Xref: utzoo talk.origins:7434 sci.physics:10780 sci.space:16244 sci.astro:5956
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!ukc!stc!praxis!hilbert!macey
From: macey@praxis.co.uk (Ian Macey)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.physics,sci.space,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Big Bang - no more
Message-ID: <4786@newton.praxis.co.uk>
Date: 19 Dec 89 15:51:56 GMT
References: <822@tahoma.UUCP> <963@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu>
Sender: news@praxis.co.uk
Reply-To: macey@praxis.co.uk (Ian Macey)
Organization: Praxis Systems plc, Bath, UK
Lines: 25

In article <963@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu> HOWGREJ@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu writes:
>           I really don't know how you could *disprove* the BB; it's
>been pretty well accepted since the '60s.  There's a lot of data that it
>explains real well that you'd have to come up with a better explanation
>for... 3 degree background, expansion, primordial nucleosynthesis, etc.
>The BB theory, combined with Guth's inflation, does a fine job at the
>moment... seems pretty unlikely to disprove it that abruptly.  Any more
>(concrete) info on this?

I think you'll find the Big Bang theory has been looking pretty shakey for a
number of years now. I for one would put it down as a nice little theory
which seemed to work with what we knew at the time, but which almost certainly
isn't the right answer.

One of the people who has done a lot towards coming up with an alternative
theory of the existence/creation of the universe is Stephen Hawking of Oxford
University. His work involves (if I remember correctly) superstring theory and
steady state universes. For more information try his book 'A Brief History Of
Time' which is a very good read and gives a state of the art explanation for
the universe's existence.


|\\\X\\|\  |           Ian Macey  Bath, England.  (macey@praxis.co.uk)
|\\X\\\|\\ |   ----------------------------------------------------------------
|\X\\\\|\\\|           " the solution to a problem changes the problem "