Articles: Do We Have the Big Bang Theory All Wrong? Nautilus, July 31, 2014
ArXiv (21), Cosmic vacuum energy decay and creation of cosmic matter, Oct. 2016
Books: With or without the big bang. That is the question, Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg 2016, ISBN 978-3-66247711-3
Most recent email: March 1, 2021, 10:33 AM
Dear Prof. Dr. Hans Jörg Fahr:
My orientation: With a bunch of high school geometers, we just happened to follow Zeno down inside the tetrahedral – octahedral complex. We went 45 steps from the classroom into particle physics and another 67 steps down into the Planck scale. We tied it together with 90 steps out to the current time and began working within those 202 base-2 notations from the first moment of time (assumed to be PlanckTime) to today, the Now. Why now?
It’s so very difficult, with so many possibilities, to lock in on the right beginning, the right progression, and with the right tools; and of course, it has to be a major miracle whenever anybody does.
First email: Friday, June 30, 2017
Dear Prof. Dr. Hans Jörg Fahr:
I just discovered the summary of your work over within the 31 July 2014 Nautilus article, Do We Have the Big Bang Theory All Wrong? Your work over on ArXiv and ResearchGate provides more than enough in-depth work to study! Thank you for being so prodigious in your search for a proper understanding of mass.
Of course, Neil Turok is coming at it from quite another perspective; he, too, is saying that Hawking is wrong. Your combined conclusions are compelling.
Thanks again for further opening the discussions about mass.
PS. The web archives has a copy of your article about the web. Just as a backup, we’ll insert this automatic translation as well:
“Why is the Big Bang a mistake?”
by Hans Jörg Fahr
Almost all cosmologists are convinced that 15 billion years ago the entire universe was concentrated in an immeasurably small point of matter. But this notion is highly questionable. The German astrophysicist Hans-Jörg Fahr doubts the Big Bang theory. The question is asked, “Do we live in a creative cosmos and not in a big bang universe?”
PM: Most astrophysicists believe that the universe is about 15 billion years old and originated from a space-time singularity: the entire material world was originally supposed to be clumped together in a tiny point and blown apart with the big bang. How did this theory come about?
Fahr: It is based on the assumption that we are currently observing an expansion in space. If I reverse this expansion in time, the galaxies move ever closer together, the background radiation gets hotter and hotter, until it finally matches the temperature of the star’s surface. Then the stars can no longer emit any more energy, they pump up and finally dissolve.
Matter becomes pure energy, a boiling primordial soup?
Correct. We arrive at initial conditions of extremely high energy density combined with unimaginably hot temperatures. But why doesn’t this structure remain what it is? Why does it need to expand? The expansion must be inscribed in the original energy ball by the initial movement. Here is the real mystery of creation. The beginning can’t just be chaos! In the initial conditions, however, matter should not be too densely clumped together, otherwise the universe would remain a black hole in which nothing would ever have happened. Instead, this matter must have an inner dynamic that inevitably initiates the expansion.
But do you think the Big Bang theory is wrong?
Yes. One of the reasons is the fact that we don’t and obviously can’t know anything about this initial situation, time zero. We have no idea how matter behaves in such an imaginary original state. Nevertheless, this condition in the most extreme past is said to be exactly the one from which our world emerged. I’m not convinced. On the other hand, the Big Bang can only be plausible if the current state of our world can give us indications that it is an evolutionary event that we can trace back. But it is precisely these evolutionary retrospectives that we cannot carry out with the cosmos that is before us.
Because the current cosmos gives us no indication of its initial state. If you stop a swarm of mosquitoes in time and then make them act backwards, then that swarm doesn’t collapse into a singularity either.
You mean there is no evidence of a Big Bang or any other initial state?
Yes, exactly! The cosmos maintains its structure and it maintains it permanently. Galaxies arise and die. Every star eventually dies, becomes a white dwarf or neutron star or a supernova. But at the same time, new stars are being formed. In its overall state, however, the picture of the universe remains the same.
And the background radiation is not an echo of the Big Bang?
I now think that is doubtful. The cosmic background radiation is a very uniform radiation in space. Photons with a certain thermal distribution come from all directions with approximately the same strength. Standard cosmologists understand this extreme uniformity as an indication that the world was completely uniform in origin. The universe didn’t show any differences at all at the beginning. However, no one can convincingly explain how our present, extremely non-uniform world should have emerged from this extreme uniformity. A lot of tricks are then offered to make the structure formation plausible. So it is said that dark matter must still be involved; structures can form at an early stage,
But dark matter is pure fiction that has not been empirically proven.
That’s the way it is. It is pretended that we have fully explained the world by assuming a certain ratio of dark matter to normal matter. This is basically a certain arrogance of the astronomers.
Note: There is a second page. We do not have access to it to date.
- Arman Shafielooa, b Dhiraj Kumar Hazrac, Consistency of the Planck CMB data and ΛCDM cosmology
- Yu. L. Bolotin and V. V. Yanovsky, Modified Planck units