No theory can be proven beyond all doubt. But the big bang explains many phenomena which are not explained by any other theory of cosmology.
Some proof about the big bang is that scientists can use technology to pick up radiation from the earliest moments in the universe's evolution. Try switching on a channel on your TV you don't receive. 1% of that static is radiation from the first 5 seconds or so of the big bang. So if there's nothing on TV you can watch the birth of the universe.
But apart from that, there is no proof. Keep in mind that the Big bang theory is just a theory.
That our Universe has been expanding (NOT exploding) since about 13.7 billion years ago is supported by the following irrefutable facts:
1) The distance between our world and all galaxies outside our Local Group is expanding, and the rate of expansion away from us is proportional to the distance away from us. Since what we see of distant galaxies is what they were doing billions of years ago, it MUST be that this movement has been fairly constant over the last ten billion years or so. The rate of expansion is consistent with all matter being clumped together about 13 billion years ago.
2) If the BB is true, then, about 377,000 thousand years after the end of Inflation, photons were finally de-coupled from atoms, and have been moving in all directions ever since. If this is true, then there would be microwave radiation with a black-body spectrum, with temperature about 3.8 K, coming to us with almost isotropy. Eighteen years after this radiation was predicted, the mircrowaves found and was EXACTLY as predicted. All other hypotheses about the nature of our Universe can only say, "We only know that this microwave radiation exists, we have absolutely no explanation whatsoever for WHY it is there."
3) If the BB is true, our Universe should be about 90% hydrogen and about 10% helium. This is exactly what we see in all parts of our Universe. Again, no other hypothesis can explain why our Universe has this ratio of basic elements.
4) The ratio of long-lived (ie, half lives in giga-years) radioactive isotopes in our Universe to their decay products show a Universe of age 14+_ 2 billion years. This measurement is completely independent of the above derived ages.
The evidence for the Big Bang is as strong as the evidence for gravity outside our Earth.
The same way they know that gravity exists outside our Earth.
Both ideas make certain predictions about what we would see IF the ideas were true. If the idea is false, then we would fail to see what is predicted by that idea. This is a concept called "falsifiability" -- meaning we can show that an idea is false simply by testing whether we observe what the idea predicts we will observe.
1) *IF* gravitiy exists outside our Earth, then planetary orbits would be altered by an amount equal to the gravity from other planets. It was through this prediction that Neptune was firmly discovered.
2) *IF* Big Bang Cosmology is true, then we would see
a) an increasing distance between us and all distant galaxies, with the rate of increase in the distance being proportional to the distance.
b) a rate of increase in distance showing that, at about 13 billion years ago, all matter was almost infinitely more dense than it is today.
c) isotropic, microwave radiation coming from outside our Earth, with a spectrum equal to that of black-body radiation of temperature 2.7 K
d) hydrogen comprising about 90% of our Universe and helium about 10%.
e) quasars seen only far from our Earth.
f) no white dwarfs older than about 13 billion years.
g) long-lived radioactive isotopes in ratio to their decay products showing an age of the former to be no more than 13 billion years old.
If we fail to observe ANY of the above predictions, then intelligent people would have a reason to question Big Bang Cosmology. But we observe all of them. BBC is as firmly true as gravity.
This is all highly acceptable. The worrying thing is that long ago people thought for very obvious and demonstrably reasonable reasons, that the earth was flat. Also before a child is taught otherwise it is obvious that life/theworld is restricted to what people call the horizon. Wavelets on the sea get progressively crammed together as you peer closer to the horizon. The description has uncomfortable parallels with the big-bang theory. Who says time proceeds at a constant rate? Or that the universe hasn't always seemed to be 13 billion years old, even picoseconds (at our present clock rate) after what we like to call the big-bang.
Depends what you mean by "prove." If you mean, "Will convince someone who will not be convinced no matter how much evidence is presented," then (obviously) Big Bang Cosmology can never be "proven."
However, it is undeniable that the evidence in favor of Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) is as strong as the evidence for our Sun being in the center of our solar system. In both cases, all observational evidence favors it, and none argues against it.
Amongst the evidence in favor:
1) The distance between us and all distant galaxies is increasing, and the rate at which the distance is increasing is directly proportional to the distance between us and these galaxies.
2) There exists an isotropic (to one part in 10,000) and continuous radiation, with a spectrum of a blackbody at 2.7K. This is exactly as predicted by BBC, and allows to see light from our early Universe -- less than 400,000 years after the Big Bang.
3) The ratio of hydrogen to helium in all parts of our Universe are exactly as predicted by BBC.
4) The ratio of long-lived isotopes to their decay products shows decays began about 10 billion years ago.
All of the above are easy to explain with BBC. Proponents of all other hypotheses are reduced to saying, "I admit that's the truth, but I have no explanation for it."
If by "prove," you mean, "convince more than 75% of US citizens that it's true," then I suppose scientists can't even prove that the Earth goes around the Sun. In that sense, "proving" Big Bang Cosmology (BBC) may be as difficult as proving a heliocentric solar system.
HOWEVER, intelligent people can approach BBC and heliocentrism in the same scientific manner: ask the simple question, "What would we observe if BBC were true, that we would NOT see if BBC were false?" (or "if the Earth goes around the Sun?"), and then make the observation. If, on a repeated basis, we DO see what BBC predicts, when no other hypothesis makes that prediction, then it is safe to say that BBC has been "proven."
Amongst the things that BBC predicts that we will observe:
1) The distance between us and all distant galaxies is increasing, and the rate at which the distance is increasing is directly proportional to the distance between us and these galaxies.
2) There exists an isotropic (to one part in 10,000) and continuous radiation, with a spectrum of a blackbody at 2.7K. This is exactly as predicted by BBC, and allows to see light from our early Universe -- less than 400,000 years after the Big Bang.
3) The ratio of hydrogen to helium in all parts of our Universe are exactly as predicted by BBC.
4) The ratio of long-lived isotopes to their decay products show that some decays began about 10 billion years ago -- but none have been found older than that.
5) Quasars are seen far from us, but not close to us.
6) The absence of white dwarf stars older than about ten billion years.
All observational tests show that the space in our Universe has been expanding at a (more or less) constant rate for the last 13.7 billion years or so -- none contradict this. BBC is as proven as a heliocentric solar system.
Which doesn't mean that about 25% of people won't accept the idea that our Earth goes around our Sun.
It's quite obvious that the theory took place. You can read about the theory in scientific journals, Wikipedia, etc., so you can't really deny that such a theory exists.Note: If you want evidence that the "Big Bang" took place, as opposed to the "Big Bang theory", please ask a separate question.
The Big Bang Never happend God created all of everything that we have even us.
we can prove big bang theory through the expansion of universe ,through red shifts of galaxies and cosmic back ground radiation
Measurements of the distances between celestial bodies suggest that everything started from a single point in space.
It helped prove the big bang theory.
Cosmic background radiation.
Hello i am minakshi answer is that the big bang theory is an example of old scientific theory as big bang theory explains that there was an explosion but the isotropy and the homogenity of the universe is not explained by big bang theory to explain his we connect inflatation theory with big bang theory to explain it so the big bang theory is also an example of old scientific theory.
The duration of The Big Bang Theory is -1320.0 seconds.
The Big Bang is the theory that was developed to describe the origins of the universe.
It helped prove the big bang theory.
Cosmic background radiation.
Hello i am minakshi answer is that the big bang theory is an example of old scientific theory as big bang theory explains that there was an explosion but the isotropy and the homogenity of the universe is not explained by big bang theory to explain his we connect inflatation theory with big bang theory to explain it so the big bang theory is also an example of old scientific theory.
the big bang theory
The Big Bang Theory is set in Pasadena California.
The duration of The Big Bang Theory is -1320.0 seconds.
Big Bang Theory is available for rental only.
I know of no such reference for a "natural" Big Bang Theory. Must be just another way of referring to the Big Bang Theory with a differing focus (i.e. kind of like the Hot Big Bang Theory).
The Big Bang is the theory that was developed to describe the origins of the universe.
No. The Big Bang theory came a lot later.
Constellations are components of galaxies and have little to do with the Big Bang Theory.
Penny - The Big Bang Theory - was created in 2007.