What is the most solid evidence that scientists use to prove the big bang?

Answer 1

The continuous expansion of the Universe, with all Galaxies receding from each other, is the foundation observation. The Big Bang is the computed start point when all lay together. And where physics as we know it is quite insufficient to probe.

Answer 2

The presence of cosmic microwave background radiation. The CMBR is easily explained -- and was predicted -- with the Big Bang, but is impossible to explain with any other hypothesis.

Inhomogeneities in the CMBR match prediction.

Red shift of stars far from observers on Earth, with the size of the red shift being proportional to the distance away from us. Calculation of the Hubble Constant leads to a time of 13 billion years ago as when all matter we can now see was clumped together.

All young galaxies are about ten billion years away.

No white dwarfs exist that are older than twelve billion years.

Our Universe consists of 90% hydrogen and about 10% helium -- pretty much exactly as predicted by the Big Bang. No other hypothesis can explain this ratio.

The ratio of decay products to isotopes with long half-lives show an age of our Universe at about ten billion years.

The scientific evidence for the Big Bang is overwhelming. The scientific evidence for other hypotheses is non-existent.

That the space in our Universe, about 13.7 billion years ago, began to expand (ie, it was NOT an explosion of matter into empty space) and has been expanding ever since; is supported by all observational evidence and contradicted by none. Alternatives to this idea are completely ruled out by that same evidence. This includes:

1) red shift of distant galaxies.

2) cosmic microwave background radiation.

3) distance to young galaxies (none are close).

4) ratio of hydrogen to helium.

5) age of oldest white dwarf stars.

6) ratio of long-lived radioactive isotopes and their decay products.

The evidence supporting Big Bang Cosmology is as strong as the evidence for interplanetary gravity.

ApexVS: Red shift of stars far from observers on Earth

Answer 3

There are several reasons to believe in the Big Bang. Here are two of the main ones.

The "red-shift" of most galaxies; the only reasonable explanation for that is that the Universe is expanding.

Also, the "Cosmic Background Radiation", which is in close agreement to what is expected from a Big Bang.

Click on the "related link" below for details, particularly about of the Cosmic Background Radiation.

It has been calculated that the Universe can't remain static for long - it must needs expand or contract.

(THE BIG BANG ISN'T REAL, WHAT DO THESE PEOPLEHAVE IN THEIR LITTLE PEA-BRAINED SKULLS!!!)

Answer 4

Scientists do not get together in the coffeeshop and dream up a theory and

then go looking for evidence to support it. Scientists make observations and

measurements of what IS ... they gather the "evidence" ... first, and then they

try to put together a theory that can explain what they see.

The "Big Bang" theory is the best explanation so far for the facts that . . .

-- the spectra of galaxies in every direction from us are shifted toward longer

wavelengths according to a pattern that can be explained by an assumption

that they are receding from us at speeds that are proportional to their distance

from us, and

-- all of space is filled with an almost uniform level of electromagnetic radiation

with a distribution of wavelengths that is characteristic of a blackbody at the

temperature of 2.7 K, and

-- on the largest scale, the universe consists of roughly 75% hydrogen and 24% helium.

Answer 5

Scientists do not sit in the coffeeshop and dream up a theory and then

go looking for evidence to support it. Scientists make observations and

measurements of what IS ... the "evidence" you might say ... and then try

to put together a theory to explain what they see.

The "Big Bang" theory is the best explanation so far for the observation that all

galaxies in every direction are receding from us at speeds that are proportional

to their distance from us, and for the observation that all of space is filled with

an almost uniform level of electromagnetic radiation with a distribution of wavelengths

that is characteristic of a blackbody at the temperature of 2.7 K, and for the

observation that on the largest scale, the universe consists of roughly 75%

hydrogen and 24% helium.

Answer 6

Mainly (1) the redshift of distant galaxies, which is considered to be a result of the Doppler effect (i.e., the Universe is expanding), (2) the cosmic background radiation, which is in strong agreement with what would be expected from the initially hot and dense Universe.

Answer 7

Edwin Hubble discovered that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts-an idea originally suggested by Lemaître in 1927. Hubble's observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.

Other comment: Almost literally everything about cosmology screams "big bang". The fact that nearly everything in the universe is moving away from us, the fact that this is strongly correlated with distance (things further away are moving away faster), the cosmic microwave background... all of it says that about 13 billion years ago the universe was very dense and very hot.

Answer 8

Several undeniable facts about our Universe are very easy to explain if Big Bang Cosmology is (basically) true, and impossible to explain with alternate hypotheses -- other than to say, "We see these things and have no explanation for them, they're just THERE." Amongst these observational facts are:

1) Hubble Expansion of space.

2) Presence, spectrum, and isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

3) Ratio of hydrogen to helium in all parts of our Universe.

4) Ratio of long-life isotopes to their decay products showing none older than about ten billion years.

5) No white dwarf stars being seen older than ten billion years.

6) Quasars being seen far away from us, but not close to us.

Basically, the evidence for Big Bang Cosmology is as strong as the evidence for a heliocentric solar system.

Answer 9

Answer #1:

Astronomers and physists use both the evident expansion of the universe,

visible via the moving of galaxies, as well as the cosmic background radation,

visible via red or blue shifting the visible spectrum of light.

===========================================

Answer #2:

Astronomers, cosmologists, and physicists formulated the "Big Bang" theory

to explain the observed expansion of the universe, the observed cosmic

background radiation, and several other observations. Real scientists don't

seek or use evidence to support a theory made up earlier.

And by the way . . . red or blue shifting of visible light has nothing to do

with the cosmic background radiation.

Answer 10

The big bang theory is largely rooted in the concept of "The Arrow of Time"

In a short simple answer; if you watch the universe expanding then that observation, when reversed, shows that it came from a smaller more compact form.

A given example would be to watch an explosion on video then rewind it. The actual name "Big Bang" was originally as derogatory term. The event was neither big, nor loud.