how is big bang theory true?

Question

Big bang theory states that the universe is expanding due to an explosion that took place millions of years ago.When it took place, the velocity of moving particles, including earth was thousands times of a light year.The recently known history of universe says that earth hasn't touched the velocity of light.In due course the speed might be decreased.still it should have at least a speed beyond the speed that it possess now

Answer 1

You mention........the velocity of moving particles Earth including was thousand times of a light year. You do not make sense. 'Light year' is a measurement of distance not speed. Now for the BBBBigggggggg Bang

The Big Bang is a cosmological model of the universe whose primary assertion is that the universe started from a tremendously dense and hot state, and has been expanding ever since. The term is also used in a narrower sense to describe the fundamental 'fireball' that erupted at or close to time t=0 in the history of the universe.[1]

Observational evidence for the Big Bang includes the analysis of the spectrum of light from galaxies, which reveal a shift towards longer wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship described by Hubble's law. Combined with the assumption that observers located anywhere in the universe would make similar observations (the Copernican principle), this suggests that space itself is expanding. Extrapolation of this expansion back in time yields a state in the distant past in which the universe was in a state of immense density and temperature. This hot, dense state is the key premise of the Big Bang. Observations now place the age of the universe at around 13.7 billion years.

Theoretical support for the Big Bang comes from mathematical models, called Friedmann models, which show that a Big Bang is consistent with general relativity and with the cosmological principle, which states that the properties of the universe should be independent of position or orientation.

The theory of Big Bang nucleosynthesis predicts the rates at which various light elements are created in models of the early universe and gives results that are generally consistent with observations. The Big Bang model also predicts the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), a background of weak microwave radiation filling the whole universe. The discovery of the CMB in 1964 led to general acceptance among physicists that the Big Bang is the best model for the origin and evolution of the universe.

Answer 2

Not everyone here is out to bash you.

I subscribe to the "Big Bang" theory but with a slightly different view of what the "Big Bang" was actually caused by.

The original "Big Bang" theory posits the Universe at one time had all the matter and energy we now perceive concentrated into a tiny spec that suddenly burst out by a giant instantaneous explosion in all directions and ultimately expanding into what we now consider to be the Universe. It also conjectures that it was only this time in the Universes history that it was possible to move faster than the speed of light. Because in the beginning during this explosion, physics broke down because so much matter and energy was involved mathematical equations cannot even explain the events unfolding. After this fraction of milliseconds of time, though, physics did take over.

However, I subscribe to the "Superstring Theory" that explains or theorizes that our Universe is actually a giant amoeba-like substance called a "membrane" that is only one of possibly infinite amounts of other membranes. On occasion (in eon time, of course) two membranes will collide and create a giant explosion, what we call a "Big Bang" in each membrane destroying and simultaneously recreating all matter in a continuous cycle. It has happened in our past, according to this theory, and could, and likely will happen in our inconceivable future.

This stuff fascinates me so much and love to come across forums like this =)

~jaz~

Answer 3

You have it backward. The big bang does not say the universe must be expanding, it offers one explanation WHY we SEE the universe expanding NOW. The expansion is a simple observational fact based on the Doppler shift we see in light from distant galaxies. This is exactly the same Doppler shift that police radar uses to measure your car's speed. All distant galaxies are moving away from us(although some very nearby ones are not), and the more distant a galaxy is the faster it is moving. The simplest explanation for this observation is that the universe as a whole is expanding, and if it is expanding it must have been smaller in the past. Logically, far enough in the past, it must have been extremely small. The theory that was built around this is called the Big Bang.

Answer 4

The Big Bang was the start of time, space, and matter. Thus, the question makes as much sense in physics as asking, "What's north of the North Pole?" It used to be that science couldn't answer the question about the origin of the Big Bang, but that didn't mean we should make up a god and say that it was the cause. Within the last few decades science has discovered some good answers. There are many well-respected physicists, such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Alan Guth, Alex Vilenkin, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, who have created scientific models where the Big Bang and thus the entire universe could arise from nothing but a quantum vacuum fluctuation -- via natural processes. I know that this doesn't make sense in our Newtonian experience, but it does in the realm of quantum mechanics and relativity. As Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman wrote, "The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as she is — absurd." For more, watch the video at the 1st link - "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss. -

Answer 5

Edwin Hubble himself rejected the idea of using the apparent redshift of distant galaxies as a valid support for the Big Bang theory. He postulated that there could be another reason for the observed spectral shift. One thing to keep in mind is that we do not know what happens to light after it travels for billions of light years, through an interstellar/intergalactic medium which is generally agreed upon to NOT be completely empty.

The discovery of the cosmic background radiation actually forced scientists to restructure their model of the Big Bang to fit in with the observed levels. Steady state actually does a better job of predicting what we see than Big Bang does, in my opinion.

And deep field images sent back from the Hubble telescope indicate the universe is even older still that what was first predicted. I wonder how many times the Big Bang theory will have to bend before it breaks altogether.

I personally think that so many people hold tight to the Big Bang theory because it gives people a sense of a beginning and falls more in line with most religious beliefs of a concrete beginning to everything. Occam's razor, however, indicates that Big Bang is not a good theory, being far too complex and difficult to fathom for 99.99% of the population.

Answer 6

Better go back to the books, Jack.

Your conceptual understanding of the Big Bang is way off. The Big Bang happened 14 billion years ago. I'm not sure where you get your information that the velocity was 'thousands times of a light year'. And the Earth was not created until the premordial gases of what would become our solar system condensed about 41/2 billion years ago. Earth is not, and never has been, travelling even close to the speed of light.

Answer 7

Your statement is not correct
The Big bang theory does not say that things travelled at thousands of times the speed of light
It is true that The Big bang theory suggests that the universe was created by an explosion and that it has since been expanding

Time is defined with respect to this explosion
Time before the explosion did not exist

Scientists have found out that the universe is expanding constantly so that is proof for this theory

You can read more about this theory and its proof here

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

Answer 8

i disagree with this statement of yours that "When it took place, the velocity of moving particles, including earth was thousands times of a light year"..
first of all, earth was made a thousands and thousands years after the big bang.. so how can earth be present at the time it took place??

secondly, light year is a measurement of distance.. so how can it be related to the velocity thing??

Answer 9

You obviously know nothing about the big bang, or any other form of science. First of all, the big bang, if it occured (theory), happened about 15 BILLION years ago. Second of all the Earth is only 4 billion years old (you will take note of the 11 BILLION year time difference) The universes expansion had slowed down long before any stars or planets were formed!

Answer 10

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking but I think you need to brush up on what a light year is. It's a measurement of distance not velocity. The velocity couldn't be a light year or thousands of times that since that's like saying my car is going thousands of times of a mile.

If you mean thousands of times faster than the speed of light then that also makes little sense since no matter can go faster than light.