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

Hello and please help translate this arglebargle

  1. Jun 2, 2015 #1
    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 occuring 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?

  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 2, 2015 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Thread closed for Moderation...
  4. Jun 2, 2015 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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.


    Thanks for your time.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook