The Big Bang theory of cosmology assumes that the universe began from a singular state of infinite density. As Joseph Silk defines the Big Bang theory, it is a model of the universe in which space-time began with an initial singularity, and subsequently expands. It was first implied in Alexander Friedmann’s complete solution of Albert Einstein’s equations in 1922 [referring to Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, published around 1915, which claims that space is curved]. In 1927, Georges Lemaitre used equations to devise a cosmological theory that incorporated the concept that the universe has been expanding from an explosive moment of creation.

What do you think of this theory?

I have trouble with the big bang theory and also that the universe was made by a creator. I doubt we will ever really truly know unless we have some way of sending something back to that point in time to record it and survive what ever happened to create the universe we live in and then come back and show us what it recorded.

All evidence currently points to The Big Bang being correct. But I don't think you fully understand the theory because you said the following statement...



Its a common misconception that the big bang and evolution deal with origins. They do not.

All it explains is what happened after the point of singularity. It doesn't explain what happened at or before the point of singularity.

I believe the theory because it is the currently accepted true theory, but unfortunetly there isn't an exact model of the beggining (first second or so). So all we basically know is that "something" happened and then lots of energy went everywere and turned into matter etc. etc.

That first nano-second is debatable..... but please dont say "god".....

Personally I don't think the universe started in the big bang. It's been proven mathmatically, but they've also mathmatically proven you can blip out of existance and then reappear in the room next door on a very rare occasion. I believe we simply don't know enough to claim confidently "this is how it happened".

Theres more evidence for the big bang rather than just raw mathematics.

In addition, the situation you gave is indeed true, however the probability that this happens is so small, that it is older than the universe itself... ie. it will never happen.

I believe in the Big Bang, since everything so far suggests that it's what happened.

The big crunch is not the same as the Big Bang, btw.

Could it very well be possible that a super giant black hole was the singularity, then collapsed in on itself from the sheer might of its
own gravity, which then exploded, causing the expansion of a universe as we know it today?

Just a thought.


Regards,
Tom

I still can't wrap my head around the concept of ALL matter being in one location. Sure, I guess we can say it's theoretically possible, but I don't understand the logic behind it. Matter would need to be smaller than an atom itself O_o...

I do realize that some say that physics change in a singularity(Like a black hole). But if that's true, how can you even tell me YOU understand it?

Well said. I agree with chaoszerg as well. The only way to know for sure would be to witness the event. I've read a lot supporting the theory as well as debunking it. I find it interesting that all theories have supporters and debunkers. Facts are irefutable, yet I heard a woman on tv the other night say, "Facts are a dime a dozen, what science needs is more theories."

I laughed my butt off.

Until a theory is proven, it remains a theory. Once proven it becomes a fact. Would you say this is correct? And if so, how does it relate to the big bang.

And btw, this thread is about the bang, not God. One post was requesting that we do not say God, I am willing to respect that as this is about the bang, however it is a religion, belief...etc. thread, so it wouldn't be unacceptable.

On a side note, evolutionists often ban God from a discussion of origins. Just thought I'd mention that. No big deal.

Gravity is also just a theory. Try falling up.

The "LAW" of gravity is a law not a theory. Next.

This is interesting. Some have also suggested white holes. Do you suppose a black hole collapsing in would lose it's gravitational pull and then release all the matter. That would definately be a BIG bang.

That's true, I'm just saying that observations over such long distances and mathmatics alone aren't enough to say with 100% confidence that the big bang is what created the universe. I'm not saying it's untrue by any means, just the current evidence I've seen isn't enough to convince me.

You're both equally wrong and equally right. Both deal with different aspects of gravity.

i think everybody needs to read this through about 4 times, sit down have a deep breath and a cup of warm cocoa and read it again.

and again

A more recently proposed view of black holes might be interpreted as shedding some light on the nature of classical white holes. Some researchers proposed that when a black hole forms, a big bang occurs at the core which creates a new universe that expands into extra dimensions outside of the parent universe.

The initial feeding of matter from the parent universe's black hole and the expansion that follows in the new universe might be thought of as a cosmological type of white hole. Unlike traditional white holes, this type of white hole would not be localized in space in the new universe and its horizon would have to be identified with the cosmological horizon.

See also: Fecund Universes

I like what is being said about "before" the big bang. Maybe there are many of them every second. Thoughts?

Cool stuff, Tom! Thanks.

A scientific theory is not nor ever proven. There is no need for it to be so. Imagine you have a book, with infinite pages. The book is a scientific theory, each fact/observation/piece of evidence you collect fills a page in this book, what would be the point of ever closing a book?

In science we call certain things laws, this is misleading because being a law is not what they really are. In reality all laws are theories which evidence currently supports. We also have confusing names and terminology and double names to make matters worse.

For instance, there is the fact of gravity and theory of gravity. Gravity, happens that is observable and we know it. The theory of gravity explains why we have gravity, how we have gravity. First Newton, then Einstein's amendments to the theory. Evolution is the same way. Evolution itself, is a fact of nature. Changes in allele frequencies across generations is something observable in nature and the lab. Evolutionary theory seeks to explain the why's and the how's.

BB theory is supported by a large amount of very solid evidence. Anyone who wishes to learn more from a good source should read HERE:Big bang 101

Read the above post.

Fecund universes, multiverses and MWI are all very interesting, they lack in one major point though. Falsifiability, without it they are nothing more than fun bar talks for smart people!

Very well said, and I agree.

You obviously have absolutely no idea what a theory is. It's not a "guess", or whatever you creationists and pseudoscientists imagine that it is. The moon orbiting the earth, for example, is a theory.

And no, we do not need to witness an event to know what happened. For example, look at this picture.
Do you need to witness what happened here in order to have a strong idea what happened? Of course not. You don't start saying "maybe the paint spread itself all over the place and later the kids turned up". Why? Because all the evidence suggests that the children did it.

Except for with the big bang, there is a LOT more evidence, mathematical and astrophysical.

And of course many theories have supporters and adversaries, but that doesn't have any effect on the validity of the argument. What matters are the facts and evidence. Truth is not a democracy, you don't "vote" or "choose" which is the right option, like creationists seem to think.

I've always been a devout follower of String Theory.

While it is very possibly flawed, it seems to me to make the most sense.

These are really great if you have time to watch them:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

If you can, Greene's book is great too.

Also more on the Big Bang:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Not unlike the war on Evolution(and the war on the rest of most of modern science) the Big Bang is almost always just dismissed by Creationists with a laugh and some of the following Christian Creationist claims:
"How could something come out of nothing?"
"You think our perfect universe came from a cosmic burp?"
"What was before the Big Bang?"
"There's no evidence!"
As you can see, almost all of these are explained or proved wrong by the links.

See, over the last 2,000 years since jesus and the Bible we've made extraordinary advances in explaining the natural world, and those who get good educations learn them.

Which is probably why Christian Creationism is making such a huge come back in America; With our terrible school systems most aren't taught the Big Bang and Evolution and Science very well at all.

The main Fundamentalist propaganda strategy is "I am too lazy to learn and research any Science, so I'll stick to my 2,000 year old book even if it defies most of modern science, ethics, and contradicts itself. After all, Science is only a 'theory'"

Christian Fundamentalism is just so ridiculous in so many ways; There isn't really a Creationism-vs-Evolution debate, but a Ignorance-vs-Modern Science debate.

More:
http://members.shaw.ca/amitdeshwar/creationism.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...7_big_bang.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ric...gbangredux.html
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
http://www.leyada.jlm.k12.il/proj/black/evidence.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

PS- sorry for the Creationism rant.

Well said.

Brilliant post

But science calls those educated guesses "theories."

Your picture strongly implies the children played with paint. But you can not prove that significantly enough for science call it a fact, unless you observed the past event. There IS a possibility that someone doused the kids with paint. There is a possibility that it is not paint at all. There is a possibility that.... although no other explanations are LIKELY, an it is highly probable that the children played with the paint, it will always be a theory, (though a very solid one) unless you observed it happen.

i think the main argument here is what was before the bing bang. Well scientists believe, that before the bigbang, everything was in a collective nebula type gaseos matter, then there was some time of reaction, which made the big bang. The only thing they are not sure about is, what the reaction was or what caused it. In my opinion it was god.

if there was nothing, and we know for certain there was a big bang, then it must have been god too, if there was the above a gaseos nebula type matter, which blew apart and thus you have the universe, the force to cause that reaction must be god, either way its intelligent design.

I'm no scientist, so I'm asking that if this explanation is accurate, where did the nebula type gaseos matter come from?

Is it science's position that something from nothing IS possible?

Its was matter, everything in that unverse is made from and everythign that is within it. was a gaseous matter, like nebula, thats what was there before the big bang. What was before nebula, nothing obviously,, because the universe was not created at that point, what we know as the universe, was matter all huddled up mixed up like a nebula and then bang, something caused a reaction, which we dont know what it was, i believe its god. so the question what was before the the nebula is a bit silly, thats assuming the nebula was within universe we already know, what im saying is that, thats what universe was before the big bang, just a load of gas.

Now what was before the nebula, nothing, this why its obviously caused by god. We know the big bang happened, hubble has observed elements of it, and science through many true sciences, like physics and maths have proven it so. But you cant something from nothing, unless yur god. So what the big bang really shows, is that the universe was nebula of gas, before it was nothing, so somthing put it there, this gas erupted, (big bang) thus u get the universe we have today. So its even more obvious it was god, its just that scientist find it hard to accept. hope that clear if not, imwill try again and use some acadmic material.

Have we proven Big Bang to a certainty, is it no longer a theory?

I was under the impression that past events, no matter how strong the evidence supporting an idea, are still always theories.

Where are you getting this information? I've never heard anyone claim what existed before the Big Bang besides in the most speculative manner. It's pretty much impossible for us to even model it past the Planck Epoch with our current understanding of physics.

Salaam (Peace)

Accordng to The Quran the universe we now observe began as a singularity.

It's very much a theory, but a scientific theory, used to make sense of observable phenomenon.

that's what I thought.

someone on another string is arguing that because the hubble can see light from the past, the the big bang is no longer a theory, but a fact. that didn't sound right to me.

Certain aspects of it are factual. Inflation for instance. It also has made many predictions that have born out to be true. Background radiation and such. These are facts. The theory is what these facts very strongly imply. I would feel confident in saying that a big bang, i.e. a massive inflation event, took place as a fact, but things such as definitive states of the universe, why is it speeding up and other such things are what the theory is trying to rectifiy.

Again you fail to understand what theory means. It is not a "guess". Heliocentrism, for example, is a theory.

That's often an issue with pseudoscientists - they get caught up in the details, like terminology (they actually base their argument on idividual words, pathetic) and try to use that to show faults in science, discarding all real sicence, evidence and reason behind the theory then jumping to ridiculous conclusions which support their religious views, no matter how crazed and unsubstantiated.

@Ozi
Where do you keep coming up with that ridiculous BS?

Umm, you see... the interesting part is that science believe time started with the big bang, so when you say "before the big bang" you really are not talking about science anymore but your own flawed opinion.

And where do they believe it was a "nebula type gaseous matter", hmm? Thats one of the funniest things I've heard.



What? That's not the big bang theory at all! For this "nebula" to exist, that would imply the universe already exists! Why dont you go back to your e-books and check their sources...?



Well, fortunatly for us and all of science, what you say happened is quite irrelevant.



No one says there was ever nothing.



Umm, not at all, because the big bang says nothing about what was "before" the big bang. How much education do you have?



Thats an interesting notion... assuming you could get far enough away, you would be able to observe the big bang, because the light that originated from the big bang has only tavelled a limited distance so far. Whats interesting is, though, that you'd have to leave the universe to do so, unless the universe is expanding at a speed faster than c.