The Big Bang is the preeminent theory which attempts to explain the origin of the universe through purely natural processes. The theory posits that all of the matter in the universe started as a point of infinite density and temperature known as a singularity. It is believed that approximately 13.7 billion years ago this singularity experienced a rapid inflation of matter, energy, space, and time that eventually evolved and self-organized into stars, galaxies, and planets. The Big Bang was not an explosion in the conventional sense of the term, but an expansion of space and time. However, like an explosion, it was highly energetic and chaotic.
According to the Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy the big bang theory is the;
|“||...most widely accepted theory of the origin and evolution of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe originated from an initial state of high temperature and density and has been expanding ever since.||”|
- 1 Evolutionary Assumptions
- 2 Evidence
- 3 Evidence Against
- 3.1 Age
- 3.2 Alternative redshift mechanisms
- 3.3 Not enough antimatter
- 3.4 No magnetic monopoles
- 3.5 No plausible inflationary mechanism
- 3.6 No gravitational wave background observed
- 3.7 Ad hoc reliance on "quantum fluctuations"
- 3.8 Quantum gravity and the paradoxical singularity
- 3.9 The vacuum is not a vacuum contradiction
- 3.10 Electromagnetic forces unaccounted for
- 3.11 Too complex, too early
- 3.12 Not enough helium or lithium
- 3.13 Too many heavy elements
- 3.14 The universe isn’t homogeneous enough
- 3.15 Galaxy disk formation
- 3.16 Too much energy
- 3.17 Too much angular momentum
- 4 Mathematical discrepancies
- 5 Quotes
- 6 Conclusion
- 7 News
- 8 References
- 9 External links
The big bang theory has two basic assumptions.
- The Copernican Principle.
- An unbounded universe.
The Copernican Principle
The Copernican Principle is inappropriately named for Nicolas Copernicus as he had no part in propounding this principle. Copernicus put forward the model that the Sun, not the Earth is the center of the Solar System. He first published his heliocentric model in 1512, but his work neither proved nor implied anything about our position on a cosmic scale. The so-called Copernican Principle is the assumption that there is nothing special about the Earth's location in the universe. In other words the overall structure of the universe would look the same from any point in the universe as it does from Earth.
However it may seem there is no scientific evidence for this since we have never seen the universe from any distance from Earth that would allow it to be tested. What is known is that this type of thinking pertains to origins science rather than operational science. Such an assumption is necessary to an evolutionary cosmology since the odds of the universe, let alone any type of life being at a special location by chance would be astronomically small. The Earth being in a special place would suggest special creation and intelligent design to facilitate life.
While there is no scientific evidence for the so called Copernican Principle, there is scientific evidence against it. The direct observation of galactic red shift is so uniform around us that it naturally suggests that we are very near the center of the universe. This is not only a special location but the most special location possible.
To save the so called Copernican Principle it became necessary to postulate an unbounded expanding universe with matter evenly distributed on a large scale so that there is no center. The best illustration of this is with the expansion of a balloon as seen from its surface. Based on this model any place in the universe would seem to be in the center of the expansion. Like the Copernican Principle, there is no scientific evidence for the assumption of an unbounded universe, so it, too, is a purely unseen assumption.
An Unbounded Universe
In the unbounded universe of the big bang there is no edge and as such no center. In a bounded universe there is an edge and there is a definite center. As it turns out, there is evidence for such a center and that the Earth is near it.
There is a quantization of galactic redshift. Based on this phenomenon, galaxies form concentric shells with an average spacing of about 2 million light years. Furthermore, if we were more than 2 million light years from the center we would not see the pattern. In fact observations show us to be within 100,000 light years from the center and when compared to the context of the entire universe that is astronomically precise.
Cosmic Background Radiation
- Main Article: Cosmic background radiation
Cosmic Background Radiation is a steady microwave radiation from space. It is found in every direction and is roughly equal to 2.73K black body radiation. It is claimed to be residual radiation from the Big Bang. This background radiation was predicted by Big Bang Cosmology and finding it was hailed as proof of the theory.
If the Big Bang happened as described, background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe. Then, following that logic, the X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way should all cast shadows. However recent observations have been done concluding that there is a lack of shadows in places where there should be.
- Main Article: Redshift
Spectral lines come in two types, emission lines that are light on dark, and absorption lines that are dark on light. When the frequencies do not line up right the spectrum is shifted, with red towards the longer end and blue towards the shorter end. When Edwin Hubble discovered galactic redshift he interpreted it as a Doppler shift. This change in frequency is caused by motion. A redshift indicates that the source is moving away from the observer and a blue shift indicates that the source is moving towards the observer. George Lemaitre's idea, that it is caused by the wavelength of light's being stretched in transit by a continual expansion of space, has become the prominent interpretation of galactic redshift. Galactic red shift does suggest expanding space-time which fits the theory of the Big Bang. It was once thought to fit the white hole cosmology of Russell Humphreys also, but John Hartnett and others have pointed out that the white-hole model would predict a blueshift, because it states that our galaxy is at the bottom of a cosmic gravity well. Hartnett's cosmological relativity predicts redshift as a consequence of the expansion of space itself.
Proponents of the Big Bang measure an age of 13.7 Gyrs by tracing back the expansion of the universe to an initial point. However, unless the universe has gravitational attraction exactly balanced against this expansion it will either collapse in a Big Crunch or expand too quickly for us to survive in it. The evidence shows that only with a young universe can this problem be resolved which flatly contradicts the Big Bang.
Alternative redshift mechanisms
Dr. Halton Arp and other astronomers have discovered evidence that the universe isn't expanding at all. Instead, their observations indicate that redshifts are likely due to other mechanisms such as atoms having variable mass. If the universe is not expanding then the Big Bang is completely falsified. The variation of mass also disproves radiometric dating since decay rates would change as the mass of protons and electrons changed. These exciting discoveries lead us to conclude that the naturalist assumptions about the age of the universe and its dynamical state are incorrect. In an effort to suppress this inevitability, the astronomical community has denied Dr. Arp telescope time.
Not enough antimatter
According to the Big Bang cosmology most evolutionists assume that there should be an exact counterpart to matter known as antimatter right down to the same mass. Each particle of antimatter is an exact copy of of its identical matter particle except that each antimatter particle has the opposite charge.
These assumed predictions of the Big Bang have lost a lot of credibility because we have not found nearly the amount of antimatter in the universe that could be accepted under such a model.
No magnetic monopoles
Scientists trying to find models that would explain why there is more matter than antimatter have shown that magnetic monopoles should be created in the early universe. Yet, no magnetic monopoles have ever been observed in nature or in particle accelerators.
No plausible inflationary mechanism
- Main Article: Cosmic inflation
The Big Bang hinges on a brief period of time called "inflation" during which the universe expanded exponentially. The only way that this can happen is if a hypothetical particle called the "inflaton" by theorists exists. This particle must have the properties of certain particles observed in physics laboratories called "zero spin". However, unlike particles observed with this characteristic, the inflaton must have a property that has never been observed: it must experience a very peculiar potential energy character that slowly decays. Such a feature has never been observed in any laboratory.
No gravitational wave background observed
Scientists supporting the inflationary model of the Big Bang universe predict that a gravitational wave background originating from inflation should exist similar to the cosmic microwave radiation. Currently, several multi-billion dollar projects around the world are attempting to find evidence for the existence of gravitational waves, but no evidence has been forthcoming. Without gravitational waves, it is unclear whether the theory of general relativity can apply to the regimes where inflation is invoked and this casts a pall on the possibility for any sort of Big Bang inflationary model.
Ad hoc reliance on "quantum fluctuations"
In order to account for the differences in the density field of the universe, atheistic cosmologists utilize the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP) to provide "variations" in their conception of an inflationary universe. Aside from this assumption relying on theories of quantum gravity which have not been developed, there is no way in which an "uncertainty" which is a statistical measure can account for a real physical over-density or under-density. These over-densities and underdensities are fundamentally required in order to explain the filaments, walls, and voids in the universe we see today, but the best that the Big Bang proponents can do is claim that there were "quantum fluctuations" without explaining the mechanism for their formation beyond a simple hand-waving appeal to "randomness".
Quantum gravity and the paradoxical singularity
For nearly 100 years, scientists and mathematicians have been trying without success to combine the theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics together into a coherent theory of quantum gravity. This is a requirement for explaining how a Big Bang could have occurred. They have been unable to do so, despite the supposedly smartest minds in the world working on the problem. Instead, proponents of the Big Bang believe that a physically impossible "singularity" with infinite density, pressure, and temperature was the primal state of the universe: an impossibility that defies modeling. Instead of acknowledging this limitation of their theories, atheistic cosmologists prefer to use the paradox as the fundamental feature of the Big Bang: a universe in a single point that has no size or temporality. Rather than admit their inability to create a model that has any kind of physical meaning whatsoever, the atheistic cosmologists insist that their ideas that are not based on any coherent or consistent theory are correct.
The vacuum is not a vacuum contradiction
Most of the universe is empty space: a vacuum which is defined as a volume containing no particles, force fields, nor waves. By definition a vacuum has no energy. However, the Big Bang theory requires both in its early phases and in its later phases that the vacuum must have some energy (an obvious contradiction). This "vacuum energy density" is an obvious flaw with the theory because it has never been observed in laboratory experiments, and even theorists who believe in its existence cannot decide what its particular characteristics are. When theorists do try to calculate how much of the hypothetical energy should be in the vacuum, they derive a number that is at least one googol (10100) times too large. The other problem is that the two different phases of the Big Bang where energy of the vacuum is not zero have fundamentally completely different sizes of hypothetical energy, so there isn't just one vacuum energy that the naturalists need to account for, there are two. These artificial creations of naturalist astronomers are clung to in spite of Occam's razor. The simplest explanation is that the energy of the vacuum is zero and that the Big Bang is incorrect.
Electromagnetic forces unaccounted for
Naturalist astronomers assume that gravity is the dominant force in the universe driving the dynamics of the cosmos. However, the universe is mostly plasma which reacts strongly with electromagnetism. The Big Bang does not take this additional force into consideration.
Too complex, too early
The universe has too many large structures such as interspersed walls and voids, to be created in 10-20 billion years. We know the rate of expansion, thus we can get a rough estimate on how long it would take for them to form. Some have proposed that the speeds of galaxies were much faster in the past by means of some sort of viscosity of space, but this is nothing more then wishful thinking. Also, in order for these to form, it would take about 100 billion years.
Not enough helium or lithium
Newer observations have found that there is only 10 per cent of the deuterium present than was previously believed. This would mean that there should be much more helium and lithium around than we actually see. But many Big Bang enthusiasts claim that the amount of helium is a proof.
Too many heavy elements
The Big bang only allows for the production of the lightest elements on the periodic table. However, our very existence is predicated on a concentration of heavier elements such as carbon and oxygen. The oldest stars observed in the cosmos contain these heavier elements as well meaning that they had to be around since the very beginning of our universe. The Big Bang provides no explanation for where these elements originate.
The universe isn’t homogeneous enough
In the year 2000, a survey of the red-shift found that it has an inhomogeneous distribution to a scale of at least 200 Mpc. This shows that there are no trends toward homogeneity even on scales up to 1000 Mpc. The Big Bang requires large-scale homogeneity.
Galaxy disk formation
Big Bang believers have been trying for decades to simulate the conditions under which galaxies such as our Milky Way form. However, whenever they have tried to do so, they have found that the thin disks seen in many galaxies either do not form at all in a Big Bang universe, or are disrupted as other galaxies collide into the disks. It has become clear that gravitational interactions alone cannot account for galaxy disks, but even when computer simulators add gas dynamics and pressure into their simulations the problem persists. People who study these problems acknowledge the "mystery" but refuse to accept a supernatural creation of galactic disk.
Too much energy
The conservation of energy demands that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. In a naturalistic universe there would therefore be no source for the energy seen in our universe. The Big Bang is just a placeholder for an extreme violation of this fundamental physical principle.
Too much angular momentum
Everything in the universe is spinning with angular momentum. However, the conservation of angular momentum demands that angular momentum cannot be created nor destroyed. Therefore, similar to the energy problem above there must be a source for the angular momentum in our universe that cannot be accounted for by naturalistic theories.
Mathematical discrepanciesOccam's razor and the current understanding of physics, in order to keep their calculations consistent.
- Main Article: Dark matter
In 1933, Fritz Zwicky observed that the Coma supercluster was rotating too fast for its own self-gravity to hold it together. A few years later, Jan Oort made a similar deduction about our own galaxy. Astronomers have invented the concept of dark matter to explain this and similar discrepancies in the observations of galaxies and galactic groups, clusters, and superclusters throughout the universe.
However, astrophysicist Pavel Kroupa in a review article to be published in a major astrophysical journal noted that dark matter as a new particle has been falsified by the observation that dwarf satellite galaxies of the Milky Way are aligned in a plane and consistent with having no dark matter at all. The fact that dark matter particles do not exist (in spite of decades of searching, none have been discovered) and the fact that the Big Bang is dependent on the existence of such "dark matter particles" means that Dr. Kroupa has been able to convincingly falsify the Big Bang hypothesis. Kroupa's falsification of the Big Bang has been receiving growing attention from an astronomical community that is beginning to realize that there is no support for the fairy tales of an old, naturalistic universe.
- Main Article: Dark energy
In 1998, two separate teams of observers developed incontrovertible evidence that the expansion of the universe, instead of slowing down, is in fact accelerating. Astronomers and cosmologists, lacking any other explanation, have invented the concept of dark energy to explain this acceleration.
Astronomers and cosmologists now estimate that the total mass-energy content of the universe is about 75% dark energy, 21% dark matter, and only 4% baryonic matter. Attempts to identify the source of either concept have thus far failed.
In 1996, two years before conventional cosmologists observed the apparent acceleration of the universe, Dr. Moshe Carmeli predicted that appearance of acceleration, using a new cosmological model (cosmological relativity) that assumes a space-velocity continuum, not Albert Einstein's space-time continuum. John Hartnett developed the concept further and now claims to have solved the problem of the spin curves of galaxies (and their groups, clusters and superclusters) and of the apparent acceleration of the universe without the need for dark matter or dark energy. This solution also requires discarding the Big Bang model and assuming instead that God created the cosmos exactly as the Bible says He did. Hartnett also claims a bounded universe having our galaxy at its center and a solution to the light-time problem.
Paul Davies wrote in The Edge of Infinity (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p161:
|“||...represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle—transcending physical principles.||”|
The big bang is based on two purely philosophical assumptions, the Copernican Principle and an unbounded universe. If these assumptions are wrong as the evidence indicates, so is every conclusion about the universe based on the big bang.
Furthermore, the Carmeli-Hartnett cosmological relativity solution solves two problems (dark matter and dark energy) that continue to embarrass proponents of the Big Bang model, while also solving a problem that has been one of the greatest challenges to creationists.
- Speck of Interstellar Dust Obscures Glimpse of Big Bang A new analysis has confirmed that the BICEP signal was mostly, if not all, stardust, and that there is no convincing evidence of inflation. New York Times. January. 30, 2015.
- Star Trek-like invisible shield found thousands of miles above Earth Shield blocks so-called "killer electrons," which whip around the planet at near-light speed and have been known to threaten astronauts, fry satellites and degrade space systems during intense solar storms. Phys Org, November 26, 2014.
- Cosmic Case of Missing Stars Baffles Scientists A massive population of stars is missing, and scientists are stumped as to where it could be. Live Science, November 24, 2014.
- Bad News for the Big Bang: Secular Scientists Claim Universe Shouldn’t Exist Nearly two years after the highly-publicized discovery of the elusive ‘God Particle,’ scientists have determined that the current Big Bang model cannot account for the existence of the universe. Christian News Network, June 24, 2014.
- Big Bang blunder bursts the multiverse bubble Premature hype over gravitational waves highlights gaping holes in models for the origins and evolution of the Universe Nature, June 3, 2014.
- Universe is Not Expanding After All, Scientists Say New evidence was based on detailed measurements of the size and brightness of hundreds of galaxies by a team of astrophysicists Lawrenceville Plasma Physics. Sci-News.com, May 23, 2014.
- Has Cosmic Inflation Been Discovered? Claims of a major breakthrough about the big bang are swirling in the news: is it inflation, or inflating the evidence? Creation Evolution Headlines, March 17, 2014.
- Edited by Ian Ridpath, Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy (Oxford University Press 1997) pg. 57
- Moore, Patrick; Hunt, Gary (1983). Atlas of the Solar System. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company. p. 10. ISBN 0-528-81122-3.
- "Big Bang Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test." Moon Daily, September 3, 2006. Accessed August 15, 2008.
- Oard, Michael. "Missing antimatter challenges the 'big bang' theory." TJ 12(3):256, December 1998. Accessed August 15, 2008.
- Lamicella, Paul W. "Antimatter and the Big Bang." Answers in Genesis, March 2006. Accessed August 15, 2008.
- The Big Bang Theory by Astronomy & Origins
- The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique, part I
- The Big Bang Theory - A Scientific Critique, part II
- BUMPS IN THE BIG BANG by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
- Hubble, hubble, 'big bang' in trouble? by Carl Wieland. Creation 18(4):26–29. September 1996
- More on the ‘Rotating Cosmos’!
- New evidence for a rotating cosmos
- Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ red shifts show.
- So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!”
- Was there a Big Bang?
- What about the 'big bang'?
- The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
- High-redshift quasars produce more big bang surprises by Bill Worraker