Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Big Bang: Fact or Fiction?

  1. Jun 25, 2011 #1
    I've read a fair few articles recently about the big bang being utter fiction and that there is ALOT more evidence to disprove it than to prove it. Obviously it could never be entirely proved but to my mind the evidence against it should be enough to disprove it. Do we just stick to the big bang theory because its the widely accepted theory or because we have no viable alternatives?

    Some of the evidence against it I've found include:
    1. The idea that some superclusters and voids are older the universe. If, generally, galaxies move at around less than a thousand km/s and there are some superclusters that are a few hundred million lightyears across, then they would have taken around 20 billion years to form..
    2. Part of Sir Arthur Eddington's 1926 work showed that one of the biggest pieces of evidence for the big bang, the CMBR, could be explained by radiation from distant stars.
    3. The second law of thermodynamics means that the universe should tend towards increasing entropy and disorder yet the universe isn't so.
    4. Early stars in distant galaxies observed in the Hubble Deep Field shouldn't show such a high amount of metal elements since these are created in a supernova, yet.. they do.

    These are for the most part incredibly simple. I don't understand why these things aren't more widely discussed when the idea of the big bang comes up. Thoughts?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 25, 2011 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Space expands, so structures get bigger after they form. If you think there is a serious scientific argument to the effect that this is a problem, please provide a reference to an article in a peer-reviewed journal.

    Eddington died in 1944. The CMB was discovered in 1964.

    This is incorrect. We have a brand-new FAQ entry on this: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=509650 [Broken]

    Explaining abundances of isotopes is one of the tests that modern cosmological models pass. In fact, the inability to explain them is one of the pieces of evidence that non-big-bang models fail: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=506993 If you think this isn't so, please provide a reference to a paper in a peer-reviewed journal to back up this claim.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  4. Jun 25, 2011 #3
    Forget the peer review. I want to know exactly from where StarGazer91 is getting his information!

    StarGazer91, please provide us with some links!
  5. Jun 25, 2011 #4
    I've heard this before and I've never understood the motive behind it. This doesn't have anything to do with the Big Bang. Instead, wouldn't this be evidence against the second law of thermodynamics?
  6. Jun 25, 2011 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If StarGazer did that, s/he would be violating the PF rules:

    The following are some online forums that specialize in discussing independent research, highly speculative ideas, or ideas that run counter to mainstream science:

    http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research -- Read this first: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 26, 2017
  7. Jun 25, 2011 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Please read the FAQ entry linked to in #2. As explained in that FAQ entry, the evidence is consistent with both the second law of thermodynamics and the big bang.
  8. Jun 25, 2011 #7
    Okay, I can appreciate that posting links is against forum policy, as pointed out in your first response to me (although really the OP itself is in violation of said rule), but I don't understand this response. It was never my claim that the Big Bang and the second law are inconsistent with evidence. Are you sure you read my post correctly? What do you think I'm saying?

    The OP said this:
    He's saying what the second law of thermodynamics is and that the universe isn't following this law. What I'm saying is that this is independent of the Big Bang theory and, if it were true, would be evidence against the second law... and not the Big Bang... right?
  9. Jun 25, 2011 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    But it's not true, as explained in the FAQ. The universe is observed to be following the second law of thermodynamics, not violating it.
  10. Jun 26, 2011 #9
    Well sure... we all know that. Hell, I suspect even the OP knows that! I just thought it would be funny to point out that, even if it were true, it still wouldn't support the OP's thesis. All it would do is prove the second law incorrect...

    Sadly, I wasn't kidding when I said that I've heard it before. I have. I just don't understand why because, as I've pointed out, it does nothing to deny the Big Bang...

    Honestly, everyone using this claim must be getting it from the same source... hence my interest in learning the OP's own source...
  11. Jun 26, 2011 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You won't find any of that in the mainstream. The most likely problem here is you are picking low quality sources.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook