'Big Bang'- Is it scientifically proven?

Answer 1

== == Much of the material below is really opinion and/or discussion. See the related question 'Is scientific knowledge proven knowledge?' for some basic ideas around the concept of 'proven' knowledge. To me the theory is wrong, because the universe wasn't created by being blown up! If so what was every thing inside of??

== == The big bang theory is of course a theory; it is the opinion of several scientists who are interpreting a certain set of astronomical data. == == There is a great deal of supporting evidence. The direction is irresistably towards the acceptance of the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang is finding more scientists in disagreement because the evidence is turning against it. Like many old paradigms, it still has its zealous adherents. But more scientists (not only creation scientists but secular cosmologists as well) are seeing data which does not fit it well. So, the direction in science is not towards the Big Bang but away from it - or at least, there is an acknowledgment that it doesn't fit some of the latest data. Of course the failure of the Big Bang to explain all the data will not lead to a rush toward creationism or intelligent design. The Big Bang theory itself will be drastically revised or it will be abandoned in favor of another theory which also fits with the long-age evolutionary paradigm. The strength of theories is not in their being proven correct. The best theories turn mysteries into problems. [Read Montague: Your Brain Is (almost) Perfect]. Problems can be approached, taken apart, reasoned and challenged. There is a way to envision our observations of the universe in such a way that they make sense. If it is not the Big Bang, it will be another theory that comes along some day. Theories come and go; it is the nature of science and it is its strength. Alternately, and without appealing to creationism or intelligent design, there are serious logical and philosophical reasons to doubt that any theory is or can ever be proven. But it is unmistakable that progress is made over time. So the heuristic that we know as science does work in that sense. If I had the need for surgical removal of a tumor I would accept the end-product of modern science, and I would not choose to go back to the Bronze Age to be treated by the elders. ** See the related question on proven knowledge.

Answer 2

AnswerThere is a great deal of evidence starting with the observations that inspired it. Present indications are that the universe is expanding and not static. Extrapolating backwards, it is not ureasonable to speculate that there was a time when the expansion 'began'. There are many other observations that support the theory.

Amongst the irrefutable ones are the nature of the cosmic background microwave radiation. Its spectrum and its isotropic nature are completely explained by the Big Bang; no other hypothesis can explain it any better than saying, "I don't why it's there, it's just there."

By definition, all theories are suppositions, speculative views and based on tentative paradigms. Theories attempt to explain facts, or postulate on matters taken for granted, which may or may not be so. The big bang theory is a scientific theory, and scientific theories are subject to change as new information comes to light.

Of course, the 'big bang theory' is a real theory, but whether the so-called 'big bang' itself is an accurate description of the origin of the universe is another matter.

AnswerThe Big Bang might be real, might not. But there was certainly something before it.

For more information about the 'Big Bang', see Related links below this box.

Answer 3

Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts-an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.

Other support for evidence of the big bang is •Radiation has been discovered and it is suggested that this has been left over from the Big Bang.

•Helium is present in the universe in quantities that you would expect after the big bang.

•This theory does not deny God or a Creator. For e.g. was it God that caused the big bang to happen?

•Galaxies are still moving away from each other like ripples in a pond. Just like if there had been a big bang in the past.

Answer 4

Yes. The observed expansion of the universe, coupled with the Cosmic Microwave Background - a sky-wide radiation 'echo' indicating a high energy state throughout the universe about 13.7 billion years ago - it's accepted that the 'Big Bang' did happen.

However, it's important to note that the fact of the Big Bang doesn't imply that all the questions are answered. Cosmologists - scientists studying the nature of the universe as a whole - still have much work to do in finding out the exact nature of the Big Bang, why it happened, and so on.

So yes: we know it happened. In that sense, it is 'proven'. But we don't yet fully understand it.

Answer 5

It is a scientific theory. There is no proof, and there is not likely to be any proof. As a theory, it is subjected to many tests, and the tests result in evidence supporting the theory or evidence refuting it. Over time, we will consider the theory either debunked or supported. However often a theory is supported by evidence, there is always the possibility that an unforeseen observation will be its undoing. That's why proof is a word that most scientists should be very wary of using. See the related question below.

Answer 6

The Big Bang Theory can never be certainly proven, simply because there was no one around to witness it. However, there is some very strong evidencce supporting it. There are only two ways to go: Either the Universe has always existed, or it had a beginning. Very strong evidence points to the latter.

Proof the Universe is Expanding

First and foremost, the Universe is expanding. This has been known for decades. Every galaxy outside our Local Group is speeding away from us. Imagine putting raisins in cake dough. As the yeast makes the cake rise, it expands and the pieces of raisin move further away from each other. This is what we observe with galaxies.

As galaxies move away from us, this causes their light to be shifted towards the red end of the spectrum, and the farther away they are from us, the greater the red shift. It's true that there are some galaxies as far away from us as the Virgo cluster that are approaching us and thus have a blue shifted spectrum, but those are merely because of these galaxies motions within their parent clusters. Moreover, there is a direct relationship between a galaxy's velocity away from us, it's red-shift and it's distance from us.

More proof came when quasars were first observed. At first, astronomers couldn't make sense of their spectra because they didn't appear to match any of the chemical elements. Then they realized they're showing even greater red-shifts than the galaxies they were studying, and the spectra they took were actually that of ionized hydrogen. Today there are many quasars known that are moving away from us at 90 percent of the speed of light, and light that is normally in the far ultraviolet and x-ray region of the spectrum has been shifted into the visible range. So there is proof that space itself is expanding, and moreover examination of supernovae in distant galaxies is showing that expansion is also accelerating. These supernova in distant galaxies are fainter than they should be based upon current theories, indicating that the Universe rate of expansion was not constant over it's lifetime. Today, dark energy and dark matter are vying for dominance, and it's dark energy that is forcing space to expand at an accelerating pace.

Currently there is almost no doubt in the scientific community that the Universe is, in fact, expanding.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

Some more evidence for the Big Bang was discovered in the 1960's. By pointing a radio telescope to the sky, we could practically "hear" the "echo" from the Big Bang. Instead of being a sound, it is actually leftover thermal radiation from the Big Bang which permeates the entire Universe.

At the moment just after the big bang, the universe was full of tremendously hot hydrogen plasma emitting radiation at all frequencies. As the universe expanded the gas thinned out. Eventually it went from glowing white hot, to red hot, then continued to cool as it expanded so that today it is so cold that it only emits gentle microwaves.

The thing is that these microwaves are at the exact intensity that the big bang theory predicts they should be given the age of the universe. No other theory successfully predicts the nature of the microwave background, so that is one of the many reasons scientists, as well as all scientifically literate folk, choose to accept the big bang theory as the best theory that we currently have to explain the current state of the universe.

The fact that this radiation is detected within the same ranges in all directions confirms that it doesn't come from a fixed or finite source, but rather from the early universe itself.

_________________

Universal expansion and the CMB radiation combined are the two strongest pieces of evidence pointing to the Big Bang, which is why in the scientific community there is almost no doubt the Big Bang occured 13.7 billion years ago. Of course there are still little pieces of evidence but these two are the major ones.

This is not to say that the Big Bang is certainly how the Universe came into existence, because we will never know for sure. However, the evidence is quite strong, and makes it the most likely (and only) theory for why the Universe is the way it is today.

Answer 7

Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory

What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?

• First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
• Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
• Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
• Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

Answer 8

Like all good hypotheses, the BB makes testable predictions that will clearly falsify the hypothesis. For instance, the BB predicts the following:

1) The Hubble Constant, when precisely measured, will give a certain age of the Universe. Present values of H show that our Universe is 13.7 billion years old.

2) No white dwarf will be older than that age. As these stars can exists, unchanged, for TRILLIONS of years; a Universe infinite in age would require that white dwarfs older than that age should be common.

3) The ratios of long-lived (ie, half lives of billions of years) isotopes, and their decay products, should never be such that the former would have been decaying for longer than the age of our Universe. Indeed, it should be only a few billion years less.

4) Galaxies far away from us will be young galaxies, but not those close to us. Again, a Universe basically unchanged through eternity would have such galaxies both close to us and far away.

5) All parts of our Universe should be about 90% hydrogen and 10% helium.

6) Isotropic radiation resembling a black-body of temperature 3.7 K should be reaching us.

The Hubble Constant gives an age of our Universe of about 13.7 billion years, a fact that COULD be explained by an infinitely old, Steady State Universe. However, such a SS Universe fails to explain the fact that (2), (3), and (4) are all correct. And no cosmology can explain (5) and (6) other than saying, "I don't know why our Universe is like that, it just IS like that."

The statement "The Big Bang Cosmology is correct" is about like saying "Gravity between planets is correct."

There are some facts about our Universe that Big Bang Cosmology fails to explain, the same way that atmospheric scientists can't explain why we have lightning. The statement, "BB Cosmology can't explain this, so it must be false," would be like saying, "Scientists can't explain lightning, so its existence must be false."

Answer 9

Yes. * http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2005 * http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm * http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/cos_home.html * http://map.gsfc.NASA.gov/universe/

Answer 10

First of all it is only a theory , so nothing can be certain about it,