The study "confirming" the Big Bang is under fire

[haidut]

I posted about the original study, and how some of the biggest names is physics were saying at the time that the study is political and most likely wrong. Now more information against the conclusions for Big Bang is emerging:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -big-bang/

 

[pboy]

at the end of the day you still have to ask what created the big bang and why, and why was it structured in such a way and according to some kind of rules that when or if it did implode would have the potential to cause this universe. It doesn't even apply to anything practical

 

[Such_Saturation]

You find red-shift anomalies? Fire you first, talk about it later. You claim to find gravitational waves? Call the press immediately, review the paper some other time.

 

[jaa]

at the end of the day you still have to ask what created the big bang and why, and why was it structured in such a way and according to some kind of rules that when or if it did implode would have the potential to cause this universe. It doesn't even apply to anything practical

Lawrence Kraus' a Universe from nothing does a decent job of answering that, without really answering it. A universe like ours can arise from quantum fluctuations. As for why our universe has the properties it does, the best answer is multiverse theory and anthropic principal. This still doesn't get to the heart of the matter though. Where did the first bit of energy come from? Sadly, I don't think it's possible for humans to ever answer.

 

[pboy]

yea and perhaps that's part of the design...or just a good coincidence. What if we did know? it might ruin the whole experience

 

[jaa]

Yeah for sure. I believe it would, and hold the contradictory belief that the more information a person has the better. Hmm

 

[CellularIconoclast]

Do any of you guys subscribe to the timeless physics paradigm?

 

[j.]

The universe is just a giant living being. You guys are complicating things unnecessarily.