why should there be a big bang for universe?Law of nature are simplest,then why theories of universe complex?
78705
I think you are confused a bit. If you look around at nature, it is incredibly complex. The more we study it and the more we analyze i and measure it, the more complicated it appears. \n\nThe scientific theories and laws are attempts to put some order into this mass of complicated observations, to try to explain what is happening. Predictions based on these scientific theories can be made, and if it is a good theory, then the prediction will be verified by data. \n\nThe big bang is just one theory for the origin of the universe that attempts to explain what we observe: hubble's law, the microwave background radiation, etc. It is an attempt to produce a simpler theory to explain a very complicated and confusing set of observations.
1020690
What about the big bang?\nEven the idea that the universe is expanding is under attack by some astronomers.\nby Werner Gitt\n\nIn his book, A brief history of Time, the well-known British physicist, Stephen W. Hawking, identifies the ultimate question behind everything. ‘Today we still yearn to know why we are here and where we came from.’1\n\nIn the last chapter of his book he says:\n\n‘We find ourselves in a bewildering world. We want to make sense of what we see around us and to ask: What is the nature of the universe? What is our place in it and where did it and we come from? Why is it the way it is?’2\n\nHawking concedes that the important question of why the universe exists cannot be answered by means of equations and theories.\n\n‘Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?’3\n\nNevertheless, he concludes his book by limiting himself to the equations, instead of looking for their Author.\n\n‘However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable … by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all … be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God.’4\n\nLike so many other astronomers and physicists, Hawking tries to explain the universe without acknowledging its Creator. But Isaac Newton (1642–1727), possibly the greatest physicist of all time, and a predecessor of Hawking in the same chair at Cambridge University, firmly believed that the solar system was created by God.\n\nThe idea that the solar system emerged from a swirl of matter began with Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Many present-day cosmologists describe the cosmos in terms of evolutionary development and most of them accept the so-called big bang theory.\n\nAccording to this theory, the universe began about 10 to 20 thousand million [10–20 billion—Ed.] years ago as an inconceivably small volume of space (or a single point of vast energy) which has been expanding ever since. The most important observation supporting the concept of an expanding universe is the ‘red shift’ of light from distant stars.\n\nThis inferred expansion cannot be observed directly, but light coming from distant galaxies seems to have longer wavelengths (i.e. gets ‘redder’) as the distance increases. This is attributed to either the Doppler effect (that the wavelengths of light are ‘stretched out’ when galaxies move away from one another) or the relativistic stretching of the space between the stars as the universe expands. The big bang theory suggests that the cosmos was originally compressed into a hot and dense ‘cosmic egg,’ and as the universe aged, it expanded. \n\nSpace does not permit a full discussion of the evidence for and against the big bang. However, many discoveries made in recent years with improved instruments and improved observational methods have repeatedly shaken this theory.5 Interpretations of the available facts in terms of currently held cosmological models very quickly lead to unresolvable inconsistencies. There is an increasing number of astronomers who raise substantial arguments against the theory.\n\nIf the universe came from a big bang, then matter should be evenly distributed. However, the universe contains an extremely uneven distribution of mass. This means that matter is concentrated into zones and planes around relatively empty regions. Two astronomers, Geller and Huchra, embarked on a measuring program expecting to find evidence to support the big bang model. By compiling large star maps, they hoped to demonstrate that matter is uniformly distributed throughout the cosmos (when a large enough scale is considered).\n\nThe more progress they made with their cartographic overv
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.
683506
Wow, what great questions.  Just so you know, we don't know the answer to what was before the big bang.  One idea is that our universe expands, then contracts on itself, over billions of years, and the whole big bang repeats over.  In other words countless universes preceded our own.
343027
Yup - its the Big Bang alright. But I think i wwill agree with Stephen Hawking on this one .. Whilst God is not necessary to explain the Big Bang, all the theories break down prior to the first fraction of a second. I guess until with have the GUT (Grand Unified Theory) we cannot reject the idea of a higher power kciking it all off.\n\nI will ask this though.. if it was a creator or an Energy (that was already there) - Who created the creator?\n\nIan
1003873
The most simple and logical explanation, based on all currently available evidence, is that the universe has always existed in some form.\n\nAnd, it is only logical to conclude there are other universes, as well.\n\nThere is no logical reason whatsoever to invoke magic or invent a non-existent "creation" when there is no evidence or reason to support such an idea.
1002294
Mathematetically, philosophically, nothing. That has been the big question since Einstein theorized that the universe had a beginning. The question moves from the realm of science, a process of theory and discovery, to revelation, a process of information delivery. In short because nothing (not mathematic formulas, time, energy, literally anything) existed the only way for us to know what happened prior to the Big Bang is by devine revelation. Science has struggled with this idea for a long time and many theories have been proposed but all theories proposed require a moment when nothing existed and then suddenly there is existence. This is the principle behind the Cosmological Argument. Briefly since everything that exists has a cause, the universe exists, it must logically have a cause. I would encourage you to read, 'When Skeptics Ask', by Norman Geisler or 'I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist', by Geisler and Turk. Good luck on your search.
127551
Because the universe is a vacuum and there's nothing to stop it from expanding. This is assuming that the big bang theory is correct and it's expanding because of the explosion .
446869
Good question. There really is no good answer except to say that the basic equations of physics have a lot of symmetry. To get that symmetry requires there to be only a handfull of truly elementary particles. The Big Bang has nothing to do with this. It wasn't an explosion in the conventional sense and didn't 'break up' matter into the fundamental particles. It's more like the fundamental particles 'condensed' out of the vacuum.
990294
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. This phenomenon is responsible for the existence of forces, that hold the Universe and matter together.\n\nNormally the bigger the energy fluctuation, the smaller the time it is in existence.\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\nThe Big Bang theory itself, doesn't say anything about the *cause* of the explosion. It describes only how the Universe evolved after the explosion took place.\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 philosophical questions.
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!!!
915564
First, let's take the Big Bang theories of the early universe.  I presume that's your reference.  Those theories begin with the state of the universe as we observe it today, and how it is changing (expanding).  Then they assume the physical laws which govern the physical behavior of the universe are unchanged.  Then they extrapolate into the past as far as imagination allows (currently 13.7 billion years).  This puts all the matter and energy of the universe into your extremely dense 'ball of mud'.  Then they try to check their calculations by taking this as the initial state of a simulation and see if they can get the result to look anything like our universe.\n\nThat's certainly speculative science, but it is science.  But it addresses the origin of neither the ball of mud nor the laws of physics.  Big Bang theories do involve chaos and chance, but they don't say the laws of physics came from chance.  They just are what they are.\n\nSo, where did the ball of mud and the laws of physics come from?  "God created them." is the only answer that's in any way satisfying.
10073
The size of the universe in terms of length, width, height, time is in a state of flux. At any instant it may be expanding or contracting. The universe is generally accepted to be currently expanding. \n\nM Theory (the conglomeration of the 5 superstring theories) tells us that the universe is the result of, so called, “membranes” colliding in such a way that create a pocket of space which we call the universe. If M Theory is accurate, it is probable that there are many universes just as there are many planets, solar systems, and galaxies. \n\nFor more information:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M_theory
1153548
It is a theory that the universe started from a "big bang."  This is considered by scientists as the earliest recorded history of the universe.  It is believed that the entire universe was so dense it was possible that it could have been the size of a planet or smaller.  All that density was too much and it exploded.  Everything back then was hydrogen.  The hydrogen formed into stars.  The stars created other elements because of the neclear reactions breaking up the hydrogen and connecting it together.  This led to planets.  Unfortionatly I would say there is too much info to share everything.  Try reading :\n"A Short History of the Universe"\nI did before I went into seminary.
1096987
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. This phenomenon is responsible for the existence of forces, that hold the Universe and matter together.\n\nNormally the bigger the energy fluctuation, the smaller the time it is in existence.\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.
52054
There are only theories.\nLike the Big Bang. Check source.
313486
your answer is in \nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang