Challenging the Big Bang Theory: Examining Evidence and Alternative Theories

In summary: I said this:I've heard this before and I've never understood the motive behind it. This doesn't have anything to do with the Big Bang. Instead, wouldn't this be evidence against the second law of thermodynamics?You said this:Please read the FAQ entry linked to in #2. As explained in that FAQ entry, the evidence is consistent with both the second law of thermodynamics and the big bang.I say this:Okay, I can appreciate that posting links is against forum policy, as pointed out in your first response to me (although really the OP itself is in violation of said rule), but I don't understand this response.
  • #1
StarGazer91
1
0
I've read a fair few articles recently about the big bang being utter fiction and that there is ALOT more evidence to disprove it than to prove it. Obviously it could never be entirely proved but to my mind the evidence against it should be enough to disprove it. Do we just stick to the big bang theory because its the widely accepted theory or because we have no viable alternatives?

Some of the evidence against it I've found include:
1. The idea that some superclusters and voids are older the universe. If, generally, galaxies move at around less than a thousand km/s and there are some superclusters that are a few hundred million lightyears across, then they would have taken around 20 billion years to form..
2. Part of Sir Arthur Eddington's 1926 work showed that one of the biggest pieces of evidence for the big bang, the CMBR, could be explained by radiation from distant stars.
3. The second law of thermodynamics means that the universe should tend towards increasing entropy and disorder yet the universe isn't so.
4. Early stars in distant galaxies observed in the Hubble Deep Field shouldn't show such a high amount of metal elements since these are created in a supernova, yet.. they do.

These are for the most part incredibly simple. I don't understand why these things aren't more widely discussed when the idea of the big bang comes up. Thoughts?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
StarGazer91 said:
1. The idea that some superclusters and voids are older the universe. If, generally, galaxies move at around less than a thousand km/s and there are some superclusters that are a few hundred million lightyears across, then they would have taken around 20 billion years to form..
Space expands, so structures get bigger after they form. If you think there is a serious scientific argument to the effect that this is a problem, please provide a reference to an article in a peer-reviewed journal.

StarGazer91 said:
2. Part of Sir Arthur Eddington's 1926 work showed that one of the biggest pieces of evidence for the big bang, the CMBR, could be explained by radiation from distant stars.
Eddington died in 1944. The CMB was discovered in 1964.

StarGazer91 said:
3. The second law of thermodynamics means that the universe should tend towards increasing entropy and disorder yet the universe isn't so.
This is incorrect. We have a brand-new FAQ entry on this: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=509650

StarGazer91 said:
4. Early stars in distant galaxies observed in the Hubble Deep Field shouldn't show such a high amount of metal elements since these are created in a supernova, yet.. they do.
Explaining abundances of isotopes is one of the tests that modern cosmological models pass. In fact, the inability to explain them is one of the pieces of evidence that non-big-bang models fail: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506993 If you think this isn't so, please provide a reference to a paper in a peer-reviewed journal to back up this claim.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
bcrowell said:
Space expands, so structures get bigger after they form. If you think there is a serious scientific argument to the effect that this is a problem, please provide a reference to an article in a peer-reviewed journal.

bcrowell said:
Explaining abundances of isotopes is one of the tests that modern cosmological models pass. In fact, the inability to explain them is one of the pieces of evidence that non-big-bang models fail: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506993 If you think this isn't so, please provide a reference to a paper in a peer-reviewed journal to back up this claim.
Forget the peer review. I want to know exactly from where StarGazer91 is getting his information!

StarGazer91, please provide us with some links!
 
  • #4
StarGazer91 said:
3. The second law of thermodynamics means that the universe should tend towards increasing entropy and disorder yet the universe isn't so.
I've heard this before and I've never understood the motive behind it. This doesn't have anything to do with the Big Bang. Instead, wouldn't this be evidence against the second law of thermodynamics?
 
  • #5
Jocko Homo said:
Forget the peer review. I want to know exactly from where StarGazer91 is getting his information!

StarGazer91, please provide us with some links!

If StarGazer did that, s/he would be violating the PF rules:

Overly Speculative Posts:
One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Non-mainstream or personal theories will be deleted. Unfounded challenges of mainstream science and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited.

The following are some online forums that specialize in discussing independent research, highly speculative ideas, or ideas that run counter to mainstream science:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread...ATM-Idea-Advocates-Read-before-posting-in-ATM
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research -- Read this first: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html
http://www.sciforums.com
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.science
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
Jocko Homo said:
I've heard this before and I've never understood the motive behind it. This doesn't have anything to do with the Big Bang. Instead, wouldn't this be evidence against the second law of thermodynamics?

Please read the FAQ entry linked to in #2. As explained in that FAQ entry, the evidence is consistent with both the second law of thermodynamics and the big bang.
 
  • #7
bcrowell said:
Please read the FAQ entry linked to in #2. As explained in that FAQ entry, the evidence is consistent with both the second law of thermodynamics and the big bang.
Okay, I can appreciate that posting links is against forum policy, as pointed out in your first response to me (although really the OP itself is in violation of said rule), but I don't understand this response. It was never my claim that the Big Bang and the second law are inconsistent with evidence. Are you sure you read my post correctly? What do you think I'm saying?

The OP said this:
StarGazer91 said:
3. The second law of thermodynamics means that the universe should tend towards increasing entropy and disorder yet the universe isn't so.
He's saying what the second law of thermodynamics is and that the universe isn't following this law. What I'm saying is that this is independent of the Big Bang theory and, if it were true, would be evidence against the second law... and not the Big Bang... right?
 
  • #8
Jocko Homo said:
He's saying what the second law of thermodynamics is and that the universe isn't following this law. What I'm saying is that this is independent of the Big Bang theory and, if it were true, would be evidence against the second law... and not the Big Bang... right?

But it's not true, as explained in the FAQ. The universe is observed to be following the second law of thermodynamics, not violating it.
 
  • #9
bcrowell said:
But it's not true, as explained in the FAQ. The universe is observed to be following the second law of thermodynamics, not violating it.
Well sure... we all know that. Hell, I suspect even the OP knows that! I just thought it would be funny to point out that, even if it were true, it still wouldn't support the OP's thesis. All it would do is prove the second law incorrect...

Sadly, I wasn't kidding when I said that I've heard it before. I have. I just don't understand why because, as I've pointed out, it does nothing to deny the Big Bang...

Honestly, everyone using this claim must be getting it from the same source... hence my interest in learning the OP's own source...
 
  • #10
StarGazer91 said:
I've read a fair few articles recently about the big bang being utter fiction and that there is ALOT more evidence to disprove it than to prove it... Thoughts?
You won't find any of that in the mainstream. The most likely problem here is you are picking low quality sources.
 

FAQ: Challenging the Big Bang Theory: Examining Evidence and Alternative Theories

Is the Big Bang theory a fact or just a fiction?

The Big Bang theory is a scientific model that describes the early development and expansion of the universe. While it is supported by a vast amount of evidence, it is still considered a theory because it cannot be proven with absolute certainty. However, the evidence strongly supports the Big Bang theory as the most accurate explanation for the origin of the universe.

How did the Big Bang happen?

The Big Bang is believed to have occurred approximately 13.8 billion years ago. At that time, all matter and energy in the universe was condensed into a single, extremely dense and hot point called a singularity. Then, a rapid expansion known as inflation caused the universe to expand and cool, resulting in the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets.

Is there any evidence for the Big Bang theory?

Yes, there is a significant amount of evidence that supports the Big Bang theory. One of the most compelling pieces of evidence is the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is the leftover radiation from the initial explosion of the Big Bang. Other evidence includes the abundance of light elements in the universe, the redshift of galaxies, and the observed rate of expansion of the universe.

What happened before the Big Bang?

The concept of time did not exist before the Big Bang, so it is impossible to say what happened before it. Some theories propose that there may have been a previous universe that collapsed and caused the Big Bang, while others suggest that time and space were created during the Big Bang itself.

Can the Big Bang theory be proven?

As with any scientific theory, the Big Bang cannot be proven with absolute certainty. However, the overwhelming amount of evidence and observations in support of the theory make it the most widely accepted explanation for the origins of the universe. Scientists continue to study and gather more evidence to further refine and support the Big Bang theory.

Similar threads

I Does the Cosmological Principle in any way underpin Big Bang Theory?
Replies
33
Views
2K
A An article on Big Bang theory contradictions
Replies
3
Views
2K
I DDO 68: A Young Galaxy Supporting the Steady State Theory
Replies
4
Views
2K
B Big Bang Wasn't the Beginning? Study Proposes Alternative....
Replies
10
Views
2K
What does the big bang theory really tells us?
Replies
2
Views
1K
B Birth of the Earth: Big Bang, Dark Matter & More
Replies
4
Views
1K
Challenging the Big Bang: Addressing Objections to the Expanding Universe Theory
Replies
13
Views
8K
B Big Bang & Infinite Universe: Evidence & Discrepancies
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
What evidence supports the validity of the Big Bang theory?
2
Replies
44
Views
15K
Is the Big Bang a theory or a hypothesis?
Replies
8
Views
7K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top