Article in Daily Mail on Thursday, I though was worth a thread.
Most of this is copied but not the entire article. By Michael Hanlon
For years scientists have claimed the universe was created by a huge cosmic explosion. Now many believe the Big Bang Theory is wrong - we must now think again about the mystery of life.
Throughout the last century more and more evidence was gathered that pointed towards the universe being born in this fiery fashion 13.7 billion years ago.
But now a rumble is being heard among the world's astronomers and physicists. There have, it seems, been some troubling observations which are at odds with the BB theory. It oculd mean we have to tear up everything we know and start again.
As the American physucust lan Guth once elegantly put it 'The Big Bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, how it banged or why it banged at all'
Now there are new dissenting voices and at a recent conference in Portugal maverick cosmologists met to discuss new evidence that pointed to the fact that maybe the BB never happened.
'The basic BB model fails to predict what we see in the Universe'
The details are complex but the problems with the BB can be simplified thus: First there appear to be many stars in the universe that are actually older than the universe itself. Second, the universe doesn't appear to have aged. This means that in reality they should be seeing infant galaxies and hot youthfdul blue stars, but however far back in time you peer, you see stars and galaxies pretty much like those we see close by - indicating that perhaps the universe has not changed at all. Add to these discrepancies the fact that astronomers have had to invent two 'quick fixes' to explain some of the most fundamental discrepancies between what they see and what they should see, according to the known laws of physics.
Fred Hoyle was one scientist who gave us the 'steady state' theory and invented the BB name sarcastically.
In Seattle earlier this year scientists debated the BB by saying 'this begs the questionn if there ever was a beginning and, if so, that the universe began in an as yet undreamed of way'
Food for thought;)
Gxxx
RE: So where did we come from?
And of course, even if there was a BB, it only leads to the next question: What caused That? And what existed before? Something doesn't come from nothing.
V xxx
RE: So where did we come from?
I saw and read this article. As usual with Daily Mail popular science articles it's the curate's egg, 'good in parts', at least to me.
Yes the 'good old days' of the 50s/70s of cosmology, when they thought they had it all and there was nothing new to work out bar the details, are long gone.
The Universe cannot have arisen from a simple 'big bang' with uniform sub-light speed expansion,, no way could it be the size it is now nor could data have reached all parts to give it the uniformity it now shows in the relatively short time it's supposed to have been in existance.. they had to invent 'inflation' in which the space time continuum expanded with supra light velocity during a phrase in which the laws of physics we know, just could not, did not exist,, a cop out, yes, but a cop out, which when tested by making testable predictions, came out trumps,,,
Then there was the rate of expansion and the embarrassing fact that there was just not enough matter, the stuff that gives M in the equation:
E=Mcxc
to hold the universe together. They had to invent dark matter, then dark energy, and strange negative, repulsive gravity properties.....
It's been one invention to enable the observed facts to be explained, after another.
And it's not over yet by a long chalk.... It is true more than ever that the more we think we know, in cosmology, the more we realise, or should realise, we do not and indeed , can never know.
Leo
RE: So where did we come from?
Hi Leo,
So from what you say, this is an insight into the psychology of scientists, or into the philosophy of 'looking at science from outside'. By which I mean, there rarely was a time when they really believed they 'knew' - but this rankles with scientists, who tend to think it's their job to 'know', and not their role to say, "We haven't a clue - it's a mystery!" (As that could even be seen to introduce religious speculation which is contrary to hard science.)
So all these add-ons, first to explain one mystery, then to explain a mystery still existing within that 'explanation', could indeed be seen as a cop-out. The truth always being, the Universe is a mystery and science doesn't know anything about the Beginning, the Origin.
Interesting...
Venetian
RE: So where did we come from?
When scientists change their consciousness so does their understanding of the universe. New paradigms will not fit into old models.....we live in exciting times. Dr Munchie was the first that I heard this from about Big Bang back in 2002. www.drmunchie.com
Onwards and upwards !
Love beyond measure
Kim xx