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.

[Sava]

I don't believe all matter in the universe was originally concentrating in one place... that just doesn't make sense to me. I think the big bang was probably a real event, but I doubt it contained all matter. I suspect that when planets and star systems fall into black holes, they concentrate into larger and larger anomalies until they reach a sort of critical mass... then they expand (like the big band theory). I suspect that all the matter visible to us was part of a regional big bang (so to speak)... but if space goes on infinitely, it's reasonable to think there is more matter that's VERY FAR AWAY that was not part of the big bang that created the universe as we know it.

Even though I have formulated such a theory, I don't "believe" in it the same way religious people believe in their god. It's a theory that will no doubt change as I learn more. It's a static understanding I have... that's the difference between the religious and myself.

[MikeH]

I think that the Hot Big Bang theory explains the universe after the first 10E-49 of a second (or however long they can go back) better than any other theory we've got so far.

It's a bit dumb thinking it's the complete answer because it isn't.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Uber KruX


...

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.

Apparently Stephen Hawking did the math that proved you didn't need an initiator for the Big Bang.

Mind you, he would type that on his synth voice, wouldn't he?

(He couldn't say it because he can't talk).

[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...)

[Sava]

Originally posted by Cruddy


Apparently Stephen Hawking did the math that proved you didn't need an initiator for the Big Bang.

Mind you, he would type that on his synth voice, wouldn't he?

(He couldn't say it because he can't talk).

whenever I think of Stephen Hawking, I always think of Ned from South Park... you know... the Vet who talks through that throat microphone...

[ned voice]
mmmmm... the universe was not created by god.mmmmm
[/nedvoice]

[Barinthus]

Actually more and more scientists are starting to say that they find religion and science to be comptiable. Seeing God in science, that sort of thing.

What blows my mind is how did Big Bang come to be? What was there before Big Bang? Then what was there before that? How did God came to be? Was there a beginning or perhaps there was no beginning?

[BeBro]

I believe in the big bang everytime I see a nice woman....

[General Ludd]

God is physics.

[centrifuge]

The problem with the whole science vs religion debate is that people often seem to think that it has to be one or the other.

Why can't science just be thought of as a way of coming in closer contact with God? Science in no way disproves God's existance and should rather be thought of by fanatical theologians as a way of better understanding what God has created.

[yavoon]

there is one insoluble point w/ what I perceive as ur conclusion rogan.

you are attempting to poke holes in a scientific theory in order to forward a non-scientific theory. or even in general, shooting one theory up does not promote another.

it is obvious there is much about the universe still to be explained. but the utterly myopic view that shooting up honest, rigorous and effective attempts to explain the universe in favor of reffering to an old book a hunch or common sense is doomed to failure.

[curtsibling]

@centrifuge:

If only!

The creed of religionists: It's their way...Or some mythical hell place they have dreamed up.

The creed of scientists: There is no punishment for ignoring the logical world, only eventual humiliation.

[Verres]

Its so much better to know nothing about the origins of the universe at all - I can just look at the night sky and see a lot of pretty stars without wondering how they got there

[My Wife Hates CIV]

cosmic background radiation bud. that says it all. i would go so far as to say this proves the big bang - or at least something like the big bang did occur.

and the Big Bang sounds better than just 'god created it all', and I certainly don't see the evidence for a universe created by some god.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

'The theories all tell us that anti-matter must have been produced in equal amounts - so where did it go? '

wrong Rogan Josh... where did u get this bit of info. the universe was not perfect, more matter than anti-matter. i guess god would have been better... but there aint one! :O

[centrifuge]

Originally posted by curtsibling
@centrifuge:

If only!

The creed of religionists: It's their way...Or some mythical hell place they have dreamed up.

The creed of scientists: There is no punishment for ignoring the logical world, only eventual humiliation.

I'm a research scientist(Chemistry), I have authored several refereed article in the scientific literature etc. and yes I do believe that the majority of natural phenomenon can be explained by scientific means.

I also go to church every Sunday (well almost every Sunday ) I do so because I know that there is a difference between science and religion, and that one often compliments the other.

Moral of the story: Just because you believe in God doesn't mean that you can't believe in science and vice versa