Why is Science holding on to the Big Bang hypothesis?

Question

It's almost like keeping a suspect in custody despite all the evidence being disputed repeatedly. How does one search for a complete theory?

Oh come on. Tell me that I'm not the only one that sees the violation of this theory. Energy being turned into matter? How can you state this while saying e=mc2 is correct? It's like saying, "I don't believe in God but I believe He's there."

Oh. Well ok then, what about the expansion?

How can matter move at a greater speed than the speed of light?

I also have a big problem with the Big Bang and that's the Big Bang itself. Can I say the word ignition or does that scare you? What's the original ignition?

But then you're right, it's the only theory that I'm forced to side with...it's just that I can't seem to agree with it. I wish it were complete.......

Answer 1

Where does this image of scientists as elitist graybeards ignoring new evidence in support of their established laws come from?

The very purpose of science is to disprove what we think we know. Some of the highest honors in science are awarded to people who said, "I think that's wrong, and I'm going to prove it." And they're awarded during the recipient's lifetime, not posthumously after much debate and hand-wringing.

Scientists are continuously and vigorously testing the Big Bang and myriad other theories, hypotheses, and empirical data. They don't announce a theory and then disregard anything that doesn't agree.

Answer 2

It is the prevailing theory because it is the only one that is consistent with the evidence and in keeping with known physical laws. Except, of course, how something can come from nothing. But the only other idea which one could consider is that it had no beginning; it has been in existence for eternity. This is just as difficult to accept. All we know is that it does exist and it either had a beginning or it is eternal. Neither sits very well with us humans, who are condemned forever to view the Universe from the inside.

BTW, what evidence is being disputed? I'm interested.

Edit: To answer some of your additions. Matter does not travel faster than light. Nothing about the theory implies that. Also, the e=Mc^2 mass/energy conversion is real. It is the basis of nuclear weapons and how the sun and stars work. And the expansion is not only consistent with the Big Bang, it was predicted by the theory and found to be true.

Yeah, I wish it was more rational, but the Universe at its extremes, including the quantum world, are outside of our range to perceive rationally. When you think about it, this makes sense, as frustrating as it may be. I have long accepted the fact that we can never know it to its limits, because those limits if, in fact, they exist, are unreachable, physically or mentally.

Answer 3

>"It's almost like keeping a suspect in custody despite all the evidence being disputed repeatedly."

Really? By whom?

There are certainly not a lot of astronomers or astrophysicists disputing it ... and they're kinda the people who would be the first to dispute it if there was a serious problem with it.

And sorry, it really is called the Big Bang theory, not the Big Bang hypothesis.

Answer 4

Its not like scientists refuse to entertain other theories. Its just that so far no other theory has been able to prove itself as well as the Big Bang theory.

Theoretical support for the Big Bang comes from mathematical models (Friedmann models). These models show that a Big Bang is consistent with general relativity and with the cosmological principle, which states that the properties of the universe should be independent of position or orientation.

Observational evidence for the Big Bang includes:
- analysis of the spectrum of light from galaxies, which reveal a shift towards longer wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship described by Hubble's law
- evidence that observers located anywhere in the universe make similar observations (the Copernican principle) suggests that space itself is expanding
- the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. This had been predicted as a relic from when hot ionized plasma of the early universe first cooled enought to form neutral hydrogen and space became transparent to light. Its discovery led to general acceptance among physicists that the Big Bang is the best model for the origin and evolution of the universe.
- the relative proportion of light elements in the universe, which is a close match to predictions for the formation of light elements in the first minutes of the universe, according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

Answer 5

Actually, a singularity erupting has a greater degree of provability than say, creationism, which says, now correct me if I'm wrong, that there was nothing, but an entity, who, clapped his hands, and the universe sprung forth from nothing. At least with the big bang "theory" there is something to begin with. I'm not sure why there is such a massive amount of argument over this nonsense. Do those who want to believe in creationism have such a shaky footing inside their faith that they believe the big bang theory will overthrough their 2000 year old religion (christianity)? Wow, how unsettling it must be not to have more to believe in than that.

Answer 6

wait for it............... wait for it..................good watching
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAagw6iug

energy and mass are interchangeable
you can't destroy either, but you can transform it to the other.

thats WHY e=mc2 the faster matter (an atom) travels (although the equation goes up to the speed of light) the more energy it has. when it hits it will be destroyed (should I say) transformed into the E in energy...................

e=mc2
its almost the same as
f=ma

but we're referring to particles in the first one.

now what where you saying about e=mc2?

oh yes. you were going to say something like "WELL, I've never seen energy turned into mass"
then I say
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970724a.html
**********************************************************************
so far there is no matter that is traveling faster than the speed of light.
and the big bang theory doesn't say that there is.
*********************************************************************
i suggest taking a step back from what you "think" you know about the big bang and start over.
don't let the laws confuse you (it like your holding guns that misfire)
start fresh

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZa7px6NtFY
all the rest of the episodes are listed on the right

Answer 7

science is holding on to the big bang theory because that is what my text book said. if we go with a new theory i have to go back to school and learn everything all over again.

Answer 8

It's the theory that most fits what we're observing.

Unless a new, better theory is presented... you go with what you have.

Answer 9

How exactly does it violate E=mc^2?

Answer 10

Because it is correct.