Breaking Through Editorial: The Implications of the "Big Bang"
Published in IE Volume 8, Issue #46, November/December 2002
by Eugene F. Mallove

A long time ago, in a life before cold fusion and new energy, I published a book, The Quickening Universe: Cosmic Evolution and Human Destiny (1987), a portrait of our universe as I then understood it. This, my first book, was based on the collected wisdom of the cosmologists and biologists whom I had studied and believed. I now reject that tidy picture, which rested on what I then thought was a sound theoretical framework underlying the basic "Big Bang" cosmology, one based on multiple interlocking streams of experimental evidence. I am still proud of my synthesis of those days, so we still distribute The Quickening Universe, but with the following caveat affixed to the inner cover. This is evidence of a capacity to evolve, to move on:

Dear Reader:

Any author of a "cosmological philosophy" such as The Quickening Universe is duty-bound to re-evaluate his reflections and former "certainties" in light of new information. As you will read in the Preface to this 1987 work, I wondered ". . .what the volume's sequel would reveal if I were fortunate enough to be able to set it down in 2010." It is not quite 2000 as I write this introductory note, but already I can say that there is so very much that I did not know in 1987 that would now have to be incorporated into a 2010 edition.

First, the low-energy nuclear reaction revolution (a.k.a. "cold fusion") that emerged in 1989 and thereafter, in which I became deeply involved as a writer and researcher (e.g. Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor, 1991), was totally unexpected. The results to date potentially change scientific conclusions in virtually every field-including biology, but especially physics and chemistry. Second, in view of my learning first-hand about the astonishing resistance of the scientific establishment to radically new phenomena that have been conclusively demonstrated in the laboratory, I have been moved to explore other heated controversies in science in which paradigm paralysis may have played a role. I conclude that there is a huge area of possible scientific revisionism that would have to be applied to the edition of 2000, let alone that of 2010!

However, since a complete rewrite for 2000 was not in the cards, let me say that I am very proud of my synthesis of diverse branches of human knowledge in 1987. I still hold to a model of a universe coming to life- quickening- as a forced process from the basic physical "laws." What those physical laws really are and what has been their history of operation in this and other parts of the universe is much less clear and certain to me in 1999 than it was in 1987. And, I am no longer sure that these "laws" have much to say about proscribing certain transcendent phenomena that are glimpsed in the laboratory even today [Note: I was thinking of the work of Prof. Jahn and others at Princeton.-EFM]. I believe that I was then a 40 year old child who has grown up. I apologize for some of the excess-certainty and dogmatism that you will find on these pages, but please do enjoy your tour through The Quickening Universe. Learn about what you may yet become.

-Dr. Eugene F. Mallove (July, 1999)     

I have come to realize that there are many reasons to reject the Big Bang, almost all having to do with the manner in which the physics community misrepresents fundamental data, which it claims supports the Big Bang. That misrepresentation is identical in character with its single-minded certainty, to cite one prominent example, that low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR) are impossible and that all data seeming to support LENR must be rejected. We are honored to be able to publish astronomer Dr. Tom Van Flandern's annotated list of reasons to reject the Big Bang (p. 10). He draws the following conclusions, with which I agree:

The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget, or were never taught, that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered. Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with, at most, an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory. . .Perhaps never in the history of science has so much quality evidence accumulated against a model so widely accepted within a field. Even the most basic elements of the theory- the expansion of the universe and the fireball remnant radiation- remain interpretations with credible alternative explanations. One must wonder why, in this circumstance, four good alternative models are not even being comparatively discussed by most astronomers.

To glimpse how solidly the current Big Bang view is accepted by the mainstream, let me quote Princeton University cosmologist P. James E. Peebles, in his introduction to Scientific American's "Special Edition: The Once and Future COSMOS" (2002, on newsstands until 2003). After a brief overview of "evidence," which supposedly supports the Big Bang, he writes: "I compare the process of establishing such compelling results, in cosmology or any other science, to the assembly of a framework. We seek to reinforce each piece of evidence by adding cross-bracing from diverse measurements. Our framework for the expansion of the universe is braced tightly enough to be solid. The big bang theory is no longer seriously questioned; it fits together too well. Even the most radical alternative- the latest incarnation of the steady state theory- does not dispute that the universe is expanding and cooling. You still hear differences of opinion in cosmology, to be sure, but they concern additions to the solid part."

It seems that Dr. Peebles has cross-braced himself right into a tight paradigm box from which he cannot escape! And, he marginalizes the best critics of the Big Bang, such as astronomer Halton Arp, Tom Van Flandern, and others, by failing to mention that they even exist. Only "differences of opinion" on the details of the Big Bang are allowed. This is analogous to a hot fusion researcher claiming that only "differences of opinion" exist on how to build the next hot fusion reactor experiment, while ignoring that a fundamentally different approach to generating fusion-scale energy from hydrogen, LENR (a.k.a. "cold fusion'), has been discovered and proved. The most significant implication to be gathered from the ascendancy of the Big Bang- some have called it the "cult of the Big Bang"- is that the process of science has broken down, particularly within physics.

We need not review all the reasons to reject the Big Bang-we leave that to Dr. Van Flandern and others-beyond mentioning that many early twentieth century and present explanations for the cosmic background radiation exist that have nothing to do with a Big Bang, that photographic and radio telescope evidence exists to challenge the very basis of the expanding universe (the interpretation of galactic redshift as cosmic expansion), or that cosmic light element distribution data have literally been fudged into agreeing with an early hot universe Big Bang theory. That's enough!

Yet, one idea that Big Bang cosmologists propose must indeed be correct, but not in the manner that they think. It is well-known that contemporary Big Bang cosmology requires an intimate blending of the microcosm of particle physics and fundamental forces with the features of the macrocosm- the present universe of galaxies, quasars, radiation, and whatever else ("dark matter," "dark energy," "quintessence,"?). How did these particles and forces, as conceptualized by the mainstream, emerge from that hot, concentrated early universe- at the supposed origin of "spacetime" itself from a microscopic "singularity" of some kind?

Alternative cosmologies that view the universe being perhaps infinitely old- with no beginning and probably no end- must deal as well with the origin and destruction of particles of matter, in whatever cataclysmic or benign processes may be hypothesized. This process of creation and destruction may be occurring everywhere in the universe in processes that have heretofore escaped our notice, and/or at particular sites of violent cosmic eruptions, such as from within the cores of galaxies. And, if besides matter and radiation there should be a cosmic fine-structured aether associated with space and time (whatever its physics), there must be a physics for the origin and evolution of mass-bound particles from that aether. The only other generic alternative to aether-emerging particles (apart from the Big Bang), is that they were created de novo, perhaps by some transcendent power (God), as many may wish to believe. I should hasten to add that a liberal interpretation of the biblical Genesis story of the Judeo-Christian tradition need not depend on Big Bang cosmology. It is abundantly clear that our Sun and its planetary system had to have had a multi-billion-year process of origin from a cosmic plenum of some kind.

The implications for new energy science and technology of non-Big Bang cosmology are profound, which is precisely why studying the arguments for and against the Big Bang is so important. Cosmology is not merely a luxury to understand our ultimate origins, so that we may be either philosophically or emotionally pleased or displeased! If we view the present condition of matter as winding-down- decaying toward some ultimate oblivion, as the Big Bang would have one believe- we are forced to conceptualize matter in the way that the so-called Standard Model of elementary particles and forces allows. This model, I am reasonably convinced, does not even allow for the kinds of evidence that is being found today in LENR experiments, not to mention even more provocative devices and tests that imply an extraction of energy from the plenum of space itself (aether or "ZPE"). And, the Standard Model, with Special and General Relativity as its conceptual framework, does not seem to have even a clue about the true nature of gravity.

So, what cosmology and physics could replace the Big Bang? That is a tall order, demanding enough that it should be left perhaps to a far future issue of Infinite Energy. But it would be unfair, in closing, not to characterize some of the non-Big Bang cosmological models that have been put forth:

. Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (F. Hoyle, G. Burbidge, J.V. Narlikar, 2000): Creation of new matter occurs in "little bangs" (or "mini-creation events") in the cores of galaxies- matter that is ejected from galactic nuclei as quasars. The universe is infinitely old.

. Plasma Cosmology (E.J. Lerner, 1991): An infinite universe evolving over infinite time, with dominating electromagnetic effects of interacting plasmas (rather than gravitation) forming galactic and large-scale structures.

. Meta Model Cosmology (T. Van Flandern, 1999): "A new cosmological model of the universe, arrived at deductively, in which the universe is infinite in five dimensions and filled with substance at all scales. In it, gravitation produces the redshift of galaxies, is limited in range, and is produced by the pushing action of tiny agents on matter."

. Variable Mass Cosmology (H. Arp, 1998): A non-expanding universe that is indefinitely large and indefinitely old. "Objects are continually being born and are growing, but are somewhat different in each generation." High red-shifted objects are young because they are born of newly created matter in which particles, such as electrons, have very low mass, which increases with time.

. Universe Cycle Model (A. Gulko, 1980s): Each galaxy undergoes separately a cyclic process of birth, growth, aging, death, and rebirth within an infinite universe. Quasars are stages of galactic evolution prior to formation of a normal galaxy.

. Aetherometric Model (P. Correa and A. Correa, 2002- partially published): The universe is infinitely old; time and space manifolds are separate. The spectrum of a microwave cosmic background radiation is quantitatively explained in detail by the continuous cosmological formation of electrons (and attendant gravitons) from the aether. Part and parcel of an aether physical process that: ". . .converts free, nonelectric, nonelectromagnetic, nongravitic, 'latent thermal' or 'antigravitic' massfree energy into ORgone energy, or ambipolar electric radiation and, in the process, also converts other elements of the free nonelectric Aether into mass-energy (and thus monopolar electricity) and into gravitational energy."