It's inconsistent with any sort of matter explosion. First leat's deal with "there was a bang". Rather than an acoustic "bang" which has a moving sharp ampli

It's inconsistent with any sort of matter explosion. First leat's deal with "there was a bang". Rather than an acoustic "bang" which has a moving sharp amplitude peak that decays back to the background as it radiates outwards, the acoustics of the hot big bang are comparable to Gaussian white noise with an almost everywhere-identical intensity that decays everywhere almost-identically (that is, the sound of the big bang is the background). The pressure waves weren't moving through anything like our atmosphere or oceans, it was simply too hot for there to be any molecules at all, and there were so many low-amplitude pressure-waves that one would have to think about trillions of trillions of trillions of simultaneous explosions and implosions, and not just one. Explosions in a medium like air or water create an overdensity (compared to some global average) shockwave that has a particular focus, not random overdensities and underdensities everywhere. Additionally, an explosion's overdensity shockwave is strongly associated with an increase in temperature -- colloquially, explosions tend to create fireballs that break up structures depending on the strength of the explosion (they can break weak molecular bonds, chemical bonds, the bonds between electrons and nuclei, and the bonds within nuclei, in increasing order of power). The hot big bang is consistent with a very hot, dense, low entropy phase suddenly expanding and cooling adiabatically everywhere, with everywhere remaining close to the average. With this expansion-driven cooling, new bonds formed, first freezing out neutrinos, quarks and gluons, baryons, hadrons, electroweak particles, weak and electromagnetic particles, and eventually less-ionized and even neutral atoms and molecular hydrogen (H2). In other words, the hot big bang's expansion produced effects in matter almost exactly opposite what one would get in an explosion. Finally, "big" in a spatial-extent sense isn't right either, as everything that is near us in our modern galaxy cluster was compacted in to something much smaller than the head of a pin. Indeed, everything we see in our sky (including at least billions of galaxies) was compacted into an area much smaller than our own galaxy.[1] Perhaps you might consider that the "big bang" was a misleading choice of name put forward on a radio broadcast in 1949, and that trying to promote it from poetic licence (or even just rhetoric) into an analogue of a chemical or nuclear explosion is futile given that Hoyle knew he was mischaracterizing (not just oversimplifying) what was known of the distant universe at the time of the broadcast. ("Big bang" is certainly fancifully poetic, and short, and those two attributes tend to be found in the jargon of theoretical physics. Consider the names of the standard model quarks, or "black hole".) - -- [1] Ethan Siegel, a theoretical astrophysicist and science writer, gives some numbers for the spatial volume of our Hubble volume as one approaches the end of the inflationary epoch (and the start of the big bang) at https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/24/how-big-was-the-universe-at-the-moment-of-its-creation/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/24/how-...