An Eternal and Uncreated Universe or the Big Bang?
A graphic representation of the Universe’s evolution since the Big Bang [N.R.Fuller, National Science Foundation]
The Big Bang theory is now considered the only one able to explain the observational data we have, including the existence of the cosmic background radiation, the mutual recession of the galaxies, and the abundance of hydrogen, helium, and lithium in the Universe
But first, it had to overcome competition from another cosmological model, the steady-state theory
The observations of the deep sky over the past century have taught us that the observable Universe extends over billions of light-years and is made up of countless billions of galaxies, distributed more or less evenly throughout the sky. We also discovered that the Universe is continually expanding and becoming colder on average.
But what is its origin? Where do all the matter and radiation that pervade it come from? In short, how did the Universe come about? Science’s answers to this formidable question have not always been in agreement. There was a time, for example, around the middle of the last century, when scientists were divided into two opposing fields: the steady-state advocates, led by Fred Hoyle, and the Big Bang advocates, led by George Gamow.
For steady-state advocates, the Universe is infinite in time and space. It has always existed and will exist forever, keeping its general characteristics of homogeneity and density unchanged. But Hubble had already shown in the late 1920s that galaxies move away from each other. How can density remain constant if the intergalactic spaces expand? Hoyle and the other steady-state advocates responded with the theory of continuous creation; the expansion of space is balanced by a constant creation of matter, which causes the average density to remain constant. To this end, a very low rate would be sufficient, the creation of 1 hydrogen atom per cubic meter of space every billion years.
The theory embraced by Gamow proposed instead a completely different vision, developed starting from an idea formulated in 1927 by the Belgian priest and astronomer Georges Lemaître. According to this theory, the expansion and cooling of the Universe is the trace of an evolution lasting billions of years, which, traced back, brings to an initial condition in which all the matter and radiation that fill the cosmos today were enclosed in a “primeval atom” inconceivably hot and dense. From that sort of cosmic egg, the Universe originated. Over a very long time, space expanded in all directions, and the temperature and density of matter decreased proportionally. Countless galaxies gradually formed under the push of gravity, which, due to successive mergers and aggregations, finally reached the evolutionary stage that we can observe today in the local Universe. It was the “Big Bang” hypothesis, as steady-state advocate Fred Hoyle had sarcastically labeled it in 1949.
How to decide which of the two theories was the best? Until the 1960s, there was no strong enough evidence to declare the success of one of the two positions and the defeat of the other. But things changed suddenly in 1964, the year in which Arno Penzias and Robert W. Wilson, two Bell Laboratories radio astronomers, accidentally came across cosmic microwave background or CMB, a discovery that brought them the Nobel prize for physics in 1978.
The existence of this cosmic background, detectable in all areas of the sky in the microwave region, was predicted in 1948 by two American scientists, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, who had calculated what temperature and spectrum this radiation should have had.
But what exactly is the CMB? We can consider it as the light echo of the Big Bang. In the beginning, the temperature was too high for protons, neutrons, and electrons to combine to form neutral atoms. All matter existed in the state of plasma, i.e., ionized particles, and light remained trapped in that plasma; photons — the quanta of light, mediators of the electromagnetic force — were continuously absorbed and re-emitted by free electrons. It was a Universe potentially full of light, but paradoxically dark, because the light did not have the possibility of freely propagating in space.
The situation changed entirely around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, an epoch that cosmologists call the era of recombination. Space had continued to expand from the Big Bang onwards continuously, and, as a result of this, the global temperature had dropped to the point where atomic nuclei and electrons could bind to each other forming neutral atoms. It allowed the photons to propagate in space without being continuously absorbed and re-emitted. In fact, unlike the free electrons diffused in the primordial plasma, the neutral atoms absorb only photons of particular wavelengths, leaving all the others to pass undisturbed. After the phase transition of the primeval plasma into a gas of neutral atoms, the collisions of photons with subatomic particles drastically decreased. The space filled in every direction with photons bearing the imprint of the last interactions with matter, occurred before it cooled beyond the critical threshold that caused the phase transition from the plasma state to the neutral gas state.
Those photons have traveled the space for nearly 14 billion years and today form the CMB, the distant echo of the turmoil of that primordial era in the history of the Universe. Although not having interacted with other matter throughout the very long time elapsed since their freeing, the photons of the CMB have suffered a significant loss of energy, caused by the uninterrupted expansion of space happened in the meantime; they have moved to the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum. That’s why today they are only detectable in the microwave region, with wavelengths that correspond to a temperature of fewer than three degrees above absolute zero.
With the discovery of the CMB, the cosmological model based on the Big Bang hypothesis became, in fact, the most plausible explanation for the origin of the Universe. But the steady-state theorists were not discouraged. They conjectured that the background radiation was not the echo of a hypothetical Big Bang, but only the light of distant stars absorbed and re-emitted in the microwave region by dust diffused in the intergalactic space.
According to the predictions of the Big Bang theorists, the background radiation should have had the spectrum of a black body, that is, a particular energy distribution curve determined solely by temperature. But stars also emit radiation with a spectrum that is a good approximation of a black body. The peak intensity of the flow from the CMB had been measured in 400 Megajansky per steradian (a measure of the amount of radiation received per unit of the celestial surface observed). If the CMB was starlight absorbed and re-emitted by dust, then deviations of the order of 10 Megajansky per steradian should have been found concerning the spectral distribution of the radiation emitted by an ideal black body.
At the time of the discovery of the CMB and in the years immediately following, instruments capable of such precise observations were not yet available. But they became available later. Thanks to the launch of three artificial satellites (COBE in 1989, WMAP in 2001, and Planck in 2009), it was finally possible to record the tiny variations of the CMB with the highest level of detail, without suffering the blurring caused by the filter of the Earth’s atmosphere.
The measurements made by the three satellites showed that the cosmic background radiation perfectly matches the characteristics predicted by the Big Bang hypothesis:
- it comes from all directions of the sky;
- has an almost identical temperature everywhere, equal to 2.725 K, with an uncertainty of only 470 microkelvins;
- has the spectrum of a black body.
As for the latter item, as early as 1992, the results of the observations made by the COBE satellite indicated that the energy distribution of the CMB was that of an almost perfect blackbody, with variations of no more than 0.01 megajansky per steradian. It was equivalent to a funeral prayer for the hypothesis of the steady-state.
The graph above shows the abundances of helium-4, deuterium, helium-3, and lithium-7 compared to that of hydrogen, as measured by NASA’s WMAP satellite. The scale is logarithmic. The red vertical line indicates the density of ordinary matter in the Universe, measured by WMAP in 4.6% ± 0.2%. The abundances of the elements are in perfect agreement with the quantities predicted by the Big Bang theoretical model [NASA / WMAP Science Team]
The theoretical model of the Big Bang can also boast two other important successes: the prediction of the expansion of the Universe, confirmed by the Hubble-Lemaître law, and the prediction of the abundances of the various chemical elements produced during the so-called primordial nucleosynthesis. In the first minutes after the Big Bang, and only for a short time, the temperature was so high as to allow the formation by nuclear fusion of hydrogen, helium and lithium isotopes, but of no other heavier element (oxygen, iron, gold, etc. were created only much later, inside the first stars and during multiple supernovae explosions). Observations made in 2011 spectacularly confirmed this prediction; the analysis of the footprint left in the spectra of distant quasars by the gas of primordial intergalactic clouds crossed by their light made it possible to establish that the Universe began (in terms of mass) with 76% hydrogen, 24% helium-4 and minuscule percentages of deuterium, helium-3, and lithium-7.
Almost all physicists and cosmologists agree today that the Big Bang cosmological model is the only hypothesis that can make sense of the observational data available.
Read more at medium.com
****
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Ken Hughes
| #
Yes, the one true explanation for the evolution of the universe.
but what started it all in the first place?
‘and how do you get something from nothing?
The first question brings yet another conundrum along with it, – in the eternal nothingness, what was so special about the moment of creation that caused the big bang to happen? After much deliberation, there can be only one answer to this problem – the moment of the big bang was the FIRST MOMENT of the universe. The beginning was the beginning of time and before that there was no time, no events, no energy, etc. Only with time passing can any (and all) events happen.
So, with first the moment, came the continuum, our ongoing field of energy we experience as time. This field now allowed events to occur and matter and physical energy to form. It seems from this idea, that matter emerged from the field of time, or more simply, that all matter IS MADE OF TIME. There are indeed indications of this from the fields of gravitational time dilation surrounding all matter. There is also an indication from special relativity in that the reducing time energy experienced by a accelerating body is mirrored by its increasing kinetic energy.
It is clear from this, that all energy, (kinetic, mass energy), is drawn from the field of energy we know as time.
Reply
Monty
| #
Ken Hughes wonders, “…but what started it all in the first place?
‘and how do you get something from nothing?”
God started it all.
Reply
Al Shelton
| #
Who started God?
Reply
Monty
| #
Nobody.
Reply
David W Thomson
| #
This is such a self serving article. The eternal Universe hypothesis has very strong evidence in its favor, too. The Casimir effect has been observed to be a real creation of photons from “the vacuum.” Since photons become electrons via the photoelectric effect, this is the same thing as creating new matter. Another observation of matter creation, which is routinely ignored by physicists, is that nuclear reactors always produce more material than they consume, despite decades of operation and generation of energy. It would be so easy for physicists to confirm the E = mc^2 myth by tallying the fuel input, fuel output, and energy generation of nuclear reactors. And yet, after 80 years, nobody has published such a paper. Even more provocative is that the early Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors were engineered specifically around the observation that reactors produce more fuel (ie, more mass) than they start with.
Between the Casimir effect and nuclear reactions, there is more than ample evidence that new matter is continually being created in the Universe. Further, black holes at the centers of galaxies are constantly sucking matter in, which is why galaxies tend to spiral inward, like a large bathtub drain. There is no evidence that black holes are accumulating mass, it is merely assumed that black holes grow in size. If black holes were growing in size, then there should be some relatively small galaxies with huge black holes, which have nearly completely consumed the entire galaxy. There are zero such galaxies in the Universe. Black holes are apparently the result of space becoming too dense due to the continual production of new matter in the rest of the galaxy, and where space and matter both unravel.
The matter that unravels converts from visible matter to dark matter (neutrinos for example). And the new matter that is created is the result of dark matter being converted to visible matter via the processes named above. Thus, the Universe is not only eternal, it is always the same “size.” Even more interesting is that the turnover rate of matter created in the stars and planets to the time it migrates to the center of the galaxy is about 13 to 19 billion years. Thus, the Universe always appears to be this old, depending upon where you look. And yes, the amount of CMB will always remain constant under these conditions.
Now what makes more sense? an entire Universe that pops suddenly out of the head of a pin? or an entire Universe that always exists and recycles itself, and which eternally follows simple physical laws that we observe every day?
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
The Big Bang makes one huge assumption, that of assuming that all red shift of light indicates an expanding universe of receding stars and galaxies. However, gravitational fields also red shift light. Why is it that they ignore this when talking about expansion but then use it to the extreme in black hole discussions? It makes no sense. It is fairly clear now that quasars are born from galaxies and are not the metaphysical, brighter-than-should-be, extremely distant objects. When one realizes that they spawn from galaxies, they become normal objects with red shifts related to their age/mass.
The abundances of the light elements are wrong for the Big Bang and was fixed by ignoring all cold matter and inventing Dark Matter. How weird can dark matter be? It is undetectable and has a gravitational effect that holds galaxies together but does not itself clump into objects based on this gravitational effect. It makes no sense. Then, they has to invent Dark Force and Dark Energy, a whole Dark Physics. The Steady State electric Universe has none of these huge problems and bandages that have been used to keep the Big Bang alive.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
There is no “evidence” of a “big bang”. There is “belief” that there is evidence. The CMBR is much more likely to just be photons from stars, with so little energy they can’t be absorbed.
Reply
Al Shelton
| #
If they cannot be absorbed, how can one measure them?
I really am serious and not being sarcastic.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
That’s a fair question, Al.
To have made it more understandable I should have said “…with so little energy they can’t be [easily and naturally] absorbed.”
With engineering, there are ways to detect even low energy photons. There are a lot of “tricks” that can be used, such as magnification and amplication, along with specialized materials and circuitry. If you’re interested in more details, search on “quantum cascade detectors”.
Reply
Kelvin Vaughan
| #
The energy from the Sun reduces by one divided by the distance squared, isn’t this red shift?
Reply
Norman
| #
Kelvin Vaughan
No that would not be the red shift. That is the Inverse Square Law. The energy is reduced per area because the area is expanding. The frequency of the light does not change. You have the same proportion of UV, visible, IR near or far from the Sun. With a red shift you have a change of frequency of the light as measured by spectrum of elements of a distant star or galaxy.
http://www.buzzle.com/images/diagrams/hydrogen-spectrum.jpg
This is an image of hydrogen spectra (if the link worked). The red shift would move the emission lines toward a redder frequencies (to the left in this image).
Reply
Norman
| #
Sorry the shift would be to the RIGHT of the linked image not left. If you compared the hydrogen emission of the Sun with a distant object you would see it all shifted right of the Sun’s spectrum for hydrogen. This can occur with a Doppler effect as it does take place with sound that is moving away from an observer.
Reply
JDHuffman
| #
Norman is correcting his own mistake?
That’s something new….
Reply
Kelvin Vaughan
| #
Norman
If it’s loosing energy as it covers a bigger area doesn’t the frequency reduce? I thought the energy of a magnetic wave was relative to it’s frequency. The light from distant star that is red shifting is also spreading out with the inverse square law.
Reply
Glenn Borchardt
| #
There was no Big Bang. Note the Steady State Theory tauted here as the alternative to the BBT also assumes universal expansion, an interpretation based on Einstein’s 8 ad hocs for considering light as a massless particle with perpetual motion:
Table 6 Einstein’s eight ad hocs (from Borchardt, 2017, p. 194).
1 Unlike other particles, his light particle always traveled at the same velocity—it never slowed down.
2 Unlike other particles, it attained this velocity instantaneously when emitted from a source.
3 Unlike other particles, it would not take on the velocity of its source.
4 Unlike other particles, it was massless.
5 Unlike other particles, light particles did not lose motion when they collided with other light particles.
6 Unlike other particles, any measurement indicating light speed was not constant had to be attributed to “time dilation”—another especially egregious ad hoc.
7 Time had to be considered something other than motion, for motion cannot dilate.
8 The claim light speed was constant flew in the face of all other measurements showing there are no constants in nature because everything is always in motion. Because the universe is infinite, every measurement of every so-called “constant” always has a plus or minus. The velocities for wave motion in any medium are dependent on the properties of that medium, which vary from place to place.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Glenn,
You are right. There is no particle nature of light (the photoelectric effect is another version of the piezo electric effect) it is a disturbance traveling in the electric and magnetic (energy) fields that permeate the universe. Its speed is not constant but varies with the strength of these fields. The red and blue shifts are a result of the speed of light changing as it travels through varying strength fields.
Herb
Reply
geraint hughes
| #
Cosmic background radiation has been shown to be false. Telescope designs needs to be modified to avoid side inteference.
Reply
Tom O
| #
My worthless comments on the idea of the big bang runs to the concept that we look far into the reaches of space to “look back at the beginning.” That is, at the limits of the visible universe, they are saying we are looking at the conditions shortly after the big bang.
I look at it a bit differently. We are looking from a position that is either near the point of origin of the big bang, or we are at a point some distance from the big bang, but we are looking at the universe from the center of our observational sphere. If I am looking at an object I say is 5 billion lights year from me, I am looking at something that was THERE 5 billion years ago. If the universe is 14 billion years old, then the light from the original “bang” is 14 billion light years away and the created light is still moving outward, and the universe is 28 billion light years across, and what is visible from our point in that universe, is somewhere within that space.
But how big the universe is a bit moot because I am not looking at the reflection of the “near big bang” conditions when I am looking into the deepest observable portions of the universe, I am looking at things that were there when the light that I am observing was emitted.
The whole concept of the big bang was created only because there are those that do not want to believe in a God of creation. When I look at the conceptualized “web of space” and the galaxies distributed through the web, I am reminded of looking at the conceptualized view of the human “mind.” I find it easy to accept that we live within the mind of God, and the Universe will last as long as God exists. As for is it eternal? To a bacteria, the lifetime of a human would seem eternal. We will wink out of existence as soon as God does, just as those people that populate our dreams wink out when we wake. The Bible says on the 7th day he rested. Perhaps that is when we will cease – when He wakes up from His nightmare of what we seem to have become.
Reply
Jack
| #
More regurgitated nonsense from the bbt.
Reply
Simon
| #
More regurgitated nonsense from the big nothing theory.
Reply