[sci.astro] Big Bang - no more

macey@praxis.co.uk (Ian Macey) (12/19/89)

In article <963@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu> HOWGREJ@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu writes:
>           I really don't know how you could *disprove* the BB; it's
>been pretty well accepted since the '60s.  There's a lot of data that it
>explains real well that you'd have to come up with a better explanation
>for... 3 degree background, expansion, primordial nucleosynthesis, etc.
>The BB theory, combined with Guth's inflation, does a fine job at the
>moment... seems pretty unlikely to disprove it that abruptly.  Any more
>(concrete) info on this?

I think you'll find the Big Bang theory has been looking pretty shakey for a
number of years now. I for one would put it down as a nice little theory
which seemed to work with what we knew at the time, but which almost certainly
isn't the right answer.

One of the people who has done a lot towards coming up with an alternative
theory of the existence/creation of the universe is Stephen Hawking of Oxford
University. His work involves (if I remember correctly) superstring theory and
steady state universes. For more information try his book 'A Brief History Of
Time' which is a very good read and gives a state of the art explanation for
the universe's existence.


|\\\X\\|\  |           Ian Macey  Bath, England.  (macey@praxis.co.uk)
|\\X\\\|\\ |   ----------------------------------------------------------------
|\X\\\\|\\\|           " the solution to a problem changes the problem "

gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) (12/20/89)

In article <4786@newton.praxis.co.uk> macey@praxis.co.uk (Ian Macey) writes:
#I think you'll find the Big Bang theory has been looking pretty shakey for a
#number of years now. I for one would put it down as a nice little theory
#which seemed to work with what we knew at the time, but which almost certainly
#isn't the right answer.

Can you name some points "shakey" with it, or how another theory fixes that?

#His work involves (if I remember correctly) superstring theory and
#steady state universes.

I read "A Brief History of Time" and do remember anything at all about
steady state universes. I will reread it during break.`

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w

macey@praxis.co.uk (Ian Macey) (12/21/89)

In article <2502@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) writes:
>#His work involves (if I remember correctly) superstring theory and
>#steady state universes.
>
>I read "A Brief History of Time" and do remember anything at all about
>steady state universes. I will reread it during break.`

As usual I managed to post with only half my brain in gear. I read the book
over a year ago but saw a TV program about his work on the BBC more recently
in which he talked about superstrings, his attempt to produce a unified theory
and how this would show we didn't have a big bang. I didn't video the program
so I have to rely on memory:

The program tried to expain what he was saying by two graphics; the first
[representing the big bang theory] was a 3D cone where the universe starts as
a point (the sharp end of the cone) and expands space (ie increases the radius
of the cross section of the cone) as we travel through time (ie travel along
the axis of the cone away from the sharp end). The second [new theory] was a
'round-nosed' cone whereby we still travel through time in an expanding
universe, but where there was no 'start', that is to say, no point [of the
cone] at which a big bang occured. This wasn't explained in much depth and I'm
unsure whether they ment that time slowed exponentially the further back you
went or what. Anyway they were definately saying that he didn't have much
faith in the big bang theory.

And of course he is at Cambridge, not Oxford... :-(

|\\\X\\|\  |           Ian Macey  Bath, England.  (macey@praxis.co.uk)
|\\X\\\|\\ |   ----------------------------------------------------------------
|\X\\\\|\\\|               *Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year*