What evidence has lead astronomers to reject the steady state theory?

Answer 1

It is fundamentally flawed in that it requires the existence of dark matter and dark energy to work. However, scientists are unable to prove that either dark matter or dark energy actually exists; which makes the big bang theory at best speculative Science Fiction, and at worst, taken solely on faith. ____________________ The fact that a theory presents one or more questions or problems to address is not necessarily a flaw; it is part of what good theories do. The theory is based on some relatively straightforward and basic observations suggesting that galaxies are moving away from one another, and that the farther away a galaxy is the faster it is moving. The quick statement of the theory is that if galaxies are moving away from one another now, they likely were closer together in the past, and if we extrapolate back in time, it appears that the expansion outward started roughly 14 billion years ago. The theory does not require dark matter, but it suggests that dark matter/energy may, if they exist, help explain what we are actually observing. So the theory offers a possible explanation of many things that we observe, and it opens up new questions at the same time. It could very well be that the big bang will be soundly toppled one day (certainly accompanied by intense and very entertaining human drama), but the search for dark matter/energy isn't quite enough to can the theory just yet. So dark matter and dark energy pose problems to be studied and resolved (one way or the other) but they are not 'flaws' in the theory itself. Other problems to be worked out are the 'cuspy halo' problem, various problems of symmetry, problems dealing with past and future 'horizons', the flatness of space and the age of the universe. If the model inherent in the big bang theory is ever toppled, it will be because another theory/model is brought forward that offers a more comprehensive explanation of all observations than the big bang does. Certainly, a new model will give rise to as many or more questions than the current theory.

Answer 2

The most common criticisms of the big bang result from fundamental misunderstandings of the theory. The big bang deals with some mind-boggling numbers which tax the imaginations of geniuses and push at the boundaries of mathematics. Very few people have the educational background and intelligence to fully understand the minutiae, the nuts and bolts if you will, of the theory. Just as a layman could never hope to tell you exactly how the CPU in your computer works, or what exactly goes on inside a jet engine. Most laymen (such as myself) do not have the mathematical and technical background to let us accurately take the theory apart and analyze it piece by piece. This means that nearly everyone (myself included) has a partial picture of exactly what big bang theory does and does not state which can result in some pretty major misunderstandings about the theory as a whole.

Lets examine some of the common misconceptions.

What happened/was around before the big bang?

This is a common question, which for many people totally destroys the big bang argument in a "missing-link" sort of way, but as you look deeper into what the theory actually says you will see that, while it is an interesting subject, it doesnt exactly tear the theory down.

The first thing to keep in mind here is that "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer to this question. Indeed we may never know. This does not diminish the usefulness or authenticity of the big bang theory in the least, because big bang theory only deals with our universe, which of course began at the big bang. There may have been a big crunch before the big bang, but that's not big bang theory its big crunch theory.

Another important aspect of this question is this. The big bang is said to be the origin of all matter and space in our universe. One of the key points of general relativity is that time and space are inherently connected and (if my understanding is correct) two aspects of the same element "space-time" or "the fabric of space-time" as its called. This is very difficult to grasp, but if this is the case there may be no such thing as a "before" for the big bang. Just as all matter and space came from the big bang... so too did time. Asking what came before the big bang may well be like asking whats north of the north pole. There can be no answer because the question itself is inherently flawed.

The big bang means that everything came from nothing.

This one is popular too and is an understandable mistake to make. Really what the big bang states is that the universe exploded forth from a singularity. The singularity contained all the matter of the universe in a tiny speck. The whole of the universe, all space, time, energy and matter compressed into a tiny speck.

Its not exactly nothing now is it? Really, isn't it everything? So what the big bang theory is really saying is that everything came from everything. Now its not so bad.

The mistake comes in trying to comprehend that singularity. The singularity is a mind-boggling concept, our brains just arent equipped to cope with it so we have to use mathematics to even come close to describing it. Lets do a little exercise...

Imagine a car crushed into a cube... you may have even seen one crushed this way, they do it all the time at junkyards. Now imagine it crushed to the size of a pea. It is possible, although not with our technology, but imagine that. It still weighs the same, but all that matter is now compressed to the size of a pea. Now take it the next step, imagine a mountain compressed like that. A whole mountain... billions of tons of rock compressed to the size of a pea. What would it weigh? The same as a mountain.... Now imagine a pocket full of them, it weighs so much that the surface of the earth couldn't hold it up.

It is possible to compress matter this densly, and it happens all the time in our universe, thankfully not on earth, but at this point we are already stretching the limits of our imaginations. The big bang singuarlity is billions of times more dense. Black hole singularities are so dense that not even light can escape its pull and that's just a fraction of what the big bang singularity must have been. No one can blame you for not being able to comprehend it. However, if you go to university for 4 to 8 years you may be able to learn how to do the math.

In conclusion

Due to the nature and scope of the theory, there are certain mathematical problems with big bang theory which cannot be properly explored in a laboratory. The energy levels involved are too enormous to be accurately predicted, much less re-created. Experiments like the large hadron collider and other particle colliders are built with the purpose of examining high energy particles in order to learn how to better approximate their behavior and thus nail down the details of big bang theory.

It is by far the majority view within the scientific community that the big bang did indeed ocurr. Most qualified cosmologists, physiscists, particle physicists, astronomers and the like are in agreement on that point. They are however, in constant debate over the details of the big bang and its immediate aftermath and there are several competing theories regarding various aspects of the big bang. Some of these are detailed in the link below.

Answer 3

The BB fails to explain (1) why our Universe is so homogeneous, (2) the absence of magnetic monopoles, and (3) the vast preference for matter in our Universe.

(1) and (2) can be explained by introducing a period of "inflation" in the BB, but that leads to needing an explanation for inflation.

(3) is still a completely un-explained fact of our Universe. At this point it's like the question, "Why is there lightning in the sky?" -- we really don't know.

Answer 4

Steady state theory is another theory so i would say if you found the difference then that would be an argument against Big Bang Cosmology.

There are several things we would see today if the Steady State Hypothesis were correct, and several things we would see if Big Bang Cosmology were correct. In all cases, we see none of the things predicted only by SS and we see all of things predicted only by BB. The Steady State Hypothesis is no more a scientific alternative to Big Bang Cosmology than a geo-centric solar system is a scientific alternative to a helio-centric one.

Answer 5

All evidence that I'm aware of supports the Big Bang theory or a minor variation on it, so there really isn't any evidence "against" it.

The need to insert an inflationary epoch is probably the biggest "failing" of the Big Bang theory, but that's an indication that something not fully understood yet is going on, not that the theory itself is entirely wrong.

It's possible, of course, that new evidence that shows the Big Bang couldn't have possibly happened may come to light, but at this time, there just isn't any. The most reasonable alternative theories tend to amount to largely untestable speculations and don't really do a clearly better job of explaining the existing observations than the Big Bang theory does.

Answer 6

There aren't any facts against the big bang theory.

The question asked for facts. If there was a fact that disproved the big bang theory, then the theory would be changed or would be discounted.

By virtue that no facts, to date, disprove the theory, it's credibility still stands as the most plausible explanation for the creation of the Universe.

On a creational or religious point of view there are many, as the time line of the big bang theory doesn't relate to the biblical creation of 6,000 years ago.

Answer 7

Probably for the greatest part, for religious reasons, or other ideas about how the Universe "should be". For example, they may have clung to the idea that the Universe is infinite both in size and in time, and the idea that this wouldn't work (for example, due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics) is not convincing.

Answer 8

None that is rational. That the universe is expanding is a very easily observed thing. The light emitted by the speeding galaxies is shifted from where physic says it has to be. Even Newtons old and correct laws verify that about 13 billion years ago every thing that is was in the same place. The Hubble telescope, named after the guy who discovered the Hubble constant, can just about see it. One more thing. Say it until you believe it. The round Earth goes around the Sun.

Answer 9

the main weakness is that no one knows how the explosion started as it created everything so there couldn't have been anything to start it because it would have to exist before it existed which is paradoxical.

The big bang supposibly occured 15 billion years ago but cluster galaxies have been found that are older than that

The last statement was refuted in 1996.

Answer 10

Pro's - It pretty much describes the universe as we're able to observe it. It explains the red shift of stars and galaxies. It predicted cosmic microwave background radiation, which was later observed. It is consistent with what we now know are the properties of sub-atomic particles.

Cons- No prediction or insight as to what went on before the big bang.