Evidence on the steady state theory...?

Question

i have a question in a research assignment to 'describe the evidence supporting the theories of the origin of the universe'

i've done loads on the big bang theory. everyone says theres loads of theories but yet there isnt any evidence supporting any of the theories ive found. like, i tryed for ages looking for evidence supporting the steady state theory but there doesnt seem to be any, just evidence against it!

does anyone know any theories that have proven evidence??

straight forward evidence??

thank you

Answer 1

As Elizabeth very correctly says, it is the CMB that puts a nail in the coffin of the steady state theory. It is also interesting to note that the CMB was first predicted after Hubble's red-shift discovery. Someone said: Ah, if the universe expands from the Big Bang, then there should be trace of an omnipresent radiation that should be, by this time, decayed to ... er, hum, let me see ... the microwave frequency.

Lo and behold, a decade later we discover ... a cosmic background radiation on exactly that frequency!

Now, I have more sympathy for a steady state universe because I can't understand how something that has a start (big bang) will last for ever (big freeze) but ... the CMB evidence is quite overwhelming, I am afraid.

Answer 2

In the 1920's, Hubble discovered evidence that the Great Andromeda Nebula was in fact outside the Milky Way.  Soon after, he discovered that more distant galaxies were moving away from us faster than closer ones.  But this work was very difficult.  Before that, the Milky Way was thought by most to be all there is.  And it didn't seem to move much.

It's not that there was great evidence for Steady State, it was more that there wasn't much evidence to disprove it.

Answer 3

Both the steady state theory and the big bang theory explained the expanding universe.

But the cosmic background radiation is evidence for the big bang theory. There is no coresponding evidence for the steady state theory, so it is no longer considered valid.

Answer 4

In astronomy, rival theory to that of the Big Bang, which claims that the universe has no origin but is expanding because new matter is being created continuously throughout the universe. The theory was proposed in 1948 by Austrian-born British cosmologist Hermann Bondi, Austrian-born US astronomer Thomas Gold, and English astronomer, cosmologist, and writer Fred Hoyle, but it was dealt a severe blow in 1965 by the discovery of cosmic background radiation (radiation left over from the Big Bang and the formation of the universe) and is now largely rejected.

Answer 5

Almost every scientist now believes the universe started with a Big Bang. But here is an interesting thought. Could there have been other big bangs and universes BEFORE the current Big Bang ?

...Likely...

In that scenaio there might have been an infinite amount of time fow which Big Bangs and universes have been getting created and destroyed.... and lo and behold there is your steady state.

Hey where's my Nobel prize.

Answer 6

The problem with the Steady State theory, was similar to those with other failed ideas.  The attempts to adhere to it became more and more complicated until they became untenable, quite apart from the very real evidence for some sort of Big Bang theory.  A little ironic, really, that it was Fred Hoyle himself who coined the phrase "Big Bang", in order to deprecate the idea and those who supported it.  It was rather like the adherents to the theory that everything revolved around the Earth.  They had to come up with more and more outlandish ideas to explain observed facts whilst not relinquishing their pet theories.  In the end, of course, just like Professor Hoyle, they were proven wrong.

Answer 7

The Steady State failed as theory for the very reason that no data could be found to support it. This is why it is no longer considered a valid theory in modern astrophysics, it died with Fred Hoyle.

Notice also how scientific theories live and die on the evidence. If there's little or no evidence, it's not a very good theory.