Cosmic Tension: Modern Cosmology Has Big Holes

Leading cosmologists
admit major problems
with orthodox cosmology

 

by Jerry Bergman, PhD

The front cover of the May 2024 issue of Science Focus Magazine declared that
“Something is wrong with our Model of the Universe. The Closer we Look, The Weirder it Gets.”[1]

In the editors words, “the universe is expanding. And we can measure the speed of its expansion. The trouble is, depending on how we measure that speed, we keep getting different results.”[2] This problem affects the so-called Standard Model which is based on the Big Bang plus dark matter, dark energy, and inflation. Inflation is a hypothetical period of super-fast expansion that occurred in the first split-second after the Big Bang banged. In short, the May 2024 issue of Science Focus Magazine admitted that the Standard Model is in big trouble.

The obvious way to determine the expansion of the universe is to observe nearby galaxies and measure how rapidly they are moving away from us. A second way of determining the expansion rate is to attempt to estimate the rate of expansion in the early Universe, and then extrapolate the rate obtained up to today. When the expansion rate is measured locally, the value is eight per cent higher than the value deduced by extrapolating from the early Universe.

The Hubble Tension

This problem is called Hubble Tension. It could be the result of several assumptions that are involved, including the consensus age of the universe and the Big Bang itself. Cosmologists do not question their assumptions that the universe is 13.82 billion years old, and consists of 68.3 percent dark energy, 26.8 percent dark matter and a mere 4.9 percent of ordinary atoms.[3]

I have argued that the method measuring how rapidly nearby galaxies are moving away from us is the more accurate one, but it also has problems. Professor Marcus Chown remarked that attempts to focus on local expansion measurements “are fraught with difficulties.”[4] One difficulty is that they have put too much faith in naturalism, especially the long ages. For example, notice the faith in this claim:

The primordial expansion rate is encoded in the cosmic background radiation, the ‘afterglow’ of the Big Bang, which is still around us today and accounts for 99.9 per cent of the photons, or particles of light, in the Universe.[5]

Another problem is found in estimates made from Cepheid variables. A Cepheid variable is a star that pulsates rapidly, varying both the diameter and temperature. These pulsations are used for determining galactic and extragalactic distances.[6] Because the pulse rates are related to their intrinsic luminosity, if astronomers determine a Cepheid is four times as faint as another Cepheid, they conclude that the first star is twice as far away as the other star. It is not a fainter star located at the same distance. Majaess concluded that Type II Cepheids were often cited as potential distance indicators [but] … Presently, the uncertainties are large and identifications preliminary.”[7]  Chown writes that

For 25 years, the Hubble constant was determined from Cepheids observed by NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope. But there were concerns. When observing Cepheids at great distances, even Hubble’s sharp eyesight couldn’t be sure of picking out a lone Cepheid. There was always the chance of a Cepheid being smeared together with a star close to the line of sight, causing astronomers to overestimate the Cepheid’s brightness.[8]

NASA’s 6.5-m, infrared James Webb Space Telescope launched on December 25, 2021, with sharper vision than the Hubble Space Telescope, determined that Hubble’s estimate of the Hubble constant was correct.[9] Nonetheless, the eight-percent discrepancy between the two expansion rate estimates remains. Other reasons for questioning the Cepheid method may be because the

‘Hubble tension’ could still be a mirage. There could be unrecognized measurement errors. Prof. Joseph Silk of the University of Oxford suspects so. “I admire the detailed, painstaking attempts at calibration …. “However, I’m still not completely convinced.” Silk points out that the stellar environments in which Type Ia supernovae are born have changed over time. This change potentially makes these supernovae in distant galaxies a different luminosity to those in nearby galaxies (more distant galaxies allow us to see further back in time because of the finite speed of light). “And perhaps more worrying,” …  “is that an alternative approach to determining the distance scale, ….  systematically finds a lower value of the Hubble constant than the supernova method.”[10]

Rampant Speculation

Professor Chown includes a discussion of the Big Bang and the hypothetical dark energy problem. One problem is “what missing ingredient could have sped up the expansion of the Universe?” Chown quotes Johns Hopkins University Professor Marc Kamionkowski who concluded this problem is “really puzzling.” Professor Ian McCarthy added: “The implication is that something about the Standard Model of Cosmology is incorrect.” Another possibility is “Dark energy or dark matter could have more exotic properties than the most ‘vanilla’ assumptions we make for them in the Standard Model.”

The assumption that the so-called ‘cosmological constant’ maintains a constant energy density as the Universe expands means that the dark energy, and its effect, grows as space grows. Given that the details of dark energy are not-understood-yet speculation is that its energy density has also evolved with time. How this creation out of nothing could have occurred no one has any clear explanation.

Professor Kamionkowski postulates that the dark energy density may have somehow, for some unknown reason, recently increased, helping to boost cosmic expansion. Alternatively, very early after the Big Bang occurred, dark energy could have been created somehow which boosted cosmic expansion. How dark energy could have evolved with time is a mystery. By overlooking this problem, astronomers would have underestimated the cosmic expansion rate they deduced from the cosmic background radiation.

Yet another puzzle is how “the Universe could have sped up if Einstein’s theory of gravity breaks down on the largest scales.” Is the gravity that’s trying to slow the expansion of the Universe weaker than expected? Professor Silk remains skeptical of all of the existing proposals, writing “To date, all attempts to introduce new physics ingredients to fully resolve the Hubble tension have failed.”[11]

Summary

The Chown report illustrates major disagreements about the Big Bang theory exists among leading cosmologists working in the field of modern cosmology. These debates help us to realize that much current theory is speculation based on very limited empirical observation. This conforms to an observation made 20 years to the month by a contributing editor of Astronomy magazine, Bob Berman. Berman observed the “Cosmology gurus figured 70 percent of the universe must be composed of an anti-gravity force called dark energy. This was fine except nobody had the slightest idea what that was…. Imagination rules!”[12] Berman, who headed Overlook Observatory in Woodstock, New York, added the following disclaimer should be the preface to reading articles on cosmology: “Warning: The following contains contemporary cosmology. Reading it can produce disorientation and confusion. Nobody knows what is going on.” Twenty years later this warning is still appropriate.

References

[1] Chown, M. “The Hubble Tension.” BBC Science Focus Magazine, pp. 62-67, 14 May 2024.

[2] Chown, 2024, p. 62.

[3] Chown, 2024,  p. 62.

[4] Chown, 2024,  p. 62.

[5] Chown, 2024, p. 62.

[6] Majaess, D., et al., “Type II Cepheids as Extragalactic Distance Candles”. Acta Astronomica 59(4), September 2009.

[7] Majaess, et al., 2009. Emphasis added.

[8] Chown, 2024, p. 63.

[9] Chown, 2024, p. 64.

[10] Chown, 2024, p. 64.

[11] Chown, 2024, p. 64.

[12] Berman, B. “Theory Chaotic.” Astronomy p. 16, July 2004.

---

Dr. Jerry Bergman has taught biology, genetics, chemistry, biochemistry, anthropology, geology, and microbiology for over 40 years at several colleges and universities including Bowling Green State University, Medical College of Ohio where he was a research associate in experimental pathology, and The University of Toledo. He is a graduate of the Medical College of Ohio, Wayne State University in Detroit, the University of Toledo, and Bowling Green State University. He has over 1,900 publications in 14 languages and 40 books and monographs. His books and textbooks that include chapters that he authored are in over 1,800 college libraries in 27 countries. So far over 80,000 copies of the 60 books and monographs that he has authored or co-authored are in print. For more articles by Dr Bergman, see his Author Profile.