Time to look for polarisation in the CMBR and check for gravity waves... or are we already onto that? :)
On 31 January 2014 10:34, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:10:34AM -0800, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > All, More FYI for discussion, not because I believe it. Best, Edgar > > > > > > *Eric Lerner* > > *Big Bang Never Happened* > > http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ > > *Home Page and Summary* > > > ... > > > Is the Big Bang a Bust? > The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of > the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe. By > Eric Lerner New York: Random House, 1991, 466 pp. Cloth, > $21.95. > Victor J. Stenger > Published in Skeptical Inquirer 16, 412, Summer 1992. > > Normally the refutation of a dominant scientific > theory takes place on the pages of a scientific journal. > But strange things are happening in science these days, > as a Nobel laureate admits to publishing falsified data, > great research universities are accused of misspending, > and wacky claims like cold fusion are announced by press > conference. News magazines proclaim that science is in > trouble, so it must be so. The scientific establishment > has been smug and complacent for too long. It's high > time it was pulled down from its pedestal and told > who's boss in a democratic society. > The big-bang theory is the standard framework > within which most cosmologists operate, having assumed > the same position held by evolution for biologists and > quantum mechanics for physicists. Eric Lerner wishes to > pull down not only that framework, but also what he > perceives as the outdated mentality that built it. > Lerner's case against the big bang is composed > of several different lines of argument. The first is > conventional scientific criticism: The big-bang > conjecture is said to be invalidated by the data. > Cosmologists have a theory, the big bang, that makes > specific quantitative and qualitative predictions that are > tested against observations. They claim success for a > significant majority of these tests, far exceeding all > alternatives. The recent highly-publicized results from > the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite (COBE) provide > further evidence for the validity of the big-bang model. > While admitting that a detailed, satisfactory explanation > of several phenomena, notably large-scale structure > formation, is yet to be provided, big-bang cosmologists > do not see this as fatal. Lerner, however, argues that > these deficiencies are so severe as to invalidate the > whole notion of a universe finite in time and space. > The big bang may be wrong, but Lerner can't > seriously expect to prove it in a popular book. The issue > is hardly likely to be settled without the technical > detail, careful reasoning, and expert critical review of > the conventional scientific paper or monograph, which > this is not. Lerner attempts to go over the heads of > cosmologists to the general public. Despite current > criticism of science, I see no sign that the public is > demanding suffrage in the determination of scientific > truth. > The author does not limit himself to a scientific > critique of big-bang cosmology, but has a larger agenda. > His goal is to refute not just the big bang, but the very > thought processes of conventional science as well. He > argues that the hypothesis-testing procedure is a > throwback to Platonism, a product of theological rather > than scientific thinking and antithetic to the essence of > the scientific revolution. > According to the author, the equations used in big- > bang calculations are treated by the science elite as the > ultimate reality of the universe - like Plato's forms. > Even after these equations are shown to disagree with > observational facts, as Lerner claims they have been, > they are retained by big bangers because of an irrational > prejudice that the theory must be correct regardless of > the facts. Rather than discard the big-bang theory, > cosmologists invent new unobserved phenomena, such as > cosmic strings and invisible dark matter, to "save the > phenomena." > The big bang is promoted, in Lerner's view, > because science has sacrificed its soul to theology. The > theory confirms the theological notion of creation _ex > nihilo_: The universe is finite, having a definite > beginning, created with a fixed design, and gradually > winding down under the inexorable effect of the second > law of thermodynamics. > Lerner argues that this picture disintegrates on > exposure to observed facts, not just those gathered with > telescopes but common experience as well. From > everyday observations, the universe is growing and > evolving to a state of increasing order. The second law > is simply wrong, or wrongfully interpreted. > The curved space and black holes predicted by > general relativity are likewise not common experience, > but the result of abstruse mathematics. Lerner says we > should believe what our eyes tell us, not some > fashionable mathematical equation. > Finally, Lerner finds within this cosmotheological > conspiracy the source of most of the evils of society. > The slavery of the past and the continued > authoritarianism of the present somehow arise from the > idea that the universe came into being at an explosive > instant and is headed toward ultimate decay. He says the > big bang is a convenient paradigm employed by an unholy > alliance between church and state to subjugate humanity. > In their view, the material world came from nothing and > is next to nothing, transient and meaningless in the face > of the eternal, limitless power of God. > Lerner's alternative universe is based on the > matter-antimatter symmetric plasma cosmology > promoted for years by Nobel laureate Hannes AlfvŽn. > Most conventional cosmologists insist that plasma > cosmology is inconsistent with observational data. In > particular, AlfvŽn's universe is half matter and half > antimatter; yet no more than one part in a billion of > antimatter is observed anywhere in the universe. > What arguments does Lerner use to promote the > plasma universe? Again they fall into the same classes > as his arguments against the big bang. And they possess > the same flaws he purports to find in conventional > cosmological argument. > While castigating big-bang cosmologists for using > hypothesis-testing, Lerner is not beyond claiming > successful tests of the hypotheses of plasma cosmology. > While maligning big bangers for inventing new ad hoc > entities, such as the dark matter, to "save the > phenomena," he introduces unobserved, invisible > "filaments" throughout the universe to scatter the > microwave background and make it isotropic as the data > require. (The big bang requires nothing ad hoc here, and, > in fact, _predicted _ the microwave background.) While > he derides the mathematical equations of general > relativity for being inferred from arguments of > symmetry and elegance, rather than directly from > experiment, Lerner extols the marvels of Maxwell's > equations of electromagnetism - also inferred as much > from arguments of symmetry and elegance as from > observation. And while he criticizes the theological > nature of creation _ex nihilo_, he calls on the equally > mystical ideas of Teilhard de Chardin. > Has Eric Lerner punctured the big-bang balloon so > that its collapse is at hand? I doubt it. The big-bang > theory is in no more trouble than the theory of evolution. > Creationists tried and failed to invalidate evolution by > trumpeting a few of the problems biologists still argue > over. Similarly, Lerner tries and fails to invalidate the > big bang by drawing attention to its current unsolved > problems, declaring them fatal while ignoring the > theory's many successes, unmatched by any > alternative theory. > The first successful test of the big bang occurred > with the discovery of the microwave background in 1964. > Lerner dismisses this prediction, labeling it a failure > because the measured temperature of the radiation was > lower than predicted. But the important result was that > the radiation was there at all. No other theory, including > plasma cosmology, foresaw this. Lerner's argument > here is like someone saying that Columbus failed to prove > that the earth was round since he set foot in the > Americas, rather than East Indies, where he had expected > to land. > Lerner also argues that the universe must be much > older than the 15 to 20 billion years required by standard > big-bang theory. He claims that the large structures > being observed by astronomers ". . . . were just too big > to have formed in the twenty billion years since the big > bang" (p. 23). While current cosmology has yet to > accommodate these structures, Lerner has not > demonstrated that it never will within the big-bang > framework. His calculation is based on the _lengths_ of > the structures, the longest being somewhat less than a > billion light-years. In fact, only their _widths_, tens or > hundreds times smaller, need be explained. In a 15 to 20 > billion year-old universe, ample time exists to generate > a structure a billion light-years long and a hundred > million light-years wide. We just do not yet know the > exact mechanism. > The fact is: No observation rules out the big bang > theory at this time. And the big bang theory is > successful in quantitatively explaining many > observations. For example, calculations on the synthesis > of light chemical elements in the big bang give > remarkable agreement with measured abundances. > Lerner uses the kinds of arguments one often hears > in public discourse on science, but rarely among > professional scientists themselves. For example, he > argues that plasma cosmology is in closer agreement > with everyday observation than big-bang cosmology, and > hence is the more sensible. A look through a telescope > reveals spirals and other structures similar to those > observed in the plasma laboratory (and, as cosmologist > Rocky Kolb has remarked, in your bathroom toilet as > well). Following Lerner's line of reasoning, we would > conclude, as people once did, that the earth is flat, that > the sun goes around the earth, and that species are > immutable. The scientific revolution taught us to > question commonsense expectations. > Finally I want to comment on Lerner's > connection of the big bang to the Judeo-Christian concept > of Creation. I agree with the author in condemning the > way the big bang has been exploited by preachers, popes, > and some scientist-authors of popular books, as > providing an imagined link between science and religion, > and even a verification of the existence of a Creator. We > have seen this phenomenon repeated as the recent COBE > results are trumpeted by the media as evidence for > God's presence "shining through" in the design > of the universe. These commentators do not understand > that quite the opposite is the case. No support for > creation by design can be found in the theory of the big > bang. > Complete quantum chaos must have existed at an early > moment of the big bang (the _Planck Time_, 10^-43 > second). All we know about the universe is consistent > with a beginning that was a spontaneous quantum > fluctuation, with structure and physical laws developing > by the purely material processes of self-organization. > The uncreated universe does not, as some people think, > require a violation of the first or second law of > thermodynamics, nor any other principle of physics. > Perhaps the big bang did not happen exactly as > currently envisaged, but Lerner does not make much of a > case against it. In fact, a great deal of what he > discusses in his book, like cosmic plasma phenomena, is > perfectly consistent with the big bang. He could have > used the same material had he decided to write "The > Big Bang Happened!" > > > > -- > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders > Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] > University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
