Big Bang in Trouble

[dad]

Is the Big Bang in crisis?
Stubborn problems with dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic expansion have some astronomers rethinking what we know about the early universe.

"...cosmologists have struggled — if not outright failed — to understand essential facets of the universe. We know almost nothing about dark matter and dark energy, which together make up more than 95 percent of the total energy in existence today. We don’t understand how the universe’s protons, electrons, and neutrons could have survived the aftereffects of the Big Bang. In fact, everything we know about the laws of physics tells us that these particles should have been destroyed by antimatter long ago. And in order to make sense of the universe as we observe it, cosmologists have been forced to conclude that space, during its earliest moments, must have undergone a brief and spectacular period of hyperfast expansion — an event known as cosmic inflation. Yet we know next to nothing about this key era of cosmic history."

.."scientists generally assume that space expanded steadily during the first fraction of a second, without any unexpected events or transitions. It is entirely plausible that this simply was not the case."

"they know relatively little about the first seconds that followed the Big Bang — and next to nothing about the first trillionth of a second. When it comes to how our universe may have evolved, or to the events that may have taken place during these earliest moments, we have essentially no direct observations on which to rely."

Is the Big Bang in crisis?

Creation is a better explanation.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

God?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Is the Big Bang in crisis?
Stubborn problems with dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic expansion have some astronomers rethinking what we know about the early universe.

"...cosmologists have struggled — if not outright failed — to understand essential facets of the universe. We know almost nothing about dark matter and dark energy, which together make up more than 95 percent of the total energy in existence today. We don’t understand how the universe’s protons, electrons, and neutrons could have survived the aftereffects of the Big Bang. In fact, everything we know about the laws of physics tells us that these particles should have been destroyed by antimatter long ago. And in order to make sense of the universe as we observe it, cosmologists have been forced to conclude that space, during its earliest moments, must have undergone a brief and spectacular period of hyperfast expansion — an event known as cosmic inflation. Yet we know next to nothing about this key era of cosmic history."

.."scientists generally assume that space expanded steadily during the first fraction of a second, without any unexpected events or transitions. It is entirely plausible that this simply was not the case."

"they know relatively little about the first seconds that followed the Big Bang — and next to nothing about the first trillionth of a second. When it comes to how our universe may have evolved, or to the events that may have taken place during these earliest moments, we have essentially no direct observations on which to rely."

Is the Big Bang in crisis?

Creation is a better explanation.

No it's not in trouble whatsoever. The cosmic microwave background remains an objective fact of the big bang itself, and it's not going to go away.

 

[dad]

No it's not in trouble whatsoever. The cosmic microwave background remains an objective fact of the big bang itself, and it's not going to go away.

Creation remnant radiation. Sad how some people have tried to credit the radiation to a fable.

 

[dad]

God?

What about Him?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Creation remnant radiation. Sad how some people have tried to credit the radiation to a fable.

Well if you noticed from the science article, it does not repudiate the big bang.

It seems to address the role of dark matter more than anything else as it relates to the expansion of the universe to where revisions to the theory are necessary in light of new information.

While it mentions the big bang, the article isn't about the big bang itself, or whether or not it happened, we already know that it happened.

 

[dad]

Well if you noticed from the science article, it does not repudiate the big bang.

It seems to address the role of dark matter more than anything else as it relates to the expansion of the universe to where revisions to the theory are necessary in light of new information.

While it mentions the big bang, the article isn't about the big bang itself, or whether or not it happened, we already know that it happened.

Your statements of faith aside, you do not know anything of the sort.

You do not even know why light appears red shifted in deep space.

 

[ratiocinator]

Is the Big Bang in crisis?
Stubborn problems with dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic expansion have some astronomers rethinking what we know about the early universe.

"...cosmologists have struggled — if not outright failed — to understand essential facets of the universe. We know almost nothing about dark matter and dark energy, which together make up more than 95 percent of the total energy in existence today. We don’t understand how the universe’s protons, electrons, and neutrons could have survived the aftereffects of the Big Bang. In fact, everything we know about the laws of physics tells us that these particles should have been destroyed by antimatter long ago. And in order to make sense of the universe as we observe it, cosmologists have been forced to conclude that space, during its earliest moments, must have undergone a brief and spectacular period of hyperfast expansion — an event known as cosmic inflation. Yet we know next to nothing about this key era of cosmic history."

.."scientists generally assume that space expanded steadily during the first fraction of a second, without any unexpected events or transitions. It is entirely plausible that this simply was not the case."

"they know relatively little about the first seconds that followed the Big Bang — and next to nothing about the first trillionth of a second. When it comes to how our universe may have evolved, or to the events that may have taken place during these earliest moments, we have essentially no direct observations on which to rely."

Is the Big Bang in crisis?

Creation is a better explanation.

Did you read the article? There are indeed a lot of unknowns but nothing at all takes away the plentiful evidence that a hot big bang happened about 13 billion years ago. Your favourite story book is still wrong according to all the evidence (if you insist on reading literally).

 

[ChristineM]

We don’t understand how the universe’s protons, electrons, and neutrons could have survived the aftereffects of the Big Bang

Ribbish, protons, electrons, and neutrons did not exist when the universe formed. They began to form after around 10e-6 after the BB

And in order to make sense of the universe as we observe it, cosmologists have been forced to conclude that space, during its earliest moments, must have undergone a brief and spectacular period of hyperfast expansion — an event known as cosmic inflation. Yet we know next to nothing about this key era of cosmic history

Yes, and your problem with that hypothesis is?

scientists generally assume that space expanded steadily during the first fraction of a second, without any unexpected events or transitions. It is entirely plausible that this simply was not the case."

It is also entirely plausible the bees cannot fly.

they know relatively little about the first seconds that followed the Big Bang

Not quite true, cosmologists know nothing before 10e-43 of a second of the BB. After that they can extrapolate quite a lot.

Interesting to be that when i began my interest in cosmology that limit was 10e-32 of a second. Scientific progress in action.

and next to nothing about the first trillionth of a second.

10e-43 is closer to the bb than 10e-12

 

[dad]

Did you read the article? There are indeed a lot of unknowns but nothing at all takes away the plentiful evidence that a hot big bang happened about 13 billion years ago. Your favourite story book is still wrong according to all the evidence (if you insist on reading literally).

I have an (apparently rare) ability to ignore fables in science articles. I tend to focus on facts and what is known. In this article, it shows that a heavy emphasis on the basis of the BB theory rests of the imaginary first fraction of a second. The mentions of the theory in the article other than that, really are story recitals. Do you think I care what they believe?
So what is interesting in the article is that they admit the importance to the theory of the first fraction of an imaginary second, and also that they know diddly squat about it! Ha

 

[dad]

Ribbish, protons, electrons, and neutrons did not exist when the universe formed. They began to form after around 10e-6 after the BB

Nice story.

Yes, and your problem with that hypothesis is?

I posted the article because they have problems themselves! Also to show they admit they don't know what they are talking about and admit it.

Not quite true, cosmologists know nothing before 10e-43 of a second of the BB. After that they can extrapolate quite a lot.

They need a rocket ship to launch their fable and the one they use is the first fraction of a second that they know squat about rocket. That bird don't fly.

Interesting to be that when i began my interest in cosmology that limit was 10e-32 of a second. Scientific progress in action.

Changing their claims and fable might seem like progress to some.

 

[ratiocinator]

I have an (apparently rare) ability to ignore fables in science articles.

Since you've swallowed the literal creation fable in the bible, hook, line, and sinker, I think your ability to recognise fables leaves a lot to be desired.

I tend to focus on facts and what is known.

Since when?

In this article, it shows that a heavy emphasis on the basis of the BB theory rests of the imaginary first fraction of a second.

Which is why I suspect you didn't really read it, with any understanding anyway. Nothing in the article suggests that the BB didn't happen.

The mentions of the theory in the article other than that, really are story recitals. Do you think I care what they believe?

If you don't care what they believe, then it was a bit silly to start a thread about it, wasn't it? Oh, I get it, you don't care about what they are actually saying, only what you think you can read into parts of it, from your position of blind faith in ancient fables.

So what is interesting in the article is that they admit the importance to the theory of the first fraction of an imaginary second, and also that they know diddly squat about it! Ha

Again, nothing in the article in any way changes the plentiful evidence that a hot big bang took place about 13 billion years ago, in fact it actually outline some of that very evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

Nice story.

And factual too. Just proves that the best stories are the true ones

I posted the article because they have problems themselves! Also to show they admit they don't know what they are talking about and admit it.

I know several cosmologists, each strives to learn more and learn they do. But you are dissing what why know. Its a really desperate and sad cry for help as the god gaps get smaller

They need a rocket ship to launch their fable and the one they use is the first fraction of a second that they know squat about rocket. That bird don't fly.

What complete nonsense. But no more than i expected from you. Not changing but learning more, try it sometime

If you want to diss cosmology then diss what is unknown, not what is known and pops your bubble

 

[dad]

Since you've swallowed the literal creation fable in the bible, hook, line, and sinker, I think your ability to recognise fables leaves a lot to be desired.

We can disagree. However it seems that the OP article admits ignorance about the key aspect of the BB.

Which is why I suspect you didn't really read it, with any understanding anyway. Nothing in the article suggests that the BB didn't happen.

It asks if there is trouble with the theory. You thought that meant...what?

If you don't care what they believe, then it was a bit silly to start a thread about it, wasn't it?

Not at all. The crux of the article was about what they don't know, and why. Passing references to the BB theory and what they may think they do know have no value. That would be another thread, where we would see people fail to support those aspects!

Again, nothing in the article in any way changes the plentiful evidence that a hot big bang took place about 13 billion years ago

As much as you may think you have a hot theory, the article does point out that they know almost nothing at all about that key part of the fable, the first fraction of a second!

 

[dad]

And factual too. Just proves that the best stories are the true ones

I prefer to look at the basis of the story. Your recital of something does not make it true. It just makes you a believer.

I know several cosmologists, each strives to learn more and learn they do. But you are dissing what why know. Its a really desperate and sad cry for help as the god gaps get smaller

No idea what the gap thing is supposed to mean. Science is full of gaps though, as the article points out! They do not know about that silly supposed rapid inflation in a fraction of a second. Don't blame me.

What complete nonsense. But no more than i expected from you. Not changing but learning more, try it sometime

Learning involves more than swallowing a large quantity of fiction and thinking it is fact.

If you want to diss cosmology then diss what is unknown, not what is known and pops your bubble

Speaking of what is actually known, the OP says this..
""they know relatively little about the first seconds that followed the Big Bang — and next to nothing about the first trillionth of a second"

"Yet we know next to nothing about this key era of cosmic history"

Don't blame me.

 

[Altfish]

Is the Big Bang in crisis?
Stubborn problems with dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic expansion have some astronomers rethinking what we know about the early universe.

"...cosmologists have struggled — if not outright failed — to understand essential facets of the universe. We know almost nothing about dark matter and dark energy, which together make up more than 95 percent of the total energy in existence today. We don’t understand how the universe’s protons, electrons, and neutrons could have survived the aftereffects of the Big Bang. In fact, everything we know about the laws of physics tells us that these particles should have been destroyed by antimatter long ago. And in order to make sense of the universe as we observe it, cosmologists have been forced to conclude that space, during its earliest moments, must have undergone a brief and spectacular period of hyperfast expansion — an event known as cosmic inflation. Yet we know next to nothing about this key era of cosmic history."

.."scientists generally assume that space expanded steadily during the first fraction of a second, without any unexpected events or transitions. It is entirely plausible that this simply was not the case."

"they know relatively little about the first seconds that followed the Big Bang — and next to nothing about the first trillionth of a second. When it comes to how our universe may have evolved, or to the events that may have taken place during these earliest moments, we have essentially no direct observations on which to rely."

Is the Big Bang in crisis?

Creation is a better explanation.

So, if the BB is not the answer, I, as a follower of science, await a better explanation, you as a religious follower seem to think it 'proves' your beliefs.
I'm sorry, Creation is not an explanation in the 21st Century; it may have been in when the Bible was written but things (science in particular) has moved on

 

[McBell]

AH.
Another thread where the OP does not understand the source for the OP

 

[ratiocinator]

It asks if there is trouble with the theory. You thought that meant...what?

Trouble with a theory can mean all sorts of things, from the whole thing might be in question to there's a detail we can't nail down yet.

In this case, there may be very fundamental questions about the physics of the first moments of the BB and the implications for dark matter and dark energy, but there isn't the slightest suggestion that any of the questions undermine the plentiful evidence that the BB actually did happen.

As much as you may think you have a hot theory, the article does point out that they know almost nothing at all about that key part of the fable, the first fraction of a second!

Which possibly has implications for fundamental physics under the very extreme conditions at the time but does not call into question the evidence that there actually was such a time.

If you're going to question science, it really is a good idea to try to understand at least the basics of what you want to criticise, otherwise you just make a fool of yourself.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is the Big Bang in crisis?
Stubborn problems with dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic expansion have some astronomers rethinking what we know about the early universe.

"...cosmologists have struggled — if not outright failed — to understand essential facets of the universe. We know almost nothing about dark matter and dark energy, which together make up more than 95 percent of the total energy in existence today. We don’t understand how the universe’s protons, electrons, and neutrons could have survived the aftereffects of the Big Bang. In fact, everything we know about the laws of physics tells us that these particles should have been destroyed by antimatter long ago. And in order to make sense of the universe as we observe it, cosmologists have been forced to conclude that space, during its earliest moments, must have undergone a brief and spectacular period of hyperfast expansion — an event known as cosmic inflation. Yet we know next to nothing about this key era of cosmic history."

.."scientists generally assume that space expanded steadily during the first fraction of a second, without any unexpected events or transitions. It is entirely plausible that this simply was not the case."

"they know relatively little about the first seconds that followed the Big Bang — and next to nothing about the first trillionth of a second. When it comes to how our universe may have evolved, or to the events that may have taken place during these earliest moments, we have essentially no direct observations on which to rely."

Is the Big Bang in crisis?

Creation is a better explanation.

"Crisis" is not the best word to explain major changes in scientific thinking.
Newtonian mechanics wasn't in crisis when it was subsumed into general
relativity, which made better predictions for things like Mercury's orbital
precession. The Big Bang Theory still has clout with explanatory power,
even though it looks likely to undergo revisions.
As for "God" as the better explanation....what experiments based upon
that "theory" do you think will yield better explanatory power than The BB?

 

[ChristineM]

I prefer to look at the basis of the story. Your recital of something does not make it true. It just makes you a believer.

If you want to ignore facts to massage your own mistake belief then that is not my problem

No idea what the gap thing is supposed to mean. Science is full of gaps though, as the article points out! They do not know about that silly supposed rapid inflation in a fraction of a second. Don't blame me

I told you how far they know, not only do you not understand the copy and past in your op, you don't even understand scientific notation.

Learning involves more than swallowing a large quantity of fiction and thinking it is fact.

I really do not know how you can honestly say that while promoting god magic with no evidence at all.

Speaking of what is actually known, the OP says this..
""they know relatively little about the first seconds that followed the Big Bang — and next to nothing about the first trillionth of a second"

"Yet we know next to nothing about this key era of cosmic history"

Don't blame me.

Then the op is misrepresenting facts and i blame you because you are responsible for posting the OP. Or does your faith absolve you from responsibility for your own actions?