What evidence supports the validity of the Big Bang theory?

[Chalnoth]

Thanks Chalnoth, I found this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_oscillations


Presumably a telescope like Hubble could also see evidence of the expansion of space by observing variations in the shape and size of voids and clusters at different redshifts? Would'nt the mean distance between the centers of galaxies vary depending on redshift?

This page provides a nice set of images showing the whole process:
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~deisenst/acousticpeak/acoustic_physics.html

And yes, the mean distance does vary based on redshift.

 

[AgentSmith]

I think Big Bang theory is valid because of Inflation theory, it states that universe expanded faster than a light(right?) and that theory can solve the problems that Big Bang had: the Flatness and the Horizon problem. Another reason is Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, which is first predicted to exist by scientists who support the Big Bang theory, and later was discovered by Hubble.

Are my arguments correct?

Is there any more evidence that support the Big Bang theory??

I think the BB theory is incomplete, or partially true. The analogy of a movie being run backward is just that, analogy and not fact. Everything is quantized, so why not space.? There must be a Plank volume beyond which universe, or a black hole, cannot go.
There is plenty of evidence for the BBT, as others show. I just think it can't be the entire story.
Let the criticisms begin.

 

[bapowell]

I think the BB theory is incomplete, or partially true. The analogy of a movie being run backward is just that, analogy and not fact. Everything is quantized, so why not space.? There must be a Plank volume beyond which universe, or a black hole, cannot go.
There is plenty of evidence for the BBT, as others show. I just think it can't be the entire story.
Let the criticisms begin.

Agree that the theory of quantum gravity is incomplete, and that a complete understanding should yield insight into the earliest moments of the high-density universe. Disagree about the bit about "analogy". There is no analogy to a movie being run backwards -- the dynamical equations quite literally predict what the universe was like in the past given observations of its current state. That's pretty good science to me.

 

[Drakkith]

Everything is quantized, so why not space.?

No, not everything is quantized.

 

[Chronos]

The notion of quantization of spacetime is a work in progress. While there are reasons to suspect this is the case, there is no definitive evidence to date.

 

[Chalnoth]

No, not everything is quantized.

I'm not sure you can build a consistent theory of the universe without quantizing everything.

What is it that you don't think is quantized?

 

[AgentSmith]

Analogy of BB

Agree that the theory of quantum gravity is incomplete, and that a complete understanding should yield insight into the earliest moments of the high-density universe. Disagree about the bit about "analogy". There is no analogy to a movie being run backwards -- the dynamical equations quite literally predict what the universe was like in the past given observations of its current state. That's pretty good science to me.[/QUO


I've read several articles and books about the BB where they liken the expansion to a movie of an explosion. If you run it backwards, everything ends up in a point(actually it doesn't). So they are trying to explain how you arrive at BB using a movie run backward. Its a poor analogy, probably written for the novice. I quite agree with rest of your post.

 

[bapowell]

I've read several articles and books about the BB where they liken the expansion to a movie of an explosion. If you run it backwards, everything ends up in a point(actually it doesn't). So they are trying to explain how you arrive at BB using a movie run backward. Its a poor analogy, probably written for the novice. I quite agree with rest of your post.

Well, yeah. It's a helpful analogy to communicate the physics to the popular audience. That doesn't mean that cosmologists' understanding is also based on the same analogy. As I said, the theory gives you the expansion -- the time reversal of the theory gives you the contraction. Perhaps I misunderstand your criticism -- you seemed to be citing the use of the analogy as a weakness of the big bang model itself; if anything, it's a weakness about the popularization of it.

 

[Chronos]

We can only wait and see, imo. Popular articles, like brian noted, only discuss the history of the universe in reverse. All such models utterly fail at Planck scales. That is why it is such a hot topic.

 

[Viracocha]

Inflation does not "validate" the Big Bang Theory, it is an adjunct to the theory which explains the issues you noted in your post.

This, the big bang is only a basic theory, saying inflation validates it is like saying calculus validates counting.

Some assumptions or principles derived from the big bang concept might be wrong, but the basic concept is sound