what can you say about the big bang theory scientificaly?

Answer 1

The universe was once much, much smaller than it is now.

The universe was once much, much hotter than it is now.

The universe has been expanding for 14 billion years. We observe this expansion today. Stars are pretty much all moving away from us. We see that far-away stars move away from us faster than closer ones, so we interpret this as the expansion of the entire universe.

The cosmic microwave background we observe is a relic of the early universe--of a time before there were atoms, just electrons and ions. Everything was charged plasma--opaque to light. When the atoms formed, suddenly the universe was mostly transparent. So the microwaves we see are a relic of the light produced by the plasma at that recombination time. Someday, we might be able to detect a neutrino background that is a relic of an even earlier time.

The big bang model also explains structure formation (galaxies, superclusters, etc) and anisotropies in the microwave background. It explains the relative abundance of light elements like hydrogen and helium in the universe.

The big bang model is a tool particle physicists can sometimes use to test theories. If you go far enough back in time, particles in the universe had more energy than we can produce in our biggest colliders. Sometimes, these high-energy reactions in the first tiny fraction of a second have consequences that are observable today.

The biggest problem with the big bang theory today is that we can calculate the mass density of the universe based on gravity's impact on its rate of expansion. The mass density we calculate this way is almost 10 times the mass we actually observe. This is a problem. It means there is something wrong with our idea of the big bang or there is something wrong with our understanding of gravity or (most likely) there is some kind of dark matter that we can't see. Particle physicists and cosmologists alike are trying very hard to identify this dark matter.

Answer 2

The theory of the Big Bang is widely accepted by the popular-scientific media. Scientifically we can add that this theory has still many problems. Today's universe contains a lot of matter and energy. Big Bang tells us that at the beginning there was nothing - then suddenly there was singularity with all the mass and all the energy we have in today's universe. Basic laws of scientific physics tells us that in a closed system (such as the universe) no energy is lost, no energy is gained. No matter is lost, no matter is gained. There is only the possibility to convert from one to the other. So Big Bang is breaking the basic laws of physics. Then there is also the open question what triggered the Big Bang, because the theory says that before the Big Bang there was nothing, no energy no matter no time, not even the dimension of today's universe. So this theory is used today to test other theories ?
It's not quite credible or feasible to me.

Answer 3

In the first moments, the universe was infinitely dense, unimaginably hot, and contained pure energy. but witnin a tiny fraction of a second, vast numbers of fundamental particles had appeared, created out of energy as the universe cooled. within a few hundred thousand years, these particles had combined to form the first atoms.
the big bang not an explosion of space but an expansion of space and it happened every where. no one knows what happened in the first instant after the big bang, known as the PLANCK ERA, but at the end of this period, they believe that gravity split from the forces of nature, followed by a strong nuclear force. many believed this event triggered INFLATION a short but rapid expansion. if infation did occur, it helps to explain why the universe seems so smooth and flat. during inflation, a fantastic amount of mass-energy came into existance, in tandem with an equal but negative amount of gravitational energy, by the end of inflation, matter had bequn to appear.

Answer 4

That it was postulated by a Catholic Priest who was a noted Physicist and he postulated the Primordial Atom concept in which a singularity generated fusion due to gravity and atomic shrink and this fusion cause the singularity to emit a variety of sub atomic particles that expanded outwards in what Fred Hoyle termed a Big Bang.

That this expanding mass of charged particle plasma started to slow, cool, clump by forces of gravity, become rudimentery elements like hydrogen, helium and formed into stars and could have even formed into inert mass that eventually became the planets and comets and as gassed mass around the inert core and cooled they become more complex gases like argon, neon, oxygen, nitrogen and some of these fused into complex elements like water.

Answer 5

well big bang is a scientific throey that has been generally accepted for the formation of the present universe. well, big bang starts with a singularity, where all the laws of science breaks down. the temperature was extremely high with an infinite density.

Answer 6

To me, big bang, just as it is with Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, is just a concept to explain the observable phenomena of our universe.

There are many thing we don't understand and never will, so we can only make do with our current knowledge and comes up with a reasonable explanation of our universe.

Are they the actual working of our universe? I doubt so.

That's why Quantum mechanic fails to explain gravity, General Relativity fails to explain the mechanics of the quantum world. If they really are the working of the universe, they wouldn't have contradict each other, nor there can be two working ways for one thing.

Same thing goes for the Big Bang theory. It's just a concept

Answer 7

George Gamow coined this term. I have some of his books. Once, Fred Hoyle's Continuous Creation was a rival, but the evidence supports BB, not CC, by now.

Answer 8

Scientifically, the big bang theory is excellent.

Answer 9

i dunno. where did all the stuff come from that banged. and it didn't bang. it just made sound waves. and i disagree with the idea of a first moment in the universe. theoretically, it is timeless. never starting, never ending. maybe just A moment. also, my theory is that at one period in the existence of the universe, there was absolutely NOTHING in it. complete darkness and absolute cold. just my theory. never took astronomy. but hey, you never know.

Answer 10

I think the egg came before the chicken.

Not that I'm calling the universe a chicken.....