Nov 25, 2024 05:23 PM
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/...ng-534699/
KEY POINTS: Ever since its discovery in the mid-1960s, the cosmic microwave background has been identified with the Big Bang: as a cosmological relic from the extremely early Universe. However, many have floated the possibility that it’s not of primordial origin, but rather is a late-time signal or even a foreground, like a “fog” polluting our Universe. Could these non-cosmological explanations be viable? How confident are we that the CMB actually “proves” the Big Bang? Extremely. Here’s the science behind why.
EXCERPT: There is no known non-cosmic explanation for the CMB, including for its temperature, perfectly blackbody nature, dipole anisotropy, or the minuscule fluctuations seen on all scales. It’s true that we can’t “prove” that the Big Bang happened, but that’s not because of a lack of evidence; it’s because science can only ever give us our best current approximation of reality. But if we follow the evidence, there is no other viable conclusion, as all alternative approaches must ignore not just one but several of the aforementioned points. Despite the evergreen popularity of claims that “all mainstream scientists are wrong,” the purveyors of those claims are writing checks that the data simply invalidates as void... (MORE - missing details)
KEY POINTS: Ever since its discovery in the mid-1960s, the cosmic microwave background has been identified with the Big Bang: as a cosmological relic from the extremely early Universe. However, many have floated the possibility that it’s not of primordial origin, but rather is a late-time signal or even a foreground, like a “fog” polluting our Universe. Could these non-cosmological explanations be viable? How confident are we that the CMB actually “proves” the Big Bang? Extremely. Here’s the science behind why.
EXCERPT: There is no known non-cosmic explanation for the CMB, including for its temperature, perfectly blackbody nature, dipole anisotropy, or the minuscule fluctuations seen on all scales. It’s true that we can’t “prove” that the Big Bang happened, but that’s not because of a lack of evidence; it’s because science can only ever give us our best current approximation of reality. But if we follow the evidence, there is no other viable conclusion, as all alternative approaches must ignore not just one but several of the aforementioned points. Despite the evergreen popularity of claims that “all mainstream scientists are wrong,” the purveyors of those claims are writing checks that the data simply invalidates as void... (MORE - missing details)