Hi, I've searching for alternate theories about the origin of the CBR.
Please, take this with care as I'm not proposing any theory here. Just pure and simple
research over the Internet about people or groups which have a different proposal
than the currently accepted.
To be clear. and as far as I know (source:Dear Professor Dyson: Twenty Years of Correspondence
Between Freeman Dyson):
1) CBR was proposed in 1948 by Alpher and Herman, who estimated a 5 ºK as the
average temperature of an expanding universe, originated in a Big Bang.
They considered that the whole universe should be filled with Planck's radiation in
the microwave region (Watt/m3), as rests of the original explosion and that this could
be measured at present day, heavily red-shifted due to the Hubble constant (it was larger by then).
There was no interest in cosmology by then, even when they tried for 15 years to convince
astronomers, but they thought this radiation couldn't be measured.
2) In 1948, Hoyle, Gold and Bondi proposed an alternative: The steady Universe.
They didn't like the Big Bang, the CBR and the primordial singularity. Their model was based on
the constant number of galaxies per volume and an unexplained model for matter creation as
the universe was expanding (they accepted that, due to Hubble's constant).
3) In a radio program, in 1950, Hoyle and Gamow were discussing about cosmology. At this program,
Boyle introduced the term "Big Bang", mocking about Gamow's position.The name stuck.
4) In 1964, Penzias and WIlson discovered, accidentally, a steady low level radiation everywhere at
the observed sky, while playing with an antenna given to them for spatial explorations in radioastronomy.
5) Everything slowly expanded around the CBR and the Universe's average temperature since then.
6) 25 years after Penzias-Wilson, and with many experiment around the CBR (on Earth, balloons, etc.),
the COBE (Cosmick Background Noise Explorer) was launched in 1989. WMAP followed in 2001, with
more advanced technology and finally PLANCK was launched in 2009 with the most advanced tech
available by then. Since 2009, there is no other plan for an observatory after Planck satellite, and,
since 2014, the original teams (WMAP and PLANCK) were dismembered, without explanations.
Members of each of the three teams had to get a new job at other areas.
It seemed that Planck's anisotropies were insuficient to explain the rol of galaxies in the creation
of new matter, as well as the roles of the dark matter and dark energy. Now, the subject is in suspended
This is a simplified history of the perception of the CBR as Planck's radiation. It was born in 1948.
The CBR is out there, even when some people doesn't believe in the isotropy of the radiation, nor
about its origin. This persons, as the Hoyle's team did think, believe that that there was no Big Bang,
BUT they accept that the CBR exists (one way or another).
This is a link to one of these theories, and is based on the Oort Cloud, which is understood as an
spherical shell that encloses the solar system and that could be capable of produce something like the CBR:
They, apparently, believe that such an spherical shell could have the properties of a Planck's cavity and follow
the values of the Planck radiation.
I don't believe nor deny this possibility, as I know very little about the Oort thing. But I know that scientists know
very little about this Oort shell, also.
It has been rather ignored by the astronomer's community.
I stop here. I'll keep searching for alternate explanations,which tipically are originated by not-believers of the Big Bang.
I, for many reasons, don't believe in the BBT either. But, even with several doubts that a initial singularity creates, it
seems that the BBT is adopted by consensus, like herd's behavior, just to stay "on" in the community. The BBT also
fails explaining several major doubts about acceleration of expansion, calculations about real amount of matter (which
forced the invention of dark matter and dark energy) and the future of the universe, among others.