B If there is explosion with absence of oxygen?

[Bong Bong]

According to Dr. M. Kaku, how a big bang theory supports when there was an absence of oxygen in the outer space?

 

[rootone]

The big bang was not an explosion it was a fairly uniform expansion from a very hot dense state to a less hot and dense state but bigger in size.
Also this expansion did not occur somewhere in space, the universe is space.
Anyway not all actual explosions require oxygen, a nuclear bomb doesn't for one.

 

[PabloAMC]

You need oxigen for making fire, but not for an explosion. For example, explosions in main sequence stars are not related to oxigen but with fusion of hidrogen.
But as said in the previous post, it is not an explosion of some kind of bomb but a rapid expansion of the space itself, so actually it has nothing to do

 

[phinds]

Also, be aware, Kaku is not a reliable source. He is a popularizer these days, not a scientist.

 

[CWatters]

According to Dr. M. Kaku, how a big bang theory supports when there was an absence of oxygen in the outer space?

I think you should post a reference for this.

 

[Nugatory]

Also, be aware, Kaku is not a reliable source. He is a popularizer these days, not a scientist.

I think you should post a reference for this.

To be precise... Kaku's popularizations do not meet the Physics Forums requirements for an acceptable source. His serious work is a different matter.

 

[CWatters]

It would still be nice to have the context.

 

[A.T.]

According to Dr. M. Kaku, how a big bang theory supports when there was an absence of oxygen in the outer space?

Yeah, and how can there be a "bang" if you can't hear sound in space?

 

[nasu]

Anyway, the premise in the OP is faulty. Most "normal" explosions do not require external supply of oxygen.
Not just nuclear explosions but gunpowder, dynamite, etc. So even if the analogy between big-bang and an explosion were relevant (I don't think it is), the absence of oxygen is not a problem.