Why is everyone so stuck to the idea of the Big Bang?

[deathtical]

This is not a pro creationism question. I can see where people are coming from with it but there is so much that it doesn't cover or explain but it is treated like the holy grail of "where the universe comes from" ideas/theories. I have nothing against Dr. Hawking by any means but something about it just doesn't "feel" right. Every time I hear someone use it when beginning a statement about the universe it makes me cringe. Are there really no better ideas or explanations? The fact that we cannot truly conceptualize what caused the Big Bang makes me wonder why the "specialists" haven't sat back and said "Hmm... maybe we need to rethink this". I understand that we can measure the expansion of the universe and that everything is moving away from everything else. However, that doesn't mean that explosion caused it. I guess my main gripe about it is that when someone tries to start a new theory about the universe it is immediately called "scientific heresy" if it doesn't start with the Big Bang. Your thoughts?

 

[fss]

...but something about it just doesn't "feel" right.

Luckily science is not based on how things "feel."

 

[HydroHyper]

I think what you mean to say is that ideas are always shot down until empirically verified. What is wrong with that? That is why physics is science and metaphysics is not.

unless you can prove Steven Hawking wrong or have your own theory just saying "that's wrong" with no tangible evidence to indicate you right, makes you stoop down like religion does ..I don't believe it 100% but it still holds up valid and we know enough where we wouldn't throw away the idea as a whole, in the future the holes in the big bang theory will be patched, modified, and beautiful

 

[bcrowell]

I understand that we can measure the expansion of the universe and that everything is moving away from everything else. However, that doesn't mean that explosion caused it.

Well, actually it does mean that. There's something called the Hawking singularity theorem that says that there must have been a big bang singularity. The necessary input assumptions to the theorem are: (1) it requires the verification of certain facts by observation, which has been done; (2) it assumes that general relativity is valid; and (3) that the behavior of matter obeys certain conditions called energy conditions. Re #2, general relativity (GR) has been quite thoroughly tested: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ . We do expect that GR breaks down in the very early universe, but "very early" means less than 10^-43 seconds after the big bang. So for instance it is possible that there was a "big bounce" rather than a big bang, but that wouldn't affect our description of the universe after t=10^-43 s.

I guess my main gripe about it is that when someone tries to start a new theory about the universe it is immediately called "scientific heresy" if it doesn't start with the Big Bang. Your thoughts?

You're misinformed. For many years, other theories besides the big bang, e.g., Hoyle's steady state, were taken seriously. They were not just rejected as "heresy." It's simply that the accumulation of evidence has ruled them out. Re the steady state model, we have a FAQ on why it is not consistent with observational evidence: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506993

 

[deathtical]

I think what you mean to say is that ideas are always shot down until empirically verified. What is wrong with that? That is why physics is science and metaphysics is not.

unless you can prove Steven Hawking wrong or have your own theory just saying "that's wrong" with no tangible evidence to indicate you right, makes you stoop down like religion does ..I don't believe it 100% but it still holds up valid and we know enough where we wouldn't throw away the idea as a whole, in the future the holes in the big bang theory will be patched, modified, and beautiful

Sort of. The Big Bang has never been "empirically verified". That's why it is a theory. I don't need to prove Dr. Hawking wrong as he hasn't proven himself to be right. I agree that it is a very good theory for when it was conceived based on information we had at the time. However, our observations and the amount of information we have now is much more in depth than it was then. I think it is time for a new perspective so that we can move forward. Things we believed to be true yesterday are commonly being proven wrong today. I don't understand why people are afraid of or unwilling to challenge the norm or "mainstream". Scientists used to be "rebels" in their own right but seem to have lost that drive as they have gotten comfortable.

 

[bcrowell]

Sort of. The Big Bang has never been "empirically verified". That's why it is a theory.

You're misunderstanding what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is something that can be empirically tested in a way that could logically disprove it. Scientific theories become widely accepted when they make many correct predictions without being disproved in this way. This is why the big bang theory has become widely accepted. It has been empirically verified in great detail. If you're under the impression that it hasn't, then you're simply misinformed. For some descriptions of the empirical verification of the big bang theory, see this website http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/subject.html under "Physical Cosmology."

I don't need to prove Dr. Hawking wrong as he hasn't proven himself to be right. I agree that it is a very good theory for when it was conceived based on information we had at the time.

You seem to be under the impression that the big bang theory was originated by Stephen Hawking. That's incorrect. It is usually credited to Georges Lemaître http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître (who was, BTW, a Catholic priest).

However, our observations and the amount of information we have now is much more in depth than it was then.

Yes, and as described above those observations confirm the big bang theory in great detail.

I think it is time for a new perspective so that we can move forward. Things we believed to be true yesterday are commonly being proven wrong today. I don't understand why people are afraid of or unwilling to challenge the norm or "mainstream". Scientists used to be "rebels" in their own right but seem to have lost that drive as they have gotten comfortable.

If you can come up with an alternative cosmological model that is consistent with the evidence, go for it. As I pointed out in #4, alternative cosmological models have been proposed, but they turned out not to be consistent with the evidence.

If this thread is going to be productive, you need to come to grips with facts, correct your multiple misconceptions, stop arguing based on how you "feel," and provide evidence for your assertions. Since you evidently are coming in with nearly zero knowledge of the subject, you need to pay attention to information being given to you, rather than ignoring it and repeating the opinions you've already expressed. Otherwise I'm going to lock this thread.

 

[deathtical]

Ok Dr.

I am not a scientist, astronomer, physicist, or astrophysicist. I enjoy reading and learning about these topics but they are not my main focus or discipline. I would just like to field some ideas to those that are so that I might get some insight or possible answers to my ideas and/or questions. So far I am getting some good information. I do want this to be productive and am always willing to adjust my views based on the information I can find. I did not realize that a priest came up with the Big Bang. I do not remember why I associated it with Dr. Hawking.

 

[TrickyDicky]

There's something called the Hawking singularity theorem that says that there must have been a big bang singularity. The necessary input assumptions to the theorem are: (1) it requires the verification of certain facts by observation, which has been done; (2) it assumes that general relativity is valid; and (3) that the behavior of matter obeys certain conditions called energy conditions.

You also seem to be misinformed.
You missed an important input asumption to the theorem: the existence of trapped regions of spacetime, or points where curvature is strong enough to trap a region. For instance in the case of a trapped null surface you have a region where light rays are going inwards instead of outwards. If one accepts this without empirical proof , then it is pretty much ready to accept anything, and the theorem in itself is quite banal.

I think it's also worth mentioning to give a complete info to the OP that there are solutions in GR that are singularity-free.

 

[bcrowell]

You also seem to be misinformed.
You missed an important input asumption to the theorem: the existence of trapped regions of spacetime, or points where curvature is strong enough to trap a region.

That's what I was referring to in "(1) it requires the verification of certain facts by observation, which has been done."

We've been through this before, when I gave this https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3202916&postcount=2 correct explanation of the Hawking singularity theorem. In that thread you made a series of mistaken posts, and I pointed out your mistakes to you.

 

[marcus]

... so much that it doesn't cover or explain but it is treated like the holy grail of "where the universe comes from"

Deathtical, there is a huge gap between what the scientists who study this are saying among themselves and what you IMAGINE that they are saying in POPULAR WRITINGS.

You aren't alone. There's a severe widespread disconnect. What people (simply for old time's sake) call the "big bang" should not be thought of as necessarily "where the universe comes from". It is simply the start of an expanding phase, which people are now trying to understand and are proposing and studying models to explain. It has no philosophical or metaphysical content---nothing to get jazzed up about.

I can give you a link to videos of about 25 talks by scientists talking to scientists about various models they study that go way back in time---they don't just stop at the so-called "big bang". You probably don't want to watch the lectures, but if you want the link, just say. One of the world's top research institutes, called Perimeter, located in Canada, just held a conference on how to understand and explain early universe. They got all these big names and top people. Not Hawking, he is sadly enough no longer active---but real experts.
Their talks are all about 45 minutes plus QA discussion. The video is all free online. But probably useless to the layman! This is an unfortunate situation. Again, no philosophical significance---beginning of expansion is just another thing to look for clues about and find a natural explanation for.

The conference was held 12-16 July, just a week or so ago. The director of Perimeter, Neil Turok, gave the opening talk. A collaborator of his named Paul Steinhardt gave one of the best followup talks. Not that I agree with them or accept their conclusions, but I have to respect their reputation, clarity, cogency, expert knowledge etc. Top people. Roger Penrose also gave a talk, but i personally found it less satisfying---he is more Hawking generation---brilliant but the stuff does not quite click for me.

 

[russ_watters]

Are there really no better ideas or explanations?

Yes, there really aren't.

I understand that we can measure the expansion of the universe and that everything is moving away from everything else. However, that doesn't mean that explosion caused it. I guess my main gripe about it is that when someone tries to start a new theory about the universe it is immediately called "scientific heresy" if it doesn't start with the Big Bang. Your thoughts?

The big bang was not an explosion. It seems to me that your problems here are two-fold:

1. You don't understand what the big bang theory is about.
2. You are uncomfortable with what you think it is about.

Perhaps if you fix #1, #2 will stop being a problem.

[edit] Oops, one more:

The Big Bang has never been "empirically verified". That's why it is a theory.

3. You don't understand how science works. This one actually needs to be fixed first or it will prevent you from ever properly understanding a scientific idea.

 

[Godswitch]

So your question is:

If we knew what caused the Big Bang what difference would knowing that fact have upon the human race?

 

[deathtical]

Yes, there really aren't. The big bang was not an explosion. It seems to me that your problems here are two-fold:

1. You don't understand what the big bang theory is about.
2. You are uncomfortable with what you think it is about.

Perhaps if you fix #1, #2 will stop being a problem.

[edit] Oops, one more: 3. You don't understand how science works. This one actually needs to be fixed first or it will prevent you from ever properly understanding a scientific idea.

1. That is a very specific statement to make about someone based on very little information.
2. I have on many occasions heard the Big Bang explained by scientists as being an "explosion". Perhaps not in the traditional "TNT" sense. But as in the opposite of an implosion.
3. I use the "scientific" approach when solving problems every day. Kinda hard to do my job without it.

 

[deathtical]

So your question is:

If we knew what caused the Big Bang what difference would knowing that fact have upon the human race?

Oh no. That is not my question at all. If you really wanted to summarize my question to a single sentence it would be more like...

"Since we have collected, analyzed, speculated, and verified so much more information about our understanding of our universe why has no one officially revised, redefined, or renamed the Big Bang to something more up to date."

Now, before Dr. bcrowell corrects me for this. Let me also say, that this may have been done already but I am not aware of it. A lot of things propagate through the science community before it is made available to the general public. I try to stay up to date on these things but have yet to see or hear anything new. This is a forum where people can ask questions and hopefully get answers. Also, Dr. bcrowell posted some links in this post that I haven't had a chance to go through yet that may have something more a long the lines of what I am looking for.

 

[deathtical]

Deathtical, there is a huge gap between what the scientists who study this are saying among themselves and what you IMAGINE that they are saying in POPULAR WRITINGS.

You aren't alone. There's a severe widespread disconnect. What people (simply for old time's sake) call the "big bang" should not be thought of as necessarily "where the universe comes from". It is simply the start of an expanding phase, which people are now trying to understand and are proposing and studying models to explain. It has no philosophical or metaphysical content---nothing to get jazzed up about.

I can give you a link to videos of about 25 talks by scientists talking to scientists about various models they study that go way back in time---they don't just stop at the so-called "big bang". You probably don't want to watch the lectures, but if you want the link, just say. One of the world's top research institutes, called Perimeter, located in Canada, just held a conference on how to understand and explain early universe. They got all these big names and top people. Not Hawking, he is sadly enough no longer active---but real experts.
Their talks are all about 45 minutes plus QA discussion. The video is all free online. But probably useless to the layman! This is an unfortunate situation. Again, no philosophical significance---beginning of expansion is just another thing to look for clues about and find a natural explanation for.

The conference was held 12-16 July, just a week or so ago. The director of Perimeter, Neil Turok, gave the opening talk. A collaborator of his named Paul Steinhardt gave one of the best followup talks. Not that I agree with them or accept their conclusions, but I have to respect their reputation, clarity, cogency, expert knowledge etc. Top people. Roger Penrose also gave a talk, but i personally found it less satisfying---he is more Hawking generation---brilliant but the stuff does not quite click for me.

Yes, the links would be most appreciated. Thanks.

 

[marcus]

Wonderful! It's curiosity about stuff that hasn't been specifically prepared for lay reader.
A lot will just be incomprehensible gibberish---like looking at a whole bunch of busy people who speak a foreign language that one doesn't understand a word of, or scarcely a word.
But it is so important to do that!

I'll try to find you other representative conferences as well, but for starters here is the recent one at Perimeter, called "Challenges for Early Universe Cosmology".
http://pirsa.org/C11008
I see there were actually 34 talks, you will see a list of them.
You will see video links for each talk.

My advice would be to just watch some of TWO of the talks, the one by Neil Turok and the one by Paul Steinhardt. They were two of the committee that organized the conference, and they are highly regarded leaders. I also watched most of Roger Penrose' talk, but I would not necessarily urge anybody to do likewise.
It would be way off in left field---not representative or similar to the bulk of the rest.

The Turok talk is at the top of page 1.
The Steinhardt and Penrose talks are at the bottom of page 2.

 

[deathtical]

Wonderful! It's curiosity about stuff that hasn't been specifically prepared for lay reader.
A lot will just be incomprehensible gibberish---like looking at a whole bunch of busy people who speak a foreign language that one doesn't understand a word of, or scarcely a word.
But it is so important to do that!

I'll try to find you other representative conferences as well, but for starters here is the recent one at Perimeter, called "Challenges for Early Universe Cosmology".
http://pirsa.org/C11008

 

[JonDE]

Oh no. That is not my question at all. If you really wanted to summarize my question to a single sentence it would be more like...

"Since we have collected, analyzed, speculated, and verified so much more information about our understanding of our universe why has no one officially revised, redefined, or renamed the Big Bang to something more up to date."

Now, before Dr. bcrowell corrects me for this. Let me also say, that this may have been done already but I am not aware of it. A lot of things propagate through the science community before it is made available to the general public. I try to stay up to date on these things but have yet to see or hear anything new. This is a forum where people can ask questions and hopefully get answers. Also, Dr. bcrowell posted some links in this post that I haven't had a chance to go through yet that may have something more a long the lines of what I am looking for.

About renaming the Big Bang. This is actually completely correct, the name is a misnomer that causes a lot of confusion for laymen (it did for me too). The problem is that the name is simply catchy and good for the media and for science fiction writers. A name such as "the earliest point that evidence shows that space began expanding" is quite long winded and not nearly as catchy.

 

[Jocko Homo]

Yes, there really aren't. The big bang was not an explosion. It seems to me that your problems here are two-fold:

1. You don't understand what the big bang theory is about.
2. You are uncomfortable with what you think it is about.

Perhaps if you fix #1, #2 will stop being a problem.

[edit] Oops, one more: 3. You don't understand how science works. This one actually needs to be fixed first or it will prevent you from ever properly understanding a scientific idea.

1. That is a very specific statement to make about someone based on very little information.
2. I have on many occasions heard the Big Bang explained by scientists as being an "explosion". Perhaps not in the traditional "TNT" sense. But as in the opposite of an implosion.
3. I use the "scientific" approach when solving problems every day. Kinda hard to do my job without it.

While these are not responses to anything I have said, I can't help but point out a few things:

1. Actually, you can safely make "specific" claims based on "very little information." It's making general claims on little information that is problematic. If your description of the Big Bang theory doesn't match the actual Big Bang theory then it's a reasonable conclusion that you don't understand it...

2. What you said for your #2 response doesn't address russ_watters' #2 observation. That you've heard scientists (and I'd be interested to know specifically which ones) describe the Big Bang as an "explosion" doesn't address the claim that "you are uncomfortable with" the Big Bang as you know it...

3. I don't mean to speak for russ_watters but I'm guessing that he thinks "you don't understand how science works" because, among other things, your rejection to the Big Bang is that it "just doesn't 'feel' right." You say you "use the 'scientific' approach when solving problems every day," but I'm guessing that you were using scare quotes around the word "scientific" and that you don't actually approach things scientifically. Otherwise, do you do your job based on how things "feel?" Do you think that's scientific? Why would you approach an actual field of science, like cosmology, this way?

 

[TrickyDicky]

That's what I was referring to in "(1) it requires the verification of certain facts by observation, which has been done."

lol
There is a stretch between your (1) and what you say it referred to. It requires a great ability to read between lines for the OP.
BTW, when was the last time you observed a trapped region?

 

[Chronos]

It takes a lot of reading and disciplined thinking to comprehend the 'Big Bang' theory. The basic concept involves little more than running the 'clock' backwards to a logical conclusion. It makes specific predictions that are more consistent with observational evidence than any competing theories to date. This is no trivial matter and 'feelings' are essentially useless in science.

 

[deathtical]

While these are not responses to anything I have said, I can't help but point out a few things:

1. Actually, you can safely make "specific" claims based on "very little information." It's making general claims on little information that is problematic. If your description of the Big Bang theory doesn't match the actual Big Bang theory then it's a reasonable conclusion that you don't understand it...

2. What you said for your #2 response doesn't address russ_watters' #2 observation. That you've heard scientists (and I'd be interested to know specifically which ones) describe the Big Bang as an "explosion" doesn't address the claim that "you are uncomfortable with" the Big Bang as you know it...

3. I don't mean to speak for russ_watters but I'm guessing that he thinks "you don't understand how science works" because, among other things, your rejection to the Big Bang is that it "just doesn't 'feel' right." You say you "use the 'scientific' approach when solving problems every day," but I'm guessing that you were using scare quotes around the word "scientific" and that you don't actually approach things scientifically. Otherwise, do you do your job based on how things "feel?" Do you think that's scientific? Why would you approach an actual field of science, like cosmology, this way?

I would like to thank you for offering absolutely nothing productive to this thread. Some of you guys really need to learn how to your useless comments to yourself and move on. I do not resolve complex technical problems with my feelings. Now I would like anyone else that reads the thread, that if you cannot intuitively understand what I am saying and get stuck on something so unrelated to the topic please move on to the next thread.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I would like to thank you for offering absolutely nothing productive to this thread. Some of you guys really need to learn how to your useless comments to yourself and move on. I do not resolve complex technical problems with my feelings. Now I would like anyone else that reads the thread, that if you cannot intuitively understand what I am saying and get stuck on something so unrelated to the topic please move on to the next thread.

I think people are confused over your understanding of both Big Bang Cosmology and the scientific method because of the things you have said...

I have nothing against Dr. Hawking by any means but something about it just doesn't "feel" right. Every time I hear someone use it when beginning a statement about the universe it makes me cringe. Are there really no better ideas or explanations?... However, that doesn't mean that explosion caused it. I guess my main gripe about it is that when someone tries to start a new theory about the universe it is immediately called "scientific heresy" if it doesn't start with the Big Bang.

Sort of. The Big Bang has never been "empirically verified". That's why it is a theory. I don't understand why people are afraid of or unwilling to challenge the norm or "mainstream". Scientists used to be "rebels" in their own right but seem to have lost that drive as they have gotten comfortable.

I have on many occasions heard the Big Bang explained by scientists as being an "explosion". Perhaps not in the traditional "TNT" sense. But as in the opposite of an implosion.
3. I use the "scientific" approach when solving problems every day. Kinda hard to do my job without it.

"Since we have collected, analyzed, speculated, and verified so much more information about our understanding of our universe why has no one officially revised, redefined, or renamed the Big Bang to something more up to date."
A lot of things propagate through the science community before it is made available to the general public.

Rightly or wrongly these posts give the impression that your understanding of the Big Bang was an explosion in space that made the universe. You also seem to be implying the the Big Bang has no evidence, state that it is "just a theory" (representing a misunderstanding over the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory" ), represent scientists as dogmatic and ignore that perhaps the reason the theory is accepted is because of all the evidence that points towards it.

 

[skydivephil]

MArcus suggestetd this article a while back
:
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/big_bangs

Its is extremley lucid and I think explains the current situation.
My two cents:
There are at least 4 independent lines of evidence that the big bang happened:
1 the Hubble red shift relationship
2 The Cmb
3 Galaxy evolution
4 the abudance of light elements

A lot of people focus on 1 but infact this was consistent with Hoyle's steady state model. But it was the other 3 elements that sealed the deal on the big bang.
However all this shows is that the universe evolved from an extrmley hot dense state 13.7 billion years ago.
However there is certainly a possibility that there was something before the big bang. Current ideas include: eternal inflation, quanutm bounce from either loop quantum gravity or Horava gravity , colliding membranes, CCC. Look up these terms and you will see what's being discussed.Which one of these ideas is right is not known, maybe they all wrong. But there is unlikley to be any model suggested that does not involve a hot dense state 13.7 bln years ago. The 4 evidences I suggested establishes that with a very high level of certainity.
Certianly there are major issues in cosmology, what is the nature of dark energy? what is the nature of dark matter? But none of these implies there was no big bang phase.
Are you suggesting otherwise?

 

[deathtical]

MArcus suggestetd this article a while back
:
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/big_bangs

Its is extremley lucid and I think explains the current situation.
My two cents:
There are at least 4 independent lines of evidence that the big bang happened:
1 the Hubble red shift relationship
2 The Cmb
3 Galaxy evolution
4 the abudance of light elements

A lot of people focus on 1 but infact this was consistent with Hoyle's steady state model. But it was the other 3 elements that sealed the deal on the big bang.
However all this shows is that the universe evolved from an extrmley hot dense state 13.7 billion years ago.
However there is certainly a possibility that there was something before the big bang. Current ideas include: eternal inflation, quanutm bounce from either loop quantum gravity or Horava gravity , colliding membranes, CCC. Look up these terms and you will see what's being discussed.Which one of these ideas is right is not known, maybe they all wrong. But there is unlikley to be any model suggested that does not involve a hot dense state 13.7 bln years ago. The 4 evidences I suggested establishes that with a very high level of certainity.
Certianly there are major issues in cosmology, what is the nature of dark energy? what is the nature of dark matter? But none of these implies there was no big bang phase.
Are you suggesting otherwise?

I'm not suggesting that the Big Bang did or did not happen. Since starting this thread a few posters have provided some very useful information and my understanding is getting much better. Although, since you brought it up, I was reading some threads and articles the other day about the age of the universe and I am wondering if the 13.7B years is actuate. From what I have gathered so far this number was basically reached because that is as far back as we can see (plus some very clever math). However, some people seem to be of the opinion that the universe is closer to twice that age (20-25B years) and they showed some very compelling math of their own. I was also reading about a young man that was try to put together a theory suggesting the universe is older due to the fact that heavier elements like carbon a very abundant in the universe but the current 13.7B years would not allow enough time for all these heavier elements to have formed in the quantities that there are. Not sure if this should be another thread but I found it very interesting.

 

[skydivephil]

I'm not suggesting that the Big Bang did or did not happen. Since starting this thread a few posters have provided some very useful information and my understanding is getting much better. Although, since you brought it up, I was reading some threads and articles the other day about the age of the universe and I am wondering if the 13.7B years is actuate. From what I have gathered so far this number was basically reached because that is as far back as we can see (plus some very clever math). However, some people seem to be of the opinion that the universe is closer to twice that age (20-25B years) and they showed some very compelling math of their own. I was also reading about a young man that was try to put together a theory suggesting the universe is older due to the fact that heavier elements like carbon a very abundant in the universe but the current 13.7B years would not allow enough time for all these heavier elements to have formed in the quantities that there are. Not sure if this should be another thread but I found it very interesting.

The age of the universe (ie time since the big bang phase) is now in very good agreement, 13.7 bio years. Here are some sources which I think will be helpful on this issue:
http://www.universetoday.com/36278/age-of-the-universe/

 

[skydivephil]

If you want a good book on the subject I reccomend :
www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Simon-Singh/dp/0007162200
This is a great introdcutory book for thw layman, quite an exiting read actaully. However Singh plays down the fact that standard big bang model does need modification. The modification that is most widely accepted is called inflation and if you want to read about this I would suggest:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0201328402/?tag=pfamazon01-20
above is Guths classic account of inflaiton, but an easier read is probably this:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0809067226/?tag=pfamazon01-20
its a bit keen on the multiverse which is still contentious but he does explain inflation quite concisely. Guths book is more thorough.
or if you want an alternative view from ther clyclic cosmology camp try this:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002BWQ5TK/?tag=pfamazon01-20

One shoudl remember though that neither of these rival camps doubt there was a big bang or that it occurred 13.7 bln yrs ago.
Definitley start with Singhs book, just remember there's more to it than what he shows.

 

[deathtical]

If you want a good book on the subject I reccomend :
www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Simon-Singh/dp/0007162200
This is a great introdcutory book for thw layman, quite an exiting read actaully. However Singh plays down the fact that standard big bang model does need modification. The modification that is most widely accepted is called inflation and if you want to read about this I would suggest:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0201328402/?tag=pfamazon01-20
above is Guths classic account of inflaiton, but an easier read is probably this:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0809067226/?tag=pfamazon01-20
its a bit keen on the multiverse which is still contentious but he does explain inflation quite concisely. Guths book is more thorough.
or if you want an alternative view from ther clyclic cosmology camp try this:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002BWQ5TK/?tag=pfamazon01-20

One shoudl remember though that neither of these rival camps doubt there was a big bang or that it occurred 13.7 bln yrs ago.
Definitley start with Singhs book, just remember there's more to it than what he shows.

 

[DaveC426913]

1. That is a very specific statement to make about someone based on very little information.

It is nonetheless true.

You described the BB as an explosion. That is a misconception. No more info needed.

2. I have on many occasions heard the Big Bang explained by scientists as being an "explosion".

You have on many occasions heard non-scientists interpret what they think scientists are saying, thus getting it wrong. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you haven't heard scientists saying that.

 

[DaveC426913]

From what I have gathered so far this number was basically reached because that is as far back as we can see (plus some very clever math).

There is what is known as a preponderance of evidence.
Many, many observations and models from many independent camps over decades all make predictions, and when those predictions match findings, that is compelling case that the models and estimates are correct.

However, some people seem to be of the opinion that the universe is closer to twice that age (20-25B years) and they showed some very compelling math of their own.

No one model or theory can hope to overthrow centuries of accumulated data. It must occur slowly, as ( nay, if!) more data accumulates, showing why the incumbent model is wrong.

If science did not progress this way, theories would come and go daily, like cell phone models.

 

[deathtical]

It is nonetheless true.

You described the BB as an explosion. That is a misconception. No more info needed.



You have on many occasions heard non-scientists interpret what they think scientists are saying, thus getting it wrong. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you haven't heard scientists saying that.

WOW! You people keep bringing this up. When I already explained that YES I have heard scientists describing the Big Bang as being like an explosion. It was in reference to the way all matter in the universe was spread out from a central point. Some scientist do come off their high horses and try to explain things in a way that more people can understand them. They did not say it was like a stick on TNT exploding. Now, will you people please keep the comments to the actual discussion at hand and quit nit picking at something you obviously have nothing constructive to add to.

 

[deathtical]

There is what is known as a preponderance of evidence.
Many, many observations and models from many independent camps over decades all make predictions, and when those predictions match findings, that is compelling case that the models and estimates are correct.


No one model or theory can hope to overthrow centuries of accumulated data. It must occur slowly, as ( nay, if!) more data accumulates, showing why the incumbent model is wrong.

If science did not progress this way, theories would come and go daily, like cell phone models.

Thank you. This is much more useful.

 

[DaveC426913]

WOW! You people keep bringing this up. When I already explained that YES I have heard scientists describing the Big Bang as being like an explosion.

Don't believe you. Insist you heard an interpretation. But could be wrong. Exactly what scientist told you this?

Now, will you people please keep the comments to the actual discussion at hand and quit nit picking at something you obviously have nothing constructive to add to.

It is relevant when you contimue to make assertions. Phrase your posts as questions so we can root out the misconceptions. You can't simply come here, state whatever you want, then handwave every time someone corrects you. This forum has quality standards. And it is the misstatements that are contributing nothing productive, not the corrections.

Thank you. This is much more useful.

Well, glad I could help. You must understand, learning new stuff requires clearing away old stuff.

Also, these posts remain in perpetuity, for other students to read. We have an obligation to set the record straight, not just for the OP, but also for anyone who reads the thread.

 

[deathtical]

Don't believe you. Insist you heard an interpretation. But could be wrong. Exactly what scientist told you this?


It is relevant because you are still making assertions. Phrase your posts as questions so we can root out the misconceptions.

You can't simply come here, state whatever you want, then handwave every time someone corrects you. This forum has quality standards. And it is the misstatements that are contributing nothing productive, not the corrections.

I was watching something on the Science Channel and a Cosmologist was trying to break it down for everyone watching. Her explanation started with that and got increasingly more specific from there. By the time she had finished her explanation it was evident that she was trying to convey that it was not an explosion in the tradition sense but was just a way for her to simplify that some event caused all the matter and energy in the universe to move away from the universe's "center" very rapidly.

Now, may we please get back on track? Thanks.

 

[deathtical]

Also, these posts remain in perpetuity, for other students to read. We have an obligation to set the record straight, not just for the OP, but also for anyone who reads the thread.

I understand. Thanks.