Exposing PseudoAstronomy

March 18, 2009

Defending the Big Bang: The Four Pillars of the Modern Big Bang Theory

Filed under: big bang — Stuart Robbins @ 12:30 am


This is the second post in my series on “Defending the Big Bang.” The focus of this one is to explain the four main pieces of evidence that support the modern Big Bang theory. You will notice that I am using the prefix, “modern,” to describe this theory, and that is because – like almost any scientific theory – it has been modified over time to address new information. However, the core essence of the idea – the universe started as an infinitesimal point/plane/field/brane of energy that grew to become our universe – has remained the same since it was first proposed.

Other posts in this series:

Pillar #1 – Everybody Hates Us

Okay, not really, but that’s a good way to think about the first piece of evidence that supports the Big Bang – most far-away objects are moving away from us in every direction that we look. Unless we inhabit a very special place in the universe (which modern scientific thought does not allow unless all other explanations are ruled out), then this implies not that everything is moving away from us, but that everything is moving away from everything else.

This supports a Big Bang model because it fits very well with the idea the universe is expanding. The very hackneyed thought experiment is to picture a loaf of raisin bread rising in the oven. The bread is the fabric of space and the raisins are different observers (such as us on Earth in our galaxy). As the bread rises and expands, each raisin will move away from every other raisin. Raisins that are farther away will appear to move away faster. And this is precisely what is observed.

This phenomena was first discovered by Edwin Hubble in 1929, and hence we have termed the expansion rate of the universe the “Hubble Constant,” H0.

So if we’re now at a point where the universe is expanding, then logically if you run time backwards, it would be shrinking. And if you follow it back, say, 13.7 billion years, then the entire universe would be compacted into an infinitesimally small “object.”

Pillar #2 – The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation

The CMB was discovered in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson from Bell Labs (who later received a Nobel Prize for their discovery). In every direction they pointed their microwave receiver, they “heard” a noise. This noise came from the first photons that could stream freely through the universe that have become so stretched out over time (due to the universe’s expansion) that they now exist in the microwave range.

These photons are an “echo” left over from when the universe was approximately 380,000 years old. Before this time, the universe was completely opaque to light. This is because the electrons that existed at the time were too energetic – too hot – to be bound to atomic nuclei, and therefore were able to roam freely about. This means that photons could not move about freely because they kept being absorbed and re-emitted by the electrons.

After the universe had aged to around 380,000 years, it had cooled to approximately 3000 K. Electrons no longer had enough energy to overcome the attractive force of atomic nuclei, and they became bound. Light could now stream forth unimpeded. This process is called “recombination,” and this “first light” is what we now see as the CMB Radiation.

Pillar #3 – Abundance of Light Elements

Before the CMB, when the universe had only been in existence for about 1 second, individual protons and neutrons had already been created (along with all the quarks and leptons and other subatomic particles). It was no longer hot nor dense enough to create protons nor neutrons, and so the ratio of the number of protons to neutrons was frozen in (at about 0.223).

After the universe was a few minutes old, the temperature had dropped more and the era of nucleosynthesis could begin. This is when the light atomic nuclei of deuterium, tritium, and helium could form. But, after about 4 minutes, the universe had again cooled to a point where neutrons and protons could not combine, and so the primordial ratios of these elements were frozen.

Despite the universe having been around for another 13.7 billion years (minus 4 minutes), very little of the primordial material has been used to create stars. So astronomers can go to telescopes and measure these abundances. The Big Bang predicts about 72% of the material out there is hydrogen, and 28% is helium. Astronomers have found that about 24% is helium and 76% is hydrogen, and with error bars, this is in good agreement with the theory.

Pillar #4 – Growth of Structure

The nitty gritty parts of this one require a lot of computer modeling and telescope observations, but the basic idea that the Big Bang – the expansion of the universe from something that was smaller – and the way that it unfolded is the only scientific theory that explains how the large-scale structure that we observe today on the scale of gigantic super clusters of galaxies and the voids between them.

Final Thoughts

Any theory has to explain the available data. If it doesn’t, then it must be modified to account for the data, or it must be abandoned for one that can. I don’t and won’t pretend that the Big Bang theory that exists today has been the exact same one that existed decades ago. That’s not how science works, and that’s not how the history of the theory has played out. But, the Big Bang theory is the only scientific theory that explains all available observations, and propping it up are four fundamental observations.


  1. What do you think about Arp’s claims? Afterall, the determination of the Hubble constant is very dificoult, several authors came out with extremely different figures. Please don’t think I deny the Big Bang “a priori”, I just think that it has a lot of problems in explaining the things we see. And that is ok, science is all about finding errors, but my point is another: are we sure a Quasi Steady Theory is completely to discard? How many efforts have been done in the last fifty years to “fix” the BBT? Why isn’t there the same drive to “fix” the problems of QST? I don’t know if it is harder, for me, to believe in the spontaneous creation of matter or in inflation.

    Comment by markogts — May 29, 2009 @ 12:27 am | Reply

  2. Mark(?) – I am unfamiliar with “Arp’s” claims. Perhaps you could point out a link? The Big Bang Theory has gone through several different modifications, mainly based on subtle changes to what happened very soon after it, with the most significant change being the addition of inflationary theory. The BBT is sort of like the Theory of Evolution in that sense — it is a “macro” theory that encompasses several different theories to explain different parts of it, much like a jigsaw puzzle.

    The QST has fallen out of favor – as far as I know – because the BBT is a simpler explanation for the main lines of evidence for it — especially redshift/expansion and the CMB. I do not know enough about the QST to really comment more on it, though.

    Comment by astrostu206265 — June 23, 2009 @ 8:38 pm | Reply

  3. Thank you for your answer.

    Sorry, I thought Arp was more common. Well, in two words, he is an astronomer that claims to have identified quasars with huge redshift phisically linked by bridges of matter (I imagine myself things like M51 and its neighbouring galaxy) to galaxies that have redshifts way way lower. Maybe the best way to know his point of view is his site:


    while of course wikipedia can be useful for a short version:


    I’m not an advocate of either theory. As I stated before, both theories (BB and QSS) require some beliefs (inflation or spontaneous matter generation) that are hard for me to accept.

    PS My name is Marko 🙂

    Comment by markogts — June 24, 2009 @ 12:00 am | Reply

  4. Marko – I’ve looked at the Wikipedia page you linked to and my first thought was, “If he proposed this in the ’60s, what do current observational data show? We have much deeper sky surveys now, much better telescopes, and much MUCH better detectors for determining things such as redshift and whether even visually two objects are connected whereas in older, lower-resolution data, they may appear connected.”

    Then I read the “Critics” part … which basically said the same thing. What I would argue is that if you are unwilling to adapt your theories to fit current observational evidence you have descended into the “sacred cow” realm of pseudoscience and post-hoc rationalization. Other than stating that, I do not know enough about the observations nor theory involved to properly address your question. Perhaps a reader of my blog who does could answer this.

    Comment by astrostu206265 — July 1, 2009 @ 4:36 pm | Reply

  5. Are you familiar with Milo Wolff and his theories? He has mathematical proofs, if you like, which show, according to him, that there was no big bang. If you could look at his theories and give your thought I would love your take on it.

    Comment by Carlos — January 23, 2011 @ 5:45 pm | Reply

    • Carlos – I am unfamiliar with his work. A quick look at his website, though, doesn’t seem to show anything unique among the type: Generally claiming a new physical/mathematical paradigm without any actual peer review. I don’t see anything on his site that actually sets out his arguments other than with explanatory text, I’m not going to buy his books, so I’m not sure I can really comment.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — January 23, 2011 @ 7:20 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: