Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

Einstein's theory of relativity is generally considered to have been confirmed when Sir Author Eddington journeyed to Africa in 1919 to observe an eclipse. His experiments confirmed that light was indeed bent by the sun's gravity, and to the degree predicted by Einstein's theory within experimental error. The deviation has been confirmed much more accurately many times in the years since.As joz mentions, relativity also explained the precession of Mercury, which had hitherto been a mystery.Another confirmation is the correct prediction of the difference in the passage of time of clocks in different non-inertial reference frames. Billiance does not relieve a scientist of the responsibilty of supporting his claims with evidence. I hope you'll continue to note when a scientific theory has been insufficiently supported, and within the constraints of time and the message board format I'm sure people here will try to accomodate you.--Percy

To answer this it would help to better understand what you're questioning. Are you asking:

• What came before the Big Bang? (we don't know, by the way)
• Was there a Big Bang?
• Is the universe expanding?
• What is the evidence for Einsteinian relativity?
• What is the evidence for antimatter?
• Other questions?

You've stated several times that you believe people are blindly accepting what scientists say. I think you'll find this isn't the case. First, theories in science become accepted because scientists become convinced, and it's evidence that does the convincing. If Eddington had found light wasn't bent by gravity in 1919 then when you said "Einstein" people would answer, "Who?" Einstein wasn't born into the great and respected scientist job. He earned this position because his theories were supported by evidence and revolutionized science in the early 20th century.It is possible you're looking at things the wrong way around. You don't just declare yourself a great scientist and then make sweeping pronouncments. Rather, you first do the hard work and establish a record of accomplishment recognized by other scientists, and only then might you become recognized as a great scientist.Crash's plumbing example might help a little. Do you call a plumber who declares that he's a great plumber? Or do you call a plumber who has a reputation in your community for being a great plumber? The latter, right? And how did he get the reputation for being a great plumber? He didn't just say, "Hey, I'm a great plumber, hire me." No, he worked on job after job after job for year after year after year and established a record of quality work.In general, that's how scientists do it, too.--Percy

How well do the basics of your beliefs reconcile with evidence gathered from the natural world?--Percy

All that separates beliefs based upon the Bible from beliefs based upon science is real world evidence. Bible-based beliefs about the natural world, such as that the Big Bang didn't happen, are rejected by science not because they're based upon the Bible, but because they are inconsistent with or even contradicted by real-world evidence. I was willing to let you choose whatever facets of your beliefs you think are supported by evidence.When the Bible speaks of days having a morning and an evening we know it is scientifically accurate because we can observe mornings and evenings. But when the Bible talks about men living to be 900 years old or about global floods, then we question its accuracy because we can find no evidence that such things ever happened.Not having evidential support doesn't make your beliefs wrong, but it does mean they're not science.--Percy

I think this ground has already been gone over before, but rather than read through what is becoming a long thread I'll just keep this brief.Hubble's discovery that in general galaxies are receding from all other galaxies provided the evidence that the universe is expanding. Extrapolating backwards led to the realization that all matter must once have all been compressed into a singularity which expanded into the universe we see today. The initiation of that expansion was derisively given the name Big Bang by Fred Hoyle, an opponent of the idea and a proponent of the now discarded steady state theory.It was theorized that the remants of the Big Bang should be detectable as cosmic background radiation of a specific frequency arriving from all directions. In the mid-twentieth century, while constructing highly sensitive antennae Wilson and Penzias of Princeton detected this radiation, at first believing it was man-made interference, but eventually deducing the actual source. The frequency of the radiation was found to be in fair accord with the theoretical prediction. They received the Nobel Prize for this discovery.Receding galaxies and the cosmic background radiation are both strongly supportive of Big Bang theory. No other proposal has proved anywhere near as successful at explaining the evidence.--Percy

I feel like I've heard this before... I read the same article a week or two ago, glad you posted this. I think I had the same problem you did in feeling there was too much I didn't quite follow, but what was most significant for me was how they resolved the singularity by applying quantum principles.--Percy

The SciAm article was about the very beginning of the Big Bang, about which we know very little because the laws of physics as currently understood don't apply very well. As the article makes clear, there are different theories, and at present two frontrunners. The author preferred the answers suggested by string theory. I think you may be switching horses in mid-stream. You raised questions about the very beginning of the Big Bang, not the Big Bang itself. As anyone here will tell you, there is a lot of uncertainty about the very beginning.But not about what came after. There are no significant differences of opinion within science on what came after the Big Bang. That doesn't mean science is right, but your claiming that scientists are uncertain and keep changing their minds, and this isn't true.The evidence strongly supports current theory that the universe has been expanding from the Big Bang for about 13.7 billion years, and that the expansion is accelerating. There is very little doubt about this at present. To doubt the Big Bang because you don't know much about its origins would be akin to doubting houses because you don't know much about where lumber comes from. Since all science is tentative, I think most here would agree with you. Are you talking about the origins of the Big Bang? Then yes, I guess so, though I don't know whether the 5 years you give is too large or too small. Science doesn't know everything, and never well, and the origins of the Big Bang is still something we don't understand very well.But if you're talking about the Big Bang itself, then no, it does not have a major overhaul every 5 years. We've understood for over 50 years that all the matter in the universe once existed in a very small space. Our understanding of the details has improved over time, most recently with the discovery that the expansion is accelerating, but there's been nothing resembling a major overhaul. If you're seeking true controversies within the scientific community you'll have to look elsewhere.--Percy