Challenging the Big Bang Theory: Examining Evidence and Alternative Theories

[StarGazer91]

I've read a fair few articles recently about the big bang being utter fiction and that there is a lot 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?

 

[bcrowell]

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..

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.

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.

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

3. The second law of thermodynamics means that the universe should tend towards increasing entropy and disorder yet the universe isn't so.

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

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.

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.

 

[Jocko Homo]

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.

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.

Forget the peer review. I want to know exactly from where StarGazer91 is getting his information!

StarGazer91, please provide us with some links!

 

[Jocko Homo]

3. The second law of thermodynamics means that the universe should tend towards increasing entropy and disorder yet the universe isn't so.

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?

 

[bcrowell]

Forget the peer review. I want to know exactly from where StarGazer91 is getting his information!

StarGazer91, please provide us with some links!

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

Overly Speculative Posts:
One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Non-mainstream or personal theories will be deleted. Unfounded challenges of mainstream science and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site. Linking to obviously "crank" or "crackpot" sites is prohibited.

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/alt.sci.physics
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread...ATM-Idea-Advocates-Read-before-posting-in-ATM
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research -- Read this first: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spr.html
http://www.sciforums.com
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.science

 

[bcrowell]

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?

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.

 

[Jocko Homo]

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.

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:

3. The second law of thermodynamics means that the universe should tend towards increasing entropy and disorder yet the universe isn't so.

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?

 

[bcrowell]

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?

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.

 

[Jocko Homo]

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.

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...

 

[russ_watters]

I've read a fair few articles recently about the big bang being utter fiction and that there is a lot more evidence to disprove it than to prove it... Thoughts?

You won't find any of that in the mainstream. The most likely problem here is you are picking low quality sources.