Big Bang Or Big Bounce?

[Brother Jeff]

Interesting...

 

http://www.sciencealert.com/researchers-say-the-big-bang-might-have-been-a-big-bounce

 

Glory!

[midniterider]

Big Bounce! Makes sense. No worries about 'a beginning.'

[♦ Fuego ♦]

I still haven't heard much in the way of explaining why it would contract.

[bornagainathiest]

I still haven't heard much in the way of explaining why it would contract.

 

I echo Fuego's puzzlement.

For the Big Bounce to be a cyclic explanation of the universe's behavior it's current (and apparently accelerating) expansion would have to reverse itself.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe However, assuming that Geilen and Turok are on to something, I have the following thoughts about their Big Bounce.

 

1.

The jury is still out on whether the Inflationary cosmology of the Big Bang requires something to start the Inflationary process... or not.  

If not, then we are looking at an eternally inflating Multiverse, which required no cause and no creator and which has always been inflating and will continue to do so, forever.  If Inflation did required a cause, then at the very least we can say that Inflation has been proceeding for at least 13.72 billion years and will proceed eternally into the future.  But the Copernican principle... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle...forbids us from assuming that the Inflationary process began with the origin of our particular region of the Multiverse.  If we do that then we are raising our region of the Multiverse in importance over all the others and the Copernican principle expressly forbids that.

 

 More recently, the principle has been generalized to the relativistic concept that humans are not privileged observers of the universe.

 

If ALL observers, anywhere in the Multiverse are considered equal and their viewpoints are strictly relative to one another, then none can consider their viewpoint to be more privileged than any other.  Nobody can claim that their particular region of the Multiverse was first. Therefore, we cannot claim that the Inflationary process began with the origin of our region of the Multiverse.  The true beginning of that process (if there was one) is more likely to be tremendously far removed from us, trillions and trillions of times more distant than what we perceive as the beginning of our universe.  Furthermore, since Inflation is an exponentially-accelerating process, we also have no idea how long it had been accelerating before our particular region of the Multiverse was generated by Inflation's energy field.  This acceleration could have recently begun or it could have been doubling exponentially for trillions of eons.

 

2.

None of the above applies to the Big Bounce.

In this paradigm, all that is needed for the creation of our universe is the destruction of a previous one.  The Bounce may or may not be part of an ongoing and eternal cycle of universal creation and destruction.  But from the p.o.v. of we Ex-Christians, that is largely irrelevant.  Provided that the cause of this universe was the destruction of a previous one and not God, then Genesis 1 : 1 is shown to be false.   It therefore logically follows that if the opening verse of the Bible is falsified, then all of it is falsified.  None of it can true.  Game over for Christianity.  

 

3.

Such an outcome will present no problem to Christians who are already science denialists.

If they reject abiogenesis, evolution and what science has to say about the great age of the universe and the Earth, then they simply aren't going to pay any attention to what science has to say about this universe being formed by the collapse and destruction of a previous one. Snafu.

 

4.

However, the Big Bounce will be a big deal to those Christians who try to blend science with their faith.

If verified, the Big bounce will be a body of scientific evidence that falsifies their faith.  It cannot be reconciled in any way with the belief in the Creator God of the Bible.  They will either have to cherry-pick the science they can accept and reject what they cannot, reject all of science or reject all of their Christian faith.  There are no possible halfway houses.

 

5.

Lastly, our dear friend William Lane Craig won't be able to use his Kalam Cosmological Argument any more.

The KCA has the non-spatial, non-temporal, non-material spirit of God creating our universe ex nihilo.  By definition, a previous universe is spatial, temporal and material, not spiritual.  Game over, there too!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Brother Jeff]

Hey BAA,

 

Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful response! Glory! 

[pantheory]

Such speculation and searching for evidence for a big bounce has been going on for at least 50 years, up to 100 years according to the link,  before the Big Bang theory was conceived. Theorists presently believe in the accelerated expansion of the universe. If this were true it would seem to eliminate a cyclical, infinite number of bangs and bounces unless accelerated expansion could eventually become decelerating expansion.. I believe it is all speculation with no conclusive evidence existing for nearly any of it, including the BB model itself or any version of it since many believe there are a number of other reasonable possibilities. The Big Bang theory is simply the majority view right now, with a consensus of up to maybe 99% if one includes different beginnings such as a multiverse etc.. Yes, that's a high percentage of supporters.  , but all would agree that  theory changes when observations and new interpretations indicate otherwise.-- which has happened frequently in cosmology, where Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy are relatively recent examples.

[bornagainathiest]

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system.  He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."

 

From the Wikipedia page about Michael Behe's testimony at the Dover vs Kitzmiller, Intelligent Design hearing in 2004.

.

.

.

I have three requests, please Pantheory.

 

First, please state the date (the year will do) that you first decided that the Big Bang was speculation.

 

Second, please list the confirmed predictions about the Big Bang that have been made since that date, along with the degree of accuracy for each one.  I've come up with ten (but I don't know when you made you decision), so I'd expect to see you cite at least this number of confirmed predictions and hopefully, more.

 

Lastly, please then say why you think the examples you cite are not sufficient evidence for the Big Bang and why they are not "good enough".

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system.  He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."

 

From the Wikipedia page about Michael Behe's testimony at the Dover vs Kitzmiller, Intelligent Design hearing in 2004.

.

I have three requests, please Pantheory.

 

First, please state the date (the year will do) that you first decided that the Big Bang was speculation.

 

Second, please list the confirmed predictions about the Big Bang that have been made since that date, along with the degree of accuracy for each one.  I've come up with ten (but I don't know when you made you decision), so I'd expect to see you cite at least this number of confirmed predictions and hopefully, more.

 

Lastly, please then say why you think the examples you cite are not sufficient evidence for the Big Bang and why they are not "good enough".

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

As per your requests:

 

About 1958 there was an "equal battle" between Big Bang and Steady State theorists (Hoyle et. al. ), where U.S. theorists preferred the BB model and the English preferred the Steady State model. There seemed to be no clear preference for the rest of the world as far as I could tell at that time since I was only in high school. I preferred the Steady State model based upon my knowledge of both theories at that time but also based upon philosophical grounds. But I thought that both theories were generally speculative. I never changed my mind from this position since as new information came in that might support or contradict one theory or the other, IMO there was equally contradicting evidence for both theories based upon my interpretation of the new observations and supposed evidence. So never in my life did I ever adhere or believe in the validity of the Big Bang model or any of its various versions as anything more than speculation -- nor the Steady State model for that matter. This was the beginning of my own related theorizing and resultant theory of today, some 50 years later.

 

Earlier I also had concluded IMHO that all religions were totally BS, after a few years of study,

 

After studying and theorizing cosmology part time for about 5 years thereafter, through schooling and on my own, I concluded that generally all mainstream cosmologies that I knew of were worse than speculation, that they were also generally or totally wrong. I did favor natural selection as a good explanation of the evolution of life, although I realized that there probably were other required but less important factors. 

 

The establishment of the Big Bang model:

 

In the the 1950's George Gamow a Big Bang proponent first predicted, based upon his calculations, that there should be a background temperature relating to an original Big Bang, and that it would be approximately 50K. Of course his BB model was post WW II and modeled after the atomic bomb and atomic nuclei-synthesis to explain the existence of all elements. Later the same year Alpher and Herman estimated the Big Bang remnant temperature to be about 5K. I few other BB temperature estimates were made in papers during the 1950's with estimates better than Gamow's, but none were as close as Alpher and Herman to the discovered temperature in the coming decade.

 

In 1963 Penzias and Wilson discovered the microwave background correlated to a back-ground temperature of 2.7K. Big bang proponents declared that they had predicted the microwave background. This interpretation that the cosmic microwave background was a remnant of a Big Bang beginning was a very controversial issue in the 1960s, with some proponents of the Steady State theory arguing that the microwave background was the result of scattered starlight from distant galaxies that would be greatly red-shifted in an infinite universe. Their model would also predict a microwave background, but they did not consider it important since the SS model would not be the only explanation for microwave radiation and related temperatures since galaxies existed in all theories at that time.

 

In 1941 using prior Steady State models the astronomer Andrew McKeller wrote in his paper and related calculations that: "It can be calculated that the rotational temperature of interstellar space is 2 K." He did not, or could not calculate the temperature for intergalactic space.

 

"However, during the 1970s the consensus was established that the cosmic microwave background is a remnant of the big bang. This was largely because new measurements at a range of frequencies showed that the spectrum was a thermal, black body spectrum, a result that the steady state model was unable to reproduce" in the opinion of most theorists then, and afterwards when SS proponents continued theorizing.

 

"Measurements of the CMB have made the inflationary Big Bang theory the Standard Model of Cosmology.The discovery of the CMB in the mid-1960s curtailed interest in alternatives such as the steady state theory" and its later version, or other alternative theories.

 

Nearly all theorists today believe that the CMB essentially confirms the Hot Big Bang model, with its numerous versions.

 

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

 

-------------------------------------

The "Four Pillars" of the Big Bang model are considered by many to be:

 

1. Olber's Paradox

 

"Consider a Universe which is infinite in size, and also infinite in age. In this case, you have a Universe which has an infinite number of stars in it, all grouped into an infinite number of galaxies, which are further grouped into walls and voids. If this is the Universe that we live in, then in any direction you look in the sky, you should see light coming from those stars and galaxies."

 

Retort:

 

There is a simple retort to this. It is simply that we do see all of these observable galaxies.  We see them as the microwave background. It is just that nearly all of light that we can observe from the most distant galaxies are greatly red-shifted.

 

2. The observed red-shift of galaxies interpreted as an expanding universe in the 1920's and continues in the Big Bang theory.

 

Retort:

 

When galactic red-shifts were discovered theorists believed they were Doppler shifts and that galaxies were moving away from each other, that the universe was expanding.

 

Galactic red-shifts were explained above by Olber's paradox, but there are many other possibilities to explain these galactic red-shifts and dozens of theories, not well known granted, but together they hypothesize many different possible reasons for galactic red-shifts.

 

3. The Helium Abundance and abundances of smaller isotopes that we have observed, are not consistent with the theory of nuclei-synthesis, so their abundance seemingly must have formed in a different way, believed to be formed by a Big Bang events or events soon thereafter. .

 

Retort:

 

Again there are many possibilities to explain this abundance of light elements. One possibility is that this abundance is created within, or at the base of galactic jets by fusion or fission processes. There are a number of lesser known theories that hypothesize many other possibilities.

 

4. The existence of the Cosmic Microwave background.

 

Retort:

 

Again, there are many alternative explanations. The one mentioned above is Olber's paradox. Many other explanations exist, most involve the existence of an aether to explain the even distribution of the CMB. Other explanations theorized have involved iron and/or carbon particulates -- named by theorists as iron whiskers.

 

http://physics.weber.edu/palen/Phsx1040/Lectures/LBigbang.html

 

Even though I think these alternatives may be good reasons for possible doubt of the Big Bang model, or even big bounce models for that matter. It takes many other reasons, maybe many dozens to conclude that there are better explanations and theories, which I will not elaborate on here because it deviates too much from the Big Bounce subject. IMO it takes more than these other possibilities to challenge an existing theory; it takes a complete alternative theory/ model which I, and many others, believe that they have -- as well as big bounce advocates in this case.

[bornagainathiest]

Thank you for your reply, Pantheory.

 

However, please note that I requested you cite the degree of accuracy for each confirmed prediction.

 

Would you please do so?

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

Thank you for your reply, Pantheory.

 

However, please note that I requested you cite the degree of accuracy for each confirmed prediction.

 

Would you please do so?

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

 

 

OK, the degree of accuracy of BB predictions: A critical reply.

 

Remember I have not asserted or alleged anything except my opinions and quotations of others.  I am therefore  not obliged to explain anything further since your question does not relate to the Big Bounce model, nor has this been an assertive thread by anyone. 

 

But to oblige your request I will try to answer your question. You can search other websites and quotes where you probably will find other comments more agreeable to the BB model than the URL's I chose.

 

Realize there is an entire gamut of thought concerning your question so I will choose sources which I consider less stilted, comprehensive, and generally all inclusive.

 

Accuracy of Big Bang predictions:

 

"Observations of light elements abundances created during big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) provided one of the earliest precision tests of cosmology and were critical in establishing the existence of a hot big bang. 

 

OUR best BB theories of the early universe "....tell us which atoms should have been forged in the first 5 minutes after the big bang. The existing amounts of hydrogen and helium match theory perfectly – so well, in fact, that cosmologists claim this is the best evidence we have for the big bang. Things aren’t so good for the third element, lithium, however

When we count up the lithium atoms held in stars, there is only one-third as much of the lithium-7 isotope as there should be.

 

Another isotope, lithium-6, is overabundant: there may be as much as 1000 times too much of it.

 

Aside from the misuse of the term "observations" to refer to a belief of what happened in the past, note the helpful admission that the alleged elements confirmation was "critical" to acceptance of big bang theory. Before the era of "precision cosmology", long ago in history back to the year 1990, a handful of scientists were determined to state for the record that the big bang theory had not predicted the relative abundances of hydrogen, helium, and lithium. Rather, they argued, big bang proponents were adjusting the theory's parameters to match already existing observations:

 

CMB predictions:

 

"The prediction though was of what was already known to exist. The theorists in 1948 were merely conforming the model to data already collected from 1937 to 1941. Then in the 1950s George Gamow, an early BB proponent and his students Alpher and Herman, made additional predictions of the CMB temperature that ranged from 3 to 50 degrees Kelvin. So even after the data from the Mount Wilson observatory reported a temperature very close to actual, leading theorists were making some predictions [or retrodictions] that were close to the actual temperature, and others that were off by a factor of more than 10 universes."

 

http://kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

 

Prediction concerning the abundance of light elements.

 

Aside from the misuse of the term "observations" to refer to a belief of what happened in the past, note the helpful admission that the alleged elements confirmation was "critical" to acceptance of big bang theory. Before the era of "precision cosmology", long ago in history back to the year 1990, a handful of scientists were determined to state for the record that the big bang theory had not predicted the relative abundance of hydrogen, helium, and lithium. Rather, they argued, big bang proponents were adjusting the theory's parameters to match already existing observations"

 

One thing that everyone does agree on is that things are getting worse. “The lithium-7 problem is more serious than ever,” says Joseph Silk at the University of Oxford. Improved observations of stars suggest they contain even less lithium-7 than previously thought. “The gap between prediction and observation has widened,” Steigman says.

 

So what is going on? The lithium-6 problem might just be an accounting issue: it is hard to discern lithium-6 abundances by looking at the light from stars. The lithium-7 shortfall might be due to destructive processes within stars, but there is no consensus as to what these processes might be. Others suggest the lithium-7 discrepancy is somehow linked to dark matter.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246-700-13-more-things-the-lithium-problem/

http://kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

 

Beryllium Problem: Twenty years later, reports were still coming in of abundances far out of the predicted ranges. The Astrophysical Journal, in 1991, published a paper titled, First detection of beryllium in a very metal poor star - A test of the standard big bang model, which stated:

 

The star HD 140283, which has [Fe/H] = -2.6, has a beryllium abundance of log (9Be/H) - -12.8 +/- 0.3, a factor of ~~ 1000 greater than the primordial value predicted in the standard model of light element nucleosynthesis.

Translating that into English, Ron Cowen, in Science News'Starlight Casts Doubt on Big Bang Details, reported that:

Examining the faint light from an elderly Milky Way star, astronomers have detected a far greater abundance [by three orders of magnitude] of beryllium atoms than the standard Big Bang model predicts.

Boron Problem: Five years later another Science News report illustrated the way that the big bang's chemical evolution story is not so much predictive as it is malleable and adjusts to the current data.......................................

 

For decades, big bang theory offered:

"...no explanation for two light-weight elements—beryllium and boron—and the bulk of the lithium. “...it hasn’t been entirely clear where they came from,” notes Douglas K. Duncan, an astronomer at the University of Chicago and the Adler Planetarium & Astronomy Museum in Chicago... Regardless though, cosmologists told a creation story for Be, B, and Li. However, “what I was taught in graduate school..." can’t generate the three elements in the abundances observed today... So as different quantities of these elements are observed, we'll just have to continue to change the theory. Observations with the Hubble Space Telescope have only made matters worse.

 

http://kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

 

Although many problems still remain with Big Bang cosmology, most theorists believe that the BB model and its many alternatives, are still better than any other known alternative.

[bornagainathiest]

Thank you, Pantheory.

 

I've been re-reading what you wrote yesterday ( # 8) and on the back of your comments I now realize that we don't actually need to go thru a detailed examination of each example.  So, sorry for asking you to put in so much work (it is appreciated tho') but I think I can now bring this dialog to a much quicker resolution.  

 

When I read this...

 

 I never changed my mind from this position since as new information came in that might support or contradict one theory or the other, IMO there was equally contradicting evidence for both theories based upon my interpretation of the new observations and supposed evidence. 

 

 ...I did a double-take.

 

You appeared to be saying that in the fifty-odd years since you first concluded that modern cosmology was speculation, no new evidence had emerged to change your mind.

Then I wondered if this also meant that no new evidence could change your mind.  And proceeding from that, I also wondered if you had decided that no new evidence would ever change your mind.  I then considered some questions.  Has Pantheory closed his mind to the persuasive power that evidence is supposed to have upon open minds?  Does this mean that he occupies the same philosophical position as the two Christians (Ironhorse and OrdinaryClay) who recently declared in the Lion's Den that... nothing ...would cause them to give up their Christian faith?  Does this mean that any further dialog with him about the evidence is... futile?  Pointless?  A waste of time?  I finally decided that it was best to just ask. Hence the radical shift in the direction of this thread.  

.

.

.

So... do we go anywhere from here or was it already too late, fifty years ago?

[Thought2Much]

BAA, don't you realize that all of the new evidence collected by science supports pantheory's ideas? It's just that every single other scientist has been too dumb to realize it.

[pantheory]

Thank you, Pantheory.

 

I've been re-reading what you wrote yesterday ( # 8) and on the back of your comments I now realize that we don't actually need to go thru a detailed examination of each example.  So, sorry for asking you to put in so much work (it is appreciated tho') but I think I can now bring this dialog to a much quicker resolution.  

 

When I read this...

 

 I never changed my mind from this position since as new information came in that might support or contradict one theory or the other, IMO there was equally contradicting evidence for both theories based upon my interpretation of the new observations and supposed evidence. 

 

 ...I did a double-take.

 

You appeared to be saying that in the fifty-odd years since you first concluded that modern cosmology was speculation, no new evidence had emerged to change your mind.

Then I wondered if this also meant that no new evidence could change your mind.  And proceeding from that, I also wondered if you had decided that no new evidence would ever change your mind.  I then considered some questions.  Has Pantheory closed his mind to the persuasive power that evidence is supposed to have upon open minds?  Does this mean that he occupies the same philosophical position as the two Christians (Ironhorse and OrdinaryClay) who recently declared in the Lion's Den that... nothing ...would cause them to give up their Christian faith?  Does this mean that any further dialog with him about the evidence is... futile?  Pointless?  A waste of time?  I finally decided that it was best to just ask. Hence the radical shift in the direction of this thread.  

.

.

.

So... do we go anywhere from here or was it already too late, fifty years ago?

 

I believe an example of my thinking toward change can be explained by this example. I am very familiar with the U.S. stock market. In the stock market you sometimes have to quickly change or reverse your well-thought-out and researched position in the market. If one isn't able to do that then he could lose a lot of money in the market. I believe I would do the same thing in cosmology or any other science if my interpretation of existing or new evidence were to change. I presently know of no evidence that contradicts my own cosmological model, or my model of physics either, but the theories have a number of hypothesis within them that would necessarily change as new evidence might indicate a contrary position. I believe I am a dedicated scientist concerning my theories and related papers that I have published, a book, etc. I would like to think that I, or any scientist could change their opinion if solid new evidence came along.

 

All scientists would have a serious dilemma changing their mind concerning the BB model if they had spent their whole life believing in and working on it, which many scientists already have done. Of course I have done the same concerning my own theory. From the first formation of my theory in 1958, the theory basically has not changed. My first writing of it was 10 type-written pages long. Since then I have just filled in the details of it that change from time to time. It is now a book 380 pages long as well as being on-line.

 

To get back on topic, I look at the Big Bounce model, or multiverse models, as being variations of the BB model. This is because in both models the universe is supposedly expanding at an accelerating rate, all have Inflation and dark matter.

[bornagainathiest]

Thank you for this explanation, Pantheory.

 

I believe that I have nothing further to ask you about this and nothing further to say on this matter either.

 

Perhaps at some future time we can discuss what constitutes "solid evidence" and what doesn't.

 

But not here, because as you correctly point out, that would be off-topic for this thread.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.