The Big Bang Theory of Universal evolution:

I have started this thread after having some tooing and froing, mingled with plenty of trolling by one of the forum's fanatical creationists, who has a habit of denying factual evidence and accepted scientific facts like Darwinism and the theory of evolution of life.
As this was being debated in the religious threads, it was rightly pointed out by James as being off topic.
Here is what I believe the BB entails and the relevant facts according to accepted mainstream cosmology today....any errors, alterations and/or modifications welcomed if needed.

Growing up in the fifties and being vaguely interested in cosmology, space etc, there were three competing theories....
The Steady State as pushed by Hoyle, Bondi, and Gold.
This was discarded after the universe was found to be expanding which effectively meant that new matter needed to be created to maintain the density as predicted by Steady State. It also predicted an ifinite universe.
The Oscillating theory: This was a theor that predicted that the universe was undergoing continious collapse and expansion cycles. This was proposed by Friedman. This was discarded because of the second law of thermodynamics, which tells us that entropy always increases within an isolated system, and never in an opposite way. Also from memory because of the fact that we never see distant galaxies blue shifted.
The Big Bang theory: This was first proposed by a Belgian Jesuit pries, Father George LaMaitre. With the serendipitous discovery of the CMBR by Penzias and Wilson, the BB theory gained in popularity, while the others fell by the wayside.
The BB has four main pillars of cosmology supporting it.
[1] The Observed expansion, which can be mentally traced backwards to a singularity.
[2]The abundance of the lighter elements.
[3] The constant relic left over heat that we know of as the Cosmic Background Radiation at 2.7K
[4] The galactic formation structure, and the very tiny variations in the CMBR where this structure took place.
Another less recognised fact is that the BB fits with our overwhelmingly supported theory of gravity called General Relativity.

The BB is often mistakenly called the beginning of the universe and an even bigger mistake of being called an explosion, which obviously conjurs up pictures of what we see as conventional explosions. It wasn't. The BB is the description of the evolution of space and time from a very hot, very dense state, at t+10-43 seconds. Before that our laws of physics and GR fail us, and a QGT is needed.
While the BB describes a beginning to the observable universe, a fact that creationists jump on to insert there "god of the gaps" to explain that beginning, the scientific facts are that as yet we do not know anything before that first Planck instant at t+10-43 seconds.
In actual fact this is a credit to cosmologists over the years that they have instead stuck with the scientific evidence no matter what the criticism.
Most probably knowing that temperatures and pressures were extreme, it is thought that conditions were such that the four known forces were all combined into what is called the superforce.
Such similar facts are verified in today's particle accelerators and colliders.
As temperatures and pressures dropped with expansion, this superforce started to decouple and created conditions called false vacuums and phase transitions, where due to excesses of energy, our very first fundamentals were created...quarks, electrons etc. At 3 minutes conditions were such that quarks started to combine forming protons and neutrons. At 380,000 years temperatures were such that electrons were able to couple with those atomic nuclei.

Another important fact that many misinterpret, is that the BB was not an explosion of matter, hurling outwards, but an expansion of the space between the galaxies.
Yet another fact that confuses people, is that we do not see that expansion over smaller scales of stellar systems, galactic systems, and even cluster of galaxies, rather it only operates over the large scale, with gravity taking effect and decoupling space expansion over the smaller scales.

People some with obvious agendas, then ask, what was before the first Plank instant? what made the BB bang? Why did it bang? The correct answer is we don't know, but again this then enables the fanatics to jump in with all manners of god/s.

But there is also educated speculation on that unknown era, some of that already described with the superforce.
While the BB is overwhelmingly accepted, it still had some nagging problems.
these were explained by a process called Inflation, of which there are variations and which I am not that familiar with.

More detailed information can be got in the following links.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Expansion_of_space

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~thompson/1101/lecture_first_3_minutes.html

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_part5.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't come from no monkey...oh, wrong thread.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seems like we all come from banging

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah, if people came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

 

Exactly, God made man in his likeness and God ain't no monkey. I don't even like bananas.

 

I'm not real sure about that. Can we be really sure? Perhaps we need to ask Jan, who is still swinging in the trees.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Good point. That would make a nice title for a book, "God is a Monkey:let God into your life and swing for the trees".

 

I say Paddo it is a little disappointing that given you have gone to all this trouble I expect to help Jan that he has not shown to at least thank you.
Alex

 

The OP is aimed at the specific and continued raising and attempted derision of the BB in a religious thread after being informed it was off topic.
I started this exactly for the reason/s to show the BB as a well rounded theory of universal evolution, and as supported by the evidence.

 

The model generally referred in the OP, can be more correctly be called the "Hot BB model"
https://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/GenRel/BigBangModel.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang


But there was also a version, ironically first modelled by the Father of the BB, George LaMaitre....this was known as the Cold BB model.
Details on that follow.........................
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Big_Bang
Cold Big Bang is a designation used in cosmology to denote an absolute zero temperature at the beginning of the Universe, instead of a (hot) Big Bang.

In an attempt to understand the origin of atoms, Georges Lemaître proposed (by 1927) that before the expansion of the universe started all the matter in the universe, it formed a gigantic ball of nuclear liquid at very low temperature. This low temperature was required to provide an adequate cohesion within the Lemaître's primeval atom. In 1966, David Layzer proposed a variant on Lemaître's cosmology in which the initial state of the universe was near absolute zero. Layzer argued that, rather than in an initial high entropy state, the primordial universe was in a very low entropy state near absolute zero.

The mainstream version of the Cold Big Bang model predicted an absence of acoustic peaks in the cosmic microwave background radiation[1] and was eventually explicitly ruled out by WMAP observations.

 

An important point to note, I was informed by an Astronomer on another forum, that the BB/Inflationary model is so strong, that any future validated QGT, would near certainly entail the BB model...

 

Another aspect of the strength of the BB, and one I havn't seen discussed that much, is how the BB model, Einstein's SR/GR and the particle Physics zoo, all seem to fit in neatly together like a solved jigsaw puzzle.
That and that fact alone, besides the four pillars in the OP, is good reason why cosmologists are still confidently sure they are on the right track.

 

The whole evolution of the universe/space/time, can be described in the following epochs.....
The Cosmic Timeline
The Superforce or unification of the forces just after the BB.

The decoupling of those forces [gravity first] as the universe expands and pressures and temperatures drop.


Emergence of Matter in the first three minutes.

Recombination era at 380,000 years and when the universe became visible.

 

Actually many cosmology theorists without any religious agenda quite happily ask such questions. That makes them fanatics? And you need to broaden your focus on 'fanatics with all manner of god/s' to include your erstwhile 'like a lot' fellow atheist mate here, who is a BB denier e.g. http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3646140/

 

Of course they do...the question is there to be asked, but they don't then claim some silly unscientific supernatural myth as a filler do they?

Not at all as they are not fanatics are they. They admit we can only speculate, even when such speculation is based on current knowledge and the present cosmological picture.eg: Krauss' universe from nothing [quantum foam]They don't go installing some unscientific supernatural, mythical entity, with evangelistic certainty.

Not at all...if you read all Alex says on the BB, he admits it is the best we have based on current evidence, but there maybe something better.
I don't agree with him entirely, so? The only observation I make with certainty, is your apparent obsession and paranoia with regards to atheists.
I see it [atheism] as common sense and logic. But hey, there are threads with three other evangelistic characters that go on occasional crusades...Jan, Seti, and Vociferous. You are free to put your views in that matter in those threads.
I would link to the great Carl Sagan here, but what the heck.

 

You will be unable to link to a single post in any thread where I have ever actually shown 'obsession and paranoia with regards to atheists'. Try and keep the hyperbole in check.

 

Well I'm certainly not going back to attempt to dig up anything, but memory serves me otherwise.

 

https://physicsworld.com/a/microwav...se-for-loop-quantum-cosmology-say-physicists/
For me cyclic BB's = Big Bouncing universe. A single big bounce makes no more sense than a single BB. The crucial issues for any eternally recycling big bounce model are:

1: Cosmological constant if present seemingly can never be large enough to yield unending exponential expansion. That restriction has to be a fundamental and natural feature of the model. However, some theorists actually need eternal exponential expansion to get an eternally cycling universe! Counter-intuitive an understatement but see below.
That our universe appears to be undergoing unending exponential expansion has recently been challenged: https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.04935

2: The traditional killer of a rebounding universe is relentless entropy growth from one cycle to the next. There are a number of 'creative' postulates as to how to get around it. Mostly, by requiring accelerated expansion and a mechanism that somehow selects a tiny low or zero entropy subset of the total universe that becomes a seed for a new cycle. Roger Penrose's CCC is an example. These will all fail if finding in above article linked to is right. LQG seems to have a different esoteric entropy elimination mechanism operating at the high curvature bounce region. To be viable, it must additionally introduce some 'natural' mechanism that reverses current epoch exponential growth eventually. And do so every cycle.

As I have written elsewhere, all current proposals face difficulties that seem fatal.

 

Scientific papers are forever challenging aspects of cosmology all the time....some fade and die away due to lack of evidence...others may replace current theory, and others such as the one in question, need further research, which may see it prevail, or fade away and die...that's science.

Thanks for that info...whether it replaces anything is still open though.

As I did mention earlier, I was once informed by an astronomer we had on another now defunct forum, that any future QGT will almost certainly encase the current BB/Inflationary model. While that was a few years ago, and whether he has changed his mind or otherwise, I am not certain.
The current cosmological model will not be easily replaced, and nor should it be...it has too much going for it.
Whether our current picture of cosmology is modified, invalidated, or remains as is, is open to question and further never-ending research.
I'm sure as technology allows, and data is received, it will all be treated as such and diligently researched via the scientific method, and reaching the correct and most likely answer.