Hey everyone. I thought I might enlist the help of the vast body of knowledge on this forum.
I am currently engaged in a debate with some people on a seperate, very small forum maintained by a close friend of mine. The debate was originally about evolution, but since the person I'm arguing with is a young earth creationist, the discussion has turned to other subjects besides evolution. I've spent a lot of time debunking his young earth claims and other nonsense, but he has recently brought up a lot of stuff about the big bang. I, though I consider myself to be a pretty decent amateur astrophysicist, find myself having trouble of making sense of some of the claims he is making.

So I was wondering if I could get a different perspective on it from those more knowledgeable than me, I've reprinted the full text of his current claims below, and I was wondering if anyone could help me poke some holes in them, or at least make sense of where exactly he's getting at.

I've already pointed some things out to him, but I am having trouble putting thing's in layman's terms, and I would appreciate anyone's help in combating this little bit of bad astrophysics.
Thanks in advance.

__________________
"Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast."

In a nutshell, the big bang is not cut and dried. It is constantly being refined and worked as observational abilities improve.

So should the big bang be dismissed? Not till a better idea comes along. Now obviously your friend is going to pounce on this.

Consider this - does the Young Earth theory explain difficulties with redshift or helium ratios found in the universe any better than the Big Bang?

Perhaps approach from a different tact. The theory of evolution as proposed by Charles Darwin had largely been debuncked. Other more complex ideas (under the umbrella of evolution) have been proposed and developed. However C D's major impact was getting the idea on the table. Getting minds thinking about where we came from, and where we might be going.

Is it possible the Big Bang is performing the same function. Eventually the concept may prove undefendable...however, if it does, it will lay the foundation for the next great step in cosmology

Just thinking out aloud

Glen C

In this passage your friend is referring to the work of Halton Arp (and a few others). In fact it would be an unresolved issue. In the Big Bang universe, the larger the redshift of an object the greater its distance. The redshift is known to be effected on small scales from gravity (gravitational redshift) or on somewhat larger scales from what are called peculiar motions which basically would be orbital motions that add or subtract to the Hubble flow of an object. There are also what are known as "large scale flows" which are streaming motions of large associations of galaxies superimposed upon the normal Hubble flow.

What Arp had suggested is that there are associations between high redshift quasars (which in the Big Bang implies they are very distant) and nearby low redshift galaxies. Compelling examples of this phenomenon continue to mount such as NGC 7603 . If you click on "pdf" you can get the full article with the images that show the association.

Arp's explanation for these instances is that there is an intrinsic mechanism not related to motion that contributes to redshift. If he is right about his examples, then the phenomenon is age related such that younger objects have higher redshifts than older objects at the same distance.

There is additional evidence that intrinsic redshifts might not just exist in some quasars but may also exist in some normal galaxies. It is important to recognize that (1) the intrinsic redshifts may very well exist and (2) they could simply be superimposed upon an expanding universe. So Intrinsic redshifts would not rule out the Big Bang. But working with Jayant Narlikar, Arp has presented a model which is a more general solution to the standard cosmological equations which leads to a non-expanding universe.

At any rate, regardless of any of the above, if Arp is right about the intrinsic redshifts you have absolutely no evidence from that to prop up a young earth creationist position.

What your friend is referring to here is quantizations of redshifts. Essentially what Arp, Burbidge, Bell and some other researchers are suggesting is that redshifts tend to cluster in discrete values that can be characterized by specific equations. I've gone back and forth on this one. Only recently have I come across an as yet unpublished example that starts to swing my opinion back the other way toward the possibility that quantization might be real.

Quantization would be more difficult to accomodate in an expanding universe than just the existence of intrinsic redshifts because the quantization signal should be wiped out by random motions.

Hope that helps. In sum - no evidence from redshifts for a young earth creationist position - even thought the evidence for the intrinsic redshift phenomenon is not yet disproven.

I'll have a bash at some of these, although I am at work & don't have access to source material. The obvious points to be made are that the Big Bang, like any theory, is a work in progress. However, the evidence for an expanding universe is extremely convincing (other than, perhaps to the YEC fringe). The logical inference is therefore that it was smaller in the past. Given the Big Bang theory does provide explanation for the expansion, the CMBR and primordial nucleosynthesis, it survives for another day in the absence of opposing evidence.

Cosmic Background Radiation. The cosmic Background radiation was initially thought to be left over from the big bang. Many incorrectly believe that the big bang theory predicted this radiation.

The concept of the CMBR was first postulated by George Gamow & his student Ralph Alpher in (1948??) when they recognised it would be a by-product of the recombination event some 300,000 after the Big Bang, but their work was largely overlooked because the technology did not exist at that stage to search for the radiation. Peebles & Dicke from Princeton in the early 60's rediscovered the concept & were in the process of searching for the tell-tale radiation, when they received a phone call from Wilson & Penzias, who were two Bell technicians working a few miles down the road. They had detected a pervasive isotropic background at around 5 kelvin & they wondered if the Princeton boys might know what it could be. Of course, it was the CMBR. Wilson & Penzias picked up the Nobel Prize for their discovery.

Since the CBR (cosmic background radiation) is so uniform, the matter from which it originated must have been spread uniformly throughout the universe. But if matter was uniformly distributed, it would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after tens of billions of years, galaxies would not evolve. Since matter in the universe is highly concentrated into galaxies, galaxy clusters, and superclusters, the CBR does not appear to be a remnant of a big bang.

I suggest that your friend read "Wrinkles in Time" by George Smoot. This problem was answered in (1993??) with findings from the COBE satellite, which showed that the radiation was NOT perfectly isotropic. Tell your friend to also keep an eye on the findings from the MAP project, which will further refine the data.

Helium. The amount of helium in the universe is not explained by the big bang theory; the theory was adjusted to fit the amount of helium.

Actually, it explains it very well. Theories are tweaked on a regiular and ongoing basis as further observations are received - this is hardly grounds for discrediting the entire basis of the idea. The scientific method does not work on the basis of a blanket inviolable decree - it is a continually ongoing iterative process of observation and refinement.

Ironically, the lack of helium in certain types of stars (B type stars0 and the presence of beryllium in other stars contradicts the theory.

I am unfamiliar with this argument. Could your friend explain how?

Redshift. The redshift of distant starlight is usually interpreted as a Doppler effect; namely, stlars and galaxies are moving away from the earth, stretching out (or reddening) the wave lengths of light we see. While this may be true, other possible explanations do not involve an expanding universe.

While this is true, I would be inclined to invoke Occam's (seriously overworked) razor. Look at the data from the 2dF project at Siding Springs here in Oz - a survey of literally hundreds of thousands of galaxies reflecting redshifts consistent with what would reasonably be expected in an expanding universe. To claim other causes for the redshift values requires some serious contortion of the principle conditions.

Besides, many objects with high redshifts seem connected, or associated, with other objects of low redshifts. They could not be traveling at such different velocities and be connected for long. For example, many quasars appear to be connected to galaxies by threads of gas. Finally, redshifted light from galaxies has some strange features that are inconsistent with the Doppler effect.

The arguments of Narlikar & Arp. Their findings are extremely controversial in the astronomical community and some of the examples that they offer as evidence were weakened when observations from better instruments seemed to discount their position.

If redshifts are from objects moving away from the earth, one would expect the amount of redshifting to take on continuous values.

This is a rather naive statement. As has already been noted, redshift is caused/affected by a number of factors in addition to cosmic expansion. On a local scale, those other effects can easily outweigh the effects of expansion.

Much remains to be learned about redshifts.

Yes, it does. And which method is likely to accumulate that additional information: making an inviolable decree about it, or employing the scientific method?

Secondly, a big bang should neighter produce highly concentrated nor rotating bodies. Galaxies are examples of both.

And the basis for this rather extraordinary assertion? The concentration is discussed in the COBE comments above. As regions begin to contract under the gravitation induced by regions of anisotropic density, the vector sum of the random motions of the matter will ensure that there will be rotation, simply to conserve angular momentum.

A large volume of the universe should not be, but apparently is, moving sideways, almost perpendicular to the direction of expansion.

I assume this is a reference to some 'flows' such as that toward the Great Attractor. It is thought that these are gravitational in nature. The effects of gravity on 'local' scales far outweighs the effects of cosmic expansion. Hence the existance of clusters, superclusters and even filaments.

I also don't really understand the suggestion that the flow is 'perpendicular to the direction of expansion'. The expansion in an expansion of space, not in space. It is in all directions.

Thirdly, big bang would, for all practical purposes, only produce hydrogen, and helium. Therefore, the first generation of stars to somehow form after a big bang should consist of only hydrogen and helium. Some of these stars should still exist, but none can be found.

The best estimates for the Big Bang place it at roughly 15 billion years ago. The only stars that have a life expectancy of much >10 billion years are M class or lesser Red Dwarfs. These stars are difficult to detect and analyse spectroscopically at distance. Despite this, metal poor stars are common in the halo of our galaxy and (especially) in globular clusters. Typically, stars in the disk of the Milky Way are metal rich - second or third generation stars.

I note with some bemusement that your friend argues that the Big Bang would "for all practical purposes, only produce hydrogen & helium". I thought that he argued earlier that the theory did not account for helium?

If a big bang occurred, what caused the bang?

Answer that and I'll see you in Stockholm. The risk of course, is the use of the word 'caused'. As the Big Bang event was the start of space and time, the concept of 'caused' at a point before T=0 is meaningless.

If the big bang theory is correct, one can calculate the age of the universe. The age turns out to be younger than objects in the universe whose ages were based on other evolutionary theories. Since this is logically impossible, one or both sets of theories must be incorrect?

Poor logic. It does not mean that one or the other theory is incorrect - it rather suggests that the age measurements are simply not well defined enough yet. The estimated age of the universe is based on a number of assumptions, but let's look at 2: the rate of expansion goes by the moniker H(nought) and is given variously as 50 km/second/megaparsec to 100 km/sec/megaparsec, depending on which cosmologist you are talking to, which offers an age of the universe between 10 to 20 billion years old. Straight away, you are looking at some pretty big error bars! Secondly, it was also assumed that the present rate of expansion was decelerating - however, work by two separate groups (including some Aussies - go team! ) has given some good evidence that the expansion may in fact be accelerating! If so, H(nought) was less in previous epochs and the universe is older than would be interpolated from current measurements.

The age of the oldest globular clusters is variously placed somewhere between 10 and 15 billion years. It is disingenuous to take the age of a globular cluster as 15 billion, take the age of the universe as 10 billion and argue that the two are incompatable and that the Big Bang then is bogus. The error bars overlap...the ages are not incompatable.

Edited to clarify a point.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

It's not true that Gamow and Alpher were the FIRST to predict a CMBR, but they were the first to speculate and associate it with a big bang. See:

http://www.dfi.uem.br/~macedane/history_of_2.7k.html

for how Nobel prize winner Max Born and others predicted the observed CMBR from a static universe. Gamow and Alpher wrongly predicted a much higher temperature if there was a big bang.

There are lots of reasons why the big bang is wrong. Some of them are found on my website:
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html

Not is, maybe! Once again, JK has inserted personal opinion as fact and it still ain't so.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

It's not true that Gamow and Alpher were the FIRST to predict a CMBR, but they were the first to speculate and associate it with a big bang.

Apologies - my careless phraseology. In making the reference, I meant the association of the expanding universe theories with a background radiation, with the present epoch temperature of that radiation derived due to a redshifting over time. Also, I was actually thinking of the 1948 Alpher & Herman paper follow up paper to the Alpha Beta Gamma paper, in which they predict a background radiation at ~5K.

Gamow and Alpher wrongly predicted a much higher temperature if there was a big bang.

Gamow made a simple mathematical error when incorrectly calculated 50K in his book 'Creation of the Universe' in 1952. The error appears to be a typical one from this quite remarkable gentleman - as Vera Rubin commented once "He could ask questions that were ahead of his time. He had no interest in the details; in many ways he may not have been competent to carry out many of the details - he was like a kid". Alpher & Herman had earlier calculated the more accurate figure of 5K in 1948.

There are lots of reasons why the big bang is wrong. Some of them are found on my website:
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html

Um, no. The ideas on your website are certainly interesting, but they offer an alternative only. They are subject to the same burdens of proof as the Big Bang theories themselves. Unless you can produce reproducible evidence that is incompatible with the tenets of the Big Bang, it survives as a viable theory for another day.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

So you are saying that the boys and girls of the 40's were/are more on the ball than them guys/gals of today?

Me thinks this may soon become something for "Against the Mainstream". Nevertheless, ...

This statement embodies the false notion that the thermal CMBR comes from the matter in the universe. The conclusion later drawn by the creationist, "... the matter from which it originated must have been spread uniformly throughout the universe.", is therefore equally false. The CMBR represents the temperature of space itself, the universe as a whole, and not anything specific in the universe.

The photons of the CMBR are the leftover relic of the radiation that shared the universe with matter. Roughly 300,000 years after the Big Bang banged, that radiation and that matter stopped their strong interaction, and the CMBR photons have drifted unimpeded (for the most part) through the universe. As the universe expands, and space itself expands, the photons are streched into longer wavelengths, much the same as would be waves on a stretching string.

Hence, the longer wavelengths simply represent the effective temperature of the universe as a whole, the temperature if space-time itself.

Big Bang cosmology does not assume that the matter is uniformly distributed, and observation agrees with the presumption that matter is not uniformly distributed, Hence, the creationist's later claim that matter could not gravitate is irrelevant, since it criticizes a non-existing cosmology. Of course, the creationist's claim also strongly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which they seem to hold in great esteem, but will themselves sacrifice whenever convenient.

The theory predicts that hydrogen & helum will form, but the relative abundances cannot be derived except in relation to parameters that are set by observation. It is not that the "theory" was adjusted, but rather that one of the "adjustable parameters" of the theory was adjusted. The difference is significant, becuse it remains a fact that the relative abundance of hydrogen & helium in the universe is very much consistent with Big Bang cosmology. Also note that such adjusting of empirical parameters is quite common in all of the sciences.

Redshift. Indeed the redshift might be caused by any number of things, but the overwhelming weight of evidence is that it is not. The redshift-distance relationship is an undeniable fact, due to the strong correlation of redshift with other, direct distance indicators (surface brightness fluctuations, cepheids, SN Ia, brightness, angular size, & etc.). While some part of the redshift might come from some intrinsic source, there is precious little factual or reasonable support for such notions.

The age of the universe is younger than the oldest stars (by a very significant margin), if and only if, the cosmological model assumed is a simple, FRW general relativistic model, as was common in the 1980's, and even much of the 1990's. However, if the cosmological model used is the current "concordance" model of a universe with cosmological constant and dominated by "dark energy" (which model is required by CMBR observations and compatible with classical observations of galaxy recession), that paradox vanishes, and the universe becomes significantly older than its oldes stars.

The link is, and has long been, dead (I have not been able to see that webpage for at least a year). I have never heard of Born associated with the CMB, but I do know about the claim that Eddington predicted the background temperature in the 1920's, and I do know that it is a factually incorrect statement, since I have Eddington's "prediction" sitting in front of me (in his book, The Internal Constitution of the Stars, 1926; see the 1959 Dover reprint (still in print??) ch. 13, "Diffuse Matter in Space", near the end of the book).

Eddington computes the total energy density of starlight as 7.67x10^-13 erg/cm^3, and uses the Stefan-Boltzmann relationship, s=at^4, to derive an "effective temperature" (Eddington's words, and they are the ones he should have used) of 3.18 Kelvins. It is surprisingly close to the current CMB temperature of about 2.728 Kelvins. But it is very wrong to imply that Eddington somehow anticipated the CMBR temperature, as Eddington himself points out, even without realizing that someday there would be a CMBR temperature.

Eddington says: "Radiation in interstellar space is about as far from thermodynamical equilibrium as it is possible to imagine, and although its density corresponds to 3.18° it is much richer in high frequency constituents than equilibrium radiation of that temperature". In order to be "thermal", the radiation must have the right spectral shape, and Eddington explicitly tells us that his radiation does not have that shape, so it is not a thermal background. That's why Eddington was careful to call the temperature an effective temperature, because he knew it was not a "real" temperature.

On the other hand, Big Bang cosmology explicitly requires that the spectral shape of the CMBR be strictly thermal, as described by the Planck function for blackbody emission. It is this latter point from which Gamow et al. worked to predict the background temperature of the universe. And they rightly get credit which Eddington does not deserve.

As I said, I have no knowledge of the claim with reference to Born, and cannot see the associated webpage. However, I can say that if Born did essentially the same thing that Eddington did, then Born does not deserve credit either, and for the same reason.

The earliest theoretical prediction that there should be a thermal CMBR seems to have come from Richard Chase Tolman in 1934. It was in 1948 that Gamow in one paper, and Alpher & Herman in another, predicted a background of roughly 5 kelvins, the first numerical prediction that I know of. Considering the very early state of the Big Bang cosmology, 5 is a pretty good "wild guess", for something that turns out to be about 2.7. See my webpage on the Cosmic Microwave Background, and see the book Genesis of the Big Bang by Alpher & Herman, Oxford University Press, 2001.

Quantized redshifts are exclaimed as a problem for Big Bang cosmology by creationists, and others who have "issues" with Big Bang cosmology. However, they do not present any problem. The father of quantized redshifts, William Tifft, from the University of Arizona's Steward Observatory, solved this problem himself, in his paper "Three-dimensional quantized time in Cosmology", Astrophysics and Space Science 244(1-2): 187-210, 1996. His paper has never been cited, and his work has drawn little attention, since the pro-quantization evidence is really quite weak. However, in the unlikely event that quantized redshifts turn out to be realistic, Tifft has already made them compatible with standard cosmology.

Bell also suggests that quantization can take place in the standard Big Bang cosmology. As his research has progressed he has altered his view slightly that he no longer expects intrinsic redshifts to have completely decayed in normal galaxies. See this paper and this paper as examples.

Thanks everyone, this is a great help. Thanks also Tim, especially the stuff about the 2nd law of thermodyanmics. He originally brought this up in the earlier strictly biological evolution debate, and I asked him what he meant, and he subsequently cam up with the dictionary definition of the 2nd Law, concerned only with transfer of heat, etc, and when I asked him to elaborate, he said "Well.....life is energy, right? So thermodynamics applies."

Creationists really crack me up sometimes.

__________________
"Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast."