The astronomical theory we love to hate

In the past few months I've noticed that the Big Bang seems to be the most often dismissed theory among fringe astronomers. I find this particularly frustrating because the Big Bang is probably the most well-supported theory in astrophysics. However, I haven't seen a single astrophysicist address Big Bang doubters. It's either too easy to ignore doubters or not worth the time addressing the complicated theories required to dismiss the Big Bang. If the idea of the Big Bang is difficult to swallow, you're not crazy. When observations of the expanding universe were first discovered, many mainstream scientists were skeptics themselves. There was one major prediction -- the cosmic microwave background (CMB) -- which, once discovered, caused the Big Bang to become a part of cosmological cannon and put viable alternative theories to rest. I am an advocate, however, of questioning everything. If you're a friend of Thomas Kuhn, questioning fundamental assumptions is essential towards the advancement of science. So, my first example of the quest to rid physics of the Big Bang is the recent paper submitted to astro-ph by Soberman & Dubin (S&D).

The big bang hypothesis is widely accepted despite numerous physics conflicts. It rests upon two experimental supports, galactic red shift and the cosmic microwave background. Both are produced by dark matter, shown here to be hydrogen dominated aggregates with a few percent of helium nodules. Scattering from these non-radiating intergalactic masses produce a red shift that normally correlates with distance. Warmed by our galaxy to an Eigenvalue of 2.735 K, drawn near the Earth, these bodies, kept cold by ablation, resonance radiate the Planckian microwave signal. Several tests are proposed that will distinguish between this model and the big bang.

Let's break down this abstract a little. S&D claim that Big Bang theory rests on two experimental supports. This is true. I don't know of any other observational evidence for the Big Bang besides red shift and the CMB. However, other observations can be used to measure properties of the expanding universe, and they converge to the same general values. This includes data from supernova, galaxy clusters, and more.

S&D blames both red shift and the CMB on Dark Matter, which they claim are free floating interstellar meteors, labeled "cosmoids," which were discovered by S&D in 1991. The cosmoids are supposedly made out of frozen hydrogen with some helium, but how this was determined observationally is not addressed or referenced. Their other properties are vague, with a mention of an "impossibly low density," 1/100th the density of liquid water, surrounding the earth. The cosmoids are supposed to be extremely fragile, comet-like, yet orders of magnitude smaller than comets. (This is also vague, which means they can be anywhere between centimeters to a few kilometers.) They reflect very little light, making them ideal candidates for dark matter according to S&D. I am no expert on this subject, so I won't comment on the likelihood of cosmoids being real astrophysical objects. However, the vague language with which cosmoids are described is one of my pet peeves associated with this type of science writing. S&D describe cosmoids, and then immediately assume that these objects will solve the Dark Matter problem without showing how they fit the mold.

To better explain this, imagine scientists' knowledge of the universe as a giant puzzle. In this puzzle, we find that there is a giant gap missing. (Sometimes, before a big discovery is made, we have blind spots and don't even know there are missing pieces.) Once we know a gap exists, we start looking for the piece(s) that will fit the gap. Now suppose, as we are working on other regions of the puzzle, we see a piece that matches the color or looks like it might fit into our dark matter gap. We aren't going to assume that the new piece fits our problem without putting it next to the gap for comparison! But that is exactly what S&D have done. They immediately assume that cosmoids are responsible for Dark Matter (because they're dark) without checking the sizes, weight, and distribution to see if they fit the Dark Matter profile.* S&D's lacking descriptions of cosmoid properties also makes it difficult for others to make this check.

According to S&D, heated cosmoids can explain the temperature of the CMB. I am personally skeptical about this, but I have nit-picky criticisms which would require another page of writing. This idea, however, is at least one point in the paper that I think deserves a little attention from the mainstream. If the microwave background is actually microwave pollution from some surrounding cloud of objects, what would that background look like? I think it's worth a thought, and I'm glad that S&D proposed a few observational tests. Proposing tests for a theory, making it provable or disprovable, is an important part of traditional science.

The major hole in the paper occurs when S&D dismiss cosmological redshift as the effect of light scattering off of cosmoids. This is terribly misguided. Think of why the sky is blue. On the most basic level, sunlight (containing all the visible colors of the rainbow) is scattered off molecules in the atmosphere. The blue light gets scattered easily by these molecules, so you see a generally blue background when you look at the sky away from the sun. During a sunset, the sky around the sun is red, because the majority of the blue light has been scattered away from your line of sight. S&D act as if cosmological redshift is merely a change in color, which can be described by light scattering. This is just not the case. Cosmological redshift** is a Doppler shift, which effects light emitted from objects that are moving towards or away from you at high speeds. Doppler shift can be witnessed because stars and other astronomical objects have absorption lines, a lot like a fingerprint of their composition, at very specific wavelengths. The location of these absorption lines yield a redshift, not the overall color of the galaxy. If you scatter the light, the patterns will still be there. Additionally, when you scatter the light, you might pollute it with other absorption features. Examine the spectrum of light from the sky instead of light directly from the sun, and you'll see signatures of water among other things. If cosmoids scattered light from distant galaxies, the resulting spectrum would be a great way to probe their composition.

At this point I do have to make a disclaimer: I am just a first year graduate student in astronomy, with a background in physics, and have not quite mastered the wide catalog of astronomical knowledge. (Being a first year is a good excuse for everything.) However, if I can poke holes in your theory, it has got a very weak link.

This is not intended as a low-blow to fringe science. I enjoy alternative ideas, but I think in order to bring alternative scientific ideas into the mainstream (and give the glory that fringe scientists seem to crave in developing the next big revolution in science), they need to subject themselves to the same sort of rigor. Many might complain of prejudice or censorship, but much of that prejudice is actually misinterpreted apathy on the part of the mainstream scientific community. This apathy troubles me, because this is not just the problem of a few misguided scientists. They have a tendency to misguide the public as well. The public is not being educated to a point of understanding the basis for the science presented to them. Mainstream science is too often presented as a series of memorizable facts because, quite frankly, it takes a lot of time and effort to explain the supporting evidence. However, it is the scientist's job to make these concepts accessible. Not doing so puts a scientist's work at risk for becoming trivial and mundane, if it hasn't already become so. What is the point of pursuing knowledge for knowledge sake if only a small percentage of the population contains it? How long will the rest of the population allow knowledge to be presented as fact, instead of mutual understanding?

* My priority for the next post will be a Dark Matter primer
** Another high priority for future posts will be Doppler Shift and How We Know The Universe is Expanding