An Electrified Universe

Books and Media
, ,
1

“The Big Bang Never Happened”, by Eric J. Lerner, ISBN 978-0-679-74049-0, 466 pages (1992).

With a title & publication date like that, I supposed this would be a book which had attracted the attention of our late host. But when I checked with the invaluable “John Walker’s Reading List”, it had not made the grade. If Mr. Walker had reviewed it, I wonder if he would have been intrigued … or infuriated … or more likely both!

Lerner’s well-researched historical thesis is that people’s views of the universe are bound up with their views of their current societies. In difficult times, such as now, people gravitate towards a finite universe with a definite beginning & end; hence the attraction of the Big Bang. During expansive ages, people favor the concept of an ever-lasting universe which is infinite in both time & space. Mr. Lerner is just such an optimist.

Much of the book is an exploration of the ideas of Nobel-laureate Hannes Alfven, who studied electric currents in very low density plasmas. One of Lerner’s reasonable critiques is that cosmologists do not appreciate plasmas, while plasma physicists are not cosmologists. Lerner likens the efforts of cosmologists to explain the universe through gravity alone (e.g. Dark Matter) to the efforts of ancient astronomers to make an incorrect theory fit observations by introducing non-existent epicycles. Reality is that electromagnetic forces are incomparably stronger than gravity, by a factor of about 10^^43 (!). Lerner argues that very large-scale filamentary plasma currents can explain many features of the universe, such as the anomalous rotational curves of galaxies and the distribution of galaxies into cosmic-scale clusters and super-clusters, without the need to invoke an unobservable Dark Matter.

Two of the main observations used to support the “finite in time” Big Bang universe theory are (1) the highly uniform Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, and (2) the distribution of light elements (hydrogen, helium, lithium) in the cosmos. Both observations can equally be explained through plasma physics. Lerner also reminds us that the original Big Bang prediction of the temperature of the CMB was about 10 times the measured value; then the prediction was adjusted.

Along the way, Lerner points out that a better appreciation of plasma physics could let us achieve nuclear fusion in a much safer & simpler fashion than the tokamaks on which so many decades and so much money has been expended.

Lerner later builds on the unconventional thermodynamic ideas of Nobel-laureate physicist Ilya Prigogine to contest the Big Bang idea that the Second Law of Thermodynamics condemns the universe to degrade into increasing chaos.

Despite his interesting takes on various topics, Lerner does seem to stroll around looking for toes to stand on. Some of those toes deserve to be stood upon, such as physicists who cling to failing theories, scientists who have become over-specialized, and academic peer reviewers who censors ideas that don’t fit with today’s conventional wisdom. But he also stamps on other toes which perhaps may not deserve that treatment, such as those of modern philosophers and theologians.

At the end of the day, is Lerner’s optimistic view that the universe is infinite in time & space (with no need for a Big Bang) convincing? I would say – No. But he makes a good case that our current cosmology may have backed itself into an epicycle-ridden dead end. There are other avenues which deserve to be properly explored, such as the effects of plasma physics at a cosmic scale.

5 Likes
2

Did this “well-researched historical thesis” include the steady state cosmology from c. 1950? This cosmology was of a universe that had neither definite beginning nor end, and was not finite. This model was a serious contender for decades and roughly contemporaneous with the Big Bang model, though the closely-related Friedmann model precedes the steady state by some decades. Unfortunately for the steady state enthusiasts, that theory did not agree with observations.

While true superficially, it is misleading as it overlooks the important difference between gravitation and electromagnetism: while there are opposite electric charges that can neutralize the field, there is no anti-gravity to make gravitational force go away. Plasmas are generally neutral but gravity just keeps getting bigger when mass is added. The huge electrostatic forces inside an atom are exquisitely canceled, which is why your fingers don’t stick to your computer’s keyboard.

Plasmas are almost always neutral because, as everyone knows, opposites attract so that electrons and protons long to be together. Put it down to the romantic in me.

The thesis that electromagnetic forces are significant on a galactic or cosmological scale should be testable. Does Mr Lerner cite any observational evidence of this theory?

It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
R.P. Feynman

6 Likes
3

One could look at observations in the real world. The great energy released by a lightning strike shows that even on little Earth it is possible for positive and negative electric charges to become separated on a large scale for a while… and to have major effects when they get back together.

Keep an open mind, read the book, and make your best informed judgment. Isn’t that what science is supposed to be?

1 Like
4

My point exactly. So, what’s the answer to my question: is there any observational evidence for this theory?

I have neither the time nor the inclination to read every single book by some rando with a novel theory of the universe. There have been thousands of them. If you read this book, you should be able to summarize the evidence in support of it, if any. I eagerly await the details.

It’s good to have an open mind but not so open as to let your brain fall out.

2 Likes
5

I know you default to the sarcastic mode, but in my mind, this post by you was unnecessarily rude. Gavin is a well-read gentleman who is generally open to ideas. He is courteous to all, even those not so well read, nor agreeable to his way of thinking. He deserves at least common courtesy. I know you are a Californian, but I sort of don’t expect that last line from anyone here towards anyone here, even a dummy like me, not to mention an all-around good guy like Gavin.

I posted an article about a possible SR-72. @CTLaw posted a note that the site I had posted was noted for not being reliable. He didn’t call me a liar, just noted that the site may be wrong in its info. I don’t doubt either his accuracy nor sincerity. It was a proper way of pointing out a possible flaw in my thinking. I posted a response that while I didn’t doubt his accuracy in characterizing the site, I still believed the idea presented was reasonable. To me, that’s how civilized people should speak to one another.

There are many really smart people on this site. You’re included, but your sarcasm sometimes tends to overshadow your mental ability, diminishing your response, and so value. I cherish the people on this site, if for no other reason than that they are smart, so they see things differently. You are included in that group.

6 Likes
6

You probably noted that the book is 466 pages long. Difficult to summarize that into a paragraph.

Let’s pick on one item. Big Bang enthusiasts have for decades assumed that the large-scale distribution of mass in the universe is homogenous, as a direct consequence of the Big Bang. But we have learned without a doubt from actual observations that the distribution of galaxies is anything but uniform. Rather, galaxies appear to line up in filaments giving rise to clusters and superclusters, not to mention the current excitement over finding enormous galaxy-free voids in space.

The observed large-scale inhomogeneity of the universe is a serious problem for current cosmology. On the other hand, that inhomogeneity is exactly what is predicted by a universe in which filamentary plasma currents play a part along with gravity – and there is no need to invoke an unseen Dark Matter.

That real-world evidence is of course not dispositive, as a lawyer would say. But it should pique the interest of everyone with an open mind.

1 Like
7

Upon reading my comments, I did not detect any sarcasm. An example of sarcasm would be something along the lines of “That sounds like a really cool book — not.” Or, more succinctly, “Cool story, bro.” Rather, I asked @gavin to provide any evidence for this novel theory, twice. I also noted that, according to @gavin, the the underlying theme of the book seemed to be that cosmological theories were, somehow, related to the prevailing Weltanschauung. I provided a counterexample that undermines this thesis. Perhaps we are operating under different definitions of the word sarcastic.

Couple of things:

  1. Get your facts straight. I live in Florida’s 13th congressional district, which is represented by Rep. Luna, for whom I voted.
  2. It is true that I have lived in other places, including Southern California, Chicago, Boston, rural Maryland, and Buenos Aires. Feel free to make fun of people who live in any of those places. Some might consider that behavior insulting.

I don’t need instruction on civilized behavior from you. Furthermore, @gavin is not a damsel in distress who needs to be rescued by a white knight. It’s faintly insulting to the object of your white-knighting.

1 Like
8

These items you’ve cited are well-recognized deficiencies in current theories but not evidence in support of any alternative theory. I asked if there was “evidence in support of” this novel theory. Have filamentary plasma currents been observed? As you note, dark matter is unseen. Apparently, so are filamentary plasma currents. Replacing one unobservable with another is hardly an improvement. There can be a multiplicity of theories with such features. To rise above the rest, more is needed.

There are many problems with the contemporary physics enterprise, not just in cosmology. Doing more of the same won’t move the ball forward, so to speak. Sabine Hossenfelder has summary of the problems with cosmology. As she notes, there’s a lot more data to explain now than there used to be, which might account for theoretical deficiencies.

2 Likes
9

Of course they have! In the laboratory (see Nobel-laureate Alfven) – which puts filamentary plasma currents far ahead of postulated “Dark Matter”.

On Planet Earth, we see aurora, which are regarded as being due to electrically charged particles streaming outwards from the Sun. That might not be filamentary enough for you – but it certainly addresses one of my reservations about the theory, which is does the universe have the ability to flow electric current millions of miles through an apparent vacuum. Goodness! Thanks to the James Webb telescope, we now have evidence of aurora on Jupiter, showing electric currents flowing at least that far through the solar system. Not dispositive, as I noted, but certainly intriguing.

Setting aside matters of tone, if your view is that current cosmology is a bit of a tattered rag, then sadly you would have to accept that you are on the same page as me. It would be good if Big Science would put some serious resources into investigating alternatives to the somewhat epicyclic Dark Matter/Dark Energy hypothesis. We need a better theory – which can only come from open minds.

5 Likes
10

Obviously, I meant at large scales in the universe, where they would have cosmological relevance. Their observation in tiny scales corresponding to the laboratory or the upper atmosphere are not helpful.

We agree that there are problems in cosmology. Where we disagree is whether to adopt any port in a storm. Just because there are unresolved issues doesn’t mean all proposed solutions, no matter how observationally deficient, are equal or worthy of pursuit

Dark matter might well be a blind alley. Dr. Hossenfelder (above), who has made some blistering critiques of the directions physics has taken lately (particle physics in particular), points to the problems with the cold-dark-matter theory (ΛCDM) as it stands. She also gives an example of a modification of GR that fits the data better, while also mentioning that there are probably other modifications that would also work. That undermines the credibility of that particular solution.

Her other point is that there’s much better observational data than there used to be, which means problems with the standard model will be revealed that were not evident before. When I was in school, the term precision cosmology was a joke; the Hubble constant was not known to within a factor of three. The current model’s feet are being held to the fire.

Is anything like that happening with the model in Lerner’s book? This was the motivation behind my asking for observational evident — of the cosmological kind, not the aurora on Earth. I guess I was put off by the title. Lerner is doing more than just offering a modification that solves a problem with current theory; he’s claiming to overturn the whole thing. There’s lots of good evidence supporting the thesis that the universe is expanding, that it had a beginning with much higher density, etc. Lerner would need some pretty powerful contrary evidence and a theory that explains the host of observational evidence that supports those parts of the standard model.

It is also historically ignorant of Lerner to claim that this beginning/end thing is, somehow, specific to the times. As I pointed out above, the steady state model was roughly contemporaneous with the Big Bang model, and it has none of those features (finite, with beginning & end). Specifically, this is simply ahistorical:

Can Lerner’s theory explain all the observations, including the Hubble expansion? Any theory that purports to replace the current model has some heavy lifting to do. Finally, this statement of Lerner is disingenuous:

I just read the paper by Alpher and Herman that offered a correction to Gamov’s paper,* published two weeks prior. In 1948, they calculated 5K, which is within a factor of two if the measured value. Given the state of observations in 1948 and the rough order-of-magnitude calculations they were doing, they were lucky to get that close. It is misleading to claim that the prediction was so far off since there was an error that was corrected immediately.

5K
5K669×219 137 KB

Thanks for the trip down memory lane. I haven’t thought much about cosmology in a long time.

*In his original paper, Gamov noted several discrepancies with observations, which was not surprising given the crude nature of the estimates. Part of the problem is Gamov had the wrong age for the universe and he made an approximation to an integral that Alpher and Herman did more carefully. Since Gamov, Alpher, and Herman worked on this, there have been many modifications to this rather primitive theory — modifications that were informed by observation.

3 Likes
11

As I pointed out in the original post, Lerner seemed to wander around deliberately stepping on toes. The title of his book fits that perfectly, because slapping down the Big Bang hypothesis is actually the weakest part of his work. Which, again, was an observation I made in the original post. (“No”). My guess is that Lerner chose that title to annoy people … and in your case that definitely worked. :grin:

Read the book, rather than condemning it unread. You will disagree with parts of it (like I did), but you will be left with additional serious questions about our current “six impossible things before breakfast” cosmology.

1 Like
12

My comments were based on more than the title; I relied on your fairly detailed description. You didn’t really address my questions so I have to infer that there are no good answers. Also, a lying author loses credibility. Lerner is obviously twisting the facts to fit his prejudices.

As a firm believer in the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect, I can’t take a source seriously when inaccuracies are so easily found. The howler about the CMB temperature is enough. There’s plenty of evidence to condemn this book.