By Carl O. Nordling

For thousands of years the notions that the Earth was flat and that it represented the centre of the universe paralysed astronomical thinking. Very little progress was possible until these "axioms" were dismissed.

It seems to a layman like me that the so called Big Bang theory has superseded the "Flat-Earth-axiom" as a heavy brake block that is effectively curbing cosmological thinking of to-day. Just like the theory that the earth is a disc with an edge, we are now dealing with a theory of space-time as a cone with a tip. An enormous amount of work is devoted to calculating and describing the properties of this purported tip--actually far more than was spent on describing that edge during the centuries.

All large-scale cosmological phenomena are nowadays interpreted with the aid of the theory of relativity. The latter has proved to be a good guide for understanding physical events of magnitudes far removed from the human scale. This theory tells us that although space and time appear as two incompatible phenomena on our human scale, in the world of cosmology they nevertheless lose their distinctive characters, so to speak. There they become aspects related to the observer, somewhat like the directions called "up" and "down". Only space-time as a whole may be treated as an invariant to all observers. In flagrant contrast to this, the Big Bang theory requires the dimension called time to be a finite and linear phenomenon and the dimensions of space to be limitless and curved, in which case time and space would seem to be distinguishable from each other. Would not this be reason enough to dispose of the Big Bang and try some theory more in keeping with the theory of relativity?

In order to facilitate relativistic thinking we should discard the cone surface as a metaphoric model of the universe. Instead we could compare space-time with the surface of a doughnut (torus). This gives us a vision of how space can be curved in one direction and time in another, how both can be limitless and how they can be just as relativistic as up and down. The torus surface also illustrates how space at certain points may be perceived as expanding with time.

The Big Bang theory asserts that the extension of space-time is limited backwards in the time dimension, and that the density of matter was infinitely large at a certain point of time. These assertions do not follow from observations or measurements, nor do they follow from the applying of the natural laws that summarize our experience so far. On the contrary! The accepted laws of nature definitely exclude a state such as the Big Bang theory would imply. It is certainly possible to construct alternative cosmological theories that comply with the known laws of nature. The Swedish Nobel laureate Hannes Alfvén has shown at least that much.

The observational basis for the Big Bang theory is weak indeed. If all the paths of cosmic objects are extrapolated backwards in time, they do not coincide in one point. Even colliding galaxies have been observed. Looking at parts of the universe in the remote time and distance, we find that the mean distance between cosmic objects was then smaller than in the near-by regions and that interaction between galaxies (perhaps even merger) was more common. (See F. Duccio Macchetto and Mark Dickinson, "Galaxies in the Young Universe", Scientific American, vol. 276, p. 66.) That is to say, the galaxies behave as gas molecules enclosed in an expanding vessel, not as particles scattering after an explosion.

The low temperature radiation that pervades the universe could certainly be explained without resorting to any Big Bang. The calculated ages of various cosmic objects do not in all cases correspond with the calculated age of the universe.

The reason for maintaining the Big Bang theory is not its plausibility, because it is not scientifically plausible. The major reason is the fact that there has been accumulated an enormous amount of scientific literature based on the Big Bang postulate. Most of this literature would turn into vast paper over night if the Big Bang theory were to be discarded. That is something that not only astronomers would experience as almost a catastrophe to be avoided at all costs.

Our effort to get rid of a scientific brake-block has apparently brought us in front of a tremendous stumbling block. So what can be done? Let us apply a historical perspective! Of course it was a rather similar situation when Copernicus realized that it would simplify immensely the calculations of the motions of planets if he replaced the earth by the sun as the fixed center. The position of the Ptolemaic system was, however, so firmly rooted that Copernicus thought it to be out of the question to change it. Instead he presented his sun-centered calculations with a saving clause and asseverated that the earth was--nevertheless-- the center.

Unfortunately, Copernicus’s strategy can hardly be applied to overcome the stumbling block of to day. I cannot imagine any mild and gentle solution. In order to promote constructive cosmological thinking, it seems that we must somehow get rid of the Big Bang notion--entirely.

Literature:

Alfvén, Hannes,"0rigin of Cosmic Radiation", Nature, vol. 131 (1933), pp. 619-20.

Alfvén, Hannes and Fälthammar, Carl-Gunne, Cosmic Electrodynamics: Fundamental

Alfvén, Hannes, "How Should We Approach Cosmology?" in Problems of Physics and

Alfvén, Hannes, "Hubble Expansion in a Euclidean Framework", Astrophysics and Space

Alfvén, Hannes, "Cosmology in the Plasma Universe", Laser and Particle Be 16 (1988), pp.

Lerner, Eric J., New York, 1990. The Big Bang Never Happened, New York, 1990.

Lilly, S.J., "Discovery of a Radio Galaxy as a Redshift of 3.395" Astrophysical Journal,

Peratt, A.L., "Are Black Holes Necessary?" Sky and Telescope, vol. 66 (July 1983), pp. 19-22

Prigogine, Ilya, "Time, Structure, and Fluctuations" Science, vol. 201 (1978), p. 777-85

Prigogine, Ilya, and Petrosky, Tomio Y., "An Alternative to Quantum Theory", Physica, vol.

Valtonen, Mauri, and Byrd, Gene, "Redshift Asymetries in System of Galaxies and the Missing Mass",