Top Ten Problems with the Big Bang

[AV1611VET]

A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory:

1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.
2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
4. The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.
10. If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 10^59. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

From: Meta Research Bulletin, v. 6, #4, December 15, 1997. The full list and details appeared in "The top 30 problems with the Big Bang", Meta Research Bulletin, v. 11, #1, March 15, 2002.

SOURCE

 

[Gene2memE]

This list puts me in mind of Albert Einstein. When the theory of relativity became famous, a pamphlet was published entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein. He responded "If I were wrong, one would be enough."

I'd like to add two risers, prior to any attempt to break down the individual points.
1. The Big Bang Theory is currently the best explanation for the observable evidence we have. It is not perfect and is still open to modification, but the most rational course of action it to believe something when its demonstrated to be correct and to withhold belief otherwise.
2. Disproof of the Big Bang - if such a thing is possible - is not positive evidence for supernatural creation. If the Big Bang is shown to be irreconcilable with additional evidence, then it will be replaced with another naturalistic explanation of the origin of the universe. Science cannot observe or test the supernatural realm, and therefore it excludes all supernatural explanations.

I've got some free time coming up in a week or so. My physics is quite appalling, but I can probably google-fu at least a couple of debunks at a later date. Some of those look seriously suspect from the get-go though.

Anyway, something to look forward to as an intellectual and learning exercise for my Christmas holidays.

 

[BrriKerr]

A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory:

1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.
2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
4. The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.
10. If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 10^59. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

From: Meta Research Bulletin, v. 6, #4, December 15, 1997. The full list and details appeared in "The top 30 problems with the Big Bang", Meta Research Bulletin, v. 11, #1, March 15, 2002.

SOURCE

Assuming all of that is true do you or anyone else have an alternative proposal?

 

[lesliedellow]

Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models

I suppose that is why the overwhelming majority of astronomers sign up to an expanding universe - because they are looking for the worst possible fit to the data.

Besides which, it is not exactly obvious why a creationist should prefer a model of the universe which has nothing identifiable as the moment of creation.

Oh, and "Meta Research Bulletin" is of course a maverick astronomer blowing his own trumpet.

 

[lesliedellow]

Double post.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Meta Research has proof the Mars face is artificial!

 

[dougangel]

• Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.
• This statement is blatantly false. The static universe model is accepted by virtually no cosmologists or astronomers, since it fails to correctly predict what the universe should be like. In particular, it would predict that galaxies would be in all stages of development – forming, young, middle age, and old. However, the universe contains only middle-age galaxies. There are no old galaxies, and the only young galaxies we see are those that are 10-13 billion light years away –at a time that was only 0.5 billion years after the Big Bang event.

• The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
• Another false statement. The variation in background radiation is independent of stars or galaxy clusters within our universe. It is extremely even – something one would predict from an expansion that began 14 billion years ago. The variation in background radiation is only 0.00001°K – the exact amount predicted by the Hot Big Bang model. This variation represents the large-scale structure of the universe only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.

• Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
• The overall prediction of element abundance is exactly what would be expected from the Big Bang. Immediately after the quarks and antiquarks combine to annihilate each other, atomic nuclei form (hydrogen) and for 3 minutes, the fireball remained hot enough to support nuclear fusion, which formed the 25% helium that we see in the stars today. In local areas, the abundance of elements is different from that predicted from the Big Bang. It is precisely because God has provided a way for heavier elements to form that we are alive today. The Sun and our Solar System formed late in the history of the universe, and so contain the remnants of heavy elements formed during multiple supernova events within our galaxy.

• The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
• he amount of matter – both baryonic and dark matter – is sufficient to account for the large-scale structure of the universe.

• The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
• Since quasars have a very short lifespan (a few billion years at most), they would all have the same apparent brightness because they would be all roughly the same age. All quasars have large redshift values, since they were all formed over 5 billion years ago.

• The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
• This appeared to be true a few years ago. However, recent measurements have indicated that the Hubble constant is smaller than originally thought (making the universe older) and the ages of globular clusters younger than previously thought

• The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
• The motions of the galaxies are exactly what are predicted from the Big Bang. The farther galaxies are receding at a higher rate than those that are nearer. The relationship is extremely linear (very little deviation).

• Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
• At least four different scientific techniques have confirmed the presence of large amounts of cold dark matter in the universe. For a detailed description of these studies, see Dr. Ross’ book,The Creator and the Cosmos.

• The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.
• Recent pictures from the Hubble Deep Field have revealed galaxies when they were forming – over 14 billion years ago. The light that is reaching us now is 14 billion years old, and, as such, shows no evidence of evolution, since we are looking back in time, and can see even before true galaxies were formed. Quasars are formed when two galaxies collide and their combined gases ignite at the center of one of the galaxies. Since galaxy collisions were much more common at the beginning of the universe, most quasars were formed then. Since they burn so intensely, they do not burn for long. When we look at the universe we see quasars only at distances equivalent to less than 50% of the age of the universe, back to about 10% of the age of the universe. We don’t see quasars older than 50% of the age of the universe, because after that time, they ceased to exist (we only see them now because of the time it took the light to reach us). Likewise, we don’t see quasars earlier than 10% of the current age of the universe, because galaxies had not completely formed before that time. Therefore, we would expect to see protogalaxies and newly formed galaxies with redshifts greater than those of quasars. The result is not inconsistent with Big Bang cosmology, but is, in fact, predicted by it.

• If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 10^59. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.
• This is true, and a subject of concern for atheists. The extreme fine-tuning of the laws of physics and the exact size of the universe is such that it is virtually impossible for the universe to have formed by chance. Rather than disprove the Big Bang, the fine-tuning of the universe strongly suggests a level of design not possible by chance. Many atheists reject the Big Bang because the level of design suggests the intervention of a Divine Creator.

 

[[serious]]

Some more problems:
1. If we all came from some big explosion, why are there still explosions?
2. The big bang would have killed all humans, but we are still here!
3. The math behind the big bang is too complex to occur by chance
4. Where are all the big bangs now?
5. The second law of thermodynamics. I don't know what it says, but I assume it means this can't happen.
6. If the big bang made hydrogen, where is all the hydrogen between stars?
7. No star carbon dates to 14 billion years old.
8. Big bangs can only destroy information, not create it. Therefore books can't have any information on big bangs.
9. We don't see any dinosaurs on the moon, so how can the moon have come from earth?
10. The odds of a big bang just happening since the start of the universe are 1 in 10^10^10^56.

Take that evolutionists

 

[lesliedellow]

A short list of the leading problems faced by Creationism in its struggle for viability as a theory:

Everything about it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory:

Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.

Nah, we can see the movement of things around us, AV. Even if this statement were true, the universe has been observed to expand, so it would be a moot point. As it were, the statement is wrong anyways.

The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

Negatory, it would not be so pervasive if this were the case. Also, what is a "limiting temperature of space"?

Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.

How so? At first, there was only hydrogen, maybe some helium. Other elements are created in stars. I don't see where you get the "too many adjustable parameters" from. Additionally, what makes you think that there is a limit on how many adjustable parameters something can have and still work?

The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

What walls and voids? Little known fact, space is a thing in and of itself, it has properties. There is no such thing as "nothing" in our universe. Plus, what is the evidence behind this claim, what makes you think that it is true? Some stars could have even been formed directly from the Big Bang, skipping out on the time it takes for most stars to form.

The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

You do know a mean is literally the measurements taken from all quasars averaged out, right? Of course the numbers are going to be the same across the board when someone averages all the measurements. It's adding all the numbers together and dividing them by the number of data points. If someone has a mean that isn't consistent in all relevant measurements, they did something wrong.

The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.

I know, super weird, right? Not exactly evidence for a deity though, but definitely evidence that people do not falsify dating to make them fit with existing theories. Perhaps our universe is older than previously thought, or, gasp, stuff existed before the big bang.

The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.

The universe itself is expanding faster than the physical matter in it is moving out. Plus, the motions of the galaxies we measure are billions of years old, so of course they are going to appear to move faster than they are supposed to. Although, with dark energy thrown into the mix, the mass expansion might also be speeding up.

Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

It's not invisible, it bends light, that's how we know it is there.

The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.

-_- none of this has anything to do with evolution. Why do you think it does?

If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 10^59. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

I would like a source for that. Besides, prior to the big bang, the laws of physics as we understand them did not exist, so I highly doubt that this rule could definitively apply even if it is in line with our understanding of physics.

From: Meta Research Bulletin, v.

6, #4, December 15, 1997. The full list and details appeared in "The top 30 problems with the Big Bang", Meta Research Bulletin, v. 11, #1, March 15, 2002.

2002?! That is one old source there, you might want a more up to date list than this. Science can progress a lot in a little over a decade.

 

[AV1611VET]

2002?! That is one old source there, you might want a more up to date list than this. Science can progress a lot in a little over a decade.

I got that link from this post.

 

[klutedavid]

Science cannot observe or test the supernatural realm

Hello Gene2.

Do you believe that the universe is a physical entity?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I got that link from this post.

Irrelevant to the fact that the source is ancient. Also, respond to the rest of my post. I didn't put so much work into it just so that the most insignificant comment within it would be noticed.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Those are all very interesting points in the OP. I wish I understood them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also, respond to the rest of my post.

I don't want to.

Science ain't my bag.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those are all very interesting points in the OP. I wish I understood them.

I don't understand a single point.

I was just tossing the scientifically-minded people here something to play with.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I don't want to.

Science ain't my bag.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, I could have responded to the thread itself, but then you guys would arc & spark that I was necroing a dead thread.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well, I could have responded to the thread itself, but then you guys would arc & spark that I was necroing a dead thread.

But master necromancer AV, the only reason we do that is because 1, your practice of the dark arts is amusing, and 2, you don't revive threads by contributing more to them, you just post so that they pop up on the front page.

Live a little AV, and participate to the greatest extent that your knowledge will allow.

 

[AV1611VET]

But master necromancer AV, the only reason we do that is because 1, your practice of the dark arts is amusing, and 2, you don't revive threads by contributing more to them, you just post so that they pop up on the front page.

Nah.

It's just to find something to moan & groan about, IMO.

I guess it's a way of relieving stress or something.