Big Bang Critics

quote:

---

Step 1. State the Problem
“How was the universe created?”

---

Nope. Big Bang is not an answer to the question "How was the universe created?" Big Bang is a description of the very early universe, based on current observations that the universe is expanding. Big Bang is a model of the conditions of the early, hot, dense universe, along with the description of the conditions of the current universe that is a result of that hot, dense state.-

quote:

---

Step 2. Gather information
We can study every known substance in today’s universe
We can study traces of history left embedded in the universe that gives clues to the past

---

I like this. Pay special attention to that last sentence. Not all scenarios are consistent with the universe that we observe today. That allows us to eliminate a lot of possibilities.-

quote:

---

Step 3. Form a hypothesis
From these findings we make the “guess” that there must have been an enormous explosion of gases that kick-started our universe. We have every good reason to believe that this happened this way.

---

This is false. We do not know how that universe began; in fact, our current laws of physics work only after about 10^(-40) of a second after the singularity. We do not know the exact conditions of the universe during that first 10^(-40) of a second. After that time, we have a pretty good understanding (but not yet perfect) of what the universe was like by running the expansion of the universe backwards and using our understanding of the laws of physics.-

quote:

---

Step 4. Test Hypothesis
OOPS! We have to leave this one blank. There is no way to TEST our hypothesis to see that it actually was an EXPLOSION that started our universe.

---

Oops! You goofed! According to the "Big Bang" model, the universe was very hot and dense. Since it was hot, there must have been a very hot "black body" thermal radiation. As the universe expanded, this radiation would have "cooled" to microwave radiation. Sure enough, after this prediction was made, the Cosmic Microwave Background was discovered. Step 4. isn't exactly a blank slate after all, eh? And, of course, there are other tests, too, like the proportion of helium to hydrogen that we see in the current universe.-

quote:

---

Step 5. Draw a conclusion

---

I'm not sure where you get "step 5", but step 5 in real science is to continue to collect data, and use this data to refine the model. That is what has been happening over the last many decades.So, the Big Bang model is pretty good science: it is based on actual data, it makes predictions that are observed, and it is further refined and "corrected" as new data is discovered...just like any other science. No "faith" is required to accept it, just the faith that our senses can be reasonably trusted, and that logic is sufficient to tease out the truth from the evidence that is gathered.

quote:

---

I wasn't meaning to say that Big Bang and Evolution were the SAME theory, only that they are both based on similar faulty "backward" reasoning.

---

I get the impression that what you meant was that they both contradict your preferred creation myth.Maybe you would like to discuss this "backward" reasoning that you find faulty? Since this thread is now officially off-topic, maybe the moderators will allow you to discuss it here; otherwise iano has started a thread on uniformatarianism that may be more relevant.

Hi, cavediver.Reading the OP, it appears that Sylas intended this thread to be about criticism of Big Bang from within scientific circes. Our discussion with LA Buck seems to be more about whether Big Bang is science or religion.

quote:

---

This seems to be backwards reasoning:
I study A,B,C at length, use it to formulate D then use D to explain A,B,C.

---

This isn't quite how it works. We observe A, B, and C. We then formulate D as an explanation. So, yes, D does explain A, B, and C.But now we notice that if D is true, then we should also see E. So then we look and see whether E is true. If E is true, then we say that D has been confirmed.In the case of Big Bang, it was observed that distant galaxies exhibit a red shift, and that this red shift is larger when the galaxy is farther away. This is indisputable fact. One interpretation is that the universe is expanding. So now we have an explanation for the red shift. Of course, there are other possible explanations.But now we make a prediction. If the galaxy is expanding, then a long, long time ago, the universe must have been smaller, with things closer together. According to thermodynamics, the universe must have been hotter. Because of the high temperature, there must have been a blackbody radiation for a high temperature. But then, as the universe expanded, this radiation would have been "stretched out" so that it is mostly microwave radiation.This was a prediction made of Gamow. There is no reason to expect there to be a microwave radiation permeating the universe with the characteristics of blackbody radiation. However, it must exist if Big Bang were accurate.Then, in the 1960s I believe, Penzias and Wilson actually discovered a Cosmic Microwave Background that has the characteristics of blackbody radiation. There was no reason to expect this radiation to exist, except that it had to exist if the Big Bang theory were accurate. And sure enough, there it is. So we say that Big Bang has been confirmed.There have been many other predictions based on Big Bang that have been observed. Big Bang is, quite simply, very well confirmed and established.

quote:

---

There isn't any evidence of a "big bang" that I'm aware of.

---

The red shift in the spectra of distant galaxies, which are proportional to their distance from our galaxy. In fact, this was the first piece of evidence that suggested an expanding universe.The Cosmic Microwave Background, which was predicted before it was observed based on the hypothesis of an expanding universe.Now you are aware of two pieces of evidence of the Big Bang.-

quote:

---

Isn't that why the hypothesis relies on the non-scientific notion of there having been a "singularity"?

---

No. If one extrapolates the expansion backwards, one comes to a point where the density and the temperature of the universe is infinite -- a singuarity.At any rate, the Big Bang hypothesis does not rely on the singularity. It relies on the evidence that we observe in the universe today.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

quote:

---

Regardless of my sceptical view of humanity I applaud those who search for answers...

---

That would include the majority of astrophysicists and cosmologists who have collect the evidence that strongly supports the Big Bang model of the early universe and have elucidated many of the details in the early history.-

quote:

---

...and abhore those who misrepresent facts with bias.

---

That would seem to include the religious fanatics and scientific cranks who deny the massive amount of evidence that has help shape our understanding of the early universe.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

quote:

---

The redshift requires interpretation doesn't it.

---

Sure, but what other interpretations are there? The only known causes of a red shift are movement of the source of the light away from the observer (hence the expanding universe) or the light leaving a large gravitational well.-

quote:

---

In my humble, and considered opinion, it is but, common sense to expect that light, regardless as to it's origin or structure as an energetic mass; will lose power in transit across space.

---

Your opinion is wrong. It is not common sense to people who know physics. There is no known mechanism for a red shift to occur simply by the light travelling through empty space. It is possible that travelling immense distances through the interstellar/intergalactic medium will affect the characteristics of the light; however, people had investigated this and found that this is not a cause of the red shift.-

quote:

---

Data revealing a cosmic background radiation was recorded seven in 194. Gamov brought it up in (1948). The amount and the description of it has been disputed. The cosmology of the big bang can't claim any historical accuracy.

---

I don't understand what your problem here is. Before the Big Bang model, there was no reason to suspect that there was a Cosmic Microwave Background that had the characteristics of black body radiation. Once people recognized that the universe is expanding, thermodynamic considerations led to people to predict that there would be a CMB with the characteristics of black body radiation. The CMB was later observed.This is what makes it evidence. Without the Big Bang model, the CMB would be a surprise and unexplicable. With the Big Bang model, not only is the CMB explained, but it has to be there. This is exactly what "scientific evidence" means.-

quote:

---

There isn't any scientific evidence of infinity!

---

So far, no. The singularity is what we get when we extrapolate our present knowledge backwards. However, we know that our present knowledge does not work in the physical conditions that existed during the first fraction of a second after the proposed singularity. It may be that if and when our knowledge of the physical laws improve, we will be able to get a better extrapolation. It may very well be that, indeed, there was no singularity.-

quote:

---

What does it rely on then?

---

Like all scientific theories, it relies on observations that we make now, and the logical inferences that can be made based on those observations. What scientific fields operate otherwise?

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

quote:

---

Exactly what red shift indicates has been in question for some time.

---

Not really. I am aware that some people think that they have "alternatives", but the alternatives of which I am aware are either untestable, or when they are testable have failed the tests to which they have been subjected. The conventional cosmological theories have been well substantiated by the evidence that has been collected in the near century since the Big Bang theory was proposed.-

quote:

---

Evidence has nothing to do with theory.

---

But evidence has everything to do with substantiating or refuting a theory. Theories stand or fall based on how well they conform to reality, which is judged by whether predicted phenomena are observed.-

quote:

---

There is to much unsettled in this area to place all our eggs in one basket.

---

Unfortunately, we have no choice. According to the evidence the basket definitely exists, and we have no other basket at this moment.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

quote:

---

Is the redshift we observe due to the relative motion between the two objects?

---

Yes. In fact, I have done experiments in undergraduate physics lab courses in detecting doppler shifting of spectra (like the Mossbauer Effect). The doppler shift is real and is detectable. (Since the motion is due to the expansion of space, General Relativity might give a different calculated value for the shift than Special Relativity -- one of the resident Relativity experts would know better.)

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

quote:

---

If one assumes that all is exanding then, wouldn't the wavelength of the light widen on it's journey across the cosmos between two objects?

---

Yes. This, in fact, is the cause of the red shift.-

quote:

---

And, if the measuring stick used to determine the wavelength also expanded appropriately then, the expansion of the wavelength would remain observationally nulled.

---

Perhaps, but the measuring stick is not expanding. The space around it is expanding, but at a very small rate. The forces that keep the atoms that compose the measuring stick are enough to keep the atoms at the same distance. So the measuring stick will not expand.The reason distant galaxies are receding from one another is that there is a great amount of space between them. As all of this space is expanding, they are moving apart rapidly and so the gravitational pull of the galaxies on one another is not sufficient to prevent them from moving apart.Now, when galaxies that are close to one another, like in a cluster, there is not as much space in between them, so they would not be moving apart very quickly; in this case, they don't move apart at all because the gravitational forces are strong enough to keep them together, like the ruler.So the only things that expand are things where the forces that keep them together are not strong enough to counter act the expansion -- in this case, this is only galaxies that are far apart that feel the effect of the expanding universe.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

Evidently I didn't explain the situation well enough. No surprise -- I wasn't too satisfied with my explanation when I wrote it.Yes, the space which the ruler occupies is expanding. If there were no forces whatsoever, the atoms that make up the ruler would be carried along with the ruler and move further apart. But there are forces involved -- the reason the ruler is solid is because the atoms experience forces that hold them together, near one another. It is because of these forces that the atoms stay at the same distance from one another even though the space in which they occupy is expanding.As an analogy (weak as it may be) imagine a swimmer being swept downstream in a river by the current. Suppose that the swimmer starts near a large rock sticking out of the water. The flowing water will take the swimmer further and further away from the rock. But if the swimmer holds onto the rock, the swimmer and the rock will remain together even though the water continues to flow past them.

---

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline