Why Big Bang is Implausible

Summary: Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted cosmological model. It has been widely claimed that it is well supported by evidence. However it is found that it is only a convenient explanation for several observations but the assumptions underlying Big Bang theory are neither supported by independent evidence nor meet the test of plausibility. Big Bang theory and observations explained by it are the only evidence in support of assumptions underlying Big Bang theory. Moreover alternative explanations to the same observations do exist but they have not been duly considered so far. The big theory in brief is as under (Ref: Wikipedia):The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe. According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.77 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe. After this time, the Universe was in an extremely hot and dense state and began expanding rapidly. After the initial expansion, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. Though simple atomic nuclei could have formed quickly, 3, 79,000 years were needed before the appearance of the first electrically neutral atoms. The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies, and the heavier elements were supposed to have been synthesized either within stars or during supernovae. The Big Bang is the most widely accepted theory within the scientific community. Evidence in its support include the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram for Type Ia supernovae. The core ideas of the Big Bangthe expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, and the formation of galaxiesare derived from these and other observations that are independent of any cosmological model. As the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, it is inferred that everything was closer together in the past.

Quite often straight line logical interpretation of available evidence gives rise to theories which are nothing more than a convenient summary of observations. However the only reasonable approach would be examining consistency of such theories with large number of well established facts and natural laws embracing the theory. Karl R. Popper has rightly said that theories cant be proved on the basis of evidence alone. A single observation contradicting the theory is sufficient to disprove the theory. A theory has also to be tested on the basis of Plausibility Principle which means that for a theory to be true and correct, it has to be plausible with all laws and things embracing it. Hertz observed that Maxwells Equations have been accepted on the basis of Plausibility Principle, since the underlying logic was difficult to understand. Further same set of facts can give rise to multiple theories and then all the competing theories have to be differentiated against each other on all possible parameters to arrive at the most acceptable theory. Big Bang theory is implausible on the following among other grounds:1. 2. 3. 4. 5. No explanation is provided about source of dense matter. There is no answer to the question What exactly is/was dense matter? What is the independent evidence supporting existence of dense matter? What precipitated Big Bang in the so called dense matter? How was the pre Big Bang Universe filled with an incredibly high energy density,homogeneously and isotropically with huge temperatures and pressures. 6. What is the source of this energy? 7. What exactly is high energy density and what independent evidence supports its existence? 8. In the pre Big Bang universe laws of physics did not apply. So was it a total chaos or some other set of laws applied. If later was the case than what were the laws applicable to pre Big Bang universe? 9. How can subatomic particles keep their independent existence for 3, 79,000 years when this is not normally known to happen? 10.How Big Bang led to a universe organized on the basis of laws of physics?

11.What is the source of laws of Physics in the absence of external interference? 12.Cant the evidence in support of Big Bang theory be explained on the basis of the assumption that universe keeps getting created all the time and hence keeps expanding under the conditions even now prevalent. So no extraordinary conditions are required for creation and expansion of universe. The natural laws that operated in the beginning are operative even now and shall remain operative in future as well? 13.How could giant clouds of primordial elements coalesce through gravity to form stars and galaxies? 14. How is observed diversity in elemental composition of planets and stars consistent with Big Bang Theory? In brief Big Bang Theory as an explanation of origin of universe is quite implausible when examined on the basis of Plausibility Principle. Author: Dr Mahesh C. Jain is a practicing medical doctor has written the book Encounter of Science with Philosophy A synthetic view. The book begins with first chapter devoted to scientifically valid concept of God and then explains cosmic phenomena right from origin of nature and universe up to origin of life and evolution of man. The book includes several chapters devoted to auxiliary concepts and social sciences as corollaries to the concept of God. Consciousness is one of the aspects of and had to precede origin of universe. This is the only book which deals with origin of nature and universe from null or Zero or nothing. Visit:http:// www.sciencengod.com http://www.sciencengod.com/clipboard.htm