Cosmology Crisis of 1998

 Contents:
1   THE YEAR THE STANDARD BIG BANG MODEL FAILED
2   MODEL PATCHING
3   STANDARD COSMOLOGY RESPONSE
4   THE PATCH
5   THE CRISIS ON A FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL
6   MATCH MADE IN HEAVEN
7   HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE CRISIS
8   RESOLUTION OF THE CRISIS
 

Breakthrough of the Year. ...
Scientists and philosophers will be grappling with the implications for years to come.
 
--Science magazine 1998

1   THE YEAR THE STANDARD BIG BANG MODEL FAILED

In 1998 one of the biggest science news story in decades unfolded. In 1998 the generally accepted theory of the universe failed. The dramatic events were almost immediately detailed in a PBS NOVA science program; and four years later (in 2002) it was a televised feature story on the news program 60 Minutes. To convey the unexpected nature of the discovery the 60 Minutes story compared it to casually tossing your car keys into the air and finding that they don’t fall back down! It was a memorable demonstration of a puzzlement confronting Big Bang cosmology. Here was a situation that had caught professional physicists off guard. The New York Times, on January 1, 2002, reported the response to the discovery from one such expert:
 

Astronomers use a certain class of supernovae in a sophisticated technique to measure cosmic distance. The members of this stellar class serve as, so called, standard candles for measuring extraordinary distances. Referred to as Type 1a, this class of extremely massive exploding stars has a known absolute brightness and a characteristic brightness profile, making the explosion event ideal for determining distance independent of the customary redshift method. The brightness profile identifies an astronomical object as Type 1a. A comparison between its known brightness and the apparent brightness makes it possible to estimate its distance.
    By 1998 researchers had perfected the method.  And in that year two independent teams discovered that the universe of their authoritative textbooks —the universe they thought they understood— was not behaving the way it is supposed to. At first it seemed too incredible to be believed. After an exhaustive check ruled out potential errors, they eventually accepted the conclusion coded in the data. Yes, the few dozen Supernovae tested were 20 to 25 percent farther away than expected. Now it may not seem like much, roughly a 1/4 fractional difference, but in terms of absolute distance we are talking about a three billion lightyear discrepancy (as measured on the DSSU reality-based distance scale).
   The astronomer-physicists reluctantly concluded that their Big Bang (BB) universe is not slowing down its expansion as had been predicted. No ... the BB universe it seems is expanding at an ever faster rate!
   The Big Bang universe was now accelerating.

What a predicament. An embarrassing contradiction of standard theory. And there was no explanation (at least momentarily) as to why the universe seems to be accelerating. And so, dear reader, 1998 was a crisis year for BB cosmology.
 

In the crisis year of 1998  astronomers found to their amazement that the predicted distance (bottom curve) of Supernova stars did not agree with their actual distance (as measured be methods independent of their redshift). The Supernovae were actually about 25 percent farther away. If astrophysicists had recognize the fundamental fact that the real Universe is structured into repeating regions, that it has a grand scale cellular structure, then they would have found a remarkable agreement between measured distance and predicted distance (upper curve). Their failure to recognize this fact, embodied in the simple, elegant and valid, DSSU formulation (top equation), serves to further compound the crisis. (300MLY is the size of each cosmic cell measured in million lightyears. Redshift index spanned by this graph is between 0 and 10.)

 

2  MODEL PATCHING

Needless to say, BB proponents don’t like to call the failure of their cherished model “a crisis” —too suggestive of a pending disaster. The BB model, it should be pointed out, has struggled and survived through three-quarters of a century. It survived the attacks from the traditional Steady State models and also the Quasi Steady State model. In hindsight, it should have died long ago but its faithful devotees keep coming up with one or another life supporting patch. For instance, some years ago when someone checked the numbers, an embarrassing mismatch was uncovered: The universe was predicted to be considerably younger than many of the objects it contains. The universe was supposed to be10 billion years old while its oldest known stars were estimated to be about 14 billion years old! (Timothy Ferris The Whole Shebang p36; and www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html ) A patch was needed and quickly adopted —something called inflation. Now almost everyone knows the meaning of monetary inflation, but what is the meaning of big bang inflation? ... Well, instead of just an ordinary big bang, inflation magically turns it into a supersonic big bang, or more accurately a hyper-lightspeed Big Bang. Now wouldn’t a universe that grew faster be a younger universe? Wouldn’t this make the age discrepancy worse instead better? The experts assured us the explanation is counterintuitive and so the BB theory survived the age-of the-universe problem.

   Then there was the horizon problem. It deals with the question of why the temperature of the distant-and-early universe, which astronomers observe in opposite directions, is so uniform. Regions that are at opposite ends of the visible universe and unrelated with respect to cause and effect inexplicably have identical energy states! To solve the horizon problem, the inflation patch was adjusted and re-applied. Professor Edward Wright provides a detailed explanation, aimed at the initiated, which may be helpful (but no promises).
   The patched-up model of the 1970s and 1980s became known as the inflationary BB model.

   Then came the year 1998, and the BB model faced a new problem —to put it delicately. Distant supernovae are farther away than their redshifts suggest. As highlighted in the graph, above, their actual distance is significantly greater than what had been predicted. And since prediction is based on the redshift-versus-distance equation, the equation had to be wrong.
   Faced with the unexpected mismatch between redshift and distance of their standard candles (Type 1A supernovae), what do you think the experts did? ... You guessed it; a new patch was cooked up before you could say “your expanding-universe premise is wrong, try a new model.”
 

3   STANDARD COSMOLOGY RESPONSE

So, what was the astrophysicists’ response? Instead of recognizing that the universe we live in is cellular and not expanding they clung to the expansion-of-the-whole-universe premise. Instead of thinking outside the box and notice an infinity of boxes they reaffirmed their faith.  Instead of adopting the simple, elegant and valid, cellular formulation (as expressed in the upper curve of the graph) and thereby immediately resolving the crisis; they declared that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The universe is supposedly getting bigger and bigger, faster and faster.
   Did the experts ask themselves, ‘is the acceleration something real? or is it only apparent?’ ... Maybe they did. Maybe some of them concluded fundamental revisions were needed. We do acknowledge that some of the most brilliant and dedicated minds on Earth are involved in the quest for understanding. However, meaningful revisionism is rarely tolerated (for proof, check the Website's dedication box); whatever the field of enquiry, this is the way it is. And in the field of cosmology proposing a paradigm change becomes unappealing to career astro-researchers.

   And so, in 1998 astronomers and physicists convinced themselves that the universe is accelerating. But why is it accelerating? ... Forget the minimal mystery of why the universe is expanding in the first place; now there is the utterly baffling mystery of why it is expanding with a vengeance.

(Not very reassuring for the Big Bang faithful followers.)
 

4   THE PATCH

In the aftermath of the 1998 discovery, as we can well imagine, a host of big bang variants were proposed and presented in scientific circles. Let’s just deal with the most popular resolution.

   As far as the theoretical model is concerned the experts proposed that the universe was being subjected to a mysterious dark energy that expands space and causes an increase in the rate of expansion of the universe. They’re not sure if it is the Lambda force (the one that Einstein introduced into his universe model in 1917) or if it is another bout of inflation. Some call it re-inflation. But to be fair, they haven’t ruled out a force called Quintessence that may be responsible for the apparent exponential growth of the universe.

   As for the practical application of the patch: it simply meant re-evaluating an adjustable factor in the BB equation. It simply involved giving the matter density parameter, Ω, a new value. As I said earlier there was NO fundamental change in the model; notably the same equation was used. The original value of Omega, Ω, was 1.0 (unity), the new value was anywhere between 0.25 and 0.35. By selecting the appropriate Omega value, astrophysicists are able to position the curve almost anywhere they want on a graph of distance (similar to the graph shown above). By selecting the appropriate Omega value, the curve that represents the BB theory can always be made to agree with the data. Almost like magic. And so with the dexterous use of numbers the crisis seemingly disappears.
 

5   THE CRISIS ON A FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL

Let’s take a closer look at why  the equation for the Big Bang model —the distance-versus-redshift equation— fails.

The equation (see reception-distance equation in the diagram) has three inputs or parameters:

1) Z is the redshift index. It is the essential and primary value measured by astronomers. This is the actual value that varies with distance.
2) H is the measure of the rate of expansion of space itself. It is an empirically determined constant. That’s right, it does not change. (In reality it varies locally but over cosmic distance the value converges.)
3) Ω is the problem component. Omega is the ratio of the total matter (including energy) present in the universe compared to the total matter required for the universe to collapse in on itself.

Ω = (Actual quantity of matter) / (Critical quantity of matter).

But the reality is that our universe is infinite (in both time and extent). The infinite Universe contains an infinite amount of matter. And to induce a ‘collapse’ of the universe would hypothetically also require an infinite amount of matter! Trying to determine Omega is like trying to calculate infinity divided by infinity (∞/∞). It is mathematically not permitted; rationally not allowed; logically impossible.

   The most common point of contention is the infinite nature of the Universe. What happens if the BB adherents do not accept this reality? Its denial does not, therefore, make the BB model wrong. The model simply becomes irrelevant.

The BB model’s postulates serve as the model’s foundation and they are what they are. The logic, the model’s superstructure, has been meticulously constructed and is sound (if somewhat arguably so). Consider what happened to a much earlier and even more popular model. The most successful universe model of all time, using the criteria of longevity, was the Ptolemaic model. It served as the establishment cosmology for over 1400 years prior to the Copernican revolution. It was meticulously constructed on the premise that the Earth is the center of the universe. The model had no logical flaws. As a theory it was wrong. As a model it became irrelevant.

   The same is true of the BB theory and the BB model.

   The crisis is fundamental.
 

 6   MATCH MADE IN HEAVEN

The crisis of 1998 may have been a serious blow to BB cosmology, but it represents a match made in heaven for the DSSU theory. The distant Supernovae flashed coded messages containing their distance —and these distances agree with the DSSU redshift-versus-distance formulation. Look at the upper curve in the graph; what the observers found and what the equation predicts agree with each other. DSSU theory processes the redshift data using underlying principles that are totally alien to standard cosmology and yet interprets them correctly. The theory uses principles that are downright heretical —if proclaimed in another age they would herald instant condemnation from BB orthodoxy and excommunication for the innovator. They are: (1) The universe is not expanding.  (2) The universe is infinite.  (3) The universe had no genesis, will have no doomsday. These principles match reality.

   The crisis of 1998 focuses attention on one uncompromising fact: the wonderful match between theory and observation is best achieved when one’s theory holds that the universe is statically cellular and the actual universe is correspondingly non-expanding.
   The theory of a cellularly structured universe agrees with the observations obtained in a non-expanding universe.
 

 7   HISTORICAL ROOTS OF THE CRISIS

The BB model fails as a scientific theory. It has always been and always will be merely a hypothesis. Any theory that incorporates the invalid conclusion of the historic Michelson-Morley (MM) experiment: is either incomplete or just plain wrong. Einstein’s relativity theories are classified under the former —they are incomplete and physicists know they are incomplete. The Big Bang, the Steady State, and all expansion-of-the-whole-universe theories are classified under the latter —they are just plain wrong.

   The roots of the crisis in cosmology (as well as physics) trace back to the decade of the 1880s, the decade of the most historic but misunderstood experiments in physics. Professor Reginald Cahill of Flinders University in Australia has investigated and reanalyzed those pivotal experiments and maintains,
 

Michelson and Morley had doubted their own measurements and followed up their doubts by reporting their failure to detect the Earth’s absolute motion through space. This unjustified “null” interpretation was translated into the invalid conclusion that the aether does not exist. The concept of absolute space was henceforth banished from mainstream physics. A ghastly mistake.
   As discussed in greater detail in various articles posted on the Cellular Universe website, the invalid conclusion of the MM experiment was incorporated into a number of important theories and many of the models of the universe that were developed during the decades after the 1880s. Of interest in the present brief discussion is that the expansion-of-the-universe model conceived by Willem de Sitter, Alexander Friedmann, and others during the 1920s perpetuated what is probably the biggest scientific blunder in modern history. In the years that followed, the fantastical creativity of Georges Lemaître transformed the simple expanding-universe model into the expanding-universe-from-an-unstable-speck-of-almost-nothing model —we call it the Big Bang hypothesis for short. And sadly, it too perpetuates the ‘blunder.’
   The roots of the crisis in the standard model, as the foregoing suggests, are deep indeed.
 

8   RESOLUTION OF THE CRISIS

Any meaningful resolution renders the following necessary:

    First, recognize that our Universe is not accelerating; it is not even expanding (only regional space is expanding). Face the reality that the Universe is already fully expanded —always has been and always will be.
   Second, accept what has actually been observed (by astute astronomers like Jaan Einasto); accept what has been logically deduced. Accept that the Universe has a grand scale cellular structure. Our Universe is a cellular universe.
   And third, adopt the DSSU redshift-distance formulation for calculating significant cosmic distances. The standard redshift-distance equation used by astronomers (and shown in the graph) simply will not work in a multi-cellular non-expanding universe. A logarithmic formulation must be used.

   Viewing these requisites in the light of a bureaucratic academia coursing in the opposing direction and having the inertia of a fully loaded supertanker leads one to conclude that implementing the resolution to the 1998 crisis constitutes nothing less than a revolution in astronomy and cosmology.   □