Two World Systems Revisited:

A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang

Eric J. Lerner

Lawrenceville Plasma Physics

9 Tower Place

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

Abstract

Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The predictions of the theory for the abundance of 4He, 7Li and D are more than 7s from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10-14. Observations of voids in the distribution of galaxies that are in excess of 100 Mpc in diameter, combined with observed low streaming velocities of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang. Big Bang predictions for the anisotropy of the microwave background, which now involve seven or more free parameters, still are excluded by the data at the 2s level. The observed preferred direction in the background anisotropy completely contradicts Big Bang assumptions. In contrast, the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large scale structures and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a "radio fog" of dense plasma filaments. This review of the evidence shows that the time has come, and indeed has long since come, to abandon the Big Bang as the primary model of cosmology.

Index Terms--Plasma cosmology, light element abundance, large-scale structure, voids, intergalactic radio absorption, Big Bang

I. Introduction

The dominant theory of cosmology, the Big Bang, is contradicted by observation, and has been for some time. The theory's predictions of light element abundance, large-scale structure, the age of the universe and the cosmic background radiation(CBR) are in clear contradiction with massive observational evidence, using almost any standard criteria for scientific validity. This situation is not new. In 1992, I reviewed these contradictions[1], and concluded that theory had already been clearly falsified. Since that time, the evidence against the Big Bang has only strengthened.

There is a second framework for cosmology--plasma cosmology. This approach, which assumes no origin in time for the universe and no hot, ultradense phase of universal evolution, uses the known laws of electromagnetism and the phenomena of plasma behavior to explain the main features of the universe. It was pioneered by Hannes Alfven, Carl-Gunne Falthammar and others [2-4] and has been developed since then by a small group of researchers including the present author and A.L. Peratt [5-13]. In contrast to the predictions of the Big Bang, which have been continuously falsified by observation, the predictions of plasma cosmology have continued to be verified.

The present review seeks to update the comparison between these two world systems in light of recent observations and theoretical developments, including some new results not yet published elsewhere. At the end of this review, I will consider some of the reasons why the Big Bang remains dominant in the field, despite its clear falsification by observation. In many respects this resembles the situation of four hundred years ago, when the clearly falsified Ptolemaic system remained dominant some 60 years after the introduction of the Copernican system.

There is , of course, a the third main cosmological perspective, the Steady State theory. However a systematic comparison of plasma cosmology and the steady state theory requires its own article and is outside the scope of this review.

II. The Abundances of Light Elements

  1. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.
  2. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) predicts the abundance of four light isotopes(4He, 3He, D and 7Li) given only the density of baryons in the universe. These predictions are central to the theory, since they flow from the hypothesis that the universe went through a period of high temperature and density--the Big Bang. In practice, the baryon density has been treated as a free variable, adjusted to match the observed abundances. Since four abundances must be matched with only a single free variable, the light element abundances are a clear-cut test of the theory. In 1992, there was no value for the baryon density that could give an acceptable agreement with observed abundances, and this situation has only worsened in the ensuing decade.

    The observational picture has improved the most for 7Li and D, and there is now no assumed baryon density that will provide a good fit to just those two abundances alone. In 1992, there were no measures of D abundance at high redshift and therefore at remote times. The "primordial" value for D abundance was calculated back from the present-day observed values of 1.65x10-5 relative to H by assuming the D was destroyed by recycling through stars. Delbourg-Salvador et al, for example[14] calculated that the primordial value was perhaps 6x10-5.

    However, since 1998, D abundances have been measured in five high redshift QSO absorption line systems. Since the same systems show low abundances of heavy elements known to be created by stars, they are assumed to be close to a "primordial" or early- galactic abundance. The weighted average of these abundances is 2.78+-0.29x10-5,[15] much lower than the values that had been anticipated by BBN theorists a decade ago. According to BBN predictions, this range of D abundances would correspond to a range of baryon/photon number density h of from 5.9-6.4x10-10.

    Lithium abundances in metal poor Pop II stars are also considered to be a measure of pre-galactic or at least early galactic abundances and exhibit a remarkably small variation (about 5%)[16]. Lithium abundances as a result can be very accurately measured as 1.23+0.68-0.32x10-10, relative to H, where the errors are 2 s limits[17]. BBN prediction based on 7Li abundance imply a firm upper limit on h, the baryon photon ratio, of 3.9x10-10, which is completely inconsistent with the prediction based on D.

    A "best fit" h to these two abundances alone would be 4.9x10-10. Since this would predict values that are excess of 4s from observations for both 7Li and D, this pair of observations alone would exclude BBN at beyond a 6s level.

    There is no plausible fix to this problem, which has been recognized by BBN theorists, but not ever as a challenge to the validity of the theory itself[15,17-20]. Attempts to hypothesize some stellar process that reduce the 7Li abundance by a factor of 2 or more are rendered totally implausible by the observed 5% variation in existing abundances. No plausible process could reduce the 7Li abundance so precisely in a wide range of stars differing widely in mass and rotation rates.

    The situation becomes considerably worse for BBN when 4He is also considered. There are extensive measurements so 4He abundances in low-metallicity galaxies, yet the estimates of a minimal, or "primordial " value for 4He vary considerably, for reasons we will consider in section V. These various values determine a percentage of 4He by weight of 21.6+-0.6[21], 22.3+-0.2[22], 22.7+-0.5[23], 23.4+-0.3[24], or 24.4+-0.2[25].

    By comparison, the BBN prediction for 4He abundance with the "best fit" value of h=4.9x10-10 is 24.4, which would be compatible only with one of the estimates[25] of primordial 4He from observations. It should be noted that this highest value was only obtained by arbitrarily excluding several of the galaxies that have the lowest 4He abundances and is therefore not an unbiased, statistically valid estimate. For the other cited values, the BB prediction is excluded at between a 3 s and 10 s level. Indeed, a value as high as 24.4 is excluded at a 3 s level on the basis of even individual low-metalicity galaxies, such as UM461(21.9+-0.8)[21].

    While there is considerable controversy over interpretation of measurements of 3He abundances in the present-day galaxy, these measurements only add to the difficulties of BBN. Measurements indicating an abundance of 3He/H of 1.1+-0.2x10-5[26] make this an upper limit on the "primordial" value, since it is generally agreed that stars, on net, produce 3He. For BBN, this in turn implies that h>6.0x10-10, making worse the conflicts with the observed values of lithium and 4He.

    Even ignoring 3He, the current observations of just three of the four predicted BBN light elements preclude BBN at a level of at least 7 s. In other words, the odds against BBN being a correct theory are about 100 billion to one. It is important to emphasize that BBN is an integral part of the Big Bang theory. Its predictions flow from the basic assumption of the Big Bang, a hot dense origin for the universe. If BBN is rejected, the Big Bang theory must also be rejected.

    Recently, Big Bang theorists have interpreted precision measurement of the anisotropy of the CBR as providing a direct measurement of the baryon density of the universe[15].(The CBR will be examined in more detail in section IV). These calculations imply h=6.14+-0.25 x10-10, a D abundance of 2.74+-0.2x10-5, a 7Li abundance of 3.76+1.03-0.38x10-10 and a 4He abundance of 24.84+-.04 %. While much has been made by Big Bang advocates of the agreement with D observations, overall this makes matters still worse for the validity of BBN, for the 7Li value alone is now excluded at a 7 s level, and the 4He is excluded at a 2 s level even for the highest estimate and at between a 4 s and 12 s level for the other estimates. Very conservatively, this increases the odds against BBN, and therefore against the Big Bang itself, being a valid theory to above 2 x10-14 to one. The overall discordance with observation is summarized in Fig.1.

  3. Plasma theory of nucleosynthesis

In contrast to the extremely bad performance of BBN, the predictions of the plasma alternative have held up remarkably well. Plasma filamentation theory allows the prediction of the mass of condensed objects formed as a function of density. This leads to predictions of the formation of large numbers of intermediate mass stars during the formations of galaxies[8-10]. These stars produce and emit to the environment large amounts of 4He, but very little C, N and O. In addition cosmic rays from these stars can produce by collisions with ambient H and He the observed amounts of D and 7Li.

The plasma calculations, which contained no free variables, lead to a broader range of predicted abundances than does BBN, because the plasma theory hypothesizes a process occurring in individual galaxies, so some variation is to be expected. The range of values predicted for 4He is from 21.5 to 24.8 %. However, the theory is still tested by the observations, since the minimum predicted value remains a firm lower limit (additional 4He is of course produced in more mature galaxies). This minimum value is completely consistent with the minimum observed values of 4He abundance, such as UM461 with an abundance of 21.9+-0.8 .

Further confirmation of these 16-year old predictions is in the widely noted observations that no galaxies, indeed no stars, have been observed that are entirely free of heavier elements, which is in accord with the predictions of the plasma-based stellar production of light elements.

Deuterium production by the p+p->d+p reaction has been predicted by plasma theory to yield abundances of the order of 2.2x10-5[8]. While more precise calculations will have to be done to improve this figure and to define the range of values that are likely, it is notable that this prediction was made in 1989, at a time when no observations of high redshift D was available and the consensus values for primordial D from Big Bang theory were 3-4 times higher. Yet this predicted value lies within the range of observed high-z D values, although somewhat below the average D values.

In its present form, the plasma-stellar theory of light elements does not give a prediction for the absolute abundance of 7Li. The observed low and variable abundances of cosmic -ray spallation products of C, N, and O, which are 9Be and 11B in old stars, indicates that 7Li was probably formed by He-He fusion in the interstellar medium, but more modeling will be needed to develop concrete predictions.

The most dramatic confirmation of the predictions of the plasma-stellar model is in the discovery of large number of white dwarfs in the halo of the Milky Way. Since the theory predicts the formation of an initial population of intermediate-mass stars, it is a straightforward deduction that these stars must leave behind white dwarfs that should exist at present. Specifically the theory predicts that somewhat less than half the total mass of the galaxy should exist in the form of collapsed cores-either white dwarfs or neutron stars[27]. and for the intermediate stars, which are too small to become supernovae, the normal end-point would be white dwarfs.

Recent observations of high proper motion stars have shown that halo white dwarfs constitute a mass of about 1011 solar masses, comparable to about half the total estimated mass of the Galaxy[28-29]. While these observations have been sharply criticized, they have been confirmed by new observations[30]. Not only are the existence of these numerous white dwarfs confirmation of much earlier predictions by the plasma theory, they create new and insurmountable problems for BBN. Even if the progenitor stars were only 2-3M, a mass of He equal to about 10-15% of the mass of the remnant white dwarfs would be released into the ISM. This would account for at minimum 50% of the observed He abundance, reducing the possible contribution from the Big Bang to less than 12% of the total mass. Such a low production of 4He is impossible with BBN for a baryon/photon ratio even as low as 1x10-10. Thus the plasma model has successful predicted a new phenomenon, while the BBN model has been decisively contradicted by observation.

II. Large Scale Structure and Voids

The large scale structure of the universe is inhomogeneous at all scales that have been observed[31]. In particular, galaxies are organized into filaments and walls that surround large voids that are apparently nearly devoid of all matter. These void typically have diameters around 140-170Mpc(taking H=70km/sec/Mpc) and occur with some regularity[32].

These vast structures pose acute problems for the Big Bang theory, for there simply is not enough time to form them in the hypothesized 14 Gy since the Big Bang, given the observed velocities of galaxies in the present-day universe. Measurements of the large scale bulk streaming velocities of galaxies indicate average velocities around 200-250km/sec[33-34]. The well-known smoothness of the Hubble relation also indicates intrinsic velocities in this same range, as do the observation of relatively narrow filaments of galaxies in redshift-space, which would be widened by high intrinsic velocities.

Since the observed voids have galactic densities that are 10% or less of the average for the entire observed volume, nearly all the matter would have to be moved out of the voids[35]. An average particle will have to move d= D/8 Mpc, where D is the diameter of the void. For void diameters of 170Mpc, d=21Mpc. For a final galaxy velocity of 220km/sec, travel time would be 87Gy or 6.3H-1, the assumed time since the Big Bang, taking this to be 13.7Gy. Of course this is a crude estimate, since in the Big Bang theory, distances to be covered would be smaller early in the universe's history, reducing travel time. On the other hand, no physical process could produce instantaneous velocities, so velocities would also presumably be smaller in the past. This is especially true if acceleration is by gravitational attraction, since time would have to pass before substantial gravitational concentrations are built up from assumed homogenous initial conditions of the Big Bang.

An explosive mechanism that rapidly injects energy into the medium could form voids more rapidly than gravitational attraction. For a cold dark matter Big Bang model, the time t in years, of formation of a void R cm in diameter in matter with density n/cm3 and final velocity V cm/s is[36,1]:

T=1.03n-1/4V-1/2 R1/2

For V=220Km/sec, R=85 Mpc and n =2.4x10-7 /cm3 (assuming h=6.14), t= 158Gy. This is 11.6 times as long as the Hubble time.

Detailed computer simulations, which also include the hypothesized "cosmological constant" run into the same contradiction, in that they produce voids that are far too small. Simulations with a variety of assumptions can produce voids as large typically as about 35 Mpc[37], a factor of 5 smaller than those actually observed on the largest scales. In addition, such simulated voids have bulk flow velocities that are typically 10% of the Hubble flow velocities[38] which mean that voids larger than 60Mpc, even if they could be produced in Big Bang simulations, would generate final velocities in excess of those observed, and voids as large as 170 Mpc would generate velocities of over 600km/s, nearly 3 times the observed velocities.

Thus from any standpoint, the production of the large voids observed requires three to six times as much time as that allowed by the Big Bang theory. Again, this clearly rules out the theory.

The plasma cosmology approach can, however, easily accommodate large scale structures, and in fact firmly predicts a fractal distribution of matter with density being inversely proportional to the distance of separation of objects[10]. This relation flows naturally from the necessity for collapsed objects to be collisional, and from the scale invariance of the critical velocities of magnetic vortex filaments, which are crucial to gravitational collapse. This fractal scaling relationship (fractal dimension=2) has been borne out by many studies on all observable scales of the universe[39]. In the plasma model, where superlcusers, clusters and galaxies are formed from magnetically confined plasma vortex filaments, a break in the scaling relationship is only anticipated at scales greater than approximately 3Gpc. Naturally, since the plasma approach hypothesizes no origin in time for the universe, the large amounts of time need to create large-scale structures present no problems for the theory.

IV. The Cosmic Background Radiation

Recent measurements of the anisotropy of the CBR by the WMAP spacecraft have been claimed to be a major confirmation of the Big Bang theory. Yet on examination these claims of an excellent fit of theory and observation are dubious. First of all, the curve that was fitted to the data had seven adjustable parameters, the majority of which could not be checked by other observations[40]. Fitting a body of data with an arbitrarily large number of free parameters is not difficult and can be done independently of the validity of any underlying theory. Indeed, even with seven free parameters, the fit was not statistically good, with the probability that the curve actually fits the data being under 5%, a rejection at the 2 s level. Significantly ,even with seven freely adjustable parameters, the model greatly overestimated the anisotropy on the largest angular scales. In addition, the Big Bang model's prediction for the angular correlation function did not at all resemble the WMAP data. It is therefore difficult to view this new data set as a confirmation of the Big Bang theory of the CBR.

The plasma alternative views the energy for the CBR as provided by the radiation released by early generations of stars in the course of producing the observed 4He. The energy is thermalized and isotropized by a thicket of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium. While this model has not been developed to the point of making detailed predictions of the angular spectrum of the CBR anisotropy, it has accurately matched the spectrum of the CBR using the best-quality data set from COBE[27]. This fit, it should be noted, involved only three free pamenters and achieved a probability of 85%.

Since this theory hypotheses filaments that efficiently scatter radiation longer than about 100 microns, it predicts that radiation longer than this from distant sources will be absorbed, or to be more precise scattered, and thus will decrease more rapidly with distance than radiation shorter than 100 microns. Such an absorption was demonstrated by comparing radio and far-infrared radiation from galaxies at various distances--the more distant, the greater the absorption effect[5,7].

This work was done using an IRAS sample limited to flux of more than 5.24mJy at 60 microns. More recent results, reported here for the first time(and to be published in greater detail elsewhere) extend this demonstration of absorption .

If long wavelength radiation is being absorbed or scattered by the intergalactic medium (IGM), then this effect should be constant for all wavelengths longer than about 100-200 microns. Absorption at one wavelength in this range should be the same, for a given galaxy, as absorption at another wavelength. The recent observations of submillmeter, 850micron, wavelengths by the SCUBA survey[41] is an opportunity to test this prediction.

Using the SCUBA Local Universe Survey(SLUGS) sample and eliminating 16 Seyferts, we obtain 88 galaxies that have 60,100, 850 micron and 1.4Ghx fluxes. If we ignore absorption by the IGM, we find a correlation of log L850 on log L60 of log L850 ~0.61 log L60 with a correlation r of 0.839, where the L's are luminosities at the respective wavelengths. This non-linear relation has been interpreted as a correlation of dust temperature with increasing galaxy size[41].

However, if we use the quantity A1.4 = 1.2log L60 -Log L1.4 as a measure of relative absorption at 1.4 Ghz and calculate the "corrected" or intrinsic L'850, = L850 + A1.4 the correlation of L'850 on L60 improves to r=0.942 and the dependency become linear L850~ L601.00+-0.04, thus implying the temperature of dust in galaxies is independent of the size of the galaxy(Fig. 2). This result is reinforced by the observation that the ratio L850 / L450 is virtually constant for the SLUGS galaxies[42], again implying a constant temperature. In the plasma model, this constant ratio is to be expected, as both wavelengths should be absorbed equally.

Similarly, if we use A850 = L60- L850 as a measure of relative absorption and look at the correlation of L'1.4, = L1.4 + A850 on L60 we find that the correlation improves from r= 0.895 to 0.958 as compared with the correlation of L1.4 on L60. The slope of L'1.4 on L60 is 1.20+-0.04, which is consistent with theoretical work showing that the cosmic rays that generate the 1.4GHz radiation are more efficiently trapped in large galaxies, so have time to produce more radiation[5].

We can then compare absorption at one wavelength, A1.4 with A850, absorption at a 850 microns. We find a correlation of r= .80. The slope of A1.4 on A850 is .80 and of A850 on A1.4 is also .80, so the "true" correlation is consistent with unity, as predicted. (Strictly speaking this shows that the two absorption value are proportional to each other, not equal. To prove equality we would have to look at very nearby galaxies and show that the same proportionality holds to small distances, where absorption can be neglected. The present sample does not contain such nearby galaxies.)

We find, as expected by the plasma model, that the measures of absorption at both wavelengths increase with increasing distance. The slope of A1.4 on D(in 100Mpc units) is 0.408+-0.040 while the slope of A850 on D is 0.359+-0.046, which are consistent with each other. It should be emphasized that, since the distribution of the filaments should follow the distribution of matter generally, and thus follow a fractal pattern, this level of absorption will not be expected to extend out indefinitely in distance, but the rate of absorption should itself fall with increasing distance from any point, as does matter density.

Together with the previous work, these results further confirm that long wavelength radiation is absorbed or scattered by the IGM. This entirely contradicts the Big Bang hypothesis that the CBR is primordial and is observed unchanged from a redshift of several thousand.

The WMAP results contradict the Big Bang theory and support the plasma cosmology theory in another extremely important respect. Tegmark et al [42] have shown that the quadruple and octopole component of the CBR are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadruple and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part.

This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. Big Bang theorist have implausibly labeled the coincidence of the preferred CBR direction and the direction to Virgo to be mere accident and have scrambled to produce new ad-hoc assumptions, including that the universe is finite only in one spatial direction, an assumption that entirely contradicts the assumptions of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, the only model generally accepted by Big Bang supporters.

However, the plasma explanation is far simpler. If the density of the absorbing filaments follows the overall density of matter, as assumed by this theory, then the degree of absorption should be higher locally in the direction along the axis of the (roughly cylindrical) Local Supercluster and lower at right angles to this axis, where less high-density matter is encountered. This in turn means that concentrations of the filaments outside the Local Supercluster, which slightly enhances CBR power, will be more obscured in the direction along the supercluster axis and less obscured at right angle to this axis, as observed. More work will be needed to estimate the magnitude of this effect, but it is in qualitative agreement with the new observations..

IV Why is the Big Bang still dominant?

All the basic predictions of the Big Bang theory have been repeatedly refuted by observation. The theory is now cluttered with a multiplying collection of ad-hoc hypotheses, such as the existence of dark, or non-baryonic matter and dark energy, for which there is no empirical evidence. Indeed, continued discovery of more ordinary matter in the form of white dwarfs and diffuse plasma clouds has further decreased the ability of theorists to claim that there is far more matter detected by gravitational attraction than can be accounted for by ordinary matter[43].

Currently there are at least eight known contradictions between theory and observation: the abundances of 4He, 3He, and 7Li are too low; there is too much dispersion in the high-z value of D abundances; the halo white dwarfs would have produced too much helium; the voids are far too large and old; there is a complete lack of evidence for the existence of cold dark mater; and there is evidence for absorption of long wavelength radiation in the IGM. Yet in no cases are these contradiction viewed as reasons for questioning the Big Bang theory.

In many cases, every effort is made to either attack or manipulate the data so as to reduce the contradiction with theory. For example, in the early '90's He abundances were measured as relatively low, implying (given BBN) a high primordial value of D abundance. But when later observations showed that D abundances in high-Z objects were low, the quoted value for He abundance mysteriously began to move upwards, ultimately by five to ten standard deviations, so as to minimize the contradiction with theory, even if this required the arbitrary elimination of data from the samples.

When data manipulation failed, even the most blunt contradictions of theory and observation are viewed by Big Bang advocates as, at most, the indications of "new physics", new parameters. For example, Pebbles, in considering the void phenomenon, admits that there is an "apparent inconsistency between theory and observation", but does not conclude that theory is in any way imperiled[44], rather only that an "adjustment of the model" may be necessary. Similarly, Cyburt et al[15] conclude that there are "clear contradictions" between BBN predictions and light element abundances, but conclude that "systematic uncertainties have been underestimated", not that the theory is wrong'

 

Where all else fails, new arbitrary concepts and parameters are introduced, such as dark matter and dark energy. Consistently new observations have led to new parameters, so that the number of adjustable parameters in cosmological theories has increased exponentially with time, approximately doubling each decade.

The plasma cosmology approach has been supported by thousands of times less resources than has the Big Bang, but it has presented alternative explanations for many of the basic phenomena of the universe, has predicted new phenomena, and has not been contradicted by any evidence. Yet the Big Bang remains by far the domain cosmological model. It is appropriate to ask why this is so.

Four hundred years ago, a similar situation existed, at least in Catholic countries. Sixty year after the formulation of Copernican hypothesis, the Ptolemaic view of the solar system remained the dominant one among Continental astronomers. Galileo's elegant comparison of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems, his Dialog on Two World Systems, should have ended any scientific doubt as to the validity of the Copernican approach. Yet many additional decades would past before the Copernican system, already accepted at that time in England, would be accepted in the Catholic areas of Europe.

There is no mystery as to why this was so in the sixteenth century. The Ptolemaic theory was a state-supported scientific theory. The Catholic Church's advocacy of this theory would not have much mattered if the Catholic states had not given the Church the power to enforce, with state backing, its ideological edicts. Galileo, for his pro-Copernican writing, was subject to a civil penalty--house arrest-- and famously forced to recant under threat of far worse penalties.

Today, the situation is similar, although the penalties for dissent are milder: loss of funding rather than loss of liberty or life. The Big Bang survives not because of its scientific merits, but overwhelmingly because it is a state-supported theory. Funds for astronomical research and time on astronomical satellites are allocated almost exclusively by various governmental bodies, such as NSF and NASA in the United States. It is no secret that today, no one who pursues research that questions the Big Bang, who develops alternatives to the Big Bang, or, for the most part, who even investigates evidence that contradicts the Big Bang, will receive funding. The review committees that allocate these funds are controlled tightly by advocates of the Big Bang theory who refuse to fund anything that calls their work into question.

As a result, with very few exceptions, those who want to make a career in cosmology are constrained to work within the Big Bang framework--to do otherwise is to risk being cut off from funding, and, if a junior researcher, from tenure.

It is beyond the scope of this review to discuss how the Big Bang came to be state-supported theory(see [45] for a more detailed treatment). However, as long as such state support continues, it will be extremely difficult for cosmology to extricate itself from the dead-end of the Big Bang.

References

  1. E.J. Lerner, "The Case Against the Big Bang", in Progress in New Cosmologies, H.C.Arp, C.R. Keys, Eds., Plenum Press, New York, 1993, pp.89-104
  2. H. Alfven and C.-G. Falthammar, Cosmic Electrodynamics, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963
  3. H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma, Driedel, Holland, 1981
  4. H.Alfven, "Cosmology and Recent Developments in Plasma physics", The Australian Physicist, vol. 17, pp.161-165, Nov., 1980
  5. E.J. Lerner, "Confirmation of Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol 207, p.17-26, 1993.
  6. E.J. Lerner, "Force-Free Magnetic Filaments and the Cosmic Background Radiation", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol.20, no. 6, pp. 935-938, Dec. 1992,.

7. E.J. Lerner, "Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium," The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 361, pp. 63-68, Sept. 20, 1990.

8. E.J. Lerner, "Galactic Model of Element Formation," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 17, No. 3, April 1989, pp. 259-263.

9. E.J. Lerner, "Plasma Model of the Microwave Background," Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 6, (1988), pp. 456-469.

10. E.J. Lerner, "Magnetic Vortex Filaments, Universal Invariants and the Fundamental Constants," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Special Issue on Cosmic Plasma, Vol. PS-14, No. 6, Dec. 1986, pp. 690-702.

11. E.J. Lerner, "Magnetic Self-Compression in Laboratory Plasma, Quasars and Radio Galaxies," Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 4, Pt. 2, (1986), pp. 193-222.

12. A.L. Peratt, Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992

13. A.L. Peratt, , "Evolution of the Plasma Universe", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Special Issue on Cosmic Plasma, Vol. PS-14, No. 6, Dec. 1986, pp. 690-702

14. P. Debourg-Salvador, J. Audouze and A. Vidal-Madjar, Astron. Astrophys., vol. 174, p365, 1987.

15. R.H. Cyburt, B.D. Fields, K.A. Olive, "Primordial Nucleosynthesis in Light of WMAP", arXiv:astro-ph/03022431, 20 Feb, 2003.

16. S.Ryan, J.E. Norris, T.C. Beers, Astrophys. J., vol.523, p.654

17. S.G. Ryan, et al, "Primordial Lithium and Big Bang Nucleosynthesis", Astrophys. J., vol 520, pp L57-L60, Feb. 20, 2000

18. T.K. Suzuki, Y. Yoshii and T.C. Beers, "Primordial Lithium as a Stringent Contraint on the Baryonic Content of the Universe", Atrophys. J., Vol540, pp99-103, Sept.1, 2000

19. A. Coc et al, "Constraints on Wb from the Nucleosyntheis of 7Li in the Standard Big Bang", arXiv:astro-ph/0111077, Nov.14, 2001

20. G. Steigman, "Primordial Alchemy: From the Big Bang to the Present Universe", arXiv:astro-ph/0208186, Aug. 8, 2002

21. J. Melnick, M. Heydari-Malayeri and P. Leisy, "The Metal-Poor HII Galaxy SBS 0335-052 and the Primordial Helium Abundance", Astron. Astrophys, vol. 252, pp16-20, 1992

22. G. J. Mathews et al, Astrophys. J., vol 358, p35, 1990

23. Pagel, B.E.J., et al, MNRAS, vol.255, p325, 1992

24. K.A.Olive, E. Skillman, and G. Steigman, Astrophys. J., vol. 483, p.788, 1997

25. Y.I. Izotov, T.X. Thuan, Astrophys. J., vol. 500, p188

26. T.M. Bania, R.T Rood, D.S. Balser, "The cosmological density of baryons form observations of 3He in the Milky Way", Nature, vol. 415, pp54-56, January 3, 2002.

27. E. J. Lerner, "Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data", Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol.227, May, 1995, p.61-81

28. R.A. Mendez and D. Minnitti, "Faint Blue Objects on the Hubble Deep Field North and South as Possible Nearby Old Halo White Dwarfs", Astrophys. J., vol. 529, p.911916, 2000

29.B.R. Oppenheimer et al, "Direct Detection of Galactic Halo Dark Matter", Science, 292, p. 698.

30. R. A. Mendez, "Illuminating the Darkness", arXiv:astrop-ph/0207569 July 26, 2002.

31. F. Sylos Labini et al, "Evidence for fractal Behavior up to the deepest scale", Physica A226 , pp.195-242, 1996

32. E. Saar, et al, The supercluster-void network V: The regularity periodogram", Astr. And Astrophys., vol. 393, pp1-23 (2002)

33. L.N. Da Costa et al, "Redshift-Distance survey of Early-type galaxies: dipole of the velocity field' Astrophys. J., vol 537, ppL81-L84, July 10, 2000

34. A.I Kopylov and F.G. Kopylova, "Search for Streaming motion of galaxy clusters around the giant void", Astron. And Astrophys., vol 382, pp389-396, 2002

35. F. Hoyle and M.S. Vogeley, "Voids in the Point Source Catalog Survey and the Updated Zwicky Catalog", Astrophys. J., vol 566, pp.641-651, Feb. 20, 2002

36. J.J. Levin et al, Astrophys J. vol 389, p464

37. S. Arbabi-Bidgoli, and V. Muller, "Void scaling and void profiles in CDM models", arXiv:astrop-ph/0111581 Nov. 30, 2001

38. J. D. Schmidt, B.S. Ryden and A.L. Melott, "The Size and Shape of Voids in Three-dimensional Galaxy surveys", Astrophys. J., vol. 546, pp609-619, Jan. 10, 2001

39. M. Montuori, F. Sylos-Labini, A. Amici, "Statistical Properties of Galaxy Cluster Distribution", Physica A, vol 246, p1-17, 1997.

40. D. N. Spergel "First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters", arXiv:astro-ph/0302209 11 Feb 2003

41. L. Dunne, et al, "The SCUBA Local Universe Galaxy Survey I", arXiv:astro-ph/0002234 June 20, 2002

42. M. Tegmark, A. de Oliveria-Costa, A. J. S.Hamilton, "A high Resolution Foreground Cleaned CMB map from WMAP" arXiv:astro-ph/0302496.

43. F. Nicastro et al, "The Far-ultraviolet signature of the"missing' baryons in the Local Group of Galaxies', Nature, vol.421, pp.719-721, Feb. 13, 2003

44. P.J.E Peebles, "The Void Phenomenon", Astrophys.J., vol 557, pp495-504, Aug. 20, 2001

45. E.J. Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened, Viking Press, New York, 1992.

 

Captions.

Fig. 1 Big Bang nucleosynthesis predictions are here compared with observations. The curves give BBN predictions as a function of the baryon to photon ratio based on [15]. The vertical bands give the values consistent with observed D abundances (right-most band), lithium abundances (central band) and helium abundances(leftmost band) with one s limits. For helium, the observed values are based on the range of values from [21-24]. For the theory to be valid, there must be some value where all three bands overlap, but this is not the case.

2. The correlation of log L850 on log L60 (a) is significantly improved, when log L'850 , the 850 micron luminosity corrected for absorption by the IGM is plotted against on log L60 (b) and the relationship becomes linear. Units for L60 are 100kJyMpc2 and for L850 JyMpc2

When the log ratio (times 105)of the 850 and 60 micron fluxes are plotted against distance inMpc (c), the correlation of absorption with distance is clear.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2a

Fig. 2b

Fig. 2c