Has the Big Bang theory been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?

Question

If you read any articles in the mainstream media related to Astronomy or Cosmology, it's accepted as a given that the Big Bang Theory is fact. There is never any mention of dissenting viewpoints or flaws in the theory. Whereas there are a number of books that call into question the theory and point out numerous flaws with this particular theory of origins, for example Eric Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened, or The Cult of the Big Bang. One can also find a lot of dissenting information on the Internet, but few rebuttals. It would be interesting to hear from astronomy majors or working professionals in the sciences and get their reaction.

Answer 1

There have been a lot of interesting and accurate comments from the posters so far regarding the nature of science and "proof." However, a few important points about science have yet to be mentioned.

For starters, science is always in a state of flux and, although the majority of ideas and theories deemed oddball or "fringe" eventually fall by the wayside, a minority of propositions which contradict the majority or "consensus opinion" of science in any given time period and scientific discipline sometimes take the place of the reigning theory altogether.

For example, according to "consensus science" back in the 1800's, manned, heavier than air flight was impossible. Then the Wright brothers came along and scientists were busy scrambling to make sense of it and martial theories to explain why it was possible after all. Scores of other examples can be cited, from the supposed germ theory of pellagra (a nutritional deficiency as it later turned out), to meteorites (most scientists dismissed them as impossible hallucinations), to plate tectonics (the man who first proposed the idea was considered a crank).

See the following link for a more complete list of vindicated mavericks:

http://amasci.com/weird/vindac.html

If one is committed to the truth, rather than to defending one's long-standing pet theory--whether it's the Big Bang or something else--then one has to approach any given scientific theory with a balance of open mindedness and skepticism. One ESPECIALLY has to look at contradictory data with a clear mind, free of defensive blindfolds and dogmatic assertions, and ask oneself if there is any merit in the new data and/or interpretations--whether this data is on the "fringe" or not.

Another thing to consider, given the above, is that scientists tend to run in herds. They will protect their source of funding and livelihood by staying true to the prevailing accepted theory in any given branch of science, and tend to ridicule and dismiss any challenge to it using the muscle of "peer review". Whatever the merits of peer review, unfortunately it also works as kind of an old boy network that marginalizes any truly innovative ideas in science. While this sounds a little like conspiracy theory rhetoric here, it is a simple fact. Here's an interesting introductory essay on the flaws of peer review:

http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/scheff/23.html

Now, regarding the Big Bang Theory in particular, I speak as a former astronomy major (although my expertise in this area is about twenty years out of date) and a freelance science writer when I say that not only has the Big Bang Theory NOT been proven, but it has enough holes in it to drive a Mack truck through.

If you look at some of the links I'm posting below, you'll find a number of anomalies in cosmology that simply don't add up to a "proven", air-tight Big Bang Theory. They include such inconvenient phenomena as galactic superclusters--large clumps of galaxies attracted by gravitation that are at least 20-40 billion years old, despite the fact that the Big Bang Theory computes the age of the universe to be no more than 12-15 billion years old. There is also the interesting anomalous data presented by Halton Arp--which mainstream astronomers seem to be in denial about--showing that quasars (assumed to be primordial, superbright stars almost as old as the universe itself) are much closer than expected and are much smaller, less bright stragglers on the edges of many distant galaxies.

While I have yet to see another theory that properly accounts for all the astronomical observations that supposedly support the Big Bang Theory--including the plasma cosmology theory of Hannes Alfven presented in Eric Lerner's book, there are too many contradictions out there to keep this increasingly wobbly theory solvent anymore. If you're interested in knowing the truth, rather than simply defending your favorite theory, then you'll take a look at the links I've provided below and think long and hard about what they have to say:

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/
http://rubak.com/article.cfm?ID=14
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

Answer 2

No, it has not been proven 100%. But the link below is a site from the Astronomy department of UCLA that points out the errors in Lerners book.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html

I also would like to point out that Lerners book was written in 1991, citing papers from the 70s and 80s. This is an eternity ago in cosmology and physics. Its was written before the second Superstring Revolution that began in 1995 or so, that has produced incredible insight into the early moments after the Big Bang.

Nearly all of the cosmological models nowadays start with a Bang. There are many details that have not been worked out, like what happened in the first few nanosecods after the bang, and the inflation stages are also the subject of scrutinty now, since there are several mathematical models that work for inflation theories.

In addition, M-theory has provided a rough theory of WHAT might have went Bang. Its still in its very early stages, but shows great promise in tying together different aspects of cosmology and particle physics.

Answer 3

No matter how well a theory fits the observed facts, there will always be a few dissenting crack-pots, frequently of a religious persuasion, but not always. Of course, nothing at all has ever been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, as that would be impossible. How, for example, could you ever be sure that your eyes weren't deceiving you? All that can be said about these well established theories, is that they are entirely consistent with all the data that has ever been observed, and it is for this reason that they are considered to be accurate. In the event that observations do not fit the theory, the theory must be discarded, or modified to account for them. No such inconsistency has been observed regarding the Big Bang however.

Answer 4

As a former astronomy major and current amateur astronomer, I think the big bang theory has a 90+% probability of being basically correct. But it isn't totally proved. Not as well proved as the heliocentric theory of planetary motion for example.

I have great respect for Eric Lerner, he really seems to know his stuff. But is is definitely pushing the limits of conventional science. He is not on the kooky fringe though, not like the UFO abduction people for example. But he is just far enough out there to make science more interesting. We need people like that to keep us from falling in the the trap that Ptolemy did, writing more and more complex formulations of conventional and workable, but ultimately dead end and fundamentally wrong theories.

Answer 5

Yes.

In the 21st century, with the dawn of the WMAP, we have gained teriffic insight into the beginnings of the universe. Given the recent WMAP observations, it is pretty much a cold hard fact of the universe that it is expanding and that it began with an inflation of some sort billions of years ago.

As for the specific predictions of the theory...no, those are always changing. However, they have nothing to do with the event of the Big Bang itself.



I see a lot of individuals here are really just debating semantics. In a sense science is incapable of proving something. Therefore, the use of the word 'proof' in this manner is udderly useless. Instead, we should use the word to mean 'irrefutable evidence'. In this case, yes, science can prove many things.

The word proof is very arbitrary to begin with, so to avoid nonsensical replys about semantics like many here have done, we should first define proof.

Answer 6

Not only is the big bang not proven,it didn't happen,not the primordial egg type anyway.
A primordial egg would have had no where to sit and nothing to tell it to blow up.
The universe started as a finite potential sometime after time zero.
It was a single space-time pulse of minimum size and duration an evolved into the universe that we know and experience to-day.
A potential didn't need a reality to exist and it had to be finite or it couldn't have become a reality.

Answer 7

Science never proves anything. It can only disprove them. If meet someone who says they have 'proved' something, it's a pretty good indication that they're a 'quack.' Science uses observations to make educated ideas of how things work. Sometimes what we observe does not show the true nature of things. However, as we learn more and develop a better understanding of 'what we know' and 'what we don't know' we can start to form different ways of observing. We can become fairly certain of the nature of certain phenomenon, like the origin of the universe. Certain elements may still remain a mystery, and so we make educated guesses which may or may not turn out to be incorrect, but that doesn't mean you must discard the whole idea completely. Science is all about finding out the true nature of the physical.

Answer 8

Although I do not specialize in this particular area, The Big Bang theory is just that...a theory. This is why they call it a theory because it has yet to be proven. If it was proven, then it would be called something like the Big Bang Effect, or just The Big Bang. It is possible and even probable that this has happened. However, we don't know for sure. We are not far enough in technology to be able to prove this "theory". So it is thus. And you are correct about not finding rebuttals. If the government wants us to believe something, they will do whatever it takes to cram it down our throats.

Answer 9

"Their is absolutely no way Scientists can prove the BIG BANG THEORY. " True. Because science doesn't deal in proofs. Math does. Science deals with evidence and the evidence indicates the Big Bang. "Those who believe in such foolishness must rely totally on their FAITH in this spurious theory. " Then you should be easily able to refute the evidence for the Big Bang. "The evidence is clearly seen in the living things that God has created especially when you consider the preciseness and impeccable order in God's grand Creative Masterplan." Circular logic. "Their is absolutely no way that we all got here by BLIND CHANCE. Absurb thought. " Argument from personal incredulity.

Answer 10

Nothing is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Nothing.

Math rests on axioms and postulates that preceed from common sense inferred from imperfect human perceptions.

Experimental science likewise depends on data gathered by imperfect sensory apparatus and analyzed by math as above.

That doesn't prevent science from being immensely powerful and predictive. However, it does not predicate that scientific understanding is ever perfect and complete. In fact science relies on the premise that understanding the natural world can always be refined.