"GlasserAlan"@LLL-MFE.ARPA (06/18/83)
The main evidence for the big bang over the steady state universe is the existence and nature of the cosmic microwave background radiation, not arcane mathematical theories. This radiation was discovered by Penzias and Wilson at Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey, in 1965, and they got the Nobel Prize for it. It has the spectrum of an ideal black body at a temperature of about 3 degrees Kelvin. It is isotropic with a precision of about 1 part in 10,000. It has been interpreted as the afterglow of the big bang, after cooling due to the adiabatic expansion of the universe. This is a very natural consequence of the big bang, while no satisfactory explanation has been proposed for the steady state model. The best popular-level reference on the subject of the big bang is "The First Three Minutes", by Steven Weinberg. Since that book was written there has been a major development called inflation, which uses unified field theories to explain certain aspects the earliest phases of the big bang. Popularized accounts can be found in recent issues of Science and of Physics Today. As for your desire to believe in the steady state universe, it would certainly be nice to believe that *something* will last forever, but there seems to be no cause for comfort here. Perhaps an alternative which could fill your need for a quasi-religious faith is the idea that the big bang and the expanding universe may be followed by a contracting phase and a big crunch, if the mass density in the universe is sufficient to overcome the expansion. The big crunch may then be followed by another big bang, and on ad infinitum in an oscillating universe. Things could then go on forever, but in a rather different manner than you imagined.
mat@hou5e.UUCP (06/24/83)
BTW, if you have not already seen it, the June National Geographic covers modern cosmological understandings, tho' in a somewhat watered down fashion. There is a chronology of the universe, beginning with: -43 10 seconds. Physics starts here. For me, this is the most awesome statement in the whole article. Physics has always represented, to me, something that is fundemental. All of the other sciences depend on physics, in one way or another. (No, I don't consider Mathematics a Science.) Here is a statement that capsulizes the very limits of our understanding ... and, maybe even the limits of our dreams. Also, check up on Sci. Am. over the last 15 years or so. Mark Terribile Duke of deNet