How Sure are we that the Big Bang is Correct?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Starts With A Bang!: Link (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/08/how_sure_are_we_that_the_big_b.php)

An interesting article from an interesting blog. Required reading for any of you with the slightest interest in astronomy and/or cosmology.

The evidence for the Big Bang can be summarised thusly:

1) Galaxies are moving away from us, and the furthest ones are moving away the fastest. This is consistent with spatial expansion.

2) The existance of the Cosmic Microwave Background is consistent with the idea of a hot, dense early universe.

3) The abundancies of primordial elements are also consistent with the predications of the Big Bang model.

But check out the article, it's much better than my somewhat terse summary, and has pretty pictures. :cool:

[ev]

Interesting article.. If everything in the universe is moving away from one another as space expands, then how is it that the Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards us at a speed of 140 kilometers per second with an estimated collision time 2.5 billion years - doesn't this go against that principle?

[Comrade Akai]

Interesting article.. If everything in the universe is moving away from one another as space expands, then how is it that the Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards us at a speed of 140 kilometers per second with an estimated collision time 2.5 billion years - doesn't this go against that principle?
It's possible that they're going in different directions.

My opinion on this whole matter is that it makes sense. It's probably what's going on but I won't disregard other theories. Even the Qur'an says the universe is still expanding.

[Manifesto]

Yeah I remember that all galaxies are being attracted to each other from the gravity they have and then they will merge.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Interesting article.. If everything in the universe is moving away from one another as space expands, then how is it that the Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards us at a speed of 140 kilometers per second with an estimated collision time 2.5 billion years - doesn't this go against that principle?

Andromeda is a local exception because being merely ~3 million lightyears away, it is close enough for mutual gravitation between it and the Milky Way to overcome expansion.


Yeah I remember that all galaxies are being attracted to each other from the gravity they have and then they will merge.

Not all galaxies, merely those in the Local Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group), if I remember correctly.

[Oneironaut]

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/poster2002/WMAP_poster2002b.jpg

This is probably the most conclusive evidence following Noxion's that the big bang did occur. The image is from the WMAP satellite that detects radiation from the original 'fireball' that created the universe that is farther than 12-13 billion light years from Earth. The first complete observation (lasting about six months) was made by this most advanced satellite in april of 2002. The collection of dots represent fluctuations or irregularities in the original fireball shortly after the "multiverse" was created. These tiny dots today have developed into the galactic clusters and galaxies we see today. Our own Milky Way galaxy was once one of these tiny fluctuations. (Kako, Parallel Worlds). This data also reveals the age of the universe: 13.7 billions years. The image is of the universe at the age of 380,000 years after the big bang.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Not that I want to question this theory, but other scientists have, and still are:

http://cosmologystatement.org/

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Not that I want to question this theory, but other scientists have, and still are:

http://cosmologystatement.org/

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

So? You get scientists signing "evolution never happened" petitions as well. They're meaningless. What matters is evidence.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

But this is not religiously-motivated, and they do have evidence, and argument.

I'm not saying I believe it, just that the history of science has taught us (or some of us) to have an open mind.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But this is not religiously-motivated, and they do have evidence, and argument.

Really? How do plasma cosmologists account for Mercury's orbit, or the way light bends around massive objects such as the Sun?


I'm not saying I believe it, just that the history of science has taught us (or some of us) to have an open mind.

An open mind is like an open window - without a good screen, you'll get all sorts of weird bugs.

[Oneironaut]

But this is not religiously-motivated, and they do have evidence, and argument.

I'm not saying I believe it, just that the history of science has taught us (or some of us) to have an open mind.

It is clear that the plasma cosmologists do have evidence and an argument and that the big bang theory still lacks evidence, the evidence already compiled that agrees with the big bang theory greatly surpasses the evidence of competitor theories. Maybe one day this won't be the case, but I doubt it considering evidence suggesting a big bang is being confirmed by the most technologically advanced satellites.

[Misanthrope]

Thank you! Informative post!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


Really? How do plasma cosmologists account for Mercury's orbit, or the way light bends around massive objects such as the Sun?

And there are similar unexplained anomalies in the standard account -- as there are in all scientific theories -- that's what makes scientists try to improve them.


An open mind is like an open window - without a good screen, you'll get all sorts of weird bugs.

Nice similie; alas it has little to do with the development of science, where only those with open minds helped it develop.

The closed mind mob found their ideas on the scrap heap again, and again, and again...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Avant-Guardian:


It is clear that the plasma cosmologists do have evidence and an argument and that the big bang theory still lacks evidence, the evidence already compiled that agrees with the big bang theory greatly surpasses the evidence of competitor theories. Maybe one day this won't be the case, but I doubt it considering evidence suggesting a big bang is being confirmed by the most technologically advanced satellites.

That's what I like to see, an open mind!

[Except: Inflation Theory has to contradict special relativity. And the current standard theory has to try to explain why 90% of the matter in the universe is missing -- pretty serious problems!]

[ComradeRed]

Really? How do plasma cosmologists account for Mercury's orbit, or the way light bends around massive objects such as the Sun?
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that any theory of gravity that amounts to some correction to Newtonian gravity (e.g. Mannheim's conformal theory of gravity) end up making such corrections.

Such corrections are "too small" though. The only significant difference from these other models comes from, e.g., the nature of the early universe or how the nature of galaxies evolve.

Good try though.

(For the record, I am inclined to believe General Relativity or some conformal generalization of it, and in no way "doubt" the big bang; it's just the defense given holds for practically every model of gravity.)