Another regressive physicist complains about the Big Bang Theory

PSI Blog 20211122 Another regressive physicist complains about the Big Bang Theory


[GB: In the last four decades we occasionally have seen popular media questioning the Big Bang Theory. Some of these articles rely on interviews with prominent scientists troubled by some tiny contradiction that doesn’t smell right. The latest doubts have been raised by Dr. Don Lincoln, senior scientist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory:


The problem with the Big Bang theory


George Coyne remarks:


“I am encouraged by the fact that Lincoln is willing to let further evidence against inflation sway him from his belief in it. As your readers know, inflation is an absolutely essential ad hoc for the BBT to be viable. Here is the concluding paragraph of the article:


‘Similarly, improved measurements like those made by BICEP-3 might one day confirm inflation theory, but equally well those future measurements could one day kill it. But that is OK. Scientists will put on their thinking caps and come up with a newer and better theory, and we will be closer to the truth. Change is inevitable.’


Glenn, is it possible that BBT proponents are beginning to accept the inevitable obliteration of this silly theory? As this article is published on a mainstream site, it may signal that this is the case. What is your view on what this article is signaling about the support for BBT from its proponents?”


Pierre Berrigan, a member of A Cosmology Group writes:


“Everybody so far seems fond of this article. Anyone in for a different tune?


The one good thing about this article is the headline which hints at a problem with the Big Bang in a popular media. To the general audience, mainly lay people who just read headlines, this will trigger doubt about what is believed as the final word about the creation of the universe. That in itself is indeed a very good thing.


The other positive element is the finding that the CMB has no B-mode polarization. That is definitively a discovery to be noted for future analysis, and can eventually be useful to models alternative to the ΛCDM.


However, I get bad every time I read phrases like « the expansion of the universe is a fact discovered by Edwin Hubble. ». Coming from a « senior scientist » such as Don Lincoln, who should know better, this is outright insulting to the memory of a distinguished astronomer who fought to his grave against the idea of a Doppler-induced cosmological redshift.


The other thing that gave me the goosebumps is the statement or the effect that the CMB « proves » inflation. As Louis and Bjørn wrote in their recent article, « If (inflation) then (CMB) » quickly became « (CMB) therefore (inflation) ». This is the one fallacious type of reasoning which is at the heart of the problem with the Big Bang, and of the scientific method itself for that matter.


Finally, it is clear where this is heading: cosmologists will inevitably find a patch to inflation to accommodate the absence of B-polarization in the CMB and save ΛCDM. The Big Bang theory doesn’t need yet another patch: the Big Bang theory needs to be ditched!”


[GB: So, one more prestigious regressive physicist seems like he is becoming a reformist. Hurray! But don’t get too excited. This is not the first recantation (remember Einstein became a belated aetherist in 1920[1]). It won’t be the last. There are many reasons for this:


1.   Paradigms like the Big Bang Theory are never changed from the inside. Being financially dependent on the survival of a theory disqualifies one from being able to ditching, as Pierre recommends.

2.   Billions have been spent on developing, ad hocing patching, and promoting the theory.

3.   Reputations are at stake. Nobel Prizes are not returned when a theory bites the dust.

4.   Bogus theories survive as long as the fundamental assumptions on which they are based remain in place.

5.   Relativity and creation theories, like the Big Bang, are based on religious assumptions.[2] That is why they are so popular and why opposing views get the circular file.

6.   Most reformists are reluctant to give up each and every one of those erroneous religious assumptions, and thus find it difficult to unite around Infinite Universe Theory,[3] the only viable alternative that could replace the Big Bang Theory.


Sorry to disappoint, George, but Lincoln’s quibble, like all the others, is not really much of a sign that things will change any time soon. Discarding the last creation theory is a very big deal. It will require a global revolution in thought, which only will occur in conjunction with a period of severe economic stress. The next three decades should be interesting.]

[1] Einstein, Albert, 1920, Ether and the theory of relativity, Address given on May 5th: University of Leyden [http://go.glennborchardt.com/Einstein20recantation].


[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk].


[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].


No comments: