© Original content written by James R. Carlson
This post is taken from excerpts of my 2 books, The Evolution of Evolution: A Theory in Chaos and The Alchemy of Evolution .
The History of a Universal Temperature of Space
Associated with the idea of a ‘Big Bang’ was the idea of residual of energy that came from that primordial explosion. As matter may continue to have residual energy form the Big Bang it might exist in the background of space. Predictions of the Big Bang and of a universal temperature were apparently validated with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) in 1965, by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson. However, Penzias and Wilson were not the first to make measurements of the background radiation nor was it their purpose to validate evolutionary cosmology.
The first person to measure the background radiation of space was Andrew McKellar in 1941. However, he did not connect his measurements with any model of cosmic origins. McKellar measured the average temperature of space, which he reported as 2.3 K. This was a band averaged measurement averaged the intensities of wavelengths together without making specific reference to any particular wavelength and its intensity.
Between the late 1940s and early 1950s, Alpher, Gamow, and Herman authored or coauthored 10 separate papers detailing the view of a developing cosmic expansion and a residual temperature of the background radiation, which they calculated as being between 5 K and 50 K. These were not measurements but calculations of what they thought might exist in space.
Alpher and Herman published an article on this subject (“Remarks on the Evolution of the Expanding Universe”; 1949) predicting a background radiation of 5 K. Although they did not mention a microwave region within the radiation band, they suggested the cooling of the radiation would put it at the millimeter wave band (microwave region).
Frederick Hoyle, who coined the term ‘Big Bang’ to deride the idea of cosmic expansion was an advocate of a steady state universe; he was also the first person to connect the dots between the idea of a universal expansion and McKellar’s measurements. In 1950, Hoyle published a review, in The Observatory (Vol. 70, p. 194-197 (1950)), of a book coauthored by George Gamow and C. L. Critchfield titled, Theory of Atomic Nucleus and Nuclear Energy-Sources (1949).
This book is mainly concerned with the properties of atomic nuclei. The first nine chapters and the eleventh are clearly written and provide a store of information indispensable to the astrophysicist, indeed the book is one of the best aids to astrophysical research that has become available in post-war years. …
To the reviewer the success, or otherwise, of astronomical research depends on a balance being reached between observation and theory. It is an elementary error to suppose that the data supplied by the observational astronomer consist simply of a series of undeniable facts. From experience the theoretician finds it wise to treat with caution results obtained from any optical equipment, working near its limit of performance, especially if the results are only attested by a single observer or closely associated groups of observers. …
When the astrophysical chapter of Gamow and Critchfield’s book is examined from this point of view it soon appears that the serious neglect of this requirement is the main cause of the decline from the general high level of the remainder of the book. A few examples will not be out of place. There is an appendix relating to the section dealing with the origin of the heavy elements. In this the authors use a cosmological model in direct conflict with more widely accepted results. The age of the Universe in this model is appreciably less than the agreed age of the Galaxy. Moreover it would lead to a temperature of the radiation at present maintained throughout the whole of space much greater than McKellar’s determination for some regions within the Galaxy. [Hoyle; Review of Theory of Atomic Nucleus and Nuclear Energy-Sources]
McKellar measured the temperature at 2.3 K but the model Gamow put together would have it at 11 K (Hoyle’s calculations). Hoyle suggested the theory didn’t match the measurements and criticized the authors for that.
In 1965, Penzias and Wilson measured the temperature of the background radiation to be approximately 3 K noting it was in the microwave band of electromagnetic (EM) radiation. They were working for Bell Labs in the 1960s using a Holmdel Horn Antenna to detect echoes from a balloon satellite. As they tried to remove all noise from the background, they discovered that the noise came from outside the galaxy. They did not know its source nor were they searching for this phenomenon. It was a chance discovery, not a validation of a predictive theory.
After their discovery, Penzias and Wilson learned of the work of Robert Dicke on the idea of a microwave background noise from a common friend. Once reported to Dicke and company, they quickly heralded the measurement as a discovery proving the Big Bang had occurred. Far from being the first to measure the background radiation, they were the first to make a specific measurement in the microwave region. And far from trying to prove the Big Bang, their work was adopted by those who thought it did.
We see the work of measuring the temperature of space (McKellar) preceding new ideas of background radiation (Alpher, Gamow, and Herman). Following in their footsteps Dicke was notified of another measurement that supposedly validated the thesis of the Big Bang. Far from corroborating the idea of a Big Bang, the discovery of Penzias and Wilson was simply a measurement in the microwave band instead of a band averaged measurement from McKellar. Penzias and Wilson had no intention of validating a speculative thesis. Theory actually followed the measurements made by McKellar and Penzias/Wilson.
To date, it is unclear to this writer whether or not a full measurement of the background radiation has been made. Taking the EM spectrum all the way from ionic radiation, through photonic radiation, to RF radiation (1 pm to 100 Mm wavelength), making accurate measurements of all the EM bands would be a foundational task for science to undertake. Having ‘ground truth’ of the temperature of space (spectral radiant measures) would be the work of a Tycho Brahe whose data was used by Johannes Kepler to discover his laws of planetary motion. Before we conclude as to what works in space, we need to know what is active in space.
The Problem with Dark Energy
Until recently, the Big Bang theory was the standard model in cosmology in the minds of many within the scientific community. The expansion of the universe was understood originally to be in the form of a simple recession or a constant velocity based upon observations of light coming from distant galaxies and red shift. Now, with recent observations (1997) of type 1A supernovae, we understand that the universe is expanding at a changing velocity or acceleration. Whereas the Big Bang explained the universe’s expansion at a constant velocity, Dark Energy attempts to explain the expansion of the universe at an accelerated rate or changing velocity. However, Dark Energy is suspect as it attempts to reformulate many old ideas of cosmology that were discarded in the past into the cosmological ‘trash can.’
The simplest way to explain Dark Energy (and dark matter for that matter) is that it is a ‘place holder’ for things we currently do not fully understand. From observations of what matter is missing in the universe, some people have attempted to explain it in terms of Dark Energy; but in doing so, they have no direct empirical evidence to support their claims. In truth, their explanations have turned to cosmological myths once put to rest into a cosmological ‘trash can’ to fill this ‘place holder’ with old ideas. Let me explain.
Years ago, Sir Isaac Newton once suggested that along with a gravitational force there was a repulsive force, which he called a centrifugal force. However, with modern physics we understand that there is no such thing as a centrifugal force as it is simply the absence of a centripetal force. The repulsive centrifugal force of Newton is a fictitious force that has been relegated to the trash heap of science. Although there are other forces that are repulsive (magnetism and electrostatics), there is no guarantee that Dark Energy is a repulsive force.
An old idea in the cosmological trash can is the ancient idea of a static ether. An ether is the place that Aristotle and Ptolemy used to explain the circular motion of planets and the stars around the earth but this was put into the cosmological trash can following the Copernican revolution. While the ether helped explain a static or steady state universe in ancient days, it has now resurfaced to help explain an expanding universe and Dark Energy. Instead of a fixed ether we are now told that we have a moving ether with an expanding fabric of space. This is another item once relegated to the cosmological trash can has been put into the ‘place holder’ of “Dark Energy.”
The willingness of some to turn to the cosmological trash can to find an explanation of why our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate is incredible. Einstein, who once believed in a static universe, created what he called the cosmological constant to make his equations fit a static universe. After learning of Edward Hubble’s discovery of an expanding universe, Einstein threw away his cosmological constant into the cosmological trash can and proclaimed it was his biggest blunder. Now greater minds than his own have taken this cosmological constant and are touting it as one of Einstein’s greatest discoveries. An odd twist to be sure as another item in the cosmological trash can has been removed and put into the ‘place holder’ of “Dark Energy.”
In ancient philosophy and myth, the idea of original matter constituted the four elements of earth, water, air, and fire. A fifth element, called a quintessence, was supposed to be a part of the ether surrounding the earth. Modern chemistry has redefined the elements and dismissed any notion of a quintessence but it has resurfaced again with “Dark Energy.” As there are four basic energies (strong/weak nuclear and strong/weak electromagnetic), Dark Energy represents a fifth energy or a quintessence in an expanding ether. More cosmological trash thrown into the ‘place holder’ of “Dark Energy.”
Now I’m not saying everyone is wrong and I’m right (well, maybe so). But it appears to me that this new phenomenon, unobserved by modern scientists is not being explained very well. Instead of adding it to the Big Bang timeline, Dark Energy should dismiss the Big Bang as the universe is not expanding at a constant rate of change (velocity) but a changing rate of change (acceleration).
The idea of Dark Energy actually disproves the idea of a Big Bang as it was originally modeled. Modern models of evolutionary cosmology try to present an original explosion from the Big Bang that is concatenated with Dark Energy. For some reason, evolutionists cannot dismiss the Big Bang and embrace Dark Energy exclusively. The Big Bang is like a Linus Blanket that modern cosmologists cannot throw away as it covers their past mistakes. And as they cannot throw some useless ideas of cosmology into the trash can, it appears they are scouring the bottom of the cosmological trash can for new ways of explaining Dark Energy. Perhaps it is time for new explanation of universal expansion in a different light!
A New Idea for Cosmology
Given the logical argument above, one may conclude that the Big Bang is without merit. Not only so, but the idea of Dark Energy is without merit never having been observed. So if one were to characterize both the Big Bang and Dark Energy, one might conclude that these are models of the environment effecting a galaxy by which said galaxies are displaced (one by a constant rate of change – the Big Bang and the other by a changing rate of change – Dark Energy).
Taking the idea of universal expansion as a given and that the universe is expanding (galaxies are moving in relation to each other) at an accelerated rate (changing rate of change), one may dismiss the idea of environment acting upon a galaxy to cause it to move and focus instead on the galaxy itself. Where is the requirement in cosmology that galaxies move because they’re effected by their neighbors in intergalactic space? Who said galaxies have to be modeled as an open system subject to their environment? Why not instead offer a premise that galaxies are propelling themselves as closed systems?
A speculative thesis to be sure but “galactic self-propulsion” proposes that galaxies may be modeled as closed systems and that galaxies may cause their own displacement in space (accelerated movement) due to the interplay of matter and energy within itself. I have no proof of this thesis but offer it only as one possibility that has yet to be explored in the world of cosmology.
The Big Bang has gone bust. The time between the beginning and the end of the explosion that supposedly caused all matter to be scattered was less than a second. The idea of universal expansion by an impulse lasting any longer is not acceptable to the standard cosmology. After putting recession to rest some cosmologists have turned to inflation. And as the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, this may cause depression in some cosmologists as it invalidates the original Big Bang theory. The data no longer supports a Big Bang.
The problem with the Big Bang is that the foundation is gone. There cannot be a bang that caused matter to move at an accelerating rate, and stars cannot be formed by gravitation, nor can gravitation start the engine of fusion in a star. Observations of the same supernova explosions that suggest stars can make heavier elements out of lighter ones also shows that expansion is accelerating, which proves there was no Big Bang. Ergo, there goes the Big Bang and the whole idea of ancient nucleosynthesis and the standard cosmology unravels. Its time to go back to the drawing board.