What evidence supports the validity of the Big Bang theory?

[fuzzzles]

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??

 

[Deuterium2H]

Fuzzles, a bit of a clarification...

Inflation does not "validate" the Big Bang Theory, it is an adjunct to the theory which explains the issues you noted in your post. The "validation" of the Big Bang theory comes from multiple, independent observations. Typically, these are known as the four pillars of the Big Bang theory:

1) The evidence that the Universe is expanding via observation of progressively red-shifted galaxies at further distance scales.

2) The evidence that the Universe has evolved in time (which also disproves Steady State) by observation of evolution of galaxies and large scale structure. The early Universe did not look the same as it does now. For example, quasers were prevalent in the early Universe (high red-shifts).

3) The existence and observation of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, as well as it's particular black-body spectrum and temperature.

4) The relative abundance of light elements as observed in our Universe correlates directly with the models of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.

So, in conclusion, the strength of the Big Bang theory lies in these four major, independent observations...whereas Inflation theory is a separate aspect of the Standard Cosmological Model, which answers some of the early questions / problems that were seen with the very early (naive) Big Bang model. The inclusion of Inflation Theory model within the central Big Bang cosmology has brought about a concordance which matches very, very well with the observed homogenity and relative isotropy of our Universe.

 

[Bread18]

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.

The CMBR wasn't discovered by Hubble, it was discovered by accident by 2 physicists in the 1960's.

 

[PatrickPowers]

The CMBR wasn't discovered by Hubble, it was discovered by accident by 2 physicists in the 1960's.

Yeah. The two guys who lucked out got the Nobel. The two guys who predicted the CMBR couldn't get anyone to do the experiment and got bupkis.

 

[Jack21222]

The CMBR wasn't discovered by Hubble, it was discovered by accident by 2 physicists in the 1960's.

It was later confirmed by the COBE satellite and more recently, the WMAP satellite.

 

[Deuterium2H]

I might use the expression "later COBE and WMAP" put much greater precision into the measurements. The original Penzias and Wilson discovery was corroborated by hundreds, if not thousands of individual, separate ground based radio-telescope observations made after the initial discovery. COBE and WMAP happen to be famous for their own discoveries, which augmented and expanded upon the original CMB discovery.

 

[Chronos]

Penzias and Wilson were engineers working for Bell Labs. They had no interest or knowledge of 'big bang' theories. Check your facts before asserting unfounded conclusions.

 

[Chalnoth]

This essay is a good overview of the evidence for the big bang theory:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

So yes, there is more evidence. A lot more.

 

[Deuterium2H]

Penzias and Wilson were engineers working for Bell Labs. They had no interest or knowledge of 'big bang' theories. Check your facts before asserting unfounded conclusions.

Wow...slow down there, Chronos, are you replying to me? Penzias and Wilson made the discovery, got the credit for it, and the Nobel. I agree with you that they initially didn't know what they had discovered, nor where they involved in Cosmological research, but the fact remains that they discovered the CMB radiation (although it was predicted by others...including George Gamow).

So, if you were replying to me, I don't know exactly where any of my facts or conclusions are unfounded?

Besides, in my main reply to this thread, I didn't even mention Penzias and Wilson?? So I am a bit confused.

 

[Tanelorn]

Just out of curiosity has anyone ever tried looking at other wavelengths for other black body radiation which is flat in amplitude and from every direction like the main CMBR signal?

 

[Deuterium2H]

Just out of curiosity has anyone ever tried looking at other wavelengths for other black body radiation which is flat in amplitude and from every direction like the main CMBR signal?

Hello Tenelorn:

Not sure exactly what you mean by "flat in amplitude". Did you mean uniform in distribution?

In terms of the electromagnetic spectrum, the current 2.73K CMB radiation is the lowest temp / frequency we will be able to observe, as it is from the surface of last scattering at the Recombination era. The incandescent plasma was around 3000K, and has since cooled to 2.73K due to the expansion of space. As the earlier Universe (prior to Recombination) was opaque, we cannot get E/M observations from any earlier period.

However, we should be able to get information from earlier times from cosmic background Neutrinos, and studies are underway. Another possibility for future observations is from Gravitational waves from the Early Universe...although this won't happen anytime soon.

 

[Chalnoth]

Just out of curiosity has anyone ever tried looking at other wavelengths for other black body radiation which is flat in amplitude and from every direction like the main CMBR signal?

Well, we've done all-sky surveys in a fair number of wavelengths. No, so far nothing like the CMB has been found. Nor would we expect to see anything like the CMB but at a different wavelength.

The problem, basically, is twofold. As Deuterium2H notes, we can't observe any radiation from before the CMB was emitted, because our universe was opaque before then. And then after the emission of the CMB, the universe was too transparent for there to be any uniform stuff to emit anything. Basically, our best estimates of the transparency of the universe since the CMB was emitted are that about 92% of the light from the CMB reaches us. So there just isn't any way for there to be a uniform distribution of stuff that would emit a thermal spectrum since then.

 

[russ_watters]

You don't need an all-sky survey (the CMB wasn't found with one): everyone who has ever pointed a telescope of any kind at the sky is looking, primarily, for black body radiation.

 

[Chronos]

Wow...slow down there, Chronos, are you replying to me? Penzias and Wilson made the discovery, got the credit for it, and the Nobel. I agree with you that they initially didn't know what they had discovered, nor where they involved in Cosmological research, but the fact remains that they discovered the CMB radiation (although it was predicted by others...including George Gamow).

So, if you were replying to me, I don't know exactly where any of my facts or conclusions are unfounded?

Besides, in my main reply to this thread, I didn't even mention Penzias and Wilson?? So I am a bit confused.

Apologies, I was addressing the OP.

 

[Tanelorn]

Well, we've done all-sky surveys in a fair number of wavelengths. No, so far nothing like the CMB has been found. Nor would we expect to see anything like the CMB but at a different wavelength.

The problem, basically, is twofold. As Deuterium2H notes, we can't observe any radiation from before the CMB was emitted, because our universe was opaque before then. And then after the emission of the CMB, the universe was too transparent for there to be any uniform stuff to emit anything. Basically, our best estimates of the transparency of the universe since the CMB was emitted are that about 92% of the light from the CMB reaches us. So there just isn't any way for there to be a uniform distribution of stuff that would emit a thermal spectrum since then.

Thanks Chalnoth and Deuterium. Thanks Russ, great site by the way.

I fully understand the reason why there should not be any radiation like the CMBR radiation at other wavelengths, I was just asking if anyone had checked to be absolutely certain. It should be relatively easy these days to verify the RF radiation in all directions from KHz to visible. I am just wondering what else might be out there. eg. Would we perhaps see a red shifted Hydrogen emission line due to all the hot hydrogen atoms?

Regarding the transition from opaque to transparent presumably it was a relatively slow transition, but not so slow as to cause different temperatures or redshifts to be observed? Or perhaps this might be the observed pattern on the WMAP pictures?


I didnt know whether to start a new thread for this question: In a recent TV cosmology program they discussed how the universe started as pure energy which eventually condensed into matter. By energy do they mean photon energy and other force carriers? By matter do the mean perhaps a quark soup or perhaps protons neutrons and electrons? Also is there an estimate of the ratio of the numbers of elementary particles produced in the BB? It seems a happy coincidence that there were equal numbers of electrons as protons or do we think that there may be many ionised particles in space.

 

[Chalnoth]

I fully understand the reason why there should not be any radiation like the CMBR radiation at other wavelengths, I was just asking if anyone had checked to be absolutely certain. It should be relatively easy these days to verify the RF radiation in all directions from KHz to visible. I am just wondering what else might be out there. eg. Would we perhaps see a red shifted Hydrogen emission line due to all the hot hydrogen atoms?

Yes, it's certainly the case that there's no other background it that range. The most significant gaps in our observations are at the high-energy end, but I think any high-energy black body source would have a broad enough spectrum that we would have seen it anyway.

Regarding the transition from opaque to transparent presumably it was a relatively slow transition, but not so slow as to cause different temperatures or redshifts to be observed? Or perhaps this might be the observed pattern on the WMAP pictures?

Yes, it was a bit slow. But since temperature is linear with redshift, the change in temperature over the expansion during the transition neatly cancels. So the primary effect is that instead of seeing a clear image of the CMB, we see a blurred image. This has the impact of suppressing small-scale power in the CMB power spectrum. Without this effect, the CMB power spectrum would be nearly flat (that is, the peaks would be of roughly the same level at all scales).

I didnt know whether to start a new thread for this question: In a recent TV cosmology program they discussed how the universe started as pure energy which eventually condensed into matter. By energy do they mean photon energy and other force carriers? By matter do the mean perhaps a quark soup or perhaps protons neutrons and electrons? Also is there an estimate of the ratio of the numbers of elementary particles produced in the BB? It seems a happy coincidence that there were equal numbers of electrons as protons or do we think that there may be many ionised particles in space.

I don't know. That doesn't make sense to me. The idea of "pure energy" has never made any sort of sense to me, not since I learned a bit about physics, anyway.

But as for what was actually there, well, I don't think we know what specific particles were created, but the reason why protons and electrons exactly balance is simple: charge was exactly conserved.

 

[Tanelorn]

Chalnoth, Would there be any radiation produced by incandescence due to the vibration of hot hydrogen atoms?

I just read that the main source of the CMBR is recombination:
The baryonic matter in the universe consisted of ionized plasma, and it only became neutral when it gained free electrons during "recombination," thereby releasing the photons creating the CMBR. How much broadening is as a result of dopler shift and is the broadening significant compared to the width of the black body radation?



At the time of the CMBR would there also have been a Hydrogen transition line emission at 1420MHz which would have been redshifted to 1.29MHz?
I believe that Radio waves can propagate through ionized gases with less attenuation. Perhaps there is just too much interference in this band?

I just found this although they are looking at lower red shift frequencies:

In cosmology the line is of great interest in big bang cosmology because it is the only known way to probe the "dark ages" from recombination to reionization. Including the redshift, this line will be observed at frequencies from 200 MHz to about 9 MHz on Earth. It potentially has two applications. First, by mapping redshifted 21 centimeter radiation it can, in principle, provide a very precise picture of the matter power spectrum in the period after recombination. Second, it can provide a picture of how the universe was reionized, as neutral hydrogen which has been ionized by radiation from stars or quasars will appear as holes in the 21 centimeter background.

However, 21 centimeter experiments are very difficult. Ground based experiments to observe the faint signal are plagued by interference from television transmitters and the ionosphere, so they must be very secluded and careful about eliminating interference if they are to succeed. Space based experiments, even on the far side of the moon (which should not receive interference from terrestrial radio signals), have been proposed to compensate for this. Little is known about other effects, such as synchrotron emission and free-free emission on the galaxy. Despite these problems, 21 centimeter observations, along with space-based gravity wave observations, are generally viewed as the next great frontier in observational cosmology, after the cosmic microwave background polarization.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line

 

[Tanelorn]

I don't know. That doesn't make sense to me. The idea of "pure energy" has never made any sort of sense to me, not since I learned a bit about physics, anyway.

But as for what was actually there, well, I don't think we know what specific particles were created, but the reason why protons and electrons exactly balance is simple: charge was exactly conserved.

I think they were probably talking about this point where the energy of the universe was dominated by photon energy:

Photon epoch Between 10 seconds and 380,000 years after the Big Bang

After most leptons and anti-leptons are annihilated at the end of the lepton epoch the energy of the universe is dominated by photons. These photons are still interacting frequently with charged protons, electrons and (eventually) nuclei, and continue to do so for the next 380,000 years.


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

 

[sandu123]

Yeah. The two guys who lucked out got the Nobel. The two guys who predicted the CMBR couldn't get anyone to do the experiment and got bupkis.

Yes Penzias and Wilson,if my knowledge is right.What confuses me is the theory of multiverses. If our universe was just one among many,then there must be a number of big bangs resulting in their own universes. That must mean that these expanding universes might stop expanding and lead to the so called 'Big Crunch'.Then,are these processes cyclic?Does one finally lead to the other and hence an 'oscillatory universe'?Would someone please clear my doubts?

 

[Chalnoth]

Chalnoth, I believe that the CMBR is produced by incandescence due to the vibration of hot hydrogen atoms:

http://library.thinkquest.org/27356/p_sources.htmAt the time of the CMBR would there also have been a Hydrogen transition line emission at 1420MHz which would have been redshifted to 1.29MHz?
I believe that Radio waves can propagate through ionized gases with less attenuation. Perhaps there is just too much interference in this band?

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

Um, that emission line is for neutral hydrogen, due to a hyperfine transition splitting. And the light really wasn't emitted by the hydrogen in the early universe per se. Instead, the early universe was a diffuse plasma, and I'm pretty sure that the thermal emission from the plasma vastly outstripped any small amount of emission from the energy transitions of the gas as it was forming from that plasma.

Additionally, the hyperfine transition emission is going to be minuscule compared to the Lyman and Balmer emission lines. The Lyman series lies between 2470THz and 3290THz, while the Balmer series lies between 457THz and 822THz. Redshifting these to the current time and you get 2260GHz-3020GHz and 419GHz-754GHz.

The problem, however, is that at these wavelengths the dust in our own galaxy is quite bright, so I'm not so sure we could measure these emission lines in the first place.

In cosmology the line is of great interest in big bang cosmology because it is the only known way to probe the "dark ages" from recombination to reionization. Including the redshift, this line will be observed at frequencies from 200 MHz to about 9 MHz on Earth. It potentially has two applications. First, by mapping redshifted 21 centimeter radiation it can, in principle, provide a very precise picture of the matter power spectrum in the period after recombination. Second, it can provide a picture of how the universe was reionized, as neutral hydrogen which has been ionized by radiation from stars or quasars will appear as holes in the 21 centimeter background.

However, 21 centimeter experiments are very difficult. Ground based experiments to observe the faint signal are plagued by interference from television transmitters and the ionosphere, so they must be very secluded and careful about eliminating interference if they are to succeed. Space based experiments, even on the far side of the moon (which should not receive interference from terrestrial radio signals), have been proposed to compensate for this. Little is known about other effects, such as synchrotron emission and free-free emission on the galaxy. Despite these problems, 21 centimeter observations, along with space-based gravity wave observations, are generally viewed as the next great frontier in observational cosmology, after the cosmic microwave background polarization.

Yes, that's probing the universe after the emission of the CMB, looking for the very faint emission of the neutral hydrogen gas that remained.

P.S. Oh, and please make it clear what your source is. It isn't obvious here that it's the Wikipedia article you previously mentioned.

 

[Tanelorn]

Chalnoth sorry was still editing these posts!

Seems like the CMBR is due to electron recombination. However would thermal incandescence also be a source of radiation?

 

[Chalnoth]

Chalnoth sorry was still editing these posts!

Ahh, I see. But no, the main source of the CMBR is not recombination. If it were, the CMBR would be a series of emission lines, not a thermal spectrum. We are seeing the light that was bouncing around before recombination, with the recombination radiation being a small correction at the high-frequency tail of the CMB.

 

[Tanelorn]

Ahh, I see. But no, the main source of the CMBR is not recombination. If it were, the CMBR would be a series of emission lines, not a thermal spectrum. We are seeing the light that was bouncing around before recombination, with the recombination radiation being a small correction at the high-frequency tail of the CMB.

I got that from here in the section on the dark ages so I was trying to figure out what causes broadening and apparently doppler shift can contribute to this.

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

 

[Chalnoth]

I got that from here in the section on the dark ages:

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

Yes. From that article:

At the end of recombination, most of the protons in the universe are bound up in neutral atoms. Therefore, the photons can now travel freely (see Thomson scattering): the universe has become transparent.

The point isn't that recombination emits the photons, but rather that it makes the universe transparent, allowing the photons to travel freely. The photons that are emitted during recombination are largely inconsequential.

Edit: the part in the "dark ages" that talks about recombination "releasing" the photons is slightly misleading, but it's not talking about emission. It's talking about the universe becoming transparent.

 

[Tanelorn]

Thanks Chalnoth so its mainly incandescence then. Got to get back to my daily duties now... more RF...

Just re-read your earlier post. It would be interesting to look for these lines at 2260GHz-3020GHz and 419GHz-754GHz.

 

[Tanelorn]

I think it was in this thread that I asked if it was even slightly possible that what we call the CMBR radiation could be being emitted from another source. Here is another example of a radio source that might appear to be coming from all around us. Perhaps there are others?Voyager Interstellar Mission

The spacecraft are continuing to return data about interplanetary space and some of our stellar neighbors near the edges of the Milky Way.

As the Voyagers cruise gracefully in the solar wind, their fields, particles and waves instruments are studying the space around them. In May 1993, scientists concluded that the plasma wave experiment was picking up radio emissions that originate at the heliopause -- the outer edge of our solar system.

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/news/factsheet.html

 

[Chalnoth]

I think it was in this thread that I asked if it was even slightly possible that what we call the CMBR radiation could be being emitted from another source. Here is another example of a radio source that might appear to be coming from all around us. Perhaps there are others?

There would be no SZ effect for a source that starts from our own galaxy. And other galaxies would have spectra far closer to the CMB's spectrum. And a source that comes from our galaxy wouldn't be anywhere close to uniform in all directions.

Also, the CMB consists of around 99% of all of the radiation ever emitted in the history of the universe.

So no, it really can't be anything else.

 

[Tanelorn]

Thanks for reply Chalnoth. I didnt fully understand your reply eg SZ effect? Other galaxies spectra?

My main point is that here is a radio source that we didnt know could happen and yet it is all around us at the edge of solar system. Considering that there are types or matter and energy that we don't even know anything about eg. dark energy, dark matter, mini black holes, spontaneous particles being created in vacuum plus potentially many more. Can we really say that there is zero chance that the CMBR could be from something else that we don't know? I am not saying I disbelieve at all, I just want to be clear on how certain we are, about anything for that matter.

 

[Chalnoth]

Thanks for reply Chalnoth. I didnt fully understand your reply eg SZ effect? Other galaxies spectra?

The SZ effect comes from the CMB interacting with the hot X-ray gas of galaxy clusters. Basically, the CMB photons get a little bit of extra energy when going through such clusters. So if we are seeing this effect, obviously the CMB must be coming from behind those galaxies. And we do see it.

As for spectra, the point there is that if the source of the CMB was within our own galaxy, it would comprise nearly all of the light emitted by our galaxy. So naturally it would make sense for other galaxies would be primarily bright in the same spectrum. But they aren't: essentially nothing is particularly bright at the same spectrum as the CMB.

My main point is that here is source that we didnt know could happen and that it is all around us. Considering that there are types or matter and energy that we don't even know what they are eg dark enegy, dark matter, mini black holes, spontaneous particles being created in vacuum. Is there really zero change that the CMBR could be from something that we don't know?

Very, very close to zero. More to the point, there is a sensible model for the production of the CMB that makes lots and lots of different observations in the universe make sense. For that to all be a fluke is incredibly unlikely.

And again: the CMB comprises around 99% of all of the photons that have ever been emitted in the history of the universe. This isn't an easy thing to come up with another explanation for.

 

[Tanelorn]

Thanks Chalnoth

 

[Chalnoth]

I'll make my introductory post to this forum with a simple and controversial reply. No the Big Bang Theory is NOT valid. It relies on ad hoc addendums to the theory that clearly contradicts known laws of physics, has no validation in real world observation and relies purely on mathematical constructs to support it. This isn't even getting into the unverifiable, untestable issues of "dark matter" and "dark energy".
A very simple way to conclude that BBT is wrong is to read the works of the "father of BBT", Edwin Hubble. Halton Arp does a very credible job of falsifying Hubble. Hubble also went to his grave trying to undo his red shift theory. There simply is NO evidence, whatsoever, that the universe is expanding. In any direction observed, the same structures are observed. Besides, how do you get something from nothing? Talk about violating natural laws. That violates the most basic.
BBT is a purely mathematical construct with no observational evidence to support it. Does no one question why it is that a Catholic priest is the one who coined the phrase? Do you seriously not question an ulterior motive? BBT would go a long way in support of a "creation theory" that religion insists upon. I say BBT is nothing more than a religion, but one that WILL be falsified in the future.

This rant is against the forum rules. Crackpottery is not allowed (and for good reason).

Just in case anybody was confused and thought there might potentially be something valid to this post of DocBar's, however, I urge you to read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

It goes into a good amount of detail as to precisely what the big bang theory is, and provides a nice introductory survey into the main lines of evidence in support of it.

 

[Tanelorn]

This essay is a good overview of the evidence for the big bang theory:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

So yes, there is more evidence. A lot more.

Thanks Chalnoth, that is a great link.In section 2 a) Large-scale homogeneity they mention something I was just thinking about:

When we look at galaxy clusters and voids at large redshifts i.e. a long time ago, before they had gone through the same amount of spatial expansion as galaxy clusters and voids at much lower redshifts, do they look different in terms of size and distribution of these structures and the space between them, and does this provide further evidence for the amount of spatial expansion taking place according to the standard model?

Perhaps another way of saying it is that for a given size of cube of space we would expect the ratio of matter to space in that cube to have changed significantly for different red shifts.

 

[Chalnoth]

Thanks Chalnoth, that is a great link.


In section 2 a) Large-scale homogeneity they mention something I was just thinking about:

When we look at galaxy clusters and voids at large redshifts i.e. a long time ago, before they had gone through the same amount of spatial expansion as galaxy clusters and voids at much lower redshifts, do they look different in terms of size and distribution of these structures and the space between them, and does this provide further evidence for the amount of spatial expansion taking place according to the standard model?

Perhaps another way of saying it is that for a given size of cube of space we would expect the ratio of matter to space in that cube to have changed significantly for different red shifts.

This measurement is more or less equivalent to the Baryon Acoustic Oscillation observation, which compares the statistical distribution of distances between galaxies at different redshifts. The answer is basically yes: the distance evolves as you'd expect it to for a flat universe.

 

[Tanelorn]

Thanks Chalnoth, I found this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_oscillationsPresumably 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?

 

[nix00]

The Big Bang by itself is not valid, it's a singularity showing where the theory of General Relativity cease to be valid. It corresponds to an epoch where quantum effects play also a large role and need to be considered in the theory. But yeah, this quantum era is really "short" comparing to the rest of the history of the universe, and the λ-CDM standard model of cosmology works pretty well.

 

[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