Dear Prof. Richard Lewis and Nishargo Nigar

In a letter published in Nature News-blog, “In the Field”: Cosmic Ripples Net Physics Prize: and also in my published Book “The Dialectical Universe”, I had criticized not only the merit of this Nobel Award, but the theories themselves. The following is a copy of my letter that appeared in “Nature News-blog” and contains a more detailed view of Arp on this issue

"Nobel Prize for Big Bang Theory Raises Big Questions. Is Nobel Prize in Physical Sciences Losing Some of Its Nobleness?"

The recent award in support of the Big bang theory seems to be a notable point of departure for Nobel awards in Natural Sciences. While Nobel awards for World Peace, Economics and even Literature can be construed to be based on subjective (ideological, politico-economical etc.) considerations of “Western” interest, awards for Natural sciences always remained beyond any trace of controversy.

Cynics, for example can point out that, during the past few decades at least, Nobel World Peace prize was awarded for ideological consideration against the “Evil Soviet Empire” [Andrei Sakharov – 1975, Lech Walesa – 1983, Mikhail S. Gorbachev – 1990] and for politico-economic interest in the case of the Middle East [Menachem Begin and Anwar el-Sadat -1978, Yasir Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin – 1994, Shirin Ebadi – 2004]. Even the aptly deserving World Peace award to Jimmy Carter – 2002 was in general perceived to be a reaction against recent American policies in the Middle East.

Nobel awards in Natural sciences on the contrary always merited almost universal consensus, especially from those working in the field. These awards were always characterized by strict adherence to objectivity, the importance of the discovery and an uncompromising demand for verifiable experimental results. Albert Einstein was awarded Nobel Prize for his work on photoelectric effect, but not for his theories of Special and General Relativity, even though these two theories dominated the practice of Natural science for the last 100 years. Another notable example is the idea of “Black Hole”, even though vigorous claims about its existence are being made for a long time. The Theory of General Relativity (GR) still remains a field of vigorously active research and a major preoccupation of modern physics; astrophysics and cosmology; where increasingly tenuous attempts are being made to prove GR with even better accuracy – a passion apparently guided by a lingering doubt about its validity and the necessity to support related theories such as Big bang by proxy.

Both GR and the Big bang theory that has its scientific root in the former were dogged with controversy and skepticism from the moment they were proposed. It is a historical fact that Arthur Eddington over-enthusiastically claimed to have proven GR based on partial results of his experiments on the bending of star light by the gravity of the Sun. Calculations based on the complete data recorded by his team did not support the initial claim by Eddington. Although later experiments by other researchers verified the bending of star light by the Sun, this episode set a bad precedent which prompted Stephan Hawking to observe, “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”.(“A Brief History of Time”, Bantam Books, p-32, (1988)). Einstein’s initial insertion of a fudge factor (for a static universe) in his equation and later claim (after Hubble’s discovery of an expanding universe) that it was the “biggest blunder of his life” was also unhelpful. All the sophisticated and difficult experiments (including COBE) done later on were perceived by many to be contrived and seemed to have been carried out in response to new requirements to keep the theories alive.

COBE based study of the microwave background radiation is the most sophisticated experiment ever done on this subject. This required expensive and elaborate logistical, technical, data processing etc. expertise and instruments that had to work at the very limit of their technical abilities. A study of this nature can only be carried out by a resourceful government supported agency like NASA. A repetition of any aspect of this study seems unlikely in the near future and remains outside the ability of any other group of scientists. Although GR commands total loyalty from most established and mainstream physicists, this is not the case with Big bang theory. Opposition to the officially accepted Big bang theory was voiced on empirical and epistemological grounds by a significant fraction of astrophysicists and cosmologists since 1950s and it is still growing. Ambartsumian, Arp, Alfven, Hoyle, Narlikar, Burbidge pair, Phipps are only few names among many who strongly contested the Big bang theory. Evidence for quasar-galaxy association, shell like structure of galaxies and their clusters, quantization in the physical distribution and in the redshifts of the galaxies, existence of heavy metals like iron in the intergalactic space and the quasars which are supposed to contain only primordial gas, the very high redshifts of the quasars that require much faster than light non-relativistic velocities, their unrealistic luminosity and proper motions at such enormous distances (in the Big bang scheme), observation of galaxies at 17 billion light years away – far beyond the limit predicted by the Big bang theory etc., are at odd with its paradigm.

Astronomer and astrophysicist Halton Arp, one of the most famous opponents of the Big bang theory has this to say in a personal communication in reference to the present Nobel Award, “The intergalactic medium has to have some temperature. Eddington calculated about 2.7 deg. in 1926. In the 1940’s Max Born calculated 2.7 deg. on the basis of tired light. Gamow calculated 50 deg. before Pezias and Wilson measured 2.73 deg. But a Canadian astronomer, McKellar had already measured it from the excitation of the inter-stellar CN molecule. The ultimate irony is that it is a primary reference frame which violates Einstein’s assumption about no preferred reference frames.” - And on George Smoot’s work on the small variation in the temperature of the microwave background radiation, “Eric Lerner in his latest summary describes how, that “face of God” (a remark made by Smoot after his discovery – AM) is now falling apart. The predictions stepped down a number of times before any irregularities finally showed up at 10^-5.” The claims of the Big bang theory at best are being contested and at worst are uncertain. The Nobel Award of this nature seems to be an exception to the tradition. According to the Nobel citation, the Big bang “is the only scenario that predicts the kind of cosmic microwave background radiation measured by COBE”. Even though Per Carlson, chairman of the Nobel physics committee said according to press reports that “they have not proven the Big bang theory, but they give it very strong support”; this award represents a very strong endorsement of the Big bang theory and very likely will further stifle healthy scientific debate on this issue. This endorsement adds to the one already given by the Vatican.

Posted by: Abdul Malek | December 21, 2006 11:58 PM

Nishargo Nigar

Then it follows that if you were to change the velocity of the Milky Way by 552km/s then we would see the CMB as isotropic.

No special place is then identified.

This clarifies that I have made the additional assumption about the cause of the motion of the Milky Way relative to the CMB rest frame. I have assumed that the cause of the observed velocity is the expansion of space.

Thank you for helping to clarify the underlying assumptions.

Richard

There is still a puzzle about the CMB anisotropy. It is explained in the Big Bang theory that the Big Bang happened everywhere in space and the CMB radiation was released following recombination.

In answer to the question of why the CMB radiation appears to be coming from 13.8 billion years ago it is explained that the apparent distance increases by one light year per year from the time that the radiation stopped.

This should mean that the radiation should be isotropic to every observer.

Richard

The cosmological principle in its usual formulation works only - I emphasize, only - in an infinite limit. Therefore, the asymmetry of the relic background does not indicate a violation of the cosmological principle, but only the lifetime of our unitary Universe and the nature of the distribution of matter densities in it.

Dear Prof. Alexey Orlovsky : The cosmological Principle is invalid even in principle! Because it is based on the presupposition that the universe is finite. Albert Einstein specifically mentioned this point before he proclaimed his theory of general relativity (GR). In an infinite eternal and ever-changing universe as posited by dialectics, both the “Cosmological Principle” and GR has no meaning at all and so also of a one-time (or multiple) “Beginning” of a “Big Bang” or any other form of creation, as mandated by causality! For dialectics the universe is self-regulated and self-limited and hence eternal and infinite; mediated only by dialectical chance and necessity. Official physics and mathematics so far, have no understanding of the “Infinite”, nor of the interrelation of Space, Time, Matter and Motion:

"The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its Implication for Modern Theoretical Natural Science" : Article The Infinite - As a Hegelian Philosophical Category and Its ...

"The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?" : Article The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh "Matter" and "Motion"?

The "Big Bang” theory is false. It only serves as a “ruling idea” of modern times as a supplement to theology, hence my criticism (in the letter to Nature News Blog) of the Nobel Award to George Smoot et al. A rebuttal of the claims of Smoot and the COBE Team can be found in the following publication endorsed and praised by Chip Arp:

“Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies”: http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V12NO2PDF/V12N2MAL.pdf

Richard Lewis,

after the recombination era in Big Bang there was light as you say. The problem is that galaxies was formed after the ligth has been sent out. The ligth thus moves outwards ahead of the galaxies. How can we at all see it?

I have in my fourth book explained that the CMB is created inside the galaxies when they build up. It results in a blackbody spectrum of 2.7 K due to photons scattering on free electrons (the compton process). The estimated electron density fits well with recent observations (as noted in my last book).

Unfortunatly the CMB distribution measured is manipulated in various ways. In principle one can achieve whatever behaviour that one likes. I just mention that one consequence of my findings is that the CMB is moving along with us. Nothing to correct for. In all I find it to be consistent with statistical fluctuations.

Hans Gennow So if the CMB is coming from all galaxies as they build up, how is it that we see the CMB radiation with a z of 1100 and a look back time of 13.8 billion years.

Anyway, I am pleased that someone else is challenging the accepted view of the cause of the CMB.

Richard

Richard Lewis,

when the galaxies start to build up atomic compounds are created. They can absorp electrons therby forming atoms after about a year. Photons will be created and will give a distibrution of a black body of 3000K.

However, the photons can scatter against free electrons thereby loosing energy due to compton scattering. That process continues up till today. The result is a distribuiton according to a black body radiation of 2.7K.

The wavelength of the radiation will increase with a factor 1000 about but it has nothing to do with your z. We are as said just dealing with photons that loose energy due to scattering.

I must admit I was a bit astonished when I saw the result. I did not know what it would lead to. I can mention that the photons will continue to scatter around but when the energy of the photons drop the effect of the scattering becomes vanishingly small.

Forget about Big Bang, it is just wrong as I concluded.

Hans Gennow I agree with you that the Big Bang theory is wrong. However I am not convinced about your explanation for the cause of the CMB.

In my view the CMB is coming from radiating matter held at the event horizon of the universe.

In your proposal, are you able to explain the details of the maps produced by WMAP and COBE? Also the existence of the so called cold spot in the temperature map?

Richard

Richard Lewis,

I have tried to explain how the CMB can be constructed. I suggest you read my fourh book for all the details. If you think it is wrong the clarify that.

Richard Lewis,

have you reached a verdict on my book?

Hans Gennow Hello Hans. We need to talk about the whole picture before discussing the CMB. At the start of your book iV you say:

In our first book we showed how the fundamental particles protons, electrons and neutrinos could be created out of vacuum through a fundamental quantum mechanical process. This leads to a universe where we specially noted that galaxies were formed with a massive core. The predicted mass range fits well with present observations of black holes.

In our third book we followed this up with the formation of the halo of the galaxies and the formation of stars and planets. Our result fits well with observations. We also found that our candidate for dark matter, the neutrino, has become more likely since recent searches for exotic particles have failed. The neutrino is the dominating species.

We have in this book continued the story with an investigation of the cosmic microwave background. We first find that the atomic nuclei are produced at the beginning of the galaxy halo evolution long before stars are formed. Later on, atoms may form giving rise to a primordial photon distribution in agreement with a black body of 3000K. It evolves to a 2.7K distribution by photons scattering against free electrons.

Analysing the CMB maps we find they are consistent with

statistical fluctuations.

My viewpoint:

We have a completely different view of matter formation. My starting point is the existence of a medium of space with a space boundary. The existence of the boundary is the cause of the expansion of space and there is some curvature parallel to the spherical boundary. When considering the total energy of the universe we have to consider the Einstein equations which suggest total energy = mass + energy + space curvature. Then the expansion of curved space will lead to matter formation.

This matter formation takes place not as a widely distributed cloud of particles but as a result of a galaxy formation event where the tension in the medium of space reaches a threshold where huge energy is released typically 10^42 kg. The energy starts as a helical wave which decays into neutrons and dark matter particles. The dark matter particles have a form similar to two neutrons bonded together but are highly stable. A dark matter particle will decay to two neutrons during star formation.

The first galaxy formed around 126 billion years ago and subsequent galaxies formed further from the centre of the universe. Around 13.8 billion years ago there were sufficient galaxies (around 28 billion) to form an event horizon at a distance of 8.77 billion light years from the centre. This event horizon prevented cosmic rays and galaxies from crossing the event horizon. The CMB is therefore coming from radiating matter held by the event horizon. It will take 13.8 billion years for radiation to come from 8.77 billion light years through expanding space.

What i don't agree with is the idea of quantum mechanical fluctuations as an explanation for the evolution of the universe. I don't think that the neutrino is a good candidate for dark matter as it travels at the speed of light and dark matter is static. I think your description of the origin of the CMB has the same problem as the Big Bang theory in that it suggests that the CMB originated everywhere rather than coming from a particular distant source.

Here is the full presentation:

https://youtu.be/muCa08hlIDc

Richard

Richard Lewis,

I do not like videos. If you have a paper I can read it.

I suggest you drop GR. There are problems with it as has been shown.

If there existed some medium you have to explain how that came about. It looks like the asumption in Big Bang where it started form a bunch of atoms. But no explanation where the atoms came from.

The difference with my stuff is that I can explain how things started.

By now there are no experiment that have seen dark matter, nor explained what it is.

The problem with Big Bang is that the CMB was first generated when atoms formed. Galaxies was formed after that. Since the light is ahead of us, how can we see it? My story makes it possible. The CMB can off cause leak out of a galaxy, but to what extent I do not know.

Hans Gennow Here is the link to the conference paper:

Conference Paper The Explanation for Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Richard

Richard Lewis,

I am sorry but your story does not work. I cannot go through everything but just mention some points.

There is a problem with Big Bang as I just mentioned. There are problems with GR too as I explained in my first book (Appendix). Others have raised other points. One result is that the Schwarzschild radius is wrong.

You cannot pack to many neutrons together because the strong force is not enough to hold them together (gravity is too weak). A neutron star may be mixed up with a portion of protons but not too much. The electrical repulsion will be enormous. Especially you cannot build supermassive objects in that way.

If you read my book you will find out that that cores of the galaxies (SMBH:s)was first formed rigth after the creation of the particles. The cores acrcrete particles and build the galaxies within some million years. Atoms are formed creating photons that scatter around on free electrons loosing energy through the Compton process which in turn leads to the observed CMB. That will happen in every galaxy.

Lastly, there are no horizons, space is not bend, only particles,

Richard Lewis,

perhaps I should add that Dark enrgy is an illusion as I concluded in my third book. There are errors in the original paper. Later experiments do not see an accelerated expansion.

Hans Gennow The observation that space is curved in the presence of mass is verified by the observation of distant stars during a solar eclipse.

Also the gravitational waves detected by LIGO are a wave propagation of space curvature.

Richard

Richard Lewis,

you are blindfolded by GR.

Light can be bend when passing close to a massive object. This is a wellknown fact. Has nothing to do with your bent space. The same goes for gravitational waves.

Just watching a talk by the Herschel group of the BRLSI and the speaker confirmed that the galaxies are essentially stationary in space with the recession velocity due to the expansion of space.

Title : cosmic dawn and JWST.

So this must confirm the idea that there must be a Space Rest point where the CMB is isotropic.

Richard

Richard Lewis,

just look up the details in my book. Then come back.