What experimental evidence supports the big bang theory?
912124
background evidence of CMR has long past the experimental stages, at least since the 60's.
324626
Fact of the Day: The big bang theory was proposed by a Father Georges-Henri Lemaître (July 17, 1894 – June 20, 1966) was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest and astronomer. \n\nI'm an engineer and as such I believe in creation through design :)
854866
Everything we know about, everything we can see, behaves as if 13.7 billion years ago it was a dense, hot plasma that has been expanding and cooling ever since.  That's the Big Bang theory, and there is a tremendous amount of overlapping, detailed evidence to show that it's correct.  The Big Bang theory being wrong is about as likely, and makes about as much sense, as the idea that a Sun-centered solar system is wrong.  Essentially all of modern astronomy depends on the Big Bang to make sense.  The main observations are:\n\n1) The redshift of more distant galaxies is larger than that of nearby galaxies.\n\n2) Quasars and radio sources are seen to evolve.  There were many quasars in the past, now there are almost none.\n\n3) The amounts of the light elements Deuterium and Hydrogen make sense in the context of neucleosynthesis in the Big Bang.\n\n4) The Cosmic Microwave Backround Radiation is as predicted by the Big Bang theory, both in magnitude and in the details of its anisotropy in amplitude and polarization.\n\n5) All stars and galaxies evolve as if that evolution were set into motion by the Big Bang.\n\n\nYour notion of mirages and crests makes no sense in the context of modern physics.  We do see some warpage of space, particularly gravitational lensing by clusters of galaxies, but the Cosmic Microwave Background is most certainly only 400,000 lightyears from our event horizon.\n\nMany current versions of the Big Bang involve a Universe that exists eternally in both the past and future.  Our Big Bang was not necessarily the beginning of the Universe.
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.
467061
the proponents of the big bang theory say that it is still expanding. in fact studies have shown that it indeed is expanding. i am not aware of the exact figures bu the interplanetary distances are increasing by the minute. if that were to be so then all galaxies are also moving away from each other (its proven) . therefore it could be safely said that the universe is expanding.
492769
the most widely acceted theory is the bing bang theory \nthere is also one "statis state theory" but it has a lot of discrepancies\n\n\n4 more info:\n\nhttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978prpl.conf..399R\n\nhttp://www.gitamrta.org/bigbang.htm\n\nhttp://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html
899198
After 1 to 3 minutes from the initial explosion of the cosmic egg (Big Bang), when temperature has cooled to about 3 trillion degrees kelvin, it is speculated that composite particles such as protons & neutrons become common state of matters.\nKey phenomena that support Big Bang Theory are:\n1) Universe is expanding, and from measurement of the proportional velocities of stars in relation to their distances from us, there is strong probability that an "Event" (such as Big Bang) occurred simultaneously,\n2) detection in 1964 of microwave radiation from not only one location in the universe (but from all directions at once), lends credence to the theory,\nShape/sizes of galaxies or rather the sizes of the galaxy clusters (to aid in estimating distance of faraway galaxies from us)nmay shed more light into the age of the universe as it is postulated that such galaxies and and milky way were at the same point in time at the time of explosion.
360105
at the present time, the only widely accepted, scientifically valid theory of the origin of the universe is the "big bang" theory.  british astronomer fred hoyle gave the theory this name to ridicule it.  the big bang is substantially supported by evidence.  for the first 380 000 years, the universe was opaque.  light could not travel far without interacting with a charged particle (electron or atomic nucleus, mostly hydrogen and helium nuclei).  the universe became transparent when the electrons and nuclei combined to form atoms.  light could travel unhindered because the atoms have no electric charge.  because of the expansion of the universe, we see this light at much longer microwave wavelengths.  this is called the cosmic microwave background, and we can see nothing of the universe before this.  within the first fraction of a second, however, the universe became much larger during an extremely short fraction of a second.  this super-fast expansion is called inflation.\n\ni can't really say much about the many myths of the origin of the universe, what the universe is, or even if the universe had an origin.
909681
We have plenty of evidence for the theory that the universe was created by the Big bang. The universe was definitely created by the Big bang. \n\nRegarding the theory that God created the universe from scratch, in view of the evidence for the Big Bang that is clearly nonsense and no-one with an ounce of scientific knowledge would accept it. \n\nAs to whether God created the Big Bang itself, and then let nature take its course - it is remotely possible. However, unlike the Big bang itself, we have no evidence for the claim that God created the Big Bang. For people to state this claim therefore is blind faith, and has no scientific worth. It is merely their opinion and is not evidence-based.
231148
The information that comes from this probe is helping to confirm what is believed to be the origins of the universe and the Big Bang Theory.\n\nThe WMAP mission reveals conditions as they existed in the early universe by measuring the properties of the cosmic microwave background radiation over the full sky.\n\nThis microwave radiation was released approximately 380,000 years after the birth of the universe. WMAP creates a picture of the microwave radiation using temperature difference measured from opposite directions (anisotropy).
168868
There are a lot of misunderstandings about the Big Bang theory that are suggested by this question. \n\n"The Big Bang Theory" was a derisive term invented by Fred Hoyle, who supported the solid state theory instead. Much of the early work on the big bang theory was done by a Belgian Roman Catholic Abbot, George Lemaitre. Pope Pius XII proclaimed that this big bang theory provided strong evidence for the existence of God, even before more supporting data was available. In the last few decades, there has been mounting evidence in support of the big bang theory, particularly the discovery of the 3 degree background radiation by Penzias and Wilson.\n\nThat does not mean that the big bang theory will never be superceded by any other theory. It is expected that eventually all scientific theories will be replaced by new theories that explain more of the data. If one of the theories you you allude to, or another, explain more of the evidence than the big bang theory, then it will have a chance to replace the big bang theory, and become the dominant accepted theory.  \n\nThere is no connection between the theory of evolution and the Big Bang theory. One theory is in biology and the other is in cosmology, which is a part of astrophysics. \n\nThe big bang did not really happen at a point, but everywhere. The attached reference gives a much clearer explanation of the big bang and dispels many misconceptions about the big bang.
1074557
Is the Big Bang Theory still as widely accepted in the scientific world? Or is it losing ground to other theories?\n\nThe Big Bang Theory indicates that we live in an ever-expanding universe, moving away from every other universe on the fabric of space-time.  Although some scientists are careful to point out that “Andromeda, our nearest large galactic neighbor, is actually moving toward us, not away. Such exceptions arise because Hubble's law describes only the average behavior of galaxies (Scientific American March 2005).”\n\nBelief in One Theory\n\nSo 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, let us examine the Big Bang Theory, in relation to other current theories of cosmology.  Let me point out the relative merits of each position briefly and how they could possibly harmonize.\n\nBig 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
1057840
No one "discoverd" the Big Bang - it is a theory, not a fact - just like evolution.\n\nIf you believe in God and believe that God created the universe you can still believe in the Big Bang theory - it may be the method in which He created the universe. \n\nBut to believe in the Big Bang theory without believing in God is a Big Mistake. "Nothing" cannot begat something, whether it is the universe, or life. To believe that out of nothing all of a sudden something came into existence defies good science. Even science iteself had to start somwhere - it could not come out of nothing!\n\nLife did not begin in some premordial ooze as the result of a reaction between certain chemicals catalyzed by sunlight. That theory is sheer stupidity and requires more faith to believe than it does to believe in God.
691140
Science has more convincing evidence
1006083
Hi bornsmartgal\n\nOther possible explanations for the observations which support big bang theory are numerous.  They tend to focus on trying to explain the redshift observations, and they include tired light, strange compton scattering, large hydrogen clouds, etc.  The thing is that no single explanation (other than big bang theory) explains *all* the observations.  For example very few of them explain the time dilation of distant supernovas.  There's also the Tolman surface brightness test which distinguishes between big bang models and other models by a factor of z^4 (this is a nice test because it gives a very large discrepancy).  Only an expanding universe passes the test.\n\n\nHope this helps!\nThe Chicken
126342
There is hard, physical evidence that the Big Bang happened. There is NO hard, physical evidence that the god of the Bible existed, exists, or will ever exist.\n\nBUT..! Belief in a supreme being of some kind is a logical belief that can exist right along with the Big Bang. Most physicists and cosmologists agree that there are no physical (as in physics)constraints that can disallow a Big Bang. Something from nothing happens constantly in the vacuum of space!!!!! At sizes smaller than a proton, so-called virtual particles pop into existence all the time. Quantum physics has shown that at these infinitesimal sizes immense amounts of energy exist which can easily "produce" new matter from nothing. The bottom line is that these physical laws exist, and the next question any reasonable person would ask is who or what made these laws, the same physical rules that make a Big Bang possible?
541263
The theory of the big bang doesn't explain things before it. But usually it's believed that before the creation of the universe there was energy concentrated or concentrating to the critic point where it blasted and spreaded through universe. The Big Bang theory is'nt the only theory about the creation of the universe, only the most accepted, you could find very interesting and different ideas. I don't like religious answers because their principal argument is faith and since faith can't be proven or refuted, I don't think it can be used as a valid argument, sounds tautologic for me (in logic, tautology is an statement that is ever true).