after the big bang the macrocosm expanded. did the microcosm get smaller?
966073
No.  It might of looked smaller as the macrocosm expanded.\nA small object beside a small object doen't look small.  But a small object beside a big object looks small.
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.
638759
The question assumes that the matter was compacted, but before the big bang, there was no universe as we understand it, so the idea of "volume" is somewhat meaningless.  What was the sound that came before silence?\n\nPre-BigBang makes your head hurt doesn't it? It does mine!
220589
For all we know there is nothing "outside" the universe, so obviously no way to look "at" it from any "outside". That way there is no way to compare the size of it, why you could probably say, the universe is infinitely small. There is a mathematical smallest size, called the Planck-Size. That is just where space ends to be space, so there is no inside. As simple as that. You don't need to invent any kind of god to think about those things.
888371
Interestingly, the closer science comes to the big bang, or asks the question you did, the more philosophical and theological the discussion becomes.\n\nThings like inflation theory, and Hawking's conversion of the singularity of creation to a mathematical construct that is not singular, or other thoughts like this are highly hypothetical and not proven.
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.
363213
1 and 3 cant be answered other than by speculation\n\n2-According to current theory, the first physically distinct period in the Universe lasted from "time zero" (the Big Bang itself) to 10-43 second later, when the universe was about 100 million trillion times smaller than a proton and had a temperature of 1034 K. During this so-called Planck era, quantum gravitational effects dominated and there was no distinction between (what would later be) the four fundamental forces of nature – gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force. Gravity was the first to split away, at the end of the Planck era, which marks the earliest point at which present science has any real understanding. Physicists have successfully developed a theory that unifies the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces, called the Grand Unified Theory (GUT). The GUT era lasted until about 10-38 second after the Big Bang, at which point the strong force broke away from the others, releasing, in the process, a vast amount of energy that, it is believed, caused the Universe to expand at an extraordinary rate. In the brief ensuing interval of so-called inflation, the Universe grew by a factor of 1035 (100 billion trillion trillion) in 10-32 seconds, from being unimaginably smaller than a subatomic particle to about the size of a grapefruit.\n\nPostulating this burst of exponential growth helps remove two major problems in cosmology: the horizon problem and the flatness problem. The horizon problem is to explain how the cosmic microwave background – a kind of residual glow of the Big Bang from all parts of the sky – is very nearly isotropic despite the fact that the observable universe isn't yet old enough for light, or any other kind of signal, to have traveled from one side of it to the other. The flatness problem is to explain why space, on a cosmic scale, seems to be almost exactly flat, leaving the universe effectively teetering on a knife-edge between eternal expansion and eventual collapse. Both near-isotropy and near-flatness follow directly from the inflationary scenario.\n\n\nElectroweak Era (10-38 to 10-10 second)\n\nAt the end of inflationary epoch, the so-called vacuum energy of space underwent a phase transition (similar to when water vapor in the atmosphere condenses as water droplets in a cloud) suddenly giving rise to a seething soup of elementary particles, including photons, gluons, and quarks. At the same time, the expansion of the universe dramatically slowed to the "normal" rate governed by the Hubble law. At about 10-10 seconds, the electroweak force separated into the electromagnetic and weak forces, establishing a universe in which the physical laws and the four distinct forces of nature were as we now experience them.\n\n\nParticle Era (10-10 to 1 second)\n\nThe biggest chunks of matter, as the Universe ended its first trillionth of a second or so, were individual quarks and their antiparticles, antiquarks – the underlying particles out of which future atoms, asteroids, and astronomers would be made. As time went on, quarks and anti-quarks annihilated each other. However, either because of a slight asymmetry in the behavior of the particles or a slight initial excess of particles over antiparticles, the mutual destruction ended with a surplus of quarks. Only because of this (relatively minor) discrepancy do stars, planets, and human beings exist today.\n\nBetween 10-6 and 10-5 second after the beginning of the Universe, when the ambient cosmic temperature had fallen to a balmy 1015 K, quarks began to combine to form a variety of hadrons. All of the short-lived hadrons quickly decayed leaving only the familiar protons and neutrons of which the nuclei of atoms-to-come would be made. This hadron era was followed by the lepton era, during which most of the matter in the Universe consisted of leptons and their antiparticles. The lepton era drew to a close when the majority of leptons and antilepton
199417
I think that the big bang theory is flawed. It was theorized and believed by humans who just refuse to fathom infinity. Its based on the premise that everything has a beginning and an end. Greater enlightenment points to every ending is a new beginning. I think you're right, the little bangs theory makes more sense. And I will take it one step further, that these little bangs are the other black holes (assuming there are two kinds) where matter comes from another place not in this universe, a negative image of this universe. And everything in this universe is headed towards one of these (as yet undiscovered) black holes to be pushed out (bang) into the alter universe.
24590
The universe may or may not have a large three or four demensional structure, but it more than likely has an overall natural curvature based on it's density.  If the density of the universe is enough to overcome the expansion of the big bang, than general relativity predicts that space will have a possitive curvature, like that of a sphere.  If it's density is less than the expansive force of the big bang it will have a negative curvature, which is impossible to model in three dimensional space, but is often described as saddle like.  If the density is exactly right that the universe will slow in its expansion forever and never re-collapse, then space is probably flat.  This site could help...\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe
49948
the same thing thats on this side. new matter is not being formed it is just expanding from the force of the big bang all those millions of years ago. Some scientists say the expansion will eventually stop and the universe will collapse onto itself, and then maybe explode again. All theories so in effect we dont know.
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.
10064
I like to think at the moment that the 'Big Bang' just blew a physical dimmention on top of our then existing dimentions, and 'we' took physical form...
1081007
Fun stuff, this gravity question. One of the leading hypotheses of the past was that the expansion of the universe would eventually slow, and gravity would then pull all mass back together, resulting in another singularity, and a recurrence of the big bang. \n\nRecent evidence says that this isn't happening. Instead, as the universe expands, the gravitational pull will approach zero. The consequence of this new hypothesis is that the universe will eventually spread itself into nothingness, and as the stars fade and run out of fuel, the universe itself will fade away into cold and darkness. Not that it's something we have to worry about anytime soon.
407630
Very good.  You are close to the truth.\n\nSpace alternately expands and contracts over a two billion year cycle.\n\nWe are now nearing the end of the expansionary phase.  So all the scientists on primitive planets hypothesize a big bang and talk about red shift.\n\nIn the following phase, scientists on other primitive planets will hypotehsize a fiery, incandescent end in the middle of everything and talk a lot about blue shifts.\n\nThe reasons for this have to do with the benefits of dynamic equilibrium.  Static would not work.  Apparently God already knows about this, but so do some physicists.\n\nSoem Dutch guy named DeSitter was also close, I have heard.
116835
Here's the flaw in your logic. You think that the universe has to be in something else to expand. The Universe is literally being created more and more. By this I mean the volume of real estate in reality is growing. There doesn't have to be something else that it's growing within. It sets it's own barriers and those barriers mark the current circumference of existence.\nBy the way, science does not respect theories. It respects laws.
1162299
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. \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.\n\nNow for some speculation. Is our Universe the only one? Maybe not. The Big Bang was one big fluctuation, maybe other smaller or bigger, take place all the time.\nBut most of these fluctuations will produce Universes in which conditions are just not suitable for life.\nThe Universe we observe is by necessity one in which the conditions are just right for us to have evolved into Homo Sapiens capable of asking questions.
801365
Technically it would probably be wrong to say the original matter in the universe was smaller than a grain of sand. The big band is the start of the universe, according to scientists. It's the start of the 4 dimensions(3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time). It's the beginning of all matter and energy. What was there before the big bang? Nothing(if you don't believe in God). So what was it that exploded in the big bang? It couldn't have been the grain of sand sized speck of matter because all matter was a result or bi-product of the big bang. Whatever exploded had to be there before the explosion but matter didn't exist before the explosion. It was a bi-product of the explosion. So, what exploded? Nothing exploded. That, in essense, is what the big bang theory says.........nothing exploded and in the process everything was created. Everything was created out of nothing.\n  You might say "but don't christians believe everything was created out of nothing". Yes. I (as a christian) believe that God created the whole universe out of nothing. He literally spoke it into existence. God said "let there be light and there was light" or so it says in Genesis chapter 1. You say "then what's the difference"? The difference is that the atheists is saying that everything came from nothing and no one since he doesn't believe in a supreme being. Christians believe that everything came from nothing but NOT from no one. There was a God there to make it happen.\n  I guess another problem I have with the big bang is that you have unbelievable order and design coming from an explosion.\nExplode a grenade sometime and when all of the metal pieces fall back to the ground, see it you have a rolex watch lying there.