Big bang

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

(from Controversies in Science)

According to the Big Bang model, the Universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like spots on an inflating balloon. The graphic scheme above is an artist's concept illustrating the expansion of a portion of a flat universe.

Hubble discovered that the farther galaxies were from us, the faster they statistically tend to be traveling away from us. This means that the galaxies tend to be spreading away from each-other, and in prior times must have been closer together. Going far enough back in time then, the matter of the universe must have been explosively spreading apart. This is referred to as a big bang, and that observation alone is enough to prove that the big bang is an accurate description of our universe down to much earlier times. Whether people realize it or not, the only question relevant to the validity of the Big bang is just how far back in time this description of the universe is accurate. Really it comes down to the question of how far back does the "classical big bang" theory, as a description of the universe which is described by the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric, work before it breaks in its description of the universe Vs what other kind of "big bang theory" works better going farther back. But, no matter what kind of theory may work better at earlier times, it MUST yield the big bang description over the time scales for which that description is already known to be valid. As such it must be "a" massive explosion of gases that created everything we know today.

Points for the classical Big Bang[edit | edit source]

Expansion is accelerating, Big bang theory is fact[edit | edit source]

The boundaries of the universe are moving because the composed homogeneous isotropic cosmic fluids. Since the boundaries are moving, it will cause a negative pressure which will equal to the energy. This will cause the universe to expand at an accelerated rate. The method to this was that the scientists measure how far the red stars are and measure the growth acceleration of the star. The results were that the dark energy is negative which is causing growth acceleration of the stars which proves that the big bang theory is correct.[1]

The temperature distribution supports the universe expansion.[edit | edit source]


Dark energy supports the classical Big Bang[edit | edit source]

Astronomers observed that the Universe appears to still be in the process of expansion, the rate of which is speeding up. This observation strongly suggests that the Universe contains dark energy, which is believed to be responsible for this increased rate of speed. Scientists currently believe that 68.3% of the universe is comprised of dark energy.[3]

One possible theory as to why dark energy causes an increased rate of expansion suggests that there is not enough matter to slow expansion. Using this theory, expansion would continue until the Universe reaches the Big Chill. Alternatively, it would expand to such a point that it would begin to retract causing a state known as the Big Crunch.[4]

discovery of accelerated expansion[edit | edit source]

The universe is not only still expanding, the expansion is accelerating! This supports the big bang, because if it's expanding, a long time ago it must have been smaller, which is the principle of big bang.[5]

Astronomers support the big bang theory[edit | edit source]

The big bang theory is a comprehensive explanation of how the universe came to existence.[6]

Always Being Tested[edit | edit source]

The big bang theory is always being tested, therefore, more knowledge is gained to support the theory.[7]

Dueterium found in the universe matches that which was predicted to exist due to the big bang[edit | edit source]

First, Deuterium abundance does not have a current known cosmological explanation and is therefore associated with the big bang as this is the only force capable of creating an abundance. The same is true for other rare elements. Second, the discovery of blue dwarf galaxies that have an abundance of light elements such as helium and a scarcity of heavy elements such as oxygen and neon show that these are young systems, which is significant due to their positioning.[8]

The 4He Measurements Predict Big Bang[edit | edit source]

They have found that the 4He measurements, which the theory underestimated is now vindicated by a more accurate theory.[9]

Support of Many Sciences[edit | edit source]

There are many scientific fields that support the big bang theory. Including cosmology, astronomy, quantum physics and chemistry.[10]

Scientists lacking creditability[edit | edit source]

Individuals who refute the big bang theory fail to mention the scientists and their credentials that support them. Further research has shown that many of these scientists are from Creationists Research Institute.[11]

Public Representations[edit | edit source]

Highly influential public figures misunderstand the big bang theory and therefore misrepresent the theory to the public.[12]

Understanding of the structure of energy leads to incorrect arguments against big bang theory[edit | edit source]

Einstein's Theory of Space and Time asserts that energy and light are smooth; leading to the assumption that cosmic background radiation (CBR) would be evenly distributed when observed. CBR observations have shown that radiation fluctuates over the observed area, this suggests that the big bang theory is incorrect. However, because energy is filled with hills and valleys (it is not smooth), it makes sense that we would see varying densities when observing CBR. Think of a desk, at the macro level it appears to us as smooth, but micro observations prove otherwise, this same error is akin to what's happening with the CBR related arguments disproving big bang theory.

Evidence for this error in Einstein's theory comes from the introduction of Quantum Physics to Space Time Physics supported by Stephen Hawking's Theory of Hawking Radiation which argues black holes convert energy information into different forms.[13]

Points Against the classical Big Bang[edit | edit source]

The Universe as made up of plasma[edit | edit source]

In 1896, Kristian Birkeland introduced the idea of Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology. He believes that the universe is filled entirely of plasma and that the idea of a universal force (i.e. The Big Bang Theory) creating matter is flawed in theory due to the basis of this study. Birkeland observed that plasma moves and flows in the same manner in the laboratory as it does in space. Essentially this theory supports the universal concept that matter was not created through a universal force, but rather was always present.[14]

includes the possibility of theoretical forces[edit | edit source]

The Big bang theory allows for dark energy to exist. Although observations are consistent with its existence, a material source for its tensor has yet to be discovered.[15]

Stars Older than the Universe?[edit | edit source]

A particular choice of time coordinate must be made when quoting the age of the universe. The standard cosmological time coordinate for doing this corresponds to an age of 13.7 billion years old. Astrophysicists Jayant Narlikar and Vijay Mohan of the Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics discovered a cluster of about 50 stars which they claim to be 20 billion years old. If as they claim, the same time coordinate was used, then this would mean that the stars were born 6.3 billion years before the Big Bang is said to have occurred. The age of the stars was determined in the Hubble observatory and a Chilean observatory to study the color of the stars and the way they had been emitting energy. The stars were found to be Red Giants (stars in their late stages of life). They claim that it is therefore likely that our universe was formed through a series of events rather than just one "Big Bang". Narlikar and Mohan (and here are the two key words) "plan to" publish their findings in an international journal since the current community of Big Bang opposition is currently miniscule.[16]

Slow and Steady Wins the Race[edit | edit source]

In order to properly understand Bondi’s theory of the steady state which rivals the Big Bang theory, we must first examine the 3 basic laws of physics. He asserts these laws hold true under any circumstance and can even be related to our universe. According to Bondi matter must be created at a continuous slow and steady rate as opposed to an initial explosion of matter as proposed by the Big Bang Theory. His theory can be proven using the tried and true laws of physics which are tangible and can proven again and again in any circumstance. He claims the big bang theory abandons these laws and requires assumptions to be made that do not follow these principles.[17]

Inflationary Big Bang Vs Classical Big Bang[edit | edit source]

Explanation of how the Inflationary Theory disproves the Big Bang Theory by suggesting that there are numerous cosmic fire balls constantly expanding and inflating versus one cosmic fire ball creating the universe. The Inflationary Theory assumes that the universe is constantly evolving from mutations of cosmos from the parent cosmo. Hence the support of the six points made in the methodology section of this theory.[18]

Inflation lacking observation of its field (Group 6)[edit | edit source]

There is no direct evidence that the inflation field needed for the inflationary big bang exists.[19]

Möbius strip, infinite space?[edit | edit source]

The Big Bang theory requires the universe to expand. There are no lengthwise boundaries on a Möbius strip although the width is limited. The Möbius strip helps to explain how the universe is able to expand by looking at it as a balloon. If the Möbius strip is thought of as a balloon then the width boundary would be eliminated.[20]

The Universe Has No Beginning? Doubts about the classical Big Bang Theory[edit | edit source]

There is considerable possibility that time reversal exists in the universe. This possibility increases upon the greater discoveries of black matter. Even if black matter were to be removed from the theory, the Big Bang Theory would be hypothetically removed as well since the Matthews claims the Big Bang Theory could not exist without it. Since black matter has not yet been proven to exist, he claims that it is therefor too early to assess the validity of the Big Bang theory.[21]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. Shibli, M. (2011).The foundation of the theory of the universe dark energy and its nature. Natural Science, 3(3), 165-185. doi:10.4236/ns.2011.33023
  2. Smoot,G.F. Scott, D. (2007) Cosmic Background Radiation. The European Physical Journal 15 (1-4). DOI: 10.1007/BF02683415
  3. "Big Bang's afterglow shows universe is 80 million years older than scientists first thought". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 22 March 2013. Retrieved 22 March 2013.
  4. May (2004) What Was the Big Bang? Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council : 1-4. Google Scholar. Web. 17 Jan. 2012. [What Was the Big Bang?
  5. Turner, (2000), A critique of The dark side of the universe: from Zwicky to accelerated expansion. Departments of Astronomy & Astrophysics and of Physics, Enrico Fermi Institute, The University of Chicago,
  6. Griffiths, M., Oliveira, C. (2010). The Big Bang. Communicating Astronomy with the Public Journal (10) 7-11
  7. The Big Bang. Communicating Astronomy with the Public Journal (10) 7-11
  8. Wagoner, V., R. (1973) Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis Revisited. The Astrophysical Journal, 179, 343-360. Retrieved from:
  9. Copi, Craig (11/1995). Assessing Big-Bang Nucleosynthesis. Physical review letters (0031-9007), 75 (22), 3981. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3981
  10. Griffiths, M., Oliveira, C. (2010). The Big Bang. Communicating Astronomy with the Public Journal (10) 7-11
  11. The Big Bang. Communicating Astronomy with the Public Journal (10) 7-11
  12. The Big Bang. Communicating Astronomy with the Public Journal (10) 7-11
  13. Hogan, C. (2002) Understanding of the structure of energy leads to incorrect arguments against BBT. American Scientist, 90(5) P. 420. Retrieved from:
  14. Peratt, A.L. (1995). Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology. Astrophysics and Space Science 227 (1-2)
  15. Jones, M., Green S.(2009). Big Bang Rocks. Nature 45 (2) DOI: 10.257/ert7868685
  16. Banerjee S. 2011. Scientists Gather Proof Against Big Bang in Older Stars. The Indian Express
  17. Bondi, H. & Gold, T. (1948). The Steady-State Theory of the Expanding Universe Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 108, p.252. Retrieved from
  18. Linde, A (1994). The self-reproducing inflationary universe. Scientific American (0036-8733), 271 (5), 48.
  19. Lerner, E.J. Two world systems revisited. Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on , vol.31, no.6, pp. 1268- 1275, Dec. 2003 doi: 10.1109/TPS.2003.821478
  20. Zubry, Boris. (2010). Big Bang & Co. Advances in Natural Science, 3(1), p36.
  21. Matthews, Alexander. The Universe Has No Beginning? Doubts About The Big Bang Theory. Physics Essays 18.4 (2005): 462-466. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Jan. 2012.