why I disbelieve the Big Bang

[stcordova]

I studied the Big Bang in graduate school. Those studies included the study of the special and general theories of Einstein's relativity, astrophysics, plasma physics, cosmology, etc.

Though I respected my professors greatly, I find the evidence for the Big Bang quite faulty, and plenty of evidence against it. There are a minority of astronomers who reject the Big Bang.

Unfortunately, arguments over the Big Bang are highly technical, and there is no way to treat the subject well without going into some high powered physics, but the first link below is readable for general audiences.

My favorite essays against the Big Bang are:

Modern Cosmology, Science or Folktale

and

Cosmology Statement

One professor from my undergrad alma mater, Minas Kafatos, is a signatory of the Cosmology Statement.

and


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

If the Big Bang is false, and if Galaxies are moving away from us (we're not quite sure of that), we may be living in a privileged geometric position (namely near the center of the universe).

[Divine Insight]

I sort of take issue with the notion that if you disagree with a theory you have to supply a better one. I mean if you think a theory of something has a logical problem them trying to demonstrate that is a valid course of action. Sometimes you just prove something untrue and the alternative is a lack of a reasonable answer.

I agree with this, but many of the complaints that are being made typically fall into one of the following categories:

1. They have already been debunked as invalid objections.

2. To fully understand why they are not important complaints requires a seriously in-depth understanding of the theories involved which the skeptics seldom, if ever, have, especially if their motivation for objecting to them is to support a religious creationism.

3. Many of them are outright false claims to begin with. Similar to the claim by creationists that the second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution. I saw in one of these objections that the Big Band violates the first law of thermodynamics, which is simply not true. They fail to take into consideration the role that gravity plays in the fabric of spacetime. This would also fall under #1 as a complaint that has already been debunked.

4. Finally, a very few of their complaints may indeed have some merit, however, those few are typically complaints about knowledge that is right on the cutting edge and those problems are under current consideration. They do not automatically require that the theory fails, on the contrary, there are often solutions found to these problems that actually turn out to give even more support for the overall Big Bang Theory.

I think Inflation Theory is one of these. Originally there were several problems with the Big Bang theory. Inflation theory was proposed to explain one of these problems, but then after it was proposed it was quickly discovered that is solved many of these problems simultaneously.

The same is true of Dark Matter.

In science there are always "yet unsolved problems" on the horizon. This is what makes science so interesting and helps to keep scientific careers stable.

To point to the "yet unsolved problems" at the cutting edge of scientific research as a foundation for skepticism is pretty weak, IMHO. Especially if no alternative explanations are being offered.

But yeah, pointing out actual problems in theories is totally valid skepticism. In fact, this is what scientists do on a daily basis. Science is as much about proving theories wrong as it is about offering improvements to existing theories.

The scientists are already the world's greatest skeptics.

[stcordova]

Divine Insight:

I think Inflation Theory is one of these. Originally there were several problems with the Big Bang theory. Inflation theory was proposed to explain one of these problems, but then after it was proposed it was quickly discovered that is solved many of these problems simultaneously.

From the prestigious Scientific journal Nature, 2013:

http://www.nature.com/news/higgs-data-c ... ry-1.12804

Higgs data could spell trouble for leading Big Bang theory
Universe's latest baby picture combines with LHC findings to raise new questions about cosmic 'inflation'.

When the European Space Agency’s Planck mission team unveiled the most detailed map yet of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background — the afterglow of the Big Bang — in March, the map was seen as in line, for the most part, with the standard theory of cosmology. But now, a controversial analysis combining the Planck findings with recent data about the Higgs boson paints the prevailing theory in a dim light.

According to the preliminary analysis of the space observatory's data published on the arXiv preprint server1, the precise temperature patterns detected in the cosmic microwave background, or CMB, support the predictions of standard cosmology — that soon after the Big Bang, the early Universe underwent a short burst of exponential expansion known as inflation. But in a paper posted last week in response, Paul Steinhardt, an astrophysicist at Princeton University in New Jersey, and his colleagues argue that it is too soon to hail inflation as a success.

[Goat]

Divine Insight:

I think Inflation Theory is one of these. Originally there were several problems with the Big Bang theory. Inflation theory was proposed to explain one of these problems, but then after it was proposed it was quickly discovered that is solved many of these problems simultaneously.

From the prestigious Scientific journal Nature, 2013:

http://www.nature.com/news/higgs-data-c ... ry-1.12804

Higgs data could spell trouble for leading Big Bang theory
Universe's latest baby picture combines with LHC findings to raise new questions about cosmic 'inflation'.

When the European Space Agency’s Planck mission team unveiled the most detailed map yet of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background — the afterglow of the Big Bang — in March, the map was seen as in line, for the most part, with the standard theory of cosmology. But now, a controversial analysis combining the Planck findings with recent data about the Higgs boson paints the prevailing theory in a dim light.

According to the preliminary analysis of the space observatory's data published on the arXiv preprint server1, the precise temperature patterns detected in the cosmic microwave background, or CMB, support the predictions of standard cosmology — that soon after the Big Bang, the early Universe underwent a short burst of exponential expansion known as inflation. But in a paper posted last week in response, Paul Steinhardt, an astrophysicist at Princeton University in New Jersey, and his colleagues argue that it is too soon to hail inflation as a success.

yet, newer informatin disagrees with that

http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.5766

[Divine Insight]

yet, newer informatin disagrees with that

http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.5766

Exactly.

This is what I stated in my point #4:

4. Finally, a very few of their complaints may indeed have some merit, however, those few are typically complaints about knowledge that is right on the cutting edge and those problems are under current consideration. They do not automatically require that the theory fails, on the contrary, there are often solutions found to these problems that actually turn out to give even more support for the overall Big Bang Theory.

I think this is a case in point where the scientists themselves were skeptical (just as I had stated that scientists typically are), and their skepticism was met with further research and data that ultimately showed that the skepticism was not as sound as it first appeared to be.

Pointing to unresolved problems that are right on the cutting edge of science as fodder for claiming that the entire Big Bang Theory should be scraped is simply absurd.

Scientists are of course interested in anything that appears to potentially violate any well accepted theories, but they aren't about to scrap entire theories at the first mention of skepticism. There has to be a more rigorous investigation before jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

[stcordova]

data that ultimately showed that the skepticism was not as sound as it first appeared to be.

Inflation is a kluge. No one can prove space inflates a thousand times faster than the speed of light, and then stops for no good reason. The only reason it is accepted is because it is necessary (but not sufficient) to rescue the Big Bang. But that presumes the Big Bang was true to begin with. Circular reasoning. Same for Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

If one can just postulate any entity that has no direct laboratory confirmation (when was the last lab by the way to measure space expanding at 1000 times the speed of light), one can postulate almost anything! Name one lab where this is observed. Name one space probe where it was directly observed.

Pointing to unresolved problems that are right on the cutting edge of science as fodder for claiming that the entire Big Bang Theory should be scraped is simply absurd.

In the meantime, it seems OK to ignore the failure of the time dilation in quasar blinks, sprinkle Dark matter wherever needed with no justification except to save a theory, never see Dark matter, ignore the fact quasars don't make any sense in the Big Bang model, scrap the fact that there are laboratory tested mechanisms that create red shifts in plasma (and space is full of plasma), ignore the fingers of God problem, inflate space a thousand times faster than the speed of light and then stop the inflation for no good reason, etc.

This is like accepting epicycles because it makes a few good predictions even though it fails at so many others and then putting the failures in the category of "unresolved problems".

If the Big Bang is false, we're not going to move forward by waiting around until an alternate theory presents itself. An alternate theory has a chance of being properly explored after we stop pretending the Big Bang is proven. It is not.

According to the Big Bang, the farther we look out, the longer it has taken for light to travel to reach us. Supposedly the farthest objects should appear to our telescopes like they did 13 or so billion years ago. Guess what, they look about the same age as the objects near us.

That's fatal to the Big Bang.

[ThePainefulTruth]

the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation

The problem is the cosmic background radiation IS the Big Bang. You can't dismiss it (the BB) by saying the CMBR has anomalies we don't understand yet. And the anomalies could never be so severe that they would indicate that the universe is only 6k years old.

[stcordova]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... ation.html

25 September 2014 by Michael Slezak

Inflation is dead, long live inflation! The very results hailed this year as demonstrating a consequence of inflationary models of the universe – and therefore pointing to the existence of multiverses – now seem to do the exact opposite. If the results can be trusted at all, they now suggest inflation is wrong,

Inflation theory is a fudge factor. If we allow such fudge factors to prop up false ideas, any bit of evidence can be used to support a fudge factor. And if that fudge factor fails, just concoct another one to repair the holes and declare the theory proven.

The reasoning goes like this "The Big Bang is true because inflation is proven, inflation is proven because the Big Bang is true and inflation is the best way to reconcile the problems of the Big Bang."

Never mind the fact that the inflation goes at 1000 times the speed of light for no good reason and then for no good reason slows down!

Maybe the best way to resolve the problems of the Big Bang theory is to dispose of it. "I don't know" is a better answer than pretending we have a theory that fits the fact when it doesn't.

[EdenRock]

As 'Divine Insight' says, people's motivation for their views reduces their credibility. I don't have sufficient understanding of the science. But when on the one hand there are a huge number of scientists who say "we don't have a perfect theory but it is the best one so far and we will keep testing it" and on the other hand a much smaller group who say "we start from the assumption that we are the centre of the universe, Biblical God exists etc and the theory doesn't fit this so it must be wrong" then who am I going to believe?

It seems to me that if a non believing scientist found evidence that discredited the Big Bang, although they might have to overcome groupthink and perhaps being in denial for a while, given enough evidence they will be quite excited to further their understanding. Whereas if a religious person found evidence that went against their beliefs they would ignore it, even suppress it, and if it became overwhelming, work on explaining how it actually fits with the God hypothesis after all.

[stcordova]

who am I going to believe?

The critics of the Big Bang I cited are mostly atheists or agnostics. I wasn't citing creationist sources.

Theists are notorious supporters of the Big Bang theory if they are theists of the non-YEC variety.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 18 by stcordova]

I say again, the problem is the cosmic background radiation IS the Big Bang. You can't dismiss it (the BB) by saying the CMBR has anomalies we don't understand yet. And the anomalies could never be so severe that they would indicate that the universe is only 6k years old.