Should we Believe in the Big Bang?: A Critique of the Integrity of Modern Cosmology

Abstract

Although the relativistic, hot big bang (RHBB) model is generally regarded as “spectacularly successful: In short, it provides a reliable accounting of the history of the Universe from about 0.01 sec after the [big] bang until today, some 15 billion years later” (Turner 1992, 1), it has recently faced serious attacks from a number of physicists who cite long lists of (they claim) critical anomalies (e.g. Arp, et.al. 1990, Burbidge, 1992, Arp and van Flandern, 1992, Lerner, 1993a, Narlikar 1993). In this paper, we shall not attempt to adjudicate on such disputes, nor do we wish to take a position on the normative criteria that should govern science. Rather, our primary concern is to highlight the tensions between the normative criteria accepted by proponents of the RHBB (or demanded of rival theories) and the actual progress of the big bang program.