Can you proove the Big Bang theory to be true?

Question

I find the big bang theory implausable and confusing. Maybe it's just because I'm not intelligent enough but I can't get my head around it. Can anybody give me some plain irrefutable evidence of its existance?

I've had alot of answers saying there is no unquestionable evidence. So why is it more generally accepted than other theories? Thanks for the answers by the way.

Answer 1

The irrefutable evidence for the Big Bang is the discovery of the Microwave Background Radation (MBR) in the 1960's by two Bell Labs scientists. Since then, we have sent up satellites into space to take detail images of this MBR, and it has again reconfirmed the Big Bang, as well as give us the most accurate measurement of the age of the Universe, which is 13.7 billion years +/- 100-200 million years.

The reason that the MBR is evidence of the Big Bang is because the theory predicted that when the Universe came into existence, there was a huge amount of energy released that can be detected still today. The theory also predicted that the light released during the Big Bang would have traveling for about 13.7 billion years from the edge of the Universe, and its wavelength would be redshifted all the way into the microwave range. You can also think of it as a cooling effect after the Universe expanded. The original superhot explosion with temperature in the trillions of degrees has now cooled down to about 2.7 degrees kelvin.

PS - In science, one develops a theory that makes predictions, and then either devise experiments or make observations to confirm/disprove the predictions. The Big Bang Theory has made many predictions about what we would observe in the Universe, and so far we have confirmed most of it. That's why it is more generally accepted than other theories.

PPS - People who say that there are no unquestionable evidence are also the ones who will say that anything is possible. Although these are true statements, but they are also trivial statements that do not add additional information or knowledge.

Answer 2

Scientists don't all agree that the big bang theory is true, that's why it's still debatable. However, some scientists would agree that the debate is over. This is some information I found to refute the Big Bang theory.

"In their desperate search for some kind of evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, evolutionists try to make background radiation fit the pattern of acceptable evidence".

7 reasons why background radiation does not support the Big Bang.

"Background radiation" is a very weak microwave radiation flowing throughout space in all directions. It was first discovered in 1965, and is said to be the final leftover outer-space radiation from the Big Bang. Although called the "dying breath of the Big Bang," it is not an evidence of it (pp. 29, 31) for several reasons:

1 - It is omnidirectional. Background radiation flows toward us from all directions; yet it would come from only one direction if it were from the Big Bang.—pp. 31-32.

2 - It is too weak. The radiation should be between ten and a thousand times more powerful than it is.—p. 32.

3 - It lacks the proper spectrum. The radiation does not have the ideal "black body"; that is, it should have total light absorption capacity.—p. 32.

4 - Its spectrum should be far hotter (5 degrees K) than it actually is (only 2.73 degrees K). If the explosion had occurred 15 billion years ago, the background radiation should now be emitting a far higher temperature heat [K = Kelvin, or absolute zero, which is -273.15 degrees centigrade].—p. 32.

5 - It is too smooth. Research proves that this radiation is definitely too smooth to agree with the Big Bang theory. It is not clustered enough, and even if it were, it could not produce stars. Gas in outer space (and on earth) always pushes outward, never inward.—pp. 32-33.

6 - A failure from the beginning. Predictions made as to the nature of the required radiation (its temperature and its single directional source) were not fulfilled even when background radiation was first discovered in 1965.—p. 32.

7 - What is the source of the radiation? Everything in the universe is lumpy, except the gas in outer space: (1) background radiation (which is microwave radiation) and (2) infrared radiation. It appears that the source of both types of radiation is nothing more than the outflowage of radiation from the stars and galaxies on all sides of us.—pp. 33-34.

My advice to you is do some research on both point of views and come to a decision on your own.

Answer 3

No, and neither can anyone else. But neither has anyone disproved it. MBR is the most recent major discovery in support of it. Dark matter and dark energy are theoretical conjectures which seem to be necessary if the theory is true, or to otherwise explain observed phenomena. MBR moved a lot of voters along the spectrum from against, to skeptical, to for. If dark matter is discovered or proved, it will move even more.

The Big Bang theories don't disprove any religion. They extrapolate observed behavior as far into the distant past as they can, and still find a way to be consistent with known or proposed laws of physics. Even if they could prove that was the actual history of the universe back to some extremely dense bundle of mass and energy, they still offer no clue where that mass came from in the first place.

Answer 4

There are really only concepts about how the big bang happened. Several thousand years ago, trying to explain the formation of the Earth was just as hard to understand, now it's pretty well accepted how it formed, and the timeline involved. It'll probably be some time before we feel comfortable with all the open issues around the Big Bang, right now how it happened is just a concept.

Answer 5

As a Deist, I basically evaluate as ‘printed’ understanding all that we can stumble on from modern cosmology and subatomic physics so I wouldn’t have a topic nor be shocked interior the least if the circumstances you describe occurs to be the spectacular one. For the main section, i think of for the duration of all of background maximum sacred literature from all religious traditions has been omit-interpreted. that's the reason I eagerly anticipate what is going to take place in Switzerland next might**

Answer 6

There are so many numerous possibilities to believe how the Universe and its architecture was constructed.
But cannot afford to narrow the mind of science to just one hypothesis.
The Big Bang has too many unanswered questions,and none of these question have been answered yet. So the big Bang still remains a scientific luxury to be Understood.
A no Big Bamg theory is just as valid.

Answer 7

I'd like to hear what your theory is first, of course, to better understand what is difficult about the big bang to get your head around.

But, it's been evidenced that the stars and galaxies are continually expanding away from each other, showing that they were at one time closer, hence, one time, were One. (Not a very scientific explaination, I know.)

.

Answer 8

You think some bloke on Yahoo Answers can do what physicists have been trying to do for years???

You can only have a body of evidence, that gives a probability,

Answer 9

what do you think the whole scientific community has been doing for the last 50-60 years or so?? The basis isn't too bad, it is the invisible univers that bothers me...all the stuff that is missing!

Answer 10

If anyone could prove it to be completely and utterly true, it would be the biggest revelation in history.

It would prove all religion completely false and have to be so clear and concise.

That's why it's a debate. There are compelling arguments, and people believe it to be completely true, but there is no way to completely be 100% certain it is true.