No. 54: Nov-Dec 1987
Doubts concerning the validity of the Big-Bang hypothesis must be becoming more serious, when the conservative Scientific American devotes an entire page to dissenters and their data. After all, the Big Bang, like Evolution and Relativity, is a vital part of the general scientific outlook. How shaky is the Big Bang? L.M. Krauss of Yale, admits that all cosmological theories are "tenuous." He adds:
"There are a lot of fundamental assumptions we base our model on that may be wrong."
A leading Big-Bang basher in H. Arp, of whom we have written frequently in SF. We will therefore not pursue his sort of bashing any further here. It is sufficient to say that Arp's doubts about the red-shift/distance relationship continue to receive support through observations of the heavens and in the lab.
The other Big-Bang basher featured in Scientific American is H. Alfven, a Nobel-Prize winner in physics. Alfven postulates a universe dominated by electromagnetic forces, which he believes to be more important in shaping the cosmos than gravitation. His electromagnetic theory disallows any universe smaller than 1/10 the diameter of our present universe, thus excluding the Big Bang's point origin. Electromagnetic forces can account for all types of galaxies without resorting to the infamous "missing mass." Alfven can even account for the cosmic microwave background. Furthermore, Alfven's theories are supported by observations of solar-system plasma and magnetic fields. NASA's T.E. Eastman allows:
"There is a revolution brewing in applying this knowledge to astrophysics."
(Horgan, John; "Big-Bang Bashers," Scientific American, 257:22, September 1987.)
Reference. Many more doubts about the Big Bang are cataloged in our Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos. To order, visit: here.