A quick comment before continuing
This section can be safely skipped if you like. Just scroll down to the start of the actual article below the horizontal line.
I’ve searched around the web here and there on matters related to physics, the Big Bang, Dark Matter, etc. You have probably done the same or you would not be reading this page. Along the way I’ve found that there are many types of people, and many approaches to attempting to make sense of the realities of life and the Universe. As for me, after years of toil, I have finally adopted what seems to be a reasonable guiding principle for this sort of thing, which is that ideas and beliefs should generally align with observable data.
The prophet, Nahum (from the Bible), said that the clouds are the dust of God’s feet. After living for a number of years on this planet - and attempting to make some sense of it myself - I have concluded that Nahum was mistaken. There are certainly dust clouds here and there, but the ones I believe Nahum was referring to certainly aren’t made of dust. And, even if they were, it's seems odd that even though these clouds are plainly visible, God's feet somehow, are not. Interestingly, I know of more than a few individuals who would disagree with me.
In truth, I am still somewhat amazed at how common it is for people to insist that facts bend to match a given hypothesis or cherished belief rather than the other way around. So, before continuing, I should plainly state that brushing aside inconvenient facts because they do not support a treasured idea is of absolutely no value. It's certainly not what I intend to do here, even to the slightest degree, either in favor of my own hypotheses or against any other (think, the Big Bang).
Having said this, when a hypothesis or theory begins to gain ground and hold its own for a period of time, any new evidence that looks as if it may contradict it must be given patient scrutiny. After all, if a theory successfully answers 100 questions, but cannot answer the 101st, it is certainly worth taking a closer look before deciding the theory is wrong.
In my opinion, such is the case with Big Bang theory. It has held up for quite a while; longer than I would have expected (and longer than it should have, in my humble opinion). Indeed, it does answer many questions. But, because of this, some of the more inconvenient questions that it does not adequately answer are rarely seen as sufficient cause to doubt it.
I understand and appreciate the wisdom in that. But, sooner or later we have to find resolution. Are the questions wrong? Are our observations incorrect? Have we overlooked something? Or, could there a better explanation, a better theory?
If there isn't enough observable matter within a given galaxy to account for the fact that it does not simply fall apart, then what explanation (other than Dark Matter) is there for its formation? Is it possible that the galaxies formed in place, at their relative positions within the Universe, rather than being part of the debris field of some enormous explosion (the Big Bang)? It seems worth considering. Of course, if we do consider it, we must then ask where all the matter did come from.
Indeed we do.
For some, this question is enough in itself to dismiss any argument against the Big Bang altogether. Yet, I must hold out that to the open-minded, considering this question is no less sensible than believing that all the matter in the Universe originated from a singularity.
Speculation like this leads to many valid questions, not the least of which being, "What about all the other supporting evidence for the Big Bang?" A fair question to be sure, but that's what we're doing here; we're attempting to see if another hypothesis matches that evidence as well, or even better. Maybe there isn't one, but maybe there is. So, let us state the question a little more clearly: If there was no Big Bang, where did all the matter in the Universe come from?
Let us begin by considering the Hubble Ultra Deep Field Image, which shows thousands of distant galaxies glowing faintly against a deep-black backdrop. Oddly, the image seems rather unremarkable until you realize that these aren't just any galaxies - they are the most distant galaxies we have been able to photograph to date. In fact, if you haven't looked into it, click on the link above to learn more - it is well worth the time.
The actual distance to the galaxies in this image is not entirely straightforward. Yes, it took 13.2 billion years for the light we are now receiving from them to reach us, but the Universe has been expanding all along too. What's more, that expansion has, as far as we can tell, been accelerating the whole time as well. So, rather than attempt to establish an actual distance (which would add only marginal value to our discussion anyway), let's settle on the fact that they are ancient, and that we have yet to glimpse anything farther away. Perhaps even more importantly with respect to this discussion, is that this photograph is believed by many to show the galaxies as they were when the entire Universe was less than one billion years old (about 800 million years). I happen, not to agree, but won't expound upon the reasons until later.
In light of this, a couple things immediately leap out. First, as expected, this image appears to contain hundreds of young galaxies - that is, galaxies with shapes, colors and sizes to indicate that they were indeed captured during the early years of their formation. No surprise there. But, there are also what appear to be very mature galaxies, such as, HUDF-JD2 and others in the same region. This is odd indeed. Why would galaxies from largely the same region, and such an early period in the history of the Universe differ so greatly?
One possibility is that the more mature galaxies aren't as far away as they seem. We are not able to know for sure as yet, but astronomers believe they are. There is also the possibility that these galaxies just happened to have a larger starting mass than their neighbors, which could have accelerated their formation, in which case they are not older, but only further developed. This actually strikes me as quite plausible too.
But, what if they are older? How could galaxies from what appears to be the same region of space be of such vastly different ages? Are they drifters, just passing through the neighborhood? The evidence seems to suggest otherwise. Their redshifts, for instance, suggest that they are native to the regions where they appear.
The only explanation for this phenomenon having any degree of elegance is that they formed in place, but at different times. The only difficulty with this otherwise simple solution is the Big Bang. If all of these galaxies, old and new, are products of the same Big Bang event, then we have a disconnect - since we would naturally and quite reasonably expect all of them to be about the same age. On the other hand, if the galaxies formed place (at their relative positions) as a result of some other cause, then the mystery becomes....less mysterious - we need only discover what triggered their formation. And, fortunately, this may not be a difficult puzzle to solve at all.
To see the next post in this series, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment