Alternative Cosmology Group

The Alternative Cosmology Group (or ACG) was founded in 2004 because of concerns by its members that the mainstream in Physical Cosmology had become insular, and was not dealing with open questions about the evolution and state of the cosmos in a healthy way. In the May 22, 2004 issue of New Scientist magazine, they published "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community" [An Open Letter to the Scientific Community - New Scientist - May 22, 2004 pg.20] that voiced their concerns over some of the issues they felt were not being addressed, which was signed by 34 concerned scientists. Later, several hundred others added their names to this list. The signers and members expressed their concern about too many "fudge factors" introduced over the years, that serve to bandage up the shortcomings of the Big Bang model. Instead, a healthier Science would result from promoting open dialog to determine if there are other theories and models of the universe that might more effectively explain what we observe. Such open dialog has been a goal and feature of their Crisis in Cosmology Conferences (CCC-I and CCC-II), which have explored the open questions in cosmology.

The group's members and associates have expressed the view that it is necessary to re-examine some of the simplifying assumptions made over the years, to decide whether those assumptions are appropriate in light of current observational data. ACG members point to many questionable assumptions that have crept into the mainstream view, and that now are accepted without question, stifling the free and open debate which fosters advancement. ACG members argue that we have entered the crisis stage of a forthcoming paradigm shift toward answers that better serve us and offer the possibility of a deeper understanding of the subject of cosmology. The official, stated goals of the organization are "1. To facilitate the communication between scientists whose experimental and/or theoretical research will lead to better understanding of the universe, 2. To generate research proposals, 3. To create and publish a peer reviewed journal, 4. To convene conferences on hot topics in Cosmology, and 5. To maintain a permanent web site www.Cosmology.info, which will be a beacon of progress in the understanding of the universe."

Rationale of the need for change

One does not need to look far to see the evidence that our view of the universe is in flux, and may need further changes to explain what we actually observe.Fact|date=September 2008 In January of 1999, Scientific American reported a "Revolution in cosmology" [Revolution in Cosmology issue - Scientific American - January 1999] and devoted an entire issue to that subject. The statement on the cover of that issue boldly proclaimed "New observations have smashed our old view of the universe," and then asked "What now?" This certainly reflects the idea that cosmology is in crisis, and suggests that changes in our world-view will be required to make sense of the universe. Two years later, this was re-iterated, as the January 2001 issue [Brave New Cosmos issue - Scientific American - January 2001] of that publication again had a focus on cosmology, asking on its cover "Can the universe get any stranger?" and answering their own question "Oh yes." This issue described some of the remaining problems facing cosmology, and suggested that a radical re-thinking of the subject might still be in order. One article [Magueijo, J. - Plan B for the Cosmos - Scientific American - January 2001 pp. 58-59] even advanced the idea that we might need to alter some of the fundamental constants of Physics, in order to solve those problems.

That issue of the magazine ascribed the need for a change in views to better utilize advances in Observational cosmology, including significant re-evaluations of what we think we know. In 2008, the solution that mainstream scientists in cosmology have settled on still makes many scientists in other fields wonder how such solutions can possibly stand.Who|date=September 2008 If the view of the cosmology mainstream is accurate, it would force a cataclysmic re-thinking of some other sciences,Fact|date=September 2008 and call otherwise solid results in those fields into question.Fact|date=September 2008 Perhaps the biggest issue still remaining is the tremendous discrepancy between the predictions of Quantum Mechanics, and the observed value of the Vacuum energy. The difference between the predicted and measured values is between 60 and 120 orders of magnitude! One of the ACG's members, Philip Mannheim, has recently published and presented a conformal theory [Mannheim, Philip - Conformal Gravity Challenges String Theory - PASCOS-07 proceedings - arXiv: 0707:2283] of Quantum gravity which would resolve this discrepancy,Fact|date=September 2008 but it has thus far received little attention from the mainstream. Unfortunately, the issues do not end there.

The January 2001 Scientific American also included an article [Peebles, P. J. E. - Making Sense of Modern Cosmology - Scientific American - January 2001 pp. 54-55] by P. James E. Peebles, one of the most respected individuals in Physical Cosmology, who gave a "Report Card" enumerating recent findings, and grading their accuracy and/or respectability. Although he gave the idea that "The universe evolves from a hotter, denser state" an A+, he was much less certain about the smooth distribution of matter, also called homogeneity, giving this idea a B-. In May of 2008, an arXiv preprint [Labini, F.S.; Vasilyev, N.L.; Pietronero, L.; Baryshev, Y. - The large scale inhomogeneity of the galaxy distribution - arXiv: 0805:1132v1] by Labini, Vasilyev, Pietronero, and Baryshev (two of whom presented at CCC-I) asserts that this is still a highly questionable pronouncement. Instead they state there is solid evidence that the universe is Fractal out to at least 100 Mpc/h, and that results from recent SDSS data indicate that it will continue to be fractal at even larger scales, thus almost completely ruling out the possibility of homogeneity, as well as calling into question mainstream theories of large scale structure which are based solely on gravitational attraction.

The October 2008 issue of Scientific American echoes the statements made by several ACG members at their most recent conference,Fact|date=September 2008 on its cover, by boldly asking the reader to "Forget the Big Bang." The cover goes on to say that the "Big Bounce" is its replacement, and that "Quantum gravity theory predicts the universe will never die." The article [Bojowald, Martin - Follow the Bouncing Universe - Scientific American - October 2008 pp. 44-51] inside by Martin Bojowald states in its header that "Our universe may have started not with a big bang but a big bounce–an implosion that triggered an explosion, all driven by exotic quantum-gravitational effects." Although the exact mechanism may be different, this exactly matches the predictions of Philip Mannheim and others who presented at CCC-II (see below). The emphatic statements on the cover and in the pages of Scientific American certainly affirms the ACG members' belief that the tide is turning in modern cosmology,Fact|date=September 2008 and reflects the idea that we need to take some of the alternatives to the Big Bang theory seriously, if we are to fully understand the dynamics of the universe.

Crisis in Cosmology Conferences

The first Crisis in Cosmology Conference [Ratcliffe, H. - The First Crisis in Cosmology Conference - Progress in Physics Vol. 3 (2005) pp. 19-24] was held in Monção, Portugal in June 2005, and it promised to "consider the present state of understanding of the universe in the light of the increasing number of observations that challenge the conventional cosmological model." Topics addressed included CMBR anisotropy, Biases in high-z SN Ia (high redshift supernova) observations, Discrepancies in Dark Matter Observations, Old massive galaxies at large redshifts, Fractality of large-scale structure, Origin of galaxies and structure in the universe, Galaxies, quasars and disparate red shifts, Astrophysical testing of gravity theories, Discriminating observational tests of alternative models, Cosmic anisotropy to electromagnetic wave propagation, Constancy of fundamental physical constants, Discordant results for light element abundances, and the Angular size/redshift relation. This conference featured a few mainstream scientists, including Jose B. Almeida, as well as others who championed more distinctly alternative views. The proceedings of this conference [1st CRISIS IN COSMOLOGY CONFERENCE, CCC-1 - AIP Conference Proceedings Volume 822] were published by the American Institute of Physics. The event was also the subject of New Scientist's cover [The End of the Beginning issue - New Scientist #2506 - July 2, 2005] , and a feature article by Marcus Chown [Chown, Marcus - Did the Big Bang Really Happen? - New Scientist - July 2, 2005 (issue 2506)] , for its July 2, 2005 issue.

Crisis in Cosmology II was held in September 2008, and took place in Port Angeles, Washington. This conference attempted to follow up on topics introduced in the first conference, to chart progress in both theory and observation since that time, and to further explore ideas and alternative answers that have emerged since then. Over four days, there were talks and presentations by 40 scientists and other researchers, exploring the Reality of Cosmic Expansion, the Origin of Microwave Radiation, Quasi-Stellar Objects, Large Scale Structure, Methods for Selecting Alternative Cosmologies, General Alternative Cosmologies, Hubble Relationship Alternatives, and Dark Matter and Dark Energy Alternatives. Scientists from both North and South America, Europe, Asia, Australia, Iceland and Russia, as well as North and South Africa presented their views, and there was open discussion on the topics addressed. In addition to scientific topics, some papers also focused on historical and methodological issues.

All presenters were challenged, whenever possible, to give details on crucial tests between alternatives, to specify falsification conditions for their proposed process or model, and/or provide specifics on genuine predictions (not just “predictions” after the fact); many presenters responded effectively to this challenge. Concerns were raised about the tendency of mainstream cosmology to depend primarily on such “retrodiction” and to focus on confirmation of hypotheses versus falsification or crucial tests between hypotheses. Many individuals attending the Crisis in Cosmology II conference did so with the full consent and support of the academic institutions where they teach. The featured speaker for this event was Halton C. Arp of the Max Planck Institute, who appeared remotely by video-conference. In addition to career academics, there were many other scientists and engineers present with extensive peer-reviewed publication records. Several of the participants expressed a hope that this conference will draw attention to issues and open questions in cosmology today, and offer explanations for observed phenomena in the cosmos other than those currently accepted by the mainstream.

References

See also

*Astrophysics
*Big Bounce
*Fractal cosmology
*Large scale structure
*Non-standard cosmology
*Physical cosmology
*Plasma cosmology

External links

* [http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ An Open Letter to the Scientific Community]
* [http://www.cosmology.info/ The Alternative Cosmology Group home page]
* [http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=APCPCS&Volume=822&Issue=1 AIP Crisis in Cosmology I proceedings]
* [http://www.newscientist.com/contents/issue/2506.html New Scientist 02 July 2005 contents]
* [http://www.cosmology.info/2005conference/index.html Crisis in Cosmology Conference I]
* [http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/index.html Crisis in Cosmology Conference II]