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.

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
762
891
2,760
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.
 
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
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
482
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

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
"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
482
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?
 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
The reference was in the original link. The book was "The Internal constitution of the stars", Eddington, 1926.
My apologies for not noticing. Thank you for your trouble :)
I have to hand a First Edition of Space Time and Gravitation 1920 which includes an excellent description of my beloved Flatland and I was interested in any earlier reference.
 

Catastrophe

"There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
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
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
Dec 15, 2019
35
28
1,560
I'm resurrecting this thread in honor of the Webb telescope, which is a lock to put the final stake in the heart of the soul-sucking vampire many worship as the big bang model.

Even in the first few weeks we've received stunning evidence that the big bang is toast. To wit:

Astronomers Say They've Found The Most Distant Galaxy Ever Observed

Guess what? The two galaxies mentioned in this article, alleged to have been created a mere 300 million years after the supposed start to the universe, shouldn't exist at all, let alone in any advanced state of galactic evolution. Webb will surely provide an endless stream of "impossible" findings at the putative beginning of creation. In deploying Webb, mainstream astronomers have at once proven their technological superiority and sown the seeds of their cherished model's destruction.

It's gonna be fun.
 
Guess what? The two galaxies mentioned in this article, alleged to have been created a mere 300 million years after the supposed start to the universe, shouldn't exist at all, let alone in any advanced state of galactic evolution.
The books I've read have galaxies forming around 200 million to 300 million years, so this galaxy, if the age is correct, adds more support for the BBT, but it's too early to make that claim.

Webb will surely provide an endless stream of "impossible" findings at the putative beginning of creation. In deploying Webb, mainstream astronomers have at once proven their technological superiority and sown the seeds of their cherished model's destruction.
The fun is finding new things that do indeed tweak or allow for new theories. The many lines of evidence for BBT, however, make it a very powerful theory.... so far.
 
I think the BBT is not "falsifiable" because it is too dependent on unobservable parameters, and more can be added as needed to avoid "falsification".

Any change to acceptance will probably need to come from a realization that there is a better way to conceive of the origins of some of our major observations.

It is not rational to require any new theory to reproduce all of the BBT story without using "adjustable" parameters like the BBT requires, because that is a biased test. And, frankly, there are so many adjustments in the BBT that I would not be at all surprised if somebody could come up with a competing theory that had the same amount of adjustments. But I would then just be equally skeptical of both theories.

Some thoughts about the early parts of the BBT.

1. Quantum fluctuations in what field? What was "there" before it fluctuated so that there is something to fluctuate?

2. If the origin of everything we see is a random quantum field fluctuation, why aren't we seeing additional macroscopic effects of additional quantum field fluctuations in the last 13.4 billion years?

My gut feeling is that we have a cyclic dynamic cosmological situation, and don't understand a lot about what controls it. We may be extrapolating too far into the past with this expansion idea that basically comes from the observation of redshift.

I fully support the scientific efforts to look at things like the farthest observable items in our universe and the most exotic things near us, such as black holes and neutron stars. Those are the things most likely to challenge the paradigm of the BBT.

In that regard, I will point out a recent article: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/10/black-hole-burps-up-shredded-star-years-after-consuming-it/ . Probably best to discuss that in a new thread. I expect Space.com will pick up on it with an article within a few days.
 
Feb 14, 2020
87
24
1,535
The serious attempts to counter the BBT are mainly from the past and before the CMBR came along. All those "lines of evidence" produce a strong confluence that favors the model.

Nevertheless, the extensive number of theories being introduced for DM and DE will be significant in their own right, and will likely be the best new tests of the BBT, which requires both. So I suspect they are putting their efforts there and it will be what they discover with these that will either strengthen or injure the model.
Yes If any model that can explain both DM and DE would be great. If that does not need BB it would be greater.
I have published a short video on Vedic Particle Physics and am working on an article that will summarize the mystery of how at least 4k+ years ago Vedas describe creation of nucleus and atom from Dak Matter. (to be published).
That description of creation of matter-energy (right now limiting to DM only) from DM required no BBT.
 
Oct 31, 2022
12
0
10
back to science 101 here.

Thinking about the difference between a law and a theory.
the law predicts what will happen and the theory say how or why.

A theory MUST obey the laws of physics.

Dark energy doesnt seem to do that.
the LAW of conservation of energy is not upheld.

The BB requires physics and laws not yet discovered aka imaginary.
and you can never disprove imaginary anything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I read Bill's link. The concept that increasing dark energy is exactly offset by increasing negative gravitational energy seems to be more of an assumption than a proof. But, it is hard for me to shift through the jargon to separate assumptions from facts proven by observations.

I would think that somebody who actually understands this from a realistic physical perspective would be able to explain it more clearly, without jargon. An assertion that "energy does not need to be conserved in cosmology" should require a very strong proof, since it violates one of the main tenants of all of our understanding about how things work locally.

Just because you can make an equation work does not prove it is physically applicable.

Somebody who believes this should explain how gravitational energy is negative and increasingly negative as the universe expands. Is the assumption that dark energy does no work when pulling two masses farther apart?
 
Nov 19, 2021
597
268
1,260
"but thats like saying if you take away the expansion then the equations work out." - ASTROSTONER
No, the equation works out with expansion, which is what is happening.

"energy does not need to be conserved in cosmology"
This is an incorrect assertion.

The positive energy of the additional space that is created through expansion is due to the dark energy contained within. This additional energy added to the universe is exactly balance by the negative energy associated with the increased separation of matter. The negative energy in the graviational field is a function of the rate at which space is expanding. As more dark matter is created this is exactly balanced by the increase in the rate of expansion which increases the negative energy of the gravitational field. Here is the equation greatly simplified:

Total energy = (matter x c^2) + all the photons + dark energy - energy of the gravitational field = 0

It always equals zero, and has since the Big Bang. This is how the universe can be made out of nothing. It currently sums to nothing and has always summed to nothing.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY