If the big bang theory is true, what cuased it?
613955
God said .....   and it was!
47579
Steady state theory has no answers for two major astronomical observations.\n\n1. Cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB)\n2. Hubble expansion.\n\nAs a result the theory has been discarded by the majority of professional astronomers.  The Big Bang theory does provide answers for those two bits of observation.  It may not be perfect but it is the best we got.  That's what theories are...the best explanation until something better comes along.
121479
There is a theory that the big bang was a result of a collison of two other universes. Say there is this sphere and inside this sphere there are other gelatinous spheres, these are the other universes, and two collided in a way that they created a big exlosion, which is the Big Bang.
795885
The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory in cosmology, initially suggested by Georges Lemaitre. It is essentially the most widely accepted theory about the universe's origin. \n\nThe idea is that the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago (current estimate ~13.5 billion) from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter in all directions. Before that point all matter was concentrated at an infinitessimal point, known as a singularity. \n\nThe idea was most strongly propounded after the astronomer Edwin Hubble (after whom the famous telescope is named) found in 1929 that distant galaxies in every direction are going away from us with speeds proportional to their distance, suggesting at some point they were all at a single point. The theory also predicted the existence of a cosmic background radiation (the glow left over from the explosion itself). and received widespread acceptance when this radiation was actually discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in the 1960s.
373295
This is probably more a philosophical question than scientific one, as it is (currently) impossible to prove.  The answer, then, is a matter of faith.  If you are religious, and believe in an eternal God, then there has always been something, but not the present universe (which, by definition, would have to exists "in" God, as that being is without boundaries and could not be contained).\n\nIf you are not religion-bound, then you can argue either point.  The Big Bang theory only speaks about what happened after the inception of the universe, not what was present before.
29022
Accually, indepandent,the big bang theroy would work if two things.it had proof and it accually explained were matter came from.what was there before the bang that caused the bang?the universe expanding thing isnt even prooven.But if u read the Bible, it says that God made everything.EVERYTHING. INCLUDING TIME and SPACE.God was and is not bound to time.know y? because He made it.our mind cant comprehend it,and thats no surprise.\nanywho, the big bang theroy does not support the beginning of the universe because the bang was caused by something.\n\nP.S.about evolution--it is allready disprooved by simply the second law of thermodynamics.nothing gets from bad to good, like life forms(ape like to human).it all just gets worse.and it has.
55707
You get into Quantum Theory with your intrigue and there is no evidence to support that the universe is not infinate.\n\nHOWEVER, according to the Big Bang theory there was nothing and then there was something in a centralized location millions (billions) of years ago. At the speed that the universe is spreading outwards there has to be an end to it and scientists are trying to get telescopes powerful enough to see to the beginning of time.\n\nWhat lays on the other side? Nobody knows.
306643
THE "BIG BANG" is theroy that does not have to include "smoke".  The idea is that life may have started with "contact."   This could have been as small as two atoms that touched.  \nYour question assumes to many factors as facts for a complete answer.
846148
From what I have read, what happened before the big bang has no effect on the universe and therefore can not be theorized about.\n\nOr, as Stephen Hawking said in "A Briefer History of Time"\n\n"All our theories of cosmology are formulated on the assumption that space_time is smooth and nearly flat. That means that all our theories break down at the big bang: a space_time with infinite curvature can hardly be called nearly flat! Thus even if there were events before the big bang, we could not use them to determine what would happen afterward, because predictability would have broken down at the big bang.\n\nCorrespondingly, if, as is the case, we know only what has happened since the big bang, we cannot determine what happened beforehand. As far as we are concerned, events before the big bang can have no consequences and so should not form part of a scientific model of the universe. We should therefore cut them out of the model and say that the big bang was the beginning of time. This means that questions such as who set up the conditions for the big bang are not questions that science addresses."
899765
You are correct, it fell out of favor because\nif it were true then all the universe would be traveling outward away from the "bang" scientists have now discovered that parts of the universe\ntravel in opposite directions at different speeds.
295734
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
110345
the big bang is just another theory that scientists came up with. it's not proven, just like many other theories are not proven, but it is the most supported by scientists because it says that a molecule (atom) the size of alittle dot exploded 10-17 billion years ago, and kept expanding. this is mostly supported because today, we still see other objects in space red shifted on doppler system, which means that objects are moving away from us, and expanding the border of the universe.
385811
The big bang was the starting point of time and the universe, and I think there is enough corroborating evidence to show that it is most likely true.
586516
No, the big bang is not  pseudoscience. It is the best theory going for how scientists think the world works.\n\nPseudoscience would be like believing in something by faith alone with no proof at all, and no way to disprove it.
1047002
Why is it hard for people to believe that someone bigger than us created a masterpiece? This all leads into the question, Is there a God? If the big bang theory was true, what caused the big bang? I don't see things just happening all around me for no reason. When you plant a seed it grows. But you have to plant the seed first. \nBabies don't just happen. They have to be conceived. The point I'm trying to make is that if we have to react in order to get a reaction, why would it be any different from the beginning? Someone HAD to create us or nothing would be possible.
1024867
Yes, scientists who support the Big Bang Theory are wrong.\nBut so are Creationists.\nThe background radiation and red shift are otherwise explainable\nwithin a suitable cosmology.\n\nLet me start (it's complex, but here goes).\n\nThe universe has always existed.\nIt will always exist.\nIts form and contents change over time.\n\nThe Radius of the Universe (R) is constant, \napproximately 20 billion light-years.\n\nThe Age of the Universe (T) is constant,\napproximately 20 billion years.\n\nThe speed-of-light-in-a-vacuum (c) is constant,\napproximately 3x10^10 cm/sec,\nor 1 light-year per year.\n\nAnd R == cT.
804251
The Big Bang theory does have a good amount of evidence behind it. So we’ll take a look at the three biggies.\n\na) Cosmological Redshift: We can use spectroscopy to determine the rate at which galaxies are moving away from us. Additionally, since it takes light time to travel, the further away we look, the further back in time we are looking.\n\nWhat we find, is that all galaxies in the universe are moving away from us. The further they are, the faster they’re moving away. So if we play the whole thing in reverse, all the galaxies will come back together at a single point in time. This point in time is what we call the Big Bang.\n\nb) The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB): Figuring that if you played everything back in time like this that all that energy would be crammed into a smaller space, that means the temperature would go up. And also since galaxies couldn’t have formed yet, we’d expect a gaseous sort of universe early on. As I discussed earlier, hot dense gasses emit photons at a peak wavelength corresponding to their temperature. Unfortunately, since things were so dense, photons couldn’t get very far.\n\nHowever, with the available information, astronomers were able to determine at what density and time, photons would finally be able to get far enough that we could observe them. This is called the “surface of last scattering” and has a very specific temperature. So we should be able to look for photons with energy (wavelength) corresponding to that temperature.\n\nBut due to redshift, they will appear at a different wavelength. This radiation should appear from every direction. This was a prediction made by the Big Bang theory that was later confirmed by Penzias and Wilson who stumbled on it accidentally!\n\nNo other theory of the universe has ever been able to make such a profound prediction to the degree of accuracy the Big Bang did in this instance. Making such amazing predictions is one of the highlights of a good theory. None before or since have ever been able to pull off such a feat.\n\nBut the successes of the CMB prediction don’t stop there. Another important piece of the puzzle lies in that the CMB couldn’t be completely even. If it were, then galaxies couldn’t form since there would be no “seeds” with higher mass and thus a stronger gravitational pull to form around.\n\nThus, the Big Bang theory had to predict that the CMB would not be completely homogeneous. It should have some variations to it, and those variations would have to be of a specific size in order to get the universe we see today.\n\nEarly results for the Big Bang didn’t look too good for this prediction and threatened to sink the whole ship. However, the devices used were not actually sensitive enough to pick up these minute variations. But recently, with the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), these perturbations have been discovered precisely as predicted.\n\nScore two strong predictions for the Big Bang. Zero for any others.\n\nc) Distribution of Elements: With the conceptual framework intact thanks to the first point, it was also possible to calculate how much of each element should be formed in the initial event. It should be obvious that, given a bunch of protons, electrons, and neutrons, hydrogen should be the easiest to form. Indeed, stick a proton and an electron in a room together and they’ll automatically hook up due to their magnetic attractions.\n\nAdditionally, with such high energies, it would be possible to fuse some of this hydrogen into helium and even a little bit of heavier elements. Since astronomers had a good handle on the energies, it was possible to calculate how much of each there should be. If that number didn’t match up with observations, the Big Bang theory would be shot.\n\nFortunately, the predictions do match up pretty closely. I stated a value earlier of 80% hydrogen, 20% helium, and neglected the rest since it would be statistically insignificant. In the universe today,