Was There a Big Bang?   I Honestly Don't Know (2000)

Richard Carrier

Dare I say that I do not believe in the Big Bang?  Shame on me, I guess.  For whenever I claim that there might not have been a Big Bang, that the evidence for it in fact is rather poor, I am mobbed with invective by physicists everywhere.  I am treated with inappropriate condescension, and often belittled, eventually being told point blank that I am totally incapable of appreciating the evidence due to my lack of education.  These cosmologists tell me I should simply accept the word of an authority--them, of course, not any other authorities.  Why them and not physicists who raise doubts?  Because they are the majority.  I was never told that scientific truth was by vote, yet here it is.  Of course, I am also told there is so much evidence that the Big Bang cannot be denied, but when I ask for that evidence I am given no more than a handful of things that do not entail the conclusions claimed for them, and even at best only very weakly imply them.  What is an ordinary person to do?  Devote their life to physics?  Or express an honest doubt and be respected for it?  The first is unreasonable for most people, the latter is denied everyone by the present atmosphere. 

I will be frank about my objectives here, as I will be frank with my language.  I do have an axe to grind--against how scientists almost uniformly treat me, and against a mindset that abhors an open mind and treats a layman with ungentlemanly arrogance.  To be honest, this itself does make me suspicious of the Big Bang.  When a theory's most ardent supporters appear to rail against an open mind, to reject even the prospect of being wrong, when the evidence they present is only a meager sample, coupled with assertions that go well beyond what the details actually prove, I believe one has ground at least to suspect that these people are not being objective.  Though that does not negate their authority, it does diminish it--for it sends up a flag: "Wait a minute.  What's going on here?"

Even so, it is not this axe grinding, this suspicion, that drives my final decision of agnosticism regarding the Big Bang.  Even a flock of the most closed-minded and arrogant bastards can have evidence compelling enough to make their case.  I certainly don't regard cosmologists as bad as all that, yet when I look at their evidence objectively I am still unswayed either way--unlike many of those whose views I will report below, who are in fact physicists and yet do reject it.  Even if there is some other evidence I cannot possibly understand, it still violates all propriety and sense to expect me to believe in the Big Bang.  Just as the mystic is not authorized to expect me to believe what only he has experienced, just as the Christian is not authorized to expect me to believe in the Resurrection without the evidence afforded to Thomas, so the cosmologist is not authorized to expect me to believe a theory that he cannot demonstrate to me as true, because the evidence is such that "I cannot possibly understand." Maybe, then, the way I am treated is simply the result of a lack of etiquette in the science community. 

The point of this essay is not that other theories are better than the Big Bang.  I do not even propose any definite alternatives, much less resurrect any specific ones of old.  I merely mention the kinds of theories that could yet at least be examined.  In the end, my point is that the present theory is too uncertain to warrant the frightening passion it receives, much less the condescension I receive whenever I so much as suggest the big bang might not have happened.  I do not even claim the theory is false, only that it could be, and I am treated this way--this bizarre attack against an open mind is a disease I sure hope does not infect the rest of the sciences.  As far as I can see, we do not know how or when the universe began, or even if it had a beginning at all, certainly not so well as cosmologists think we do.  And my agnosticism deserves honest respect, even from cosmologists, as a rational position in light of my own circumstances. 
 

In large part this violent response I encounter centers on bitter denunciations of the seminal text The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric J.  Lerner, published in 1991 and brashly subtitled "A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe." Though the book raises serious questions, it is hardly a refutation.  Even so, Lerner is usually treated unfairly.  He is called a lone wolf or a quack, when in fact he is merely a reporter of the views of several other scientists: Nobel laureate Hannes Alfén, along with G.  DeVaucouleur, L.  Anthony Peratt, and G.  & M.  Rieke--and others have joined their ranks since.  Though also a physicist himself, Lerner writes from the perspective of a journalist and thus he is hardly deserving of the title "quack," and as he is reporting on the views of several scientists, he is not a lone wolf.  Critics also focus not on Lerner's presentation of the case itself, but on his attempt to explain in historical-ideological terms why the Big Bang theory survives despite having such poor evidence in its favor.  Of course, even if he is wrong about the "why," this does not prove he is wrong about the "what," but to prevent critics attacking me in the same impolitic manner I will state my position clearly here. 

It is not necessary to deny the Big Bang.  Contrary to Lerner, I do not believe that the evidence demonstrates the theory must be false, only that it fails to demonstrate it is true.  I am agnostic about the matter, sometimes leaning in favor, sometimes against, but so far not convinced, and I should expect all rational people to see it the same way.  But this is not what I find.  I hit walls of emotionality whenever I bring it up--some even dare say that the evidence for the Big Bang is as secure as that for evolution, which, if you examine both cases, is plainly absurd.  This has led me to believe that some physicists have way too much emotional investment in the Big Bang, and I admit that does beg for an explanation. 

Whatever its cause, emotionality and hyperbole always set off alarm bells in my head and rally the skeptic in me, just as they do when I confront it in creationists.  These scientists often say that no observation contradicts the Big Bang, when the existence of things it cannot explain certainly counts as contrary evidence: superscale cosmic structure is just one observation that no Big Bang theory has yet to fit.  As Peter Coles puts it, "The Big Bang does not deserve to be called a theory unless and until it can explain how the...galaxies and clusters of galaxies came into being and evolved." [2] Inflation Theory in particular is further troubled by numerous observations, including deviations from a perfect Gaussian curve in the microwave background radiation, as reported by Marc Kamionkowski and Andrew Jaffe.  [3] Sure, some version of the theory may yet explain this or that, in conjunction with every other observation (this is always the killer problem: to find one theory that actually fits all the evidence).  But the fact that no one theory has really succeeded at this should make us at least entertain the possibility that the entire idea is wrong.  Why don't scientists see it that way?  Though some, like, Lerner, have proffered various conspiracy theories to account for this strange dogmatic attitude, I myself honestly don't know. 

Now, I will admit I am sympathetic to the observation that a great many scientists are terrible philosophers--Davies and Weinberg are almost as bad philosophers as they are historians.  But I don't quite agree with Lerner's favorite explanation: that it is largely due to a rise of Platonism in science circles.  It is certainly true that Platonism is of rising popularity among cosmologists today.  See the indexes of Paul Davies' The Mind of God, John Barrow's Theories of Everything, and Steven Weinberg's Dreams of a Final Theory, just to name a few.  Though disheartening, I don't see how this must entail a slavish passion for the Big Bang. 

Yet to be fair, I must come to Lerner's defense when even this explanation is misreported and attacked as a straw man.  For contrary to what Victor Stenger says in his critique of TBBNH, Lerner does not argue "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." [4] Anyone who reads pp.  91-93, 98-101, and 332-333 of TBBNH will find the exact opposite: Lerner argues that hypothesis-testing should take precedence over a priori theorizing.  The fact that opponents like Stenger completely fail to understand something so basic and fundamental to Lerner's entire position again does not endear me to their own view, as it calls into question their objectivity.  Though I am not convinced here, it remains possible that Platonism is leading some cosmologists to abandon the proper hypothesis-testing mindset for an inner quest for the "true form" of the universe, seeking perfect mathematical elegance as the only criterion of truth (as if the elegant could not still be false).  But that does not explain why physicists like Stenger, who are far from new-wave Platonists, passionately criticise doubters like me, and thus it cannot explain Big Bang fever in general. 

It is also true that there is big money in Big Bang research, as well as heavy doses of conservative bias, and there is evidence, I will admit, that this is actually a factor for many who criticise the Big Bang, a factor that is undermining scientific research.  In "Heaven's Gatekeepers: the Galactic Battle for Telescope Time," Lingua Franca reports on the sad situation that forces astronomers to advocate the Big Bang in order to get telescope time, which makes or breaks every astronomer's career.  [5] Anyone who dares to propose an experiment to challenge the Big Bang theory is shut out of the field.  That is not very encouraging to me, even more so when other physicists have the balls to accuse these mavericks of not being very active anymore and thus not to be listened to--for how can they be active if they are shut out completely?  Can you say "Catch 22"?  Nevertheless, even this is not to be over-played.  Work can still be done.  And I do not believe anything like tenure or grants or mere conservatism are what have impassioned most Big Bang proponents.  In the end, I quite fail to comprehend the religious zeal I witness when this issue is debated--sure, there is evidence, but does it justify any kind of certainty?  I don't think so.  Does it justify shouting down an open mind?  I don't understand why.  Though there must be a reason for this zeitgeist, the reason is an enigma to me.  What really matters is the fact that the Big Bang is nowhere near as established as the science community claims. 
 

Lerner is not alone in asserting this.  Some prominent physicists agree.  Halton Arp of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics and Geoffrey Burbidge at UC San Diego are strong opponents of the Big Bang theory.  Even Paul Davies, in The Mind of God, points out problems with Big Bang theory, though he rejects them.  [6] Michael Lemonick, in The Light at the Edge of the Universe, notes that "The majority of astronomers who specialize in distance measurements are getting the wrong answer," they are finding that Big Bang theoretical estimates of the age of the universe do not match the actual ages of observed objects.  [7] Timothy Ferris reports that this problem has gotten even worse, and admits there are other woes faced by the Big Bang theory, concluding what I take to be my own view, with even more force than he grants: we really are "not sure that cosmologists are on the right track in working within the big bang context." [8]

Also in his book, Lemonick documents how the oft-cited COBE results have been used to prove mutually contradictory Big Bang theories, and that the degree of error in the data was so great that it really left astronomers confused (and it has now left them in a pickle).  The story of the microwave background radiation is one of constant revision of theory as the data continually contradict prior predictions, just as Lerner himself records--and I have yet to see a refutation of his account of this.  Indeed, in 1998, Peter Coles captured this phenomenon with an often used and apt metaphor: "none" of the new versions of the Inflation Theory that had originally been refuted by COBE data in 1992 "has the persuasive simplicity of the original," yet "they were assembled with the intention of fitting the data better, in the manner of Ptolemy's epicycles." [9] I am not surprised, then, that Michael Lemonick is at least honest enough to admit "the Big Bang model may well be wrong, and may someday be replaced by another model." [10]

John Boslough, in Masters of Time, favorably quotes Arp lamenting that "When big bang proponents make assertions such as 'an expanding universe...very well verified observation,' 'a whole bunch of observations that hang together' and 'the evidence taken together...hangs together beautifully,' they overlook observational facts that have been piling up for 25 years," continuing, "of course, if one ignores contradictory observations, one can claim to have an 'elegant' or 'robust' theory.  But it isn't science." [11] Fred Hoyle and four other scientists have begun proposing new steady state theories.  [12] Boslough himself concludes that "the evidence for the big bang is sketchy at best." [13] Others have gone on record with the same or similar view: for example, John Maddox, Robert Oldershaw, and Anthony Peratt, to name only a few.  [14] This is not Lerner the Crackpot.  This is a rising tide of criticism. 
 

There are only six lines of evidence offered in support of the Big Bang theory.  None are even remotely conclusive, some pose problems that no one theory has yet to resolve, and all are equally predictable by any number of other theories. 

(1) Expansion does not entail that it all began at a point.

We have absolutely no evidence that the universe began at a point--that is entirely a theoretical invention, as yet untested, and unlikely ever to be testable, yet it is the essence of the very "Big Bang" concept itself.  Of course, it is not even certain that there is such a uniform expansion, as many scientists have shown that some redshift has other causes: contraction of observed objects, frequency-decay (such as could be caused by light passing through intergalactic magnetic fields), and intergalactic dust or dark matter, are among the many plausible factors that can contribute to redshift.  But despite all these factors there does still seem to be some element that correlates in some sense with distance, and it as likely indicates expansion as anything. 

But Lerner discusses experimental evidence that the pressure-action of light itself, upon galactic or stellar magnetic fields, would inevitably accelerate all objects away from each other: in other words, there is already a possible explanation of expansion--indeed, of accelerating expansion--in existing physical processes, leaving no real need to posit a special one-time Big Bang to account for the same observation.  And despite critics who originally attacked this suggestion, intergalactic magnetic fields have recently been demonstrated to exist on a vast scale, [15] and expansion does in fact appear to be accelerating, as demonstrated by J.  Glanz [16] and Idit Zehavi and Avishai Dekel.  [17] Even without that factor, there can easily be other kinds of events besides a single point-detonation that can cause universal expansion--space could stretch back and forth like a spring or bubble.  Or, as Boslough puts it, "Maybe the big bang was just a big bang, an explosion in our little neighborhood of the universe that was neither the beginning of time nor the creation of the cosmos.  Nobody knows." [18]

(2) The microwave background radiation has too many other explanations.

It is true that no other theory foresaw a microwave background glow, and this is held up as the most important evidence for the Big Bang.  But this may be a coincidence: for there are other explanations that have not been examined, and the details are not at all specific enough to match only a Big Bang theory.  Indeed, the particular pattern of background radiation has contradicted every known Big Bang theory so far. 

Few are asking, for example, whether the microwave background, in the exact pattern as we see it--a pattern suggesting that cosmic structure, on enormous scales, was present from very, very early, perhaps always--is entailed by Olber's paradox: this paradox states that if the universe were infinite or near-infinite in size, then the whole sky would be filled with light.  Of course, we know that sources of light are subject to redshift, so that most of an infinite universe would be shifted outside of the visible range--not to mention that light would also be absorbed by intervening dust and other obstacles, and decreased in magnitude by the inverse square law, and dimmed further by a time dilation between the arrival of photons resulting from intervening gravity fields. 

Whether called the Infrared Horizon, Redshift Horizon or the Microwave Horizon, the idea would be the same: light would eventually, on a black body curve, be redshifted into the microwave range, and the effect would result in greater blurring and mingling as it approached zero.  In fact, the result could be exactly what we observe as the microwave background radiation--near-perfect uniformity in all directions, with micro-fluctuations matching the same kind of structure seen in near space, possibly even matching a blackbody curve.  It is a theory worthy of study, but stubborn cosmologists won't even hear of it--though Burbidge, Hoyle, and Jayant Narlikar have pointed out two facts that support this as a possible effect: normal hydrogen burning in stars should produce exactly the same energy density as observed in the microwave background, and cosmic structure observed at high redshifts almost perfectly matches the scale of anisotropy in that same microwave background.  [19]

Other theories include Hannes Alfvén's, which is given at least a nod of respect by the science community, [20] and has experimental and observational support: it is a known fact that some such glow would be created by, as Boslough puts it, "the continuous emission and absorption of electrons by the strong magnetic fields" of galaxies and their intergalactic filaments--fields and filaments recently proved to exist.  This, too, would be isotropic in all directions, and also match in its anisotropic micro-fluctuations the observed cosmic structure.  It would also perfectly match a blackbody curve.  Who knows what else could be possible?  The Burbidge-Hoyle theory, for instance, predicts a blackbody metallic dust as the source of the microwave background, [21] and perhaps it is not a coincidence that unexpected metallic dust has indeed been found in intergalactic voids.  [22]

This microwave background glow is simply too weak an evidence to prove that everything began at a point, with one supercosmic explosion.  To go from "Aha, I see a microwave glow" to "Aha, I see the beginning of all time and space in one dimensionless point about so many years ago" is, when you think about it, not very sound reasoning--it is even worse reasoning when there are already three other possible causes of exactly the same observation. 

(3) The proportion of light elements to heavy is far too muddled to stand as a proof.

This is the second most important Big Bang "proof." But the calculation is no longer accepted as settled, since the original predictions that matched observations were based on assumptions of the time and rate of star formation (and age of the universe) that have since been proven wrong.  Science News reports that "maps of the far-infrared background glow had already demonstrated that visible-light images drastically underestimate the amount of star formation" [23] and that based on submillimeter photography, "at early times in the universe, stars were born at a rate five times higher than visible-light studies have indicated" (the article did not mention whether this new rate was faster than the rate in near space).  But estimates of present ratios of light elements to heavy are based on visible-light information on star formation.  Earlier and faster star formation entails that the ratio should be different than it is (or that the universe is much, much younger than is allowed by the evidence), since more heavy elements have had time to form than every Big Bang theory has assumed. 

And evidence is mounting that all prior expectations and predictions are false--we simply have no real idea of the elemental ratio: J.K Webb and others are still getting unexpected results, far more hydrogen isotopes than there should be, finding that, in the end, crucial information is still unknown.  [24] J.  Michael Shull, Lennox Cowie and Antoinette Songaila, all detail new findings that there are far more heavy elements strewn throughout the intergalactic voids than anyone thought.  [25] More and more, what cosmologists "assumed" was true, and thus tailored their Big Bang theories to explain, is turning up false.  Their response is always to reach into their bag of tricks and pull out a new theory, claiming "the theory" had been true all along, that it just needed fine tuning.  In this they are acting exactly like the psychic who retrofits what actually happens to some seemingly-precise but easily-modified prediction.  Indeed, a theory that can never be refuted by any observation is a pseudotheory--and while cosmologists claim that individual Big Bang theories can be refuted, I have yet to see any of them propose anything that would do away with all Big Bang theories altogether.  After all, one might ask, is there really any observation that couldn't be explained away with a new version of the Big Bang theory?  

These problems also arise whenever the age of the universe is pushed farther back, another fact that gets ignored--Big Bang theorists sometimes act as if their pet theories remain valid for huge ranges of possible ages of the universe.  But that is impossible, since heavy-element formation is critically tied to cosmic age, and a theory that fails to account for the actual ratio of elements fails to be true.  But no one seems to want to point this out, or the fact that we really don't know the element ratio, given the problem of dark matter, among other things. 

These issues also create a problem for estimates of light-element ratios, since light elements are consumed over time, so age again, and rate of star formation, change their abundance, and they can also be invisible in intergalactic space, black holes, and other locations.  Finally, the "predicted" ratio of light elements may easily be maintained by other causes, and therefore it cannot count as a special proof of the Big Bang.  For instance, Stephen Hawking's calculation that black holes evaporate protons entails that the ratio of light elements could be maintained in any steady state theory exactly at presently-observed levels.  Multiple mini-bang theories likewise have the same results--not being any different in this respect from one Big Bang.  And Burbidge, Hoyle and Narlikar note that this ratio could very easily be the outcome of ordinary stellar processes.  [26]

The bottom line is that the light-element ratio is not a real proof, and no current Big Bang theory truly gives an accurate prediction of light-to-heavy elements.  There are various predictions, all of which depend on specific ages and sizes of the universe and the rate and time of star formation, as well as the degree of light-elemental intergalactic dust, and the composition of dark matter (including WIMPS and black holes), all of these being espoused by different theorists as having different values, and all bickering over who is right.  The answer seems obvious to me: no one knows.  So this is not evidence.  Since we do not really know what the proportion of light to heavy elements actually is in the universe, nor precisely how fast or early star formation actually was, we can conclude nothing about the Big Bang from this line of evidence, and it is dishonest to advance it as a solid proof. 

(4) Observations of differences in aggregate cosmic phenomena over time are inconclusive.

That things were different in earlier epochs is not inconsistent with an oscillating steady state theory or multi-bang theory or phase-change theory, or theories involving cosmic cycles, or still other possibilities that are too plausible to be simply dismissed, and that no one is even trying to eliminate.  In other words, once again, since observable cosmic development over time is hardly proof of a primordial unidemensional point at which all time and space began, it is not much of a proof for the "Big Bang" as such.  Cosmic change is merely something that the Big Bang can explain, not something it is required to explain. 

This is where we can compare the Big Bang theory with Evolution Theory.  Of course, change over time is overhwhelmingly proven in the latter case but is (as we will see in a moment) very shaky and questionable in the former case.  Yet even if we had that kind of evidence for cosmic change, for the Big Bang as cause we have nothing like the evidence that we have for Natural Selection as a cause--for we have been able to eliminate Lamarckism with numerous lines of very clear and abundant evidence that is not in fact comparable to cosmological evidence of any kind in scope or scale, and whereas Lamarckism is the only other remotely possible explanation of evolution (apart from some form of intelligently-guided development or deception), with cosmology there are simply far too many plausible possibilities to eliminate so easily. 

Even in general, the two theories are nowhere equivalent.  Evolution has direct evidence: life forms actually do become more diverse and complex over time--the geological record is identical to Evolution, hence Evolution by itself is often more properly called a fact rather than a theory.  In contrast, the evidence for the Big Bang is purely circumstantial: none of the six lines of evidence here is identical to all space and time beginning at a point.  Even the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection has strong, direct evidence in its favor: we have actually seen it in action, and have discovered mechanisms (such as DNA replication and mutation) that entail it.  In contrast, we have never seen a universe begin, and no existing facts entail the Big Bang.  However much the Big Bang can explain the evidence, that same evidence has countless other possible causes.  Nothing in our observations requires that the universe began at a point in the same way that the reality of DNA replication and mutation entails a Natural Selection effect on propagating populations. 

Moreover, though Evolution through Natural Selection is perhaps the most well-proven historico-scientific theory there is (plate tectonics perhaps competes for the title), it still has not completely accounted for, and is not intended by itself to explain, the origin of life on Earth--in other words, its claims are far less bold than those of the Big Bang theory, and it stands as an example of humility in biology that cosmologists would do well to learn a lesson from.  Yet whereas we have very good evidence that life on Earth began a finite time ago, we have nothing like this proof in the case of the universe.  That is a crucial point: for this fact, in the one case, allows physical theories of the origin of life an immediate and necessary plausibility (and laboratory chemical research supports these possibilities further still).  But in the case of the Big Bang, there is no clear evidence that the universe began at all, and thus there is prima facie no real need in actual evidence for a theory of how it began.  To the contrary, that it began is the theory, not the fact in need of explanation.  Cosmologists should not forget this crucial point of difference. 

But that is all virtually moot, for when it comes time to closely examine these epochal cosmic changes, they become highly questionable due to data selection: more distant objects are harder to see and thus the data is statistically skewed.  Astronomer Kenneth Lanzetta makes a compelling case that stars and galaxies do not appear to have assembled gradually (contradicting most present cosmological theories) and that claims regarding cosmic change over time are untrustworthy, for "most of the light emitted by the very first galaxies in the cosmos is much too dim to be seen today.  Objects that were bright long ago appear faint now, and less brilliant objects are entirely invisible." [27] This means that very distant galaxies appear smaller than they really are, and their apparent rate of star formation would be smaller than the true rate, whereas unusually bright--and thus inherently atypical--objects are going to be seen far more frequently.  When all these factors are compensated for we may end up realizing that the supposedly earliest galaxies were exactly the same size and luminosity as galaxies today. 

Lanzetta is not a lone wolf, either--he has a lot of supporters, and no one seriously contends him on this particular point.  Lanzetta's opponents only reject his claim that star formation was vastly higher in the past than the present, and in fact Rodger Thompson of the University of Arizona has evidence on hand, taking as much into account as possible, that the rate of star formation in galaxies near a redshift of 7 is in fact pretty much the same as the rate now.  This presents more than one problem for any Big Bang theory--not only does it mean that we cannot now establish that there have been any epochal changes over time in the universe, it entails a much longer time and thus a much different scale of heavy-element formation (and light-element depletion), and may also end up flatly contradicting the age of the universe itself. 

(5) The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not entail a Big Bang.

This is rarely offered as evidence for the Big Bang, but it gets some press and should be briefly addressed.  That thermal entropy must never decrease does not entail that everything began at a point, nor that it all started with a supercosmic explosion of any kind.  Since a finite quantity can be approached over an infinite time--by geometrical increments, as established by calculus--the universe could have been, and could continue, to decay for an infinity.  Or it could have begun with multiple explosions or other events, such as cosmic phase changes, or from a perfectly-dispersed and ordered energy field, and so on.  The point is not that these theories have evidence in their favor or are not refuted by present observations.  No one knows, because almost no one is even considering them, or any others.  And those who merely suggest they should are attacked, derided, and all but shut out of a career. 

(6) A flat universe is entailed by almost every other possible theory.

One item of evidence heralded as a magnificent proof of the latest and so far only promising Big Bang theory--Inflation--is the observation that the universe is very likely completely flat.  That is, it is not curved, as it should be if the universe is as small as most other Big Bang theories have predicted.  This has recently been well-demonstrated by P.  de Bernardis and others.  [28] However, any steady state or multibang or cyclical or other theory, which all entail the universe is nearly or genuinely infinite in size, also predict that the universe is flat.  In other words, like all the above "evidences," there is nothing sufficiently special about this prediction to establish that there was one, supreme explosion billions of years ago that began all time and space. 

Indeed, the irony is that Inflation Theory is in effect structured to make a Big Bang universe look just like a steady state universe.  One could just as easily drop the actual "inflation" part of the theory and propose that the universe "began" as a hot, vast, complex cosmos which has been cooling for infinite time.  The outcome would meet exactly the same observations--the theories would fit all the same facts and thus could not be distinguished from each other.  It is thus impossible to know which account is correct--there is no evidence for the actual inflation event, only for a superlarge and complex cosmos.  Inflation then is quite like taking the fact that your pen is missing as proof of the theory that it was stolen.  Even if you can't prove any other theories--such as that you lost it, misplaced it, or forgot that you had thrown it or given it away--you still have no grounds to believe it was stolen, much less to believe this with such ardent passion that anyone who doubts your theory should be shouted down and all but called an ignoramus. 

Not only is the evidence for the Big Bang too weak to establish it with any confidence, there is some evidence against a Big Bang. 

(1) How can there be galaxies that are older than time?

Consider the age of the universe.  According to any live Big Bang theory, the universe cannot be more than 15 billion years old.  This is because, if you rewind the universe at its present rate of acceleration, it is then that everything will arrive at the same point.  But observations are being made that render this all but impossible.  Science News reported in 1997 that a galaxy was found "13 billion light-years from earth.  This calculation assumes the universe is about 14 billion years old." This was based on a redshift of 4.92.  [29] But in 1998 a galaxy redshifted at 5.34 is reported as 12.2 billion years old, "according to some estimates." [30] But clearly, this shows that astronomers are jimmying the figures to make the results look like they want them to.  The latter galaxy is too far to allow any Big Bang theory to be true, so naturally we must be wrong about our ever-fudgable distance calculations. 

More recently, Science News has reported what is to date the most distant object ever observed: an ordinary galaxy, calculated to lie at a distance of 13.6 billion lightyears, based on its redshift of 6.55.  [31] However, if we used the Hubble Constant assumed in the 1997 report, this galaxy lies over 15 billion lightyears distant and is older than the entire universe.  Even using the Hubble Constant assumed in the 1998 report, this galaxy existed almost exactly 15 billion years ago--almost at the moment time supposedly began.  This is not possible.  Yet there is evidence that there may be numerous galaxies lying farther still, as far as redshift 10.  No Big Bang theory is likely to survive if these distances are confirmed. 

Perhaps some of these cases can be explained away by appealing to other causes of redshift apart from distance, though even if there is no expansion the Hubble Constant may still be a roughly correct distance-measure--since many of the alternative causes of redshift are still distance-proportional.  On the one hand, these super-distant galaxies are not isolated cases.  More and more are turning up every month, and even Big Bang proponent Michael Turner of the University of Chicago admits that large numbers of these discoveries "would be hard to explain." [32] On the other hand, attempts to pin down the Hubble constant, though some doubt it is even a real "constant" (especially if it is increasing over time) have led to contradictory results, though the studies are getting closer and closer to proving a factor whose consequences could be dire for all Big Bang theories.  Riccardo Giovanelli reports that so far evidence is mounting that the Constant lies in the range of 66-70 km/sMpc, but that is not good news, for "values...above 60 have the embarrassing feature of yielding an age for the Universe since the Big Bang that is exceeded by the oldest stars in our Galaxy." [33]

(2) Where is all the mass?

Science News has reported that Inflation Theory is the only theory that does not directly contradict several observations, though it still contradicts the evidence of mass.  [34] This is merely explained away with the "assumption" that there "must" be dark matter to the tune of 95% of the mass in the entire universe.  But that is ad hoc--such a scale of dark matter has yet to be observed, even indirectly.  Even at best, only 90% is presently plausible, and even that is theoretical--real gravity studies can only confirm roughly 30%.  [35] This means that the theory fails to match existing observations and has therefore not been shown to be true.  Perhaps it can be tweaked, perhaps the observations can be made in the future.  But since when do scientists herald a theory, one that has yet to match the evidence, as a certain, undeniable fact?  Indeed, even though Inflation fits the six other standard observations, as we have already seen these observations are not sufficiently peculiar to establish the theory as against the alternative that the universe is practically infinitely large and old, whether it oscillates or not, or undergoes phase changes or supercosmic detonations, or whatever may be the case. 

(3) Where did all the superscale structure come from?

In the same article on Inflation Theory it is reported that "Inflation, notes [Neil] Turok [of Cambridge], is far from a perfect theory.  It predicts much more clustering of galaxies than astronomers observe," in other words, it is again falsified by actual observations.  "Moreover," he says, "myriad studies suggest that the density of the universe is less than the critical density, the value that inflation pegs its reputation on." Turok's own solution ('defect theory') is also contradicted by COBE data, as he himself admits.  [36] According to F.  Sylos-Labini and colleagues, starmaps reveal that supercosmic structure extends as far back as objects can be observed, a fact that fits an infinite universe far more readily than Inflation.  [37] And Wane Hu describes how the noose has tightened even further: evidence of supercosmic structure in the most accurate microwave background data so far (retrieved by BOOMERanG) shows such structure "on the largest scales at the earliest times." [38] Inflation can be tweaked, psychically retrofitted once again, to account for this particular surprise, but the theory still entails other details in the radiation pattern that are not found there.  Hu lists three strange new factors, or bold rejections of observed data, at least one of which must be adopted in order to "avoid any extreme departures from the standard model" and thus a refutation of the present Inflation theory.  This means there is no theory that fits the data, and what little data Inflation Theory--the only surviving candidate--does fit is far too inconclusive to establish that the universe--all time, all space, all matter and energy--began at a point a finite time ago.  It looks nice.  But it isn't persuasive--or it certainly ought not to be. 

As one can see, the Big Bang theory may be true, but it is far from having ironclad evidence and has yet to solve ever-recurring problems.  At present, I see no Big Bang theory that fits all the evidence.  When asked, by anyone, how I think the universe began, I still tell them what I honestly believe: that I have no clue how the universe began or even if it did, and I am very skeptical that cosmologists really know either--they certainly think they do, but with an almost religious conviction that is way out of proportion to the evidence, and very unbefitting a scientific mind.  This is why I am agnostic about it, and even when occasionally optimistic I am preparing for the worst: the theory could be false.  Others are taking the same position [39].

I am very grateful to Victor Stenger and Alex Matulich for their patient and helpful criticisms. This article I expect will get on the nerves of physicists, as it already does Dr. Stenger's.  Some will feverishly attempt to show me the error of my ways.  I hope they do.  For if they succeed, I will have learned something.  And if they fail, I will have still more evidence of either an inexplicable Big Bang fanaticism, or the lack of empirical manners in the cosmology community. 

Copyright 2000 by Richard Carrier.  Copying of this material is permitted provided credit is given to the author and no material herein is sold for profit.

[2] "The End of the Old Model Universe," Nature, 25 June, 1998, pp.  741-4. 

[3] Nature, 15 October, 1998, pp.  639-41. 

[4] Skeptical Inquirer, Summer 1992.  It is available online at Dr. Stenger's emeritus website. 

[5] Lingua Franca, September, 1999, pp.  56-61. 

[6] The Mind of God, 1992, pp.  48-57. 

[7] The Light at the Edge of the Universe, 1993, p.  191. 

[8] The Whole Shebang: A State of the Universe Report, 1998, pp.  38-9. 

[9] op.  cit.  n.  2. 

[10] op.  cit.  n.  7, p.  233. 

[11] Masters of Time, 1992, p.  222. 

[12] cf.  e.g.  "The Extragalactic Universe: An Alternative View," Nature, 30 August, 1990, pp.  807-12; "A Different Approach to Cosmology," Physics Today, April 1999, pp.  38-46. 

[13] op.  cit.  n.  11, p.  223. 

[14] John Maddox, "Down with the Big Bang," Nature, 10 August, 1989; Robert Oldershaw, "What's Wrong with the New Physics?" New Scientist, 22-29 December, 1990; Anthony Peratt, "Not with a Bang," The Sciences, January/February, 1990. 

[15] Science News, May 6, 2000, p.  294. 

[16] Science, vol.  282, 1998, pp.  2156-7. 

[17] Nature, no.  6750, 1999, pp.  252-4. 

[18] op.  cit.  n.  11, p.  223 (emphasis mine). 

[19] "A Different Approach to Cosmology," Physics Today, April 1999, pp.  38, 41. 

[20] cf.  Boslough, op.  cit.  n.  11, and Anthony Peratt, "Not with a Bang," The Sciences, January/February, 1990. 

[21] ibid.  n.  19. 

[22] J.  Michael Shull, "Intergalactic Pollution," Nature, 2 July, 1998, p.17-19; Lennox Cowie and Antoinette Songaila, "Heavy-element enrichment in low-density regions of the intergalactic medium," ibid., pp.  44-6. 

[23] Science News, July 25, 1998, p.  55; cf.  also January 10, 1998, p.  20. 

[24] J.K Webb, et al., "A High Deuterium Abundance at Redshift z=0.7," Nature, 17 July, 1997, pp.  250-2. 

[25] op.  cit.  n.  22. 

[26] op.  cit.  n.  19, pp.  38, 41ff. 

[27] Ron Cowen, "All Aglow in the Early Universe," Science News, May 27, 2000, pp.  348-50; quote from p.  349. 

[28] P.  de Bernardis, et al., "A Flat Universe from High-Resolution Maps of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation," Nature, 27 April, 2000, pp.  955-9.  These results (from BOOMERANG) have been confirmed by a second balloon probe (MAXIMA), cf. Science News, June 3, 2000, p. 363.

[29] Science News, September 20, 1997, p.184. 

[30] Science News, March 21, 1998, p.  182. 

[31] Science News, May 27, 2000, p.  340. 

[32] ibid. 

[33] Riccardo Giovanelli, "Less Expansion, More Agreement," Nature, 8 July, 1999, pp.  111-2. 

[34] Science News, June 7, 1997, pp.  354-5. 

[35] Peter Coles, op.  cit.  n.  2.  This has just recently been confirmed with new and strong evidence: no more than a third of the mass (dark matter or not) predicted by any live Big Bang theory can be accounted for in studies of actual cosmic gravitational effects.  This is the firm result of the Two Degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey, cf. Science News, June 10, 2000, p. 374.

[36] op.  cit.  n.  34. 

[37] F.  Sylos-Labini, et al., Nature, 8 January, 1998, pp.  120-1. 

[38] Wane Hu, Nature, 17 April, 2000, pp.  939-40. 

[39] Vincent Sauvé, "Some Big Bang Supporting Assertions Challenged," sighted 15 August 2000, which includes even more material and sources that can be added to the argument above. 

Search | Bookstore | What's new? | Send Feedback | Disclaimer | Support the Secular Web

Copyright ©Internet Infidels 1995-2001. All rights reserved.

Last updated: Monday, 14-Aug-2000 23:09:09 MDT