[Music]
Where exactly is cosmology headed? Can it change without actually changing?
Can you save a house with a crumbling foundation by adding a new roof, or might
it be time to look for a new home? The Standard Model of cosmology is in a
state of crisis and inevitably heading towards revolution. Let's delve deeper
into Thomas Kuhn's criteria for revolution and explore if there are
currently any cosmological models that meet his criteria. When a scientific model is in crisis,
i.e. plagued by mounting anomalies and contradictions that the model cannot resolve,
then it can no longer be considered a reliable guide to problem solving and
will eventually be replaced by a different model. This is the model revolution stage of
the paradigm shift cycle. it begins with the emergence of a new model, or models, that speak a
fundamentally different language, making the old and new models irreconcilable and incompatible.
Which means that they cannot co-exist. Simply put, the main criteria for model revolution
is a new model that speaks a fundamentally different language and is
incompatible with the existing model. For the purpose of this analysis,
I use the word ‘language’ to refer to ’paradigmatic language’ by which I mean
how a paradigm talks about and describes the things it observes in nature.
A change in paradigm is ultimately a change of world view. So, are there presently any cosmological
models that speak a fundamentally different paradigmatic language with a different worldview?
In order to explore this question, we must first establish the lexicon of the
Standard Model. To put a complex subject in admittedly reduced terms, I have
distilled from the Standard Model lexicon the following three foundational
concepts and assumptions in order of significance. Gravity, as the principal cosmological force;
General Relativity, as defining and/or in relation to gravity; and the Big Bang, meaning an expanding
Universe , birthed by a Big Bang. These concepts are complementary and
interdependent, while also engendering the majority of other concepts and hypotheses
contained within the Standard Model. So, are there presently any models
that deviate from one or more of these foundational concepts and assumptions?
Let's look at what the mainstream has to say about alternative cosmologies.
In mainstream science, alternatives are sometimes described as physics beyond the Standard Model or BSN,
which quote, “...refers to the theoretical developments needed to explain the
deficiencies of the Standard Model” - end quote. According to mainstream scientists,
theories that lie beyond the Standard Model include various extensions of the
Standard Model, as well as what they describe as ‘entirely novel explanations’
such as string theory, M theory, and extra dimensions. Examples of extensions include ‘eternal
inflation’ theory and the ‘oscillating’ model of the Universe. I will leave it to
cosmologists and astrophysicists to explain and explore the details of these hypotheses.
For the purpose of my analysis, what matters is that both of these theories rely on the Standard Model's
foundational assumption and lexicon about a Big Bang and are therefore not sufficiently different.
Even early Big Bang rivals, such as Steady State theory, rely on foundational
assumptions and concepts such as gravity, is the driving force of the
Universe as well as expansion. Another mainstream alternative is Modified Newtonian Dynamics or MOND.
MOND quote, “...proposes a modification of Newton's law of universal gravitation to
account for observed properties of galaxies....It is an alternative to the
hypothesis of Dark Matter in terms of explaining why galaxies do not appear to
obey the currently understood laws of physics.” end quote. In other words, MOND and its variants, are
an attempt to address one of the many anomalies and crises of the Standard Model.
While it is touted as an alternative that can eliminate the problems created
by the hypothesis of Dark Matter, MOND is still gravity-centric and
actually increases the galactic effects of gravity. It also relies on many of the
main assumptions and concepts of the Standard Model with the obvious exception of Dark Matter.
Thus, as is the case with the other extensions, MOND is also not a viable
alternative in the Kuhnian sense. Overall, an extension to the Standard
Model by its very definition could never be seen as containing a fundamentally
different paradigmatic language. While these extensions arose to address
problems and deficiencies in the Standard Model by further contributing
to the complexity of the model, they ultimately exacerbate the crisis in contemporary cosmology.
Let us recall that increasing complexity is an indication of crisis.
Moving on to the so-called entirely novel explanations such as string theory
M theory and extra dimensions, the main thing worth noting for our purposes is
that these still treat gravity as the main driving force in the Universe.
They too cannot be seen as speaking a fundamentally different paradigmatic
language and do not qualify as serious theoretical considerations for a new model.
These are but a few examples of the mainstream alternatives that exist. Again,
I leave it to those more versed in the hard sciences, to sift through or
evaluate all of the possible add-ons and extensions to the Standard Model. As a
critical discourse analyst, working within the Kuhnian framework, I am
interested in identifying alternative models that meet the criteria for model revolution.
Ones that self-consciously and directly espouse a fundamentally different
language with a different view of the cosmos. One model that I'm familiar with and
that also stands out for speaking a radically different paradigmatic
language is the Electric Universe model of cosmology, or EU model for short.
Proponents of this model subconsciously espouse a completely different language and world view.
Let's look at some examples in the words of its advocates. In an introduction to an essay in The
Secular Heretic by EU physicist and pioneer Wal Thornhill, the magazine's
editors describe the EU model as the science of the 21st century, telling its readers quote,
”Set aside everything you think you know about all things great and small because
the ideas presented in the Electric Universe overturn it all.” End quote.
Referring to the EU model's take on the suppositions of standard cosmology, they note the following.
Quote, “Was there a Big Bang? Not likely. Einstein's Relativity? Doesn't hold up.
Is the Sun a thermonuclear fusion reactor which will eventually run out of fuel and burn out? Nope.
Are there black holes? No such thing. What about dark matter and dark energy?
Forget about that nonsense and start learning about the science of the 21st century.” End quote.
Implied in this statement is the idea that the EU calls into question most
of the foundational concepts and assumptions of standard cosmology. So what about gravity?
This is arguably the most important point of departure. For the EU model the Universe's nature
cannot be explained by gravity alone. Moreover, according to Thornhill quote,
”Unlike the Standard Model, the EU model has a physical model for gravity as a
manifestation of the electric dipole force.” End quote. In the Standard Model,
gravity is the fundamental organizing force in the cosmos. On the macro scale the Universe is
dominated by gravity, but in the Electric Universe model the electric force is the fundamental
organizing force at all scales. According to EU advocates,
quote, “...the gravitational theorem does not single-handedly provide all the answers
required by physical science, particularly in deep space.... gravitational theory struggles to
explain many anomalies in observation.... Today's most vexing scientific anomalies
point to an unexpected - at times dominating - role of the electric force.” End quote.
The EU model does not deny the role of gravity in the Universe. On the contrary, as the model explains,
quote, ”The Electric Universe concept emerged from the principles of empirical
physical science as expressed by such pioneers as Galileo, Kepler and Newton...
However, there's an important corollary to the gravitational theorem and that is
the electrical force.” End quote. Due to the hierarchical structure of the
gravity - relativity - Big Bang lexicon that I identified at the beginning, if the first
foundational concept, i.e. gravity is the organizing force in the Universe, is
compromised, then it stands to reason that the other two would also be called
into question. if the Standard Model’s views on gravity as organizing force are
wrong, then General Relativity would be rendered irrelevant, and the Big Bang
improbable. For instance, based on what the EU model has to say about gravity,
the question of a Big Bang becomes moot. According to Wal Thornhill, quote, “There
was no Big Bang and we do not know the origin of the Universe.” End quote.
What about theories such as dark matter, dark energy, black holes, gravitational
waves, etc.? While they are presented as declarative truths or foregone
conclusions by mainstream science, EU advocates would caution that these
concepts are physically undefined and remain ad hoc hypotheses. This is because paradigmatic lexicons
can trap scientists in a discursive prison that limits the way they can talk
about, or even think about, what is observed. In a paradigm shift, the new paradigm
typically understands the language of the old or existing model, but does not agree with it. The old
paradigm, however, is restricted in its ability to understand, or even consider
the language of the new model. For example, because the Standard Model does
not allow for cohesive electrical effects in space, they are limited to describing much of
the interstellar medium as gas, whereas the EU model describes it as plasma.
Not least because over 99% of the known Universe is made up of electrically charged plasma.
Standard Model scientists know what plasma is, but given their paradigmatic
assumptions, they default to language and therefore, the physical properties of gas.
In exploring some of the most important differences between the two models, I do
not claim to assert whether or not the EU model is poised to replace the
Standard Model. As Mel Acheson has noted, the EU model is still evolving and
remains a work in progress. However, looking at the paradigm shift framework,
one could not ask for a better example of a model that meets all of the
requirements of the model revolution stage, embodying what it means for a model to
speak a fundamentally different language, and be incompatible with the dominant, or existing model.
Moreover, as I have discussed elsewhere, the EU model is also arguably less
complex, thereby satisfying part of Kuhn's requirement for paradigm change.
In this respect the Electric Universe model cannot be seen as an add-on or extension to the Standard Model.
It is by the aforementioned measures a fundamentally different cosmological paradigm.
[Music]