It is proper to accept the Big Bang theory as the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe?

Question

... and extrapolate on the current state of the universe in such a short time bracket, to conclude that essentially all things originated from this initial cosmic explosion?

An explosion that was nothing short of chaotic which led to a series of fine tuned events by which we (the direct outcome of this chaotic explosion) can calculate backwards attempting to explain that such an infinite universe started off from essentially nothing.

Why is it so proper to consider this scientific model?

So... someone predicted it and then it was calculated, therefore it is plausible, this never happened until now. Well done, that validates your point precisely... not

I predict yesterday it rained in New York, someone calculated that it did rain, this has never happened before therefore it is validated.

Were you there when it happened? There are toooooooo many constants and tooooooo many assumptions and presuppositions in these calculations. Proving someone can do mathematical problems doesn't prove they are correct. Their maths might be their calculations not necessarily

eelfins, let me ask you a question, do you have a clue as to how they calculated the rate of the expansion of the universe? Do you also have a clue when in this universe our galaxy, not planet our galaxy is positioned? The original question I was going to ask was this: Logical to who?

Answer 1

I think that it's important to remember that peopl have traced back to the beginning of the universe with calculations, and found that we should see a relic radiation field over the whole sky with a temperature of a few degrees Kelvin. Several years later, this was discovered. It is very rare in science for a theory to make such an unusual, specific prediction, and for that prediction to turn out to be correct, without the model that made the prediction being correct. If the Big Bang model were capable only of explaining things which had been seen before the model were developed, then you might have a point, but that's not the case here.

Answer 2

Because the Big Bang model makes certain predictions about current day conditions that are empirically verifiable. Cosmic background radiation, for example, is one piece of evidence in support of the Big Bang theory, should you choose to interpret it that way. Saying that the universe is a series of fine tuned events (and furthermore saying that we are the direct outcome of a Big Band) is highly human-centric. For all we know, we may very well be a small side effect of the Big Bang. And the universe is anything but finely tuned. Nothing is certain and probability (especially in quantum frameworks) rule. Big Bang theory also doesn't say that the universe started from "nothing". Just that the rules of this current universe don't necessarily apply BEFORE the big bang so we can only extrapolate to an infinitesimal second AFTER the Big Bang. For us, there is not "before" the Big Bang. That is essentially non-existent to us. Also, one more thing, nobody extrapolated backwards. People observed current cosmological events (like red shift, and the Hubble constant indicating that galaxies are moving farther away from each other at a "speed" that is, depending on how far the galaxy is from us, that seems to exceed the speed of light) and tried to formulate an explanation for it. Big Bang is one of those explanations and it happens to make quite a few predictions that are verifiable. Until we find something that explains the phenomena we sees better than that, we'll stick with the Big Bang. Realize that all of science is just that: one "model" and one "theory" after another. A theory doesn't lay claim to the absolute truth. A theory is just an idea that bears experimental justification and makes accurate predictions. Before it was a theory of relativity, Einstein's ideas were really "hypotheses" of relativity. But now, with lots of experiments and confirmed predictions, it has become a good theory. Doesn't mean it won't be replaced with better ones in the future.

Answer 3

The reason we belive in it is because scientist made predictions that were confirmed. Just because you don't understand how they made those predictions does not mean they are wrong. You might have predicted that it was going to rain, but can you explain why you think it was going to rain? Scientist observes the Universe, comes up with a mathematical model that explains all the observations, then uses that model to predict something that nobody has ever measured or to explain some anomaly that nobody has ever been able to explain. The Big Bang theory, and every other accepted scientific theory, went throug this except process and that is why we accept it. Does this mean that is is the ultimate truth? No. As soon as somebody finds some evidence that contradicts the model, scientists are more than willing to come up with a new theory, as evident by the acceptance of Relativity over Newtonian gravity

Answer 4

There seems to be only two logical courses for a universe.
It is an infinite space field that had no beginning and no end,but an infinite universe doesn't make sense.
The other is the conventional big bang theory.
The problem with the primordial egg deal is where did this thing sit and how did it know when to blow up,so the egg had to have a finite life span.
It had to spring from nothing some time after time zero.
This nothing had to have a potential and the potential had to be finite or it wouldn't have known when to start. It began as a single space-time pulse of minimum size and duration.
A quantum entity that could not be any smaller and exist.
This space-time pulse multiplied rapidly and expanded outward.
It expanded into nothing so the expansion had to be controlled or it would have expanded to infinity in zero time.
It exploded outward,accelerating for one-thirty billionths of a second.
The radial velocity reached the speed of light so it stopped accelerating,at which time it was about 2 cm in diameter the maximum density that it would ever be
It contained all the ingredients required to evolve into the universe we see to-day
The speed of light is an incident that requires time to take place.
Time is a quantum entity that can be divided only so far and exist.
If you attempt to increase the speed of a photon you are trying to force it to exist in a length of time that can't exist.
This principle controlled the expansion of the original space-time pulse. A quantum unit that couldn't be divided

Answer 5

The Big Bang theory has many interesting points alluding to the Creation of the Universe. Hence it has a very logical explanation.Neverthe less the question arises ,does it really explain the Nature of a singularity and how was it formed from what substance?These are some of the loop holes which need to be explained.

Is This theory of Creation of the Universe representing reality?
No one can actually ascertain that. Therefore, is it belivable Universaly. Well most people don't understand it . Hence something that is not understood and without concrete proof ,a Jury just would not believe it. Is it the most believable =No.
Because It offers no match to the Biblical record of Creation.
Never the less ,compared to other scientific theories on the status quo of the Universe ,the Big Bang theory is the most logical., because it implies that the Universe, and Time ,Gravity,Mass structures etc..,had a begining.

We cannot say its a scientific model because it has too many uncertainties=it has no explanation of Gravity. It does not explain the basic composition of mass,let alone the premordial mass.It cannot correctly explain the nature of Time. Its worst case scenario is its failure to explain ,the composition and what is the substance of space . And of course it is not believable that the Earth ,Moon and the solar system is merely hanging on Nothing. As you can see it leave too many questions to be explained.

Answer 6

It is the only model that fits with the observations made. I guess you have another one that explains the apparent expansion of the universe...

If you step out on the street and see, with your own eyes, that the street is all wet, wouldn´t it be a logical conclusion to say that it recently rained? The calculations you criticize are based on very careful scientific observations. Just because you don´t like the idea of the big bang theory doesn´t make it false.

And the big bang wasn´t even an explosion. It was an expansion out of which all matter and the forces of nature (the ones responsible for the order that confuses you) eventually condensed.

Answer 7

Yes, it is proper. It is indeed proper to go along with the best scientific theories we have. You should read some science books. Then, you need not ask such questions that show you do not understand the Big Bang theory and its history. I own some old books from used bookstores. In some, I see the Big Bang and Continuous Creation (Steady State) were once rival theories. The BB has gained more support by now.

Answer 8

I think it's proper to accept until a better explanation is presented. The evidence is compelling, based on the observed spectra of distant galaxies and the microwave background radiation, which was found after it was predicted by the theory. I think events are pretty tough to deduce at the nanosecond level, but I also think it's disingenuous to ignore the pile of evidence that's in front of you while you pick at details. I mean, it's really easy to criticize, what's tough is to do the work that either supports existing ideas or provides new ones. So - what's your idea?

Answer 9

There is another quantum theory called the no-boundary condition(in imaginary time) developed by Stephen Hawking.It assumes that space-time is finite but has no boundary,which means it had no beginning,no Big-Bang as the moment of creation.The universe would be completely self contained and not affected by anything outside itself.It would neither be created nor destroyed.It would just BE.It uses complicated theorems of imaginary time and techniques of performing sum over histories for all possible Euclidean space-times that have no boundary.For more info check up A Brief History Of Time by Stephen Hawking.

Answer 10

Because of what we know of rudimentary particle attraction.

The Big Bang is thought to be a fusion explosion (atomic nucli fusing together releasing comsic particles, X-rays, free electrons and generating heat). A fusion chain reaction (much like an H-Bomb).

Once the fusion chain reaction starts the mass expands and it explodes in all directions releasing a variety of mass.

We know about this fundamentally because of studies done on the H-Bomb explosions.

We know about the EMP

We know about the Gamma and X-Ray bursts that preceed the heat and even light and shock wave.

So it was expected that some primordial matter (possible what we call dark matter and dark energy and black holes) may have been emitted, but we expect most of it was rudimentary particles, positive and negative.

It was expected that both anti-particles and particles were emitted, but with more particles than anti-particles and these collided with each other and emitted more gamma rays and what was left was largley postiive, negative and nutral particles, photons of light, comsic radiation.

As this cooled the postive and negatives attracted each other. You can prove this with two magnets.

The most rudimentary bond is one postive and one negative and that creates a Hydrogen Atom.

Helium is also readily formed via this process.

As things cooled this became stars and galaxies.

Now, we know Atomic Bonding occurs in a variety of forms.

You learn this in Organic Chemistry, but it can apply in Inorganic Chemsityr as well.

In Organics you have ISOMERS that bond in different places so you have to call them by different names because of their make up, even though they ALL have the same chemical formual.

C7H14

I forget exactly what it is but the ISOMER stack falls along the line of

n-heptane
2 methyle heptane
2,3 metyle hexane

All in all there are like 9-11 ISOMERS of the SAME chemical formula with differen BONDING spots.

So ATOMS bond in strange ways.

Since they bond it is possible that as things cooled Nitrogen, Krypton, Argon, Oxygen formed and eventally this leads to Carbon, Iron, Copper.

The bonding process is not fully understood.

We know it does bond. We know some bonds are stronger than others.

It can be random or intellegently put together.

Both motifs can be justified.

We intellegently design isotopes such as U-235.

We turn common drinking water into heavy water.

It's also found naturally, but not in large quanities.

But this is the common model and the proof are that all objects are moving away from us and there is a cosmic ray signature in the background of eveyr inch of space.

These aspects were predicted by the Catholic Priest who first proposed the Primevil Atom concept which became Big Bang.