The Case Against the Big Bang Eric J. Lerner Lawrenceville Plasma Physics 20 Pine-Knoll Drive Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 Despite its widespread acceptance, the Big Bang theory is presently without any observational support. All of its quantitative predictions are contradicted by observa- tion, and none are supported by the data. Its predictions of light element abundances are inconsistent with the latest data. It is impossible to produce a Big Bang “age of the universe” which is old enough to allow the development of the observed large scale structures, or even the evolution of the Milky Way galaxy. The theory does not predict an isotropic cosmic microwave background without several additional ad itoc assumptions which are themselves clearly contradicted by observation. By contrast, plasma cosmology theories have provided explanations of the light element abun- dances, the origin of large scale structure and the cosmnic microwave background that accord with observation. It is time to abandon the Big Bang and seek other explana- tions of the Hubble relationship. |. Introduction While the Big Bang is widely accepted as a scientific explanation of the Hubble relation, it rests on very few quantitative predictions. The most definite such quan- titative predictions are the abundances of the light nuclides He‘, D, and Li’, Well- known results, (Wagner, Fowler and Hoyle 1966) based on nuclear physics and the assumptions of the Big Bang, show that the pre-galactic abundances of these three nuclides are a function only of the photon-proton ratio, which, by the Big Bang theory, is an invariant in the universe. Since the number of photons, (which is dominated by the number of photons in the cosmic background radiation) is known accurately, this ratio is in effect a function of the baryon density in the present day universe. In practice, this density is not known very accurately, and it has been treated asa free variable. The Big Bang predictions, therefore, reduce to a prediction of the abundances of two of the light nuclides, given the abundance of one. This one abundance is used to derive the “true” photon-baryon ratio and thus the other two abundances. The apparent validity of this prediction, based on data available in the late 1960’s, was one of the main reasons for the general acceptance of the Big Bang. The second and less specific prediction is that no object in the universe is older than the Hubble age, the age of the universe estimated from the inverse of the Progress in New Cosmologies: Beyond the Big Bang Edited by H.C. Arp ef af., Plenum Press, New York, 1993 8990 Eric J. Lerner Hubble ratio relating the redshifts and distances of galaxies. While this is qualita- tively a very firm prediction of the theory, it is quantitatively vague for two reasons. One, the Hubble constant itself is not accurately determined; and second, the de- celeration parameter, which indicates how rapidly the assumed expansion of the universe proceeded in the past, is also not known, and is dependent on the actual density of all matter in the universe. However, the range of these values compatible with observations does, as we shall see, set very real limits on the age of objects in the universe, if the theory is valid. The third and final quantitative prediction of the theory, in its current form, is the existence of an isotropic Planckian background cosmic radiation. The tempera- ture of this radiation is not predicted by theory, but, in the inflationary form cur- rently popular, its isotropy and blackbody spectrum are. As we shall note below, these are not valid predictions of the Big Bang in its most general form, ” These three predictions and their claimed correspondence with observation are the entirety of the evidence cited in favor of the hypothesis that the universe originated in an instant in an intensely hot, extremely dense state. What is striking is that at the present time, not one of these predictions can be validly cited as evidence for the Big Bang, which, therefore, is entirely unsupported by observa- tions. The first two predictions are flatly contradicted by observation, while the third does not actually constitute evidence as to the primordial state of matter, and involves additional predictions which are themselves contradicted by observation. IL Light Element Abundances The key problem for Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) predictions of the light element abundances lies in the discrepancy between the predictions for deuterium and Het, The predicted abundance of Het decreases with decreasing baryon-photon ratio, 7, while the predicted abundance of D decreases with increasing 1). Since the observed upper limits on the pre-galactic abundances of both elements have been declining, we now have a situation where there is no value of the density parameter which yields predictions agreeing simultaneously with both observed He* and D abundances, We begin with deuterium: Hubble Space Telescope observations by Linsky fix the current abundance of D at 1.65+0.1 x 10° by number relative to H (Linsky 1992). Thus the 3 sigma upper limit is 2 x 10~°. Of course, much of the pre-galactic deuterium could have been destroyed in stars. However, many authors have placed strict limits on how much of the primordial D could have been destroyed. Yang et al, (1984), for example, show that while D is easily burned to He®, He? is destroyed only where temperatures are high enough to burn H to He‘, Considerations of the amount of He? produced in the galaxy, combined with calculations as to the pro- duction of He’ in stars, leads to the conclusion that the current sum of abundances of D and He? is at least half the pre-galactic value. This leads to an upper estimate of the pregalactic D abundances of about 8 x 10°. Delbourg-Salvador et al. (1987) conclude that a destruction of more than % of the pre-galactic D by astration would lead to great variations in current D, depending on the’exact history of a given region. Since such variations’ are not observed, they calculate that primordial D abundance is less than 3 times present, or, based on the Linsky observations, less than 6 x 10°.The Case Against the Big Bang 91 Physically, both of these arguments are related to the fact that if the whole of the galactic material is processed on average once through stars, about e~ * of the deuterium will not have been so processed. Deuterium destruction much greater than this requires two such processings. But this rate of nuclear processing would produce about twice as much energy, Het and heavier elements, such as CNO, as are observed. By the BBN formula, upper limits on D gbundance set lower limits on the density parameter 7, D abundance of 6 x 10% implies 9 > 34x 10° while D abundance of 8 x 10° implies limit of 3.0 x 10". These limits in turn imply lower limits on the predicted primordial abundance of He? of 23.9% by weight and 23.6% respectively. These estimates are based on an assumed neutron lifetime of 882 sec, the current two sigma lower limit. A “best” value of 888 sec would increase these limits to about 24.1% and 23.8% respectively. The abundance of He! is therefore a crucial test of BBN, Since He‘ is produced by stars, observers have long sought to focus on those galaxies with the least stellar production, which in turn is indicated by the abundance of heavier elements, C, N and O. It is assumed, based on theories of stellar evolution, that He* abundance should increase as a function of heavy element abundance, so that the pre-galactic Figure 1. Abundances of ele- ments predicted by Big Bang nucleosynthesis vs. observed abundances (horizontal lines). Predictions from Olive (1990) observed values from Olive (1990) and Fuller (1991). There is no value of 7 (ratio of pro- tons to photons x 10'°) that gives accurate abundances for all elements.