Back to Infinity
© G. H. Mickey Thompson
Cosmology’s Big Bang theory provides a detailed model of the universe. At least that’s its intent. That one model goes by several different names.
The Inflationary Universe model or simply the Inflation model, gets its name from a paper published by Alan Guth in 1980. That partial model takes advantage of the first instant of the big bang, when time hadn’t existed long enough to accommodate even the tiniest increment of physics realities. This was a perfect time to deploy some magical stimuli, supposedly before God firmed up the laws of physics we all now have to abide by.
The Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) model is named after two mystical phenomena. Lambda is the Greek letter Einstein used in his General Relativity theory to specify the force that keeps the universe from gravitationally collapsing on itself. When he heard we live in an expanding universe he said it was ok to either set this “cosmological constant” to zero or leave it out altogether. Long after Einstein died, theorists resurrected his Lambda factor and tweaked it to quantify the force that’s mysteriously speeding up the big bang’s expansion. The “Cold Dark Matter” part is the name of yet another gravitational mystery we’ll discuss later. The name takes on more cachet when the Greek uppercase lambda is used, as in ΛCDM.
Another name is the concordance model. This title implies the evidence researchers are presenting is concordant, or in agreement with, the theory’s assumptions; which it’s not.
The most common name is the “standard model” of the universe. It’s perhaps the best name to use, as it means it’s the model most accepted by scientists. That doesn’t mean most scientists are happy with it. They tolerate it while they look for some better answers. Much of the evidence is not consistent with big bang assumptions and many scientists call for an alternative model that makes more sense.
It’s not my intent to poke fun at the science community. Astronomers, engineers, scientists, and craftsmen are accomplishing phenomenal feats and providing us far more precise data than was thought possible a few decades ago. If I were to point out a weakness in the system, it would be the science publishing industry, which seems more focused on making dollars than sense. Business people have somehow taken the control of science journals away from the community of great scientists who founded them.
My own conclusion is that the most puzzling mysteries annoying cosmologists stem from a mistaken assumption that the big bang created the whole universe. Negating that assumption and all it implies, then superimposing the big bang on an older and grander universe, transforms all of that anomalous evidence into a stunningly cohesive picture. It reveals a more logical universe whose machinery continuously generates more big bangs and all of the other behaviors we see.
While the Big Bash model, presented here, represents a major paradigm shift in our vision of the universe, it’s both simpler and more logical than the currently tolerated model. It constitutes a straightforward 3D universe that can be explained without any need for dubious physics or supernatural dimensions. Upon careful examination, it appears that big bangs are simply the way the universe recycles its constant production of singularities.
Evidence that there really was a big bang is overwhelming. Scientists generally agree that galaxies and their contents appear to be evolved from the residues of a singularity that exploded some 13.8 billion years ago. Yet, the big bang’s expansion has encountered some unexpected twists and turns theoreticians can only explain by deploying some unproven physics that we critical, but loyal, followers are choking on.
In 2004, 34 scientists endorsed “An Open Letter to the Scientific Community” in which they complain about “fudge factors” plugged into big bang theory to explain findings that are not concordant with the concordance model. That letter has since been endorsed by more than 500 scientists and institutions. Their organization was called the Alternative Cosmology Group, but seems to have faded away as of 2014.
One common complaint is that the standard model is so obscure one can’t find connections between its math and acceptable physics. The math is often based on an assumption that forces impinge on our universe from non-verifiable spatial dimensions. This makes it impossible to visualize how proven physics drives that model’s machinery. It’s become fashionable to explain any anomalous findings as the result of vector forces emanating from supernatural dimensions. String Theory proponents say their approach is warranted, as the list of viable and tangible 3D models has been exhausted. This alternative model should dispel that view.
Two Dutch spectacle makers applied separately for patents on the telescope in 1608. Soon the Italian scientist and engineer, Galileo Galilei, got wind of the instrument and by 1609 he was producing telescopes and making steady improvements in their design. That rate of improvement has never ceased. Still, it took another 300 years of telescope evolution before astronomers could discern that the fuzzy spiral nebulae, they’d seen for centuries, were actually galaxies that exist far beyond the stars of our own Milky Way Galaxy.
It was not until 1914 in Arizona that Vesto Slipher at Lowell Observatory would develop a spectrographic and photographic technique for measuring the rotations and redshifts of galaxies. He discovered that the Andromeda Galaxy was heading toward us at 300 kilometers per second, but most other galaxies seemed to be heading away from us. Three years later the huge 100 inch Hooker Telescope on California’s Mount Wilson came online. It was there that Edwin Hubble began his lifelong mission to improve our measurement of cosmic distances.
So it was essentially a simultaneous process in which we learned that the universe is both much larger than our own galaxy and that most of those other galaxies were moving away from us. Further, the farther away the galaxies are, the faster they’re moving away.
Georges Lemaître is the Belgian priest, mathematician, and astronomer credited with founding Big Bang Theory in 1927, though it wasn’t called that back then. Albert Einstein had published his General Relativity Theory in 1915 and his contemporaries soon began to apply its field equations to what was already beginning to look like an expanding universe. Lemaître not only incorporated Einstein’s equations in his hypothesis, he also introduced the formula that would eventually become known as Hubble’s Law. Lemaître didn’t seem to mind that Hubble’s name was used, as Edwin Hubble dedicated most of his career to the techniques and calibrations of astronomical distances.
Hubble’s Law is the science that relates an objects redshift to its distance. The Hubble constant is expressed in kilometers per second per mega parsec or (km/sec)/Mpc. A parsec (parallax second) is an astronomical measure of distance and a mega parsec represents a distance of 3.26 million light years. Hubble’s constant expresses the amount an object’s receding velocity increases for every mega parsec of its distance from Earth. The precision of his constant continued to improve long after Hubble’s death, in 1953. At that time it was still a rough estimate expressed as being between 60 and 90 km/sec per Mpc. As of 2013 it had been refined to 67.8 (± 0.77) km/sec per mega parsec. So our measurement of cosmic distances is becoming extremely precise and we can be confident that the cosmic sciences are producing data of highest integrity. The interpretation of that data, however, leaves much to be desired.
It was 1931 when Lemaître wrote that the expansion of the universe might be traced to a “primeval atom” or “cosmic egg”, prior to which neither space nor time existed. In 1949, Fred Hoyle referred to Lemaître’s theory as the Big Bang Theory and the name stuck. It took even longer for Lemaître’s primeval atom to become known as the “singularity”.
Lemaître’s model provided the foundation for Alan Guth’s 1980 “Inflationary Universe” model and at the time of this writing the primary goal of popular big bang theory is still to “describe the creation of the universe”.
I believe this arbitrary assumption that “the big bang created the whole universe” has sent cosmologists down a blind alley and causes the disturbing compounding of errors that places the standard model firmly in the Fantasy Land of modern edutainment. Follow the money.
Whether or not the big bang created the whole universe needn’t change our view that the big bang created a hot electromagnetic plasma, plus electrons and the quarks that form protons and neutrons. These quickly become the nuclei of hydrogen, helium and a smattering of lithium. This particle creation process is called big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) and is supported by pretty solid evidence that the big bang really did produce basic particles. After 380,000 years these hot nuclei cooled and captured electrons, becoming non-ionized elements. These light elements later began to fuse into heavier elements in the stars; a process known as stellar nucleosynthesis.
We can accept that our big bang produced its own light matter, but we really have no reason to believe it produced all of the universe’s light matter. Current theory, then, is based on the totally unsubstantiated assumption that the big bang created the universe. Yet, there’s a growing body of evidence that our big bang did not create the universe.
The challenge that stimulated my research stems from the long list of mysteries for which the standard model either has no answer or provides dubious answers that are not deemed disprovable. Here are some key questions these mysteries pose:
- How can structures be larger than the cosmological principle allows?
- How can there be structures older than the big bang?
- What causes dark energy behavior?
- What causes big bangs?
- What will ultimately become of our expanding big bang?
- Why is there vastly more matter than antimatter?
- What gave the cosmic microwave background (CMB) its uniform temperature?
- What gave the CMB its rough texture?
- What formed the galaxies?
- What caused the early genesis of stars?
- How did we get so many quasars, back when stars were just beginning to form?
- What is dark matter?
- How did improbable anthropic conditions evolve, in just 13.8 billion years?
The following analytical work treats those mysteries as compatible puzzle pieces that fit together nicely in a less constrained picture of the universe. Each of them has been rigorously analyzed individually, but I’ve never seen an analysis of how they all might be related. My goal is to show that they would all have natural and relatively straightforward solutions if our big bang had taken place in a preexisting universe whose general characteristics look like multiple layers of past big bangs. This qualitative analysis doesn’t demand much mathematical rigor, just some sound logic and critical thinking.
I’ll describe each of the puzzle pieces in more detail as we broach their topics. Combined, they produce the image of a grander universe, whose simple mechanics are logical and easy to visualize.
We’ll start by contrasting the two assumptions of whether or not the big bang created the whole universe. Here’s a first principles overview of these alternative assumptions:
The current “creation” model is based on an explosion that created the universe from a hot mass that burst forth from a singularity that appeared from out of nowhere and was surrounded by nothing but emptiness. The most logical way to explain its formation from nothing was to assume half of its mass is matter and the other half is antimatter. That way if you add it all back together it annihilates itself and you end up where you started from, with nothing.
In the absence of other influences its hot matter should expand smoothly with no means for texturizing it and only its internal gravitational force to slow or contain it. One way to give it texture would be to throw in a brief hiccup at the beginning of its expansion. This “inflation” preamble could also be used to hold all matter in contact for an instant in order to give the big bang a uniform temperature in all directions. While the big bang is completely engulfed in electromagnetic energies, there’s no reason to expect they should behave non-uniformly.
That’s it! Nothing else existed. So theoreticians have to think verrrrrrry creatively in order to explain all of the anomalies we see in the big bang’s expansion.
In contrast: If an older, vaster, and far more massive universe creates big bangs, it would have all the background environment necessary to explain everything researchers are finding—without any need for unproven physics. And it would do so in the confines of a natural 3D space. Imagine an ancient universe littered with prior big bangs. Their expanding spheres overrun one another, creating overlapping domains (see fig. 1). Recent big bangs are hottest, smallest, and most uniform in density. Older ones are colder, larger, and lumpier—due to having overrun, or having been overrun, by other big bangs. The oldest and coldest of gravitational structures act like heat sinks, easily attracting and cooling the hot new gasses of recent bangs.
Each new big bang behaves much like those that preceded it, with the most notable variables being their initial masses and energies. This simple model provides a virtually unlimited means for explaining all of the anomalous structures and processes we see within the bounds of our own big bang.
Perhaps the following axiom already exists somewhere; if not, I’ll coin it:
Given sufficient mass, energy, and time; every valid permutation and combination of mass and energy is possible within the realm of a single, unbounded, three-dimensional space.
So, in answer to mathematicians who believe string theory is required to explain all the anomalies being reported, I ask: Would you still believe that if we were to dispense with the arbitrary assumption that the big bang created the universe? Likewise, it appears that we don’t need an Inflation preamble to the big bang during a window of time when the laws of physics didn’t apply. Our big bang would have no such window.
This proposed model lacks the 85 years of mathematical assessment the creation big bang model has had. I believe, however, mathematicians can more confidently verify—or falsify and evolve—its assertions, with a fraction of the effort that’s been expended on the creation model, even though this expanded model has more moving parts.
Some obvious mathematical reformulations would be based on assumptions that:
- Space already existed and is not being created by our expanding big bang.
- Not all of the mass observed within our big bang was created by our big bang.
- The cosmic microwave background temperature is not simply a result of the cooling of our big bang. It is its homogenization with the temperature of the older universe.
So let’s examine how a non-creationist model might work without any dubious physics or forces emanating from supernatural dimensions. Instead of examining how the big bang magically spawned our new universe, we’ll examine how our old universe might naturally spawn big bangs.
Structures that are way too big
The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) includes an international consortium of scientists, an array of instruments that produce sky maps, and a database researchers can mine to study detailed images of cosmic structures[9,10]. Some structures exceed the size theoreticians believe the big bang is capable of producing.
The cosmological principle says that on a sufficiently large scale the universe is both homogeneous and isotropic, so its mass should be distributed fairly evenly in every direction throughout its volume, with a limit on how large a structure can get. Theoreticians say this upper structural limit is no more than 1.3 billion light years across; yet the data reveals structures that are much larger.
In recent years a classification of cosmic bodies was added to accommodate new structural groupings. They’re called large quasar groups (LQGs). These are walls of galaxies having large numbers of quasars. In 2013 an LQG was discovered that marked the start of a Huge-LQG class. This first HLQG has a mass greater than 10¹⁸ solar masses and is 4 billion light years across.
I call it the first HLQG because instruments for identifying these structures are just starting to evolve and, if this new model has merit, we’ll find structures 100,000 times as massive as this HLQG. The logic behind this assertion is: “The larger universe contains our own 1023 solar mass big bang, so its upper structural limit is at least as massive our big bang”.
Since I originally published this projection an even larger great wall has been reported. It’s the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall, which is 10 billion light years across, 7.2 billion light years wide, and 900 million light years thick. As of February 2015 it was the largest structure yet to be reported. I suspect there are many more such records to be broken.
These huge structures don’t mean the universe is not homogeneous and isotropic or even that the cosmological principle is wrong. It merely means that mathematicians did not use a sufficiently large scale when they calculated the limits of the universe’s isotropy.
Structures much older than the big bang
It’s now apparent that there “is far more large-scale structure in the universe than the Inflation model can explain.” In big bang creationism, all matter is flowing outward from the center of the big bang; so in order for huge clusters and Great Walls to form, much of this mass would have to slow its outward momentum and even reverse its direction. That takes a really long time! Astronomer Thomas Van Flandern said, “To form these structures by building up the needed motions through gravitational acceleration alone would take in excess of 100 billion years.”
A.K. Lal and R. Joseph gathered the results of several such large structure investigations and concluded that many Great Walls and Great Voids took five to twenty times longer to form than the age of the big bang. “…there are galaxies crashing into each other from every conceivable direction. There are in fact rivers of galaxies flowing in the wrong direction.” There hasn’t been nearly enough time since the big bang for these structures to form; especially since much of that mass has had to reverse its outward flow in order to become part of the structures. While some astronomers claim data from a host of astronomical instruments confirms the Inflationary Big Bang model; Lal and Joseph say, “… these claims are based on interpretations of data which are guided by the belief that there is no alternative explanation. Hence, rather than the data shaping the theory, the theory of the ‘Big Bang’ dictates how data are interpreted and even which data should be included vs. ignored.”
While it was not unreasonable for theoreticians to assume the big bang created the universe; we now see evidence that the universe is far older than the big bang. This new model posits that the big bang took place within our universe’s preexisting 3D space and the evidence suggests our big bang is but a local event within a vaster universe than the standard model describes.
The 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics went to Saul Perlmutter, Adam Riess, and Brian Schmidt for their discovery that the big bang’s expansion is accelerating. More accurately, the prize was awarded for their discovery that the universe’s expansion is accelerating; as the standard model posits that the big bang is the universe.
The mysterious force accelerating this expansion is referred to as dark energy and, from our perspective, it behaves like negative gravity. So when dark energy modulates the expansion, we find an early decelerating expansion caused by the big bang’s own gravitational mass; then—some 8 or 9 billion years later—the dark energy caused a gradual reacceleration. There is no apparent mechanism to stop this accelerating expansion and, from appearances, the universe’s three spatial dimensions are in the process of becoming infinite—if they’re not already infinite.
This sort of decelerating and reaccelerating velocity profile is quite common in the field of ballistics. Here’s a simple example:
If we shoot a projectile to earth from our moon, the moon’s gravity decelerates the missile until earth’s gravity becomes dominant; then the projectile reaccelerates during the remainder of its journey to earth. If our view beyond the departing missile were obscured the way big bang matter obstructs our distant view of the universe, we’d sense that the missile had encountered a negative gravity; the same sense we get when observing our reaccelerating expansion. So the big bang’s expansion has the same velocity profile we’d expect to see if our big bang is surrounded by other colossal masses that share its 3D space.
This reacceleration in all directions would indicate that there’s more mass in any given direction beyond our big bang than there is within it. The masses of, and distances to, these outlying attractors would be random, so our expansion would not necessarily be uniform in all directions. Thus, in an all-natural 3D world, dark energy behavior also supports the hypothesis that our big bang took place within a much older and grander universe.
What could cause big bangs?
As mentioned earlier, our larger universe has all the natural resources it needs to allow any sort of natural event to occur. The following scenario provides a plausible sequence of events that might generate big bangs that resemble our own big bang. While this piece of the story doesn’t require any especially exotic physics, it does contain a lot of moving parts. Our own big bang fits nicely into a greater universe who’s observed processes produce even more big bangs—or more descriptively—big bashes.
Gigantic galaxy groups contain tens of millions of galaxies clustered in strings, sheets, and walls billions of light years across. These clusters continue to grow in mass for as long as there are nearby objects to attract and merge with. But if our big bang contained all of the universe’s matter, as the standard models posits, even the largest of superclusters will grow to but a tiny fraction of the big bang’s mass, since their trajectories are accelerating them spherically outward and away from one another. The big bang’s own gravitational mass is not sufficient to ever pull them back together again.
These huge masses are compacting into ever fewer and ever more massive galaxies and black holes. Given enough time, gravity would eventually render each cluster down to a single massive black hole. However, since these massive clusters are accelerating outward, it seems there is far more gravitational mass where they’re headed. So what could possibly stop their endless growth? It looks like our older universe easily has the means to grow singularities that are massive enough to source big bangs, like our own.
Once a black hole has been formed by the collapse of a star, it behaves like a gigantic vacuum cleaner gathering up any matter that impinges on its growing event horizon. Even the tens of billions of neutrinos that pass through every square centimeter of our bodies every second, cannot pass through a black hole and they get permanently sucked in. The growth of black holes never ceases from the moment they’re born.
Black holes squeeze particles until they collapse and can no longer move. In the process all of their heat gets squeezed out. Stephen Hawking tells us that the more massive a black hole becomes, the lower its temperature gets. He says, “A black hole with a mass a few times that of the sun would have a temperature of only one ten millionth of a degree above absolute zero.” He also says black holes will absorb more mass than they emit until the background temperature falls below the temperature of the black hole. At that point the black hole will begin its virtual eternity (1060 years) of slow evaporation (more on this, later).
Now, if we had a black hole a hundred billion trillion times more massive than our sun—on the order of the big bang’s mass—with an absolute zero temperature, it would have no rest energy. The speed of light reaches its maximum in the vacuum of space, slows as it passes through water, glass, or air and comes to a halt inside a black hole. Based on E = mc², c drops to zero in black holes so the rest energy of black hole singularities should also be zero, making them the most stable masses imaginable. What could possibly cause them to blow themselves to smithereens?
Before we focus on singularities let’s review some nomenclature (see figure 2).
A black hole’s Schwarzschild radius is proportional the black hole’s mass. It defines the boundary of the black hole’s event horizon. Most scientists refer to all of the volume inside this event horizon as the black hole.
Any mass entering the black hole is drawn to a point at the center, called the singularity. The singularity has no discernable volume and is treated mathematically as though it has infinite density.
The collapse of massive stars creates stellar mass black holes, typically ranging from 5 to 10 solar masses. Those in the 100 to 1,000,000 solar mass range are called intermediate black holes and those greater than 1,000,000 solar masses are called supermassive black holes.
One mission of CERN’s Large Hadron Collider is to smash heavy particles together at near light-speed in order to simulate big bangs. Well, ultra-massive singularities are pretty heavy particles and gravity would be the only force capable of smashing them. It would take two such singularities to generate a big bang.
The structure of the universe is being mapped using SDSS Galaxy Map composite images. As mentioned earlier, this work is revealing structures both older and larger than legitimate big bang components. What we see is a 3D web resembling cotton candy whose strands of galaxies vary in length and thicknesses. Since much of the ancient structure appears to be overlaid by our own big bang; it seems reasonable to expect that this sort of structure is a general characteristic of matter scattered beyond our big bang, and is present throughout the universe.
The big picture is one of intertwining streams of galaxies whose intersections form galactic clusters, like the knots that bind the strings of a fishnet. These huge masses are gravitationally compacting and reeling in the strings of galaxies, forming ever more massive superclusters and great walls. The oldest, coldest, and most dense regions of the web pull hardest and the thinning filaments—pulled in opposite directions by opposing masses—eventually break, creating great rips in the cosmic fabric and forming vast islands of dense web segments. The surrounding space becomes mostly empty as galactic matter is drawn in by black holes that merge into ever more massive singularities. Over hundreds of billions of years each island gets rendered down to a stringy ball of dense matter rotating around a massive black hole singularity that has already begun to drift toward other great masses.
In normal galaxies the mass of central supermassive black holes are typically overshadowed by the far greater mass of the host galaxy. When these galaxies collide and merge, they do so in a relatively slow motion manner. And since galaxies are mostly empty space, they just pass through one another, oscillating back and forth for millions of years before becoming fully merged as a new galaxy. In that process their central black holes would go into orbit around one another and merge without any overwhelming explosion.
In contrast, our massive isolated islands of old cold galaxies would be made up of much denser matter. They are being rendered down to super dense galaxies with a high percentage of both stellar mass and intermediate mass black holes. Their supermassive central black holes would be vastly more massive than anything we’ve ever seen. These ultra-massive galaxies would all be rotating around and merging with the most massive of singularities. That central singularity may dominate its island’s entire mass and create a gravitational focal point that would attract other such island singularities to collide with it head on.
Black holes have a Schwarzschild radius (event horizon) in which matter entering cannot escape. This radius is proportional to the mass of the black hole and for each solar mass equivalent it amounts to 2.95 kilometers. If each big bash singularity had some 5×10²² solar masses (a ballpark guesstimate), their Schwarzschild radii would each be 2.95x5x10²² km or about 14 billion light years. This rough sizing lends some scale to the rips in the cosmological fabric and the island of matter surrounding each singularity. Two such singularities could be locked in one another’s grasp while still 28 billion light years apart. And their double-bubble event horizons will still be drawing in strings of material from beyond those peripheries.
What’s significant here is the transit time required for matter entering these event horizons. It may take tens of billions of years for objects crossing the event horizon to spiral their way down to the central singularity. We’re treading on the fundamental physics of black holes here, but it seems that everything entering an event horizon gets quickly crushed into a singularity, even though it still has a long way to spiral down before it can merge with the central ultra-massive singularity. So when our two central singularities bash head-on, up to half of the big bangs mass may still be rotating around those singularities.
Newton’s equation for gravity’s accelerating force is: F = G(m₁ x m₂)/d², where G is his gravitational constant, m₁ and m₂ are the masses of our two singularities, and d is their ever closing distance. The masses are huge and as their closing speeds approach the speed of light, Einstein says their effective masses approach infinity.
Gravity’s particle accelerator has an amazing feature, however, and during the last hour, while the singularity distances close from a billion kilometers to a nanometer; gravity’s force gets cranked up a million trillion trillion trillion (10⁴²) fold. And since the radii of singularities are thought to be at or near zero, gravity’s force continues to rise and also approaches infinity as the singularities pancake and splatter; transforming two of the coldest, most inert objects in the universe into a hot plasma cloud, expanding at nearly the same speed as the collision.
We’ll freeze our big picture video at this point so we can briefly ponder what we’re seeing. First off, it looks like our grander universe has a scheme that makes good use of all those singularities it spends an eternity growing. Not only do nature’s big bash singularities act as entropy’s rechargeable batteries, they also gather up the spent resources and refresh the local landscape.
Another ponderable is the way singularities completely separate mass and energy. Are mass and energy really just two different representations of the same stuff? Einstein said, “The theory of relativity stresses the importance of the field concept in physics. But we have not yet succeeded in formulating a pure field physics. For the present we must still assume the existence of both: field and matter.” Singularities at absolute zero would seem to substantiate his assumption that mass and energy are separate and separable entities. This will be an important point when we get into characterizing gravity as an independent aspect of matter, but bestowed on matter in proportion to its mass. But that’s a story we’ll save for later.
For simplicity, assume our colliding singularities have equal mass and—being at absolute zero—each has a rest energy of zero. As gravity is drawing them together, each of their kinetic energies become: E=½ mv². As they reach collision speed, c, each has a kinetic energy E=½ mc². Summing those collision energies yields: E=mc², the big bang’s total system energy. What this implies is that the inertial force of gravity is transformable into all of the other energy forms.
Within this Big Bash model, gravity sparks all of the heat, pressure, electrostatic, and electrodynamic energy forms when it bashes singularities together to create hot big bangs. Gravity later quiesces all those energies by squeezing heat out of the atoms in stars, where smaller atoms are transformed into ever more massive, but cooler and less energetic elements. It eventually halts their motion and quenches their heat by crushing them into neutron stars and ultimately back into the black holes from whence they came—often skipping the neutron star phase. As long as these active black holes have a source of inward falling matter to digest, the crushing and cooling process generates an axial spray of outflowing heat in the form of photons and electromagnetic energy. This energy outflow drags a lot of matter with it.
The collision pulverizes the black hole masses and the resulting friction charges the electrons, muons, quarks, and any other particles that trap charges. Heat becomes the electromagnetic background that exists as photons, gluons, W bosons, Z bosons and any other pure energy packet that doesn’t contain mass. The strong and weak forces seem to be externally induced electromagnetic forces, with the strong force being exhibited when quark spacing approaches or reaches zero.
Big bashes become natural phenomena when mass and space are unlimited. Bashes would come in many sizes; coexisting and comingling at all stages of their life cycles. Our bash took the form of a splat and ball of hot plasma, like the Standard model; but due to the preexisting background heat and cold dense background matter; the system is not smoothly inflating nor does the expansion create the existence of space—as space was already in place.
Now we’ll continue the rolling of our big picture video. The colliding singularities were speeding toward one another while still drawing in strings of galaxies. Pressures within their Schwarzschild radii crush this matter into black holes surrounding the singularities at the time of the bash. These orbiting masses will be contributors to the rapid galaxy formation and cosmic microwave background (CMB) roughness we’ll discuss shortly.
What is the destiny of our expanding big bang?
Over the past half-century researchers have expended great effort to understand the ultimate outcome of the big bang’s expansion. They ask: will the big bang expand and thin forever; will the expansion slow, but never quite stop; or will it all collapse on itself in a big crunch?
The Big Bash model is a flat universe and its answer is simply “none of the above”. Our big bang is being reabsorbed by the same universe that spawned it. The old cold universe is a perfect blotter for soaking up the spilled heat of big bangs.
While astronomers and engineers are doing an awesome job of finding and analyzing the big bang’s most distant red-shifted matter, it may prove to be even more exciting to investigate the most distant blue-shifted objects headed our way. They should be plentiful and be detectable from distances far beyond the bounds of our big bang.
One unanswered question the Standard model has is: why does the observed universe contain millions of times more matter than antimatter? Since the Big Bash model provides a glimpse at what precedes big bangs; we’ll examine the question in that context. Expectations change when we see big bangs and the formation of singularities as a cyclical process.
The notion that big bangs should yield 50% antimatter stems from the belief that the big bang’s mass was spawned out of nothingness, and that nothingness needs to generate matter and antimatter in equal quantities
Big bashes don’t take place in a spatial void, but occur in a preexisting universe that imparts its own biases. If the singularities involved in our bash were not made up of half antimatter to begin with, then smashing them together won’t necessarily generate 50% antimatter. While it’s not unreasonable to expect positrons and antiprotons to form during the bash, they would be nominal and fleeting—like they are today. The currently accepted model’s expectation that matter and antimatter should form in equal parts is an expectation that stems from attempting to grow a whole universe from just one big bang. The Big Bash model doesn’t have that problem. If the universe really is half antimatter, then any major concentration of antimatter must exist beyond the realm of our big bang.
The CMB’s uniform temperature
The Inflation model asks: What gives our CMB its large-scale uniformity in all directions with a temperature that’s uniform to a few parts in 100,000? Since opposite sides of the big bang move away from one another at nearly twice the speed of light, their matter didn’t get a chance to mix and blend uniformly. At this point that model deploys its Inflationary hiccup to briefly hold all matter in intimate contact, then lets it begin its long journey at a common temperature.
In contrast, our colliding singularities were each equally cold when they also came into intimate contact—before pancaking and giving their expanding matter a uniform starting temperature. A more relevant question might be: What gave the CMB any temperature variation?
Background radiation is part of the entire universe; but our fresh big bang would contain a much higher concentration of heat within its own expanding bounds, in which both old and new radiation is homogenized as a single field. When the hot, dense matter overlays the older, rarer, and much colder background, the hot mass would dominate by many orders of magnitude. As the mixed gasses cool, the small and varied old background heat ultimately accounts for virtually all of the minute remaining temperature gradients.
We should expect to find a cooler temperature out beyond our big bang’s periphery, since the older CMB would be more dispersed and cooler. Still, this small background radiation should be adequate to rule out Stephen Hawking’s notion that black holes will ever evaporate.
The CMB’s rough texture
Another Inflation model question is: How did the CMB get its patchy texture if the big bang is expanding so smoothly? Here again, its warp speed inflation-hiccup can be used to amplify any quantum bubbles that might occur during the formation of particles. One problem this solution has is: How do you ever stop this multi-lightspeed-inflation momentum once it gets rolling?
The Big Bash model has a natural means for explaining CMB roughness, with no need for an inflation event. Our big bang simply overlaid an old background that was already populated with ancient cosmic bodies and it always did have a patchy texture.
Early formation of galaxies
In their analysis of galaxy makeup, P.J.E. Peebles & Adi Nusser conclude that while Big Bang theory provides a good description of our expanding universe, properties of nearby galaxies “suggest that a better theory would describe a mechanism by which matter is more rapidly gathered into galaxies and groups of galaxies.” If all new matter originated in a ball of heat, what would divide it up into galactic clouds? If it hadn’t broken up, it seems the whole system would be a smooth gravitational mass that condenses uniformly, forming one star that becomes a single black hole in a single massive galaxy that smoothly collapses on itself in a big crunch.
While some big bash singularities might consume most of their nearby matter before bashing other singularities; it’s more likely they will still be drawing in strings of orbiting galaxies when they collide. The concentrations of mass in the central singularities should be sufficient to draw them together head-on, even while trillions of galactic remnants are still in orbit around them. When they bash and explode, even before the radiation cloud becomes transparent it starts to overrun trillions of black holes in the orbiting debris.
As the gas cloud blows past this orbiting matter, both radiation pressure and the passing gravitational mass will cause the orbiting material to spiral outward, shredding the gas cloud, and creating swirls that form primordial galaxies. This old debris provides the cold lumps we find imbedded in the primordial radiation. It would be billions of years before the new gasses could overrun all of the matter that had been orbiting within the event horizons of the colliding singularities.
The dense new gas clouds are far more massive than the orbiting black holes and the black holes soon find themselves plowing through a viscous magnetic medium that brakes their perpendicular momentum and eventually draws them in as central black holes. While this nourishing environment will greatly accelerate the growth rates of the black holes, it’s likely that many of them were already of supermassive stature to begin with. Stellar mass black holes, however, would grow to intermediate black hole sizes and still be able to act as the central black holes for smaller gas clouds.
It would be the orbital trajectories of these old black holes cutting across the big bang’s radially expanding gasses that imparts the rotational forces we see in the galaxies. This mixing of old and new matter would be what injected life and personality into our big bang’s smoothly expanding dullness.
It conjures a vision of an exploding cloud, orbited by strings of cold and compressed residue scattered throughout the vast Schwarzschild radius of each colliding singularity. Beyond those radii lays a sparsely populated void that the expanding system has to cross before encountering the dense meniscus walls of ancient galaxy networks. This is where our bash’s reabsorption by the old universe begins. The increasing gravitational pull of this old dense matter is a logical explanation for why our big bang’s expansion is accelerating.
Early formation of stars
Comets and asteroids constitute most of the universe’s multi-megaton objects. When our big bash singularities collided they were being orbited by trillions of trillions of these small and cold objects. While the more massive stuff formed the galaxies, the dense new gasses were quickly drawn to this constant rain of small stuff, which seeded the early formation of stars.
Where did all those early quasars come from?
Quasi-stellar radio sources (quasars) are black holes millions to billions of times more massive than our sun. They’re active black holes in the process of consuming any gas or stars that fall into their grasp, squeezing the heat out of all they consume. This squeezed out heat is what makes quasars so bright, often outshining a thousand galaxies. Most are found in early galaxies, within a few billion years after the big bang; so they’re mostly old and in galaxies with a high redshift. Scientists struggle to find a way in which “supermassive luminous quasars” formed so soon after the big bang.
In 2013 a group of researchers submitted their analysis of an ancient proto-galaxy whose redshift dates it at 772 million years after the big bang. It’s illuminated either within or from behind by quasar ULAS J1120+0641. There was no evidence star formation had yet begun. A question this begs is: Where could such early quasars come from if their galaxies had not yet formed any stars? It appears as though these supermassive black holes had already existed when proto-galactic gas clouds overran them. As discussed earlier, our new big bang seems to have been born with sufficient black holes to light up the sky with quasars that reionize the new gasses.
More than a million quasars have been cataloged. Their quantity seems to have peaked less than a billion years after the big bang and there’s been a steady decline in their population over the past 10 billion years. In 2015, researchers, Xue-Bing Wu et al, reported one that existed just 900 million years after the big bang and had grown by then to a mass equal to 12 billion solar masses.
In 2010 Hilton Ratcliffe summarized his research and that of several colleagues concerned about the reliability of Hubble redshift as a means of measuring distance . Much focus was on the fact that quasars tend to show significantly more or less redshift than their associated galaxies. On statistical distribution he says, “Halton Arp and associates found that three aspects of quasar distribution were anomalous: Their distribution amongst other objects, that is, the 2-D density of quasars on the sky, showed an inordinate prevalence of quasars paired in close (angular) proximity across Active Galactic Nuclei; objects apparently physically associated in space had physically varying redshifts; and the asymmetrical concentrations of isophotes on AGN/quasar maps indicate that the quasars were moving away from the AGN, suggesting ejection”.
In reference to large-scale structure he says, “J. C. Jackson found an observational effect in galaxy distribution data that caused clusters of galaxies to appear elongated when expressed in redshift space, taking on the appearance of ‘fingers’ pointing towards Earth”.
These points and much of the remainder of Ratcliffe’s summary suggest that dense gas clouds of the expanding big bang were in the process of overrunning preexisting black holes and turning them into quasars.
Quasars are the smoking gun! They don’t co-move with their galaxies because they are ancient black holes being overrun by the new galactic clouds.
When ancient black holes are overrun by dense swirling clouds; instead of orbiting the black holes the gas plows directly into them and matter accretes prodigiously. Intense radiation forms as the black holes become quasars. This radiation holds back much of the outward flowing gasses, stretching the galaxies and creating those “fingers that point toward earth”. A quasar’s velocity, relative to its galactic cloud, may either propel it through the cloud and on to other clouds, leaving a long trail of cosmic debris; or it may slowly oscillate through a cloud’s gravitational center and settle in as its central black hole. Once a quasar comes to rest at its galactic center and becomes part of the centrifugal/centripetal system, its accretion slows significantly, causing the quasar to dim and behave like an ordinary central black hole.
When multiple black holes arrive at a galactic center—being totally cold—they should be able to merge with one another without creating the spectacular light show that quasars provide.
What is dark matter?
In 1932 Dutch astronomer, Jan Oort, was studying the motion of stars in local galaxies when he discovered they had a peculiar rotational behavior. The following year Swiss astrophysicist, Fritz Zwicky, did a more thorough investigation of these galactic rotations while working at the California Institute of Technology. He said, “The essential feature is a central core whose internal viscosity due to the gravitational interactions of its component masses is so high as to cause it to rotate like a solid body.”
One would normally expect that the outermost stars of a galaxy would take much longer to circle their galactic center than stars near the center; like Pluto takes 248 times longer to orbit the sun than the earth does. This is not the case in galaxies Zwicky studied and it seems like their stars are somehow bonded together like a solid platter, making the innermost stars take as long to circle their galaxies as the outer ones do. Even huge clusters of galaxies exhibit this behavior. The outermost galaxies in a cluster rotate around their common center in about the same time as the innermost galaxies. What is it that makes large rotational bodies behave this way?
Current theory says that if these large bodies had far more mass than they appear to, it would allow the extremities of galaxies to rotate around their centers as fast as the more central matter does; which is faster than outer matter should rotate without flying off in space. But if there is extra mass, it neither emits nor absorbs electromagnetic radiation, so it’s called dark matter. The problem, of course, is that we can’t find any dark matter. Physicists even seek it down at quantum levels, looking for all sorts of massive particles, but haven’t found anything.
While the Big Bash model does have plenty of ways to deposit old heavy matter in galaxies and stars that would otherwise be lighter; I doubt if it would provide the 500+% increase in mass that scientists are seeking. My suspicion is that much of this dark matter behavior is not caused by matter at all. Instead, it seems it might be a magnetohydrodynamic force behavior that’s manifest when radiation ionizes galactic gasses. Heat is electromagnetic radiation. So just lighting-up the stars in a galaxy would fill the galaxy with a huge magnetic field. Such a field could provide the “internal viscosity” that Zwicky described.
In 1970, Hannes Alfvén won the Nobel Prize in physics “for pioneering the study of galactic magnetic fields generated by the electrically conducting plasma that pervades the universe: such magnetohydrodynamic waves are now known as Alfvén waves.” Alfven’s paper, ELECTRICITY IN SPACE, describes two experiments that demonstrate these electromagnetic waves.
“If you tap the side of a vessel containing a pool of mercury, the surface quakes and ripples as if it were alive. We found that when we placed such a pool in a strong magnetic field of 10,000 gauss, its behavior instantly changed. It did not respond to jarring of the vessel; its surface stiffened, so to speak. The magnetic field gave a curious kind of viscosity to the mercury.”
His second experiment used a tank of mercury in which the bottom of the tank contained vanes that could be manually moved back and forth like the agitator in the bottom of a washing machine. “In the absence of a magnetic field, the slow oscillation of this agitator, stirring the mercury at the bottom of the tank, will not disturb the surface of the mercury at the top of the tank; the mercury molecules slide past one another so that the motion dies out before it proceeds very far up the tank.” … “When a strong vertical magnetic field is applied to the tank, however, the motion at the bottom is quickly communicated to the top.”…
“To be sure, the magnetic fields in the stars are very much weaker than the 10,000 gauss of our experiment (the sun’s general field is estimated at between 1 and 25 gauss). But our theory tells us if we made the vessel larger, we could produce the magneto-hydrodynamic effects with a smaller magnetic field; the magnetic force required would decline in proportion to the increase in size of the vessel. Hence in a star, which is, say, 10 billion times as large as our experimental vessel, the magnetic field need be only one 10-billionth of the laboratory field. The stars’ fields are much stronger than this.”
Alfvén goes on to describe how this principle applies to the interior of the sun, but didn’t scale it up further and apply it to galaxies. Galaxies have a trillion times the diameter of our sun. So using Alfvén’s linear scaling this suggests it may take as little as 25 pico-gauss to stiffen the interstellar medium and coerce a galaxy’s outer stars to rotate in step with its inner stars. Alfvén also said, “Furthermore, there are good arguments for assuming that a weak magnetic field (some millionths of a gauss) pervades all of space.”
Recent research has confirmed Alfvén’s belief and found that galactic field strengths are indeed on the order of 10⁻⁶ gauss. From his description it appears this strength would be adequate to generate the dark matter behavior we see in the rotations of galaxies and galaxy clusters; considering the enormous timescales available to harness momentum and gel in this behavior.
One might even expect a magnetic meniscus to form around galaxies. These, too, would reduce the number of stars being flung from their galaxies. Electromagnetic fields also bend light and may contribute to the lensing attributes that are frequently attributed to dark matter.
So if any of you electrical engineers, physicists, or math whizzes are fired up by the possibility that dark matter is an electromagnetic phenomenon, you should find it challenging and rewarding to either prove or disprove this hypothesis. Either outcome would make for an interesting thesis.
What provides such hospitable anthropic conditions?
Our big bash inherits a host of heavy and complex molecules from the get-go from remnants of old expanding bashes scattered throughout the universe. Their constantly mixing matter creates an anthropic world, loaded with the old and highly evolved molecules necessary to nourish life. These molecules are gathered, nursed, and dispersed to planets by trillions of wandering comets that are ubiquitous throughout the universe. Even manmade molecules may enter this stream to spread our own legacy to future beings. Perhaps it was beings from distant worlds who designed programmable RNA and DNA molecules and thus connected us earthlings with the universe’s conscious web of life.
In a steady state universe, improbable anthropic conditions become highly probable when nature can roll her dice, gather them up and roll them again, for as long as it takes to roll life’s lucky numbers. And by continuously casting the seeds of the universe’s past into the fertile energies of the future, nature could hybridize life into an infinite variety of big bang perennials. It’s most advanced life forms may have been able to find their way through the hazardous maze of overlapping worlds and allow their progeny to continue to evolve without always having to start over as single-cell creatures.
This concept provides a philosophical bonus in that it suggests intelligent life may be able to wend its way through the minefield of cosmic hazards. These hazards would eradicate less capable beings like the dinosaurs, who lacked the amazing technologies we use to explore the universe. The churning steady-state cosmos presents the ultimate environmental challenge for testing the limits of natural selection.
We currently have the technologies necessary to ward off errant asteroids and will soon be capable of defending against incoming comets. In the long run we’ll need to master space travel if our species is to survive. We have time to prepare for the merger of the Andromeda Galaxy with the Milky Way and we know that our sun’s expansion requires that we develop habitats beyond the earth.
We probably can’t pack enough on a spaceship to tour the galaxy. There are, however, zillions of orphan planets, moons, asteroids, and comets wandering throughout the universe. We should be able to catalog their trajectories and resources and use them as public transportation. It would seem fitting to call this bus schedule our “Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”.
The energy and resources necessary to master space travel are daunting; but the sum of those resources is probably less than that which we waste on war. Our rate of cosmic mastery seems to be limited mostly by mankind’s underestimate of its desperate need for peace and cooperation. Hopefully, our collective wisdom will evolve in time for us to save Earth’s beautiful and highly symbiotic life forms.
While matter at the periphery of our big bang is so red shifted it’s difficult to detect; even more distant blue-shifted objects may be approaching us and should be quite visible. The Hubble Space Telescope provides Deep Field photos that are speckled with blue dots . Some may be young blue stars in the lensing galaxies, but it will be interesting to see if some of the fuzzy ones are more distant galaxies that are headed our way. We should be able to see incoming galaxies from far beyond the fringes of our big bang.
As technology lets us see farther out through deep field peepholes, we should find ever more distant objects peering back at us. The mixing of matter from multiple bashes will yield objects that are anomalous to the standard model, but make sense when viewed in the context of a larger universe. This dynamic churn creates unlimited possibilities. Its splats impinge on one another the way Set Theory’s spheres overlap to blend unique domains, each having its own predictive peculiarities. Ancient stars intermix with new stars, so we should eventually find dim white dwarfs that also witness to ages older than the big bang.
Hopefully, presenting this 3-space inexhaustibility will lure the world’s mathematical genius back to our tangible world of three spatial dimensions.
It will take far more work to back-track this more complex universe and seek its beginnings than it took to rewind and examine our relatively simple big bang. While this Big Bash model provides a means for generating big bangs, it does not attempt to explain the creation of the whole universe. That yarn remains for future theorists to unravel.
I’m grateful to Scientific American, to which I’ve subscribed since 1962, plus numerous other periodical journals. Their thousands of editors, authors, photographers, and illustrators keep me informed and provide most of my awareness of life and the universe. How else could one maintain an up-to-date picture of all things microscopic, telescopic, and philosophic?
Countless amateurs and professionals have contributed to my views over the years. This modeling of their input took place within my own imagination and I’m solely responsible for having documented it. I welcome input and will respond to as many e-mails as I can.
 Guth A H 1980 Inflationary Universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problem
 Anon 2013 Alternative Cosmology Group
 Woit P 2007 Not even wrong: the failure of string theory and the search for unity in physical law (New York: Basic Books)
 Lemaitre C G 1950 The Primeval Atom: A Hypothesis of the Origin of the Universe (D. Van Nostrand Company)
 Peebles P J E, Schramm D N, Turner E L and Kron R G 1994 Access : The Evolution of the Universe : Scientific American
 Guth A H and Kaiser D I 2005 Inflationary Cosmology: Exploring the Universe from the Smallest to the Largest Scales
 Ostriker J P and Steinhardt P J 1995 Cosmic Concordance ArXivastro-Ph9505066
 Fields B D and Sakar S 2011 Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis
 Anon 2013 CORRELATIONS AMONG GALAXY PROPERTIES FROM THE SLOAN DIGITAL SKY SURVEY Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 207
 Hagai El-Ad T P 1997 Voids in the Large-Scale Structure Astrophys. J. 491 421–35
 Clowes R G, Harris K A, Raghunathan S, Campusano L E, Soechting I K and Graham M J 2012 A structure in the early universe at z ~ 1.3 that exceeds the homogeneity scale of the R-W concordance cosmology ArXiv12116256 Astro-Ph
 Moche D L 2004 Astronomy – Sixth Edition (WiIey)
 Horváth I, Hakkila J and Bagoly Z 2014 Possible structure in the GRB sky distribution at redshift two Astron. Astrophys. 561 L12
 Van Flandern T C 2002 The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
 Ratcliffe H, Eastman T E, Lal A K and Joseph R 2011 Big Bang: A Critical Analysis (Cosmology Science Publishers)
 Riess A G, Filippenko A V, Challis P, Clocchiattia A, Diercks A, Garnavich P M, Gilliland R L, Hogan C J, Jha S, Kirshner R P, Leibundgut B, Phillips M M, Reiss D, Schmidt B P, Schommer R A, Smith R C, Spyromilio J, Stubbs C, Suntzeff N B and Tonry J 1998 Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant Astron. J. 116 1009–38
 Peebles P J E and Ratra B 2003 The Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 559–606
 Overbye D 2003 A “Cosmic Jerk” That Reversed the Universe N. Y. Times
 Hawking S 1998 A brief history of time (New York: Bantam Books)
 CERN 2014 ALICE
 Penrose R 2011 Cycles of time: an extraordinary new view of the universe (New York: Alfred A. Knopf)
 Gribbin J, Gribbin M and Gribbin J 1998 Q is for quantum: an encyclopedia of particle physics (New York, NY: Free Press)
 Penrose R 2007 The Road to Reality: A complete guide to the laws of the universe (New York: Vintage Books)
 Einstein A, Infeld L and Isaacson W 2008 The evolution of physics: from early concepts to relativity and quanta (New York: Simon and Schuster)
 Peskin M 2002 High-energy physics: The matter with antimatter Nature 419 24–7
 Guth A H and Steinhardt P J 1984 The Inflationary Universe – Scientific American
 Peebles P J E and Nusser A 2010 Nearby galaxies as pointers to a better theory of cosmic evolution : Nature : Nature Publishing Group
 Bernui A, Mota B, Reboucas M J and Tavakol R 2007 Mapping the large-scale anisotropy in the WMAP data Astron. Astrophys. 464 479–85
 Carlisle C M Teeny Supermassive Black Hole Sky Telesc.
 Graham S 2004 Quasars’ Humble Roots Revealed – Scientific American
 Alexander T and Natarajan P 2014 Rapid growth of seed black holes in the early universe by supra-exponential accretion Science 345 1330–3
 Simcoe R A, Sullivan P W, Cooksey K L, Kao M M, Matejek M S and Burgasser A J 2012 Extremely metal-poor gas at a redshift of 7 Nature 492 79–82
 Flesch E 2014 Milliquas million quasars catalogue
 Mortlock D 2014 Astronomy: The age of the quasars Nature 514 43–4
 Wu X-B, Wang F, Fan X, Yi W, Zuo W, Bian F, Jiang L, McGreer I D, Wang R, Yang J, Yang Q, Thompson D and Beletsky Y 2015 An ultraluminous quasar with a twelve-billion-solar-mass black hole at redshift 6.30 Nature 518 512–5
 Castelvecchi D 2015 Young black hole had monstrous growth spurt Nature
 Ratcliffe H 2010 Anomalous Redshift Data and the Myth of Cosmological Distance J. Cosmol.
 Arp H C 1988 Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (Cambridge University Press)
 Arp H 1998 Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science (Montreal: Apeiron)
 Arp H 1998 Redshifts of New Galaxies ArXivastro-Ph9812144
 Arp H C 2003 Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations (Montreal: Apeiron)
 Arp H and Fulton C 2008 A Cluster of High Redshift Quasars with Apparent Diameter 2.3 Degrees ArXiv08021587 Astro-Ph
 Arp H and Fulton C 2008 The 2dF Redshift Survey II: UGC 8584 – Redshift Periodicity and Rings ArXiv08032591 Astro-Ph
 Arp H, Burbidge E M and Burbidge G 2004 The double radio source 3C343.1: A galaxy-QSO pair with very different redshifts Astron. Astrophys. 414 L37–40
 Jackson J C 1972 A critique of Rees’s theory of primordial gravitational radiation Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Vol 156 P 1P
 Zwicky F 1937 On the Masses of Nebulae and of Clusters of Nebulae, Astrophysical Journal 86. 217
 Livio M and Silk J 2014 Physics: Broaden the search for dark matter : Nature News & Comment
 Alfvén H 1966 Electricity in Space The New Astronomy p 74
 Kahniashvili T, Tevzadze A G, Brandenburg A and Neronov A 2012 Evolution of Primordial Magnetic Fields from Phase Transitions ArXiv12120596 Astro-Ph Physicshep-Ph
 Moskowitz C 2014 Hubble telescope reveals deepest view of the Universe yet : Nature News & Comment