Could've the "big bang" in theory been gradual not sudden?

I've wondered that many times, myself. We see time as a constant, but back when the universe was just beginning, could it have been proceeding at a different rate that we see today? In fact, could this rate be kind of asymptotic so that the farther back you go, the closer you get to the beginning, but each step closer is only have the distance of the previous one, if you know what I mean.

This would mean that the universe sort of *slid* into existence, with time accelerating as it expanded. We see time the way you would see a logarithmic scale like on a slide rule or ohm meter. It fits on the ruler but it goes from zero to infinity.

I wish I was better at putting this into words.

The part that was sudden wasn't very long because it was sudden. As Mercury 2010 pointed out, a lot of the formation of the even the basic building blocks took quite a bit of time.

But that is side-stepping the question. Even the very basic parts of the Big Bang could have been gradual... we just don't see how it could have happened that way.

For now, I'll go for the quick beginning until further information to the contrary arises. It's not that science has something against a gradual process; it's just that evidence sure points to the quick agenda, at least for the first little bit.

That depends what you mean by 'gradual'. Different events happened at different times, and in a sense the Big Bang is actually still going on, the processes are just occurring on different scales. 'Sudden' in a human sense is not the same as 'sudden' in a geological, evolutionary or cosmological sense, so I'd really have to know what you're comparing it to.

YES!!!

It could have been gradual - according to some theorists. The reason for this is that in the last several years scientists have discovered that the speed at which the universe is currently expanding is actually increasing!

When the universe did not exist it had no radial expansion.

It had to expand radially so when it came into existence it had to burst out as a sphere accelerating from zero to the maximum expansion rate,the speed of light.

It had to be pretty sudden to expand from zero to 2 cm in diameter in one-thirty billionth of a second.

In terms of the size of the universe it was pretty slow but in terms of the first second it would have to be a pretty big bang.

Sorta dumb but what the hell.

yes. thats about the idea of it.

it took at least a few minutes to form the building blocks of matter. (protons neutrons and electrons) about 5 or so.

expanding the whole time and continues to

it took about 300,000 years for atoms to completely form.

Maybe the 'big bang' was more of a 'slow squirt'.

something to think about... interesting star.

No, there is nothing to support that theory.