Is there any proof that big bang actually happened ?

In summary, the big bang theory does not state that at some point in the past, all things were concentrated at a point. Rather, it suggests that the universe was once much more dense than it is now. The theory is supported by evidence such as redshift, cosmic background radiation, and the abundance of certain elements. While the question of why the universe began to expand is still being studied, it is an important topic for scientists. Additionally, the common analogy of an expanding balloon does not accurately represent the theory as the universe may not have been a single point at the beginning.
  • #1
Google_Spider
85
0
People give me the reason--"As everything is moving apart, at some time in the past, all things were concentrated at a point!"

Duh! How do they know that everything is moving apart if nothing is fixed ?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
Things are moving apart from each other, not some arbitrary fixed point. There are plenty of evidence for the Big Bang, such as redshift, uniform background radiation, H/He ratio etc.

Do you have some sort of ideological issue with the Big Bang? I'd be more than happy to try to attempt to resolve it if you wish.
 
  • #3
I'm not sure why you posted this in the philosophy forum, of all places, unless you don't really wish to get proper scientific answer. It has been moved to the appropriate forum.

Zz.
 
  • #4
Google_Spider said:
People give me the reason--"As everything is moving apart, at some time in the past, all things were concentrated at a point!"
Actually, the big bang theory does not explicitly say this: it says that there was once a time when the universe was a lot more dense than it is today.

Duh! How do they know that everything is moving apart if nothing is fixed ?
The fact that we observe every universe to be moving away from us, along with the cosmological principle, gives evidence for the big bang theory.
 
  • #5
Since you're clearly familiar with Google, try "pillars big bang"... You may need to make sure your crackpot detector is on, but you'll get some good links to the theoretical and observational pillars of the theory.
 
  • #6
cosmic microwave background radiation, Hubble expansion, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (abundance of deuterium and H vs. He ratio) are the best three "proofs" for BB.
 
  • #7
Ok then, I assume the universe was a point long time ago, but who lit the matchstick to set the universe blast out ? God ?

If it was a point, it could have remained in the point form forever. Why did it expand ? What factor made it expand ? God ?
 
  • #8
'God' is not a scientific explanation of anything. Nobody knows but there are theories in string theory about string branes the size of universes that collide into each other and lead to the big bang(and most likely many more big bangs in such a scenario.)
 
  • #9
Google_Spider said:
People give me the reason--"As everything is moving apart, at some time in the past, all things were concentrated at a point!"

They don't know what the theory actually says. I don't think you do either. The first thing you should do is read this Scientific American article Misconceptions about the big bang March 2005. Here is a PDF.


http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~aes/AST105/Readings/misconceptionsBigBang.pdf

Here is an HTML link to the same article

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147

The article had some very useful SIDEBARS giving pictorial diagrams with a question together with right and wrong answers explained. For easier access, here are links to individual sidebars.

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147_p39.gif
What kind of explosion was the big bang?

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147_p40.gif
Can galaxies recede faster than light?

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147_p42.gif
Can we see galaxies receding faster than light?

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147_p43.gif
Why is there a cosmic redshift?

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147_p44.gif
How large is the observable universe?

http://www.sciam.com/media/inline/0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147_p45.gif
Do objects inside the universe expand, too?

The scientific theory does not say that at some time in the past "all things were concentrated in a point." That is what you think it says, so it is useless for you to argue against it----you are not arguing against the real theory. You must first find out what it really says.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
Google_Spider said:
Ok then, I assume the universe was a point long time ago, but who lit the matchstick to set the universe blast out ? God ?

If it was a point, it could have remained in the point form forever. Why did it expand ? What factor made it expand ? God ?
Sure, why not. To a scientist, does it really matter?
 
  • #11
If it was a point, it could have remained in the point form forever. Why did it expand ? What factor made it expand ?...
russ_watters said:
...To a scientist, does it really matter?

Yes, to those scientists who study the early universe, it matters a great deal.
Different models have different explanations for "Why did it expand? What factor made it expand?"

The original poster's premise is wrong, however. I don't know any scientist who says that the whole universe was concentrated in a point. Extremely concentrated for a moment, perhaps in a finite region, but not infinitely concentrated and not at a mathematical point.

The people who make a specialty of this have various models, expansion beginning after something else happens, expansion beginning as a result of this or that, and so on.

So to them it matters a great deal! The question "Why did it start expanding?" is one of the most interesting questions to investigate.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Google_Spider said:
Ok then, I assume the universe was a point long time ago,

No - there's no reason to assume that. According to that Misconceptions About the Big Bang Scientific American article at the point of the Big Bang the universe could potentially have been three-dimensionally infinite in size.

I think the thing that confuses people is the “ant on the surface of a balloon” analogy that's used in that article and elsewhere. It's really analogous to the third-dimensional surface of an expanding fourth-dimensional balloon, if anything (but there's no certainty the universe is shaped like that). They ought to change it to “ant on a rubber sheet that's being stretched in all directions.”
⚛​
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Google_Spider said:
Ok then, I assume the universe was a point long time ago, but who lit the matchstick to set the universe blast out ? God ?

If it was a point, it could have remained in the point form forever. Why did it expand ? What factor made it expand ? God ?

Here is another related post

Google_Spider said:
God has intentionally made the Universe so much complex. He doesn't want man to know everything.

This was from the thread Ulnarian started called "What lies outside the universe?"

Personally i find myself at a loss as far as responding kindly but consistently with cosmology forum norms. Maybe someone has an idea?
 
Last edited:
  • #14
my guess is he's one of those gap theorist and no matter what evidence shown he will find something new missing ad infinitum.

should all humans instead bow down and give up learning :|
 
  • #15
Dunno how relevant this really is, but...
marcus said:
This was from the thread Ulnarian started called "What lies outside the universe?"

Personally i find myself at a loss as far as responding kindly but consistently with cosmology forum norms. Maybe someone has an idea?
What a mean God! I would think that if God exists, he would give us only as much power has he wants us to use (it would be pretty pretty capricious to give us powers, then get angry when we use them). So if we can figure these things out, we should. And there is certainly nothing wrong with the pursuit even if it is ultimately futile.
 
  • #16
The big bang is only one of the theories! the other more probable one in my opinion is the collision theory... i think that's what its called... but that's in chemistry for atoms and stuff. Any who its the one when all the particles of dust in the universe collide with each other and build up and create planets!
If God does exist then the only thing he really could have done on the grand scope of things is get the living from the non living.
 

1. What evidence supports the Big Bang theory?

There are several pieces of evidence that support the Big Bang theory, including the observation of the cosmic microwave background radiation, the expansion of the universe, and the abundance of light elements. These observations are consistent with the predictions of the Big Bang model.

2. How does the Big Bang explain the formation of the universe?

The Big Bang theory states that the universe began as a singularity, an infinitely small and dense point. It then expanded rapidly, cooling and forming the first particles and eventually, stars and galaxies. This process is supported by evidence such as the cosmic microwave background radiation and the observed expansion of the universe.

3. Is there any alternative explanation for the origins of the universe?

While the Big Bang is the most widely accepted theory for the formation of the universe, there are alternative theories such as the Steady State theory or the Oscillating universe theory. However, these theories have less evidence to support them and are not as widely accepted as the Big Bang theory.

4. How does the Big Bang theory fit with the laws of physics?

The Big Bang theory is consistent with the laws of physics, including general relativity and the laws of thermodynamics. In fact, it was the observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation and the expansion of the universe that led to the development of the Big Bang theory.

5. What ongoing research is being done to support or refute the Big Bang theory?

Scientists continue to gather new evidence and refine their understanding of the Big Bang theory through various experiments and observations. This includes studying the cosmic microwave background radiation, mapping the large-scale structure of the universe, and studying the properties of galaxies and dark matter. Additionally, physicists are also exploring new theories, such as inflation, to better understand the early universe and the Big Bang itself.

Similar threads

I Questions about the Location of the Big Bang and the Age of the Universe
    • Cosmology
Replies
8
Views
510
I Inflationary vs deflationary phase of Big Bang
    • Cosmology
Replies
10
Views
157
I Question about the big bang singularity
    • Cosmology
Replies
12
Views
2K
B Possibility of Another Big Bang?
    • Cosmology
Replies
10
Views
2K
I Does the Cosmological Principle in any way underpin Big Bang Theory?
    • Cosmology
Replies
33
Views
1K
B Age of Universe: Big Bang, Braneworlds & Perspective
    • Cosmology
Replies
22
Views
2K
I Shouldn't the Big bang be physically impossible?
    • Cosmology
Replies
25
Views
2K
I Do all geodesics begin and end at the big bang?
    • Cosmology
Replies
6
Views
3K
I Supermassive singularity the cause of the Big Bang?
    • Cosmology
Replies
32
Views
3K
B Did the big bang create something from nothing?
    • Cosmology
Replies
26
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top