Why do you believe in the Big Bang?

[Rogan Josh]

It seems to me that a huge proportion of our society and indeed people who post here have an unswerving belief in the Big Bang.

I am no creationist (in the fundie sense), but I certainly don't see the evidence for the Big Bang that a lot of you seem to see, so could you please explain to me why you believe in it?

I am genuinely curious because the same people also seem to put a lot of store in scepticism of religion and discredit the idea of faith. So they presumably don't just 'have faith' that it happened, or indeed just have faith in the discovery channel, but havesolid scientific grounds for their stance.

Have you solved all the problems associated with Big Bang models too? Do you even know what they are?

[DanS]

The religion of (often bad) science.

[Starchild]

It fits best with my belief in an uncaring, indifferent-to-our-lives universe.

[Drogue]

Because it's the most plausible theory, and because there is evidence that the stars have been expanding from a point.

I trust most eminent scientists, who have to conform to peer review, standards of evidence and proof and the debate of theories, more than I trust an eminent theologian, who studies ancient texts. They have evidence, if not proof, that the Big Bang happened, and I see it as the most plausible theory because of that.

[St Leo]

Well, extrapolation backwards of galaxy movement, cosmic radiation, etc. fits the Big Bang theory. It matches what we know about force, distribution of the elements, and the age of the stars.

Of course, the "Big Bang" theory was named by someone who didn't accept it, but the name stuck.

[curtsibling]

I agree with Starchild.

We are microbes in a far bigger macro-cosmos.

How it began is moot, we had best understand our surroundings first.

[centrifuge]

The big bang theory certainly has problems with it, just like any scientific theory where concrete evidence is not available.

What the big bang theory does is give a working explanation /possibility for observations that we have observed, such as the expansion of the universe, or rather that objects in space are moving further apart.

It is just a working hypothesis, and I have little doubt that it will be built upon and reworked as our knowledge and observations increase.

[Stuie]

I don't "believe" in it (that is, I do not blindly accept that it is the truth), but I do accept it as the most plausible theory available for a start point for our universe as we know it.

[Buck Birdseed]

Are you saying there's no difference between belief in a theory and deep, personal faith in god Rogan?

[Arrian]

I don't believe in it, per se. I see it as the most plausible theory out there, at least that I can understand, not being an astrophysicist myself. Having said that, given that our knowledge of the universe is still very limited, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the BB ends up being disproven.

-Arrian

[General Ludd]

I believe in ignorance, personally.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Drogue
I trust most eminent scientists, who have to conform to peer review, standards of evidence and proof and the debate of theories, more than I trust an eminent theologian, who studies ancient texts.

Have you actually read any papers written by these 'eminent scientists'? Or are these theories translated to you via the popular media? So are you saying that you believe pro-Big-Bang scientists because they have the best PR? I too am an 'eminent scientist', but you never believe anything I say

The Big Bang is an extrapolation of known physics over 17 orders of magnitude. Doesn't that seem like a big leap to you?

Let's tackle just one problem with the big bang. The idea with the BB was that there was an initial explosion of energy and all matter was created out of that energy, right? Basically, there was a wash of photons (light) and a lot of the photons split into particle-anti-particle pairs, creating the matter we see around us today. But what happened to all the anti-matter? The theories all tell us that anti-matter must have been produced in equal amounts - so where did it go?

This is known as the Baryon-Asymmetry problem and is just one of the many many problems we have with the BB. But we never hear anything about it in the popular press.

[Cruddy]

While the Big Bang theory isn't perfect, it does seem more likely to me on the observed fact; most of the observable galaxies (apart from the very nearest ones) are seperating at very high speed.

Roll the sequence back and it becomes obvious they must have had a common origin... that is, the Big Bang.

Also, the fact that the cosmic wavefront was detected back in the 60s (the energy residue of the leading edge of the explosion - not quite the right words but close) seems to me further evidence.

At the end of the day though, it just gives astrophysics something to argue about, rather than doing a useful job like driving a bus.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


I too am an 'eminent scientist', but you never believe anything I say

That's because you post here. All OT posters are seen as unreliable at best (I mean, Civ players?).

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Osweld
I believe in ignorance, personally.

same here.

i've read a lot of publications on the big bang, and it does seem to follow logically from many things scientists have cited, and it appears to be "our best guess".

a theologiest would ask, "well, what if the big bang was created by god?", and ascientist would scramble to find the answer that isn't there.