Quote:
On 2002-11-20 13:48, heusdens wrote:
- It can not realy explain the large scale structure of the universe (the Great Wall, for instance)
|
No, actually it does an incredibly GOOD job at predicting large scale structure correlation functions from the CMB angular power spectrum. There is an association of the results that is so profound it is used as a proof for why the Big Bang WORKS!
Quote:
|
- BBT is dependend on an Inflation scenario, which requires there to be considerably more mass as has been found (Dark Matter problem).
|
No, not MASS but it requires DARK ENERGY (which in Einstein's Equations ends up behaving repulsively as opposed to attractively). The Dark Energy problem is indeed a problem because we don't have a good explanation for it at this point. There's also the problem that the mass of the universe seems to be so high (it really should be nearly a density of one in omega parameter or zero, but right now it is on the same order but less than one in an instability strip which is a bit confusing).
The Dark Matter problem really isn't so much a cosmological problem as it is an observational one. SUSY looks promising, but there are a few problems with it, esepcially the mass of the neutralino being way too large.
Quote:
It is not very arguable that BBT, despite the problems still existing, can be defeated easily.
But it doesn't say, it can never be done.
|
Eventually we will have new theories that will be different. How they will incorporate the old Big Bang theory remains to be seen, but there is going to have to be some explanation for why the Big Bang looks so right if it is actually wrong. The Basics of the Big Bang (that is the universe was once hotter, denser, and has a finite age for observations) are indisputable observational facts just like, say, the fact the moon orbits the Earth.