HU Lost Horizons: The Big Bang bbc4 9pm

[Glen]

Just a little heads up..

HU Lost Horizons: The Big Bang bbc4 9pm

The theory that the universe began from nothing has not always been accepted with the same conviction it is today. Professor Jim Al Khalili looks through 50 years of the BBC science archive to explain how scientists have pieced together the popular theory by using curious horn-shaped antennae, U-2 spy planes and particle accelerators

Repeat, but worth a watch again

Glen

[Nexus 6]

seen this and ment to post a heads up for it, definately worth a look!

thanks for the reminder Glen

[whirlpool5194]

Thanks for the heads up

Wp

[TFC]

Watched this last night and as usual am more confused than before I watched it.

I appreciate that only a fraction of current thinking can be compressed into a one hour TV show aimed at the layman, but some of the 'information' is confusing.

The big bang was initially intended as a derogatory term for the expanding universe theory that opposed the existing steady state theory.

Edwin Hubble discovered the expanding universe and by exprapolation, it has been concluded that in the past the universe was smaller - taking that to a 'logical' conclusion, at some time in the past the universe must have been infinitely small.

For every day purposes, nobody uses extrapolation because by its very nature, you are guessing!

Everything in the universe is NOT expanding - Andromeda is whistling towards the Milky Way at a fair rate of knots. This has been explained away by reference to the 'local group' being an exception to 'everything is expanding'.

Using current 'knowledge', the formation of galaxies cannot be explained. So Dark Matter was formulated. Yet, so far, there has been no evidence found of the existance of Dark Matter. I'm assuming that Dark Matter is merely a name used for a 'fiddle factor', used to Mathematically 'calculate' how galaxies were formed.

Background radiation was discovered, which reinforced the Big Bang Theory, after some initial problems with pigeon poo in the receiver horn. I assume some more accurate and more believable instruments have subsequently been used to confirm the existance of background radiation.

How is it 'known' that the radio signals being sensed are the result of a big bang???? Lets face it, these signals are extremely weak and could be coming from the measuring devices themselves.

Just because it has been observed that most of the items in the observable universe are expanding - we've only been making these observations for a few years and the information being used is millions/billions of years old. In reality, the universe could now be contracting - and it may in fact merely be reverberating in size.

We can't even agree on the shape of the universe and it is said that despite the Big Bang name, it was not an explosion as we know it on Earth, more like, but don't take the analogy too far, the universe and everything observable in it are points on the surface of an expanding balloon and therefore the universe has no centre - despite its stated origin as a singularity.

Still confused,

Tony

[hayju01]

I know what you are saying Tony and agree.

I struggled through this programme as it seemed to me to be nothing more than excperts from previous episodes of Horizon poorly 'stitched' together by Prof Jim Al Khalili to correct any of the 'old thinking'.