Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Three Problems With the Big Bang
Real Clear Science ^ | Ross Pomeroy

Posted on 05/11/2016 7:53:28 PM PDT by MtnClimber

Somewhere around 13.8 billion years ago, the Universe began with a bang. In less than a second, the four fundamental forces -- electromagnetism, gravitation, weak nuclear interaction, and strong nuclear interaction -- which initially were joined as a single even more fundamental force, separated. Suddenly, the Universe started to expand at an exponential rate. Cosmic inflation had begun. ....

The Big Bang is the best theory we have to explain the birth and existence of the Universe. As astrophysicist Ethan Siegel wrote in his recent book Beyond the Galaxy:

"To this very day, there is no other model that is both consistent with General Relativity and explains the Hubble expansion of the Universe....

But while satisfying and substantially supported by the weight of scientific evidence, the defining theory of cosmology is not perfect. There remain three key problems.

The first is the Horizon Problem. If we look far out into space, billions of light years away, we see photons with the same temperature -- roughly 2.725 degrees Kelvin. If we look in another direction, we find the same thing. What a coincidence! In fact, when astronomers look in all directions, no matter how distant, they find that all regions have the same temperature. This is incredibly puzzling, Siegel says, "since these regions are separated by distances that are greater than any signal, even light, could have traveled in the time since the Universe was born." The Big Bang offers no explanation for this fascinating quirk.

Yet another quirk unexplained by the Big Bang is the Flatness Problem. Almost all the evidence collected by cosmologists indicates that the Universe is flat. Like a sheet of paper on a desk, spacetime shows almost no curvature whatsoever. Within the context of the Big Bang, this seems extremely unlikely.

(Excerpt) Read more at realclearscience.com ...


TOPICS: Astronomy; Science
KEYWORDS: bigbang; georgeslemaitre; osspomeroy; realclearscience; rosspomeroy; stringtheory; universe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last
To: minnesota_bound

+1


21 posted on 05/11/2016 9:34:41 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: con-surf-ative
It all goes back to the fundamental question of philosophy: Why is there something rather than nothing?

And the obvious answer:

Why NOT?

22 posted on 05/11/2016 9:35:33 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

That would be “a lot” and thanks for an article that is short on truth and long in conjecture, false premises, and nonsense. Sorry. You live in a beautiful state however.


23 posted on 05/11/2016 9:39:37 PM PDT by Fungi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber
Yet another quirk unexplained by the Big Bang is the Flatness Problem.

Did all 3 dimensions and time spring into existence at the same instant?

Or was it point, then line, then plain, then finally "thickness/time"?

Everything was flat (a plain) until "thickness/time" kicked in. :^)

24 posted on 05/11/2016 9:42:20 PM PDT by The Cajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: con-surf-ative
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

If there were nothing, can you imagine how difficult it would be to try to explain that, with no one explaining, and no one listening?

25 posted on 05/11/2016 9:43:48 PM PDT by Heart-Rest ( "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil!" Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ignatz

No, the Big Bang requires an infinity inside of creation. The only infinite is the Creator himself, outside of His creation.

What appears to be the Universe very close to the beginning of this cycle resulted from a phase transition as God said, “Let there be light!”. The Universe was already very big and very “old” at that time, but it was only about 15 billion years before “now” as we measure time in our local level in space-time.

Only differential theories can be deduced from observing the behavior of the universe. The Universe requires that boundary conditions be set for it from the outside, by the creator. The only way for us to know anything about those boundary conditions is for the Creator to reveal them to us.

So you are looking for a document that has been written down over a long time in human history, that is internally consistent, and contains an explanation of Creation, and predictions of things before they happen, so that when they happen you will believe the Word of the Creator.


26 posted on 05/11/2016 9:43:52 PM PDT by SubMareener (Save us from Quarterly Freepathons! Become a MONTHLY DONOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener

“The main problem with a “young earth” “

The main problem is that “young earth” is entirely man made. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is 4000 years old or whatever. That is someone who tried the old “add it up” trick. But it really isn’t Biblical per se.


27 posted on 05/11/2016 9:45:17 PM PDT by DesertRhino ("I want those feeble minded asses overthrown,,,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Chaguito

Could a consciousness that does not exist...conceive of its own non-existence?
Obviously not, thus, Descarte’s famous, “I think, therefore I am”. There is one thing an Evil Genius cannot do: create something that, at the same time, does NOT exist.


28 posted on 05/11/2016 9:51:38 PM PDT by Ignatz (Winner of a prestigious 1960 Y-chromosome award!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

29 posted on 05/11/2016 9:52:51 PM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

It is pretty clear to those who have eyes to see and ears to hear that YHWH’s Salvation Plan is Seven Days, or seven thousand years long. Six days/thousand years of “work” and one day/thousand years of rest. The Messiah’s first coming was after the four day/thousand year. His second coming is after the six day/thousand year, and that would be about now.

So, Jesus is coming! Look busy!


30 posted on 05/11/2016 9:55:51 PM PDT by SubMareener (Save us from Quarterly Freepathons! Become a MONTHLY DONOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: The Cajun

No matter what theories are extant at this”time”, time must have always existed. To say that “time began at the Big Bang” delineates a period before and after the Big Bang. Thus, however measured, “time” must have existed pre- and post- Big Bang.
N’est pas?


31 posted on 05/11/2016 10:03:36 PM PDT by Ignatz (Winner of a prestigious 1960 Y-chromosome award!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener

That really just seems like a guess, because it isn’t explicit. But the important thing, is that it doesn’t matter at all as a matter of salvation. If you think the earth is a few thousand years, and I think it a few billion it doesn’t change the fundamental of Christ on the cross for our sins.

No young earther, or old earther is condemned for that belief. That really is some magic in the plan if you think about it. So study away and enjoy yourself. Nothing bad can come of that.


32 posted on 05/11/2016 10:08:26 PM PDT by DesertRhino ("I want those feeble minded asses overthrown,,,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ignatz

Maybe nothing can happen without time or maybe everything happens infinitely fast without time.............. :^)


33 posted on 05/11/2016 10:09:59 PM PDT by The Cajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DesertRhino

Amen, brother!


34 posted on 05/11/2016 10:14:13 PM PDT by SubMareener (Save us from Quarterly Freepathons! Become a MONTHLY DONOR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener

Oh yes! Rotfl!
“Err on the side of caution!”


35 posted on 05/11/2016 10:15:00 PM PDT by Ignatz (Winner of a prestigious 1960 Y-chromosome award!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SubMareener

Hmm? “The Universe requires that boundary conditions be set for it from the outside, by the creator...”
Agreed. That universal constants (boundries or limits of any kind) exist implies that SOMEONE OR SOMETHING “set” these constraints.
Though I would say “outset” rather than “outside”.


36 posted on 05/11/2016 10:29:11 PM PDT by Ignatz (Winner of a prestigious 1960 Y-chromosome award!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: The Cajun

When Physicists say flat, they mean that space is Euclidean.


37 posted on 05/11/2016 10:32:19 PM PDT by Do the math (Doug)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber
There are some new "wrinkles" or variations on the Big Bang theory out there, like this one, known as the "Colorado Corollary".




38 posted on 05/11/2016 10:49:13 PM PDT by Heart-Rest ( "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil!" Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber
Interesting article and comments.

One of the commenters at the link, Samuel Conner, ends his comment with this: "The fundamental point of this article, that Big Bang theory has significant problems with its initial conditions, ie the horizon, flatness and monopole problems, has not been true since the 1980s."

Conner does not mention his academic qualifications. A Samuel Conner won the Past Barrett Prize for astrophysics at MIT in 1992, but that might be a different Samuel Conner.

39 posted on 05/12/2016 12:04:59 AM PDT by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MtnClimber

Bookmark


40 posted on 05/12/2016 12:32:38 AM PDT by JDoutrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson