An Open Letter to the Scientific
Community
cosmologystatement.org
cosmologystatement.org
(Published in New Scientist, May 22,
2004)
The big bang today relies on a growing number
of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed--
inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent
examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction 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. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big
bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background
radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of
the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to
come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of
microwave radiation.
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any
that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments,
big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of
matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger
than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's
explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark
energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion
years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many
stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of
no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by
observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist
of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily
increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered
cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
Yet the big bang is not the only framework
available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma
cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving
universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative
approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos,
including the abundances of light elements, the generation of
large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the
redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even
predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the
big bang has failed to do.
Supporters of the big bang theory may retort
that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But
that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely
hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and
alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open
exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas
Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of
doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated,
and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something
negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the
big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.
Even observations are now interpreted through
this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not
they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium
and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics,
are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset
that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.
Today, virtually all financial and
experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies.
Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review
committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big
bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has
become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the
theory.
Giving support only to projects within the big
bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific
method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a
restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To
redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to
set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations
into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big
bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such
funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the
field of cosmology.
Allocating funding to investigations into the
big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific
process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the
universe.
