Debunking the Mathematical Proof Against the Big Bang Theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mark D
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hello
AI Thread Summary
A user discusses a Creationist's claim of a mathematical proof challenging the Big Bang Theory, which suggests that the universe's expansion probability raises questions about its origin. The response emphasizes that such non-scientific claims are not debunked in the forum due to their tendency to attract unreasoned arguments. It clarifies that the Big Bang Theory does not assert that the universe began at a specific time, as its predictive capabilities do not extend to t=0. The discussion encourages further exploration of the Big Bang Theory through reputable resources. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of scientific evidence in cosmological discussions.
Mark D
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi, new to the forums. :-)

I was recently involved in a discussion with a Creationist who claimed he'd devised "mathematical proof" that made the Big Bang "problematic." Here's what he wrote:

"The general consensus regarding the "big bang" theory is that the universe began as a singularity that suddenly expanded into the universe we know today. This in and of itself poses no problems with physics. However, if we consider that this expansion would have a probability of occurring every moment, this is where the problem lies. The probability can fall into one of two categories, either P=0 or P>0. For P=0 we find that the universe would be infinitly aged, which is no issue, however the problem here lies in the fact that with P=0 the expansion would have never occured. If we consider a system in which P>0, no matter how close to 0, the expansion would occur after a FINITE amount of time, which would imply there is a point at which the universe was actually created, or some other event that set this system up (in which case we refer back to the beginning, with the exact same situation). While this in NO WAY disproves the big bang theory, it does raise questions."

Maybe I'm overthinking it and that he really is making the simplistic and dumb case that I think he is? Any ideas what this means? Have you heard this line before?

Thanks!
 
Space news on Phys.org
Thread closed for Moderation...
 
Hi Mark.

Unfortunately we do not debunk non-scientific claims here, including those that fall under creationism. The basic reason why we do not allow this is because it tends to attract 'crackpots' and other folks who will not listen to reason or accept scientific evidence that runs counter to their beliefs. The one thing I will say on the subject is that his basic premise, that the universe began at t=0, at the singularity, is not what the big bang theory says. Its predictive powers simply do not cover t=0, and cosmologists are actively working to develop new theories and gather new evidence in an effort to understand where the universe came from and what it was like.

If you would like to learn more about the big bang theory then I encourage you to browse around here in Cosmology forum. I've also attached a link to the big bang FAQ of the Talk Origins Archive and Ned Wright's cosmology FAQ, which may clear up a few misconceptions you or your friend may have.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

Thanks for your time.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman and Bandersnatch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
56
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top