Why do you believe in the Big Bang?

[Ljube]

Actually, cosmic background radiation is no proof of Big Bang - it can easily be explained in the Steady State Theory which I consider a lot more plausible than Big Bang.

You see people, to believe in Big Bang is to believe in God, for if an entire universe can come into existence from nothing and since this event has never happened again, then this single event, this creation of Universe, this Big Bang must be God's will and work.

[Az]

"Believe" in the big bang? I don't believe IN it, I believe it to be the best theory of the events that created the universe that I know of.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

'You see people, to believe in Big Bang is to believe in God, for if an entire universe can come into existence from nothing and since this event has never happened again, then this single event, this creation of Universe, this Big Bang must be God's will and work.'

who said the big bang was the start of it all??? perhaps the bigbang is just somewhere in the middle of a larger process. who said it's never happened before??? maybe many bigbangs have happened in the past. maybe there are several areas right now that are the results of a big bang.

'cosmic background radiation is no proof of Big Bang '

?????

where have you been. this discovery pretty much got everyone thinking the big bang holds more water than anything else.

'Steady State Theory' ?!? ahahahaha buy an updated text book my friend - you're a bit behind the times.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by My Wife Hates CIV
who said the big bang was the start of it all??? perhaps the bigbang is just somewhere in the middle of a larger process. who said it's never happened before??? maybe many bigbangs have happened in the past. maybe there are several areas right now that are the results of a big bang.

It has happened 6 times before, this is 7th time around *nodding sagely*

[Jack the Bodiless]

The Baryon-Asymmetry problem, though a mystery, doesn't really qualify as evidence that there was no "Big Bang".

It seems to me that the Big Bang is a good theory primarily due to Occam's Razor: it's the simplest theory that accounts for the observed evidence. Consider the number of ad-hoc theories that would be necessary to replace it:

1. Some other means of accounting for the redshift of distant galaxies. Light gets tired?

2. Some other means of accounting for the 3-degree background radiation.

3. Some other means of accounting for why the stars are still shining: why they haven't consumed all the free hydrogen in the Universe.

4. Some other way of accounting for the different "populations" of stars: those that apparently condensed from pure hydrogen, and those (like our Sun) which contain supernova debris from earlier stars and are therefore rich in heavier elements. IIRC, distant "young" galaxies (they were young when their light started its journey to us) contain more of the former.

[Elok]

I second all those who said they do not "believe in" the Big Bang. A belief is something you live, not something you think. The universe may have begun as an explosion of matter from a small point of infinite density; I store that as a funfact in the back of my head and am done with it. My awareness or lack of awareness of the origins of reality only affects my life insofar as I allow it to upset me. 'Course, I think the same thing about evolution, but that's a little closer to home so I can understand how it gets people upset.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I'm pretty sure the prevailing thought by the mega minds at present there will be no big crunch.

Matter of fact universe is supposed to expand until such times as all black holes shed all mass and universe approaches a zero energy state.

That being said, it would be hard to fathom that if this holds true the bang-crunch cycle is valid for previous incarnations of the universe.

Something else is going on that we have yet to discover.

[Guynemer]

I really couldn't be arsed to care about the Big Bang one way or another.

I've got quite enough problems as is without contemplating the origins of the universe, thank you very much.

[Solly]

It's nothing I really think about, but I would put it down as the most plausible suggestion that we currently have.

Nevertheless, I realise there are a lot of things wrong with mainstream science at the moment (ie, how it treats consciousness as an irrelevant phenomenon) so I don't have a 100% faith in it.

[Starchild]

This is why I'm studying biochemistry. Physicists are in danger of being theologians with charts.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Starchild
Physicists are in danger of being theologians with charts.

It's quote's like that that are the reason we all love the Starchild

[debeest]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
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?

I think no one has explained where the antimatter is. But they have addressed the question, and there is one relevant and I think irrefutable answer.

I forget the name of the concept -- the anthropic principle, maybe? -- but it applies to this and many other aspects of science.

Basically, humans could only exist in a universe, and on a planet, that are like the universe and planet we have. If laws of nature were different, we just wouldn't be here to observe them. Maybe something else would be observing them, but not it couldn't be us.

If the antimatter were in our portion of space, mixing with matter, it would all be exploding. Therefore, no people.

The universe is still largely unexplored. According to at least some modern theory, it's unbelievably large -- so much bigger than they thought 50 years ago, that our known universe wouldn't even show up on a map of it. Plenty of room to find antimatter somewhere.

[Provost Harrison]

I only give attention to the formation of the earth and life upon it. Anything before then is not really in my area...but the Big Bang theory seems to be the most feasible and well backed up of most.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Stephen Hawking is a case in point I think. The guy is a pretty decent physicist I think, but there a lot of smarter kids on the block (so to speak). We never get to hear about the other guys because they aren't so 'weird' - the media focusses on SH and make him into some kind of supergenious just because of his disability. Star Trek even had him playing chess with Einstein -- pleeeease!

(That must really piss off Ed Witten, who most physicists think is the smartest kid on the block...)

I don't think that most physicists would agree on that last point, though I'm sure many would. But I think most physicists would agree that Steven Hawking is among the few most important modern physicists, and not because the media focus on him more than they should. He may not be a supergenius, but he's added more to modern physical thinking than most.

[Kuciwalker]

I think some people have missed something - the bing bang is NOT the creation of the Universe. Prior to the big bang, the universe existed, but all of the dimensions were really, really small.