“Scientists Say They Just Found Landmark Evidence for the Big Bang That Offers a Window ‘Back to the Beginning of Time’”

Full article here.

This made big news the last couple of days, so I thought I would make some comments and pose some questions.  A lot will be directed at the author (Billy Hallowell) of the article, but I’ll address quotes by the scientists as well.

First, I will say I’m happy and excited that they made this discovery.

“Scientists believe they’ve had a major breakthrough in the search to better understand the universe’s origins.  Researchers recently observed what they believe to be an echo from the Big Bang…“

I think this is a key point to make.  Scientists believe, but that doesn’t mean their interpretation of the data is correct.  Nor does it prove the Big Bang theory 100% true.

“… the cosmic theory that is believed to account for how the universe was born and formed nearly 14 billion years ago.”

How do they know it was 14 billion years ago?  Could it have been 20 billion years ago?  Or how about 100 billion years ago?  We need observable and testable data to prove this assertion.

“A coalition of researchers say they’ve spotted evidence that a split-second after the Big Bang, the expansion of the cosmos began with a powerful jump-start.”

How do they know it was a split-second?  We need observable and testable data to prove this assertion.

“Although many scientists already believed that an initial, extremely rapid growth spurt happened, finding this evidence has been a key goal in the study of the universe. Researchers reported Monday that they finally did it by peering into an echo of sorts — and observing the faint light that remains from the Big Bang.”

So they believed in the inflation without any evidence?  Where is the testable and observable data?   How do they know this echo and faint light came from The Big Bang?  The definition of an echo is the repetition of a sound caused by reflection of sound waves.  What did this faint light reflect off of so that it would be discovered by scientists?

“If verified, the discovery ‘gives us a window on the universe at the very beginning,’ when it was far less than one-trillionth of a second old,’ said theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University, who was not involved in the work.  ‘It’s just amazing,’ he said. ‘You can see back to the beginning of time.'”

Really?  How do you know it was one-trillionth of a second old?  Where is the testable and observable data?

“Another outside expert, physicist Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the finding already suggests that some ideas about the rapid expansion of the universe can be ruled out.”

So scientists are and can be wrong.  That is good to know.

“Right after the Big Bang, the universe was a hot soup of particles. It took about 380,000 years to cool enough that the particles could form atoms, then stars and galaxies, scientists say. Billions of years later, planets formed from gas and dust that were orbiting stars.”

Where is the testable and observable data for all these assertions?  How do you know it was a hot soup of particles?  How do you know it took about 380,000 years to cool?  How do you know the cooled particles formed atoms, then stars and galaxies?  How do you know it was billions of years later, planets formed from gas and dust that were orbiting the stars?

“‘Detecting this signal is one of the most important goals in cosmology today. A lot of work by a lot of people has led up to this point,’ Kovac said.”

Is it a signal or is it faint light?  And how do you know this signal is proof of universe inflation?  Where is the testable and observable data?

“Harvard theorist Avi Loeb said the discovery provides a lens into some of life’s most basic questions: ‘Why do we exist? How did the universe begin?'”

How does this “signal” in any way answer the question as to why we exist?  You can’t test or observe “why” humans exist.  Why was there a Big Bang?  And where is all the testable and observable data a Big Bang happened?

“For their research, astronomers scanned about 2 percent of the sky for three years with a telescope at the South Pole, chosen for its very dry air to aid in the observations.  They were looking for a specific pattern in light waves within the faint microwave glow left over from the Big Bang. The pattern has long been considered evidence of the rapid growth spurt, known as inflation. Kovac called it ‘the smoking gun signature of inflation.'”

2 percent?  That is all?  So there is a microwave glow, how do you know it was caused by the Big Bang?  Where is the testable and observable data for the source of this microwave glow?  How do you know the specific pattern of light waves had its source in the Big Bang?  Again where is the testable and observable data to back up that assertion?  Perhaps the light pattern has a source in something else?

“The scientists say the light-wave pattern was caused by gravitational waves, which are ripples in the interweaving of space and time that sprawls through the universe. If confirmed, the new work would be the first detection of such waves from the birth of the universe, which have been called the first tremors of the Big Bang.”

How can these beliefs be tested and directly observed?

“Arizona State’s Krauss cautioned that it’s possible that the light-wave pattern is not a sign of inflation, although he stressed that it’s ‘extremely likely’ that it is. It’s ‘our best hope’ for a direct test of whether the rapid growth spurt happened, he said.”

Very interesting.  So Kraus admits that the light-wave pattern could possibly not be a sign of inflation.  Then I see words like “best hope.”  A direct test?  Sounds like there are a huge number of assumptions and speculation.  Sound like scientists putting a lot of “faith” into untestable and unobservable speculation and philosophy to me.

What we know:

1) There is a faint microwave glow with an unknown source.

2) There is a light wave pattern with an unknown source.

Seems to me there are a lot of scientists making a bunch of claims that can neither be tested nor observed using proper scientific principles.  All they can do is look at what can be observed and tested (faint microwave glow permeating the universe and a light wave pattern) and then coming up with a bunch of assumptions, speculation, and hopes.  Then they call it science and demand we all believe it as unquestionable truth.

There will be many people who believe this because these scientists tell them what happened and what they did.

Hmm… that sounds familiar.  But somehow those of us who believe what the people said happened and witnessed about God (written down for us in the Bible) is somehow different.