The big bang is the bigining of light emmiting matter but not necesaraly the bigining of dark matter?
538835
It's known that dark matter existed before 'something' caused the explosion of light.\n\nSome scientist think that is was a build up of ions/neutrons or some such, which caused the 'bang'.\n\nMany also believe that, because the universe is expanding at a faster rate than previously imagined, some day the whole thing may return to a 'dark' state as galaxies travel beyond the reach of observation.\n\n(By that time, our Galaxy will have been swallowed by the black hole which is keeping it 'captured'.)
568018
Dark matter is actual matter in the sense that it has mass.  But it doesn't seem to absorb or reflect electromagnetic radiation, hence the term 'dark' matter.  Of course, this is all based on the assumption that dark matter actually exists.  It's really just a theory.  From what I've read, no one seems to have direct evidence that it exists.
1150780
In fact, there is a great deal of evidence showing it is not. What little we know of the dark matter and energy is that they are not composed of baryons. But anti-protons *are* bosons. There are some candidates for the dark matter (axions are a good bet) but anti-matter in the usual sense is ruled out by observation.
847665
In my point of view, the Big Bang is incorrect solely from the wording of the title of the theory. A Bang implies an explosion which has to have an epicenter of sorts and an explosion as implied with enough power to spread the universe over billions of years, gravity or not, is mathematically improbable, because the force needed to spread the universe would have eradicated the universe. Thus, a trough effect will have to take place with anti gravity of unimaginable power to start the big crunch. The entire theory is based on the assumption that the universe of finite space and finite time. If Space time is in fact infinite as assumed by many, than the theory is off, but could be construed as a continuing cycle. If the big bang happens, then the big crunch, and then the big bang and so on is in fact a continuous cycle, than the big bang can in fact be correct.
1004125
I would like to to add a few words to a great input other people have already provided.\n\nIn Astronomy, as in all sciences, one can detect an object in one of two ways: either by observing it directly, or observing the effect that it has on other, more easily observed, objects. \nIt's always been known that there was matter in the night sky that we couldn't really directly see. When astronomers use telescopes, or even radio telescopes, they can only see objects which emit light or radio waves. Not all of the matter in the Universe does this - for instance, we wouldn't be able to see planets like our own, because they would be too dim to see. \nAll the mass of of all the planets in our solar system, though, is significantly less than one percent of the Sun's mass. So worrying about matter that didn't shine - non-luminous matter - wasn't of great concern. \nThe first evidence: Clusters of Galaxies The first evidence that there was a significant amount of matter that we couldn't readily see was in investigating clusters of galaxies, which are simply aggregates of a few hundred to a few thousand clusters otherwise isolated in space.\nWhat is Dark matter? This still is an open question.  There are many possibilities, and nobody really knows much about this yet.  Here are a few of the many published suggestions, which are being currently hunted for by experimentalists all over the world.  Remember, you need at least one baryonic candidate and one non-baryonic candidate to make everything work out, so there may be more than one correct choice among the possibilities given here.\nThe baryons are a family of subatomic particles including the proton and the neutron (collectively called nucleons), as well as a number of unstable, heavier particles (called hyperons). The term "baryon" is derived from the Greek barys, meaning "heavy," as they are heavier than the other main groups of particles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon \n•Normal matter which has so far eluded our gaze, such as: \n dark galaxies \n brown dwarfs \n planetary material (rock, dust, etc.) \n•Massive Standard Model neutrinos.  If any of the neutrinos are massive, then this could be the missing mass.  On the other hand, if they are too heavy, as the purported 17 keV neutrino would have been, massive neutrinos create almost as many problems as they solve in this regard. \n•Exotica (See the Particle Zoo FAQ entry for some details. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/particle_zoo.html) \n\nHere are a wew references \nWhat is the Universe Made Of? http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101matter.html \nCosmic Hide and Seek http://www.eclipse.net/~cmmiller/DM/ \n\nDark Matter, Cosmology, and Large-Scale Structure of the Universe http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/dm1.html \n\nExperiment\nExperiment with simulation of cluster of galaxies  http://www.astro.queensu.ca/~dursi/dm-tutorial/cluster-sim.html \n\nWhat is dark matter? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/dark_matter.html
983309
This is basically impossible to answer with any accuracy, because we don't know how big the universe is. We DO know how big the "observable universe" is, and the universe may be either larger or smaller than that (but not too much smaller). Further, we don't really have a good handle on whether there really is dark matter, and if so, how much of it there is.\n\nBut we do have a rough idea of the number of stars in the observable universe, and the average size of a star. So we can say that the mass of all stars in the OU is about 10^53 kg. Which means that the energy contained in that mass would be \ne = 10^53 * 299792458 * 299792458 = about 9 x 10^69 joules.\n\nSome scientists speculate that the amount of dark matter is 10 times greater than this.
121479
There is a theory that the big bang was a result of a collison of two other universes. Say there is this sphere and inside this sphere there are other gelatinous spheres, these are the other universes, and two collided in a way that they created a big exlosion, which is the Big Bang.
477793
The Big Bang \n\nAbout fifty years ago, American astronomers studying the galactic star clusters, stumbled on evidence that the entire Universe is blowing up before our eyes. According to their observations, all the galaxies in the Universe are moving away from us and from one another at very high speeds, and the most distant are receding at the extraordinary speed of hundreds of millions of miles an hour.\n\nFirst there was nothing and it blew up and then there was everything and scientists have calculated that it all happened in 1043 of a second. [The] echo of that explosion can still be heard bouncing around in space. Scientists claim that in the big bang all of the fundamental particles necessary for life were formed. All of the complexity we see around us is the result of this massive explosion.\n\n"The new finding hit the scientific world like a thunderclap." It meant that the idea of an ultimate beginning was no longer merely religious dogma. Science itself now indicated that the universe burst into existence at a particular time in the remote past.\n\nIn 1992 measurements by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and by the Hubble Space Telescope seemed to confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that the Big Bang cosmology is indeed correct. George Smoot, Professor at the University of California at Berkeley and Principle Investigator of the COBE team which made the discovery, said regarding these new observations, "What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe . . . It's like looking at God."\n\nWorking backwards, the evidence implies that there was a time when the universe was infinitesimally small. The evidence from general relativity also indicates that it was not merely a case of the matter in the universe being concentrated at a particular location, but that space itself was this tiny. At a sudden instant in time all of the energy and mass in the universe was located at this infinitesimally small point and exploded. The currently observed outbound motion of the galaxies from each other is a continuing effect of that explosion.\n\n"The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea that God created the universe is a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years," Frederic B. Burnham, science historian, declared.\n\nHowever, some die-hard secularists propose that the universe goes through endless cycles of expansions and collapses. Hence, eternity becomes nothing more than an eternal succession of big bangs followed by big crunches followed by big bangs followed by big crunches over and over again and again forever.\n\nBut this violates the second law of thermodynamics, the law of decay, that implies that the universe is in a process of gradual disintegration - running down, like a wound-up clock. And if it is running down, then there must have been a time when it was wound up. Once the big bang takes place and the universe begins its expansion, entropy starts to increase. From this point on it will never be able to go back to its original state.\n\nWhat's more, the first law of thermodynamics (the conservation of matter) implies that matter cannot just pop into existence or create itself. And therefore, if the universe had a beginning, then something external to the universe must have caused it to come into existence - something, or Someone, transcendent to the natural world.\n\nThe facts clearly indicate that the universe is not eternal, and it cannot originate itself The implication is that the universe began at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy. Science has begun to sound eerily like Genesis 1: "And God said, 'Let there be light"' (1:3).\n\nThe evidence requires that we believe God formed the universe at His command, pointing to the importance of taking God at His word literally - from the beginning both of time and the Bible. Second, there is such a striking parallel between the Hebrews 1
345361
The Big Bang theory offers a resolution of your question (also known as Olbers's Paradox). In a universe with a beginning we can receive light only from that part of the universe close enough so that light has had time to travel from there to here since the Big Bang (about 10 billion years ago). So, even if space extends infinitely far, only a limited region, and a limited number of stars, are visible to us. And the accumulated light from this limited number of stars is not sufficient to spoil the darkness of the night sky.\n\nGod is spelled B-I-G B-A-N-G\nPBrax@netscape.com
306643
THE "BIG BANG" is theroy that does not have to include "smoke".  The idea is that life may have started with "contact."   This could have been as small as two atoms that touched.  \nYour question assumes to many factors as facts for a complete answer.
415417
Like a few other questions (why is the distribution of matter lumpy instead of smooth?), this can be answered if the inflationary theory of the Big Bang is correct. In this theory, the universe we have access to was once extremely tiny, and just by luck there weren't that many monopoles in it, maybe only a couple; so when it inflated to its present size, we end up with that very small number over the whole universe. \nOtherwise, it's an open question.
47984
Matter that is in space but is not visible to us because it emits no radiation by which to observe it. The motion of stars around the centers of their galaxies implies that about 90% of the matter in a typical galaxy is dark. Physicists speculate that there is also dark matter between the galaxies but this is harder to verify.\nhttp://pdg.web.cern.ch/pdg/cpep/glossary.html\n\nMatter that does not emit enough light or other radiation to be observed directly. Most of the matter in the universe is believed to be of this type. Cold dark matter had a low velocity compared to the speed of light during the epoch of recombination. An example would be elementary particles with mass about equal to that of a proton or higher. Hot dark matter had a high velocity (near the speed of light) during the epoch of recombination. An example would be light elementary particles.\nhttp://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/cosmology/glossary.html\nIn cosmology, dark matter consists of matter particles that cannot be detected by their emitted radiation but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter such as stars and galaxies. Estimates of the amount of matter in the galaxies, based on gravitational effects, consistently suggest that there is far more matter than is directly observable. ...\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
803363
dark matter and dark energy and debris
863011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
1106252
speaking in all logic terms all religon aside.  The universe always was it and it always will be here in one way or another.  But before the "big bang" the universe was smaller, much smaller infact than it was before this catastrophic event.  After the big bang everything that was once very very dense and all close together, is now moving apart from eachother at a considerable rate, leaving more and more area of what we call "space".
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.
1179663
In cosmology, dark matter refers to matter of yet unknown composition, that does not emit or reflect enough light to be detected directly. But its presence may be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter such as stars and galaxies.\n\nEvidence suggest that there is much more dark matter than visible matter. As it is non-interacting with light it must be of non-baryonic origin. It also must be stable, because it exists since the Big Bang, 14 billion years ago. The only candidate among the elementary particles we know already are the neutrinos. However there are theories like Supersymmetry that predict other particles, that would fit the known data.