Predictions Of The Big Bang Theory

What predictions can be derived from the Big Bang theory, and, most importantly, what previously predicted things meanwhile could be verified?Just trying to learn jwu

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

That there should be a fairly even background of microwave energy when we look out into space, and that this background should be equally intense no matter which direction we look.

Prediction #1: All galaxies will be moving away from each other, barring local interactions due to gravity. Also, the farther away a galaxy is the faster it will be moving away from other galaxies. This is verified by the fact that all galaxies are red shifted, meaning that they are accelerating away from us and from each other.Prediction #2: If the BB theory is true, then there was an immense amount of energy confined in a small volume. This should have resulted in the emmission of electromagnetic waves from every point in the universe. This has been verified in the phenomena called the Cosmic Microwave Background, or CMB.Those are a couple of the more popular ones.

Thanks.I'm interested in this subject as on another forum this quote from New Scientist, May 2004, page 20 was used against me:
"Big Bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have since been validated"jwu

Did you actually verify that quote? It sounds bogus. Since there's no one, single "Big Bang theory", I doubt that anyone with scientific credentials would utter such a remark.

Thank you for the input![advocatus diaboli]
But doesn't at least the discovery of the movement of other galaxies predate the big bang theory? In other words, the big bang theory was developed in order to account for this, this is not a prediction of the big bang theory which later was found to be correct. I'm not sure about background radiation right now, but i think i have heard a similar thing about it too - being one of the things that resulted in the big bang theory, not vice versa.
[/ad]Regards,
jwu

quote:

---

I'm interested in this subject as on another forum this quote from New Scientist, May 2004, page 20 was used against me:
"Big Bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have since been validated"

---

This is why creationism is still around, the reliance on false information. The BB theory can boast of numerous fulfilled predictions. The quote above is another example of creationists aping the ostrich with it's head in the sand.Added in edit: Maybe I shouldn't be so harsh, being that astrophysics is not my expertise. Your quote is from an open letter sent to the New Scientist and signed by quite a few well respected scientists. You should read the entire letter here. They are arguing that funding should go to investigators looking at other theories (not creationism). They also comment on how the BB theory relies on fudge factors, or unobserved material such as dark matter, to make the theory work. Interesting read. Hopefully someone with more knowledge in astrophysics can comment on the veracity of these complaints (PaulK?).This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 11-30-2004 03:40 PM

Unfortunately i am unable to do so. My current opponent (at Christian Underground) uses a lot of quotes from nature and new scientists, but i won't buy those articles for like 20 bucks each just for a debate.
If anyone of you knows a better (legal if course) way to get them, please let me know.
Until then i unfortunately am stuck with trying to get along with abstracts of the articles, very careful reading, and pointing out that criticism against conventional science does not prove creationism.Regards,
jwu

You're right about the moving galaxies - that's not an example of a prediction - but the background radiation was only discovered within the last 20 years or so.

A university library will have these articles, and they'll even help you find them.But why bother? Quotes don't support an argument; evidence does. Make him show you evidence, not take down his copy of Bartlett's.

Not that the quote contains the word quantitative. That is important.However, I think that the BB predicts the relative ratio of hydrogen and helium in the universe and this is a quantitative prediction.I have never seen the calculations though.

The microwave background radiation was discovered in, IIRC, the early 1960's. This was something like a decade after it was predicted by the theory.The expansion of the universe is a prediction of the BB theory. It is something which is expected if the BB is true, that is it is something that the BB theory states.. It was not predicted in advance but it is part ot the theory. A prediction in advance is always more impressive than one after. A surprising one is even better.

quote:

---

But doesn't at least the discovery of the movement of other galaxies predate the big bang theory? In other words, the big bang theory was developed in order to account for this, this is not a prediction of the big bang theory which later was found to be correct.

---

Yes and no. New galaxies are being discovered continually through new telescopes such as the Hubble telescope. Therefore, each new galaxy is a test of the prediction. This is much like evolution, a theory devised to, in part, explain the fossil record. Although the fossils predate the theory, new fossils continue to test the theory.

Good point...thanks.Regards,
jwu