What Came 'Before' the Big Bang? Leading Physicist Presents a Radical Theory

I honestly think that those scientists were smoking too much weed when they came up with this idea, what's next? they'll say that all universes are contained in a big pink sphere that shakes every -whatever- number of years? pleazze.

I'm not even sure that the big bang theory is true to begin with, I just don't see how all the matter in the universe could be contained in such a tiny space and then exploit for no reason, and since there's no way of really knowing, I just like to think that the universe has always existed and will always exist.

There is overwhelming evidence to support the big bang model. Cosmic microwave background radiation, the original hydrogen in the universe fused into helium during the era of nucleo synthesis, observations of actual helium content of the universe closely matching the amount of helium predicted by the big bang model, density of baryonic matter from the observed amount of deuterium in the universe today, the fact that the direction and spread of our universe traces back to a single point. It would take me a long time to explain each of these but there is overwhelming evidence to support the big bang model. The big bang model makes predictions about the real universe that can be verified through observations and experiments.

The universe cannot always have existed in this state because of something called Olbers Paradox. If the universe were infinite, unchanging, and everywhere the same, then the entire night sky would be one big white light. Imagine you are standing on a flat surrounded by tree's in a forest. If the forest is infinite, everywhere you look around you all you would be able to see is trees; however, if the forest is not infinite, you might be able to see a clearing beyond some of the trees. Compare this to the universe, if it were infinite then everytime you looked up in the sky all you would be able to see is stars, but you don't, because the universe has a finite number of stars.

Ok Chris I see your points, however:

Cosmic microwave background radiation - In other words, that uniform electromagnetic radiation across the universe, which is "now" weak and cold, and according to the theory it used to be hotter and stronger, but how do they know that the radiation in fact used to be hotter and stronger? And further more even if that was the case, that doesn’t necessarily prove that it was due to an explosion.

Olbers Paradox - I never said that the universe was unchanging, in fact it is in constant change and movement (galaxies moving, stars exploiting, new celestial bodies being created, etc.) what I said is that the universe might as well be infinite, or maybe it is actually part of something bigger, who knows.

Expansion of the universe - It's the most important point supporting the Big Bang theory, it seems perfectly logical that if every galaxy in the universe is moving away from each other, at some point they must've all then came from the same place, BUT, scientists really aren't sure of that, it's not like in the case of the moon where we can actually prove it's moving away thanks to the retroreflector left by the Apollo mission. Maybe from our perspective they seem to be spreading away, and they could be, but since the universe is so massive and has laws that we have yet to discover maybe the separation of galaxies is just part of the constant movement of the universe.

BTW, I'm a man of science, that's why I like to challenge any theory that has its flaws and is not completely proved, and what a better theory that the one which supposedly explains how our universe came to exist.

Originally Posted by Supaman89

Ok Chris I see your points, however:

Cosmic microwave background radiation - In other words, that uniform electromagnetic radiation across the universe, which is "now" weak and cold, and according to the theory it used to be hotter and stronger, but how do they know that the radiation in fact used to be hotter and stronger? And further more even if that was the case, that doesn’t necessarily prove that it was due to an explosion.

Cosmic background radiation is pretty much a perfect fit with the model of the big bang. It has a near perfect thermal radiation spectrum corresponding to a temperature of 2.73 K (temperature of empty space).

You know that it gets weaker and colder for the same reason that when you light a match and blow it out, it gets colder as the radiating heat fades.

Originally Posted by Supaman89

Expansion of the universe - It's the most important point supporting the Big Bang theory, it seems perfectly logical that if every galaxy in the universe is moving away from each other, at some point they must've all then came from the same place, BUT, scientists really aren't sure of that, it's not like in the case of the moon where we can actually prove it's moving away thanks to the retroreflector left by the Apollo mission. Maybe from our perspective they seem to be spreading away, and they could be, but since the universe is so massive and has laws that we have yet to discover maybe the separation of galaxies is just part of the constant movement of the universe.

Hubbles Law, radar ranging, parallax measurements, and standard candles allow us to measure distant galaxies and the expansion of the universe. It is not 100% definite, just like it's not 100% definite that the centre of the sun isn't chocolate, but these measurements work fairly accurately thusfar. The model of inflation also accounts for the sudden expansion of the universe during the grand unification epoch.

To add (after reading through my astronomy textbook from last year), the big bang also predicts the ratio of protons to neutrons during the era of nucleosynthesis. The chemical composition of the universe should be approx. 75% hydrogen and 25% helium by mass. Observation show it is exactly that.

I believe the big bang theory because I read alot of info on the subject . I read articles or magazines and physics textbooks , Im not a scientist and I read from an "informed layman" position if I can invent term .

I accept that greater minds than mine have been studying the stars for much longer than I . I give that knowlege respect . The discovery of a black hole at the center of the milky way and quite possibly at the center of all galaxies , the discovery of pulsars , the discovery of extra- solar planets , the fact that astronomy put a man on the moon and robots on Mars and a giant camera around Saturn , all of it makes me want to listen when the same people tell me the universe is 13.7 billion years old and that all matter in the universe today condensed out of the intense energy of the big bang and that the universe is expanding as a result , I believe them . Until someone else gives me something more credible to grasp I'm going with the astronomers that actually do the work and make the discoveries ,

I dont sit at home do nothing and say 'meh, I dont believe in the cosmic microwave background' when I dont even have one college level course under my belt in astronomy .

but how do they know that the radiation in fact used to be hotter and stronger?

Study cosmic radiation research.
It's already explained in the research HOW cosmic radiation fits the model.