What are the current flaws in the big bang theory?

I am in agreement with the above posts. The biggest issue with the Big Bang theory is why was there a Big bang in the first place, and definately what was going on before hand?

The whole thing is in medias res. It doesnt really answer what started everything off. the big bang creating the universe was the reaction...to some action that is yet to be seen.

In a simple analogy, its like looking at the end of a journey without knowing how you got there.

Redshift exists, you can observe it. But there you cant say that there is no other way that could potentially cause an effect similar to redshift on at least one instance.

Personally I do not buy the whole dark energy/dark matter mumbojumbo, but thats subject of debate.

There is one question that needs to be answered.

If the universe expanded with a big bang lets say like some one blowing up a balloon. And we know that with every action there is an equal and opposite action then what was blowing up the balloon?

The biggest flaw in the "Big Bang Theory" is that it assumes that creation of all matter occurred in a single "big bang".

However, matter creation is a cyclical ongoing event. Matter is created through galactic core explosions.

Hope that helps.

Originally posted by thegreatobserver
The biggest flaw in the "Big Bang Theory" is that it assumes that creation of all matter occurred in a single "big bang".

Wikipedia
...the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the Universe since that instant.

As to your question you can check here for what are considered flaws in the theory.

I generally defend BBT because it's the most reliable theory we have of the evolution of the universe. In science, a theory is only as strong as it's evidence, if any of you have an alternative theory with a greater amount of evidence for its plausability please present it! Others, like the proponents of the electric universe, only look for flaws in the current theory in order to prove their own without sufficient evidence.

Use the scientific method if you're going to present an idea:
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3 Form a hypothesis (proposed explanation of observation)
4. Perform experiments/tests and collect data
5. Analyze the data
6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for a new hypothesis
7. Retest

reply to post by links234

A good post, and it reminds us that the 'flaws' in the big bang theory aren't flaws at all, just discrepancies, and uncomfortable as they may make us, they are insufficient to discredit the theory.

Remember that a 'theory' in science is not a guess or even one of several competing explanations of a phenomenon, but something very like a fact.

We don't know all the details, and obviously we can never be absolutely sure of something that happened almost fourteen billion years ago--but we can say with confidence that the universe began with a big bang.

Originally posted by rizla
What is your solution to the "horizon problem," and do you have any scientific credentials?

Sounds like an epicycle. i.e. making stuff up in order to match a theory to observation.

Thank you rizla!

In your short and acrimonious finger pointing you just vindicated everything I said about arrogant and fearful scientists!

Yes, I have qualifications, however I lack the precise mathematical language required to satisfy the powers that be.

And NO, why on earth would I give one of the greatest discoveries in history to someone like you!

Now that is funny. You are funny!

Well..Here's what I think about the "big bang".
First; We must understand that there is a certain "amount" of mass and energy, and that big bang was just that energy starting to transform into matter; which means that when energy+matter=everything
I "believe" (If you will) that this energy, was somewhat "unstable" and started to "evolve" (If you will, again) by transforming to different sorts of energy, and finally when it had gone through everything; Boom! A huge mass of that energy materialized into, well, matter.
The universe seems to get bigger because more and more of that energy is transforming into matter every second.
It's impossible to try to count the amount of energy and mass, because the speed of energy transforming to matter is so big we cant even count how "big" the universe is at the moment.
However, I also believe that as the "amount" of energy and mass together is a set amount (energy "decreases", matter "increases; the sum remains the same) which means the universe "weighs" (To make this more simple) the same all the time. Just the way it "weighs" changes.
Also, this would mean that when all the energy has transformed into matter; what's next?
Some theorize that after enough time we would be going back to the one single spot of huge amounts of energy which would mean to me; that the matter starts transforming (Has started from the moment it existed) and transforms as long as it can before turning back to energy. Then again, that would mean there could be a balance between the two and no big bang would be "needed". (The energy would surely transform back into matter etc.etc. "cycles", heh.)

Then again, as these are theories; they "can't" be proven.[Well, at least I cannot] Therefore; We can't know if matter will..transform into something else. (Dark matter anyone?)

Yeah, it's nice to think about these matters; but I do have a question; What if we knew EVERYTHING, would you really want to?

Anyway, I hope I might bring some more discussion to the topic and I hope you all stay safe

reply to post by Maddogkull


The Big Bang is a theory, it states: that the universe has expanded into its current state from a primordial condition of enormous density and temperature.

Here are some of the problems in the theory among others:

Hubbles law -
witch states that redshift of light from far galaxies are constant and proportional with their distance to earth.

this theory is based on a constant that has never been found to this date, never.

Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric-
is an offspring of "General Theory of Relativity". The FLRW metric starts with the assumption of homogeneity and isotropy. It also assumes that the spatial component of the metric can be time dependent.

here we have a theory of assumptions and asumptions only. sure they have it all written down in fine formulas but the outcome is still an asumption.

Cosmological Principle -
witch states that on large spatial scales, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic. Or simply put, the universe is the same everywhere on a large scale.

Again we have a priciple based on asumption, we do not yet know the size of the universe or the scales of it.

extrapolation -
this is the process of constructing new data points outside a discrete set of known data points.
It is similar to the process of interpolation, which constructs new points between known points, but its results are often less meaningful, and are subject to greater uncertainty.

This method basically speaks for it self.

So what is the Big Bang theory really?
A theory based on asumptions, unknown constants and extrapolation. A foundation that is very unstable to say the least!.

There is a general acceptance among physicists that the Big Bang is the best model for the origin and evolution of the universe.

And therefore many. if not almost every new dicovery/theory, in the last 20 - 50 years, have been related or trying to bind themself to this theory.

Many new theories, try to take hold in science, are based apon the Big Bang theory. And many new theories back up the Big Bang theory, including the cosmic microwave background radiation discovery as the main player.

But many new theories, are also dismissed, simply because they dont fit into the Big Bang theory aswell. Witch is a shame

reply to post by WorldObserver

And NO, why on earth would I give one of the greatest discoveries in history to someone like you!

Then I guess there is no way to tell if you are being truthful or not. Oh well.

P.S. Who DO you plan on giving it too? You should just keep it. I wouldn't give up on trying to get it published somewhere. This may be your one chance to be part of "history".

[edit on 8-2-2010 by Unlimitedpossibilities]

Those galaxies with different redshifts that seem connected could be explained by just being one behind the other. With so many galaxies, I am sure there will be some like these.

The biggest problem with the big bang is assumed rapid inflation in the beginning.
Maybe it is somehow connected with dark energy, which could be some form of residual force of this rapid inflation, speeding the expansion up again?

Originally posted by WorldObserver

Yes, I have qualifications, however I lack the precise mathematical language required to satisfy the powers that be.

And NO, why on earth would I give one of the greatest discoveries in history to someone like you!

Now that is funny. You are funny!

Imagine how rediculous you sound. You're coming into this public forum claiming to have a correct thoery of everything. Then you say that you've sent it to important scientists, who have ignored you. Then when someone asks you to explain your theory you say it's a secret. You're acting like a five year old. Why even participate in this conversation if only make outragous claims and then refuse to back them up? Just stay out of it if you having nothing productive to say except that you have the answer to all our questions and will not share it with anyone. That kind of nonsense should be a T&C violation.

I think the problem with the Big Bang Theory is the illusion of redshift as it applies to photons. We are currently using a scientific model that recognizes the redshift as an indicator of distance between bodies in the universe. Science does not seem to correctly apply another reality: that photons themselves can lose/transfer energy, also causing the illusion.

There are some who claim to have channeled higher intelligences who stated that our model of the creation of the material universe as the "big bang" is patently false. They describe it as "always was, always will be" however periodically it necessarily needs a sort of "reconditioning" requiring near infinite unquantifiable amounts of energy, evens by their standards, performed by entities who operate on levels much higher than they do. I think Robert Monroe comments about this in his third book about his OOBE travels outside of the human existence.

I find the "steady state" model of the universe argument much easier to accept. Although the idea of the universe as having a specific beginning point (and thus according to our logic - also having a predicted end-state) practically verifies our idea of, and satisfies our need for a GOD who set it all in motion. If it has a birth and a death then it must be like us, and thus probably has a "parent".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an atheist by any standard! But I do think our general concept of GOD is misunderstood. This thread is not about theology so I won't go anymore into that.

Our idea of the Big Bang Theory has however produced a very unique and somewhat accurate discipline: the science of the singularity. In fact its this phenomenon that has pushed quantum theory into the mainstream. And quantum science is extremely important to the future of mankind's development in all sciences.

reply to post by Sarkron


Christians make stuff up for thousands of years and they are held as absolute truths, scientists change their theories to accommodate new evidence and they are blasted for it? Please explain that logic.