The Real Crisis in Cosmology - The Big Bang Never HappenedJun 06, 2021
Hi, I'm Eric Lerner, I'm chief LPP fusion scientist, and I'm going to be speaking in this video series about the
cosmology. If you've been paying attention to the topic, you've probably been reading. quite a bit lately about the
cosmologythat we have, the Scientific American cosmology crisis, the new scientist cosmology crisis, we even have cable, cosmology is in crisis and Business Insider is interested in the crisis in cosmology, so is there a crisis in cosmology? Damn, there is, but The
realcrisis in cosmology, which I'm going to talk about in this series, is much bigger and has lasted much longer than the one you've been hearing and reading about that researchers have literally been talking about. of this crisis.
For decades, back in 2005, the crisis was serious enough that a couple dozen colleagues and I got together and had a conference in Portugal, and the American Institute of Physics published the Proceedings of the First Crisis Conference in Cosmology of 2005, which can be found in literature even in popular accounts references to the crisis of cosmology date back to 1995. It is now perfectly true that awareness of this crisis has increased rapidly, especially over the last year. I did a sort of unscientific study of Google references to determine the crisis and cosmology and of course I backtracked. In 1995 there was about 1 reference each year, at the beginning of this century it had increased to 5 references per year, 12 references by the latter part of this decade, it was about two dozen references per year and then, this year 2019, it skyrocketed to one hundred and thirty references per year, so what has expanded is the awareness of this crisis, this has become a general awareness both in the field and in the popular media, but what is
really behind this crisis Well, the real crisis in cosmology is that, as I wrote in 1991 in my book, the real crisis in cosmology is that the Big Bang
The real crisis in cosmology is that the underlying model that most cosmologists work with does not happen. is valid, it is not scientifically validated despite its popularity, so the first thing I'm going to do What we're talking about in this series is how we judge the Big Bang theory well. When you want to judge a theory, what you have to do is compare the predictions with the observations that were made after the prediction occurred. Now why? Well, that's what makes science useful. for us the ability to predict things that we have not observed is what science has allowed humanity to develop technology that has allowed us to survive and survive on an ever-increasing scale at a higher level, so what I'm going to do Basically what we do is rate the Big Bang theory compared to observations, so this is a list of ratings for the Big Bang theory and of course we are talking about the scientific theory, not the TV show, when I talk about comparing a theory with observations that we are not talking about.
By expecting a perfect score, any theory has limited applicability and will therefore give some wrong answers outside its range of ability, but to be useful it has to give many more right answers than wrong answers, at least in a certain field of knowledge. applicability and The Big Bang theory is supposed to talk about the entire universe, it does not matter to judge the validity of a theory, whether or not there is a better theory, science is not judged on a curve, the theory has to be valid in terms of their predictions to make an analogy if this were a century ago and someone was trying to persuade you to get on their plane and the plane always crashed but they always had an explanation afterwards, you wouldn't consider that a good argument that the plane of everyone else was crashing to have a valid theory of control of aerodynamics, you would be waiting for the Wright brothers to come along and they had a valid theory that was tested because they could predict that the plane would stay in the air, that's how we go Judging this over the course of the series, I'm going to question whether there is an alternative way of looking at the history of the universe, the evolution of the universe, which is more about and we'll get into that as well, but first What I have to judge is the Big Bang Theory right now, over time the Big Bang Theory has become quite complicated, but I want to start with the fundamental hypothesis of the Big Bang Theory, which is that the universe has gone through a very short period but very important Extremely high temperature Extremely high density That period
neverexisted and there was no Big Bang, so one thing we know can be predicted: if the universe had high density and high temperature, we know it from millions of experiments from our observations of stars of our development. of Technology that when matter is subjected to high density and very high temperatures, one thing that will surely happen are fusion reactions.
Fusion reactions are when the nuclei of atoms join together at high temperature and form the nuclei of other atoms, for example, hydrogen is mixed in between. nuclei that eventually merged into different helium compounds, so scientists determined long ago that if the Big Bang occurred, then it was inevitable that large amounts of helium and small amounts of two other light elements would be produced, one is the light isotope deuterium, which consists of one time and one neutron ordinary hydrogen consists of a single proton deuterium would be produced in small quantities and in very small quantities lithium would also be produced let me in consists of three protons and four neutrons so these would be the three light elements that would be produced.
From the Big Bang and the amount of these light elements, the abundance that we would see is predicted from the Big Bang theory knowing only one variable which is essentially the proportion during this period of the number of protons because it was assumed that protons formed first. hydrogen nuclei, two photons to light particles, in essence, to put it in today's observations, if you know the density of the universe, how much matter there is per unit volume and you can predict these three numbers, this is not a prediction huge, but a prediction of something important, so this is the first key prediction of the Big Bang theory, which was called Big Bang nucleosynthesis predictions, which is why in the 1980s and 1990s people said it was very difficult to really measure how much matter there is. in the universe because it has a very irregular frequency, it's grouped into stars that are in turn grouped into galaxies, it's very difficult to get an average, so they said, "Okay, let's measure the abundance of one of these three elements and that will give us, through our calculations, the density of the universe and then we can use the density to predict the other two, so now one measurement gives two predictions, it's not a huge gain, but it's something, so let's see what
happenedin the 1990s, people measured helium abundance from the spectra of galaxies deuterium abundance basically from various measurements including the abundance of deuterium in our own solar system in the lithium abundance again from spectra in stars very old and from this they obtained a measurement that they called ADA of the density of the universe and they said well everything is consistent if ADA is between 3 and 4 and you get lithium down here and that seems to be correct, this is an abundance of 10 to the power of minus 10 Compared to hydrogen, deuterium is in this wide range here about a few times 10 to the power of minus five and helium, which is the second most abundant element in the universe, is here about 1/4 of the mass of the universe. .
Well, time passed and the observations improved and we will go more into the story in a future episode, the cosmologists decided. that they could actually determine the density of the universe, they could predict the density of the universe by measuring the cosmic microwave background, Mike's cosmic part where a background, of course, is a very uniform glow in the part of the microwave spectrum similar to the part The spectrum that we use for cell phones comes from all directions, but it has very small fluctuations and by small I mean a few parts per hundred thousand, tens of parts per million, and cosmologists thought that by measuring the pattern of these fluctuations, basically the size, they could derive a very precise estimate of the density of the universe and therefore could make these predictions about the light elements much more precise again, we'll get into the details of how they think they can do this, let's just look at this part of the prediction, so when we basically get to the present, after satellites like W map and plunk have made very precise measurements of the Cosmic Microwave Background, now we have this image again, this dimension is the density of the universe, this is the abundance of lithium, deuterium, helium.
The first thing you notice about this so-called big F is that there is now a very precise measurement of the density of the universe that is very close to 6:00 in these 80 units of measurement, it is not at all the same place 3 2 4 6 is It's not the same number, it's not even close, it's basically wrong by a factor of 2, so the first thing is if these measurements from '91 were considered a prediction of what would be found when they took these measurements in these Fund calculations Cosmic Microwave, I would have to say that it is a pretty poor prediction, it is off by a factor of 2 and it is much larger than the errors.
The second thing to note is that these horizontal bands in both diagrams are supposed to be observations, but if you look at the observations of helium in the app today and the observations from 1991 they don't even overlap with the observations from 91 was that the abundance of helium was between 22 and 24 percent by weight. I maximize the observations in this newly published figure, the range is twenty-four and a half to twenty-six and a quarter percent the ranges don't overlap well, you can imagine that as measurements became more precise the Rangers wouldn't now, but why would they move completely fine?
This enters into a topic that we will discuss for a long time. a lot, this is how scientists fool themselves and other people by using incorrect techniques to get the results they expect. This is an article written by Regina Newt, which was published in the prominent journal Nature in 2015 and the author describes some keys. very common methods by which scientists make mistakes and deceive themselves and one of the four that he mentions is symmetrical attention, rigorously verifying unexpected results but giving free rein to the expected ones, well that is what happened here, the observations of galaxies that they had to love a measure of helium for the predictions that were made later - these observations the researchers found reasons observational reasons theoretical reasons other reasons to discard those observations from the sample and make adjustments to other observations until the answer emerged that the observation shattered predictions and in the end When these new predictions were first made at the beginning of this century, none of the helium observations came up to the predicted range, the predicted value, which is about 25%, none of them, but now we have complete observational agreement because the observation of But now the situation is actually worse because over the course of the first decades of the century scientists realized, with better observations, that there were other ways to measure helium abundance; in theory you could measure helium abundance in older stars directly now, if you could do it spectroscopically that would be great, but the problem is that helium has to get very hot to observe its line on a distant star, so we can only use indirect methods.
Now there is a very good indirect method that is based on a combination of measuring the luminosity of the star, how bright it is intrinsically, not how bright it seems to you, what in the distance you are seeing, how hot it is, what we can measure from its spectrum and how many elements heavier than helium and carbon. nitrogen oxygen, which in the strange terminology of astronomy are called metals, how much of these is present in the star? which can be measured spectroscopically if put together, can be combined with very good theories about power. Starbucks is based partially on our abundant observations of our nearby star, the Sun, and you can determine what the level of helium abundance is in the star and whether the Big Bang theory is correct as you go down and down the metallicity, each There is less and less carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, and therefore you are looking at stars that are forming closer and closer to the origin of our own galaxy, so they have not been contaminated with the carbon, nitrogen and oxygen produced by other stars and you should converge on this 25% level.
Well, people did this in these studies and lo and behold. Look, they had the crisis because what happens is that as you go down in Z, which is the letter they use for this metallicity, asAs you get to increasingly pure and pristine stars, the abundance of helium first starts to decrease quite slowly, but then falls very quickly. and it drops well below 25 percent to 20 percent 15 percent 10 percent and even below a few percent as you get closer and closer to zero carbon, nitrogen and oxygen, then what this data said was that the first stars in our galaxy did not have humanism. or at least less than 10 percent, a complete contradiction to the predictions, the very precise predictions of the Big Bang theory, which is why this was called the helium problem and it started in 2007 and it has only gotten worse and people, for Of course, he has tried to solve everything.
There are various types of reasons why theories could be wrong, observations could be wrong, but they haven't been able to come up with anything. The fact is that the Big Bang predictions for helium abundance are simply wrong, so if we start classifying the Big Bang Bang Theory we start with the light element predictions for helium which we have to give the Big Bang 0 well, Can the theory work better with lithium? Actually no, it's even worse, so with lithium the situation is much clearer because with lithium we can directly measure spectroscopically because each element produces certain lines in the spectrum, the amount of lithium in increasingly older stars and again what are we talking about, older and older stars that have less and less carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and iron in their spectrum because fewer and fewer stars have lived before that star was created and therefore less and less as material . from other stars was incorporated when it formed from the plasma that exists in the galaxy, so if we look at the predictions for lithium, this is a plot of lithium in parts per billion relative to hydrogen and iron in parts per billion. billion, now iron is a good marker because iron is only produced in supernovae, so there must definitely be stars that live their entire lives producing iron that is incorporated into the star we are looking at, so if there are every time less iron, fewer and fewer stars have lived before that star.
It's an older star, well people have known for decades that if you look at these older stars, the level of lithium is about 4 or 5 times less than the amount that was predicted, so again this is not even close, but What's worse than that is. Again, in the last 20 years, people have found older and older stars and when you get below 6 parts per billion iron, the amount of lithium decreases more and more and, in fact, approaches zero, so statistically speaking, the amount of lithium in the oldest stars. is consistent with zero, since no lithium was produced before stars started forming in our galaxy and the upper limit is about 20 times lower than Big Bang predictions, so if we look at these two elements together historically, What we see is that the observations have improved and the predictions have become more accurate the gap has grown and it has grown at an accelerated rate so this is a graph of the number of standard deviations by which the observations do not match the predictions the standard deviation is just a measure of your expected error if your two standard deviations are right, that could be expected by chance 5% of the time, but if the standard deviations keep going up and up until today, the helium observations are about a dozen standard deviations of the predictions and with lithium there are about two dozen standard deviations the probability that your predictions are correct is essentially zero, so with lithium, as with helium, we have to give the theory of the Big Bang a rating of zero.
What about deuterium? Ah well, the stories are different with deuterium. Deuterium can be measured in the spectra of distant galaxies, distant quasars, and according to Georg, it's actually pretty close to the predictions, so we have to give the Big Bang theory a hundred percent pat on the back. deuterium, but we must remember that this theory is part of the theory. which is a very central theory, it only predicts three numbers out of these three numbers, two are completely wrong, so the overall rating for light element predictions is 33% in my book and I think in your book it would also be a rating of F which is quite fundamental.
Because this is one of the basic predictions of the Big Bang theory, is that from a hot, dense universe you get these light elements, including the second most important element, the second most abundant element in the universe, which is helium. Well, are there any other direct predictions from this basic theory? Core assumption that the universe went through a period of high density and long time, well, yes, there is and, again, not good news with a Big Bang theory. Scientists know that if you have matter at very high temperatures, it is much higher than those at the centers. from the Sun then in the presence of particles of matter the photons can create antimatter and matter pairs of particles now antimatter despite its strange name it is something that we have observed a lot in the laboratory it is not so unusual when a photon passes close to another nucleus it can produce pairs of protons and antiprotons or pairs of electrons and antielectrons with much lower energy in the hypothetical conditions of the Big Bang, what we would have is a sea of protons and antiprotons produced in numbers exactly equal to this sea of protons and antiprotons. expanded and cooled the protons and antiprotons would be colliding with each other now something strange happens when a particle and its antiparticle collide their energy is annihilated the energy that is trapped in their mass is converted one hundred percent into electromagnetic energy in gamma rays then they disappear, so if you start with equal amounts of matter and antimatter, most of that matter and antimatter will be completely annihilated and you will only get a few survivors and you will be able to calculate how few they will be and therefore what the density of the matter should be at the current universe, so it is a prediction of the Big Bang theory.
It's not a well-known prediction, but people are aware of it. The problem is that it is much further away than what I have been talking about. about 100 billion times less than the amount of matter we observe in the universe, that's true, we don't know exactly the density, but we know approximately what the density is and this is a hundred billion times less than scientists have known about this. problem for decades and decades ago they invented a solution based on a hypothesis that had to be added to the Big Bang theory for it to work and that was that there was some force that slightly changed the symmetry between matter and antimatter in our large accelerators. and in our experiments we always assume that matter and antimatter are produced in exactly equal quantities, but this theory said well, for some reason a little more matter will be produced, so when annihilation occurs there will be a hundred billion times more left. subject. then it is predicted by these our calculation is based on real symmetry.
Well, first of all, such an asymmetry of nature that would be necessary for this prediction has never been found in our accelerator experiments, but for very basic reasons in our understanding of physics, if this asymmetry exists then there is an inevitable prediction about the protons that we observe today and that are part of every atom in the universe and every atom in ourselves and that prediction is that protons must decay in our observations in the laboratory protons are stable particles that do not They do not have a lifespan, they do not They decay spontaneously as a radioactive material does, but for this asymmetry to occur when the Big Bang was occurring it is inevitable that there has to be a small amount of decay in the proton and, therefore, in the proton.
It has to have a finite half-life in which at that point half of the protons would decay into something else, so the initial prediction for the half-life was a really long period of 10 to 30 years, i.e. 10 thousand million times 10 billion times 10 billion 10 up to the age of 30, well, how could that be tested experimentally? Actually, it is not that difficult if you put together 10 to 30 atoms and each of them decays once every 10 to 30 years, then just by chance one of them will decay for a year and experiments have been set up to observe these decays that They would look very different than other reactions that occurred if you have to protect this experiment from cosmic rays and other things, so most of them stay in the back of the mind, but I do want to be really sure to use a lot of material because when 10 to the power of 24 sounds like a lot but it's less than a gram of hydrogen, 10 to the power of 30 is less than a ton of hydrogen, so if you put tons and tons of material together then you can measure these very long lifetimes, so people have been doing this for decades looking for proton decay and they haven't found a single proton decay, so right now the upper limit of the lower limit of proton life is 10 to 33 years, a thousand times longer than this gigantic lifespan predicted by the Big Bang theory, but in fact no proton has ever been observed to decay, so the proton is forever again.
This is a clear prediction of the Big Bang theory, which is now clearly predicted by experiments in the laboratory, very expensive experiments that have been running for decades, if the proton does not decay, then we know for sure that matter must be produced. and antimatter, as we observe it in the laboratory in equal quantities. and any warm, dense period for the universe would have resulted in a hundred billion times less matter than we observe in the universe, so if we classify the Big Bang theory by its prediction of the density of matter a hundred billion times times all we have to give him a zero again for his prediction of proton decay being at least a thousand times wrong and probably completely wrong because it never decays again. looking
If you have any copyright issue, please Contact