Is Big Bang wrong?

[Reiku]

For a while I have often believed strongly in the Big Bang, but the more questions I have read concerning problems it has, the more I am beginning to think it could be the biggest blunder of cosmology yet!

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

One of the most interesting cases is here:

''(2) The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

The expression “the temperature of space” is the title of chapter 13 of Sir Arthur Eddington’s famous 1926 work, [[4]] Eddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined to 2.8°K [[5]]), essentially the same as the observed, so-called “background”, temperature. A similar calculation, although with less certain accuracy, applies to the limiting temperature of intergalactic space because of the radiation of galaxy light. [[6]] So the intergalactic matter is like a “fog”, and would therefore provide a simpler explanation for the microwave radiation, including its blackbody-shaped spectrum.''

Let us not forget why Hoyles Steady State Universe Theory was thrown out the window, it was because of the existence of the so-called ''background temperatures'', among a few other possible erreneous conclusions based on observations. Another one is that the expansion of space is measured by preceeding galaxies, but as is mentioned in the link, you can have a stationary universe with things moving about in it.

 

[Kittamaru]

What, exactly, are you asking/proposing here...?

 

[Trippy]

1. We do not observe a steady state universe, we observe an expanding universe (with a finite amount of matter).

2. Relativity predicts that the universe must be expanding or contracting, and that if it is expanding, at some measureable time in the past it must have existed in a hot dense state.

 

[Reiku]

1. We do not observe a steady state universe, we observe an expanding universe (with a finite amount of matter).

2. Relativity predicts that the universe must be expanding or contracting, and that if it is expanding, at some measureable time in the past it must have existed in a hot dense state.

in regards to 1), the OP actually challenges that. I mean, the recession of galaxies should not mean necesserily spacetime is expanding. You can easily have a room (infinite or not) which is not expanding yet the objects in the room are still moving away from each other.

As for 2) Relativity predicts there was a beginning to the universe. If relativity is taken seriously and it had a beginning, then by default we must assume it is expanding. But since there are some serious issues about the age of superclusters outweighing the age of the universe, recently I have been led to believe that if the universe has a beginning, it must exceed 14 billion years, just as the link explains.

 

[Reiku]

What, exactly, are you asking/proposing here...?

I am proposing that objects receeding is not evidence that the universe is expanding. I am proposing that we need to seriously rethink big bang in terms of the link provided, simply because there are more problems big bang creates than what it solves and some the issues are quite serious.

 

[cosmictraveler]

I am proposing that objects receeding is not evidence that the universe is expanding.

But that statement is wrong and that's why you have problems understanding. Once you accept the facts instead of what you "think" is fact, then you will see what is happening better.

In 1929 Edwin Hubble, working at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California, measured the redshifts of a number of distant galaxies. He also measured their relative distances by measuring the apparent brightness of a class of variable stars called Cepheids in each galaxy. When he plotted redshift against relative distance, he found that the redshift of distant galaxies increased as a linear function of their distance. The only explanation for this observation is that the universe was expanding.

Once scientists understood that the universe was expanding, they immediately realized that it would have been smaller in the past. At some point in the past, the entire universe would have been a single point. This point, later called the big bang, was the beginning of the universe as we understand it today.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...3qyjAQ&usg=AFQjCNEK89M3KMKt_V6R-Qx7ic0aN6PFGw

Please read more at the link.

 

[Reiku]

But that statement is wrong .

No, your absolutely right.

I meant proof sorry, it's not proof. It's a loose indirect evidence.

 

[Stryder]

The Big Bang is a "theory", it's not an absolute and can still be brought into dispute, it's just over many years both experiments and observations have fitted (loosely if you will) into the theory. Without an alternative where evidence can fit tighter, the Big Bang will be the concensus's Default to answer the currently possed unanswerable questions of where the universe came from and how it was formed.

Obviously there is the Digital Philosophy theory that "the universe is a simulation/emulation" whereby all conclusive observations purported to be evidence can be integrated within it's overall design. However this is still a very "Fringe" subject, considering it's based upon the requirements being met through the development of technology rather than implying any "nature" to exist.

 

[Reiku]

stryder, I think this is the point of the link, we've had theories that fitted ''tighter''... but for some reason the big bang myth took hold of us.

For instance, the steady state theory can answer for things better than big bang.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

The Big Bang is a "theory", it's not an absolute and can still be brought into dispute . . . .

[The Linguistics Moderator gnashes his teeth.] I wish scientists were better communicators. Why do they call evolution, which has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt and is now a solid component of the scientific canon, a theory, and then turn around and use the term "String Theory" to describe a hypothesis that is only a few years advanced beyond arm-waving?

The Big Bang lies somewhere in the middle. It's got more going for it than String Theory, but it has not been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. It should be referred to as a HYPOTHESIS, not a THEORY.

It will become a theory when the evidence and logical reasoning behind it have been peer-reviewed by a number of scientists with qualifications in the necessary disciplines, and they all agree that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Stryder]

[The Linguistics Moderator gnashes his teeth.] I wish scientists were better communicators. Why do they call evolution, which has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt and is now a solid component of the scientific canon, a theory, and then turn around and use the term "String Theory" to describe a hypothesis that is only a few years advanced beyond arm-waving?

The Big Bang lies somewhere in the middle. It's got more going for it than String Theory, but it has not been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. It should be referred to as a HYPOTHESIS, not a THEORY.

It will become a theory when the evidence and logical reasoning behind it have been peer-reviewed by a number of scientists with qualifications in the necessary disciplines, and they all agree that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not that Wikipedia is at all scientifically credible but:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

A common distinction made in science is between theories and hypotheses. Hypotheses are individual empirically testable conjectures, while theories are collections of hypotheses that are logically linked together into a coherent explanation of some aspect of reality and which have individually or jointly received some empirical support.

If we suggest the Big Bang is often reflected on with "Current Hypothesises" testing true, at least empirically., It implies at least only by the write-up on the wikipedia of questionable sourcing that the Big Bang meets the criteria of "Theory".

Personally though I think the subject could be perceived as argumentative folly, as no matter the term is still not an Absolute.

 

[Reiku]

[The Linguistics Moderator gnashes his teeth.] I wish scientists were better communicators. Why do they call evolution, which has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt and is now a solid component of the scientific canon, a theory, and then turn around and use the term "String Theory" to describe a hypothesis that is only a few years advanced beyond arm-waving?

The Big Bang lies somewhere in the middle. It's got more going for it than String Theory, but it has not been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. It should be referred to as a HYPOTHESIS, not a THEORY.

It will become a theory when the evidence and logical reasoning behind it have been peer-reviewed by a number of scientists with qualifications in the necessary disciplines, and they all agree that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

I agree.

 

[Reiku]

I mean, definition wise, theory however is still quite appropriate.

By definition, a theory is set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. If this is the case then maybe we should not be too harsh here. The big bang may not help explain facts per se, as the facts can be reinterpreted but rather it helps to explain phenomenon.

the question is whether it explains more phenomenon then than what it brings into question itself. Does the big bang therego, create more problems than it solves?

After some investigation, it's seems this is not the case at all.

 

[Reiku]

If we suggest the Big Bang is often reflected on with "Current Hypothesises" testing true, at least empirically., It implies at least only by the write-up on the wikipedia of questionable sourcing that the Big Bang meets the criteria of "Theory".

Personally though I think the subject could be perceived as argumentative folly, as no matter the term is still not an Absolute.

Folly, but maybe the big bang should be made an example of. Perhaps the best lesson to learned here is that the consensus (The most heads which agree) can turn out to show that it is the (most heads who have been shown wrong), a true lesson indeed.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

All of this is fine when it's just us scientists, wannabee scientists, and former future scientists talking. But when scientists talk to laymen they need to communicate more effectively. Their confusing, imprecise and inconsistent language does not win them (or science) any fans.

I would be happy to let "theory" be the word for promising models, since in laymen's language it can be anything from a well-reasoned hunch to an idea that popped into their head after six beers. (Mathematicians use it in yet another way, but laymen don't expect to be able to communicate with mathematicians so that's probably not a drawback.)

We need a better word for theories that have been proven and elevated to the highest level.

 

[wlminex]

1. We do not observe a steady state universe, we observe an expanding universe (with a finite amount of matter).

2. Relativity predicts that the universe must be expanding or contracting, and that if it is expanding, at some measureable time in the past it must have existed in a hot dense state.

There are alternative hypotheses that hypothesize that the CMBR is created by an "ongoing" equilibrium, continuous, causative process.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

For a while I have often believed strongly in the Big Bang, but the more questions I have read concerning problems it has, the more I am beginning to think it could be the biggest blunder of cosmology yet!

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
...
...
...

I read about half of those 30 items and the bulk of them were simply incorrect. Then I browsed the site a little more and it screams pseudoscience. Why do you latch on to crap like that?

 

[Trippy]

There are alternative hypotheses that hypothesize that the CMBR is created by an "ongoing" equilibrium, continuous, causative process.

And where, precisely did I mention the CMBR?

 

[Trippy]

But since there are some serious issues about the age of superclusters outweighing the age of the universe, recently I have been led to believe that if the universe has a beginning, it must exceed 14 billion years, just as the link explains.

No there isn't - those ages were subsequently revised downwards as were able to take better measurements.

 

[Trippy]

It will become a theory when the evidence and logical reasoning behind it have been peer-reviewed by a number of scientists with qualifications in the necessary disciplines, and they all agree that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Last time I checked, it had been, and they do.

These days the differences of opinion are in what the big bang actually represents.