is there really scientific proof about the BIG BANG theory?

Answer 1

The Big Guy said, "Bang."

Answer 2

Others have said similar stuff, but I'll try to make it clearer.

In the 1930s the Big Bang theory was considered crazy and only a few scientists thought it was true. The acepted theory was Steady State. One Big Bang guy said that the proof of the theory would be the "afterglow" from the Big Bang, leftover radiation. He calculate that it would be microwaves with an apparent temperature of 3 degrees Kelvin. In the 1950s people found that radiation. They got the Nobel Prize.

That convinced most scientists. Still a few Steady State guys came up with explanations for the microwaves. Not great ones, but plausible. Then someone said that the microwave radiation would have really tiny ripples in it, from irregularities in the Big Bang that later formed stars and galaxies. In the 1990s they launched a satellite and found exactly the right ripples. That's what people just got the Nobel Prize for. That convinced pretty much everyone that the Big Bang was correct. No one can come up with another explantion for the tiny ripples.

Note that the Big Bang theory only covers what happened immediately after the bang. If someone believes a higher power created the bang, there's no scientific evidence that conflicts with that belief.

Answer 3

Scientific proof? No.

Substantial evidence? Yes.

There are numerous observations which support the theory of the Big Bang - and it has a lot of support in the scientific community - but there are also a good number of equally convincing arguments for other explanations for these observations.

Perhaps we'll never know for absolute sure - it is not the kind of theory that lends itself to experimentation or replication. In the future, we will have more data that may dispel the theory altogether - or, on the other hand, the data may well proof the theory is valid.

Another aspect of theoretical physics that makes it so intriguing.

Answer 4

Several proofs :

(1)Previous experiments—including WMAP results released in 2003—had provided strong evidence for the rapid-expansion theory, called inflation, that was first proposed by physicist Alan Guth in 1980.

(2)In the trillion-trillionth of a second after the big bang, the universe expanded from the size of a gumball to astronomical proportions, according to the inflation theory. The universe then settled into a more leisurely pace of expansion over the past 13.7 billion years or so.

(3)WMAP(led by Charles Bennett of Johns Hopkins University) now has the most convincing evidence yet for inflation: a reading of the light released just after the big bang. This cosmic afterglow, known as microwave background, is made of a similar type of radiation to that which carries signals to a TV antenna.

N.B. : WMAP means NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe

Answer 5

Plenty. Most of Astronomy and Physics provide evidence of such. Simply looking at the night sky we're seeing light from events that occured millions of years ago, just now reaching earth.

The question isn't whether the event occured, just how & what might have led to it. The Big Bang is a theory in the same way that gravitation and evolution are theories- we may not have discovered every last piece of the puzzle, but we can see that it's clearly the case... So no, it cannot be called irrefutable proof, just plenty of supporting evidence.

Answer 6

No there is no real proof of the Big Bang theory. The huge hole in the theory is that they do not know where the infinately dense ball of matter that is supposed to have exploded came from. Some say that it came from the Big Shrink where the previous universe collapsed, but that still doesnt answer where the previous universe came from. Simple logic defeats all the fancy theories and formulas.

Answer 7

Yes, it's called the Cosmic Microwave Background.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

Answer 8

the evidence is leaning towards a beginning that was caused by side by side dimensions (in a multiple dimension universe) that from time to time make contact with each other, causing a ripple in which new material is created,and matter itself may have an entirely new physiology

Answer 9

Yup. The two guys who won the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics last week won because they proved it. Poke around; you can probably find something about it.

Answer 10

the background noise coming from space, but that cant be enough.
In reality theres no way of knowing unless we travel back in time or that we study other universes and see that they emerged that same way.
Its only a theory, if someone tells you it is an irrefutable fact he aint got a clue