There is no doubt left now about Big Bang theory. But still how you can explain the necessity of Big Crunch ought to be happend befor bigbang. If yes then how entire energy &entire matter crunched to a single point less than proton size. will you call it singularity if yes than what similarity does have singularity of black hole &that of big crunch??.

the Big Bang is only a theory.it has yet to actually be proven and IMO it will never be proven,so to say there is "no doubt now" is dumb

sorry, i have plenty of doubt the big bang ever happened... read some of roger penroses work about how the universe could be trillions of years old, and how it works as a big recycling pit

Let's say,there is enough proof,that it went from a Hypothesis to a Scientific Theory!
Whether it will hold up under future Discoveries is another Matter,but for the time being that's what it is,a Scientific Theory,on which plenty Scientists are chipping away!

Any way if static theory by many like F.hoyel,J. narlikar,pennrose are taken again how recycling pit works. only a light cone theory put some theoritical evidence. But with out big crunch followed by big bang recycling not look possible. Because universe is expanding very fast where it is 13billions or trillions yrs old expansion is there. Then loss of matter ,energy must. But Hubble space telescope shown many proto galaxys forming and reports dark zone all around univ. At the same time entropy rise is next to be clearify In ever expand process ??. The one chance is of multi univ theory. Here collision, repulsion attraction of universes always able to generate new univ &that too possible for infinite time. We are in our present univ can see up to our limits. Is it ok???

where's the proof?

maybe there are galaxies that are beyond our sight that replace what is going to be beyond our sight... we don't know what we can't see

Read the Papers on it!

Evidence for the Big Bang was discovered after a scientist presented a hypothesis stating what would be found if the Big Bang actually took place. Click here if you want to know the evidence that supports the Big Bang Theory.

By the way, what the word "theory" means to scientists isn't what the word means to scientific laymen. The above-quoted post reflects an incorrect understanding of what a scientific theory is.

The support information (evidence) that has been discovered to support the big bang is so voluminous as to defy description. Evidence to deny it is nil. A good start would be Wikipedia.

Interesting how often those who ask for "proof" have no idea of what it requires.

nil? ... just because scientists are taught from birth that the big bang happened, doesn't mean it did... when scientist are looking to support a theory, they skip the things that doesn't support it.. i can get into multiple big bangs, but not a single bang that started everything... it even sounds absurd...

April 20, 2013; Vol.183 #8 (p. 5)
A+ A- Text Size
Enlarge
FIRST LIGHT
The most detailed map of radiation left over from the Big Bang, courtesy of the Planck telescope. This leftover radiation is about 3 degrees above absolute zero, with the red and blue regions representing areas of the sky that are slightly warmer and colder, respectively. These small fluctuations in the early universe developed into the stars and galaxies we see today.
European Science Agency, Planck Collaboration

The universe is a little older and perhaps a bit stranger than previously thought, according to the best measurements ever taken of the radiation left over from just after the Big Bang. Presented March 21 at a press conference in Paris, the data from the Planck satellite combine to form a map of the remnant glow that largely affirms scientists' theories about the universe's early history. But the results also reveal a few quirks that scientists will have to explain.

“The clarity and precision of Planck’s map is stunning,” says Richard Easther, an astrophysicist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, who is not on the Planck team. “It’s as good as anyone could have hoped for.”

Launched by the European Space Agency in 2009, the Planck satellite scans the sky for the cosmic microwave background, radiation that dates back to about 380,000 years after the Big Bang. That radiation was originally about 2,700° Celsius but has cooled to a mere 2.7 degrees above absolute zero. Planck is essentially a supersensitive thermometer that can probe the temperature of this radiation to millionths of a degree.

That extraordinary precision allowed researchers to map tiny temperature fluctuations in the radiation across the entire sky. (The red spots in the map are about 1 part in 100,000 hotter than the average temperature, while the blue spots are slightly colder.) These subtle perturbations in the early universe eventually grew into stars and galaxies...

Zumbo U like 3D. but how of singul rity in crunch of if its 3D

I would really suggest looking into Lee Smolins work, and particulary his popular book called The Life of the Cosmos, where he talks about universes that reproduce through black holes, so proposes a new birth at each shrink and expansion. He also employs an Ancestry principle, which simply states that if a universe exists, the one it came from was fertile, i.e. favorable to the formation of black holes.

It does seem to be kind of odd that the universe would have a short history before the singularity where is contracted to that fine point, if that's what your saying. It would seem more natural if that condition was erased, or at least it seems out of consistency to say that there is a singularity, yet it is only a point in a segment that actually goes a certain stretch of time before it. I would say that there seems to have been some historic interest in describing a physics without the use of boundaries or singularities, which also makes sense if science is to extend our knowledge further still, as it must to be of function.

What I see, without math coming to mind, is a casual behavoir coming out of the caldera, and something like time and remnants coming through the area in mind. But this hardly suffices as hard science, and it's so abract that I don't know how to phrase my own thoughts. Black holes do offer the oppurtunity to consider a point where the laws of nature reset, and perhaps then this adds favor to an idea of minute black hole physics at the particle level, as it may be deemed satisfying to think of two scales as part of the same scheme. This is in a way what you suggest when compare black holes to the big bang.

The multi-universe idea with many universes acting collectively may be some part of distance science, but right now I think that it is completely off course if it proposes that there is different behavoir, laws or mechanisms for the different univierse. A collective whole may be advantagious to comtemplate, and the time before the big bang is very important to think about. But the route that I would take would be to try to accurately depict the behovoir of black holes first, and then see what the hell this has to do with a big crunch or other universes.

I'm trying now to think about these matters with the emphasis that time is real, and a starting point, and that from it spacetime emerges. But it's just thinking right now. L. Smolins most recent paper, that you can find through his website, talks about this, but through the eyes of quantum gravity, yet background independence is used. Really, all things in science might be able to be considered relationally, including mass-energy. Such would be a challenge to physical law, but once done, may shine new light on the whys previously shunned.