Heres a good question, why is the big bang theory still controversial in this day of age?

Question

We have some evidence to back the theory but why do we still have quams about it happening? whats your idea?

Katie
xoxox

Answer 1

Because, as you noted in your question, it is still a "theory."

As long as it's occurence can be questioned, and as long as there are aspects of it's occurence that can be questioned, it will generate controversy.

Even if we knew for certain it had happened, heck, even if we were THERE, there would be aspects of it that we did not understand.

Answer 2

We are still learning about the Big Bang. How it started, what were the conditions, what happened. There is a lot to still figure out. That's one reason why many don't want to accept it as theory, because we don't know as much as we should to classify it as a theory....and they are right. Saying it is a theory means that it is a well tested through repeatable tests that can further back it up. We can't exactly test the concept of the Big Bang outside of computer simulations, and there are too many uncertainties.

Another aspect of the controversy comes from the religious perspective. If the Big Bang is how things got started, that throws a huge monkey wrench into the idea that God created everything. Or, at least, that's where the arguement comes in. There are some who argue that melding the two ideas into one idea isn't so hard if you don't take the Bible literally word for word.

Then we get to the schools. How can we teach that the universe was created through the Big Bang and not teach about God. People tend to get a little upset over that because they see it as pushing the science and throwing out the religion as unimportant. Personally, when I teach, when asked about a religious topic, my response is usually, "I'm sorry, I left all my religious beliefs at home. I am here to give you a better understanding of how the world around you works, not to hold science vs. religion debates." Amazingly, I haven't had to deal with parents yet about anything (knocking on my wood desk right now).

I deal with religion vs. science controversies with two subjects. GOD vs Big Bang and again with Creationism vs Evolution. Thankfully, I deal only with the evolution one.

There are a lot of different aspects that lead to the controversy. And without absolute proof, there will always be a controversy (heck, even with proof people would still argue).

Answer 3

The Big Bang theory relates to the idea that all matter was compressed into an infinitely small point which rapidly expanded to create the universe.
Theories such as the big bang or evolution are theories because the the absolute proof is missing, although the observations- such as such as the red shift (hubbles constant), and data recorded in observatories tends to support the theory.

Theories abound about the universe and how the present universe came to be as it is, and no idea should be accepted as dogma.
It may well be that many of our ideas on the universe will be shown in time to be incomplete or wrong. The big bang theory fits our observations of the universe quite closely and until someone provides a better theory it is the idea I think most likely.

Answer 4

We can't describe with the current methods of physics, what the conditions were at the start of the big bang. We don't have a quantum theory of gravity which is necessary in order to understand what the first second was like.

We've also had to patch the theory as we learn more. Inflation was added to explain why the universe got as big as it did so quickly. Dark energy and dark matter are the two latest patches. Dark matter helps explain the "missing mass" (atronomers see less mass than the expansion rate of the universe suggest should be present), and dark energy accounts for the increasing rate of expansion.

The current theory of particle physics, which is again very important in the early universe, has too many adjustable parameters so is not viewed as being fundamental.

So there are a number of things that need to be reconciled. Still, this working model is the best at explaining what has happened and predicting new cosmological phenomenon.

Answer 5

Only BNP got it really right!

Lambda CDM cosmology is the name of a MODEL, not a theory.

It will never be a theory like quantum mechanics or thermodynamics or general relativity. It is way too specialized for that. But it looks like it will be an extremely well tested model.

So you are right that it is well tested. You are incorrect in your nomenclature.

Now, as far as "controversy" is concerned, that is not a term that is used in the science community for any purpose. Scientists do not have controversies, they only have questions with known and questions with unknown answers.

Sometimes they have feuds... when two or more people or groups are slugging out ideas in public. To science, per se, these purely personal events mean nothing. You can read about them in biographies but you will not find anything much about it mentioned in hard core text books. Those will only say that as of the writing of the text a problem is undecided and that there are different suggestions as to how to solve it. But that is not a controversy. It is a delineation of what is known and what is not. And when the same text book comes out in a new edition and the solution has been found in the meantime, it will usually get the attention of the text book author who will then cite the main arguments that led to the survival of one idea and the virtual death of another.

"Controversy" is a purely political term and it is indeed mostly used by people with agendas, be they religious or otherwise. If you see it mentioned in a seemingly scientific context as an argument for or against something, you can be sure to be looking at junk science.

Answer 6

I've said this before, and I'll say it again.
There is evidence of "A" Big Bang, but there is no evidence that it was "THE" Big Bang that created all matter. Quite simply, because nobody knows just how big The Universe is. It may be many millions, or billions, or even trillions times larger than what we currently think it is.
One point that I always like to make is: What if there was another Big Bang 100 billion light years away, that happened 20 billion years ago? The light from that Big Bang wouldn't even reach us for another 80 billion years! By which time, we would no longer exist.

Answer 7

Its not a theory as others have said, it is a conceptual framework.
The statistics stacked against hot bodies being formed in temperatures of minus 270 centigrade are such a huge number that you have to build a wall 1.35 miles high around our galaxy to fit this number in. A light beam would take over 300,000 years to trace the first of 400,000 lines of zeros.
Our current models do not even iron out the particle/wave dualities of light. Lots of people saying, its a good theory, proves nothing.
Lots of nuts thought the Earth was flat, cos they had not read the Bible properly, Those same nuts took hundreds of years to say Galileo was right... the Pope was wrong.
I have a question to all the big bang theorists.
Where did your singularity come from !
Saying it just WAS... is no different to saying God just IS.
One is inanimate, the other personal and concerned for every being on the planet.
Feel free to contact direct.
Voice in the Yahoo wilderness !

Answer 8

Hey katie thanks for answering my astronaut question.

I disagree with that guy who thinks the controversy is caused by religion. If the universes beginning can be traced back to one single event then surely you have to ask what caused that event?

This is more of a philosophical problem than scientific (even though there are evidences that can be interpreted either way). For example some people want to believe that the universe had a beginning and look for evidence to support it, while others would rather believe that the universe is eternal and uncreated (pantheism).

Its like LOOKING at doves with green lenses and saying that doves ARE green, and then LOOKING at the sky with red lenses and saying that the sky IS purple.

See the difference between LOOKING and CONCLUDING. Its all due to whats in between the too, the colour of the lenses. Or in this case, the intentions or beliefs of the observer.

Answer 9

Because we don't KNOW that's what happened, we just really really think that's what happened. Good scientists question everything. If we all just accepted whatever idea sounds best right now, and never question it, we would never make progress.

Of course we'll almost certainly never KNOW what happened, but the more we think about it and try to come up with new theories the closer we'll get :)

Answer 10

A theory is an idea that allows us to make predictions its not a guess but a tool we have qualms because it is not yet fact and other theories like string theory exist