Big Bang Breakdown
An ancient Russian proverb says: “when money speaks, the truth keeps silent.” Never has this been more apparent than the current admission being made by cosmologists who are finally declaring that the big bang theory is incorrect. Last year a group of cosmologists wrote an open letter warning that failure to fund research into big bang alternatives was suppressing free debate in the field of cosmology (Lerner, 2004, p. 20). In that article, Eric Lerner, who is president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics in West Orange, New Jersey, noted: “Our ideas about the history of the universe are dominated by big bang theory. But its dominance rests more on funding decisions than on the scientific method” (p. 20). He continued:
Big bang theory relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities—things that we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy are the most prominent. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. But the big bang theory can’t survive without these fudge factors (p. 20, emp. added).
The heat has been turned up a notch as more individuals come to realize that politics and money are taking over the front seat of origins research. In a recent article titled “Did the Big Bang Really Happen?” Lerner again points out that money is the driving force behind the big bang theory. He concedes that cosmology research “is bankrolled by just a few sources, and the committees that control those purse strings are dominated by supporters of the big bang” (as quoted in Chown, 2005). The New Scientist cover story image reveals a wrecking ball preparing to crash into the words “Big Bang.” Above the image is the title “The End of the Beginning”—a good indication that the big bang era may be over. The author of the article, Marcus Chown, who also authored The Universe Next Door, begins the article asking: “What if the big bang never happened?”
His article continues:
“Look at the facts,” says Riccardo Scarpa of the European Southern Observatory in Santiago, Chile. “The basic big bang model fails to predict what we observe in the universe in three major ways.” The temperature of today’s universe, the expansion of the cosmos, and even the presence of galaxies, have all had cosmologists scrambling for fixes. “Every time the basic big bang model has failed to predict what we see, the solution has been to bolt on something new—inflation, dark matter and dark energy,” Scarpa says.
Chown states that for Scarpa and his fellow dissenters, the tinkering has reached an “unacceptable level.” However, nature abhors a vacuum, and thus the big bang theory continues to receive consideration and funding. The time has come to ask the reason why.
So many scientists are questioning the validity of the big bang that dissidents met to review the evidence at the first ever Crisis in Cosmology conference held in Monção, Portugal during the last week of June, 2005. “This isn’t science,” says Eric Lerner, one of the conference organizers. In what can only be considered an extremely embarrassing admission among big bang cosmologists, Lerner observed: “Big bang predictions are consistently wrong and are being fixed after the event” (as quoted in Chown, 2005, emp. added). Just how wrong are they? Chown provided part of the answer when he noted: “So much so, that today’s ‘standard model’ of cosmology has become an ugly mishmash comprising the basic big bang theory, inflation and a generous helping of dark matter and dark energy” (2005). The growing number of discrepancies caused Lerner to boldly proclaim: “I can prove that the universe wasn’t born 13.7 billion years ago. The big bang never happened” (Chown, 2005). Previously, Apologetics Press published an in-depth scientific critique that exposed the problems with the big bang theory. The reader is encouraged to review the on-line version The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique.
After analyzing data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), João Magueijo of the Imperial College London lamented: “It could be telling us something fundamental about our universe, maybe even that the simplest big bang model is wrong.... People made these assumptions because, without them, it was impossible to simplify Einstein’s equations enough to solve them for the universe” (see Chown, 2005). Many scientists have already called Einstein’s assumptions into question. If those assumptions are inaccurate, then the coffin may shut permanently on the big bang theory. Yet, sadly, even with all of these known problems, admissions, and discrepancies, the “standard theory” continues being taught as fact throughout this country to young people—from first grade to college age.
The imminent death of the big bang theory may happen sooner rather than later. As Magueijo pointed out: “The standard model is ugly and embarrassing. I hope it will soon come to breaking point.” How many more “serious questions about the validity” of this theory must be raised before the scientific community at-large admits this theory should be abandoned? As long as other theories and ideas are suppressed by financial and political pressure, we can continue to expect more of the same “ugly mishmash” as the truth continues to be silenced.
Lerner, Eric (2004), “Bucking the Big Bang,” New Scientist, 20, May 22.
Chown, Marcus (2005), “Did the Big Bang Really Happen?,” New Scientist, July 2, [On-line], URL: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18625061.800.