HomeHistoryJohn DobsonSolar Sidewalk AstroEvent CalendarSA Event ProgramsEvents We SupportProjects/PartnershipsRecognitionArticlesTelescope PlansshopContactsAstronomy NewsNewslettersDark SkyPlanet EarthGalleryLinksResourcesFlyersIYA 2009

The Big Bang

Is it possible to get a child to go along with the notion that the Universe
arose out of nothing, that is, that nothing made everything out of nothing?
It may be impossible to get anyone who has not been through high school
to go along with such a notion, and I'm pretty sure that all the Big Bang
cosmologists went through high school first. So let's put the Big Bang cosmology
in the subjunctive.
If we can get nothing to make everything out of nothing, we could get
started. But shucks, our fire ball would be in a black hole.
Oh, if we can hold off on the physics of black holes, we can get our little
fire ball to expand and cool off to material particles. But shucks, it would be fiftyfifty
matter and antimatter. How can we get rid of the antimatter?
Aha, if we can invent two radioactive particles, one that makes antimatter
out of matter, and one that makes matter out of antimatter, we can get rid of the
antimatter because the particle that makes matter decays more slowly and
leaves this Universe as the residue. But shucks, the particle that makes matter
out of antimatter and decays more slowly, decays to magnetic monopoles and
leaves us a Universe billions of times denser than the Universe which we see.
How to get rid of the monopoles?
Well, if we can get the protons to decay, we can have a grand unified
theory, and if we have a grand unified theory we can have an inflationary model
and get rid of the monopoles. How? We simply allow a pimple at the edge of the
expanding fire ball to inflate to the Universe we see, and leave the monopoles
behind. But again shucks. The inflationary models require that the present
cosmological expansion rate should be on the escape velocity, and that requires
that there should be at least ten times as much matter in the Universe as we
thought was there. That would mean that the observed cosmological helium
abundance, on which we based our Big Bang model, would be wrong for our
model unless all that extra matter, the so called dark matter, responds only to
gravity and to no other force.
But there is still a problem. If the dark matter responds only to gravity, why
didn't it all fall into the galaxies? Oh no, it can't fall into the galaxies because it
can't get rid of its gravitational energy.
Then it wouldn't be in the haloes of the galaxies either, and that's where it
But however much one may doubt the Big Bang model, it isn't fair to make
fun of it without replacing it with something which one feels to be more likely.
Let's stick to the observational evidence, and since there's no
observational evidence for creation, let's leave it out.
So let's stick to the observations. When we look out toward the border of
the observable Universe, imposed on us by the cosmological expansion, what we
see is that the radiation from there is gravely redshifted. (Actually it is the redshift
itself that imposes the border.)That would mean that, as seen by us, the energy
of the particles, and therefore their mass, is gravely reduced. Remember, we're
sticking to the observations. Observationally the mass is reduced, and that has
two very interesting consequences. First, all radiation running through such a
field of low mass particles would be so often picked up and reradiated that it
would be thermalized to 3K and give rise to the cosmic background radiation
discovered by Penzias and Wilson in 1965. Second, the particles could recycle
from the border. Because if the mass of the particles is small, their momentum
must also be small. And, if the momentum approaches zero at that border, our
uncertainty in that momentum must also approach zero. Then, by Heisenberg's
uncertainty principle, our uncertainty in their position must approach totality, and
the particles can recycle back in.
Is there any observational evidence that particles are thus recycling back
in by tunneling? Yes, indeed there is_ Measurements by the Hubble Space
Telescope indicate that there are some nine or twelve clouds of hydrogen
between the quasar 3C273 and ourselves. According to the Big Bang
model, there shouldn't be such clouds since there is no way to put new
hydrogen in there, and no way to have such clouds hanging around for
fifteen billion years without condensing into something we could see.
Measurements by the Hubble Telescope also indicate that there is
more than enough hydrogen in the great intergalactic voids to make
all the known galaxies. Where did all that hydrogen come from if it didn't
recycle from the border?
The driving mechanism for the cosmological expansion in this recycling
model is simply the loss of energy by the redshifting of the radiation. If the
radiation looses its energy by redshift because of the expansion, it drives
the expansion. The mechanism for the cosmological expansion in the Big
Bang model stands without explanation.
It may be asked, what does this recycling cosmological model predict?
Since it is a steady state model, it predicts that the Universe must have
frustration built in or it couldn't go on like this.
The ocean is trying to fall to the center of the Earth but the rocks are in the
way, and it gets frustrated. And the rocks are trying to fall to the center of the
Earth but the iron of the Earth's core is in the way, and it gets frustrated. And the
Earth is trying to fall into the Sun but its inertia frustrates it, and it goes round and
round. And the Sun is trying to fall into the center of the Galaxy and it goes round
and round. The Galaxy itself is trying to merge with all the rest of the matter in
the Universe but the cosmological expansion frustrates it. But even the
expansion can't succeed because it recycles the particles back from the border.
If the Universe didn't have frustration built in, it couldn't go on like this. And if it
couldn't go on like this, all steady state models would be dead