Question:
How can one accept the Big Bang Theory when there was nothing? Nothing to explode?
blueridgemotors
2006-04-01 17:52:37 UTC
How can one accept the Big Bang Theory when there was nothing? Nothing to explode?
Twelve answers:
wugga-mugga
2006-04-01 20:47:53 UTC
Repeat after me:



"There is no explosion in the Big Bang theory, only expansion."



The name "Big Bang" was actually originated by opponents of the theory, and unfortunate name as the theory involves no "bang" at all.
mathematician
2006-04-02 12:46:26 UTC
We know that the universe is expanding right now. We have general relativity, which describes gravity and also the geometry of space-time. This theoory describes an expanding universe, but was initially rejected by Einstein because of that fact.



If we follow the expansion back in time, we see that the universe would have been hotter and denser in the past. We can actually see the afterglow of this how period in something called the cosmic background radiation, which was predicted a decade before it was actually seen. Today, we use the small variations in that background to learn more about the early universe, in particular, the signature of how the universe was in the very first second is left on this radiation.



Next, the abundances of various elements such as hydrogen, helium, and lithium are predicted by the way the temperature decreasedas the universe aged. We actually measure these and they agree with the predictions.



All of this supports the Big Bang theory. It is an interconnected net of observations and theory that explains those obsevations. It is not someone just dreaming it up and proposing it to the world which takes it as fact.



Finally, it may simply make no sense to talk about 'before the Big Bang' at all. Time itself is part of the structure of the universe according to general relativity. As such, time itself began with the universe. So to ask what was around before time is rather meaningless. The analagous situation is to ask what is north of the north pole.
twertyto
2006-04-02 07:02:41 UTC
People accept the Big Bang theory because there is evidence to support the fact that a long time ago the universe was much hotter and smaller than it is today. These are observations that require an explanation and currently the Big Bang is the best theory to explain them.



Observations:

1. Recession velocity of galaxies -> Expansion of the universe

2. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) -> Hotter universe in the past.

3. Distant quasars -> Galaxies were different in the past than they are today.



If a better theory comes along it will replace the Big Bang. Currently there is no better theory.
Chug-a-Lug
2006-04-02 03:03:38 UTC
First you should not think of the Big Bang as an explosion. An explosion happens somewhere and has a center. Until the Big Bang event there was no "where" for an explosion to happen.



Quantum physics has demonstrated that something from nothing, like the creation of our universe, is not only theoretically possible but scientifically proveable. Everywhere in the near total vacuum of space matter in the form of sub-atomic particles is constantly being generated. The energy source for this comes from a feature of quantum space known as "zero point energy." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy for more details about ZPE) It's possible that something similar brought about the Big Bang and our universe.



God is spelled B-I-G B-A-N-G

PBrax@netscape.com
rosadonm
2006-04-02 02:29:37 UTC
The planetary system began w/ the primordial solar nebula, the cloud of gas and dust of which the solar system formed about 4.5 billion years ago. In order for the solar system to form, thin clouds of intestellar gas and dust must have become concentrated enough to collapse under their own weight. We still do not fully understand what triggers the collapse. As the solar nebula collapsed, its central parts were heated by the infallying material. At the same time, the shrinking nebula began to spin faster, and its outer parts flattened into a disk. Thus, the contracting solar nebula develops a hot central core surrounded by a rapidly spinning disk. Solid grains formed and kept rotating around the central core(which later became the sun), this grains came together to form larger aggregates, quickly building up to objects which astronomers call planestesimals(little planets)than they became bigger, the dust and gas that cover the solar nebula dissapeared and the solar system formed. It is a very long story. I hope this helps you a little.
vze2hnvz
2006-04-02 02:06:18 UTC
The latest "Big Bang" theory is that dealing with the superstring/M theory. That it may not have been a big bang so to speak, but that of two hugely vast membranes (branes as they call them) that hit together. Each brane is supposed to exist in its own dimension so to speak. When they collide, all HeII breaks loose. They also theorize that it will happen again, and has happened before. Each time it occures, it wipes out the existing universe....yes universe, and starts all over. Check the link, very interesting stuff. :



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
Grouchy Dude
2006-04-02 04:17:01 UTC
The beginning of time, space and matter is so far from human experience that common sense can't be expected to apply. Maybe true "nothing" is impossible -- maybe "before" the Big Bang there was no time, space or matter, but neither was there nothing.
gregory_dittman
2006-04-02 02:11:42 UTC
To explain the big bang and the idea that mater and energy can't be destroyed or made (only changed), the idea is that in infinite space are infinite singularities that have always been around. Black holes have singularities. One of these singularities exploded to create our universe.
2006-04-02 17:37:32 UTC
Imagine you walked up to a big ball of dust slowly expanding in the air. As you watched it, it kept getting bigger and bigger at a consistent rate (not constant, but consistent). Wouldn't you assume that it must have been much smaller before you got there? Do you need to know exactly what it was that 'blew up' in order to understand that it used to be smaller?
Bugoy
2006-04-02 01:55:37 UTC
that's a theory w/c is out of the boundary of human knowledge. they have the words to explain but nothing to show (evidence). do you think after this life of human, is their any species to live again? i think so. it will start to nothing again, inventing again, etc. imagine that. maybe we dont know there is another species living aside from us.
Sp()oNg3Y::V.3.[]
2006-04-02 10:50:32 UTC
Here's a simple answer: It's just a THEORY.

It was just all made up, or predicted.
playgirl_renee_lynn
2006-04-02 01:56:48 UTC
i agree with the other guy


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...