Is the Big Bang Real? Evidence & Facts Explained

  • Thread starter The_Original5
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Big bang
In summary: I was thinking more like extreme gravitational force triggering a nuclear explosion in the core of sufficiently large planet.
  • #1
The_Original5
6
0
You probably know that there is a lot of evidence supporting the big bang, like the expansion of the universe, and many others that i can't name from the top of my head, but I heard on a TV show that the starting partials that came out of the Big bang were faster then the speed of light. They concluded this because if thing did come out the speed of light then we should be able to see the whole universe, although we can't. There is still a very large portion of the universe we can't see because its out of seeing range. So my question is how could the Big Bang be real if it expanded faster than the speed of light, and i think we all know that nothing can go than the speed of light, even though there are some exceptions like techions that go back wards in time and are faster than the speed of light. Also another thing If partials can go over the speed of light, would the big bang appear before it actually blew up. Please correct me if I'm wrong, i was watching the history channel, and not everything is true on that channel.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. However, it is possible for space itself to expand faster than the speed of light. Right after the big bang space underwent a period called inflation where this happened.
 
  • #3
isn't space already present before the big bang actually blew up, but if it come form the big bang does space help the atoms move through it to make it move faster than the speed of light for it to reach the distance they are, because they said that there are galaxy's we can't see because they traveled faster than light
 
  • #4
The_Original5 said:
So my question is how could the Big Bang be real if it expanded faster than the speed of light, and i think we all know that nothing can go than the speed of light, even though there are some exceptions like techions that go back wards in time and are faster than the speed of light.
In general relativity, there is no unambiguous way to define the relative velocity of two objects that are at a cosmological distance from each other. The impossibility of motion faster than c applies to objects that are close enough so that the velocity of object A relative to object B is well defined. Cosmological redshifts can be interpreted either as Doppler shifts due to relative motion or as being due to the expansion of the space in between.
 
  • #5
mathman said:
Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. However, it is possible for space itself to expand faster than the speed of light. Right after the big bang space underwent a period called inflation where this happened.

did this expansion of space include dark matter/energy ? or was it already there ?
Since most dark matter is supposed nonbaryonic and does not interact with space directly,
it does not exclude the concept of space/time expansion.
The theory doesn't say anything about it, does it?
 
  • #6
The_Original5 said:
You probably know that there is a lot of evidence supporting the big bang,

Just using a logic of the top of ones head:
if planets are attracted to each other by gravitational force then they will tend to combine into a cluster or a bigger planet. Now if planet gets bigger at some point the gravitational force would be so strong that may create an explosion which will in turn create smaller planets we call the galaxies or universe.
Finally the big bang would be just one of many or continuous periodic collapsing and exploding.
Mathew Orman
 
  • #7
icester said:
Just using a logic of the top of ones head:
if planets are attracted to each other by gravitational force then they will tend to combine into a cluster or a bigger planet. Now if planet gets bigger at some point the gravitational force would be so strong that may create an explosion which will in turn create smaller planets we call the galaxies or universe.
Finally the big bang would be just one of many or continuous periodic collapsing and exploding.

1. Big Bang is not an explosion Check FAQ
2. "gravitational force would be so strong that may create an explosion" makes no sense, because gravitation tends to attract, not to repel.
 
  • #8
Dmitry67 said:
1. Big Bang is not an explosion Check FAQ
2. "gravitational force would be so strong that may create an explosion" makes no sense, because gravitation tends to attract, not to repel.

I was thinking more like extreme gravitational force triggering a nuclear explosion in the core of sufficiently large planet.

Mathew Orman
 
  • #9
1. Solid planets (like Earth) consist of heavy atoms which won't produce a lot of energy.
2. The process you described is possible if we take giant planets, like Jupiter for example, but:

3. This process can't be 'periodic' because finally all matter would be converted into heavy elements;
4. It is possible in a very narrow mass range, any collision which produces objects heavier than 150-200 solar masses would reasult in 'failed supernova' - gravitational collapse. That is, no fusion reaction can overcome gravity from such heavy objects and stop the collapse, no matter what temperatures and pressure are created.

5. Finally, these local and tiny (on cosmological scale) explosions have nothing in common with the Big Bang.
 
  • #10
Dmitry67 said:
1. Solid planets (like Earth) consist of heavy atoms which won't produce a lot of energy.
2. The process you described is possible if we take giant planets, like Jupiter for example, but:

3. This process can't be 'periodic' because finally all matter would be converted into heavy elements;
4. It is possible in a very narrow mass range, any collision which produces objects heavier than 150-200 solar masses would reasult in 'failed supernova' - gravitational collapse. That is, no fusion reaction can overcome gravity from such heavy objects and stop the collapse, no matter what temperatures and pressure are created.

5. Finally, these local and tiny (on cosmological scale) explosions have nothing in common with the Big Bang.

So, the theory of Big Band assumes some magical force and or matter creating entity which evidence of does not exist at presence.
I wonder what entity is that.

Mathew Orman
 
  • #11
The current theory of the Big Bang does not include the Big Bang. It is a theory of what happened AFTER the Big Bang (excluding t=0).

There are no theories which can explain the BB itself; even there are some candidates; but they are very far from being final. Note that BB is much more fundametal than just an explosion, which can be explained by 'force'. Force itself creates pressure and contre-intuitively slows down the expansion, because pressure creates gravity. Therefore, even 'force' can explain local expansion of some area/object in space, in can't, in principle, explain the expansion of the whole Universe. Also, force is acting in space in time while BB is about how the very fabric of space and time is created.
 

1. What is the Big Bang theory?

The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted explanation for the origin and evolution of the universe. It states that about 13.8 billion years ago, all matter and energy in the universe was compressed into an incredibly dense and hot point, known as a singularity. This singularity then expanded rapidly, creating the universe we know today.

2. Is there evidence for the Big Bang theory?

Yes, there is a significant amount of evidence supporting the Big Bang theory. Some of the key pieces of evidence include the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is leftover heat from the early universe, and the observed expansion of the universe.

3. How does the Big Bang theory explain the formation of galaxies and stars?

The Big Bang theory explains that after the initial expansion of the universe, matter and energy began to clump together due to gravity. This led to the formation of galaxies, which contain billions of stars. Over time, stars formed through the fusion of hydrogen and helium atoms, eventually creating the diverse array of stars we see in the universe today.

4. What about the concept of inflation in the Big Bang theory?

Inflation is a theory that was proposed to explain certain observations that were not fully accounted for by the original Big Bang theory. It suggests that the universe underwent a rapid period of expansion in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang, which helps to explain the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation and the overall structure of the universe.

5. Are there any alternate theories to the Big Bang?

While the Big Bang theory is currently the most widely accepted explanation for the origin of the universe, there are some alternate theories that have been proposed. These include the steady state theory, which suggests that the universe has always existed and is continuously expanding, and the oscillating universe theory, which proposes that the universe goes through cycles of expansion and contraction. However, these theories do not have as much evidence supporting them as the Big Bang theory.

Similar threads

Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Cosmology
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
372
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
27
Views
2K
Replies
54
Views
3K
Back
Top