One of the best things about having friends who are much smarter than you is that just by chatting or corresponding with them, you're bound to learn something new. Such is the case with a recent online discussion in which I have been participating. The premise of the discussion is the question of whether or not the Big Bang Theory (BBT) sufficiently and definitively explains the origins of the universe. Now, I should note that I have never taken a formal course on physics. My college-level science studies stopped at biology and chemistry. The little I know about physics comes from my own limited reading of works by Einstein, Asmiov, and Sagan. I have also read some interesting pieces of Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe. So while the details of the aforementioned discussion on BBT are a bit over my head, the general concepts are not entirely beyond my grasp.It has been my experience that BBT is generally portrayed as something of a scientific alternative to the creationist explanation of the origin of the universe. But what has been pointed out by some scientists is that BBT itself actually fails to adequately explain certain the premise of the big bang itself. This is well articulated in Dr. Lin Jung Wang's 2005 work "Dispersive Extinction Theory of Redshift" in which Dr. Wang notes:
"There are a number of fundamental difficulties with the big bang theory. First, the notion of having the enormous mass and energy of the universe coming out of nowhere defies every fundamental law and all logic known to physics."
This very simple point is an issue which I would guess has been overlooked many times aver by the average lay person. In fact, the point begs the question of whether or not this particular notion serves as an inherent loophole in BBT which makes the existence of God not only a foregone conclusion but a necessity if one is to ultimately accept BBT as the most viable explanation as to the origins of the universe. With this point at issue, BBT becomes less of a scientific theory and more of a dogmatic belief.
Nevertheless, Dr. Wang continues his scientific critique of BBT by taking issue with the notion of "the expanding universe." The "expansion" phenomena is, in very basic terms, the phenomena of bodies moving away from each other as a direct result of the outward force of the big bang itself. Proponents of the expanding model point to the cosmic redshift as evidence of the expansion and of the validity of BBT itself. However, Dr. Wang's work points to a different explanation altogether:
"We attribute the redshift to the dispersive extinction, which includes absorption and scattering by the space medium...The dispersive extinction by the space medium would cause the central wavelength of a spectral line to shift to the red or to the blue, depending on the characteristics of the space medium."
This is an intriguing alternative to the concept of an "expanding universe." Although the Dispersive Extinction Theory (DET) does not itself present an alternative to BBT, it does serve to further weaken the already questionable foundations of BBT. With time and effort on the part of scientists like Dr. Wang, we are sure to learn the truth someday.
Thanks to my friend Youzhong for helping with this article.
