Big Bang Cosmology Intelligent Design Naturalism

Is the Big Bang theory on trial?

Spread the love
This image represents the evolution of the Universe, starting with the Big Bang. The red arrow marks the flow of time.
Big Bang/NASA

From Adam Hadhazy at Space.com:

A new cosmic map was unveiled in August, plotting where the mysterious substance called dark matter is clumped across the universe. To immense relief — and frustration — the map is just what scientists had expected. The distribution of dark matter agrees with our current understanding of a universe born with certain properties in a Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago.

So what is the problem here?

But for all the map’s confirmatory power, it still tells us little about the true identity of dark matter, which acts as an invisible scaffold for galaxies and cosmic structure. It also does not explain an even bigger factor shaping the cosmos, known as dark energy, an enigmatic force seemingly pushing the universe apart at ever greater speeds. Tantalizingly, however, a small discrepancy between the new findings and previous observations of the early universe might just crack open the door for new physics.

Is “new physics” code here for evidence-free cosmology, building on the small discrepancy? Yes, small discrepancies can matter a great deal but most do not. A panel discussion follows, including:

[Astrophysicist George] EFSTATHIOU: It would’ve been very interesting if the results had significantly increased the tension with the cosmological standard model, which is the foundation for understanding why, beginning with the Big Bang, the universe is undergoing an accelerated expansion. Some previous surveys had suggested that there might be a problem, though I thought that these results were questionable. In my view, one should rely on the data and not be alarmed if our theories disagree with observations. The universe is what it is. More.

So there is no real problem despite the turbo-hype.

True, the Big Bang has always been on trial but only in kangaroo courts of science. It was never a popular theory because of its theistic implications. All it has ever had on its side is evidence and today evidence is increasingly seen as a problem, not a solution because it impedes the much-desired evidence-free cosmology.

3-D impression of dark matter via Hubble

No one has ever come up with any dark matter or dark energy so their use to undermine the Big Bang is an interesting cultural moment…

See also: The Big Bang: Put simply,the facts are wrong.

Big Bang exterminator wanted, will train

Question for multiverse theorists: To what can science appeal, if not evidence?

and

Dark matter: Skeptics wanted

5 Replies to “Is the Big Bang theory on trial?

  1. 1
    FourFaces says:

    A new cosmic map was unveiled in August, plotting where the mysterious substance called dark matter is clumped across the universe.

    It is doubtful that such a map can exist since dark matter is undetectable. What they really have is a map of areas in the cosmos where current theories of gravity are falsified. But why admit that you are a failure if you have a “perfectly good” explanation? Just conjure up a fairy tale substance and voila.

  2. 2
    FourFaces says:

    News: True, the Big Bang has always been on trial but only in kangaroo courts of science. It was never a popular theory because of its theistic implications.

    I have a problem with this. The Big Bang theory is widely accepted in the scientific community. It’s part of their religion. I am a theist and I disagree with it for the same reasons that I disagree with accelerating expansion, dark matter and dark energy. I don’t believe that God needs to create the universe with a Big Bang.

    The physics community has a bad habit of refusing to accept that their theories have been falsified. So they keep creating new “epicycles” to correct the failures.

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, Every physical — indeed, every scientific — theory is permanently on trial, permanently open to revision, refinement, correction and even radical replacement. Where, the arbiter is empirically observed evidence, and also logic including that of structure and quantity (i.e. Math). The BB theory is no exception, and evidence such as rotational patterns of galaxies, and as Wiki notes: “gravitational lensing, its influence on the universe’s large-scale structure, on the formation of galaxies, and its effects on the cosmic microwave background” — which counts in establishing that there is more or less invisible dark matter. What is on the table is, what is this matter that seems not to be participating in light-related elecromagnetic processes but makes its gravitationally-linked effects manifest? Where of course questions emerge on the laws of physics as one concern. From the OP, the modelling (in effect, application of the logic of structure and quantity through algorithms acting on relevant data stored in structures) is coming up in general agreement with standard models, leaving the puzzles ever more open. KF

  4. 4
    FourFaces says:

    kairosfocus @3,

    What is on the table is, what is this matter that seems not to be participating in light-related elecromagnetic processes but makes its gravitationally-linked effects manifest?

    There is only one problem with this hypothesis. It is contingent on a single assumption that has never been tested. Both Newtonian gravity and general relativity assume that gravity is caused by the mere presence of matter, i.e., mass. What if this assumption is false?

    What if gravity is caused, not by mass, but by the interactions of particles, both massive or massless? I have a gravity hypothesis based on the notion that all physical phenomena, including gravity, are the result of the nature trying to correct an imbalance. I propose that particle interactions cause an energy imbalance or deficiency (for reasons that are beyond the scope of this comment forum) and that nature tries to correct the imbalance by moving matter toward the source of the deficiency. This is manifested as gravity. The energy deficiency is also the reason that clocks slow down in the presence of gravity.

    In this light, it is not just the interactions of particles within massive bodies that cause gravity but also all the particles (both massive and massless) that are flying around and interacting in the space between massive bodies. Stars and other bodies emit huge numbers of particles. This is the reason that so-called “dark matter” seems to be located within galaxies and close to massive bodies.

    This hypothesis obviates the need for dark matter.

  5. 5
    J-Mac says:

    Sir Fred Hoyle, the astrophysicist who coined the term “Big Bang”, never accepted that theory for the origin of the universe…He also rejected the term Big Bang

    I wonder why?

Leave a Reply