Page Content (OCR)
What happened to the antimatter produced in the alleged first sec- onds of the universe? It should be just as spread out and “material” as the matter we know, because as space expanded, it fell apart without touching matter for as long as thirteen seconds after the Big Bang, while waiting for the temperature to drop to three billion degrees. However, there was no antimatter! What about the apocalyptic vision of one hundred billion degrees, one hundredth of a second after the birth of the universe? That temperature is a matter of specific collisions. Astrophysicists speak of photon collisions at light speed producing particles and antiparticles. Let me ask a bold question. Where do these photons come from? Why do they change if they are supposed to be part of the expansion? Why were they born with two constants, the Boltzmann constant and Planck’s constant? The precursory signs of the collapse of the Big Bang model are becoming noticeable. God died with Nietzsche, so why not the Big Bang? To illustrate this argument, I would like to refer to a debate between H. Reeves, C. Césarsky and J. P. Luminet that took place in Essonne in January 2004 focusing on “refuting the Big Bang.” I should also mention the Coherent Raman Effect of Incoherent Light (CREIL)* proven by Jacques Moret-Bailly, a professor of optics. He argued that the birth of the universe never took place because in virtue of the quan- co tum effect: a. Light waves of distant (allegedly very old) quasars travel through a much diluted cloud of hydrogen atoms. The distance between the atoms induces a redshift of background emissions. b. The thickness (cumulative effect) of the hyper-diluted gas cloud is sufficient for the redshift. c. Instead of explaining Hubble’s law (the redshift of frequencies) by the Doppler effect (stars moving away), he explains it by using the CREIL (stimulated non-thermal emission). Therefore, if the universe is not expanding, it never started to expand in the first place and there never was a Big Bang. The universe is stationary! Maybe these debates among experts will not change the world (but maybe the world of astronomers and astrophysicists). Will the absence of the Big Bang give us an edge? Consider this! If time never began, the time arrow is no longer relevant! We have to eliminate all of our causal- ity concepts and tell ourselves that this world is one big illusion! Noth- ing more, nothing less... What do the stars tell us about time? 149 I think we should not look for the explanation in this overly medi- atized Big Bang model!