Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Proof of the Big Bang Theory

  1. May 21, 2010 #1
    In my opinion if the Big Bang Theory is correct, it would have resulted in a really massive black hole, "Ultramassive Black Hole(UBH)".
    Great Attractor could be the location of the "UBH", origin of the Big Bang.
    This could explain the Dark flow and all galaxies should orbit around the "UBH".

    I guess my idea is based on fact that very large explosion like Supernova creates a black hole, and the effects of the black holes and Supermassive black holes, etc. Does this make any sense?

    Black hole - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole
    Supernova - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
    Supermassive black hole - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole
    Great Attractor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor
    Dark flow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow
    Last edited: May 21, 2010
  2. jcsd
  3. May 21, 2010 #2
    The Big Bang was not an explosion, like a Supernova, it was an expansion of the space itself, not like a supernova explosion that is an expansion in space. So maybe if should be a BH caused by the Big Bang, certainly it was created differently as it happens after a SN.

  4. May 21, 2010 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    It's not. Try searching in this and the cosmology forum and you will find a plethora of threads devoted to ironing out this misconception.
  5. May 21, 2010 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There's probably nothing you could have said that would cause more confusion than that. :smile:

    I would object to the idea that any theory can "be correct" (rather than just "make predictions that agree very well with experiments"), but I'm guessing that's not what you had in mind. Perhaps you meant that we need add something like inflation to the original big bang theory to account for some of the things we see.
  6. May 21, 2010 #5
    Also confused. What you had in mind?
  7. May 21, 2010 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Fortunately physics isn't a matter of opinion, and as Amarante said, the big bang wasn't an explosion. I suggest that you follow diogenesNY's instructions here on how to get free access to a good article about the big bang. You should probably also take a look at the forum rules. There are rules against posting personal speculation here, so you should stick to asking questions about what the relevant theories actually say.
  8. May 21, 2010 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Haha.. I just re-read the thread now and confused myself!

    I originally read the OP as

    and hence answered

    I.e., the version of the "big bang theory" presented in the OP is not what is meant by the standard "big bang theory". I did not mean that the standard model of cosmology is incorrect. Sorry for confusing everyone!
  9. May 21, 2010 #8
    well i originally thought bout this idea about year or two ago while watching documentary about black hole, universe, big bang theory etc. I didn’t realize wiki said Big Bang Theory wasn’t an explosion cos according to all the documentaries i’ve seen Big Bang started as a big explosion. (from old ones like "Understanding The Universe" to new ones like "Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong")
  10. May 21, 2010 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I guess most documentaries suck. A few months ago (maybe a year), I saw a really bad one about the LHC called "The big bang machine". It started like this: "In the beginning, there was nothing. Absolutely nothing. Then, there was an explosion". Terrible. Absolutely terrible.
  11. May 21, 2010 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yeah... this kind of crap always gets me. But it allows them to do two different things:
    a) use flashy computer generated graphics, and
    b) overly simplify something by analogy

    I mean, it really doesn't have the same effect to explain that, "since we observe all galaxies moving away from all other galaxies, logically if we run the universe in reverse they must get closer and closer and closer until some 13.7 Gyr ago the entire universe is extremely small, dense, and hot".

    Such is life though...
  12. May 21, 2010 #11
    yer there are always ups n downs, but i wouldn't say computer generated graphics used in documentry as flashy, they all seem outdated(in terms of graphics) n i guess they have to use it since they can't show the real event. In "Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong" they actually used a real explorsion(not CGI) to display the Big Bang Theory.

    yer thats also wat i understood from previous documentries, but when i watched "Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong" (), it talks about Dark flow(new to me) and says "Galaxies simply aren't meant to race across space in the same direction.".
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  13. May 22, 2010 #12
    For a second I thought you were advocating steady state! Thanks for clearing that up lol.
  14. May 29, 2010 #13
    It doesn't make sense to me.. ALL the documentaries(old ones n new ones) i've seen described the Big Bang as an explosion. All these documentaries had many experts(e.g. Professor of Physics, Cosmologist from all major universites), and wouldn't they also watch the same documentary since they are in it? and shouldn't they say umm that's wrong, Big Bang wasn't an explosion???
  15. May 29, 2010 #14
    Did they have a chance to say that?
    Even if they tell that it would be cut as 'too complicated stuff'
  16. May 29, 2010 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I agree with you. The guy I quoted is a professor of experimental particle physics. That almost certainly means that he doesn't know the big bang stuff as well the science advisors who hang out here in the relativity and cosmology forums. But I find it hard to believe that he doesn't know that. So it makes me wonder why he agreed to say it. I would have refused.
  17. May 29, 2010 #16
    Well, the distance between stuff is getting bigger. May as well call it an explosion just to get the point across. It was hot and smaller and more energetic than now. Not completely unlike an explosion. As long as the ants-on-a-balloon analogy is explained, I wouldn't blame them.
    I'd hope people wouldn't be inclined to think it was like some cosmic-scale hand-grenade.
    That Horizon wasn't a very good documentary though. I remember watching it and thinking ":|".


    Can someone comment on the "reference frame" that's defined by the background radiation? I'm not sure what I want to know to be honest, but I'm sure the existence of such a reference frame has consequences.
    Last edited: May 29, 2010
  18. May 29, 2010 #17
    Try this:https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=405332"

    post #9 I think,
    I don't know if it helps, but anyway...
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2017
  19. May 29, 2010 #18
    EXACTLY And explosion looks precisely the same if you were to slow it down in time lapse.. its basicaly a release of energy. Which is exactly what the big bang was a huge release of energy, inflation or explosion... it looks and acts pretty much the same.

    Thats why all the documentaries call it an explosion, in fact its not exactly wrong to call it an explosion its just more precise to call it an inflation. Most reasons being is that as opposed to being a destructive force the big bang was a positive creative force, as far as explosions go we have never ever seen anything like it. Thats why most people that have studied physics cringe at that explanation... but as far as putting the big bang in laymans terms there is nothing wrong with using the term explosion.

    Frankly here I am surprised at much of the reaction to what people see in mainstream cosmology, even stuff defined by our most brilliant minds is ridiculed and called wrong. But really when we are backing up and trying to explain things we cannot hope to understand its kind of childish to say anyone is wrong.. anything born out of something we cannot explain is bound to have lots of imperfections under anyones definition.
  20. May 29, 2010 #19
    Well if Big Bang was a mother of all explosion like decribed in documentaries, or its name, i think it would have resulted in a really massive blackhole, much larger than any Supermassive blackhole found in centre of each galaxy. Otherwise they should really fix the documentaries and also maybe change the name to "The Big Inflation Theory"...
  21. May 29, 2010 #20
    When I set off a charge at work and blow 100 tons of rock into gravel I often think of the big bang and the inflation of the universe. Really one can look at it very much like an explosion, be it one that happens before the laws of physics the similarity is still uncanny. As if somehow somebody would blow up a black hole and cause all the matter within to escape. I think of the singularity at the beginning much like a super black hole, as if somebody flipped the gravity switch off and allowed everything to escape.

    Its just easier for people to think of the big bang as a huge explosion, I don't see the big deal over the inflation/explosion debate. Doesn't matter so much what we call it so long as we figure it out and understand it eventually.

    I can see that inflation is a more precise and correct term to describe it, but I also see why people call it an explosion its just easier to explain the notion starting with a term that everyone can understand and its close enough to really make no difference in my humble opinion.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook