The Big Bang

[Silvertusk]

Hi guys

Sorry i haven't written for a while - but i have been reading with interest. I have a question - just how solid a theory is the big bang? I know we have the supporting evidence of the Red Shift monitored by stars and the laws of thermodynamics - but that side has to rely a great deal on this unproven Dark matter and Dark energy to support the theory. Is there any real evidence against the Big Bang Theory? Or is it now pretty much set in stone?

God Bless

Silvertusk

[Canuckster1127]

Hi guys

Sorry i haven't written for a while - but i have been reading with interest. I have a question - just how solid a theory is the big bang? I know we have the supporting evidence of the Red Shift monitored by stars and the laws of thermodynamics - but that side has to rely a great deal on this unproven Dark matter and Dark energy to support the theory. Is there any real evidence against the Big Bang Theory? Or is it now pretty much set in stone?

God Bless

Silvertusk

Hey Silvertusk!

Good to see you.

Dark matter is closer to proven now.

The big bang appears to be closer to proven (at least in terms of how proven something can be in science). The issue now is moving in the direction of whether it is an oscillating pattern, and whether parallel universes exist.

I'm not familiar enough with the field to say if there are major competing theries. The steady state type of theory is pretty much gone though.

[Silvertusk]

Hi guys

Sorry i haven't written for a while - but i have been reading with interest. I have a question - just how solid a theory is the big bang? I know we have the supporting evidence of the Red Shift monitored by stars and the laws of thermodynamics - but that side has to rely a great deal on this unproven Dark matter and Dark energy to support the theory. Is there any real evidence against the Big Bang Theory? Or is it now pretty much set in stone?

God Bless

Silvertusk

Hey Silvertusk!

Good to see you.

Dark matter is closer to proven now.

The big bang appears to be closer to proven (at least in terms of how proven something can be in science). The issue now is moving in the direction of whether it is an oscillating pattern, and whether parallel universes exist.

I'm not familiar enough with the field to say if there are major competing theries. The steady state type of theory is pretty much gone though.

Thanks Canuckster, that is pretty much what i thought. I have heard of the oscillating pattern - the big bang and big crunch - but it does seem to me that they are grasping at straws with that one - my limited knowledge suggests that 1 - Again thermodynamics comes into play and that and osscilation cannot be eternal by itself unless there is something external constantly fueling it - and 2) we have no frame of reference outside of this universe so it seems very unlikely any evidence can be gained to support the osscilating universe theory.

Besides - if the Oscillating theory is correct - surely that still needs a cause or a sustainer?

I have to admit - i dont know who directly came up with the big bang theory - but i wish i was alive at the time it came out to see the impact it had on science and the way we viewed our universe.

God bless

Silvertusk

[Turgonian]

So why isn't matter spread out evenly, and why aren't all astrological bodies rotating in the same direction? (Just an interested question...)

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

On parallel universes:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1475

Since the early 1980s, some cosmologists have argued that multiple universes could have formed during a period of cosmic inflation that preceded the Big Bang. More recently, string theorists have calculated that there could be 10 [to the]500 universes, which is more than the number of atoms in our observable Universe. Under these circumstances, it becomes more reasonable to assume that several would turn out like ours. It's like getting zillions and zillions of darts to throw at the dart board, Susskind says. “Surely, a large number of them are going to wind up in the target zone.” And of course, we exist in our particular Universe because we couldn't exist anywhere else. It's an intriguing idea with just one problem, says Gross: “It's impossible to disprove.” Because our Universe is, almost by definition, everything we can observe, there are no apparent measurements that would confirm whether we exist within a cosmic landscape of multiple universes, or if ours is the only one. And because we can't falsify the idea, Gross says, it isn't science. (Geoff Brumfiel, “Outrageous Fortune,” Nature, Vol 439:10-12 (January 5, 2006).)

Nature reports:

Susskind, too, finds it “deeply, deeply troubling” that there's no way to test the principle. But he is not yet ready to rule it out completely. “It would be very foolish to throw away the right answer on the basis that it doesn't conform to some criteria for what is or isn't science,” he says. (Geoff Brumfiel, “Outrageous Fortune,” Nature, Vol 439:10-12 (January 5, 2006)