Explaining Dark Matter and Contradicting the Big Bang

by Nancy Atkinson on March 31, 2008

Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter

An Artist
It’s well-known that “Big Bang” was a derogatory name given to the cosmological theory of the expanding (not exploding) universe in an attempt to discredit the idea. But, the name stuck and with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) in 1964, the theory has stuck, too. However, every once in awhile, a new idea comes out which claims to contradict the Big Bang Theory. The latest comes from researchers Robert K. Soberman and Maurice Dubin who say they know what dark matter is comprised of, and their new ideas provide a better explanation for the CMB, as well as the galactic red shift, two observations that currently support the Big Bang Theory.

Soberman and Dubin believe dark matter is actually made of cosmic meteoroids — clumps of hydrogen and helium atoms, which they call “cosmoids.” The two researchers say cosmoids were found in a new evaluation of data detected by Pioneer 10 & 11. This dark and fragile matter exists in the “near absolute zero cold and almost forceless space between galaxies from material expelled in stellar winds. Little, if any radiation is emitted at that temperature, hence its invisibility,” say Soberman and Dubin in a paper they released on March 25, 2008.

While the cosmic microwave background seems to cover the sky smoothly in all directions, this is unlike visible matter which is clumped into galaxies. The two researchers hypothesize that cosmoids were drawn gravitationally into our galaxy, the solar system and the immediate Earth vicinity, and radiate at 2.735 K which is “erroneously interpreted as the big bang cosmic microwave background.””Hence, this locally smooth distribution of cosmoids makes the radiation look the same in all directions to us.

Soberman and Dubin say that even variations discovered by satellites such as COBE and WMAP do not explain the distribution of visible matter, and that cosmoids provide a better alternative explanation.

The cosmoid proposal also explains the galactic redshift, according to Soberman and Dubin. Cosmoids absorb and re-emit light from distant galaxies, and that should redshift the light in a way that is subtly different from a Doppler redshift generated by an expanding universe. They say that the subtle difference should be relatively easy to spot with a few observations.

They will conduct several tests which they expect will contradict Big Bang predictions. The test include mixing hydrogen with a small amount of helium and cooling it to 2.735 K to see if cosmoids form, and measuring the red shift of cosmoids (dark matter) lying within 1 AU of the sun.

“Bereft of the two supporting pieces of evidence, the big bang hypothesis should collapse. Any hypothesis worthy of consideration should offer predictions that allow choice between it and competitor(s). This model concludes with analytical and experimental predictions, the results of which should contradict the big bang hypothesis,” say Soberman and Dubin.

Soberman and Dubin do not mention anything about the third “pillar” of the Big Bang Theory, which is the distribution of hydrogen and helium throughout the cosmos, which closely matches the predictions of the Big Bang Theory.

While this new theory is sure to raise more than just a few eyebrows, it demonstrates what’s great about science. All theories — whether long-standing mainstays of current scientific understanding or new, upstart ideas – will undergo constant scrutiny and testing. It will be interesting to see what Soberman and Dubin’s tests reveal.

Original News Sources: ArXiv Blog, and ArXiv

About

Nancy Atkinson is Universe Today's Senior Editor. She also is the host of the NASA Lunar Science Institute podcast and works with the Astronomy Cast and 365 Days of Astronomy podcasts. Nancy is also a NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador.

  • Chuck Lam

    Hmm . . . Soberman and Cubin could be onto something really big.

  • JamesB

    And this after a Prophet of the CMB school was prognosticating in the latest issue of Sky & Telescope (May’08) about how the Bing Bang and the CMB were “good science”. Hope this Prophet didn’t break his arm patting himself on the back because is “good science” isn’t looking that good anymore. These “cosmoids” make better sense than a mythological “aether”… er sorry… “Dark Matter”.

  • JamesB

    BTW – likely not an April Fool’s joke as article is dated 31 March, rather than April 1.

  • Frances

    On the NASA archive site you can find three papers written by Soberman and Dubin dated 1989, 1990 and 1991. So why is this being rated as a new breaking story? And why didn’t anyone take it seriously earlier?

  • Stephen

    It’s 1st April guys.

  • Ed2

    This story is just conjecture. My conjecture is that the dark matter are simply electron-neutrinos at 2.725 degrees kelvin.

  • Michael McVey

    Yes, those ads for Expelled the Movie and The God Argument were a little off-putting. Must be the algorithm Google uses, I guess there aren’t so many cosmologists selling their movies and books through Google.

  • David Shander

    So why is it not possible that dark matter and energy are the non-baryonic medium in which the big bang (or whatever) occurred. And furthermore, is continuing to occur, and maybe more than once.

  • Varun

    it does sound absurd…
    as per the article published…..they are producing results AGAINST the big bang theory of CREATION of the universe….but they choose not to say anything about how THEIR universe was created……!!
    but yes…the red shift point does seem to be quite valid because thier arent any blue shifts observed….i.e….if everything is moving away from a point…the matter closer to that point should be relatively faster than the ones away…..!

  • Bob

    The CMB has been thoroughly disproven as being something local. There are holes in the CMB that exist right where the center of masses of galaxy clusters exist. There is where photons of the CMB are scattered by neutral hydrogen that exists in a greater amount of mass than the entire masses of the cluster’s visible matter by triple the amount. Inependently, at X-ray wavelengths, we can observe the hot hydrogen gases colliding and emitting those X-rays in the exact same spots. The temperature varies with the intensity of the X-rays as one moves measurements across the field and the math crunches out the same amount of mass that was calculated by scattering of the CMB photons…the same 3 to 1 ratio of hydrogen to all of the visible matter in the galaxy clusters.

    Even then the amount of mass is not enough to explain the rotation curves of the galaxy clusters..

    What has occured recently in cosmology is that MOND has been falling apart since Jacob Beckenstein publish some math that did explain how one could replace the inverse square law of gravity at galactic distances with a 1/r law instead..He was a hero at first until some of the MOND members and followers read into his math and realized that he introduced dark matter and dark energy in order to make it work.

    So now there are spinoffs to save the idea that DM and DE along with the Big Bang must be wrong.

    The problem with most alternative theorists is that they view science as “invent and replace” instead of realizing that old measurements are valid to a limit where better measurements from more extensive theories fit condition where one theory breaks down. Kepler’s math was not as complete as Newton’s. Special relativity and general relativity extended upon Newton’s math but did not caste it aside. Quantum physics makes measurements that GR cannot reside with. Once we learn the limits of them we will extend, but not replace General and Special relativity.

  • steelmarket

    The very terms “dark matter” and “dark energy” prejudice us in our thinking about these phenomena. If Soberman and Dubin had not coined the catchy word “cosmoids”, would we even be discussing their work?

  • Alphonso Richardson

    Finally got to read this article – ‘COSMOIDS’?
    Please, that’s got to be a bit dodgy, sorry – even if it’s genuine (which i’m highly suspicious of), it seems a little , well, daft.
    Don’t get me wrong, great breakthrougha are often counter-intuitive, but still…..

  • RL

    If their science is correct, the test results will be there. As for predicting how the universe started, I don’t think its necessary for a theory to explain everything. No theory does that. If the predictions are tested and are found to be true, then everyone has more thinking to do!

  • CV

    The red shift can be explained by the clumping of energy in to matter a and the conversion of matter in to heavier and heavier atoms in stars. This would be much like starting with a flat uinverse that would be constantly building larger gravity wells out of smaller ones. The larger the gravity wells the more time it would take light to pass by them. As they are constantly growing any light to come from more distant sourced would have to travel through a larger and larger number of these growing gravity wells. This would cause the ever increasing red shift we see in light coming from more distant sources.

Previous post:

Next post: