Do you really believe bigbang happened from an infinitesimally small size ?
356868
how else would the universe have come into creation?  Before time existed, there must have been nothing, and at the first possible moment of time, there must have been some minute form of matter.  Whether or not the universe was created in a big bang, I cannot know, since if the big bang theory is true (as well as the Big Crunch theory), then it is possible that the universe has already cycled many times.\n\nBeyond that though, the Big Bang theory does NOT say that the size of the initial chunk of matter was infinitessimally small, it just says that it was supercompact.  It was probably insanely large, but relatively small for all the matter it withheld.
24461
I don't see why the "God" and the "Big Bang" theories can't go hand-in-hand. My personal opinion is that GOD made the two atoms ram into each other, thus causing the BIG BANG occur. I think it makes sense enough, but that's just me...
53803
According to modern physics, yes. Any infinite universe would actually contain an infinite amount of data, and thus would be aware of its own existence as well.If, however, you define universe as 'infinite' or 'everything' then no.
612456
My Astronomy teacher at college of the redwoods believes it not to be the like a big ball though, it may be in some way like that.  He believes it is more like a blob of water in zero gravity.  It isnt a circle but it has i would say lumps in the ball type figure.  All of this but on a much larger scale.\n\nBy the way the universe is not infinite but it is expanding.  It may be huge but we believe to have found areas that just return no data.  It is about 560 billion light years away from us.  It is illogical to even believe anything physical to be infinate.
793848
This is serious:\n\n1. It's up to him to prove it is shrinking, not up to you to prove it isn't.  He, after all, is the one who supports the hypothesis he read on the internet.  Just say "Prove it".  \n\n2. You gave the source of his information as "the internet".  That's too vague.  Where on the interent?  What web site?  What "expert(s)" in what fields(s)?  What proof did the internet article(s) present in support of the hypothesis?  How can anyone support or deny those proofs if we don't know what they are?\n\n2. What is meant by "getting smaller"?  As you can see from the other responses, different people have different ideas about which quantity is decreasing.  One person, who understands nothing about Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity, thought the mass was "getting smaller".  Another thought you meant the size, as in the diameter and/or volume.  Another seemed to think the entire universe is involved in the shrinkage.\n\nThe problem here is not so much your friend's outlandish claim as your inability to ask a critical question.
799167
Hmmm...very theoretical of an answer you pursue there, my friend.\n\nSince our limted senses are not able to confirm our speculations, I shall speak in a dialect to the speculations only.\n\nThe matter and energy hols themselves in individual co-relation, and would cease to exist in this paradox without each other.\n\nThe Big Bang itself holds itself as a theory due to the sole fact, that the Universe is observed to have expanded, and it supports Einstein's theories as well. \n\nIn such an accordance, energy is prone to have evolved into matter, from Einstein's equation, which seems to be pretty logical, due to the colossal amount of energy at that point in time, that may have resulted in the formation of Universe.\n\nAs the theory goes, the 'infinite' amount of energy was existant for only a millisecond or so. It blast was followed by the formation of waves, which collapsed into miniscule particles we call photon, electron, and neutron and perhaps some other form of matter. This matter furthermore bonded together to give birth to the present Universe.\n\nWhat is actually amazing is the very fact, that all this occured in a few seconds. The forces took over and resulted in various formations, that we bear to our knowledge. We ourselves bear credit to such particles. The concept of life is a debatable query, yet it may hold itself in a form of energy as well. A sort of self-functioning energy that holds this matter in a co-ordinated existence. What we call memory, emotions and other fragments of our brain, could be a manifestation of this energy as well. Perhaps energy bears itself true to the 'spirit' as we address it. \n\nWhatever the matter, yet one factuality is in the least doubt. Matter cannot produced, nor destroyed, for just a creation or devastation would bear no fundaments to it, for energy holds itself responsible for every action. Such a creation/devastation would be like killing death. Heh he...\n\nTill next time, my friend, adieu!
386524
If M-theory is correct, the Big Bang may have been caused by a collision between other universes so you may find other universes (perhaps with differing physics to our own) beyond our universe. Otherwise you would find nothing.
477793
The Big Bang \n\nAbout fifty years ago, American astronomers studying the galactic star clusters, stumbled on evidence that the entire Universe is blowing up before our eyes. According to their observations, all the galaxies in the Universe are moving away from us and from one another at very high speeds, and the most distant are receding at the extraordinary speed of hundreds of millions of miles an hour.\n\nFirst there was nothing and it blew up and then there was everything and scientists have calculated that it all happened in 1043 of a second. [The] echo of that explosion can still be heard bouncing around in space. Scientists claim that in the big bang all of the fundamental particles necessary for life were formed. All of the complexity we see around us is the result of this massive explosion.\n\n"The new finding hit the scientific world like a thunderclap." It meant that the idea of an ultimate beginning was no longer merely religious dogma. Science itself now indicated that the universe burst into existence at a particular time in the remote past.\n\nIn 1992 measurements by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and by the Hubble Space Telescope seemed to confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that the Big Bang cosmology is indeed correct. George Smoot, Professor at the University of California at Berkeley and Principle Investigator of the COBE team which made the discovery, said regarding these new observations, "What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe . . . It's like looking at God."\n\nWorking backwards, the evidence implies that there was a time when the universe was infinitesimally small. The evidence from general relativity also indicates that it was not merely a case of the matter in the universe being concentrated at a particular location, but that space itself was this tiny. At a sudden instant in time all of the energy and mass in the universe was located at this infinitesimally small point and exploded. The currently observed outbound motion of the galaxies from each other is a continuing effect of that explosion.\n\n"The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea that God created the universe is a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years," Frederic B. Burnham, science historian, declared.\n\nHowever, some die-hard secularists propose that the universe goes through endless cycles of expansions and collapses. Hence, eternity becomes nothing more than an eternal succession of big bangs followed by big crunches followed by big bangs followed by big crunches over and over again and again forever.\n\nBut this violates the second law of thermodynamics, the law of decay, that implies that the universe is in a process of gradual disintegration - running down, like a wound-up clock. And if it is running down, then there must have been a time when it was wound up. Once the big bang takes place and the universe begins its expansion, entropy starts to increase. From this point on it will never be able to go back to its original state.\n\nWhat's more, the first law of thermodynamics (the conservation of matter) implies that matter cannot just pop into existence or create itself. And therefore, if the universe had a beginning, then something external to the universe must have caused it to come into existence - something, or Someone, transcendent to the natural world.\n\nThe facts clearly indicate that the universe is not eternal, and it cannot originate itself The implication is that the universe began at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy. Science has begun to sound eerily like Genesis 1: "And God said, 'Let there be light"' (1:3).\n\nThe evidence requires that we believe God formed the universe at His command, pointing to the importance of taking God at His word literally - from the beginning both of time and the Bible. Second, there is such a striking parallel between the Hebrews 1
1179398
That is a very good question. We currently do not know definitively the answer to this question. Thousands of years ago, the Greeks believed that all matter were composed of some indivisble units called "atoms". This was irrefutably proven by Einstein at the turn of the 20th century (and he received a Nobel Prize for it). However, as we probe further, we discovered that even atoms has internal structure: protons, neutrons and electrons. For awhile we thought that was it, but then later we found that protons and neutrons were also made of more fundamental particles called quarks (now confirmed by experiements).\n\nSo is this it? Quarks is the final indivisible unit? It turns out that it is most likely not the case. The reason is not that we have discovered anything smaller than quarks. The reason is because our 2 current theories of the physical world, quantum mechanics and theory of general relativity, are not compatible with each other. What this means is that these 2 theories are not completely correct. They are good for most situations, but they can not explain objects like black holes or explain the big bang (the beginning of the universe). There are other things that these 2 theories can't explain, but I won't go into that right now.\n\nThese serious flaws has been the mother of all physics problems for the most of the 20th century. The Holy Grail of modern physics is to find a single theory that can combine the 2 theories together and explain all physical phenonmenons. So far we have one candidate: Superstring Theory.\n\nSo in our effort to solve this problem, we created String Theory, which tells us that quarks are not the fundamental building blocks of matter, but tiny filaments of vibrating energy called Strings. They are much much smaller than quarks. Quarks are estimated to be about to 10^-16 centimeters, but strings are around 10^-33 centimeters. So is this it? We really don't know for sure, but all the signs points to a yes (I won't explain why here because it's too long and it wasn't your question.).\n\nSo does this imply that matter/energy always existed? The answer is NO. because the universe is about 14 billion years old. That's how long anything has existed, including all the matter and energy.
1174337
Yes.  I think (and I think some scientists have discussed this on public TV) that a universe (either in our dimension, or another) was gradually, then more quickly, collapsing into itself, like a black hole, and that caused the bang, and the cycle repeats itself.  They think this because the universe is expanding; when it reaches its maximum limit (and I don't have any idea what causes that limit, etc.) then it starts to reverse direction, and start collapsing in on itself again, and starts the whole process over again.  In a couple of quintillion years).
436669
The argument is as logical for a big band happening "from nothing" as a God to exist "from nothing".\n\nI personally don't have a problem with there always having been matter in the universe and the big bang being more or less spontaneous.
647430
I have indeed considered this. The problem is scientific observation has not agreed with the concept of random quantum mechanics created all the matter in the universe.\n\nThe problem with this idea is how do you explain massive concentrations of matter like Suns. if you want to say random particles colided together and created the massive volume that is a sun then fine. How long would such a thing take? With all the suns in our Galaxy alone how is that possible especially considering you only have about a billion year window before most of your stars start dieing off their is simply too much matter.\n\nWhat is far more likely is the Big Bang. The reason I say this is because of two critical observations. The fact that distant Galaxy's are moving away from us at a constant rate or what is called red shift. If the Universe was formed by random particles why is their a constant drift from a center point? \n\nThe second point is because of what is called cosmic radiation. The theory put out was if at one time the universe was smaller and hotter then their would be cosmic radiation and space would be about 2-4 Kelvin and that's exactly what we found. If what you are saying is true then the temperature of the universe should be at absolute zero.\n\nIf you wish I could recommend some books on the subject.
757860
One of the latest theories (not widely accepted) is that it was caused by the interaction of two other universes at the sub-atomic super-string level. This collision caused a catclysmic explosion at a  point of singularity, creating all the matter and energy we now have in our universe, which then began to expand and cool. \nSimple isn't it?\n\nAnother theory is that the universe is a state of perpetual pulsation. It expands, and then crashes in on itself to a singularity point, and then explodes again, this has been going on forever.\nEven simpler isn't it?\n\nThis could explain why so many people believe in God. It is simpler to understand. \n\nWhich theory you believe is up to you.
415417
Like a few other questions (why is the distribution of matter lumpy instead of smooth?), this can be answered if the inflationary theory of the Big Bang is correct. In this theory, the universe we have access to was once extremely tiny, and just by luck there weren't that many monopoles in it, maybe only a couple; so when it inflated to its present size, we end up with that very small number over the whole universe. \nOtherwise, it's an open question.
947427
Even bigger than your bum - hard to believe though that is.\n\nAnd it wasn't a "bang" as it goes, it was more of a whoosh.\n\n(Can you see how upset with you I am? *sob*)
1057662
I-LIKE-A-DA YO-YO!!\n\nshort version:\n\nneutrons & protons have arcs of electricity between them. or, "strings"\n\nstrings sometime break off and just disapear.\non occasion, a rouge string will become a worm hole (about a 20-25% chance)\nvery rarely, a wormhole will become a "membrane" or a small pocket of energy. (4-8% chance from worm hole stage)\n\nthe thoery is that these membranes, or "branes" for short(mem"brane"), colected together to eventualy form a bubble of energy the size of a universe. and that two of theses monsters slamed into each other to create the "big bang" theory we know today.\n\nyep, still a nerd.\n\nStargazer.
983642
Actually, they know it isn't infinite.\n\n\nThe findings are mostly thanks to hubbles big idea and discovery, but they can now confirm that indeed the visible universe is finite thanks to WMAP.\n\n\n\nAs for the possiblity of space outside of the visible universe...we have no idea.