# What is the evidence for the big bang. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 15, 2012, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551 "2012-01-15T00:31:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/21 "2012-01-15T03:01:56Z")
> [@Candyman74](#): > > Ugh. These “I don’t understand this scientific theory, but I know it’s wrong” threads are starting to depress me. I really must stop reading them. I never said it was wrong I only wanted to know what the board thought the evidence for it was. I want to know if you have good reason to believe what you do. When I was in high school this was not discussed much or else I was not paying attention but shortly after that I read some (actually all I think) of Carl Sagans books and was hooked. I also read several of a young Stephen Hawkings. Since then I revisit the subject of cosmology very often. So I am self-taught in a manner of speaking by reading books and the internet. I have no problem with scientists following the evidence where it leads them but I do have a problem with the way this is taught in high school by the time they get to college they can think for themselves and that is the time to explore these theories IMO. BTW to pull a percentage out of my hat IMO some 80% of scientists do just follow the evidence. It is the ones that talk in absolutes that I have a problem with. During the tv show Curiosity Stephen Hawkings claimed that the primordial egg had “infinite density and infinite gravity” and that it was proven. [http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/hawking-paradox/](http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/hawking-paradox/) Did he lie? ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/22 "2012-01-15T03:14:11Z")
> [@Candyman74](#): > > Oh, FFS. > > Nobody invented dark energy. It’s a friggin’ placeholder name which became popular because it sounded cool. It is nothing more than a label, frequently used, to say “there’s an effect we don’t yet understand taking place”. We needed a word, so we didn’t have to telepathically communicate a concept to each other, so we used a whole bunch of them and the media pretty much settled on “dark energy”. Ha I had to look up FFS I dont think you meant flash file system so I guess it was the other one. Yes I understand that it is a placeholder in fact the whole problem is that BBT is full of placeholders. My youngest child graduated high school two years ago and her textbooks (I wish I still had them to quote from) talked about BBT like it was proven fact. Sure they called it a theory but only after they explained that theory was something that had been tested time and time again and backed up by observational data. Does string theory and multiverse theory pass that muster? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/23 "2012-01-15T03:19:59Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > My youngest child graduated high school two years ago and her textbooks (I wish I still had them to quote from) talked about BBT like it was proven fact. Sure they called it a theory but only after they explained that theory was something that had been tested time and time again and backed up by observational data. Well, that’s what “theory” means to a scientist. It’s not intended to trick people. > [@](#): > > Does string theory and multiverse theory pass that muster? At the moment, those are more like hypotheses. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/24 "2012-01-15T03:33:28Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by Jon55 > I agree that there is hard evidence (redshift) to support the idea that everything is moving away from us however when it was discovered that everything is moving away at a far faster rate than BBT could account for dark energy was just made up out of thin air. > > No, it wasn’t. This was discussed in the thread I linked to: > Quote: > Originally Posted by Voyager > Here are some “pictures” of dark matter. You can detect it by its effect on light coming from sources behind it, through gravitational lensing. > IIRC, it was hypothesized because the mass of visible galaxies was not large enough to account for the lensing observed. > > Inflation made predictions about the lumpiness of the cosmic background radiation - predictions which were confirmed. > Dark energy is required to explain the observed expansion of the universe, but I’m not sure it has been observed as such, unlike the other two. I’m not sure it has made it to theory status yet, but I could be wrong. > Now could the OP explain why he thinks these things are “beliefs” aside from not knowing much about cosmology? There are plenty of books and popular articles on this, including a full book on gravitational lensing. > > Quote: > Yes the CMB is a uniform “glow” that was predicted. The observation does not tell us anything about where the “glow” came from. > > It’s a strong indication (although not the only one) that the universe began in a smaller and more uniform state. I have not figured out the multi quote function but it is on my to do list I hope I did not butcher this to bad. I agree that the effect dark matter has on light along with the fact that stars on the outside of our galaxy are moving faster that ones closer in (at least till they get close to the suspected black hole in the middle) is very good and logical proof of dark matter. I do not see the same kind of evidence for dark energy. The farther away we look the faster everything is fleeing us I do not see the logical leap to something pushing us I see a better explanation being we have a very bad understanding of gravity. I also agree that the CMB would point to a more uniform beginning but how do you get smaller from it? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/25 "2012-01-15T03:36:13Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > Yes I understand that it is a placeholder in fact the whole problem is that BBT is full of placeholders. Dark energy isn’t really a part of the Big Bang Theory. It’s part of cosmology in general, but I don’t think it’s necessarily for the BBT to work. > [@](#): > > My youngest child graduated high school two years ago and her textbooks (I wish I still had them to quote from) talked about BBT like it was proven fact. Sure they called it a theory but only after they explained that theory was something that had been tested time and time again and backed up by observational data. So the description was full and accurate. That’s good to hear! > [@](#): > > Does string theory and multiverse theory pass that muster? No. String theory doesn’t make any predictions that I’m aware of, and it certainly isn’t universally accepted. It’s a controversial theory and some of its detractors have a problem with it because so far it’s had little to offer in the way of predictions or testability. I’m not sure there’s really a multiverse _theory_ in the scientific sense. The concept is out there and some people think it’s implied by quantum mechanics, but it’s not proven or universally accepted. > [@Jon55](#): > > I do not see the same kind of evidence for dark energy. The farther away we look the faster everything is fleeing us I do not see the logical leap to something pushing us I see a better explanation being we have a very bad understanding of gravity. Our model of gravity seems to work, though. > [@](#): > > I also agree that the CMB would point to a more uniform beginning but how do you get smaller from it? The CMB may not imply on its own that the universe is expanding, but in combination with the other things we know - like the Doppler shifting - that’s what it suggests. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/26 "2012-01-15T03:46:01Z")
> [@Candyman74](#): > > Ugh. These “I don’t understand this scientific theory, but I know it’s wrong” threads are starting to depress me. You too, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/27 "2012-01-15T03:46:49Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > In the year 1025 I fell asleep. I awoke in the year 2011. How and why this happened I do not know much like the orgin of the “cosmic egg” I do not expect to ever know and neither is important for this particular argument. > > I awoke in the grass beside some hard grey flat surface I assumed it to be some kind of lava flow (odd that it had a yellow stripe in the middle). To my astonished eyes a horseless carriage came flying by at a speed comparable to a cannonball. It had no obvious means of locamotion so I assumed that something had blew up behind it causing it to fly by me. > That would be expansion. > > Then that night as I walked along the lava flow I could see a bright glow in the air ahead of me (city lights). So now I could see that I was right about the explosion after all. > That would be a CMB. > > Ok thats a rather crappy anaology (it sounded better in my head) but the question is a serious one what is the difference between the assumptions I made and the assumptions in BBT? > > And did I miss any of the evidence to support BBT? Cool story, bro. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/28 "2012-01-15T03:49:09Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, that’s what “theory” means to a scientist. It’s not intended to trick people. > At the moment, those are more like hypotheses. But some of these hypotheses are used to support BBT such as inflation. BBT dosent work to well without inflation does it? And my quarrel is not with the majority of mainstream scientists and in fact most of the ones I see on tv do a pretty good job of explaining what they feel is “proven” and what is not. But the textbooks they use in school do not. So I guess my quarrel would be more with the teachers unions? I am not really sure who decides what goes in the textbooks and how it is presented. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/29 "2012-01-15T03:50:36Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > But some of these hypotheses are used to support BBT such as inflation. BBT dosent work to well without inflation does it? The expansion of the universe is also very well supported, and it doesn’t exist just to support the BBT. > [@](#): > > But the textbooks they use in school do not. The one you’re paraphrasing sounds fine. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/30 "2012-01-15T04:09:23Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by Jon55 > Yes I understand that it is a placeholder in fact the whole problem is that BBT is full of placeholders. > > Dark energy isn’t really a part of the Big Bang Theory. It’s part of cosmology in general, but I don’t think it’s necessarily for the BBT to work. But inflation is required for BBT and there is less evidence for it than dark energy. > [@Marley23](#): > > Quote: > My youngest child graduated high school two years ago and her textbooks (I wish I still had them to quote from) talked about BBT like it was proven fact. Sure they called it a theory but only after they explained that theory was something that had been tested time and time again and backed up by observational data. > > So the description was full and accurate. That’s good to hear! Not from my point of view. > [@Marley23](#): > > Quote: > Does string theory and multiverse theory pass that muster? > > No. String theory doesn’t make any predictions that I’m aware of, and it certainly isn’t universally accepted. It’s a controversial theory and some of its detractors have a problem with it because so far it’s had little to offer in the way of predictions or testability. I’m not sure there’s really a multiverse theory in the scientific sense. The concept is out there and some people think it’s implied by quantum mechanics, but it’s not proven or universally accepted. Is Discovery Mag considered a reliable source? [http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator](http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator) > [@Marley23](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by Jon55 > I do not see the same kind of evidence for dark energy. The farther away we look the faster everything is fleeing us I do not see the logical leap to something pushing us I see a better explanation being we have a very bad understanding of gravity. > > Our model of gravity seems to work, though. > Quote: > I also agree that the CMB would point to a more uniform beginning but how do you get smaller from it? > > The CMB may not imply on its own that the universe is expanding, but in combination with the other things we know - like the Doppler shifting - that’s what it suggests. The Doppler shift implies that expansion is going on at the moment and the CMB implies that things were more uniform at some point but neither suggest a big bang we need inflation for that. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/31 "2012-01-15T04:15:38Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > From the website above: > “After some controversy, the age of Universe as estimated from the Hubble expansion and the CMB is now in good agreement with (i.e., slightly larger than) the ages of the oldest stars, both as measured by applying the theory of stellar evolution to globular clusters and through radiometric dating of individual Population II stars.” > > I take this to mean if our predictions dosent match the evidence we just jiggle the numbers a little bit. No. If the predictions and measurements don’t match, we take better, more careful measurements, reexamine the theory, find new explanations, build better equipment to take even more certain measurements, and repeat until an explanation is found that fits all the observed facts. In other words, science happens. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/32 "2012-01-15T04:16:20Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > But inflation is required for BBT and there is less evidence for it than dark energy. There’s a great deal of evidence for both. We can see that galaxies that are farther from us are moving away from us faster than nearer ones, for example. > [@](#): > > Not from my point of view. Would you mind explaining why? > [@](#): > > Is Discovery Mag considered a reliable source? I said the idea is out there but it’s not universally accepted and has probably not reached the status of a scientific theory. This article says the exact same thing. > [@](#): > > The Doppler shift implies that expansion is going on at the moment and the CMB implies that things were more uniform at some point but neither suggest a big bang we need inflation for that. You’re not making sense here. Would you mind explaining what you mean by inflation? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/33 "2012-01-15T04:43:46Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > But some of these hypotheses are used to support BBT such as inflation. BBT dosent work to well without inflation does it? You didn’t say inflation, you said string theory and multiverses, and I said _those_ were hypotheses. It so happens that inflation is _also_ a hypothesis, though it’s one with some evidentiary support and not a lot of evidentiary contradiction. > [@](#): > > And my quarrel is not with the majority of mainstream scientists and in fact most of the ones I see on tv do a pretty good job of explaining what they feel is “proven” and what is not. But the textbooks they use in school do not. So I guess my quarrel would be more with the teachers unions? I am not really sure who decides what goes in the textbooks and how it is presented. Well, I guess it was your responsibility as a parent to check on this at the time, but if your youngest child is already out of high school, it’s too late. If course, in practical terms, unless a kid pursues college courses in physics, astronomy and/or cosmology, the simplified explanations they get in high school become mere trivia. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/34 "2012-01-15T05:31:35Z")
Marley Sorry for the interuption the power blinked it happens sometimes out here in the sticks. And it is bedtime but I will take a stab at answering what is on my plate first. You seem to use the terms inflation and expansion interchangeably I am pretty sure they are not the same thing. I agree there is overwhelming evidence for expansion. Inflation is a period of time in which the universe expanded at a rate much faster than the speed of light. Without inflation the standard model just sucks back together due to gravity and even if it dosent things would be much closer together than what we observe. IIRC there has never been a mechanism to turn inflation on or one to turn it off. The standard big bang model does not work without it. The problem I have with the textbooks is that no alternative theories are even mentioned much less explored. I thought it would be pretty obvious that I believe in intelligent desgin but perhaps not. I am 45 and my ideas on this subject and my faith is very much in flux and always have been. I will try in the near future to find some examples of the textbooks I am talking about. I would not want them to explore any particular creation story in detail but I would prefer that they mention that science has not found anything that would prove intelligent design false in fact IMO they have found the exact opposite. Without an intelligent designer we hit the cosmic lucky shot of all time. Not only did the laws of physics align in such a way to make it possible for both stars and planets to form but they did form. We got just enough matter and energy but not to much. We got everything we needed and in just the right amounts. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/35 "2012-01-15T05:36:42Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > Without an intelligent designer we hit the cosmic lucky shot of all time. Not only did the laws of physics align in such a way to make it possible for both stars and planets to form but they did form. We got just enough matter and energy but not to much. We got everything we needed and in just the right amounts. I invite you to consider the possibility that a hundred billion universes have arisen and disappeared and this is the first that happened upon a combination that was suitable for life as we know it. ---
**Author:** ![Gagundathar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/36 "2012-01-15T05:42:34Z")
If the Universe were not as it is, we would not be discussing it. I think the late, great Douglas Adams once said something like > [@](#): > > Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/37 "2012-01-15T05:44:06Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > You didn’t say inflation, you said string theory and multiverses, and I said _those_ were hypotheses. > > It so happens that inflation is _also_ a hypothesis, though it’s one with some evidentiary support and not a lot of evidentiary contradiction. What would be the evidentiary support? > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, I guess it was your responsibility as a parent to check on this at the time, but if your youngest child is already out of high school, it’s too late. > > If course, in practical terms, unless a kid pursues college courses in physics, astronomy and/or cosmology, the simplified explanations they get in high school become mere trivia. Well I have two Bryan and I feel like I did fail the older one a little bit he is not much interested in this discussion eiither way but more concerned with the things most 22 year old males are concerned with. A good time in other words. Whichever side of the argument (and we know there are much more than 2 sides) he would come down on I just wish he would give it some thought. But yes I do shoulder at least part of the blame for that. My daughter was always easier to talk to about this kind of thing and it was her that brought this to my attention and we discussed it often and still do. She is in a well accredited junior college working towards a teaching degree. ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/38 "2012-01-15T05:50:47Z")
> [@Smeghead](#): > > No. If the predictions and measurements don’t match, we take better, more careful measurements, reexamine the theory, find new explanations, build better equipment to take even more certain measurements, and repeat until an explanation is found that fits all the observed facts. > > In other words, science happens. This I have no problem with and in the scientific world that is how it works But then we have Dan Brown and Stephen Hawkings among others telling us those measurements and observations have proved there is no intelligent designer. I disagree emphatically and I think the opposite is suggested. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/39 "2012-01-15T05:53:56Z")
Well, to be honest, if your son ever comes down on the side of intelligent design, you did him no favours, at least in that respect. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2012, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551/40 "2012-01-15T05:55:08Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > This I have no problem with and in the scientific world that is how it works But then we have Dan Brown and Stephen Hawkings among others telling us those measurements and observations have proved there is no intelligent designer. > I disagree emphatically and I think the opposite is suggested. But what would falsify your premise that there is an intelligent designer? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/609551.md?page=3)