Big Bang theory gets a vote of no confidence

Dan Johnson

May 3, 2014

I must say that I was quite surprised a few days ago to find that a poll conducted by Associated Press-GfK (reporters: Seth Borenstein and Jennifer Agiesta) revealed that most people have a hard time believing that the so-called ‘Big Bang’ happened. (1) According to the story in my local newspaper only 21% of the people polled were “extremely confident” or “very confident” that the universe (in fact) began 13.8 billion years ago with a big bang.  In other words, apparently 79% have a difficult time with the concept of a big bang beginning?  One of the reasons for this rather low confidence – as stated in the article – has a connection to religion.  According to Professor Robert Lefkowitz (as quoted in the article), “When you are putting up facts against faith, facts can’t argue faith.  But on the other hand, I know of many researchers and theorists who will say astronomy and cosmology itself has become like a “religious” belief system – question the big bang and an expanding universe and you are a bit nutty.

One can detect this attitude early in a book written by Lawrence M. Krauss ‘A Universe from nothing’. (2) Here Krauss cites the ‘afterglow’ of comic microwave background radiation (CMBR) as direct evidence of a big bang. (But is the universe actually expanding?  Does the redshifting of radiation from distant galaxies really prove this?) In his view, Krauss states: 

“It (CMBR) provides another piece of direct evidence, in case any is needed, that the Big Bang really happened, because it allows us to look back directly and detect the nature of the very young, hot universe from which all the structures we see today later emerged.”

However the CMBR as ‘evidence’ is difficult for some theorists.  For example, as Dr. Paul LaViolette reports, the big bang “fireball” would require just the right velocity (timing) to get the correct radiation redshift for the CMBR – therefore the correct temperature. (3)  

(Krauss and many other theorists also believe that the so-called Higgs particle was discovered at CERN.  It seems (to me) they want and need the public to believe the Higgs mechanism is real.  However, there are theorists that have a difficult time thinking that the Higgs mechanism is even needed.  My view, for whatever it’s worth, is that a particle can come into existence anywhere because there is a ‘subspace’ – not a Higgs field – already existing for it everywhere.  Furthermore, if the universe had to be created, which I tend to doubt – but I could be wrong, I would think an energy background for it would first have to be put in place.  If one is to paint a picture of a galaxy, does not one need a canvas first?)

In any event, Krauss tells us that somehow something (the physical universe) arises from nothing – although it is a bit more complicated than that. For theorists like Krauss and others an ether background would not seem necessary, but yet, according to Krauss and many others, the universe must have a background Higgs field as well as dark matter and dark energy of which Krauss and others know nothing about, i.e. what the stuff is and how it could exist, not to mention if it can even be detected or measured?

Lee Smolin, in his book, ‘The Trouble with Physics’, tells us about the new science of Cosmology.  He states:

 “Going from the very small to the very large, our knowledge of physics (is) now extended to the new science of cosmology, where the Big Bang had become a consensus view.” (4)

I would have to say today that the big bang, as something that really happened, is not generally an accepted opinion.  This is also the view given by Dr. Paul A. LaViolette in his book ‘Subquantum Kinetics: A systems approach to physics and cosmology’.  In regard to the astronomical community, LaViolette writes:

“Although a sizable percentage of the astronomical community opposes the idea of a big bang, the majority of astronomers consider any contrary view as ridiculously misguided.” (3)

So, according to these folks, the public is generally misguided? (Although to be fair, the public is generally kept in the dark about many things!)  For anyone who is interested in reading more in this area I recommend reading ‘The Farce of Modern Physics’ by David Pratt. (5)


1 Online at:…

See stats here:…

2 See ‘A Universe from Nothing’, Lawrence M. Krauss, ATRIA paperback (See chapter 3)

3 See ‘Subquantum Kinetics: A systems approach to physics and Cosmology’, Paul A. LaViolette, Starlane Publications (See chapter 7)

4 See ‘The Trouble with Physics’ Lee Smolin, Houghton Mifflin Company (See introduction, page x)

5 Online at:…

Related articles...

Comments are closed.