Is there a flaw in the Big Bang Theory (read on)?

Question

The Big Bang theory purports to explain the creation of the universe from nothing! Would you agree it is flawed since it makes a major false prediction known as the Cosmological Constant? Cosmological Constant is essentially the intrinsic density of the vacuum P vac & part of Einstein's theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe. Much more to this but it would take up too much space. Whast's your theory on this Cosmological Constant?

Answer 1

I just happen to be reading a very good book (brand new in paperback) called The Cosmic Landscape, by Leonard Susskind. He dedicates an entire chapter to the Cosmological Constant and its implications to the Big Bang theory ... the title of the chapter: "The Mother of All Physics Problems."

Basically, Einstein knew that a static universe was impossible if gravity was universal ... i.e. it never falls off to zero, and so if the universe was static, then all the gravity would have collapsed the universe long ago. So he tried to find some evidence of a repulsive force that offset gravity. The strength of this new force was proportional to a new constant, the Cosmological Constant. And this constant would have to be in *perfect* balance with gravity.

However, this was just before Hubble discovered that the universe is not static (standing still) but was instead *expanding*. There was thus no longer a reason for a repulsive force that just counteracted gravity ... it was much easier to explain as a universe with a finite age that was once much smaller, and has been expanding ever since.

(Incidentally, many scientists originally rejected the Big Bang theory precisely because it resembled Creationism with an image of a finite universe with a finite age. However, the evidence won out. I am always baffled by the fact that Creationists, rather than rejoice at the Big Bang theory, which produced scientific evidence of a specific moment of creation, instead vilify it because the age of produced by all those astromomers and astrophysicists is inconsistent with a literal reading of certain obscure passages of Genesis giving the generations from Seth (Adam's son) to Lamech (Noah's father), which puts the age of the universe at 6,000 years. Baffling.)

Thus the Cosmological Constant is not a prediction of the Big Bang theory, but precisely the opposite. The Big Bang theory made the Cosmological Constant unnecessary.

Answer 2

No, you are wrong about the big bang being "creation from nothing", it is the creation from whatever was there before, but that we cannot investigate as our theories and equations break down as we get too close to the big bang.
What was before is thus entirely open for speculation.
As for the cosmological constant, Einstein postulated it as a way of keeping the universe, which he believed was static and infinitely old, from collapsing under its own gravity. Hubble (the astronomer after whom the telescope is named) found that the universe was expanding, apparently removing the need for a cosmological constant.
However, recent observations seem to indicate that the universe is expanding at a faster than it should rate, and that rate is increasing, so a cosmological constant of sort may be needed for the theory to match the observations. As to what is at the base of that cosmological constant, your guess is just as good as anyone's, for now. Until we find out more.
The Big Bang explanation is not flawed, it is incomplete. No one with the proper knowledge and expertise doubt that it happened, and the evidence is overwhelming. We are just sketchy on some (important) details.

Answer 3

The cosmological constant is predicated on the assumption that actions of an ancient pulsar is the same as contemporary ones,.
There could be an error that could play havoc with an expanding universe.
The error of the distance of a very large structure could be very high maybe 100%.
If a large structure happened to be collapsing to a Central point and the near side was mistaken for the far side the close side would indicate a red shift and the far side would indicate a blue shift.Interpretation; the large structure was accelerating away when actually no net recessional velocity was present.

Answer 4

No, it is not flawed. The Cosmological Constant is not a false prediction. The Cosmological Constant is what is believed to make the Universe expand.

Answer 5

The Big Bang Theory does not claim that the universe came from nothing. This is a common creationist lie and you should know better that these folks have a political ax to grind with science.

Answer 6

If I remember correctly, Einstein once said that his inclusion of a "cosmological constant" in some of his early formulas was one of the greatest mistakes he ever made.

And I'm in no position intellectually to argue with Einstein's conclusions - nor will I try.

Answer 7

the vast Bang (BB) began from no longer something as a quantum experience. First the thought isn't complete yet neither is faith when you consider that they await extra suggestions in a feeling on the day judgment. And perplexed approximately concept which a physique of theorems and and could have some conjectures or hypotheses that desire a evidence. yet whther you comprehend it or no longer your questions are theoretical in the experience of a hypothesis rather than a evidence from a sequence axioms.so which you ought to proceed we could desire to be prepared to do slightly logical hypothesis. Our assumptions approximately what no longer something is could be very incorrect. oftentimes the religious community asked the comparable ingredient suggested as "What went bang?" jointly as their motives ought to no longer be scientific their question is. In a feeling no longer something is each and every thing compressed down into unfavourable interference and it rather is all or no longer something balanced yet nothingness nonetheless has some quantum character left to it that information it out of stability. So in yet another experience each and every thing isn't something in helpful inference. In pair production you nonetheless have a beginning fabric enable's say a gamma photon and by using pair annihilation you have ending fabric the gamma photon; it must be that it rather is because of the fact each and every thing isn't in entire interference, if make that sizeable distinction we are able to call it great-unfavourable interference and vast-helpful interference. Mathematical this could be supported by potential of opposite limits like: rev lim {0 <---x} 0* = f(x) the place 0* isn't equivalent to 0 as cost for no longer something rather than the ordinary lim {x-->} f(x) = g(a). This solutions your question nevertheless it rather is form of theoretical. i will purely provide one connection with paintings from this is surely logical.

Answer 8

The answer is the parallel universe!