top of page

No Dark Matter Casts Grave Doubts on (Imaginary) Early Universe Model

It takes time. Yes, it takes time to come around to the realization that "our failure to detect particles that make up dark matter suggests that the beginning of the universe may have had a very different form from what we imagined." So writes Dan Hooper in the latest issue of New Scientist.

When will people realize that the whole model of the early universe based on the Friedmann model is irrevocably flawed? The critical density expression that separates flat from curved universes is wrong, negative pressures that drive superluminal expansion is ludicrous, imaginary phase transitions that involve imaginary scalar fields are pure figments of the imagination, and so on, and so on.

Advances in science are made not only with the exposition of new, testable theories, but, also with the burial of those that can longer be repaired. In this context, it is again interesting to note that the Nobel Committee has again stuck its foot in quicksand by recognizing one of the major authors of the "big bang" in this year's celebration of the physics prize.

The one damning piece of evidence has been all but buried; that is, P Herouni's Armenian antenna which failed to find even the slightest trace of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). As Herouni claimed:

“This very low level of our measured self noises of ROT Antenna rises the query to well known cosmogonic theory of 'Big Bang'. … But the presented above results of our measurements shows that either this 2.8K is a relict background, then self noises of ROT is equal zero (what is impossible) or this is self noises of Antenna, and then the relict background is absent (or almost absent). In this case it has sense to return to the earlier 'quantes aging' theory which explains also the known 'red shift'.”

The fact of the matter is that Herouni's paper, "About self-noise of Radio-Optical Telescope ROT-54/2,6 Antenna", published (and surprisingly disappeared for a period of time!) in the Journal of Applied Electromagnetism (Athens) 1999, vo. 2, no. 1, pp. 51-57, leaves no room for the 2.7 K CMBR.

How many papers, time, and energy does this erase from the research in cosmology? I would even try to guess. But, just look at its history.

In 1965, Dicke and Peebles convince Penzias and Wilson that the omnipresent ~3K noise that they can't get rid of in their sea level antenna is from the CMBR. Just look at the inverted publication of the two papers! The latter two shared the Nobel Prize, as the second of the earlier two authors will now do!

In 1989 NASA's COBE satellite reported finding the CMBR at ~2.725 K at ~900 km above the earth. Since when does a single point determine an entire spectrum. Yet, Mather and Smoot of the COBE team would share the coveted prize.

In 2001 NASA's WMAP satellite reported detection of anisotropies in the CMBR---must less than first expected. The WMAP team shared the lucrative 2018 Breakthrough Prize offering detailed "maps" of the early universe.

In 2009 the European Space Agency launched PLANCK satellite supposedly reported anisotropies in the CMBR in much greater detail.

No one ever looked for alternative explanations. As I have argued in other blogs, how does the resting place of the heat death consisting in thermal radiation prove to be the birthplace of the formation of galaxies and stars? And what would give rises to these anisotropies in a cemetery of thermal radiation? Simply put, the Armenian noise of ~2.6K leaves no room for such radiation.

Not only in this instant that we have shot ourselves in the foot. Our failure to detect particles that make up dark matter, our failure to detect hypothesized exotic particles, our failure to detect "extra" dimensions, and symmetries, in the Large Hadron Collider, all point to the wrong direction in which physics is heading beyond the standard model.

Precious time has been wasted on nonsense. Black holes are being discovered with properties that contradict the notion of a black hole as hiding behind a veil given by the event horizon. The nonsensical thermodynamics of writing down an entropy which is a convex function of the energy that gives rises negative heat capacities in a single phase system is proof that we are heading in the wrong direction. But, alas, no one pays any heed to such glaring contradictions. As Planck once said, maybe we have to wait for a new generation to be born that is free of all these contradictions. Truly, this does not paint a pretty picture of where science is actually found, in general, and cosmology in particular.

25 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

What Is Time in Spacetime?

It is well-known that the hyperbolic plane is "too big" to be embedded in Euclidean 3-space, but it is not "too big" to be embedded in Minkowski 3-space. Whereas the metric of the former is positive d


bottom of page