Tagged: Dark matter falsified?
A preliminary comment on the results announced from the Planck satellite.
With the Planck results, we have once again an announcement that all is well with the conventional model except for a few small “anomalies”, which of course should be balanced with the great success of Big Bang theory elsewhere. But the “anomalies” pointed out by the Planck team are scarcely the only ones that have been accumulating over the past decade and more. Again and again the fundamental, base line, predictions of the “concordance cosmology” have been contradicted by observations. Yet for most cosmologists no doubts can be entertained about the basic assumptions of the model that lead to these perfections.
The Big Bang theory leads to a universe that is isotropic and homogenous on the largest scales. Yet that prediction has been contradicted repeatedly by observations. In the Planck results (and in WMAP) there is the asymmetry of anisotropy power on two sides of the sky and there is the near-alignment of the octopole, quadrupole and dipole anisotropies. The polarization vectors of quasars show a major asymmetry whose axis is aligned with that of the CMB dipole. The direction of spin of spiral galaxies—directly observable from images—shows an asymmetry across the entire sky with an axis that does not line up with any of the other asymmetries. Yet another asymmetry is shown by measurements of the Hubble constant, based on supernovae brightness. In short, on the largest scales we can observe the universe is anisotropic in several different ways, in flat contradiction to the isotropic prediction that flows from the Big Bang hypothesis.
A second fundamental contradiction with observation is in the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis predictions. While not mentioned in the Planck results, BBN makes a strong prediction for the primordial abundance of lithium. But, as has been long known, this prediction is a factor of 3 above the abundances in old stars. What is much worse for the theory, the the older the star and the purer it is of admixture from later star-formation, the lower the lithium abundance. The oldest and purest stars yet detected have less than 1/100th of the amount of lithium predicted by BBN. In no other field of science could an error of two orders of magnitude be considered good agreement. Yet in “concordance cosmology” this is just a small anomaly.
The concordance cosmology requires the presence of large amounts of “dark matter”, non-baryonic matter different from any ever observed on earth. Dark matter models strongly predict that the satellites of galaxies should be randomly clustered around the central galaxy, guided by the gravitational field of the dark matter. Yet in the two galaxies where detailed studies have been made, our own Milky Way and our neighbor Andromeda, M31, the satellite galaxies are arranged in a thin disk like a large-scale model of the solar system, in complete contradiction with the predictions of dark matter theories.
These are only three major contradictions of observation with concordance cosmology. It is by no means an exhaustive list. At what point do astronomers stop patching up the current Ptolemaic theory with dark-matter, dark-energy and inflation epicycles and start looking for a Keplerian theory which does not require one new fudge factor for each new observation? A non-expanding universe, without a Big Bang, but with the known laws of plasma physics taken into account, provides a far better starting point then does concordance cosmology. For decades, this model has predicted just what was discovered, an anisotropic, inhomogeneous universe with helium, deuterium and lithium produced in stars as today, supplying the energy we see as the cosmic background radiation. More to come soon!
It has long seemed that much of cosmology (and several other sciences) was best described as a cabal of true believers trying to protect the sacred knowledge from an onslaught of facts. Minds were closed; eyes glazed over. Ptolemaic is certainly the applicable term.
From the data cited by Eric there are two possible outcomes. The data will eventually hammer down the bogus theorizing and force a total revision, or the old guard will just die off, and their theorizing will pass with them.
Either way, it seems that Eric is on the right track.
A summary paper tracking all the inconsistencies of BB might be well accepted, although fusion power seems more important in practical terms.
Eric, it seems you’ve been keeping up with various news since you released your book way back when… Would you considered writing an update addressing a long list of new observations we’ve made since? I liked your 2007 Year End update you posted on your personal website – something of at least that length would be a good read for myself and I’m sure many others.
Hello one and all
One can talk about the BB until you go blue in the face and yet the BBT has no foundation, no evidence to support it.
How can I expalin a complex process that becomes so simple that it can explain the universe in a nut shell so to speak.
One needs to understand condensates, transient phases from nuclear, to Neutron matter to the various quark composites and the various partons there after to the ultimate coupling of the ultimate wave/particle to form Axiion matter.
In the last ten years we have been flooded by such science information.
“By using Fiber Multi-Object Spectrograph on the Subaru Telescope, an international team led by Japanese researchers has made a 3D map of 3000 galaxies 13 billion light years from Earth (Figure 1). Based on this comprehensive survey, the first of such a study at this great distance, the team was able to confirm that Einstein’s general theory of relativity is still valid.”
Does this in any way effect the cosmology debate between The Big Bang and BBNH? Also, is the spectrographic method used reliable in measuring 13 billion year age for a star? And it seems to me anything that doesn’t directly contradict relativity is confirming. If this is their claim to success, congratulations in not overturning a 100 year old theory today.
This YouTube video claims to falsify the “dark matter” hypothesis. Link: https://youtu.be/MvNCWMD6so4?list=PLwOAYhBuU3UeYFyfm2LilZldjJd48t6IY Quoting from the video, Matthew Pasek of the Rochester Institute of Technology comments, “Nothing in the standard cosmological model predicts this [result], and it is almost impossible to imagine how that model could be modified to explain it, without discarding the dark matter hypothesis completely.”
Any comments or opinions? This seems to strongly support the BBNH proposition.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.