What would it take to falsify the "big bang" model of cosmology?

Page 4 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Apr 5, 2020
377
407
560
A model tweaked doesn't mean that it was falsified and that's why it was tweaked. Please understand that. Cheating =/= tweaking.

Arp's observations are not valid now. His observations have been refuted by modern observations. So, I guess, we should come back to the main question. The title of this thread is, "What would it take to falsify the big bang model of cosmology?" Well, it would take many things. Like, the CMB has to be falsified. Or, it has to be defined by another model. Well, as we haven't got enough evidence yet, the Big Bang Theory is the most reliable model, till now.
 
Jun 1, 2020
718
451
760
Dr. Joe said it's falsifiable but that he couldn't think of anything specifically that would falsify it. Isn't that the very definition of contradiction?
This is an important question and often misunderstood.

If a "theory" is introduced that presents no means, even in principle, in testing the theory objectively (measurements by many), then by definition, it is definitely not a scientific theory. This is a hard rule that separates science from philosophy and religion, which must rely on subjective viewpoints. Science includes subjectivity since ideas and reasons must be drawn from the objectivity needed to create the theory. But a key tenet in science when it comes to theories and hypotheses is the requirement for falsifiability.

BBT is no exception. Indeed, the reason it is now mainstream is because of all the tests that it has passed. The ultimate test of its veracity is found in all the predictions that came from the requirements for the CMBR. The Lyman-alpha forest test was another. ;)

Prior to the BBT was the Static Theory for the universe, which held it was simply assumed to be infinite in both size and time. Einstein mocked Lemaitre's introduction of his BBT. [Lemaitre called it the "Primeval Atom" since it began out of a something incredibly tiny, but never out of nothing.]

A single Arp galaxy showing a definitive physical connection between galaxies of widely varying redshifts would do it.
Yes.

I like humor especially from great scientists. When Einstein was informed that 100 German scientists and other PhDs wrote a letter decrying his GR theory, his response was something like, "Why 100 when only 1 is needed?" Brilliant example of how real science works. Ultimately it's not about any consensus, especially by those with social or political agendas.

Two adjacent galaxies that have very dissimilar redshifts would be hard evidence that something is amiss with the redshift being used as a tool for determining velocity. If two galaxies appear to be adjacent but aren't, then such a claim would be false. If they have what appears to be a connecting tail, then they only appear more likely than the y otherwise would. There is extraordinary evidence that redshift does indicate velocity (or, more appropriately cosmological expansion since even police radar reveals normal velocity relationship with redshift).

But, likewise, it will now take extraordinary evidence to match the extraordinary claim that two galaxies exist adjacent to one another but with significantly different redshifts. This evidence, as far as I know and I'm not an astronomer, doesn't exist.

Consider how so many double stars are noted but, today, they are better established to be either binaries or separated by great distance. Appearances can be very deceiving.

The discovery of objects older than the universe itself would obviously present a conundrum to the BB.
Indeed, this has already happened. When Hubble found his Cepheid variable in Andromeda, it was used to calculate the age of the universe, which was something like 2 billion years. But this age quickly became a problem when geologists determine the age of Earth be be greater than 3.5 billion years. The Earth and stars were found to be older than the universe. No small contradiction.

Hubble, however, chose the dimmer type II Cepheids for his model and thus greatly underestimated the distance to Andromeda. Once this was corrected, suddenly the universe was older than Earth. This is how science works - it is always self-correcting as it is always about how things work, never "why".

Or so one might think. That's happened before and the response is merely to push the age of the universe back far enough to incorporate the new observation. Seems like cheating. But I guess that's was Dr. Pesce means by "tweaking." If there was a prize for the model with the most tweaking, the BB would be leading the pack.
No. There's a big difference between tweaking and something "ad hoc". It must improve a theory objectively, not subjectively. Tycho's model for our solar system was so "ad hoc" that most scientists simply ignored it when the Ptolemy model got blown out of the water by Galileo's objective discoveries.

Copernicus was favored, even by the Church eventually, because it did something all grand theories must do... demonstrate unification. His explanation for retrograde, Kepler's math that showed more distant planets travelled slower around a very massive object, etc. brought a unification that was far more reasonable to those exercising reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Jun 1, 2020
718
451
760
A model tweaked doesn't mean that it was falsified and that's why it was tweaked. Please understand that. Cheating =/= tweaking.

Arp's observations are not valid now. His observations have been refuted by modern observations. So, I guess, we should come back to the main question. The title of this thread is, "What would it take to falsify the big bang model of cosmology?" Well, it would take many things. Like, the CMB has to be falsified. Or, it has to be defined by another model. Well, as we haven't got enough evidence yet, the Big Bang Theory is the most reliable model, till now.
I like this post, and it would take a lot for science to abandon the BBT because it is incredibly unifying. But I think we still have to consider what Einstein said against the ugly 100.

There have been problems that emerged for the BBT in the past. If the tweaks, like Inflationary Theory, are determined to be truly "ad hoc" then we will have a problem. However, since there is no alternative on the table, it will take a long time for others to see it as "ad hoc". I think this is justifiable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Mar 19, 2020
433
480
560
If there was a prize for the model with the most tweaking, the BB would be leading the pack.
"Leading the pack" is a bit too kindly.

In the category of "the model with the most tweaking", the BB is actually the All-Time, Grand-Champion, Hall-of-Famer.

And all of that tweaking is likely just begun.

We should expect nothing less from the most complex observations in all of science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Feb 18, 2020
1,201
859
1,570
"Again, I ask: what possible observation could be made that would fundamentally undermine the BB model and cause its adherents to seriously question its validity?"

Surely the Hubble Inconstant is a start?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dfjchem721
Mar 19, 2020
433
480
560
Surely the Hubble Inconstant is a start?
Indeed, Cat!

The Hubble Inconstant was the subject of a fairly recent thread on this site. It is posted below with a lot of the inconstant aspects related to telescopic observations prevailing over the extremely complex CMBR deconvolution(s).

Most real scientists prefer empirical data over the "results" from computer simulations and modeling :



Also, please pay close attention to the article by Daniel Wayne Hooper :

https://astronomy.com/magazine/news/2020/05/is-the-big-bang-in-crisis
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
IMO a better question is. Is the big bang the universe or just an event in a universe of quantum fluctuation.
An option that gives us a reason for the big bang, a reason for the E to be in the first place and the concept of time before it happened.
Maybe thinking of the big bang as the start is a mistake?
 
Feb 18, 2020
1,201
859
1,570
Ok, I’ve only now tapped into this and I “think” I understand. Please forgive my rudimentary style but here goes: I'm an ant on a surface thickness of 0. I cannot perceive the “z” because it does not exist for me. I can see my world expanding by my distances becoming longer but I do not perceive they are expanding on the “z” axis?

Hopfully this describes my level of understanding. That being said, could you recommend a book that would help me understand this edgeless universe? Thanks for the patience and I’ll now step back so this thread can continue its search on the BB. I feel like a kindergartner listening to high schoolers talk of algebra, hahahahaha. It’s important to me that I do not distract others.
" I'm an ant on a surface thickness of 0. I cannot perceive the “z” because it does not exist for me. I can see my world expanding by my distances becoming longer but I do not perceive they are expanding on the “z” axis?"
That is an improvement on my summary. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: dfjchem721
Jun 1, 2020
718
451
760
IMO a better question is. Is the big bang the universe or just an event in a universe of quantum fluctuation.
Perhaps, but there is a reason why science addresses only the observable universe.

An option that gives us a reason for the big bang, a reason for the E to be in the first place and the concept of time before it happened.
Maybe thinking of the big bang as the start is a mistake?
Yes, but in the sense that the BBT doesn’t address an actual origin because science goes nuts at t=0. BBT has its own beginning point which will always be on the precipice between physics and metaphysics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod and IG2007
Perhaps, but there is a reason why science addresses only the observable universe.

Yes, but in the sense that the BBT doesn’t address an actual origin because science goes nuts at t=0. BBT has its own beginning point which will always be on the precipice between physics and metaphysics.
Yes sure makes you wonder if everything or anything we understand about the universe is right.
Quantum fluctuation is observable and seems to fill every possible place it can, begs the question does it go on forever and is it in essence the universe or one of infinite QF universes.
QF product of the big bang or QF balance = big bang into QF.

A QF universe has a reason for a big bang, but a big bang universe has no real mechanical reason to become a universe.

What we might be observing is waste products of an energy balance.
You can never rely on a garbage man to be on time to clean up someone else's mess :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts