The Big Bang Theory Is Probably True

I am going to have an unusual argument structure in this round, considering the scientific and philosophical inaccuracies con makes, answering any of con's remaining relevant questions, and finally, drawing it all together. Scientific Errors There are a large number of scientific errors in con's argument. The biggest one (and the most relevant to his whole argument) is his description of the BBT. The universe did not begin as a single point in space. "No, Hubble's law only says that matter was more dense everywhere at an earlier time, and that it thins out over time because everything flows away from each other. " This does not necessitate the need for a single point from which the universe expanded. [1][2] Another is that the, according to the BBT, the universe expanded into already existing space. However, space itself was created with the big bang. "The Big Bang - as far as we understand it - was not an explosion like that at all. It was an explosion of space, not an explosion in space. According to the standard models there was no space and time before the Big Bang. " So how does space expand if not from a singular point? "The big bang is the expansion or stretching of space. It is not that things are flying out from a point. Rather, all things are moving away from each other. It is like having an infinite rubber sheet with people sitting on it. Stretch the rubber sheet, and all the people move away from one another. Each thinks they are at the center of an explosion. It is an optical illusion - everybody moves away from everybody else and there is no center. "[3][7] Here is a picture showing the misconception at the top and the valid way to look at the universe's expansion at the bottom: The final inaccuracy my opponent commits about the BBT itself it the description of the early universe. The universe did not begin as gases in a "positive space container" (PSC), as the first moments after the big bang were too hot for matter to even exist. The big bang had nothing to do with nuclear fission reactions or plasmatoic reactions (the latter of which doesn't even exist). Again, there was no explosion " there was simply an expansion of space. These three problems pretty much nullify my opponent's arguments before the general assumptions are done with. There was no PSC filled with matter that exploded at some moment in time and became the observable universe. This creates a number of problems for my opponent, as his very assumptions have been refuted. The other scientific arguments my opponent makes are the first two points. The first one is false for a number of reasons. Matter/antimatter reactions produce the most energy of any reaction pound for pound, as all of the matter becomes energy, instead of just some of it, such as in nuclear reactions. Quantum fluctuations usually last for much less than a second, and annihilate each other that quickly as well, and it is entirely plausible that all of those reactions happened at the same time. And they generally involve electron/positron (the antimatter equivalent of an electron, not proton) pairs. Further, the virtual particles would not be in separate areas (i. e. two distinct areas). Here is a picture showing how quantum fluctuations actually worked. The particles annihilated each other, creating energy. Here is a Feynman diagram of the situation. Note that a reverse reaction can occur as well. The matter-to-radiation density is increasing, as the radiation turns into matter more frequently than the reverse reaction: The second argument rests on yet another fallacy concerning the BBT. There was no center of expansion. "There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. " The universe has not only been expanding in one direction - the universe has been expanding uniformly everywhere since the big bang. If we accept my opponent's argument, this argument actually backfires. Overall, because the every powering the expansion is internal, it pushes space to expand. [3] Now back to the supposed PSC problem. This assumes that there are two levels of space " the PSC itself, and the space that exists beyond it. However, again, there is no space beyond the boundaries of the universe. "If the Big Bang were an ordinary explosion in an already existing space, we would be able to look out and see the expanding edge of the explosion with empty space beyond. Instead, we see back towards the Big Bang itself and detect a faint background glow from the hot primordial gases of the early universe. This "cosmic microwave background radiation" is uniform in all directions. This tells us that it is not matter that is expanding outwards from a point, but rather it is space itself that expands evenly. " We don't see any other space beyond the observable universe, negating the idea of a two-tiered structure of space. [3] Philosophical Errors My opponent has claimed that my rejection of the PSC is against philosophy in his fourth argument. Now I've always explained two seperate times why the PSC is invalid, but I will take a more philosophical approach this time. There are only two choices " one, that space is finite, and there would no space beyond the universe (what would constrain the outside space? ) and two, that space is infinite. If we assume the former, there is no problem. If we assume the latter, time must be infinite as well. "In fact, if the whole universe is infinitely large now, then it was always infinite, including during the Big Bang as well. " In this case, there could be no PSC, as there could be no such thing as an infinite container. [4] The next philosophial (and part scientific) error my opponent makes is concluding that the laws that governed the universe were present during the big bang. Unfortunately, physics breaks down at the earliest of times due to the extremely convoluted nature of the Planck era universe. "Neither should one think that the universe expanded from some initial "point" into space. Since the Big Bang initiates the very laws of physics, one cannot expect any physical explanation of this singularity; physical laws used to explain the expansion of the universe no longer hold at any time before t>0. "[5] The only thing left is to consider whether space is expanding or matter is shrinking. Unless my opponent can provide a mechanism showing how the latter could occur and evidence that it exists, we should assume the former, as matter does not shrink. The former is confirmed by redshift. The increasing redshifting of matter in the only be explained by the distance between the point of light emission to light receiving gets longer, which can only can happen if space is expanding. Space is expanding intrinsically now because of dark energy. Questions I will now address a few of the questions my opponent asks (at least the ones I have not already addressed). For C1, I've answered the first four questions already. Question five is not a valid objection. Much like a nuclear bomb does not produce a straight line of destruction, the big bang did not produce a straight line of expansion, but rather expanded everywhere due to the energy that quantum fluctuations gave off in all directions. Question 6 is nonsensical. Even assuming the PSC exists, the matter and antimatter would be very close to each other in the container, as the virtual particles are created and then annihilated in a fraction of a second. They would not occupy two separate, distinct areas, much less two supposedly different levels of spacetime. For C2, I've answered the first two (the first is the combination of the breakdown of physical laws at T=0 and the BBT itself (which doesn't consider T=0 anyway) does not break physical laws). Question three is not a valid objection either. There are places in the universe of greater density than others due to the local effects of gravity. This leaves places like galaxies, and other places like matter voids. There is no refutation of the BBT here. For C3, these questions are just rehashes of previous ones. Even if there was a previous universe, it would have no effect on the current one. "Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. .. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside. "[6] Points on Con's Conclusion and Video I'm sure my opponent will talk about my use of observational evidence in this round, and I'll leave my discussion on that to the next round. However, I would like to address the video " my opponent making a video is bypassing the character limit. I formally request my opponent not post such video, and if he does, I formally request the voters not consider arguments made in it (not because I can't refute them, but because I wouldn't have space besides making a video myself). Sources [1]: . http://www.talkorigins.org... [2]: . http://curious.astro.cornell.edu... [3]: . http://math.ucr.edu... [4]: . http://www.cfa.harvard.edu... [5]: . http://plato.stanford.edu... [6]: . http://www.hawking.org.uk... [7]: . http://wwwphy.princeton.edu...