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 you basically agree that it's impossible but you hope one day science will explain it

Philip C, by your logic you must amount to 0, that's very logical, in fact it's so logical that you might as well step over as many people as you can to get the most out of this life because after that you will be a sum total of 0. Love your attempt to reason, but it doesn't work because it's meaningless

plluke

Exactly it's just a model, and a series of theories, calculations filled with constants, assumptions and variables. They are at best educated guesses but a guess nonetheless.

Ultimately you are saying you will never know the truth but you accept this theory (which might be very far from the truth) because egocentrically as a human your science has to be pretty good and cater for your appetite of knowledge and truth.

Thanks for posting, though I heard it before, nothing new. You compared it with other models to somehow think it would increase the plausibility of this mega guess. Wishful thinking and self deceiving but I'll let you continue on, guess it won't hurt or will it?

vorenhutz

you are assuming too much, give it up. You assume that if we have progessed this far we will progress for ever until we will know everything. Scientifically exponentials like these reach a threshold and plateau.

A highjumper in the 1908 Olympics might have jumped 1.7m in the 2004 2.4 but that doesn't mean that in the year 3000 they will jump 12m

Get the drift? There is a limit even to our most gifted geniuses. The model will never come close to the truth.

Chances are... random and chaotic my friend. Explain (not define) to me chaos and the order it takes and then it will make more sense that there are other universes

I am more than a creationist, I am a believer and follower of Jesus Christ. Thank you for noticing the Light, does it offend you?

Answer 1

But that's the thing: it doesn't explain what people really want to know, which is why anything exists. Say it is true (not a bad assumption, given the data), that the universe started from some gigantic explosion. So...where did the matter and energy for the explosion come from? It never mentions that. It's no fault of the theory. The trick is that, by the theory, we can't know, because that's the limit of how far we can look back. So we need to keep looking if we are to understand where everything comes from.

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

how do you conclude that it's impossible? it seems you're saying it's poorly understood, which i think most scientists would agree with (certainly for very early times, inflation and earlier). i don't understand how you can say it's poorly understood and impossible at the same time. it's not unreasonable to expect that progress will be made in the future. the theory makes predictions about gravity wave and neutrino cosmic backgrounds, analogous to the cosmic microwave background. quite soon it will be possible to measure these things, see for instance:

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2007/split/809-1.html

high energy particle physics experiments such as the LHC (turning on next year) may also illuminate the situation:

http://lhc-new-homepage.web.cern.ch/lhc-new-homepage/

meanwhile it's not even clear whether the big bang is the origin of the universe. attempting to explain it as such seems premature. there are several competing hypotheses in cosmology - cyclical or bouncing universes as well as singular event models.

"Exactly it's just a model, and a series of theories, calculations filled with constants, assumptions and variables. They are at best educated guesses but a guess nonetheless."

oh, so you're a nihilist then. oh well, too bad for you.

"You assume that if we have progessed this far we will progress for ever until we will know everything."

not at all. i'm just pointing out that there are things on the horizon, as it were, that can be investigated. if science ever gets to the point where everyone is scratching their heads as to how to proceed, then i would probably agree with you. but the current situation is, i think, very far from your dream scenario.

perhaps you don't appreciate the timescale here. the big bang model is less than 80 years old, quite young as major scientific theories go, and has changed much since it was first proposed. physical cosmology has been revolutionised in just the last ten years with dark matter and dark energy. there is apparently no shortage of interesting problems to solve.

seems like you're the one assuming far too much. perhaps you'd like to demonstrate that science is anything like the olympic high jump. perhaps if rocket powered pole vaults were allowed...

"Thank you for noticing the Light, does it offend you?"

yeah. looks like darkness to me.

Answer 4

One of the latest theories poses the universe started after a collision of two parallel branes (from string theory) that are parallel to each other, but do attract each other. They touch each other (collide), a universe is formed between them, and they are pushed away from each other again until they start attracting each other again, collide, a new universe forms between them, etc, etc.. It's pretty hard to prove, but for what I've read mathematically it's pretty correct with the outcome of the universe as we experience today. There are still some more explanations about how the big-bang started and what is "outside" our universe. Do some reading on it, there really is a lot interesting stuff about it.

Answer 5

oldest men history book of science were find in babel ion but unread yet (cause of written method ) most useful historical book is old testimony which are good information for men in 6000 years ago not scientific . In term of the Big Bang theory module there's a short sentence in john 1:1 (IN THE BEGINNING WAS LIGHT AND GOD WAS THAT LIGHT)
seem to be an explosion with light reflection .But when you coming in reality this is happen milliard light years ago and so see how long this is old which old testimony look like some bowl shed to accept.

Answer 6

Well that certainly is the direction that the evidence leads. The universe isnt eternal and had a beginning for sure.

BTW>The universe is not infinite. It is finite. And there is no evidence to suggest that the unvierse started off from nothing. If things can pop into existence from nothing, then that invalidates much of what we know about science.

Answer 7

You should allow me to summarize the entire thought process you have mapped out in your question... you are basically telling us that, in your opinion, the 'big bang theory makes the most sense'. Good job at making it fancier and adding alot of jibberish to make yourself sound smarter than you actually are.

Btw, it still doesn't explain how something came from nothing.... so i dont' agree and I know science won't be able to explain anything.

Answer 8

It is just theory, but let us just assume that it is true. That being said it still cannot explain the events that may have taken place before the creation of this universe. Chances are there are an infinate amount of universes.

Answer 9

Yes it is certainly is proper to accept the big bang as being a plausible explanation of the origin of the universe.

Answer 10

The total contents of the universe currently = 0 so its not surprising it started as nothing, an example being
universe before: 0
universe now: -1 and 1

Sounds rather plausible to me