Doubts about the validity of modern sciences?

Question

Ok my first beef is with the big bang theory. You are siuggesting that the universe was created from an explosion, and is expanding...but the universe is nothing. So "nothing" was created from a massive explosion? So if the big bang created the universe, which is nothing, then you are suggesting that there was something there before this massive explosion. So what was there? The way i see it, the universe is infinite. Nothingness goes on forever and ever...and even if you could reach the edge of the universe...what is on the other side?

2) Special Relativity. You are trying to tell me that such properties as mass, time, and length will be altered by going at the speed of light or close to that speed? That violates such basic rules as the conservation of mass does it not? The way I see it, my mass is the same sitting here at the computer as it is going the speed of light in a warship. Please clarify these two things for me

Answer 1

Hello broncoguy -

Well, I guess the real question is what fits the observations that's better? In the case of the big bang, we are fairly certain that:

1. Almost all of the galaxies are receding from us (so the universe is expanding).
2. The further away they are, the faster they are receding (also fits with the universe expanding).
3. Galaxies at a great distance look different from those we see that are closer (since we are also looking back in time, that means the universe has changed over time).
4. The microwave background radiation was discovered after the theory predicted it would be there and what its temperature would be to a very good approximation.
5. The most distant galaxies that we see are not continuing to infinity, but are limited to about 13 billion light years away.

Now your suggestion of nothingness forever does not fit all of these observations - or at least it does not explain them or address them in any way. So as a scientist I think I would support the big bang over your theory so far. If you come up with a better idea, please publish it. The big bang is probably not the final word on the subject - just the best one so far that fits all the data.

As far as special relativity is concerned, this was discovered 100 years ago, and is not questioned by anyone who understands what it means. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant, regardless of the speed of the source or the observer - it has been measured and demonstrated to be constant innumerable times since the Michelson - Morley experiment at the turn of the last century. This means that if you are traveling toward a star at 90% the speed of light, then the light from that star will still pass you (relative to you) at exactly the speed of light. If you are traveling away from a star at 90% the speed of light, then the light from that star will still pass you at exactly the speed of light. The same is true if the star itself is moving. There is no serious question that this observation is correct. The whole special theory falls out immediately from this fact, and is really quite simple in its formulation, although not so simple intuitively.

In any case, it has been demonstrated repeatedly in cyclotrons, where the half life and mass of subatomic particles is increased precisely in accordance with the predictions of the theory as they approach light speed.

In summary - The big bang is admittedly somewhat new and not fully justified, especially at the nanosecond level. It is still the best model I have seen that fits all the observations. New ideas welcome, but not without evidence. Questioning special relativity is roughly equivalent to questioning whether the earth orbits the sun. It's well proven and it makes perfect sense once you understand it.

Answer 2

the golden rule of science is that observations count a lot more that how we would like nature to appear.

the harsh reality is that there is very good evidence that the big bang happened.

that said, you're not the only person who is unhappy with the big bang theory - most cosmologists are really uncomfortable with the idea that the universe emerged from nothing. Alan Guth - who came up with the initial ideas on inflation - called it "the ultimate free lunch." The discomfort with something or nothing is probably why so much effort is going into research in quantum gravity - the hope being that it will allow us to make some sensible guesses of how the big bang happened.

you can listen to the podcasts at the reference below to get a good idea of what's understood.

regarding special relativity - again there is _very_ good evidence that objects moving near the speed of light experience time dilation, a mass increase, length contraction and rotate when viewed from an inertial reference frame. the conservation of mass is not violated because conservation of mass is only an approximation - the conserved quantity is mass-energy, This means that the sum of kinetic energy and rest mass are conserved - and this has been shown to be true to within about one part in a billion.

hth