4 ms·

The bing bang is way too accepted in the mainststream: in reality there is no concrete proof for it. Therefore we can either: a) Fit the models to fit the data

The bing bang is way too accepted in the mainststream: in reality there is no concrete proof for it. Therefore we can either: a) Fit the models to fit the data. b) Invent more physical phenomena to make it fit the data (quasi particles in physics). There is nothing wrong in doing that, but there is severe arrogance of saying that "the bing bang happened" where in reality we just have a hypothesis. And even "the most widely accepted by CONSENSUS" hyptothesis doesn't make mean is actually TRUE. It's perfectly fine to make new theories, but at the end of the day we simply don't know enough: and yet the mainstream/every kid believes in the the bing bang to the extend as religous people believe in God.

dkersten 6y ago
It was my understanding that physicists have never claimed that the big bang happened. That the big bang itself isn’t really part of the theory at all and that its simply a singularity point, but that some moments before that point, ohysics as we know it breaks down, so we don’t know what happened before and therefore do ‘t know if there was a bang or not, just that after that time, things happened that we can measure. Put another way, the big bang theory doesn’t include the big bang itself (the something from nothing part) but is about the inflation and expansion of the universe. Here are some PBS Space Time videos on the subject: Why the big bang definitely happened: https://youtu.be/aPStj2ZuXug https://youtu.be/aPStj2ZuXug Did time start at the big bang: https://youtu.be/K8gV05nS7mc https://youtu.be/K8gV05nS7mc Whats wrong with the big bang theory: https://youtu.be/JDmKLXVFJzk https://youtu.be/JDmKLXVFJzk “In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded”, now, a lot of non-scientists like to repeat this statement, but no credible scientist has ever said this, nor believes it. So its unfortunate that this statement is used to deride the big bang theory. The big bang describes a series of events that happened to the universe following its existence in an extremely hot, dense state. We have a ton of evidence that the universe was once in such a state. Perhaps our understanding of this state will eventually lead to a theory of the origin of the universe, but the big bang theory as it stands does not claim to explain such an origin. — Matt O’Dowd, PBS Space Time
ryanianian 6y ago
I mean. Sure? This is how science works. The "theory" of evolution is the same thing. We have no "proof" of it. But of course we do. Evidence is all around us, being evaluated in a multitude of ways by a multitude of people using different sources of data making similar conclusions supported by experiments and evidence. This is basically how we define "fact". Of course somebody may stumble onto something that blows the whole equation up, but barring that, we have sufficient confidence to say it's fact. Granted the big bang theory is harder to observe, study, and experiment. Doesn't change how it's viewed by science. (TFA opens with this. It suggests the possibility of something that may blow up the equation. Great. Similarly, if somebody can find something that disproves evolution that would be pretty ground-breaking, but the more established a fact, the higher the burden of proof.)
joshvm 6y ago
There was very much a prediction of the Big Bang, before it was strongly supported by experimental evidence. This is what Penzias and Wilson got the Nobel prize for. Their accidental detection of the Cosmic Microwave Background matched a prediction by Gamow, and others previously, and it was also used as evidence to rule out solid state theory. Does that mean it's the whole story? Of course not necessarily, and the Big Bounce isn't necessarily incompatible with these observations. However, I don't think the idea that the universe rapidly expanded at some point in the past is under any doubt. So this wasn't a model fitting the data. In fact it was an accidental observation which agreed with a model that had been suggested much earlier. The fact Penzias and Wilson weren't even looking for it makes it even more unbiased. Wilson, I believe, was also a solid state person (as were many prominent physicists in the 20s and 30s).
- whatshisface 6y ago
  Do you mean "solid state" or "steady-state?"
  - joshvm 6y ago
    Oops, yes, I meant steady-state! :)
michaelsbradley 6y ago
The Big Bang theory was originally proposed by a Catholic priest (and mathematician, astronomer, physicist), Fr. Georges Lemaître: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre He "initially call[ed] it the 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'."

dkersten 6y ago

It was my understanding that physicists have never claimed that the big bang happened. That the big bang itself isn’t really part of the theory at all and that its simply a singularity point, but that some moments before that point, ohysics as we know it breaks down, so we don’t know what happened before and therefore do ‘t know if there was a bang or not, just that after that time, things happened that we can measure. Put another way, the big bang theory doesn’t include the big bang itself (the something from nothing part) but is about the inflation and expansion of the universe. Here are some PBS Space Time videos on the subject: Why the big bang definitely happened: https://youtu.be/aPStj2ZuXug https://youtu.be/aPStj2ZuXug Did time start at the big bang: https://youtu.be/K8gV05nS7mc https://youtu.be/K8gV05nS7mc Whats wrong with the big bang theory: https://youtu.be/JDmKLXVFJzk https://youtu.be/JDmKLXVFJzk “In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded”, now, a lot of non-scientists like to repeat this statement, but no credible scientist has ever said this, nor believes it. So its unfortunate that this statement is used to deride the big bang theory. The big bang describes a series of events that happened to the universe following its existence in an extremely hot, dense state. We have a ton of evidence that the universe was once in such a state. Perhaps our understanding of this state will eventually lead to a theory of the origin of the universe, but the big bang theory as it stands does not claim to explain such an origin. — Matt O’Dowd, PBS Space Time

ryanianian 6y ago

I mean. Sure? This is how science works. The "theory" of evolution is the same thing. We have no "proof" of it. But of course we do. Evidence is all around us, being evaluated in a multitude of ways by a multitude of people using different sources of data making similar conclusions supported by experiments and evidence. This is basically how we define "fact". Of course somebody may stumble onto something that blows the whole equation up, but barring that, we have sufficient confidence to say it's fact. Granted the big bang theory is harder to observe, study, and experiment. Doesn't change how it's viewed by science. (TFA opens with this. It suggests the possibility of something that may blow up the equation. Great. Similarly, if somebody can find something that disproves evolution that would be pretty ground-breaking, but the more established a fact, the higher the burden of proof.)

joshvm 6y ago

There was very much a prediction of the Big Bang, before it was strongly supported by experimental evidence. This is what Penzias and Wilson got the Nobel prize for. Their accidental detection of the Cosmic Microwave Background matched a prediction by Gamow, and others previously, and it was also used as evidence to rule out solid state theory. Does that mean it's the whole story? Of course not necessarily, and the Big Bounce isn't necessarily incompatible with these observations. However, I don't think the idea that the universe rapidly expanded at some point in the past is under any doubt. So this wasn't a model fitting the data. In fact it was an accidental observation which agreed with a model that had been suggested much earlier. The fact Penzias and Wilson weren't even looking for it makes it even more unbiased. Wilson, I believe, was also a solid state person (as were many prominent physicists in the 20s and 30s).

whatshisface 6y ago
Do you mean "solid state" or "steady-state?"
- joshvm 6y ago
  Oops, yes, I meant steady-state! :)

michaelsbradley 6y ago

The Big Bang theory was originally proposed by a Catholic priest (and mathematician, astronomer, physicist), Fr. Georges Lemaître: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre He "initially call[ed] it the 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'."