Fumfer Physics 43: Big Bang Cosmology, Rare Matter, and Why People Believe Nonsense

In this exchange, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner examine tensions within Big Bang cosmology, including the Hubble tension, angular diameter distance, and the limits of standard models. Rosner reflects on how specialists might challenge his ideas, while Jacobsen emphasizes grounded, mainstream scientific caution. Their discussion then shifts to rare materials in the universe, contrasting heavy elements like gold with the possible rarity of life itself, including wood and DNA. The conversation closes with a reflection on why people believe creationism, anti-vaccine claims, and other misinformation, stressing cognitive bias, social reinforcement, and incentives for spreading falsehoods.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: If we look at developments in Big Bang cosmology, what stands out?

Rick Rosner: The Big Bang model became the dominant cosmological framework in the mid-20th century, especially after the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1965 by researchers at Bell Labs. That radiation is understood as relic photons from the early universe, specifically from the time of recombination, about 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe cooled enough for photons to travel freely.

That discovery provided strong empirical support for the Big Bang model over alternatives like steady-state theory. However, while the core framework remains robust, there are ongoing tensions and open questions.

One of the most prominent is the so-called “Hubble tension.” In principle, in an expanding universe, more distant galaxies should recede faster, following Hubble’s law. However, different methods of measuring the expansion rate—such as observations of the early universe (via the cosmic microwave background) versus measurements based on relatively nearby objects like Cepheid variables and supernovae—produce systematically different values. This discrepancy suggests that our current cosmological model may be incomplete or require refinement.

There are also broader discussions about whether certain observed large-scale structures in the universe appear earlier than expected under standard cosmological timelines. These observations have prompted exploration of alternative or extended models, though many of the more speculative frameworks—such as plasma cosmology—are not widely accepted within the mainstream scientific community.

Overall, the Big Bang model is not being discarded, but it is being refined. Concepts such as dark matter and dark energy were themselves introduced to account for observational discrepancies, and current tensions like the Hubble tension may point toward further adjustments or new physics.

Jacobsen: My tendencies are pretty banal and mainstream on most things, particularly on science topics. I like discussing different ideas if they tend to be grounded and respectful. Sometimes, when a theory accumulates enough unresolved tensions or anomalies, it can open the door to more substantial revisions. That said, most physicists still accept that the universe had an early hot, dense phase—the core idea behind the Big Bang model—even if the details of that model continue to evolve. What do colleagues with relevant expertise say about your ideas?

Rosner: I have not systematically presented them to specialists, which I probably should. If I did, I would expect a typical response to be: “You raise interesting points, but here is where your reasoning breaks down.” That kind of exchange would be valuable. Engaging with experts is the best way to test whether an idea holds up under scrutiny.

It is also worth noting that physics is highly specialized. Someone may be an expert in one subfield but less familiar with another. So even among physicists, you can encounter disagreement or incomplete understanding outside their specific area of expertise. That does not invalidate criticism, but it does mean that careful, domain-specific evaluation matters.

I remember asking a question in an astronomy class about whether looking back in time—when the universe was smaller—should affect how we perceive the apparent size of distant objects. The instructor dismissed the question quickly, which was frustrating, because it touches on real cosmological issues.

To clarify the physics: distant objects in the universe do not simply appear larger because the universe was smaller in the past. Instead, their apparent size depends on the angular diameter distance, which is governed by the expansion history of the universe. Interestingly, in standard cosmology, very distant galaxies can appear larger in angular size beyond a certain redshift due to how spacetime geometry evolves—this is sometimes called the angular diameter distance “turnover.” Gravitational lensing can also magnify distant objects, but that is a separate effect caused by massive objects bending light along the line of sight.

There are also observational limits: at extreme distances, resolution becomes a major constraint, and what we can see is influenced by instrumental sensitivity and cosmic opacity.

Jacobsen: What are some of the rarest materials in the universe—things people might not think about but use regularly?

Rosner: Gold is a good example. Elements heavier than iron—those with higher atomic numbers—are relatively rare because they are not produced in ordinary stellar fusion. Instead, they are formed in extreme astrophysical events, such as supernovae or neutron star mergers. These are comparatively rare events, which is why heavy elements like gold, platinum, and uranium are scarce. So in that sense, many of the metals we use in technology—especially heavy ones—originate from some of the most energetic and uncommon processes in the universe.

Jacobsen: What is some of the rarest material in the universe? I was thinking of things like gold or other heavy metals.

Rosner: That is the standard scientific answer—elements heavier than iron, such as gold, are relatively rare because they are formed in extreme events like supernovae or neutron star mergers.

Jacobsen: I had something else in mind—wood, DNA, living material.

Rosner: That is a different but valid perspective. Complex biological materials—wood, DNA, and life more broadly—are likely extremely rare in the universe, at least based on current evidence.

Jacobsen: As far as we know, life has only been confirmed on Earth. Given the scale of the universe—with hundreds of billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars—it is possible that life exists elsewhere, but we do not yet have confirmed evidence.

So, in that sense, complex biological systems may indeed be among the rarest forms of organized matter we know. However, this argument is limited by what is sometimes called a “sample size of one” problem: all our evidence comes from a single example—life on Earth. That makes it difficult to estimate how common or rare life truly is across the universe.

By contrast, when we talk about elemental abundance—such as the distribution of hydrogen, helium, and heavier elements—we have far more robust data across many observations. So the claim about heavy elements being rare is grounded in broader empirical evidence, while the claim about life’s rarity is more provisional. Why do people still find arguments like creationism, a young Earth, or similar ideas convincing?

Rosner: Many people do, and that reflects something important about human cognition. People can hold incorrect or unsupported beliefs and still function effectively in everyday life. Daily survival does not require a precise scientific understanding of cosmology, biology, or physics.

The modern information environment also plays a role. The internet allows individuals with fringe beliefs to find one another, form communities, and reinforce those beliefs. This can increase the visibility and persistence of ideas such as flat Earth theories or anti-vaccine claims.

However, holding such beliefs does not necessarily impair basic functioning. People with scientifically unsupported views still navigate daily life, follow social norms, and operate within practical systems like transportation or work. The beliefs themselves are often compartmentalized.

That said, misinformation can have real consequences—particularly in areas like public health. For example, vaccine misinformation has been associated with lower vaccination rates and the resurgence of preventable diseases. In some cases, individuals promoting such misinformation have also profited from it, which complicates the issue further.

Overall, the persistence of these beliefs reflects a combination of cognitive biases, social reinforcement, and the structure of modern communication systems, rather than a direct failure of individuals to function in everyday life.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is a blogger on Vocal with over 130 posts on the platform. He is the Founder and Publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978–1–0692343; 978–1–0673505) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369–6885). He writes for International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN, 0018–7399; Online: ISSN, 2163–3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), Humanist Perspectives (ISSN: 1719–6337), A Further Inquiry (SubStack), Vocal, Medium, The Good Men Project, The New Enlightenment Project, The Washington Outsider, rabble.ca, and other media. His bibliography index can be found via the Jacobsen Bank at In-Sight Publishing comprised of more than 10,000 articles, interviews, and republications, in more than 200 outlets. He has served in national and international leadership roles within humanist and media organizations, held several academic fellowships, and currently serves on several boards. He is a member in good standing in numerous media organizations, including the Canadian Association of Journalists, PEN Canada (CRA: 88916 2541 RR0001), Reporters Without Borders (SIREN: 343 684 221/SIRET: 343 684 221 00041/EIN: 20–0708028), and others.