The Big Bang and Evolution- Help!

[sophia jane]

So, I'm attempting to write this paper for school, and I can't find nearly enough research which is really frustrating me. It doesn't help that my understanding of science, basically, sucks. So here's my problem: I'm writing about some of the changes in science curriculum in public schools, why and how they changed. My primary focus is the big bang and evolution. Now with evolution, that's not a problem because there's all kinds of info on creationism v evolution. But I'm having trouble with the big bang stuff.

Does anyone know what the alternate theories used to be for the formation of the universe? Or is it just creation? And does anyone have any idea where I can find documentation about changes in teaching of the big bang, controversy over implementation,etc? Or search terms that may work better? Cuz I've googled so many things, I've gone through lots of searches in my school library and my local library, and I've got nada. And I know many of you are way smarter than me. At least in science stuff!

 

[TheEarl]

I don't know much about it, but I know that the alternative to the Big Bang is the Static State Theory, which states that the universe has always been here, more or less.

Hope that gives you a google starting point.

The Earl

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I found this but it doesn't say what they (scientist) thought prior to this...

In 1927, the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître was the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom. His proposal came after observing the red shift in distant nebulas by astronomers to a model of the universe based on relativity. Years later, Edwin Hubble found experimental evidence to help justify Lemaître's theory. He found that distant galaxies in every direction are going away from us with speeds proportional to their distance.

 

[sophia jane]

I don't know much about it, but I know that the alternative to the Big Bang is the Static State Theory, which states that the universe has always been here, more or less.

Hope that gives you a google starting point.

The Earl

Yes, I think that might help. I don't have to go in depth explaining theories, but I do need to know what, if any, dispute or controversy there was. I'll look into this. Thanks!

 

[gauchecritic]

Interesting question. I've just been googling and can only find one other (Earl's Steady (or static) state) which can include either of two 'models'.

One is cyclical. The universe has always been (I should think that's probable since it's also infinite) and expands and contracts in cycles. After the 'big bang' and the expansion, then comes the contraction. (all matter exerting gravity on all other matter) and so comes to a point and becomes another 'big bang'.

As far as I can make out the other theory is that the universe simply exists and various parts of it (galaxies etc) explode then contract independantly, giving any amount of 'little bangs'. Time and space is and always will be and it's just the matter that ebbs and flows in density.

I imagine that before the 'big bang' there just wasn't enough maths to come up with any other idea except creation.

 

[3113]

But I'm having trouble with the big bang stuff.

Well, there are alternative theories to the BB. The problem is, most such theories won't work for your paper because they are ones argued by scientists to scientists rather than put in textbook.

As mentioned, for example, the one which says that the universe has pretty much always existed and there really doesn't need to have been anything to start it. This is the famous: "The Big Bang Never Happened" theory by Eric J. Lerner.

Here's a lovely website on the topic:
Problems with the Big Bang Theory

The problem is, none of these, like alternate evolutonary theory, propose Intelligence behind the origin--just alternate origins. So they're not embraced by those wanting to change science textbooks.

I *suspect* that most folk working to change science textbooks would rather have all mention of the universe's origins erased entirely and there be no discussion of it whatsoever.

 

[sophia jane]

Well, there are alternative theories to the BB. The problem is, most such theories won't work for your paper because they are ones argued by scientists to scientists rather than put in textbook.

As mentioned, for example, the one which says that the universe has pretty much always existed and there really doesn't need to have been anything to start it. This is the famous: "The Big Bang Never Happened" theory by Eric J. Lerner.

Here's a lovely website on the topic:
Problems with the Big Bang Theory

The problem is, none of these, like alternate evolutonary theory, propose Intelligence behind the origin--just alternate origins. So they're not embraced by those wanting to change science textbooks.

I *suspect* that most folk working to change science textbooks would rather have all mention of the universe's origins erased entirely and there be no discussion of it whatsoever.

What I'm most curious about, and which seems nearly impossible to find, is what was taught before big bang entered the picture. Looking into historical curriculum patterns has been a relatively unsuccessful venture. It's just not written about, I guess.

 

[3113]

What I'm most curious about, and which seems nearly impossible to find, is what was taught before big bang entered the picture. Looking into historical curriculum patterns has been a relatively unsuccessful venture. It's just not written about, I guess.

If you're talking public education, I doubt anything was taught. Keep in mind, the Scopes Trial was in 1925. Most of the U.S. did not allow teachers to teach evolution or any theory that ran counter to Biblical teachings.

Big Bang theory was first proposed in 1931 (this was the previously mentioned "atom" theory) ironically, enough, by a Roman Catholic Priest: Georges Lemaître

So the Big Bang theory made its way into textbooks for U.S. public schools at, I'm guessing, around the same time as evolution was making its way into them.

That's assuming that Astronomy beyond just naming the planets in the solar system was even taught in public schools before the 1950's and the space race--which made everyone interested in astronomy.

 

[Straight-8]

I know you said you don't need info on evolutionary theory but that is the topic of the two you raise which I know something about - only as an enthusiastic amateur. Evolutionary theory is about much more than the gradual transformation of one form of life into another. The most interesting writer on this topic that I have encountered is Stephen Jay Gould.

He (and others) put forward a 'periodicity' theory for evolution which postulates that periods of evolutionary change within a species are relatively fast and infrequent. So, for example, a giraffe is not busy becoming a 'newgiraffe'. The animal has evolved to what it is but, stimulated by some 'environmental development', the species could evolve into a new species to take advantage of that development. This is referred to as the 'punctuated equilibrium theory'.

The real question that leaves open is: what is the environmental development' that stimulates evolution? In his book on the Burgess Shales, Wonderful Life, he examined the implications of the discovery that, although speciation has increased since Cambrian times, the orders of life have substantially decreased since the 'Cambrian explosion'. In what has been referred to as the introduction of the chaos theory into biology, Gould argues that one of the primary evolutionary forces is 'chance' and not just the Darwinian imperative of 'survival of the fittest'.

His theories are controversial and many have been attacked and some, argueably, refuted. Like any brilliant thinker he is ahead of his times and occasionally mis-steps but provokes serious thought. In my view he may have overstated the case for 'chance' as an evolutionary element but probably needed to in order to shake up the conventional 'Darwinian' view. In the end it seems clear that the evolutionary stimulus is multi-factorial; and the factors have not yet all been identified.

Here's a link to one of his short papers: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_1_109/ai_59210814/print

As far as I know the pre- Big Bang theory was that the universe was infinite and had existed for all time. Then it was that it was collapsing. Now it is that it is still expanding and the cause is the big bang.

 

[Pure]

my guess would be that some form of 'steady state' or cyclical [alternating expansion and contraction] theory was at least implied in the treatment of cosmological origins; i.e., there is no 'beginning.' or, speaking in scientific terms, there is no reason to postulate one.

this amounts to infinite extention backwards, which is to assume the 'laws of physics' are that way, always, and forever back infinitely into the past.

one reason for saying this is that it's commonly observed that Big Bang is *way too much like the Bible.* so I think many scientists didn't want that kind of 'singular event.'

a analogy would be for the universe: iirc, before einstein, most people of the Newton camp thought of infinite extension. then the idea of 'finite universe' was proposed.
---

3113
I liked that website on objections to the 'big bang.' I think the authors may be correct that problems are accumulating, and their full force may not be acknowledged. i notice also that one author mentions, among the alternatives, 'modified steady state.'

 

[Salvor-Hardon]

Taking a tack from the other side I found this site

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_hist.htm

Shows a bit of the history of evolution as curriculum and the controversies surrounding it with references for furtherexploration.

 

[Straight-8]

Taking a tack from the other side I found this site

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_hist.htm

Shows a bit of the history of evolution as curriculum and the controversies surrounding it with references for furtherexploration.

Yeah, and medical science is really just a bunch of 'healing angels' disguised as drugs !

 

[Zeb_Carter]

What I'm most curious about, and which seems nearly impossible to find, is what was taught before big bang entered the picture. Looking into historical curriculum patterns has been a relatively unsuccessful venture. It's just not written about, I guess.

The Universe was flat until the big bang theory was invented! Or was it round? Oh well who knows?

 

[Salvor-Hardon]

Yeah, and medical science is really just a bunch of 'healing angels' disguised as drugs !

Oh god, I swallowed an angel! And it was cherry flavored!

 

[Stella_Omega]

The Universe was flat until the big bang theory was invented! Or was it round? Oh well who knows?

It was an inverted cone- and centered on us.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

It was an inverted cone- and centered on us.

Interesting. So were we the Ice Cream or the pointy end?

 

[Guest]

Remember Sophia, The Intelligent Design people would remind you

Evolution is just a theory.










like gravity

 

[CharleyH]

Interesting question. I've just been googling and can only find one other (Earl's Steady (or static) state) which can include either of two 'models'.

One is cyclical. The universe has always been (I should think that's probable since it's also infinite) and expands and contracts in cycles. After the 'big bang' and the expansion, then comes the contraction. (all matter exerting gravity on all other matter) and so comes to a point and becomes another 'big bang'.

As far as I can make out the other theory is that the universe simply exists and various parts of it (galaxies etc) explode then contract independantly, giving any amount of 'little bangs'. Time and space is and always will be and it's just the matter that ebbs and flows in density.

I imagine that before the 'big bang' there just wasn't enough maths to come up with any other idea except creation.

I believe in a cyclical theory, but look up Stephan Hawkings, Sophia. He is the easiest to read about the big bang because he puts it in non-scientific terms. There are many theories and I 'think' he has changed his concept about vibration theories? Yet he does it in a way all can understand. Read him - he is your best bet in regards to your original question.

 

[Goldie Munro]

Have you tried wikipedia? Usually has some info on anything you want!

 

[sophia jane]

I believe in a cyclical theory, but look up Stephan Hawkings, Sophia. He is the easiest to read about the big bang because he puts it in non-scientific terms. There are many theories and I 'think' he has changed his concept about vibration theories? Yet he does it in a way all can understand. Read him - he is your best bet in regards to your original question.

Actually, the required text for the class is his A brief history of time. I obviously didn't understand or read the whole thing.

 

[Straight-8]

Actually, the required text for the class is his A brief history of time. I obviously didn't understand or read the whole thing.

Ahh! a bad little student who needs to be spanked....maybe that would teach you about the big bang!

 

[kendo1]

Seems a wee bit strange (or have I missed a post?) that no-one has mentioned the first book of the Bible - Genesis.
Perhaps this was taught prior to the Big Bang?

 

[Oblimo]

I believe in a cyclical theory, but look up Stephan Hawkings, Sophia. He is the easiest to read about the big bang because he puts it in non-scientific terms.

It was also, by his own admission, wrong. If I am up-to-date (and I'm probably not), he is still advocating the no boundary proposal, which is (IMO) just as cool:

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.

Link to text of the entire public lecture

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The two competing theories of the origin of the universe were the Steady-state and the Big Bang. It's been knwon since the 30's that the universe is expanding, with galaxies flying away from each other. The Steady State theory proposed that gravity would eventually slow the expansion and the universe would start to contract and collapse back to a point, then begin to expand again. Physicists liked this theory because it presevred the Law o Conservation of Mass-Energy that said that mass-energy could not be crerated nor destroyed but always stayed constant, one of the cornerstones of physics.

In the Big Bang theory, the creation of the universe was a unique event that happened only once. The universe would keep on expanding forever. The Big Bang required the creation of mass-energy from "nothing" and posed a lot of theoretical problems.

(there are other, more fringey theories now, such as the idea that mass-energy is constantly being drained from our universe and into another through black holes while fresh mass-energy is being spewed back into ours through "white holes" but there's no evidence for white holes.)

It's possible to calculate how much mass the universe would have to contain to slow the expanasion and cause it to start contracting, and the calculations in the 50's showed that the universe comes up short, which was a blow to the Steady-Staters. However, some theorized the existence of "dark matter" between the galaxies which would exert gravitional force but be undetectable by electromagnetic (light or radio etc) radiation.

Time for a very cool accidental scientific discovery: Two Bell Lab scientists playing with microwave communications in th early 60's kept on getting microwave static on their equipment whenever they pointed it at the sky, no matter where they looked and no matter how they tried to shield it. Microwave radiaton is like light whose wavelength is too long for our eyes to detetct, like radio waves. It wasn't coming from the stars. It wasn't coming from the clouds of gas between the stars. It was coming from all over the universe. What it turned out to be was the dying echo of the original flash of the Big Bang from about 12.7 billion years ago, kind of like rolling electromagnetic thunder still reverberating through space.

This one observation did more than anything to establish the Big Bang as the most likely explanation of the origin of the universe, because nothing in the Steady State theory could account for it.

Since then, the Big Bang has been able to explain a lot of very puzzling and mysterious facts about the universe we couldn't understand before. Why is the universe "lumpy"? That is, why is matter not distributed evenly, but rather in clusters of galaxies? Why are galaxies spiral-shaped (because the first generation of stars were massive super stars that collapsed into black holes that are now sucking mass into them. Our sun is a second or third generation star)

We know an amazing amount about the first seconds of the creation of the universe now, juts based on theoretical calculations. We know the origincal universe was about the size of an atom. We know it took about 100,000,000 years for the cloud of gas created to cool enough for electrons and protons and neurtons to form atoms. We know that before that the universe was totally dark, because the plasma of subatomic particles was opaque to light. We know that the early universe was composed entirely of hydrogen and helium

If you want to find a nice, undestandable source on this, see if you can find the Time-Life Science series book on Astronomy. I've always thought Time-Life did an excellent job in all their books. But I thin k just about any intro to cosmology or astronomy would have a pretty good discussion on the debate between the two theories. The discvery of the cosmic background microwave radiation is one of the most famous discoveries in science.

The big question of course, and the one that still gives me chills, is what was there before the Big Bang?

 

[Oblimo]

On a related note, this Scientific American article, explaining how the universe can be theorized to expand without needing a higher dimensional space to expand into, rawks.