How can you disprove the Big Bang Theory?
Asked by
dreamwolf (
3163
)
September 22nd, 2011
I love the Big Bang Theory (not the show). After studying Astronomy I now am part of the 1% of the world that understands how the universe works, thus far. Do you believe that it isn’t true? What is your evidence against many published works that prove everything started in the center, and exploded causing all particles to move outwards, spinning, and currently expanding.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
59 Answers
You can’t prove or disprove it absolutely, but since the universe is expanding from one common point, the favor is for it being true. How could anyone hate the show?
I thought the universe was expanding in all directions at ever increasing rates as the galaxies recede from each other? I had not heard that there was a center as yet established?
With all due respect, this seems incredibly presumptuous. Taking an astronomy class, for instance, is not sufficient for understanding how the universe works. And assuming you did not study it at the doctoral level, there is quite a lot left for you to learn even about the astronomical elements thereof. What you have gained is an introductory understanding of the prevailing cosmological theory regarding the early development of the universe from the perspective of a particular discipline. That’s great, but it hardly makes you “part of the 1% of the world that understands how the universe works.”
And where did you get that statistic in the first place? It seems rather inflated.
I don’t think it’s the only theory that explains the observations. I believe light from distant objects seems to be red-shifted in proportion to their distance. I don’t think that means it’s necessarily a Doppler effect, nor does it mean there was a big bang. It’s a good theory though.
I don’t know very much about The Big Bang Theory, @dreamwolf , but when you say, “everything started in the center,” the first thing that comes to my mind is: the center of what?
Yes, @Zaku brings up another good point: there are other possible explanations. Science doesn’t work the way you seem to think it does. There are no published works proving that “everything started in the center, and exploded causing all particles to move outwards, spinning, and currently expanding.” There are plenty of scientific books and papers that marshal a considerable amount of evidence in favor of that thesis, and I agree that the evidence is convincing. But that does not put the theory beyond doubt.
@XOIIO because this is the whole show:
Some guy: Hey Sheldon
Sheldon: What
Some guy: Star Wars!
Audience: ROFL
Sheldon: Bazinga!
Other than that, I agree with your point.
@CunningLinguist I’ve studied under Astronomer Grant Miller. So you think over 60,000,000 have an understanding of this theory? 1% of 6 billion, is the number I just posted in the latter statement. I doubt Grant Miller would just throw a statistic with out having reliable data backing him up. Why is this so presumptuous? In your opinion, someone at a basic level couldn’t truly understand how the Big Bang Theory is compiled? Oh come on, that’s presumptuous my jellie brethren.
@CunningLinguist Choke! I read your answer, then had to go re-read the details, and sure enough, she said she was part of the 1% of the world who knows how the universe works!! Oh my!
@Imadethisupwithnoforethought They can figure out the center/beginning by making it all go backwards….think of a balloon. You blow it up and blow it up, it gets bigger and bigger…then let all the air go. It all collapses back to “the source point.”
@Zaku so you don’t accept the evidence that the universe is expanding…do you have an alternate theory? Or you just don’t “believe” the other evidence?
I would say that 0% of the world actually understands how the universe works with anything approaching any absolute certainty. I think it is arrogant of our species to think that we don’t have a whole lot more to know. You think the science of 100, or 500 or 1000 years in the future will have nothing more to add to our knowledge and understanding?
Oh and @dreamwolf—first rule of a scientist. Don’t accept any “fact” as a fact just because someone else says it, or just because it’s in writing. Just because your instructor threw out that 1% doesn’t make it a fact. Do your own research. If nothing else, ask him where he came up with that number.
@dreamwolf Grant Miller is no one famous. This is not terribly important, but I’m not sure why you felt that naming your teacher would help. I’m glad you enjoyed your studies, but I doubt they have elevated you to quite the heights you seem to think.
As for the statistic, I said that it is inflated. That means that I believe fewer than 60,000,000 people have an understanding of how the universe works. Because that’s what you claimed: to be part of the 1% who understand how the universe works, not part of the 1% who understand the big bang theory. I’d wager that no one understands how the universe works (which was what I was implying in the post above). If your teacher threw out that statistic, I imagine he did it as the kind of exaggeration that teachers use all the time. Sorry to burst your bubble, but not everything that comes out of a professor’s mouth is based on six stacks of research papers.
Moreover, there are many levels at which one can understand that theory. One can have a beginner’s understanding, an expert’s understanding, or a degree of understanding in between. Many people have at least a basic understanding of the fundamental elements of the big bang theory. Fewer people have an intermediate understanding, and even fewer have an advanced understanding. So the 1% number is rather meaningless without qualifying the level of understanding meant. Because contrary to what you chose to assume, I have no doubt that someone at the basic level can understand the big bang theory. What I doubt is that such a level of understanding warrants the arrogance dripping from your OP.
When Galileo first made his observations and published his conclusions the commonly held ‘law’ of astronomy was that everything revolved around the earth.
While the current evidence points to the Big Bang theory being accurate, some as yet unknown factor may prove it to be as reliable as the common knowledge of Galileo’s time.
Didn’t the scientists operating the Hadron superconductor just clock a particle at faster than the speed of light? If that is true it could overturn most of the commonly held laws of physics.
@WestRiverrat Yes, it was a neutrino, but it’s a preliminary finding that the press jumped upon. Time will tell whether it’s just another cold fusion episode.
@CunningLinguist Are you kidding me? You asked me how I got that statistic, so I answered with my professors name since you so kindly asked. How pompous can you be? Grant Miller being famous or not is besides the point. Oh and to call a professor a teacher, is an understatement, teachers refer to a professional who teaches below the college level curve. So you answered that you acknowledge the 1%, as an inflation, I got you say there were perhaps less but definitely not more. So yes, I am part of the 1% rounded up who understand this. Please stop trying to belittle me. and @Dutchess_III Give me a break. I pay to be taught facts, because I’m not going to go out of my way to look up facts that won’t correlate to whatever a particular class is going to talk about. That’s not what college is about. If I really wanted to do my own research and find true facts from my scientific findings that would be ok. There is nothing wrong from referencing a statistic from another human being. Anyways, it always comes down to personally attacking on Fluther, so I’m quitting, this is lame.
As far as we understand the geometry of the universe, it seems as if every point in it can make an equal claim to being “the center” (that’s ignoring the purely local state of affairs, the nearest star and its planets, etc.). The Bang didn’t take place in an already existing and extended space. Space itself is what Banged first.
From what I’ve read, big bang cosmology rests on three main pillars of evidence: (1) Uniform expansion of the universe (Hubble’s Law); (2) Cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation; (3) Relative abundances of hydrogen and helium.
Historically Hubble discovered cosmic expansion in the 1920s, but steady state rivaled big bang until the CMB was discovered in 1965. Meanwhile there is excellent agreement between theory and observation on H / He.
Evidence consists not only of astronomical observations but also by experiments using high-energy accelerators in labs here on Earth. The higher the energy the higher the temperature, matching conditions during the big bang at an earlier time. Big bang theory thus fits neatly with the Standard Model of particle physics. (The “time-zero” moment of singularity, however, remains a scientific mystery.)
To “disprove” big bang theory, you’d have to come up with extraordinary evidence, sufficient to overturn the past century’s worth of physics research. Not that it couldn’t happen, but it’s one of the most successful theories of all time, passing scientific tests with flying colors. So it would take extraordinary evidence indeed. Maybe something along the lines of how the expansion and cmb are some kind of cosmic illusion arising from some sublime aspect of reality we hadn’t yet noticed.
As usual, a competing theory would have to explain all existing data and predict the outcome of future observations.
I don’t think anyone is trying to disprove the big bang nor do they have the inclination to suggest a more “extraordinary” scenario. What is being said is that it’s a theory (look up definition).. A theory is there to scrutinize, to question.. up and until it is proven beyond any doubt.. That’s Science.
Well, I have to disagree with you there, @chewhorse. Big bang cosmology is as “proven” as anything gets in science. As a scientific theory it has gone way beyond a mere unproven hypothesis. Science by definition is always tentative and subject to new information. In science you avoid using words like “truth” or “proof.” That doesn’t mean you can’t have a very high confidence in something being correct, based on physical observation.
Skeptical proverb: Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.
I don’t know, but I would say that all things that have to do with the universe are not facts, but theory. After all, you can’t claim to know anything about Australia with just a big telescope from Miami. The same way we will never truly understand the universe until we can literally scale it down.
This question is a Bazinga right?
@dreamwolf Sorry…I thought you fancied yourself a scientist, not a mere regurgitater of unsubstantiated facts based on what one particular fallible, and quite possibly super-egotistical, human says. My bad.
There are, actually, attempts underway to “disprove” the big bang theory. So far none of them fit the evidence quite as neatly at the BB does.
Somebody make me a sandwich.
@Dutchess_III Yes, I have other theories. Just because the light is red-shifted, does not mean it is only a Doppler shift from relative motion, necessarily. What if light just red-shifts over massive distances, either as a general property of light moving over distance, or due to interacting with whatever is between here and there. There is a general correlation between distance and red-shift, but it is a (good but not conclusive) assumption that the red-shift is due to relative velocity.
@Dutchess_III If you’re a teacher, you should know not to judge someone by your own personal notion. Read the questions on Fluther and answer them, personal attacks do nothing but display how miserable you probably are. Don’t you teach your students about being confident? Or that’s not in the curriculum is these days is it? Whatever, the point is when I write something down, I have 100% conviction in my heart behind it. Like my question states, ” After studying Astronomy I now am part of the 1% of the world that understands how the universe works, thus far. ” Does that truly offend you? Who cares what I perceive myself as, read the fact in there. My aim isn’t to shove this down someones throat who doesn’t understand the theory or know anything about it. I’m just excited for myself, and that is not a crime, does it offend you? Perhaps. But that’s your personal problem, precious pretentious.
Wow, this thread turned to pure crap in a hurry.
f’rill! @cockswain!
@Zaku not arguing with you! but…when you have the same shift in all areas of the universe, with varying degrees of unknown matter between them and us—but the observation is the same everywhere, that has to solidify the Doppler theory. Right? The fact that EVERY thing is moving away from us and each other regardless of other factors. Not just some random things here and there…I’m just thinking along with you… (I don’t pretend to be an expert so don’t yell! Or I’ll run and hide behind @Rarebear! I will!)
@Dutchess_III is correct on a macroscopic scale. On a smaller scale, things that are gravitationally connected (like us and the Andromeda galaxy) will move together, but on a cosmological scale everything is moving away from everything else.
yay! And that’s as far as I care to go! Let’s let dogs falling out of trees at the speed of light be for now!
So, now, @Dutchess_III…um hum…since you have the correct answer on the macroscipic scale; the center of what?
Well, I guess it goes back to the balloon idea..blow up a balloon that’s held stationary, then let the air out and the balloon deflates to its original point. I don’t think it’s that hard to find the center of something when everything is expanding away at the same rate, more or less. If you’re standing at point A, and every thing is exactly ten miles away from you, and still moving, then you’re pretty much at the originating point.
If something is 20 miles away, and something else, in a different direction, is 5 miles away, then you need to shift until everything is equidistant.
I just LOVE being correct. And logical. :)
@Rarebear WHAT?? You mean, WE aren’t at the CENTRE of the UNIVERSE??? We’re not even at the centre of our SOLAR SYSTEM or even our GALAXY?? We’re flung waaaaay out on the edge one of the arms of our galaxy, like some sort of afterthought????? Like some sort of ACCIDENT???? What kind of heresy IS this?? Ya’ll’s goin’ to hell. F’rill!
Actually, we are at the center of the universe. And the other side of the universe is the center of the universe also. That’s my (and your) point.
@dreamwolf If the only reason you dropped your professor’s name was to tell me where you got the statistic, there shouldn’t have been two sentences between his name and you mentioning him as the source. Given the way your post is written, it looks like you are telling me who your teacher was as if it should matter. This impression is magnified by the wording of your fourth sentence, which implies that Prof. Miller is less likely than someone else to “throw a statistic with out sic having reliable data backing him up.”
I will also note that I explicitly said that it doesn’t matter whether your professor was famous or not. Repeating my comment as if I didn’t already said it reinforces the impression that you are arrogant and not bothering to read everyone else’s comments in a constructive manner. If this is how you generally react to contrary information, I am not surprised that you feel superior for managing to get through a basic astronomy course.
As for the term “teacher,” it does not mean what you think it does. All professors are teachers, and “professor” is the proper term for primary and secondary educators in certain countries (I am assuming we are not trying to be ethnocentric here). I teach at a university, but I have no problem being referred to as a teacher rather than as a professor. “Teacher” is not a derogatory term, and it says something about you that you think it is.
As for 1% being an inflation, I most certainly think so. As I said, the number of people who understand the universe is 0 (and so the percentage of the population that understands the universe is 0%). You might understand some basic astronomy—and good for you, that’s probably more than most people know—but that is not the same as understanding the universe. The point people have been trying to make to you is that it comes across as exceedingly arrogant of you to claim to be “part of the 1% of the world that understands how the universe works” when what you understand is some basic astronomy.
P.S. I recommend learning how to deal with constructive criticism.
I took my first college level astronomy course in the 70’s (I clean forgot my instructor’s name, but I’m sure he was famous because he wrote parts of our text book…and the fact that we had to buy THAT book struck me as mercenary and arrogant! But I was just a kid then. What did I know). I took another one just this year for re-certification (I’m a teacher too.) The things we’ve learned in 30 years! O the Hubble!! But I’ll tell you what…the one I took the first time, pre-computer, pre-internet…pre-calculator for that matter!... was MUCH more difficult than the same class I took online recently. I fought tooth and nail for the B I got the first time. The most recent one was ridiculously easy. I finished up with a 100%, no sweat. A caveman could have done it. It’s like they’re assuming that all High School graduates today are stupid. And you would have to be an idiot to get anything less than a hundred.
And what really pissed me off was I paid $250 for my textbook…then a month later I got a wild hare to look online…and found the same damn book for $8! Sheesh! Oh well. I love my astronomy book, anyway. I’ll re-read chapters of it like it’s Shogun!
@gasman… Ah, so your saying that we’ve actually discovered the center of the univere, eh? I say my dog and I often have a conversation and I can almost believe he’s communicating as I communicate yet no one has ever heard a dog talk.. Okay, I get it.
Huh? I said nothing like that. The observable universe has no “center” to be discovered.
What I said is that big bang cosmology is a robust theory supported by tons of evidence accumulated over the past century, continually confirmed by observation.
I am a proponent of the “big bung theory.” That the universe was bottled up in some kind of container, stopped up with some kind of bung, and then opened up, possibly by Pandora, in an effort to promote her music sharing service. However, anyone who believes in and wants to promote “the big bunghole theory” of the origins of the universe will have to do so on their own.
drinking and fluthering again?
@whitetigress Oh, you’re back with a new name. But at least you’ve learned to admit some mistakes. Anyway, I will again point out that you were the one who made Miller’s reputation an issue by dropping his name as if it would mean something. I could care less if he is famous or not. As for the Nobel Prize in Physics, it has been given out 105 times in history. Did you mean to say that it has only gone to astronomers three times?
there was no big bang , this is a easy one there is no sound in space so you cant get a big bang! end of story, next question .
@Ventura_bvld That’s not true. The densities of the Big Bang are theoretically FAR more dense than the densest object known. In those densities sound would have propagated quite nicely.
I bet it sounded like Black Sabbath.
No, in space, sound cannot be heard. If you popped a bomb into space, you wouldn’t hear the explosion. That is because their are too few atoms to jiggle, transmitting the sound to your ear.
And at the beginning of the Universe, there were no atoms to jiggle and no space to jiggle in.
But if there was sound i would go with the Black Sabbath.
@Ventura_bvld: You and @Rarebear are both right. A bomb exploding in space (devoid of air or other gases or plasmas) will not make a sound. The cosmological big bang, however, began “infinitely dense” at the still-mysterious singularity, then cooled and expanded ever since. As a collection of ionized particles with mass, at an incredibly high temperature and pressure, it would have conducted longitudinal density waves (i.e., sound) superbly.
As I understand it, the density waves just prior to inflation are / were largely responsible for the large-scale structure of the observable universe.
I would add that that the big bang was no “ordinary” explosion happening somewhere in pre-existing space (the Newtonian view). It was an explosion of space itself. And here we are, some 14 billion years later, in this ongoing process of expansion ! Literally awesome.
That’s not what Neil deGrasse Tyson said
Probably the bit about sound.
I’m way more inclined to believe what Tommy Iomi and Geezer Butler have to say about it.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
