if the big bang theory is that the universe strarted from one particle...?
955093
There is no scientific evidence about anything that happened before about 1 picosecond after the Big Bang.  At that time, all the particles that are now within our event horizon where concentrated in a sphere about 10^-13 cm in size, and they were very hot.  The evolution since that time has had consequences that can be studied by various methods.\n\n\nNote that the small volume occupied then by our now current event horizon was probably not all of the Universe.  The Universe may have been infinite then, and it may be infinite now.  \n\nWhat happened before that time is a matter of speculation.  We know that physics as we understand it breaks down at that point.  We do not have a complete theory of quantum mechanics and gravity that would allow us to do any real calculations about times prior to one picosecond.\n\nHowever, here is some speculation:  if you have an empty space that is inflating (as space seems to be doing now, because of the Dark Energy), and that space has ground-state energy quantuum fields in it, then every once in a long, long, long while you get something like a Big Bang.  Energetically, it's OK, because the total energy of the Universe may be zero: the positive stuff is cancelled by negative gravitational potential energy.  The event comes about due to fluctuations in the empty quantum fields, and the inflating space pulls the virtual particles apart and makes a Big Bang.  It's unlikely, but if you wait long enough it happens.
188695
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!!!
265963
No, the universe is not a single object.  The universe is the whole of all matter.  Within that no object can travel faster thanthe speed of light.
80042
The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.
344481
well let us take a "logical" look....the big bang says that there was nothing, then something, and now everything is expanding away.  So how did things get farther away than time has permitted?  Hmmm...kind of a hole in the theory.
857388
I think it is some calculation based on the most distant objects we can see (with radio telescopes etc.) and interpretation of 'background' radio echos attributed to the big bang. One figure gave the universe a diameter of 26 billion light years.\nI have heard about the big bang theory and people say they have evidence and the scientist are not really disputing it. As a lay reader this will do it for me.\nBut other possibilities do exist that remain consistent with what we have found out about our universe.\nIs this the first big bang in this universe, could we be expanding in the wake of the last such explosion that occurred in this part of a larger universe?.\nHow many universes are there?\nFrom a mental point of view I find it hard to assign a boundary to the universe and just accept there is nothing beyond it.
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.
580755
About the only thing I ever heard that made any sense was that there was another universe. The idea was that you have a big bang, which throws all the matter in the Universe outward from the center. After a while (a LONG while) gravity starts pulling these pieces closer together again and you get what's called the Big Crush, where the whole universe get's squidged up into a tiny, infinitely small point. The theory went on to say, that that spot would explode in a Big Bang and the whole thing would start all over again.
81505
It is believed that that since the universe evolved out on 'nothing'.....so every matter has an anti-matter..(since the sum total of all matter and anti-matter is zero in universe)...so chances are there are is another earth (anti-matter of where we are)....and hence the all the people and other things are in pairs......BUT, all these are theories...there are no scientific validations of these.
585995
No, since I'm a Muslim, I found the Big Bang theory acceptable, as it fits with the Koran's verses.\n\n"Have not the disbelievers seen that the Heavens and the Earth were one piece and we parted them? And We made every living thing from water. Will they not then believe?" (Koran,21:30).\n\nThe universally accepted theory of the origin of the universe is now the Big Bang theory. It maintains that at one time all of the universe were one piece, the monoblock as it is called. At a particular point in time, this "monoblock" burst and it continues to expand. This gives us the universe we have today. This was a recent discovery, a recent comfirmation. \n\n"And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it." (Koran,51:47)\n\nAt the beginning of the 20th century, the Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann and the Belgian cosmologist Georges Lemaitre theoretically calculated that the universe is in constant motion and that it is expanding.\nThis notion was confirmed by the use of observational data in 1929. While observing the sky with a telescope, Edwin Hubble, the American astronomer, discovered that the stars and galaxies were constantly moving away from each other. This discovery is regarded as one of the greatest in the history of astronomy. During these observations, Hubble established that the stars emit a light that turns redder according to their distance. That is because according to the known laws of physics, light heading towards a point of observation turns violet, and light moving away from that point assumes a more reddish hue. During his observations, Hubble noted a tendency towards the colour red in the light emitted by stars. In short, the stars were moving further and further away, all the time. The stars and galaxies were not only moving away from us, but also from each other. A universe where everything constantly moves away from everything else implied a constantly expanding universe. The observations carried out in the following years verified that the universe is constantly expanding.
976621
In a word, no.\nWhen you look that far away, you are looking back into time to the beginning of the universe.\nBut if the universe did originate from the big bang, i.e, a point source singularity, then all of the observable universe that far away was one point (or relatively close to it)!  So what would it really mean for the big bang to have come from a certain direction?  It came from all directions!\nObservations made that far away are made in the infra-red and microwave also.  It forms the 2.7°K background radiation.  This background radiation is not uniform, but it is also not as polarized as you may think. It does form the dipole anisotropy, but is not in general due to the big bang.\nSee:\nhttp://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101Flucts.html
798075
You're absolutely right, and the Big Bang has a remarkable way of not violating that law.\n\nExpirements have been done lately that prove that a particle, such as an electron, can be spontaneously created along with an anti-electron, or a positron. In the universe, both particles exist, both have mass, but should they colide, they would colapse into nothing-ness again. \n\nThe Big Bang could have been exactly such an event, but on a macro, or very large scale. Matter and anti-matter exist, and both might make up our universe. That satisfies the law of conservation of mass, as everything particle in the universe has an anti-particle. The net energy and net mass is zero.
65239
In accordance with the physical laws of this universe, it is impossible for the matter in the big bang theory to have come out of nothing or to have just always existed.  It is impossible for something to come out of nothing... I'm sure you agree with this.  Also, the universe is expanding, which indicates that it had a beginning point in time.  So you're question appears to be, "If it is impossible for the earth to have always been in existance, how is it logical to believe that God has always been in existance?"\n\nThe thing is, we know that the earth had a beginning and that it is impossible for it to have just come about on its own by the physical laws of this world.  But if God created everything (which I believe He did), then He is not bound by the laws He created.  He made up the laws of physics.  How could He be limited to those laws?  \n\nWe cannot think of God in terms of our physical world.  God made up the rules, therefore God is not under the rules.  He is eternal.  The world which He created is not. \n\nHere's another thought I'm just going to throw out here, even though it does not go right along with your original question.  If you believe that you have a soul or a spirit, or if you believe in any type of spirit beings, how could these have come about by purely by physical means?  Can spiritual things come from physical things?  If this world only came about by matter and not by God, how could matter produce spiritual things?  \n\n\n"For by Him [Jesus] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisble, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him.  He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."  Colossians 1:16-17 ([Jesus] was added by me for clarification of the pronoun Him.)
955705
If the theory is indeed correct, the only possibility is that matter/energy pre-existed the "big bang", and all that the "big bang" accomplished was rearranging things.  This is perhaps an interesting theory on how things were formed from pre-existent matter, but hardly a good explanation of the origin of matter.  It has been fairly well established that matter and energy are somehow the same thing.  According to the law of entropy, if energy always existed, it would inevitably (after an infinite period of time) be evenly distributed by the actions of random process.  Since this is not the case (stars are obviously hot spots in the soup of matter), matter cannot possibly be infinitely old.  So we find ourselves coming back to the question of origin, again...
284884
Under the current Big Bang model the center of the universe is nowhere.  Ok. You don't like that, then how about the center of the universe is everywhere.\n\nThe Big Bang was not an explosion, the term "big bang" came from early opponents of the theory.  Basically it was the creation of space itself.  Subsequently that space has expanded, it is not expanding from somehwhere, it is expanding from everywhere.
442716
I would say NO... at certain point, particles are made of energy, and energy can't be splitted as matter does...
474119
Space does not come in particles.\n\nThere is no aether.\n\nQuantrons do not exist.\n\nBut apart from that I'd say you're probably almost right.