The Big Bang?

Question

Why do people support this theory as the true beginging of the Universe? It's not even a theory for "How The Universe Was Created" its a theory for why its expanding. The Big Bang is: the universe was at one time a super-commpressed speck then, randomly, it exploded into the universe. THat doesn't even make sense, besides where did the speck come from?!? things dont randomly explode
--Newton's three laws of motion
and matter does not randomly apear
--Three laws of Thermodynamics
Do people believe in it simply it is the only theory that the 'scientific community' has come up with?

Answer 1

Here's the introduction to a tutorial I wrote on the evidence for big bang theory:


The "Big Bang" Theory first got its name in 1950. The name was coined by astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who was actually a strong opponent of the theory - he intended the name "Big Bang" to be derisive! The idea of a universe which started at a particular point in the past has been around for millennia, however it is only this century that it has gained (modern) scientific support and credence.

So what is the theory? Simply put, it is this:

That the universe started at a fixed point some finite time interval into the past, and it has evolved to be what it is today from a hotter, denser state.

That's it! Of course a lot of extra detail is added by general relativity, inflation theory, stellar and galactic astrophysics, particle and high energy physics, etc, and we will cover that detail in succeeding tutorials. But it is important to realise that the Big Bang theory doesn't live and die by these details. That the universe started at some time in the past, and that it has evolved is as strongly supported as biological evolution - and as widely accepted. (Interestingly, people who disbelieve evolution and disbelieve the Big Bang theory seem to be very similar!) Lets take some time to examine the evidence which supports the general theory, and consider some of the more popular alternative explanations along the way.


The supporting evidence is (briefly):
1. The Hubble redshift catalogue - demonstrating that the universe has expanded in space
2. The dilation of distant supernova - demonstrating that the unniverse has expanded in time
3. The cosmic microwave background radiation (cmbr) - a relic from the big bang
4. CMBR was hotter in the past - demonstrating that the universe has evolved from a hotter denser state
5. Radio source vs flux counts - demonstrate that the early universe was in a different radio source state
6. Abundance of light elements - matches the nucleosynthesis predictions of big bang models
7. The Tolman surface brightness test - rules out competing static universe models

This is an extraordinary body of evidence. No other theory explains it all - only big bang theory does. The other thing to remember, of course, is that big bang theory *does* make sense to those who take the time to investigate and understand it. :o)

If you're interested, check out the full explanations of the supporting evidences given above in the tutorial linked below:


Hope this helps!
The Chicken

Answer 2

I believe that your question is two-fold, one is why do people support the theory of the Big Bang and the other is what is a theory.

To answer the first part, it is difficult to believe and I think that most scientists take it with a grain of salt. From the evidence that we have so far, this theory is the one that fits best. Now, keep in mind that a theory is just that, a guess of how something happened given what we know. The beauty of the scientific community is that we don't believe that we are always right, in fact a vital part of science is to prove that a theory is wrong. So maybe the Big Bang theory will stand the test of time, maybe not. But what we do know is that it will be held under scrutiny and as we develop new technologies and collect new evidence, this theory will definitely be challenged and probably changed.

Contrast this to non-scientific explanations that takes a statement for absolute truth and is never scrutinized, challenged, or changed.

Answer 3

Most experts support the Big Bang theory as the evidence is overwhelming. As to what led up to the Big Bang, our level of knowledge is far too limited for most scientists to formulate a respectable theories. The universe is still holding onto a lot of secrets that we have yet to discover. We cannot explain the creation of the universe until we have a much better understanding of matter itself. We are still trying to work out the details of dark energy, dark matter, string theory, the higgs field, and the finer points of quantum mechanics. Until we fully understand all of these issues--and more--we cannot expect to understand creation itself.

Answer 4

You hit the nail on the head. No one actually wants to admit that these are all somewhat unimaginative guesses.
Yet good old Newton's laws are pretty much being blown to smithereens to defend these guesses by the very people who practically worship him. (There IS a god!) :-)
I believe that make sense of the order of the universe, there must have been Someone around to put it into order in the first place. And you said it perfectly, I might add, the universe WAS created. Which is a pretty good theory in and of itself.

Answer 5

"huge Bang" is a coined word initially utilized in mockery of the idea. in a large number of respects it really is thoroughly incorrect. the large Bang replaced into actual a unexpected boom of area from some aspect that we lack the gadgets to hit upon, because it really is secure adverse to us through the particle horizon in which count number replaced into first allowed to form out of ability. earlier to that the universe replaced into opaque, so there are in straightforward words hypothesis to describe what existed previously then.