We (most of us) believe thaty universe is orginated from the big bang. There are also many other theories.But how can we prove these theories scientifically.I have a suggestion about the universe-look at our body . our cells look like a small galaxy to me (gave u a clue)
122962
Well you are right most of us believes in big bang . The origin of the universe cannot be proven scientifically.The big bang can be believed some how becouse now the stars are dieng and are born .Well this may be how the universe must have been formed
20691
Big Bang is a theory advanced by some, but not all, scientists.\n\nThat's how science works.  As new discoveries are made and as further aspects of this theory are tested, it will either be discarded or become enshrined with a further aura of truth.\n\nI am a scientist who does not believe this theory.  Does not make me an enemy of those who do believe it.\n\nI am a Christian.  As such, this theory does not bother me at all.\n\nGod gave us MIND and BRAINS for thinking about things.  I DO THINK that thinking about anything and everything is a VERY PROFITABLE activity.  I think that as BOTH a Christian and a scientist.\n\nFinally, I remind you that the Apostles seldom had exactly the same view on any matter.  They did not kill or condemn one another because of that.\n\nGod made each one of us different.  In the entire cosmos there is no one else with exactly the same personality you have.  Your resulting style will be unique.\n\nMine is too.  May resemble others in some ways, but never completely.
622258
The scientific theory is that the Universe started as a fluctuation of the vacuum. Such vacuum fluctuations make appear a small amount of energy, for a small time. This phenomenon is responsible for the existence of forces, that hold the Universe and matter together.\n\nNormally the bigger the energy fluctuation, the smaller the time it is in existence.\n\nNot so the Big Bang. That was a HUGE fluctuation. So big that a lot of energy came to appearance in the form of mass, elementary particles. These particles started expanding, before the vacuum could reclaim the energy.\n\nAnd it is still expanding today. 14 billion years later.
75421
If I were you, I'd search it myself instead of asking people, but that's just me.\n\nThere are so many theories to how the universe started, in which the Big Bang theory is the most popular. In this theory, it all started with a single point with the same amount of matter in the universe and it was really really hot. Then it just explodes, continuing to expand at an alarming speed. It was so hot that not even the particles that made up atoms could not even form until the universe was expanded enough to cool down, and then the first atoms were made. Then it just continues to expand to where we are now.\n\nThat's one theory. I like the never-started theory. There was no beginning to our universe. The reason why the Big Bang theory is the most accepted theory is because we (us humans) like to think that there is a start to everything. It just makes sense that there is a beginning. And it's easier to build theories and ideas upon it.\n\nPS Penguins!!!
369685
I'm with you. I don't believe there was a Big Bang either, so try this...........\n\nWe are all individuals, so our experience of "the" universe is each of our universes. I experience the universe through my senses (sound, light, feeling - including heat, smell, and taste, as well as any "undiscovered" senses, but we won't go there!). You experience the universe through your senses. So, I have a universe and you have a universe, which is different to mine because we have both had different experiences in our life.\n\nStay with me here......\n\nMy universe has only one end (let's call it the "start"). That end is where my senses tell me I am now. There is no "other end" to the universe, since as soon as I get there, I am at the new "start "of my universe. A bit like chasing a rainbow's end. The same is true for you, however our "start"'s will never be the same, since I can never occupy the same "space" as you at the same "time" as you. So, we are living in "parallel" universes.\n\nTime and space are very poor descriptions that humankind gives to concepts that we cannot comprehend (yet). Newton (and Einstein for that matter - no pun intended!) was confined to the earth, where linearity is the best approximation in life. Really, Newtons First Law would be better expressed as "Everything continues in Simple Harmonic Motion unless acted upon by an external force.". Imagine a flat air table that extended in all directions for millions of miles or kilometers. If you place a puck on it and give it a push, it will eventually return to the place it started as the earth's gravitational pull will bring it back to the closest point it can get to the earth. Think about it, all motion is really simple harmonic, it's just that we are often looking at a very small part of the path of an object.\n\nAnyway, I believe that in the decades and centuries to come, humankind will realise this oversight and the universe will suddenly take on a whole new "meaning".\n\nAgain, I agree with you....there was no Big Bang.
498181
There is some controversy over that. It is difficult to account for the expansion of the universe if it doesn't. At least at the very beginnings of the big bang.
18944
This is a question that neither science or religion can ever "prove."  In our human capacity, it is unlikely anyone will ever know the answer to this.  How can you even take a scientific approach to this?  You can speculate how the universe appears to be created based off measurements in the space, but you can always ask the question "but what about before that?"  \n\nUltimately it comes down to faith, and I don't necessarily mean in a God.  You have faith that the universe was started somehow.  Either God or some unexplainable cosmic phenomenon that we will never understand.  Or both!
656631
It is a theory that the universe started from a "big bang."  This is considered by scientists as the earliest recorded history of the universe.  It is believed that the entire universe was so dense it was possible that it could have been the size of a planet or smaller.  All that density was too much and it exploded.  Everything back then was hydrogen.  The hydrogen formed into stars.  The stars created other elements because of the neclear reactions breaking up the hydrogen and connecting it together.  This led to planets.  Unfortionatly I would say there is too much info to share everything.  Try reading :\n"A Short History of the Universe"\nI did before I went into seminary.
569028
We cannot yet predict the details of the universe in its most compact state.  Quantum mechanics has yet to produce a theory predicting gravitation as we observe it.  General relativity as it stands cannot predict the probablistic nature of microscale phenomena.\n\nScientists have offered up other models, again none of these describes things perfectly at all scales.  You might do a google search for M-Theory - which attempts to connect various complementary models.\n\nIn all seriousness and with no sarcasm intended, "What started the big bang?" may be a leading question in a sense...a little like asking "Why does the sun rise in the west?"  It doesn't of course.\n\nWe observe our environment in countless states.  The correlation - the progression - of these states, we call 'time'.  We perceive time as a dimension inseparable from space.  Cause implies 'time' as described here...something that is really has no meaning apart from space, energy, etc., the boundary of which we call the big bang.\n\nThat's not an attempt to dodge the question. From our everyday experiences we come to expect causation.  What we observe at very small scales requires no such mechanism, however.\n\nI'd recommend getting Hawking's book The Universe in a Nutshell.\n\nHope this helps.
485682
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147\nhttp://universeadventure.org/\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology\nhttp://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm\nhttp://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html\n\nthis is actually a common misconception about the big bang. the universe is not expanding into anything. the universe is four-dimensional, but a two-dimensional version may be something like the surface of a sphere, and it is this surface that is expanding. the universe seems to be finite in size, yet it has no center and no edge. nothing, not even space-time, seems to exist "outside" the universe. the big bang was the entire universe, and everywhere in the universe was once the big bang.\n\nthe earliest, and oldest, radiation we can observe is the cosmic microwave background, and we see it in every direction we look, but the universe was much smaller at that time. the universe had expanded and cooled enuf for electrons and atomic nuclei, about 74 percent hydrogen and 26 percent helium, to combine and form neutral atoms. before this time the universe was much like a heavy fog, but when atoms formed, there were no free electrons to scatter light, and the universe became transparent. today, we see this light stretched to microwave wavelengths by the expansion of space-time.\n\nanything with a cosmological redshift of 1.7 is receding at light-speed, c.  anything with a greater redshift is receding faster than c.  the redshift of the cmb is 1089.  the cmb seems to be at least 78 billion light-years away, but the universe is only 13.7 billion years old.
575929
What about the big bang?\nEven the idea that the universe is expanding is under attack by some astronomers.\nby Werner Gitt\n\nIn his book, A brief history of Time, the well-known British physicist, Stephen W. Hawking, identifies the ultimate question behind everything. ‘Today we still yearn to know why we are here and where we came from.’1\n\nIn the last chapter of his book he says:\n\n‘We find ourselves in a bewildering world. We want to make sense of what we see around us and to ask: What is the nature of the universe? What is our place in it and where did it and we come from? Why is it the way it is?’2\n\nHawking concedes that the important question of why the universe exists cannot be answered by means of equations and theories.\n\n‘Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?’3\n\nNevertheless, he concludes his book by limiting himself to the equations, instead of looking for their Author.\n\n‘However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable … by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all … be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God.’4\n\nLike so many other astronomers and physicists, Hawking tries to explain the universe without acknowledging its Creator. But Isaac Newton (1642–1727), possibly the greatest physicist of all time, and a predecessor of Hawking in the same chair at Cambridge University, firmly believed that the solar system was created by God.\n\nThe idea that the solar system emerged from a swirl of matter began with Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Many present-day cosmologists describe the cosmos in terms of evolutionary development and most of them accept the so-called big bang theory.\n\nAccording to this theory, the universe began about 10 to 20 thousand million [10–20 billion—Ed.] years ago as an inconceivably small volume of space (or a single point of vast energy) which has been expanding ever since. The most important observation supporting the concept of an expanding universe is the ‘red shift’ of light from distant stars.\n\nThis inferred expansion cannot be observed directly, but light coming from distant galaxies seems to have longer wavelengths (i.e. gets ‘redder’) as the distance increases. This is attributed to either the Doppler effect (that the wavelengths of light are ‘stretched out’ when galaxies move away from one another) or the relativistic stretching of the space between the stars as the universe expands. The big bang theory suggests that the cosmos was originally compressed into a hot and dense ‘cosmic egg,’ and as the universe aged, it expanded. \n\nSpace does not permit a full discussion of the evidence for and against the big bang. However, many discoveries made in recent years with improved instruments and improved observational methods have repeatedly shaken this theory.5 Interpretations of the available facts in terms of currently held cosmological models very quickly lead to unresolvable inconsistencies. There is an increasing number of astronomers who raise substantial arguments against the theory.\n\nIf the universe came from a big bang, then matter should be evenly distributed. However, the universe contains an extremely uneven distribution of mass. This means that matter is concentrated into zones and planes around relatively empty regions. Two astronomers, Geller and Huchra, embarked on a measuring program expecting to find evidence to support the big bang model. By compiling large star maps, they hoped to demonstrate that matter is uniformly distributed throughout the cosmos (when a large enough scale is considered).\n\nThe more progress they made with their cartographic overv
255034
In spite of what some yo-yo answered, the universe IS expanding, but whether or not it's expanding inside something else is absolutely and totally unknown. In the far distant future our science might have progressed to a point where we'll have the means to answer that question. Instead of driving yourself goofy over wondering what our universe is inside of, best to just try and imagine an absolute and infinite void totally without space, time, energy, mass, or anything else.
592824
Thank you! Very informative (and correct) information!\nWell, according to Physics, the same vast quantities, dimensions etc., we have to the large scale, we also have to the small scale, going from our size into smaller (cells, moles, atoms, electrons, nuclei, ....)\nFurther, according to my theory, the Universe we described above is the connection between other universes! As a matter of fact, each one of us is a Universe greater that the one we usually talk about! After all, people discover the dimensions, Greeks named 4 of them and we, somehow think we understand them! People understand only what has been named! That is why we can not comprehend the other dimensions, since we have not discover how the Greeks named them!
332634
Wow, what great questions.  Just so you know, we don't know the answer to what was before the big bang.  One idea is that our universe expands, then contracts on itself, over billions of years, and the whole big bang repeats over.  In other words countless universes preceded our own.
449912
i don't think in terms of the universe being massive compared to the size of galaxies,but minuscule compared to that which is outside the universe, that way there is an endless supply of material on hand.here at the"center of the universe"it's all relative to our thinking everything is so large but since all we can do is theorize about whats out there,why cant we theorize outside the box,way outside the box. where did science get this idea ? i believe that a chaotic set of galaxies brings about an ordered universe that is a single organism of a larger set of chaotic universes,which in turn forms ordered groups of galactic multiverses which is a small component of a megaverse ,and so on
282872
Do you believe … ?\n\nBelief in One Theory\n\nAs soon as these words are uttered, a great and unfortunate polarization tends to occur.  So many take the position that “my idea is all correct and your idea is all wrong.”  These ideas can be labeled as theories, doctrines, or whatever; they challenge us to examine our ideas and the views of others.  If we are insecure, we prefer to dismiss the viewpoints of others rather than examine our own.  However, if we are emotionally mature, we tend to be willing to review our own position and seek the merit in the perspective of others.  Such emotional maturity was once defined as “I am what I am, nothing better, nothing worse, and I find it good.”  This non-competitive stance is essential for open-minded pursuit of truth and knowledge.\n\nAny one who knows about blueprints, mechanical drafting, or architecture understands that it takes at least 3 different viewpoints to be able to accurately understand and recreate anything.  The most commonly used are the top, side, and front views.  For example, a table from the top view is a long and wide rectangle.  From the front view it is narrow and long.   From the side view it is narrow and short.  It is fruitless to argue that any one of these perspectives is false.\n\nIn layman’s terms, we might say that the sky is blue.  Someone else that it is orange.  In comprehensive reality, we can admit that it is sometimes blue and sometimes orange; indeed, sometimes it can be both at the same time.\n\nScientists may argue that light consists of waves, not particles.  Other scientists might insist that light is made of particles, not waves.  However, many modern scientists are beginning to embrace the necessity of models that include both these concepts.  Moreover, the characteristics of something do not have to be restricted to only 2 or 3 substantiated theories or viewpoints; a deep understanding of things may involve a panoramic examination of multiple views, like a spinning and swerving car in a television commercial.\n\nWith that foundation, we have been asked by the author and responders to consider which view: the Big Bang Theory, the Big Crunch, or God created our universe.  To this, I am inclined to answer “perhaps all of the above.”  Let me point out the relative merits of each position briefly and how they could possibly harmonize.\n\nThe Big Bang\n\nThe Big Bang Theory remains the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe.  The red shift of light from distant nebulas proves that everything is moving away from a starting point, an expanding universe.  The fact that there is a relationship between these celestial objects speed and their distance reinforces their common origin.  If true, there should be cosmic background radiation, and there is.  Physics tends to support the details of the theory including the cooling that may have lead to the sequential creation of matter and antimatter particles, including quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, neutrinos and photons.  Similarly, the relative properties of the basic elements tend to support their sequential development, including deuterium (heavy hydrogen), tritium and helium.  The ratio of one helium atom for every ten or eleven atoms of hydrogen is a constant in the universe today.\n\nUnresolved problems with this theory are the age of the universe and the basis on a “singularity” (an event which defies current rules of physics).   Also, while the Big Bang Theory defines an event of creation, it does not define what caused it to happen.\n\nThe Big Crunch\n\nIf the total gravitational force of all matter is high enough, it would slow the expansion of the universe, and then reverse it, causing the Big Crunch of everything, the opposite of the big expansion called the Big Bang. All matter and energy would be compressed back into a gravitational singularity.  This theory does not explain what would happen after this event, which may occur in about 42 billion
392491
According to Big-Bang-ologists, the Universe just felt like being created and burst into existence. There is absolutely no explanation why it was created from a scientific standpoint.