the Big Bang model. As scientists, we understand the necessity that models be falsifiable; but as humans, we are loath to admit it when the falsification criteria have been met. But perhaps we may at least hope for a lesser goal: if any of the arguments herein, or any future observations, should tend to undermine confidence in the standard model, then perhaps we could return to the scientifically more desirable status of having all viable models on the table for future discussion and the interpretation of observations, instead of just one of them. Our knowledge and understanding would surely grow more rapidly from such a scientifically commendable approach. -- Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.