Is the Big Bang ‘falsifiable’? (Part I)

As I have repeatedly tried to pin Big Bang proponents down with specific questions, I have noted a discouraging tendency toward obfuscation. I understand that the model is more suited toward description than having the kind of explanatory power that can tell us, for instance, why there was a Big Bang or what caused it. All I have been looking for is a precise, self-consistent set of premises. It’s like that ‘whack-a-mole’ game, where you ask one question and the answer slips away into a general relativity hole, and you ask another and the answer gets lost down the special relativity hole. So this process has led, quite naturally, to whether or not the Big Bang is actually falsifiable. In other words, is there an observation that, if made, would show the Big Bang to be false? String theory, for instance, is not currently falsifiable because it has made no predictions that are within the range of our test equipment. Many physicists shout ‘foul’, but the (art/math/philosophy) that is string theory rages on unabated. I wonder, however, whether the Big Bang is not falsifiable for an entirely different reason: are its foundational principles so malleable that it can be adjusted to any conceivable observation? Please allow me to share the discussion that led to this idea.

I had been told recently, by a few credentialed physicists (who shall remain nameless), that the galactic vortex proposed by null cosmology is simply not possible. To this I responded, excellent! You see, if there is no galactic vortex as predicted, then I can conceive of no possible way of undoing a galaxy’s fusion to create new hydrogen (for future fusion), which leads directly to the spectacular and unequivocal failure of null cosmology! In this way, null cosmology is falsifiable, as should be the case with any good physical theory. But then I responded, “if we do find this ‘impossible’ vortex, will that invalidate the Big Bang?” The answer was no; but it might cause some major adjustment to its current version of universal or galactic evolution. Then the grim reality suddenly dawned on me, and I asked a more global question:

Can you conceive of an observation that, if confirmed, would demonstrate that the Big Bang was false?

This particular discussion group could imagine no such observation.

Alas poor science, I miss you so.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

Tags: , ,

4 Responses to “Is the Big Bang ‘falsifiable’? (Part I)”

  1. ralfcis Says:

    Apart from the things you question like cosmic background radiation and red shift, the newest falsifiable experiment is the search for gravitational background waves which if not found will seriously impact the big bang’s credibility. But you knew that.

  2. ralfcis Says:

    Sorry this is more for the forum but I just heard your podcast and I’m just wondering if there’s some sort of experiment that can be performed on earth or some mathematical formula which shows mixing matter, electricity and a black hole will diffuse nuclei back into protons. Does it involve stripping the electrons out of neutrons, turning them into protons which then repel each other to break apart the nucleus? I guess you’ll tell me to go read the book.

  3. ralfcis Says:

    If I can compare your cosmic fusion cycle to the precipitation cycle on earth it looks to me like the water returning to the ocean, where it gets evaporated, would take so long to trickle back that the ocean would nearly dry up and very little rain would fall for eternity. (It seems to me mathematically impossible for cycles to remain stable and self correcting but there are plenty of examples on earth where cycles are stable.) Is there a second cycle where the ocean is given a huge amount of time to refill before the sun starts evaporating it again? Again I should go read the book.

  4. ralfcis Says:

    I’ve only been into this stuff for a few weeks now and my brain has unfortunately imploded. Nothing makes sense anymore. You’re right, physics is in a terrible (but exciting) mess. It’s made worse by some egomaniacs whose passive-aggressive Oz-like obfuscations are geared less towards clarification and education and more towards self-aggrandizement and exclusivity. Science is about the things that don’t fit. The real info is in the fine detail and not the broad brush strokes and I can’t access the fine detail. Hence, I may be mistaken in what I quote as facts below in my attempt to falsify both big bang and null physics theories.

    1. So big bang says the CMB is a result of universal expansion stretching out the wavelength of the initial high energy photons released at .4Gyr? So why are we able to SEE the first galaxies created? Wouldn’t their light also be stretched to microwave or infra red and not just a tiny red shift as observed? In other words if the CMB is like a massive red shift of the big bang, why don’t smaller bangs right after show a comparable huge red shift?
    2. The early universe must have taken time to clear up. Gravity would have taken billions of years to organize the highly energetic, light and scattered first particles as it takes billions of years to form stars in galactic disks. Without large expanses of vacuum, light would have been significantly slowed and scattered by the particles. Yet we see crystal clear images of 13 billion year old galaxies with large voids in between. Is the slower light speed taken into account in calculating the age of the universe?
    3. If light wavelength from the big bang has been stretched by universal expansion and we know the size of the universe at the .4Gyr mark, can we not calculate how far the universe has expanded beyond our 10 to the 28 cm event horizon? Would this actual size of the universe affect the calculation of universal constants?
    4. Big bang also explains Olber’s paradox by saying galaxies beyond our event horizon can’t contribute to light pollution. Has anyone actually added up the luminosity of the visible stars and compared it to the actual luminosity of the visible universe. Is the result in line with big bang predictions? It seems way too dark out there.
    5. It seems that deep field galaxies are traveling so fast away from us, how is it that some are blue shifted? Galactic attraction pulling some of them back should only appear as less red shift, not blue shift. Anyways, it’s hard to deny that deep field galaxies when sorted by red shift show distinct epochs which doesn’t indicate a steady state universe.
    6. The universe favors light elements. Both big bang and null physics support this. However, if fusion stops at iron, how were the heavier elements formed?
    7. Pictures of galaxies colliding show increasing supernova activity in the disks of spiral galaxies indicating the gravitational perturbations are causing the gas to condense and fuse. There are also pictures of elliptical galaxies or globular clusters (galaxies without disks) spewing out vast gas clouds perpendicularly into space. This leads to several questions:
    1. Just like the sun did not suck up all the material in its disk, nor can a galaxy suck up all the material in its disk. It seems that local clumping resists the central gravitational pull which would steal from the cosmic fusion cycle. A small percentage of matter will not be recycled which means the cycle will eventually stop and no steady state universe.
    2. Why is the void between galaxies not full of particles that are spewed out of galactic cores and disk supernovae? The galaxies don’t have enough power to sweep these areas clean because they can’t even suck in their own disks. We know the areas are clean because light is not foggy from distant galaxies. Entropy shows gas released in a vacuum will fill the vacuum evenly. A steady state universe should be even more peanut buttery.
    3. Why do supernovae spew gas in spherical arrangements, but cores and black holes spew it in perpendicular jets? This leads to more gas leaving the galaxy and making any possible cosmic fusion cycle very inefficient.
    4. I don’t understand how variations in the CMB are responsible for galaxy formation. Gravity was way overmatched in the early stages which would have spewed out a huge gas dispersion. Even old galaxies can’t swallow or organize their own gas disks even after billions of years. How did the universe get so clean so fast? The CMB would have had to have been way more irregular.
    8. Measurements on spiral galaxies show the arms move as fast as the centers. I believe this is because the dark matter halo acts like an external antigravity clamp that holds the galaxy together. However, the spiral arms indicate that at one time the galactic core was spinning faster than the disk. I believe that time was before the dark matter was swept out of the galactic center by the scattering power of antigravity (dark energy). If this is true, then deep field galaxies should still show radial arms lagging the center because they’re too young to have all the dark matter swept out. Anyways, in Null Physics, the bands in the disk are plasma conduits to feed the core with the electrical energy needed to unfuse matter. If diskless elliptical galaxies don’t have arms, it means they don’t have the plasma conduits to engage in the cosmic fusion cycle which means they would build up as waste material in a steady state universe. What do the matter conveyor belts appear as? They should have an even more dramatic band structure. Just like the planets don’t fall into the sun, I don’t see how matter can fall into the galactic core.


Our Undiscovered Universe Blog is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).