The cause of the Big Bang, please?

Question

People have said multiple things. Everyone always says, "science can prove it, read a science book and learn something."

So I read my science book and read, "Every action has an equal or opposite reaction."

I learned something. I learned science still hasn't proved anything yet.

Correction: *proven*

(ahem, I comprehend it's a theory. What I get annoyed with is people continually gnawing off other's heads because they thought the Big Bang wasn't quite so perfect. I understand it's a theory.)

Answer 1

You are correct that science does not have all the answers.

However, science is responsible for all the answers we have so far. When we find new answers, it will be science that finds them.

Answer 2

widely held theory of the evolution of the universe. Its essential feature is the emergence of the universe from a state of extremely high temperature and density—the so-called big bang that occurred at least 10,000,000,000 years ago. Although this type of universe was proposed by Alexander Friedmann and Abbé Georges Lemaître in the 1920s, the modern version was developed by George Gamow and colleagues in the 1940s.

The big-bang model is based on two assumptions. The first is that Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity correctly describes the gravitational interaction of all matter. The second assumption, called the cosmological principle, states that an observer's view of the universe depends neither on the direction in which he looks nor on his location. This principle applies only to the large-scale properties of the universe, but it does imply that the universe has no edge, so that the big-bang origin occurred not at a particular point in space but rather throughout space at the same time. These two assumptions make it possible to calculate the history of the cosmos after a certain epoch called the Planck time. Scientists have yet to determine what prevailed before Planck time.

According to the big-bang model, the universe expanded rapidly from a highly compressed primordial state, which resulted in a significant decrease in density and temperature. Soon afterward, the dominance of matter over antimatter (as observed today) may have been established by processes that also predict proton decay. During this stage many types of elementary particles may have been present. After a few seconds, the universe cooled enough to allow the formation of certain nuclei. The theory predicts that definite amounts of hydrogen, helium, and lithium were produced. Their abundances agree with what is observed today. About 1,000,000 years later the universe was sufficiently cool for atoms to form. The radiation that also filled the universe was then free to travel through space. This remnant of the early universe is the microwave background radiation (three degree background radiation) discovered in 1965 by Arno A. Penzias and Robert W. Wilson.

In addition to accounting for the presence of ordinary matter and radiation, the model predicts that the present universe should also be filled with neutrinos, fundamental particles with no mass or electric charge. The possibility exists that other relics from the early universe may eventually be discovered.

Answer 3

Hi,
I m a Muslim. All these things are discussed in our Holy book i.e Quran. It is said almost 1430 years ago in the Book that the universe is the result of Big Bang. Science found these some 100 years ago.
If u are interest to learn more which u dont know then contact me:
[e-mail]
[phone]
Bye the way I m a Physicst as well I learnt the Holy Quran by heart.

Answer 4

There is no correct answer as to how the universe began. The most popular theory that scientists agree on is that the universe began with a cosmic explosion from a small dense "object"creating the "Big Bang."As there is no proof that it began this way they label it as a "theory"which they are comfortable with until it is proven.or disproved.And yet they won't accept the possibility of a "Creator " because there is no scientific poof. Rather ironic wouldn't you say?

Answer 5

The greatest minds of our generation have not been able to answer this question conclusively, so you thought you'd look for the solution on yahoo? Lmao!

Isn't it obvious that science hasn't "proved" everything? That's the whole reason science exists, to explain the world through reason, observation and experimentation. In other words, to acquire knowledge. If science had the answer to everything all the scientists would be unemployed.

Answer 6

Aristotle would probably answer your question by saying that the Big Bang was caused by the unmoved mover. As you said "Every action has an equal or opposite reaction". However the unmoved mover, God, is the only exception to this law of science.

Answer 7

Your right it's not proven but your no genius and you haven't discovered some gap in science. The Big Bang is a theory for a reason.

Answer 8

Hi The latest I could find in a quick Google was that in the beginning there was a singularity. (Defined as a region that defies all attempts at understanding or modelling.)
For some reason which, so far, we can't hope to explain or model, the singularity expanded rapidly. An actual explosion has been ruled out.
hope it helps
cheers

Answer 9

Ha... This is where a scientist should just say have Faith and you could breath easy and just believe... lol Do a search for "The 11th demension" or "Universe Branes" and see what theories are being worked on now.

Answer 10

Just answering your question from a wider viewpoint: you either have to accept a first event, which, therefore cannot have a cause (or it wouldn't be the first event); or you have to assume that you can go back infinitely in time, and "first" has no meaning; or you have to rethink what time itself means.

None of these options is particularly intuitive, but you have to choose one.
.

Answer 11

my favorite explanation so far.

check out "riddle of the big bang" under hour three
it also helps to check out "parallel universes"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
programs run up to down not left to right


hmmm I wonder about strings and how they could act in singularity forms and if "they" can exist through blackholes all the way to "the other side"

http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php