|
ACG > Open
Letter > Index
Open Letter on Cosmology / Cosmology Statement
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community, published by
E. Lerner,
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."
Signed by, Institutions for
identification only, Country
(Highlighted
names are linked to related web pages.
Original links are given even if they are now
broken.)
Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Für
Astrophysik (Germany)
Andre Koch Torres Assis,
State University of Campinas (Brazil)
Yuri Baryshev,
Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University
(Russia)
Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge
(UK)
Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)
Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)
Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur
(India)
Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)
Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin
(USA)
Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)
Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (Canada)
Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica,
Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)
Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France
(India, France)
Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves,
State University of Maringá (Brazil)
Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(USA)
R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
Domingos S.L. Soares,
Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology (USA)
James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton
(USA)
Updated 2020-8-3
|
|
|
