So where do we find evidence that the "Big Bang Therory" is true?

Question

I'm always asked "can you show me the evidence God exists, where's the proof?"
So everyone can agree the universe had a beginning. What is the proof that it all happened in one big bang and suddenly there was light and matter? Where's the proof?

Answer 1

Do a simple google search and or ask a cosmologist. For some strange reason, I would think they would hang out in the science section.



@bluto, if there was no factual evidence for the big bang theory then it would be a hypothesis. Please look up the scientific method.



edit- I do have a clue, I am just an informed laymen though. I don't have a lot of information. I was suggesting you look it up, so you could get a more complete picture then I have.



edit- Big difference there, we can see the sky this god person, has never been seen.



edit2- now to translate your idea into English. "It is all so complicated, and I don't understand it. It must be magic"

Answer 2

When we look at an object 100 million light years away, we are looking at it as it was 100 million years ago. The further into space we can see, the closer to the first moments of the universe we are looking.



In the other direction, we are learning how the energy from the big bang became the "stuff" of the universe. We do that with subatomic linear accelerators that let physicists duplicate the conditions in the first second of the big bang. Everything we've learned so far is confirming the theory. However there are many things that are known but not explained. Like the fact that particles created with a relationship maintain that relationship even when they are widely separated. A famous example is a pair of particles that spin opposite each other. If they are separated by large distances and the spin of one is reversed, the other reverses too. Instantly, faster than light could travel from one to the other.

Answer 3

I once heard a catholic priest once answer this question this way: "For all we know the Big Bang was God sneezing."



The way we would verify the theory of the big bang would be to prove that all matter in the universe "came into existence" at the same time. Classical physics states that all matter and all energy have always existed and always will. Modern physics suggest that there may be a type of energy/matter known as entropy which is actually changing in quantity as time progresses. Regardless of which theory is true, if we can look at very distant stars and conclude that they started "burning" at the same time as our sun; or if we can plot the drift of our galaxy and show that all other galaxies started at the same point, then we can verify that our universe has an origin at a specific spot in space and time.



Two salient points about the big bang theory that may help those who believe in God to reconcile it:



1: there is no definitive statement about what "existed" before the big bang; if anything. So God may have made the "big bang" from nothing. Similar to the Judeo-Christian Genesis and most other creation stories.



2: Given the incredible randomness and chaos necessary to create and mitigate an event such as the Big Bang, the end result of our universe, galaxy, planet, and ecosystem is a very unlikely one. There is no way to prove God wasn't involved.

Answer 4

Now I know I'm wasting my time and I know you won't read this and I know that even if you do read it, you won't accept it and will resist any effort to really understand the Big Bang, but here goes anyway:



The Big Bang theory is science's best explanation of how the universe was created. The theory asserts that our entire universe was created when a tiny (billions of times smaller than a proton), super-dense, super-hot mass exploded and began expanding very rapidly, eventually cooling and forming into the stars and galaxies with which we are familiar. This event is said to have happened approximately 15 billion years ago. Rather than expanding outward into some preexisting vacuum, the event of the Big Bang was space itself expanding - perhaps at speeds greater than light. (While Einstein's theory of relativity forbids anything within space from travelling faster than light, it sets no limitations on how fast the fabric of space itself may expand.)



The Big Bang theory was originally developed in the late 1920s by Georges-Henri Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest and astronomer, an early advocate of solutions to the general relativity field equations which predicted our universe was expanding. (For cosmological theories to be taken seriously, they must pose possible solutions to Einstein's general relativity field equations.) Though the expanding-universe solution to the field equations was derived by the Russian cosmologist Alexander Friedman in 1922, Lemaître was the first to realize that a continuously expanding universe implies that at some point in the past the universe must have been much denser and smaller, even atom-sized.



The Big Bang theory is supported primarily by two major lines of evidence - first, the fact that all galaxies are rapidly moving away from each other (confirmed by Edwin Hubble in 1929), and secondly, the presence of the cosmic microwave background radiation, or the "echo" of the Big Bang. The cosmic microwave background radiation was not discovered until 1965, and up to this point, scientists were divided between the Big Bang theory and its rival, Fred Hoyle's steady state model, which asserted that the universe was expanding, but staying basically the same because new matter was continuously being created.



Since the late 1960s, the Big Bang theory has been the dominant explanation for the birth of our universe. Fred Hoyle's steady state model has been discarded. Most of cosmology since that time has consisted of modifications and extensions of Big Bang theory. Because physicists have not yet formulated a consistent theory that explains how gravity operates on extremely small scales (like those present at the instant of the Big Bang), cosmologists are unable to formulate theories as to what happened before about 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. Our universe may have originated as a pointlike entity with nearly-infinite density, or perhaps something else. Our mathematics, instruments, and scientific methodologies may need to be substantially improved before any further progress is made.

Answer 5

I can't see why people have an issue with the Big Bang theory. After all the whole idea came from a Christian. Or were you perhaps not aware of that? Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, independently derived the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity in 1927 and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae, that the universe began as a simple "primeval atom"—now known as the Big Bang.



God Works in Mysterious ways. Unfortunately more of his sheep don't read books or know what they are talking about. Why don't you guys crack a book other than the one full of mythological stories from 2000 years ago that have been historically, archaeologically, and scientifically proved false.

Answer 6

You will never find the concrete "proof" you're seeking. The same could be said for the Big Bang's apologists. A theory, while more than a hypothesis, still hasn't been verified 100%. It is interesting to note, however, from a New Testament/Christian standpoint, that it was predicted long ago (the Bible) that as time goes by, fewer and fewer will subscribe to Creationism. Judging by the answers preceding mine, this appears spot on.

Answer 7

The Hubble telescope has measured the Doppler shift in visible and invisible light; giving some pretty good evidence for the Big Bang. However, according to Newton and Einstein, the Big Bang could not have CREATED matter and energy, only changed its form.

Answer 8

actually - we dont - the evidence they have is very circumstantial



the #1 item it the red shift of things far away - they say its a Doppler shift caused by the expansion of the universe - but there are other less widely accepted explanations.



the interesting thing is that, the more they look the weirder things get and they have to make up new stuff in ADDITION to the doppler shift (expansion) to account for that they see. But other simple theorys account for all of it - my fav is that spacetime is a 4-dimensional sphere - the further away you look the more curved spacetime becomes and the redder things look. Thia allows for the red-shift and the INCREASING red shift in a simple model.



ok i am done thinking for the day



just keep in mind the same scientific community that believes this stuff said it was almost impossible for a large body to have caused mass extinctions - and they said so a mere 30 years ago.



Maybe the reason they cannot get gravity and quantum physics to co-exist at the time of the bang is that the bang didnt happen? ... just sayin

Answer 9

Radiation and heat spots in outer space.



And the fact that instead of the universe heating up, it is cooling down. Meaning it used to be extremely hot at one point.



The universe is constantly expanding. When you reverse time, it constantly compresses smaller and smaller. There was a point in time when it started from a small spot and grew to what we know now.



The Big Bang doesn't necessarily mean that the universe had a beginning. The universe existed before the Big Bang. The Big Bang is what made the universe EXPAND and disperse.



It was a Roman Catholic priest who came up with the Big Bang to prove God's existence.

Answer 10

The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence:



* Einstein's general theory of relativity implies that the universe cannot be static; it must be either expanding or contracting.



* The more distant a galaxy is, the faster it is receding from us (the Hubble law). This indicates that the universe is expanding. An expanding universe implies that the universe was small and compact in the distant past.



* The big bang model predicts that cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation should appear in all directions, with a blackbody spectrum and temperature about 3 degrees K. We observe an exact blackbody spectrum with a temperature of 2.73 degrees K.



* The CMB is even to about one part in 100,000. There should be a slight unevenness to account for the uneven distribution of matter in the universe today. Such unevenness is observed, and at a predicted amount.



* The big bang predicts the observed abundances of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium. No other models have been able to do so.



* The big bang predicts that the universe changes through time. Because the speed of light is finite, looking at large distances allows us to look into the past. We see, among other changes, that quasars were more common and stars were bluer when the universe was younger.



Note that most of these points are not simply observations that fit with the theory; the big bang theory predicted them.



If you reject the big bang, how do you explain all the evidence for it?

Answer 11

ur not entirely right. the big bang theory is based on various observations that indicate that the universe is expanding. earlier in the 20th cent. that was not clear, and at that time there was also also a theory that the universe had NO beginning. the religious arguments that the universe has to have a beginning (which actually go back to nonreligious, philosophical, speculations of aristotle) are not valid because they assume that u have to have a beginning regardless of what the physical facts are. if u want to understand what the facts are that support the big bang, u will have to study some physics. which is perfectly feasible for any normal person provided they devote a little time to it, instead of wasting it on nonsense.

Answer 12

The Big Bang is very much a fact. You can find evidence in science books, university web sites, libraries, everywhere.



BTW, the Big Bang essentially proves a Creator. According to the vast majority of cosmologists, physicists, and astronomers, the odds of the Big Bang creating the universe naturally appears to be impossible. The thousands of physical constants, the literally hundreds of millions of equations and their ratios to each other cannot come together naturally.



Science knows the Big Bang happened, they now how it happened, but they don't know why.



Edit** @ JR - So, she asks a question about the Big Bang - cosmology - and you tell her to take a sophmore class in biology - living organisms. And you're a teacher, and have been for the last 26 years? Something doesn't quite sound right.

Answer 13

There are literally hundreds of thousands to millions of recordings of microwave background radiation observations from ground-based radio telescopes that establish the temperature of the cosmic background radiation. Anyone can examine them by requesting them from the people who recorded them (Bell Labs, NASA, Jodrell Bank, Arecibo, etc.).

There are hundreds of thousands of images from WMAP and COBE and other space observatories that map the anisotropy (or lack thereof) of the cosmic background to a fraction of a degree of arc, and you can examine those any time you want (see NASA, ESA, etc.).

There are glass plates, film images, and digital images of hundreds of thousands to millions of galaxies, with spectrographic red-shift data as well, at universities, observatories, and libraries all over the world, dating back almost 100 years. You can examine those any time you want to (start with the Mt. Wilson observatory, CalTech, STSI, NASA, etc.).

Georges LeMaitre's original paper on the expansion of the universe, with its solutions to Einstein's relativity equations showing a non-static universe, is available on-line. Go ahead and read it, and you can verify his math.

Then there are the hundreds of thousands of scientific papers from LeMaitre, Einstein, Hubble, Zwicky, Hawking, Williams, Sagan, and thousands of others detailing the evidence, reporting observations, giving the results of experiments, etc. Most are available free, but for some you'll have to buy back-issues of scientific journals in which they were published.



All of the above provide extensive evidence supporting the "big bang" theory. If you start now, assuming you have a good base education in physics, mathematics, astronomy, stellar mechanics, relativity, etc. you should be able to get through it all in, oh, 30 years or so if you do nothing else.

Go right ahead.



And if you're not willing to actually do that and look at the extensive evidence that exists, then you have no credibility being a critic of it. Your own laziness and unwillingness to actually examine the evidence is not "proof" that there is none or that it's wrong.



Peace.

Answer 14

I think the reality is that nobody knows how the universe started and we probably never will know that. There's all sorts of theories out there, and the "creator" theory (belief in a god) is just one of them, but other theories like the Big Bang Theory make a lot more sense.

Answer 15

"The cosmic microwave background spectrum measured by the FIRAS instrument on the COBE satellite is the most-precisely measured black body spectrum in nature.[3] The data points and error bars on [the classic representation] are obscured by the theoretical curve."



-White, M. (1999). "Anisotropies in the CMB". Proceedings of the Los Angeles Meeting, DPF 99.





The COBE satellite data supporting the Big Bang theory is in fact the most precisely confirmed measurement in all of the history of human science. In accordance with the data we have as a scientific public, it is more strongly evidenced that the universe began with the Big Bang than it is that the next time you drop a pencil, it will fall down instead of up.

Answer 16

That's kind of the point; being science the Big Bang theory *started* with evidence and then arrived at a logical conclusion instead of starting with an assumption and trying to make everything else fit.

Answer 17

Just to let you in on a bit of history of the big bang theory, it was actually proposed by a catholic priest named Georges Le Maitre. Initially Einstein dismissed the theory. It took Le Maitre and Hubble to finally convice Einstein that the theory held water. Le Maitre was fully supported by the church. As for the proof, previous posts have already provided you with plenty so I'm not going to repeat.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

Answer 18

google cosmic background radiation--much like einstein predicted the curvature of light around a gravity well--which was demonstrated experimentally in astronomy after his theory came out--the mathematics of the big bang theory predict that you should find a omnidirectional source of microwave radiation which would be the doppler shifted radiation from the big bang event itself. The nobel prize in physics in the 1970's was awarded to a set of physicists who indeed confirmed by experiment--the predicted radiation from the big bang. That constitutes actual physical proof of the theory--something the religious still lack in their goddidit theory.

Answer 19

we are actually providing more and more proof by using the Hadron Collider to replicate the Big Bang but on the atomic scale. not to mention that by studying the growing distances between celestial bodies, we can already prove that everything originated from one point

Answer 20

Stay in school, li'l puppy.... get that sophomore class in biology.



Watch The Science Channel, read Science Magazine, Discover magazine. Your school library ought to have both. Google Big Bang. It's all out there.... all you gotta do is be curious.



(Gods don't exist. we have no tests to make any god show up. And holy books come by the dozens...gods and religions are all the same...same dog, different collar.)



Science, on the other hand, searches for patterns, systems, laws of nature, etc. And when things are found that are different, all scientists love it. Religions, on the other hand, deny any science that gets into their little box called "Religion"--sacred stuff---magic.



There 's just a ton of proof, and entire semester and year long classes examine. Your question is too large for anyone to answer on here with a sentence or two.



You're just beginning, and get gets better and better.

Answer 21

Cosmic Background Radiation

Galaxies accelerating away (Hubble)

Distribution ratio of primary elements



For starters.



You should also refine your understanding of the Big Bang. The real thing doesn't match your description.

Answer 22

Hubble Red Shift.

Answer 23

Ok well the big bang is just a back up that "logically" backs up that God made the earth and the heavens but there is no proof just theories.

Answer 24

Red light shift, look it up.





Edit: No

The ones who answered "look" it Up are simply tired of educating scientific illiterates, who because of their silly beliefs, deny the scientific method and the scientific theories produced by incalculable hours of research done by people with minds far greater than their own.

Answer 25

Actually there is much evidence for the big bang, and this supported by many creationist. Many creationist don't deny the big bang. We just know who banged it. Frank Turek The Christian motivational speaker who most high profile atheist are afraid to debate supports the big bang. God bless.

Answer 26

Background radiation, plus an extrapolation from the fact that it is expanding. It's established science, almost certainly true.

Answer 27

There is far more evidence then you can imagine. But i don't know the exact answer because i wasn't alive billions of years ago.

Answer 28

Its a proposed theory not a proven one.



Whatever it might be don't care of both ( God and Big bang )

Answer 29

For one there is tons of measurements. So that right there is one more piece of evidence that creationism and god don't have combined!

Answer 30

not heard of Background Noise yet?

Hubble's Red shift?

Expanding universe?

Answer 31

Do the math. Quite literally.

Answer 32

Try the Science section in the local library.

Answer 33

Redshifts, the CMBR, abundance of elements... tons of places.

Answer 34

I can't. However, unlike creationism, I have the advantage of being plausible.



"I don't know" is a valid answer.

Answer 35

You probably missed the big echo...

Answer 36

Bluto must be a master of sarcasm!

Answer 37

In peer reviewed articles. You know, those papers that you ignore.

Answer 38

I like to bang, so true!

Answer 39

In the Science & Mathematics section. :)

Answer 40

BIG BANG? MORE LIKE BIG LIE. EVERYONE HAS A UNIQUE FINGERPRINT!!!!!!!!!!!!..THAT IS NO ACCIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THINGS WORK IN ORDER IN THIS LIFE.....BIG BANGS LEAD TO NO ORDER ........ONLY INTELLIGENT DESIGN DOES. THERE IS A CREATOR....NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.

Answer 41

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

Answer 42

Psst,The Big Bang Theory is fake.

Answer 43

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

Answer 44

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXX XXXXXX

XXXXX XXXXXX REALITY BUTTON PRESS IT.

XXXXX XXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Answer 45

bend over.



i'll show you.

Answer 46

All you will find is a bunch of theories based on one person's opinion. There is no factual evidence to backup the Big Bang Theory.