Why the Big Bang Theory… Sucks.

Ockham’s Razor states “entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily,” meaning that when you are presented with competing hypothesis making the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.

ORIGINS OF THE BIG BANG THEORY

In 1929 Edwin Hubble published a paper documenting the red-shift observations of galaxies at various distances, and the velocities of motion thereby implied.  These calculations were seen as a confirmation of a theory proposed in 1927 by Georges Lamaitre that the universe was expanding outward; a theory that later came to be known as the ‘Big Bang Theory’ (BBT).

For hundreds of years following the Renaissance Period, science and religion had been in a philosophical contest covering topics such as: the origins of humanity, evolution, the Earth as a sphere, geo-centricity, and much more.  Year after year, new scientific observations and theories clawed away at religious fables.  Even today, much of the scientific community feels engaged in a battle with religion for the public acceptance of scientific theory over religious stories.  Many scientists feel it is their mission to lead people out of the ignorant darkness of religion and myth and into the enlightened truth of science. 

For hundreds of years, the scientific community (‘science’) felt at a disadvantage because religion had a story for the origin of the universe while science had none.  The need to counter religious origin stories contributed to the broad acceptance of BBT, and abandoning BBT would leave science with no origin story to fall back on. 

Describing the universe as infinitely present wasn’t enough.  Humanity has difficulty resting on infinite concepts.  Almost everything in human experience has a beginning and an end.  We are constantly evaluating everything from the confines of bookends.  Discussions of the universe that do not include an origin story are instinctively unsatisfying, and are easily passed over by other ‘book-ended’ explanations regardless of their improbability.

PROBLEMS

One of BBT’s problems was immediately apparent: the dispersion of matter in the observable universe does not resemble the aftermath of an explosion in any way.  Explosions typically result in an area devoid of matter near or around the center, and a bell curve distribution of matter at a distance from the center in all directions (depending on gravitational circumstances).  However, matter in the observed universe is evenly distributed.

This discrepancy spawned a corollary theory called Inflation, which postulates that, because all matter in the universe was compressed, all space was compressed with it.  When matter exploded outward, space opened up at an equal pace, causing an even distribution of matter.

More recent observations of red shift by the Hubble Space Telescope find the red shift is higher than anticipated for distant galaxies, leading scientists to conclude that galaxies are not slowing down as expected, but are accelerating away.  Red shift observations of galactic rotation also imply rotational speeds that exceed expectations based on gravitational models.

These two observations (and the velocities attributed to them) have spawned two more placeholder theories necessary to maintain BBT: ‘Dark Energy’ and ‘Dark Matter.’  Dark Energy Theory postulates that there is approximately five times more energy present in the universe - of unknown origin and type - causing the accelerating expansion of the universe.  Dark Matter Theory postulates that the universe contains approximately five times more matter than we can observe; the amount necessary to cause the galactic rotation approximated using red shift data to work with our current gravitational models.

Finally, if the red shift observations of galaxies increase proportionally (and increasingly) with their perceived distance from Earth, then the Earth is necessarily at or near the center of the universe.  Galileo and Copernicus must be turning in their graves!  The improbability of our planet or galaxy residing at the effective center of the universe, and therefore its center of origin, is so improbable that religious fables become comparatively reasonable.  This point is rarely mentioned in contemporary discussions of BBT, and is certainly the strongest argument against it.

Some of BBT’s defenders (including Stephen Hawking) have argued that the universe does not require a center for expansion, stating that it is expanding in all directions.  The popular comparison is to visualize the universe on a two-dimensional plane on the surface of a balloon.  As the balloon inflates, objects on the surface are retreating from every point uniformly.  But therein lies the problem; uniformity.  Red shift observations imply accelerating velocity that coincides with the galaxy’s distance from Earth.  The farther away it is in any direction, the higher is its velocity.  This is impossibly incongruous with the ‘expanding in all directions’ argument. 

Let’s consider a basic example.  Let A, B, and C represent three points in space in a straight line.  B is directly between A and C, and is equidistant from each.

A  --------------------  B  --------------------  C

The following variables represent the velocities between the various points.

a            A   -   C                             d            C   -   A

b            A   -   B                             e            C   -   B

c            B   -   C                              f            B   -   A

Rates a, b, and c are the velocities measured (or, inferred by the red shift data) by an observer on point A.  Rates d, e, and f are the velocities measured by an observer on point C.

According to the theory of accelerating expansion, an observer on A would find velocity ‘a’ faster than velocity b (a > b), which necessarily requires that velocity c is greater than b (c > b).  However, according to the theory of universal expansion, the observer on C should observe that d > e, and therefore f > e.  To the observer on A, B and C are moving faster apart than A and B, and to the observer on C it is the opposite.  Both cannot be true in a physical sense.  At this point someone will attempt to employ a relativist explanation, however those explanations are best attributed to gravitational effects and are improper here because this example is making no consideration for mass. 

If the universe is expanding in all directions, any break from uniform velocity is impossible.  Any acceleration or deceleration in the rate of expansion requires a center.  Therefore, accepting the theory of non-centered expansion negates the theory of accelerating expansion.  Given that the red shift data increases with the galaxy’s distance, conceding the theory of acceleration (in order to maintain non-centric expansion) weakens the entire expansion conclusion significantly because it has become incongruous with the red shift data.  It is more probable there is an unexplained gravitational/spacetime effect causing the red shift observations.

When evaluating any theory, we must consider the probability of its accuracy.  In order to accept BBT, we must accept the theory of inflation, and that the universe contains five times more energy and matter than we can observe or explain, and that we are at the center of this expansion.  The combined probability of these theories is immeasurably low, yet science prefers them to no theory; refusing to cede any territory to religion.  Science may gain credibility with the lay person by admitting what cannot currently be explained, rather than persist with theories that are highly improbable.  Science has historically been the voice of reason, leading people away from religious fables.  Perhaps science has overreached what it can explain at this point, and has effectively created new fables to battle the old ones.

Sustaining BBT requires a minefield of highly improbable corollary assumptions, all of which can vanish with the acknowledgement that, for a reason to date unexplained, the light gathered from distant galaxies is increasingly red shifted.  There is no necessity to attribute the red shift to motion.  By introducing this one undefined variable, the universe suddenly becomes a much simpler place.  Friar William of Ockham would agree.