Why should there be a Big bang in the first place?

Question

Why not a no Big Bang at all?Could there have been some other way of construction without blowing up things. why build with explosions. Usually you need activation energy to cause an explosion.

Isnt true that expansion does not form mass structure but a continual inrease of entropy?

Answer 1

it's just the way we observe galaxies moving away from each other. The further out from each other they are, the faster away from each other they move.

From this and by analysing measures done on large numbers of galaxies, and then by taking these velocities and distances but plugging in older times in the data, it was found that, well, at some point back in time, all that stuff must have been concentrated at one point.

As the quality of experimental data improved, the Big Bang was the only theory that survived.

But in the early days, it was far from the only proposed model, so it is not at all, as you seem to believe, that physicists decided that you had to "build with explosions" ;-)


hope this helps

Answer 2

It wasn't a traditional explosion. Most people get confused here.

It was essentially energy rushing away from other energy.

The big bang happened; you can observe that fact through many methods. Although we havn't perfected what exactly happened after the big bang and the history of our universe, it's fairly evident that it is expanding and has been so from a point for about 14 billion years.