Is the Big Bang Theory still as widely accepted in the scientific world?

Question

Or is it losing ground to other theories? (The String Theory, for example.)

Answer 1

Is the Big Bang Theory still as widely accepted in the scientific world? Or is it losing ground to other theories?

The Big Bang Theory indicates that we live in an ever-expanding universe, moving away from every other universe on the fabric of space-time. Although some scientists are careful to point out that “Andromeda, our nearest large galactic neighbor, is actually moving toward us, not away. Such exceptions arise because Hubble's law describes only the average behavior of galaxies (Scientific American March 2005).”

Belief in One Theory

So many take the position that “my idea is all correct and your idea is all wrong.” These ideas can be labeled as theories, doctrines, or whatever; they challenge us to examine our ideas and the views of others. If we are insecure, we prefer to dismiss the viewpoints of others rather than examine our own. However, if we are emotionally mature, we tend to be willing to review our own position and seek the merit in the perspective of others. Such emotional maturity was once defined as “I am what I am, nothing better, nothing worse, and I find it good.” This non-competitive stance is essential for open-minded pursuit of truth and knowledge.

Any one who knows about blueprints, mechanical drafting, or architecture understands that it takes at least 3 different viewpoints to be able to accurately understand and recreate anything. The most commonly used are the top, side, and front views. For example, a table from the top view is a long and wide rectangle. From the front view it is narrow and long. From the side view it is narrow and short. It is fruitless to argue that any one of these perspectives is false.

In layman’s terms, we might say that the sky is blue. Someone else that it is orange. In comprehensive reality, we can admit that it is sometimes blue and sometimes orange; indeed, sometimes it can be both at the same time.

Scientists may argue that light consists of waves, not particles. Other scientists might insist that light is made of particles, not waves. However, many modern scientists are beginning to embrace the necessity of models that include both these concepts. Moreover, the characteristics of something do not have to be restricted to only 2 or 3 substantiated theories or viewpoints; a deep understanding of things may involve a panoramic examination of multiple views, like a spinning and swerving car in a television commercial.

With that foundation, let us examine the Big Bang Theory, in relation to other current theories of cosmology. Let me point out the relative merits of each position briefly and how they could possibly harmonize.

Big Bang

The Big Bang Theory remains the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. The red shift of light from distant nebulas proves that everything is moving away from a starting point, an expanding universe. The fact that there is a relationship between these celestial objects speed and their distance reinforces their common origin. If true, there should be cosmic background radiation, and there is. Physics tends to support the details of the theory including the cooling that may have lead to the sequential creation of matter and antimatter particles, including quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos and photons. Similarly, the relative properties of the basic elements tend to support their sequential development, including deuterium (heavy hydrogen), tritium and helium. The ratio of one helium atom for every ten or eleven atoms of hydrogen is a constant in the universe today.

Unresolved problems with this theory are the age of the universe and the basis on a “singularity” (an event which defies current rules of physics). Also, while the Big Bang Theory defines an event of creation, it does not define what caused it to happen.

The Big Crunch

If the total gravitational force of all matter is high enough, it would slow the expansion of the universe, and then reverse it, causing the Big Crunch of everything, the opposite of the big expansion called the Big Bang. All matter and energy would be compressed back into a gravitational singularity. This theory does not explain what would happen after this event, which may occur in about 42 billion years.

The Big Bounce: The Universe before ours, and the one after ours

Some Physicists theorize that, before the creation of our expanding universe, there was a shrinking universe. (One group’s findings are published in the journal Physical Review Letters). This means that the “Big Bang” was really a “Big Bounce,” following a “Big Crunch.” This may indicate that the creation and destruction of universes is a cyclic process.

While the Theory of Relativity predicts the Big Bang theory, it is unable to predict what happened before that event. At the point of the creation, or birth, of our universe, the equations no longer yield usable data. This theory postulates that our visible, four-dimensional universe is bounded by a bane within a higher-dimensional space, the bulk. It hypothesizes that the big bang occurred when two parallel branes touched. This study systematically establishes the existence of spacetime and deduces the properties of spacetime geometry, the fabric of our universe. They used loop quantum gravity to reconcile General Relativity with quantum physics. Their findings also point to a repulsive instead of attractive nature of gravity. This indicates that the Big Bang was not “the beginning” of everything, but rather a single event in a series of beginnings.

A competing bounce theory is based on string theory and also attempts to reconcile General Relativity with quantum physics. Some string theories define the universe as a three-dimensional space in an invisible space having more dimensions. Our zone, a “braneworld” could periodically bounce into another parallel braneworld. From our perspective this would appear as a Big Bang. Such an event might occur 300 billion years from now, with cataclysmic results.

Quantum Events

These major events are based on quantum occurrences that are not fully explained by present-day science, even when integrating all these theories and the supporting evidence behind them. Where did the “spark” of additional energy come from that directed these events to occur? To this, evolutionists answer “I don’t know” and theists answer “God.” Until proven otherwise, there remains room in all these explanations for a creator.

Big Bang? Big Crunch? Big Bounce? God? Are these not just different viewpoints explaining pieces of the same extended event that we call our universe? Each of these views, particularly the three scientific ones, are continually being refined by more detailed perspectives as data becomes available. The Big Crunch and the Big Bounce are, in large measure, outgrowths from the Big Bang Theory. They tend to refine it more than they would replace or disprove it.

Steve
:-D

Answer 2

The amount of evidence in support of the Big Bang theory is simply overwhelming. So much so that the theory simply cannot now be overturned.
Here are a few examples of supporting evidence, by which I mean predictions by the Big Bang theory that have been quantitatively verified.

- The Universe as a whole is expanding.
- The universe is filled with a sea of radiation at a temperature of just over 2.7 degrees Kelvin, the remnant of the superhot radiation from the fireball that has cooled down as the universe expanded.
- The observed abundance of hydrogen, helium and some other light elements produced just after the Big Bang confirms to prediction.
- The large-scale structures observed in the universe today, are a consequence of small fluctuations shortly after the Big Bang
- Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a theory for which there exist overwhelming evidence even from everyday phenomena, predicts an expanding Universe.

There is only one big problem with the Big Bang. It is based on General Relativity and the latter is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics in certain areas. So both have to be incorporated in someting larger, better. That doesn´t mean one of them is wrong, only that it is, somehow, incomplete.

Answer 3

The universe can only have one of three conditions. It is either expanding, contracting, or it is static, meaning that all galaxies and matter in the universe are basically remaining at the same distance from each other.

It has been proven conclusively that other galaxies are moving away from us. And the farther away from us they are, the faster they are moving away.

Logic alone would lead one to believe that at some point in the past, all things in the universe were concentrated at one point. When background radiation was discovered, it proved that this indeed was the case.

Lighter elements, such as Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium, were formed as a result of the big bang in a process called big bang nucleosynthesis. Scientists can calculate how much of which elements were formed, and the fact that observation agrees with calculation is also considered proof of the big bang theory.

String theory doesn't actually say that there was never a Big Bang. It implies that Big Bangs happen in multiple universes, multiple times, Imagine a string stretched out parrallel to each other, so that they look like two sheets in the wind. As the two sheets flap in the breeze, some parts of one sheet come into contackt with the other. each time this happens, a Big Bang occurs. our universe just happens to be one spot on the sheets, which made contact at one particular time.

Answer 4

after reading Steve :-D 's answer I can't add to that. I would have to agree with him (long winded as he was). There are a few good answers here and they support each other. While there are lots of people who are dolts, take the consensus and accept that the Big Bang Theory is still the most widely accepted theory. Remember it is only a Theory and could be proved or disproved at any time.

An opinion: on the expanding universe - you might say that we are still in the big bang as the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, until it slows(if it slows) we would be IN the explosion.

Answer 5

The Big Bang Theory, aka The Big Expansion, is still widely accepted by the astronomical community as the theory is the compilation of all our observations. String theory is not a competitor to Big Bang theory although there are things string theory attempts to claim that happened moments after the big bang occured. Otherwise, the theories aren't attempting to explain the same thing.

Answer 6

The "Big Bang Theory" is still the most widely accepted theory of how our Universe began. There are other theories out there and i am sure with better technology in the future that we will be better able to truly define the exact cause for our universe to come into existence.

Answer 7

from what I know there are multiple scientific theories offering different details for how the Big Bang occurred, the problem is the Big Bang theory cannot explain the origin of those natural laws and the many particular constants such as the strength of gravity or the mass of the electron, all of which seem so precisely tuned to permit stars and planets and life to exist, but who is to say a Big Bang may have happened However, the reality is that the immensely popular Big Bang Theory is dead

Answer 8

Actually, I think that string theory furthered the concept of the big bang. A video I watched in Physics class discussed this. They now think that huge things called cells collided, and thats what the big bang was (the energy from the collision had to go somewhere because of the law of conservation of energy and so on). In fact, the video said it would happen again if this theory turned out to be true, so one day we might all be in a big bang (I'm not sure what that means, but I assume that everyone would die in it). That's probably not for millions and millions of years though.

Answer 9

Yes the big bang theory is still widely accepted. String theory is more a theory of what the ultimate consituents of the universe are rather than a rival to the big bang.

I don't think there have been any serious contenders to the big bang since Fred Hoyle's steady state theory.....

Answer 10

The Big Bang theory is still held true by some idiots, who want others to believe the same.
But MOST scientists feel that the big bang is not possible.

Answer 11

Personally, I don't believe that the big bang theory is true. But the problem is, I don't know what else to believe in, so... no choice but to at least take the big bang as truth, for now....