Resources for Educators, Instructors, & New-Cosmology Enthusiasts

Dark Matter Delusion —The Nobel Succumbs

The Nobel Foundation Endorses the Unsubstantiated Dark Matter Hypothesis

C. Ranzan

Published on the Cellular Universe website ( www.CellularUniverse.org ) 2019

This is a fully open-access article and may be used in whole, or in part, and distributed and reproduced in any medium; provided the original webpage address (www.CellularUniverse.org/Educators/DarkMatterDelusion-NobelSuccumbs.htm), the website URL (www.CellularUniverse.org), and the originating author (Conrad Ranzan) are properly cited.

ꞌꞌWe [experts] are now more in the dark about dark matter than we were five years ago.ꞌꞌ

“… they worry that dark matter’s identity might simply prove to be irrelevant …”

–Report: In the Dark about Dark Matter, Scientific American (Oct 2016) page 16

The Nobel Foundation Endorses the Unsubstantiated Dark Matter Hypothesis

In October of 2019, it was announced that the Nobel Prize in Physics 2019 will be awarded "for contributions to our understanding of the evolution of the universe and Earth's place in the cosmos." One half of the Physics Prize will go to Canadian-born James Peebles "for theoretical discoveries in physical cosmology."

Cosmologist James Peebles at age 84. He spent a lifetime of research on a failed model of the universe. (Image courtesy of the University of Manitoba)

Here is a portion of the official Press Release:

James Peebles’ insights into physical cosmology have enriched the entire field of research and laid a foundation for the transformation of cosmology over the last fifty years, from speculation to science. His theoretical framework, developed since the mid-1960s, is the basis of our contemporary ideas about the universe.

The Big Bang model describes the universe from its very first moments, almost 14 billion years ago, when it was extremely hot and dense. Since then, the universe has been expanding, becoming larger and colder. Barely 400,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe became transparent and light rays were able to travel through space. Even today, this ancient radiation is all around us and, coded into it, many of the universe’s secrets are hiding. Using his theoretical tools and calculations, James Peebles was able to interpret these traces from the infancy of the universe and discover new physical processes.

The results showed us a universe in which just five per cent of its content is known, the matter which constitutes stars, planets, trees – and us. The rest, 95 percent, is unknown dark matter and dark energy. This is a mystery and a challenge to modern physics. □

Question: Given what we know about dark matter, as explained in the previous article Dark Matter Delusion —The Embarrassing Truth about “Dark Matter”, why would the Nobel Foundation continue to honor and promote the failed cosmology of the last century? Why would the irrelevancy of dark matter be of little or no concern in arriving at its decision?

The answer lies with the Nobel-awards selection process. Selections are based on those nominated and the most influential nominations are made by past Nobelists. And therein is the inherent problem; past winners are committedly biased. Once Big Bang promoters have become recipients, they naturally will nominate only fellow Big Bang believers. Has anyone ever heard of a Big-Bang professional willing to promote a steady state theory? Not a chance.

The Nobel Medal for Physics and Chemistry

“The medal of The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences represents Nature in the form of a goddess resembling Isis, emerging from the clouds and holding in her arms a cornucopia.”

Recall that in 2011 the Nobel Physics award went to Saul Perlmutter, Brian Schmidt, and Adam Riess for “discovering” the accelerating expansion of the Big Bang universe. In the words of the citation, it was "for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe …" So, there we have three potential-and-prominent nominators. Naturally, they will be inclined to support scientists whose work helps to prop up the big-bang paradigm.

The funneling of awards to an established hypothesis, then, becomes self-perpetuating. This is true regardless of the evidence, or absence thereof. Everyone admits, everyone agrees, there is no evidence for dark matter. Clearly, the selection process is deeply biased, and as such just compounds the embarrassment.

There is another motivating factor. If The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences were to now (or ever) withdraw its support of the big-bang cosmology, it would amount to an admission of having been wrong —wrong in its choice for the 2011 Prize and now also for the 2019 Prize. In order to avoid (or at least delay) the embarrassment the foregoing would entail, the selection committee simply chooses to continue supporting the popular paradigm.

Next question: How formidable is the commitment to the dark matter hypothesis?

Answer: TOTAL. … Everything —an entire century-long belief system— depends on the dark matter hypothesis.

The highly-respected British journal Nature reported:

“[I]t seems impossible to discard the dark matter hypothesis without endangering our whole modern scheme of cosmology.”
–M. Fukugita, The dark side, Nature 422, 489-491 (2003)

In other words, it’s the beating heart of the system. Without dark matter, the Big Bang hypothesis falls apart.

Another question: Will the academics ever abandon the dark-matter-dependent system?

Answer: NEVER. The academics will never, ever, willingly give up their system —nor be persuaded by rational, logical, evidence-backed, arguments.

Here is the reason: It seems to be human nature to subordinate truth when it conflicts with established beliefs. The Italian statesman Nicolo Machiavelli understood the prevalence of this unfortunate behavior, more than 500 years ago:

"[T]here is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." The innovator has the enmity of all who profit by the preservation of the old system and only lukewarm defenders by those who would gain by the new system.

–N. Machiavelli, The Prince, written c.1505, published 1515. Translated by W. K. Marriott (J. M. Dent&Sons Ltd., London, 1943) p43

We are witnessing a stagnation rooted in human behavior. Nevertheless, as I have often pointed out, the change to a new order of things is taking place —as a relentless cosmology revolution.

Question: How did the selection committee manage to make the citation, more or less, foolproof? —allow it to be interpreted in a way that avoids further embarrassment?

Answer: The fact is the Universe (the real Universe) does not evolve. There is no evidence that it does. As a way to hedge on this issue, the awards committee wisely stated “for theoretical discoveries in physical cosmology.” What is being recognized are “discoveries” within the domain of a defined theory; not for discoveries in the actual Universe.

The citation states “for contributions to our understanding of the evolution of the universe …”; it does not state “for … the evolution of the Universe …” There is a significant difference in meaning here, which is explained below.

In reference to dark matter, it is implied that this discovery too is within the domain of a hypothetical model.

The Nobel Prize award ceremony takes place at the Stockholm Concert Hall in Sweden on December 10th every year —the anniversary of Alfred Nobel's death.

Notice that in the citation and in the Press Release, reference to the universe is not capitalized. This is intentional and a sure indication that Peebles “discoveries” refer to a model, a hypothetical universe. In contrast, “Earth” in the citation is capitalized; it refers to the real thing, not a model.

Final question: What opportunistic advantage does the 2019 Award provide for the student in physics, or astrophysics, or cosmology?

Answer: As long as the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences continues bestowing awards on a failed model of the universe, the competition in researching DSSU theory will remain minimal and, thus, provide DSSU researchers with a distinct advantage. It means far less competition in the search for deeper understanding and discoveries via the exploitation of a validated theory.

Open question: It would be interesting to learn who nominated James Peebles. But, I suspect that such information is kept sealed for a certain number of years.

For additional information on dark matter and why it is completely irrelevant, check out the following articles:

The Story of Gravity and Lambda –How the Theory of Heraclitus Solved the Dark Matter Mystery

The Nature of Gravity –How one factor unifies gravity’s convergent, divergent, vortex, and wave effects, International Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science (IJASS), Vol.6, No.5, 2018, pp.73-92.

2019-10

Top of page Back to DSSU Home Page

C. Ranzan

Email:
DSSUresearch@CellularUniverse.org

Site updated: 19-01-04