The Big Bang as a
Robust Theory

here are a number of competing theories about the overall developmental direction of the universe. All of them rest on observational discrepancies of the general [standard] "expansion theory" (except perhaps Hoyle's which is simply a conceivable alternative put forth to challenge the leading hypothesis).

Alfven-Arp type cosmologies actually attack observational problems. But every alternative cosmology (except mine) goes for the core logic of a well defined beginning ... that is, some primary point of development which is different from any other ... so offering a "hitching post" to which one might affix one's theoretical ruminations.

There are actually only a few basic alternatives (given that time is linear). These are:

  1. Line [no beginning - no end]-Alfven type
    (but directional development in various places)
  2. Circle [same thing over and over]- isomorphic
    (just over and over ... same, same, all same)
  3. Ray [beginning but no end] - standard model
    (like a heat death)
  4. Line segment [beginning and an end]
    You're born, you die = your universe has a beginning and an end.
    Or, [cyclic...1 cycle only] like a 'big crunch'
  5. There might be some other odd topological nonsense but ...
    you get the picture.
One criticism of the big bang is that it is "creationist", i.e. like religious ideas (as if there were multitudes of fundamental alternatives to choose from). I really don't give hoot what anyone else says ... religious or not. So I would not discard (or even consider discarding) any idea based on such irrelevant opinion.The cause of my personally favoring a universe with a beginning is that one can "reason" on it in standard Cause & Effect fashion. Thus, my view is that we are to "understand" the universe by making calculations with observed quantities to verify theories. We can only do this if we accept the idea of development ... the scalar form. There is no reasoning "in circles" ... only reasoning on parts of the circle where we see directional cause-effect development.

I often wonder if anyone actually realizes this:

There is a state A which by some process(es) becomes a different state B. We reason out the steps from A to B in concepts and if our theory seems possible we collect numbers to see if it, in fact, works out quantitively. Only then can we say that we have a viable theory (not necessarily the correct one ... just viable).
To prove a "no beginning - no end" universe requires the use of "beginning-end" universe logic. It's the only type of logic there is. All else is "feeling".

Run this past the anti-bigbangers

  • Let one group of experienced astronomers pick out what they consider to be a random selection of galaxies (a few dozen).
  • Let them test these for red shift (measure it).
  • Give another set of experienced astronomers, individually and independent of the others, a picture of each galaxy (showing structure) and tell them the true magnification of the image they are seeing.
  • Now, let them estimate the Doppler shift of that galaxy, i.e. based on how far away they think that galaxy is by appearance and big bang theory.
  • Those proposing an alternate hypothesis must back off because of the high degree of correlation.
  • Lastly

    There is the second law of thermodynamics. There is a direction to the actions of the universe toward development ... permanent, non-reversible development. Things fall into gravitational wells and don't come out. To assert that we are just in a "phase" of development which has this quality ... or ... to say that we just happen to be in a "finite developing zone" amidst an infinitude of alternately developing and disolving zones ... runs afoul of one of Newton's fundamental tenets.

    Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy #3

    "The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intension nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." - I. Newton

    This means that what we observe must be ascribed to all things everywhere and everywhen till some "new contrary data" comes within our experimental or observational purview. Then, we make the smallest modifications necessary to accomodate the new information. At present there is no justification whatsoever for challenging the second law of thermodynamics. And that is what one must do to hypothesize anything other than a permanently developing, one-way universe, i.e.the expanding universe.

    This does not mean that universal expansion is correct ... only that is matches up best with "development". If one could show a model of a universe which developed and at the same time remained static overall (hunh?) ... well, I guess I would have to take notice!

    Next Page

    Ebtx Home Page