The theory of the Big Bang is based on the assumption that
once the universe with all its matter, energy and pace was concentrated in a
single point. Then it exploded in a Big Bang and during the following 13.7 billion years it formed the universe that we can see today with its planets,
stars, galaxies and galaxy clusters.
It is today the most widely
accepted theory about the origin of the universe and replaced earlier theories
like for example the steady state theory, which assumes that the universe has
more or less always been as it is today and has neither a beginning nor an end.
Although the Big Bang theory is
today so widely accepted, it has still its problems that it cannot explain so
easily. However scientists have always come up with new adjustments to this
theory in order to save it from being falsified by actual observations.
First Problem: Missing Matter (Flatness Problem)
In order to determine the future
fate of the universe, scientists wanted to measure the concentration of matter
in space. If the amount of matter in the universe was more than a certain
value, the universe would one day stop to expand, when the gravity of its
matter would get stronger than the force that caused the Big Bang and its
expansion. The process would then reverse and the universe would collapse in a
Big Crunch. Would the amount of matter be lower than a certain value, it would
forever continue to expand, since the gravity would never be enough to stop its
expansion.
The third possibility was that
the amount of matter would exactly be that value to be able to stop the
expansion, but not enough to reverse it. In this case the universe would slowly
approach its maximum extension, without ever reaching it or surpassing it.
Observations of the Hubble
telescope finally allowed an estimation of the amount of matter in the
universe. And the result was that the amount of matter was not just lower than
the value needed to stop its expansion it was far lower. It was so low, that it
couldn’t even explain, why the universe hadn’t exploded long ago and was still
merely compact. In fact the amount of matter found was about 17% of the
amount needed to explain how the universe would have survived for so long after
the Big Bang. So the theory of the Big Bang was in big trouble.
But some ingenious scientist came
suddenly up with the creative idea, that if there was not enough matter in the
universe to support the Big Bang theory, there had to be some invisible matter
that simply could not be detected. This matter was called with the mysterious
name "Dark Matter".
No scientist can actually explain, what this Dark Matter is supposed to be, and why it is
undetectable, although it makes for more than 80% of matter in the universe, but
they came up with vast number of theories like Black Holes, neutrinos, "Dark
Energy", or simply a hidden variable of space or gravity.
However thanks to this unproven
speculation about Dark Matter or Dark Energy the Big Bang theory is still
alive.
Second Problem: The Universe is too Big. (Horizon Problem)
Since nothing can move faster
than light according to Einstein’s theory of Relativity and the Big Bang is
supposed to have occurred about 13.7 billion years ago, there shouldn’t be any
objects in the universe, which are more than 13.7 billion years away from each
other. Unfortunately for the Big Bang theory, this is not how it is. There have
indeed objects been observed on opposite sides of our horizon to be farther
away from each other than light speed would permit. Once again the Big Bang
theory was threatened. But scientists were quick to find a solution for this
problem. They assumed that there was a phenomenon called "inflation"
just shortly after the Big Bang when for some strange reason the universe expanded
faster than light. The so called "Inflation" theory so once again
saved the day for the Big Bang theory, although it created even more questions
than answers. Simply introducing new parameters into an equation that have never been observed anywhere else is a very bad style. Apart from the "Inflation" theory there has never been any observation to support the assumption that space would be able to expand faster than light.
Third Problem: Where is the Antimatter? (Baryon Assymetry)
If all the matter in the universe
was created during the Big Bang from an extremely hot state out of energy, then
for every particle there must have been created its anti-particle. Elementary
particles cannot be produced without producing their anti-particles. This means
that there must be the same amount of matter and anti-matter in the universe.
On the other hand the observation of the universe shows that there is no
anti-matter in the observable part of the universe. Since matter and
anti-matter would annihilate each other if they ever meet, there would need to
be a vast amount of space between them. It can be calculated that in the whole
universe there is no such area of empty space. Until the present day not even a
single anti-helium atom has ever been observed, neither in space nor
artificially created in a particle accelerator.
Therefore the matter of the
universe cannot have been created by the Big Bang, if we don’t want to give up
all the elementary principles of elementary physics and quantum physics.
So far even the scientists who
support the Big Bang theory haven’t found a theory to explain this problem
away. Some speculate about the CP symmetry of elementary particles being
somehow incomplete (anti-particles having distinct properties from normal particles) without realizing hat they are questioning the basic laws of
nature that hold our universe together as it is.
In fact the anti-matter problem
is simply ignored when talking about the Big Bang and its solution is
postponed.
Forth Problem: Objects older
than the universe? (Globular Cluster Age)
Although the age of the universe
has been calculated to be 13.7 billion years, the globular star clusters
surrounding our galaxy seem to be at least 15 billion years old considering
their star population.
This problem caused an immediate
headache to all scientists supporting the Big Bang theory. But they saw their
chance. The difference between the age of these star clusters and the age of
the universe was rather small, so it was an observation, which could be
discussed away with enough effort. And finally in the late 1990s they had had
done enough fine tuning in some computer models, so that they turned out a
younger age for the globular clusters. The results of these computer
simulations are still disputed and it is obvious that the scientific method had
been reversed in this case. The desired result of these simulations predated
the actual experiment and had obviously an influence of it. And even supposed that the results are
right, there remains the question how these structures could form so early in
the history of the universe.
Fifth Problem: A beginning without an end?
Since scientists found out that the expansion of the universe is increasing, instead of slowing down as one might expect due to the effect of gravity, the Big Bang theory has to assume that the universe had a beginning but will have no end, no Big Crunch. This rises first of al the question, if it is theoretically thinkable that thing have a beginning but no end. We would have a situation that an infinite and ever-increasing number of things would come into existence populating the world ad infinitum. Avery odd concept.
However we could assume that the universe will finally come to an end when its expansion has become so fast that even the strong nuclear interaction would not be able to prevent the quarks of the baryons moving away from each other beyond their respective event horizon resulting in some kind of evaporation of the universe. This event, the so called "Big Rip" would be more than
years in the future (a 1 with 10
76 zeros, an unimaginable number for the human mind), long after the "Big Freeze" when all matter of the universe had turned into Black Holes. Then we would have to question why we are existing at a moment so close to the beginning of the universe, while we should expect to exist just in any random point of time during the lifespan of the universe. From a statistical point of view it has a probability close to zero that we live just 13.7 billion years from the Big Bang while the whole lifespan of the universe is close to infinitely longer. Even if we apply the highly controversial Anthropic Principle (that we can only exist when physical existence is possible due to the physical conditions of the universe), there would be conditions for biological life up to 10
14 years in the future. This means we would still be during the first 3 days of baby's life if we scale down the productive life of the universe to a human lifespan. This is still very improbable.
Improbable doesn't mean impossible, but it makes the whole theory look very ugly. We should not settle for theories with a probability of less than 0.01%.
Observations Supporting the Big Bang Theory
After reading about all these
problems with the Big Bang theory one may wonder, why they came up with this
theory in the first place.
Indeed there is currently no
better theory about the origin of the universe and the steady state theory has
its own unexplained problems, which are even more serious than those of the Big
Bang.
Red-Shift
The key observation, which led to
the development of the Big Bang theory, was the red-shift of the galaxies. The
light reaching earth from galaxies far away is shifted towards longer
wavelength (towards the red end of the optical spectrum). This red-shift is
stronger in galaxies farther away and seems to be directly correlated to the
distance of the object.
This red-shift was explained with
the Doppler Effect. It is known that the wavelength from a source of a wave
moving away from an observer is stretched longer than the wavelength from a
wave with a source, which doesn’t move. We can hear this effect when a
ambulance car is driving past us. First the siren sounds pitched. Then when it
passes the closest point and moves away the sound seems to have a lower
frequency.
The same would happen with light
emitted from a moving object. Since the light of all galaxies has a longer
wavelength then expected, they seem to move away from us. The only logical
explanation was that earth would either be the center of the universe, from
which everything moves away, which is rather unlikely, or that the universe
itself expands creating more empty space between the galaxies.
If we extrapolate this situation,
there must have been a point of time when all matter of the universe was
concentrated at one single point and then started to move away from each other.
This is historically the
beginning of the Big Bang theory.
But what if the red-shift is not
caused by the Doppler effect? Are there other explanations possible for the
red-shift?
Indeed there are.
And indeed the Doppler effect is
a pretty bad explanation for the red-shift, since it contradicts astronomic
observations. We know for sure that galaxies don’t necessarily move away from
each other. We can actually observe a huge number of collisions of two galaxies
throughout the universe. Even our own galaxy is not moving away from its
closest neighbor the Andromeda galaxy. They are approaching each other and will
eventually collide and merge. So, if we can actually see galaxies approaching
each other and organizing in huge clusters and super-clusters, then this means
the gravity between them is stronger than any other force, which is supposed to
pull them away from each other. Our own galaxy and the local group are part of
the Virgo super cluster. So why should they move away from each other, if they
are obviously organizing themselves into super structures due to their gravity?
No, the Doppler effect doesn’t
convince as an explanation for the red-shift of the galaxies.
What other explanations are
possible then?
A red-shift means that the light
reaching us from other galaxies has obviously lost energy, since the wavelength
is reciprocally proportional to the energy of light. This means red light has
less energy than violet light for example. But there are many explanations
possible for this loss of energy. It actually seems quite logical that light
would lose some energy on its long way to us. Although space seems to be empty,
it is not an absolute vacuum. There is still some intergalactic matter between
the galaxies in very low concentration, but nevertheless there is. And any
interaction between the light and the matter between the galaxies would
naturally result in a loss of energy, which would be given to the matter
particles between the galaxies. What we would see in such a case is exactly the
same red-shift that we can see today, and which was may be wrongly attributed
to the Doppler effect.
The possibility that photons may
not be that stable as we think, may also be considered. What if photons slowly
decay in other photons with lower energy or other low-energy particles?
This loss of energy, no mater
what its cause may be, would continue until the photon has reached an energy as
low as the average energy of the universe, resulting in a diffuse background
radiation. And this is exactly what we see. However the Cosmic Microwave
Background Radiation was interpreted differently in order to support the Big
Bang theory.
Cosmic Background Radiation
Since the Cosmic Background
Radiation was discovered in 1964, it has been considered the ultimate proof for
the Big Bang theory, which had predicted it. It is a homogenous glow coming
from every direction with a wavelength in the microwave spectrum equivalent of
a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of approximately 3 K. It is
considered to be the remnant of the Big Bang, which has now cooled down to a
temperature of 3 K.
Nevertheless the assumption that
light emitted from galaxies far away loses energy on its way to us results in
exactly the same prediction, so it is no proof for any of these theories.
In an infinite universe without
beginning or end there has necessarily to be a homogenous background radiation
coming from the infinite number of stars out there in any possible direction.
Why the Big Bang Theory?
Even the supporters of the Big
Bang theory admit that there are still unsolved problems with their theory. But nevertheless nobody has come up with a better
theory so far. The main problem of the steady-state model of the universe is
the question why the entropy of the universe hasn’t reached its maximum
meanwhile. In the same way the Big Bang theory can be asked why the universe
has such little entropy in its beginning. But either way, there is in fact no
conclusive model that could explain the origin and fate of the universe.
But why don’t we just say, we
don’t know it? Why do we continue to work with a theory, which contradicts our
observation?
It looks like the Big Bang theory
cannot be falsified, which is part of the definition of the scientific method
since Karl Popper. Whatever observation we make that contradicts this theory, some
obscure new phenomenon is introduced to keep the theory alive, may it be Dark
Matter, the Cosmic Inflation or violations of the CP symmetry. Scientists will
cling to the Big Bang theory no matter what new observations they make.
This has little to do with
science.
Why would scientists behave in
such a irrational way?
There are several circumstances
when we can’t trust scientists anymore. This is when politics, money, religion
or social issues come in. In the case of the Big Bang theory it has nothing to
do with politics, society or money. The issue is politically and socially
irrelevant and can’t be turned into financial benefit.
But it has to do something with
religion. And this is when the whole issue gets suspicious.
|
The biblical god creating the Big Bang |
The Big Bang and God
Throughout human history the
omnipotent gods have always been somehow hidden on remote places. This was
necessary in order to make unproven claims about them and to empower a class of
clerics. So gods have frst been placed on some high and remote mountains
(Olympus, Mount Sinai). But some curious humans had soon verified that there
were no gods.
Then they were moved to the sky
above the clouds. And humans built planes and couldn’t find them there either.
Finally the god (meanwhile there was
only one of them left.) was moved beyond the sky into outer space. But
spaceships and telescopes couldn’t find him there either.
Next the god was placed into a hidden
realm within nature where his spirit was supposed to be the driving force
behind all life on earth. But the theory of the vis vitalis (life-force)
crumbled and biochemistry was able to explain life without any divine
interference.
Then, when there was finally no
place left for the god to go, he was placed outside the universe as its creator as
the cause of the primary cause of everything.
But therefore it was necessary
that the universe had a primary cause, a beginning. And this is when the Big
Bang theory was happily received by all those who wanted to belief in god. At
last the god was safe from human curiosity in a place beyond scientific
investigation. Through the Big Bang the god was able to do whatever he wanted. He
could determine the primary condition of the universe, and everything what
happened later would depend on it.
Therefore it shouldn’t be a
surprise that the scientist who once came up with the theory of the Big Bang,
Georges Lemaître, was also a Catholic priest.
|
Prelate Father Georges Lemaitre
Inventor of the Big Bang theory |
So it should now be quite obvious
why such a flawed theory as the Big Bang resisted any doubts and contrary
observations. It will never be disproved, because those who support it are not
willing to give it up. It is their last attempt to keep the idea of an
omnipotent creator-god alive. Without the Big Bang there is no way how this god
could fit in.
This would not make a difference
for the majority of people with little or no scientific education who usually
react with denial to inconvenient scientific facts, but it is a problem for the
huge number of intelligent and educated scientists who also happen to believe
in a god due to their indoctrination in early childhood. They depend on a
rational explanation of the god and could not live without it.
Science is done by humans. So it
suffers from their human weaknesses. This is why we should not have much trust
in scientific results where human emotions are involved.
A final word: This article doesn't mean to state that the Big Bang theory is wrong. It only states that there is insufficient proof for this theory and that the theory is unable to explain even the most basic questions related to the nature of the universe. There is currently no better theory that I would have to offer. But this doesn't mean that we have to live with a model that contributes nothing useful to our understanding of the world. We should simply admit that currently we have no working model for the origin (if there is one) and the final destiny of the universe.