Scientific Problems with the Big Bang

Missing Monopoles Most people know about magnets-like the kind found in a compass or the kind that sticks to a refrigerator. We often say that magnets have two poles a North Pole and a South Pole. Poles that are alike well repel each other, while Opposites attract. A monopole is a hypothetical massive particle that is just like a magnet but has only one pole. So a monopole would have either a North Pole or a South Pole, but not both. Particle physicist claim that many magnetic monopoles should have been created in the high-temperature conditions of the Big Bang. Since monopoles are stable, they should have lasted to this day. Yet, despite considerable search efforts, monopoles have not been found. Where are the monopoles? The fact that we don't find any monopoles suggests that the Universe was never that hot. This indicates that there never was a big bang, but it is perfectly consistent with the Bible's account of creation, since the universe did not start infinitely hot. The Flatness Problem Another serious challenge to the Big Bang model is called the flatness problem. The expansion rate of the universe appears to be very finely balanced with the force of gravity; this condition is known as flat. If the universe were the accidental by/product of a big bang, it is difficult to imagine how such a fantastic coincidence could occur. Big Bang cosmology cannot explain why the matter density in the universe isn't greater, causing it to collapse upon itself (closed universe), or less, causing the universe to rapidly fly apart (open universe). The problem is even more severe when we extrapolate into the past. Since any deviation from perfect flatness tends to increase as time moves forward, it logically follows that the Universe must have been even more precisely balanced in the past past then it is today. Thus, at the moment of the Big Bang, the universe would have been virtually flat to an extremely high precision. This must have been the case (assuming the Big Bang), despite the fact that the law of physics allow for an infinite range of values. This is a coincidence that stretches credulity to the breaking point. Of course, in the creation model, balance is expected since the Lord Has fine-tuned the universe for life. Inflating the Complexities Many secular astronomers have come up with an idea called inflation in an attempt to address the flatness and monopole. Inflation proposes that the Universe temporarily went through a period of accelerated expansion. Amazingly it appears to be nothing more than an unsubstantiated conjecture- much like the big bang itself. Moreover, the inflation idea has difficulties of its own, such as what would start it and how it would stop smoothly. In addition, other problems with a big bang are not solved, even if inflation were true. These are examined below. Where Is the Antimatter? Consider the "baryon number problem." Recall that the Big Bang supposes that matter (hydrogen and helium gas) was created from energy as the universe expanded. However, experimental physics tells us that whenever matter is created from energy, such a reaction also produces antimatter. Antimatter has similar properties to matter, except the charges of the particles are reversed. (So whereas a proton has a positive charge, an antiproton as a negative charge.) Any reaction where energy is transformed into matter produces an exactly equal amount of antimatter; there are no known exceptions. The Big Bang (which has no matter to begin with, only energy) should have produced exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and that should be what we see today. But we do not. The visible universe is comprised almost entirely of matter- with only trace amounts of antimatter anywhere. This devastating problem for the Big Bang is actually consistent with Biblical creation; it is a design feature. God created the universe to be essentially matter only and it's a good thing He did. When matter and antimatter come together, they violently destroy each other. If the universe had equal amounts of matter and antimatter as the Big Bang requires, life would not be possible. Missing Population III Stars The Big Bang model by itself can only account for the existence of the three lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium). This leaves about 90 or so of the other naturally occurring elements to be explained. Since the conditions in the Big Bang are not right to form these heavier elements (as Big-bang supporters readily concede), secular astronomers believe that stars have produced the remaining elements by nuclear fusion in the core. This is thought to occur in the final stages of a massive star as it explodes (a supernova).The explosion then distributes the heavier elements into space. Second- and Third- Generation stars are thus "contaminated" with small amounts of these heavier elements. If this story were true, then the first stars would have been comprised of only the three lightest elements. Since these would have been the only elements in existence initially. Some Stars should still be around today since their potential lifespan is calculated to exceed the (Big Bang) age of the universe. Such Stars would be called Population III stars. Amazingly (to those who believe in the Big Bang), Population III stars have not been found anywhere. All known stars have at least trace amounts of heavy elements in them. It is amazing to think that our galaxy alone is estimated to have over a 100 billion stars in it, yet not one star has been discovered that is comprised of only the three lightest elements. The Collapse of the Big Bang Although it is still the dominant model at present, increasing numbers of physicists and astronomers are realizing that the Big Bang simply is not a good explanation of how the universe began. In May 22, 2004 issue of New Scientist, there appeared an open letter to the scientific community written primarily by secular scientists who challenge the Big Bang. These scientists pointed out that the copious arbitrary assumptions and the lack of successful Big Bang predictions challenge the legitimacy of the model. Among other things, they state: The Big Bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. This statement has since been signed by hundreds of other scientists and professors at various institutions. The Big Bang seems to be losing considerable popularity. Secular scientists are increasingly rejecting the Big Bang in favor of other models.