http://www.cosmologystatement.org/


An Open Letter to the Scientific Community



(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities,
things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark
energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a
fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and
the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics
would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted
as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would,
at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the
underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors.
Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict
the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed,
because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now
more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature
and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on
Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes
contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe.
Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big
bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the
light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the
universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years
younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative
predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The
successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to
retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of
adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of
Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding
the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state
model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end.
These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic
phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements,
the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background
radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with
distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently
observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not
explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely
surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a
complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives
cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of
ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard
Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology
today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn
to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the
standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying
so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter,
judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big
bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances,
and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.
This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of
free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology
are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources,
and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by
supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang
within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the
scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework
undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the
constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction
makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we
urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a
significant fraction of their funding for investigations into
alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang.
To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds
could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field
of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and
its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our
most accurate model of the history of the universe.