Question:
Can someone simply explain the Big Bang theory to me?
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Can someone simply explain the Big Bang theory to me?
41 answers:
2014-12-24 04:23:11 UTC
"I go to a Christian school so this sort of thing isn't really discussed"



If true (which I doubt) that should tell you a LOT.



Why would a school hide knowledge?
charcinders
2014-12-24 07:20:29 UTC
Put simply, observations of the red shift of light from distant galaxies show that generally the space between galaxies is increasing; everything is moving apart. The logical conclusion is that everything was once in the same place.

Note that it does not mean that there is an infinitely big space and in that space are a bunch of galaxies that are moving apart. It is not an explosion in the conventional sense. What the Big Bang theory says is that it is space itself that is expanding and carrying the galaxies with it. That means the whole universe itself was once very, very small, smaller than an atom in fact.

At this scale matter itself could not exist; the universe would have to be a ball of pure energy. Matter only formed once the universe had expanded and cooled enough for some of that energy to form matter. That brings us to the second big piece of evidence for the Big Bang, the cosmic microwave background. Space itself is very slightly warm - when we look at the space between the stars in the microwave part of the spectrum we see radiation, coming equally from all directions. Because it is coming from all directions we know it's not from our solar system or our galaxy, it has to be a property of the whole universe. What that radiation is is the remains of the light of the Big Bang, from that time when the whole universe was a ball of pure energy.



Both the microwave background radiation and the receding galaxies point to a universe many billions of years old. Of course that is unacceptable to anyone who thinks the Bible is literal truth. You may not have been told this but many Christians are fine with the idea that the Bible is not literal truth, the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury among them, as well as Monseigneur Georges LeMaitre, the priest who first came up with the idea of the Big Bang. You only find lots of people clinging to a literal interpretation of the Bible in underdeveloped countries where education is not very good, and the United States.
Jack
2014-12-26 14:57:45 UTC
Don't forget the pioneering work of Vest Melvin Slipher of the Lowell Observatory, he discovered the then thought to be outrageous velocities of the "White Nebulae" (soon to be found to be galaxies very far away) Slipher did this with a rather small telescope, a 24-inch Refractor (Alvan Clark and Sons, circa 1896) He was, in my humble opinion, the discoverer of the red Sift, the receding velocities of these objects, around 1910--12 or so. Slipher does not get the credit he's due. Someone already mentioned Henrietta Leavitt, discoverer of the brightness/period od variation of the "Cephied Variables" that allowed distances to the galaxies to be determined. These folks deserve far more credit than is the case.



Another "nail in the coffin" of the expanding Universe is the primordial Hydrogen/Helium ratio, calculated from basic principles to be about 25% Helium to 75% Hydrogen by mass. Just what is observed, a great example of the analytical and observational evidence that converges on a coherent theory.



I highly recommend a terrific book, "The Day we Found the Universe" by Marcia Bartusiak. A very readable history of the discovery of the nature of the Universe starting, essentially, with William Parsons, 3rd Earle of Rosse, that discovered the spiral form of these "White Nebulae", through the discovery that the sky is full of these things (Curtis and Heber, Lick Observatory) Slipher's and Leavitt's contributions, Hale, engineering the funding for the world's largest telescopes (1917) and Hubble and Humason's continued work at Mt. Wilson in the early years of the 20th century. Thia book is one of the very best I've read, and I've been in this game for a bit over a half century!



F.J.E.



In addendum:



It's me, again---Jack



Sorry for the goofs, one of these days I may actually learn to type and/or spell. It should be Vesto Melvin Slipher (not vest) that discovered the red shift (and gets very little recognition for this) at the Lowell Observatory in the first decades of the 20th century. Hubble did not discover this, but did determine the distances to a couple of the nearest galaxies, Andromeda and (I think) M-33 using the then world's largest telescope, the 100-inch reflector at Mt. Wilson in California, which allowed him to photograph, determine the period of variation and therefore the luminosity then the distance to a few of the Cephied Variables** in these "nebulae" As mention in another note, it was Henrietta Leavitt that did all the hard work in calibrating the brightness/period relation for the Cephieds. Of course, thanks to the much larger telescope, Hubble was able to continue observing red shifts of fainter and presumably more distant, "nebulae"



Goof #2, it was Heber Curtis, using what was then one of the largest silver-on-glass* reflectors, the 36-inch at the Lick Observatory, (circa 1888-ish) using the new technology of photography with this telescope to discover that the sky is literally full of these "Spiral Nebulae".



Again, I cannot recommend highly enough Marcia Bartisiak's "The Day we Found the Universe" Another book I think you'd enjoy is "The Birth of Stars and Planets" by John Bally and Bo Reipruth*** Sort of a coffee table book full of great photographs, great science with almost no math in the main text, but heavily footnoted with all the "hard stuff" in the appendix I feel privileged to have known John Bally since we were kids, and that John relocated to the U. of Colorado some time back.



Good luck! and cheers--- FJE



*Silver-on-glass, the early reflecting telescopes used mirrors made of Speculum Metal, a bronze alloy ~60% copper, ~30% tin and a trace of "other stuff" (including arsenic) to improve the reflectance of these. Silver-on-glass was invented in Germany, Justis von Liebig around the middle of the 19th century and was a major breakthrough for the reflecting telescope.



**Cephied Variables, so named for the first one discovered in the constellation of Cephus, the king. The star is Delta Cephei.



***No guarantee of this spelling
Nathan
2014-12-26 02:49:10 UTC
The matter and energy that constitutes our Universe was all compacted into a singularity. The singluarity expaded in a rapid succession in a bang



--



Singularity - lot of energy/mass in a vanishingly small space. The only thing we really know here is that our standard model of physics is inedequate to desribe singularities.



The theories of physics are formulated on the assumption that Space-time is nearly flat, so, they break down at big bang where the curvature is infinite.



--



Big Bang tries to explain the initial state of the Universe and in no way tries to say that The universe came from 'nothing'. Anything before Big bang is guesswork.
2014-12-25 18:26:04 UTC
You're just better off reading wikipedia.
?
2014-12-25 13:55:14 UTC
it was not a bang but an expansion. everything in the known universe was compacted into a very small area.

the reason this is accepted is because the universe is still expanding today from that expansion. if gravity does work like it is suppose to then all matter in the universe collected together would cause it to be very small. now this substance would not be the same as we see today because what we see today is what evolved from that small speck. bare in mind this does not in any way disallow God created the universe because when he did something had to happen this could be one step in his creation. i do appologize that i can not explain it any simplier.
Who
2014-12-24 05:41:34 UTC
ignore idiots such as "geessewereabove " - cos they dont have a clue about physics



"Has any Atheists ever been able to state Where or How their very first atom could have popped out of nothing,"



Yes they can



And that beats the sh//t out of creationists who rely on "magic"



Apart from that



Dont bother asking on YA

There are loads of books that can explain it a lot better to anyone who dont know much (if any ) physics



Course this assumes you actually do want to know which I also doubt

"What would be the point in me making that up"?

Who knows?-

But you are the one who said the "school" only teaches "creationism"

And there are no "schools" thaI know of that would be alllowed to teach creationism without also teaching something about the big bang

and anybody with an ounce of interest would already have obtained books like I mentioned and wouldnt NEED to ask on YA
Ray J
2014-12-24 04:25:42 UTC
Three or four real dorky guys all live together and hot chicks seem to dig 'em. It can't be explained.
John
2014-12-24 04:21:08 UTC
Why are you asking this in the religion section? Do you think that the big bang, evolution, abiogenesis, and certain studies of geology are scientific studies that are somehow "about atheism?" You should ask these questions to scientists who actually know the answers. Atheism has nothing to do with the big bang. The only relationship to it is that religious people have chosen to deny any scientific findings that contradict a literal interpretation of their holy book.
Annsan_In_Him
2014-12-24 04:26:39 UTC
Let me quote a little bit from this book, written by a renowned scientist who is also a Christian, to show some of the history that led to the Big Bang theory being understood:



It was astrophysicist Fred Hoyle who supported the 'steady state' theory in the early 1950s, who coined the term 'big bang' as a term of derision. He did not actually believe this theory to be sound! But eventually, the force of evidence persuaded him to abandon 'continuous creation'. He was never entirely happy with the idea that the universe actually began. He, and all scientists, know that there was no sound - no bang - it was an almost imperceptible event with an intensely condensed atom that just suddenly began to expand.



"The idea of an expanding universe began with Einstein's general relativity theory in 1915 but the elephant in the room was deliberately ignored until Aleksandr Friedmann in 1922 and Georges Lemaitre in 1927 independently found solutions to Einstein's equations that described evolutionary as opposed to static models of the universe. This implied a beginning which could be represented mathematically as a 'singularity' in Einstein's equations. (A singularity is a point where some physical quantity becomes infinite - in this case the density and temperature of the universe, implying a 'hot big bang' beginning.)...



"Even before Friedmann and Lemaitre published their ideas, the foundations were being laid for a spectacular experimental demonstration of cosmic expansion. During 1908-1912 Henrietta Leavitt, one of America's first women astronomers, found that within a given stellar 'cloud', certain stars (called cepheid variables) fluctuated periodically in brightness in a rather special way - those with greater intrinsic luminosity (light output) also had longer periodicities. The relationship was so precise that the periodicity could be used as a measure of the intrinsic luminosity... [which enabled distances to be measured]... Astronomers had found a tape-measure to the stars.



"The next actor in the drama was Edwin Hubble... who in 1929 first realized that the red shift of some cepheid variable stars was directly related to their distance from us. Not only were the galaxies containing these stars moving away from earth, but the more distant galaxies were receding faster... Astronomers found themselves in an expanding universe and modern cosmology was born!...



"From Einstein in 1915 to Penzias and Wilson in 1963 is less than fifty years, but this period saw a revolution in man's perception of the cosmos. Scientists were at last convinced that the universe had a beginning, just as the book of Genesis had always said."



Now, if you could follow the partial quotes I've made from that author's book, then you will find the rest of it gives you the explanations you require. This scientist explains things beautifully. But really, the subject is too vast to do justice to here! You really need to read the book!
?
2016-03-12 01:00:16 UTC
"The evolution of the world can be compared to a display of fireworks that has just ended; some few red wisps, ashes and smoke. Standing on a cooled cinder, we see the slow fading of the suns, and we try to recall the vanishing brilliance of the origin of the worlds." An overwhelming weight of evidence has convinced cosmologists that the universe came into existence at a definite moment in time, some 13 billion years ago, in the form of a superhot, superdense fireball of energetic radiation. This is known as the Big Bang theory. It is necessary to understand that the Big Bang did not begin as a huge explosion within the universe, the Big Bang created the universe. A popular misconception is that it happened within the universe and that it is expanding through it. This causes people to wonder where in the universe it started, as if by running the clock backwards we would reach the point where all the galaxies come together in the centre of the universe. The universe does not have a centre, any more than the surface of a sphere has a centre, there is no preferred place that could be termed the centre. This has to also do with parallel universes and space-time structures in space -- when the universe is viewed using cosmic background radiation, the age of the universe is known, for nothing existed before exactly 13 billion years ago. There are filaments and long abruptions all over the universe when seen from far away, much like what can be seen on the "skin" of a cell
madel
2017-01-14 10:17:24 UTC
Big Bang Theory Explained Simply
Jack
2014-12-29 08:59:36 UTC
Well, the first thing you should tell people is that "the Big Bang" wasn't Big and it didn't make a Bang!!! It supposedly happened in a space smaller than an atom, and as we know, sound can't travel in space. The Big Bang is an assumption, based on the fact the every galaxy in the universe to accelerating away from each other, an observation by Edwin Hubble. So it stands that the universe was once much closer together. The B.B. is winding the clock as far back as it'll go.
?
2014-12-26 10:36:49 UTC
Well, the first thing you should tell people is that "the Big Bang" wasn't Big and it didn't make a Bang!!! It supposedly happened in a space smaller than an atom, and as we know, sound can't travel in space. The Big Bang is an assumption, based on the fact the every galaxy in the universe to accelerating away from each other, an observation by Edwin Hubble. So it stands that the universe was once much closer together. The B.B. is winding the clock as far back as it'll go.
geessewereabove
2014-12-24 04:32:51 UTC
The Big Bang "Theory " is only a "theory" - an idea, a dream, a wish, a hope that Atheists made up hoping they get away with Not having to obey the Bible!

Zero Proof to it!

Has any Atheists ever been able to state Where or How their very first atom could have popped out of nothing, not even another atom to breath with? Nope! Zero Proof! Zero Truth! They believe/claim that a big explosion suddenly happened with everything wanted and needed and is here now happened and when the explosion happed Everything that makes ALL the stars and universes multiplied from the 'big bang' and made all -then. Only a dream!
2014-12-24 05:25:34 UTC
Well, the first thing you should tell people is that "the Big Bang" wasn't Big and it didn't make a Bang!!! It supposedly happened in a space smaller than an atom, and as we know, sound can't travel in space. The Big Bang is an assumption, based on the fact the every galaxy in the universe to accelerating away from each other, an observation by Edwin Hubble. So it stands that the universe was once much closer together. The B.B. is winding the clock as far back as it'll go.
?
2014-12-25 22:13:19 UTC
I understand you. Well let me explain:

When, in 1920s, Edwin Hubble saw that millions of galaxies ,far away from our own galaxy, the Milky Way (I hope you know what is a galaxy), are going away from ours and that, according to calculation, our galaxy was also moving, he thought that if we reverse time, then we will find the Universe shrinking. Think of a balloon. If you inflate it, it will grow big from a shrinked balloon to an inflated one. Now reverse time (in your mind) and the inflated one will be shrinking. Therefore, he concluded, that there was a time when the whole Universe we see, was shrinked to a point. From that, the whole Universe inflated.

When we calculated the speed of the galaxies that were going away from ours(it was very very very painstaking), we found that nearly 13.8 billion years ago, the whole Universe should have been a very very small ball of hot glowing gases. Then there was a blast, and the Universe inflated.

Now there comes several questions that cosmologists are working out-

1. What is there beyond our Universe within which our Universe is inflating/expanding.

2. According to theory of gravity, the gravity at the point when the Universe was so small should have been very large, and so the ball should have instantly blasted.

3. Most important- Where did the hot ball come from. From nothing?

4.How did the galaxies, planets, stars, then on Earth-several life forms, Humans come to exist.

Don't think this is a flawed theory. We have convenient answers to all the above questions. But they will be too technical for you. If you study Chemistry, Physics , Biology and Mathematics, I will then be able to tell you. Sorry for that.

Well, honestly, The 3rd question still really has no answer. This is the reason why Christians get the opportunity to mock at this theory of Big Bang. But don't worry. We hope to get the answers soon just like we have found answers to several questions in the past, SCIENTIFICALLY. Till then, you can (and have the freedom) to keep your belief in God. And yes, there are several experiments going on on this theory. I hope you can understand how complex is this question of Creation of Universe. You can check out the website of CERN to know about the experiments.
Aarj
2014-12-24 04:32:54 UTC
The matter and energy that constitutes our Universe was all compacted into a singularity. The singluarity expaded in a rapid succession in a bang



--



Singularity - lot of energy/mass in a vanishingly small space. The only thing we really know here is that our standard model of physics is inedequate to desribe singularities.



The theories of physics are formulated on the assumption that Space-time is nearly flat, so, they break down at big bang where the curvature is infinite.



--



Big Bang tries to explain the initial state of the Universe and in no way tries to say that The universe came from 'nothing'. Anything before Big bang is guesswork.
Angel
2014-12-28 04:34:25 UTC
The most popular theory of our universe's origin centers on a cosmic cataclysm unmatched in all of history—the big bang. This theory was born of the observation that other galaxies are moving away from our own at great speed, in all directions, as if they had all been propelled by an ancient explosive force.



Before the big bang, scientists believe, the entire vastness of the observable universe, including all of its matter and radiation, was compressed into a hot, dense mass just a few millimeters across. This nearly incomprehensible state is theorized to have existed for just a fraction of the first second of time.



Big bang proponents suggest that some 10 billion to 20 billion years ago, a massive blast allowed all the universe's known matter and energy—even space and time themselves—to spring from some ancient and unknown type of energy.



The theory maintains that, in the instant—a trillion-trillionth of a second—after the big bang, the universe expanded with incomprehensible speed from its pebble-size origin to astronomical scope. Expansion has apparently continued, but much more slowly, over the ensuing billions of years.



Scientists can't be sure exactly how the universe evolved after the big bang. Many believe that as time passed and matter cooled, more diverse kinds of atoms began to form, and they eventually condensed into the stars and galaxies of our present universe.



Origins of the Theory



A Belgian priest named Georges Lemaître first suggested the big bang theory in the 1920s when he theorized that the universe began from a single primordial atom. The idea subsequently received major boosts by Edwin Hubble's observations that galaxies are speeding away from us in all directions, and from the discovery of cosmic microwave radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson.



The glow of cosmic microwave background radiation, which is found throughout the universe, is thought to be a tangible remnant of leftover light from the big bang. The radiation is akin to that used to transmit TV signals via antennas. But it is the oldest radiation known and may hold many secrets about the universe's earliest moments.



The big bang theory leaves several major questions unanswered. One is the original cause of the big bang itself. Several answers have been proposed to address this fundamental question, but none has been proven—and even adequately testing them has proven to be a formidable challenge.
Luke
2014-12-24 05:19:19 UTC
The Big Bang Theory is that famed astronomer Edwin Hubble noticed distant galaxies were moving away from our galaxy. He was able to deduce this by observing red shift. Now a galaxy is simply a large group of stars, billions of them.



When something moves away from us, the waves are longer. Think of when an ambulance drives by. After it's gone past the siren sounds like it's in a lower pitch. The sound waves are slower because they're emanating from a vehicle that's moving away.



It's the same with light, though light is much faster than sound so the speeds involved have to be much much greater. That's why the ambulance doesn't appear red as it drives away. It's not going anywhere near fast enough. (note: the light from a galaxy moving away from us does not actually travel slower due to the effects of Special Relativity but the wavelength is still increased due to time dilation).



So in much that same way that lower pitched sounds have a longer wave length, red light has a longer wavelength. Now since a galaxy is a group of stars and some stars can be redder and some stars can be bluer, how did Edwin Hubble know the distant galaxies didn't simply contain more red stars?



The answer is that he used a process called spectrometry. Every element has certain unique identifiers in it's spectrum. I'm sure you've seen pictures of Isaac Newton using a prism to split a beam of sunlight into it's constituent colours. If not just think of the Dark Side of the Moon cover. But this rainbow of colour, when observed very closely will have tiny gaps of darkness in it. The pattern in these dark spots is different for each element.



By the time of Edwin Hubble these patterns were well known but what he observed from different galaxies didn't fit. It had the typical identifiers of hydrogen and helium except shifted a way into the red end of the spectrum. If they were simply red stars they would still have the same spectrographic signatures for hydrogen and helium as stars in our own galaxy.



Edwin Hubble knew that this could only be explained by red shift. Those galaxies must be moving away from us at a significant fraction of the speed of light. The more distant the galaxies, the faster they were moving away from our galaxy. Some people say that the stars are moving away from us but rememember, the stars in our own galaxy are not moving away from us, other galaxies are moving away from us (note: a few nearby galaxies are moving closer to us but the majority of galaxies are moving away from us).



Edwin Hubble deduced that if the galaxies were moving away from us in every direction, they must also be moving away from each other. He knew then that the universe is expanding. Now it may expand forever but Hubble couldn't deny that the universe hadn't already been expanding forever. He knew that something that expands must have once been smaller and it couldn't have been smaller than nothing. He knew that day that the universe must have expanded out of a single point.



What he didn't know was what that point was or what caused it to be. We don't know that to this day. Scientists have hypotheses about it but we may not know for sure for many years. What we do know is that this happened approximately 13.7 billion years ago. That's a fact because otherwise the light wouldn't have had time to travel billions of light years without billions of years.



Now for all you critics just remember, the Big Bang Theory explains how the universe expanded out of a small point it does not say how that point originated or what, if anything existed before. Scientists don't know everything but they never claimed too so cut them some slack. Just because they don't yet know what caused the Big Bang that doesn't make them wrong about everything. They don't know everything but that's because they still have work to do. They'll be making discoveries for centuries to come.
Morningfox
2014-12-24 07:13:33 UTC
The basic idea of the so-called "Big Bang" theory is really simple. We can see that most of the universe is moving away from us, in all directions. Not the part close to us, within 150 million light years, but everything else is moving away, in all directions.



So if it is moving away now, it must have been closer to us in the past. The more into the past you think about, the more the far universe must have been closer to us. We know a lot about what happens to atoms when they get closer to each other, and there is no reason to think that they couldn't get very very close -- even closer than the size of an atom. In other works, in the far past, all the atoms much have been squeezed together. And when atoms are squeezed that close to each other, they have to be pure energy.



When you do the math about how fast things are moving apart now, and run it backwards, it turns out that all the atoms were squeezed together into pure energy about 14 billion years ago. They then expanded from that squeeze, moving apart.



The rest is just details, like how the starting energy turned into atoms, and what types of atoms.
Siddharth
2014-12-26 05:34:06 UTC
In a scientific perspective,



The big bang is a sharp burst of energy that created the universe. It's simple enough to remember the previous statement.
?
2014-12-27 14:10:48 UTC
The big bang theory is essentially a modern version of the Genesis creation myth. It was devised by a belgian priest (Georges LeMaitre) and gained the support of a god-fearing american scientific community. Throughout the last hundred years observations kept cropping up that contradicted it and more and more fantastical concepts had to be invented to keep it alive — things like expanding space, inflation and dark energy. There are a number of notable astronomers who recognise the absurdity of it. Some of them give their views in this documentary which you may find interesting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFFl9S39CTM That video also highlights the shameful amount of bias that exists amongst the scientific community. The professionals have to do BigBang-supporting research if they want to keep their jobs. So there is, of course, a lot of research supporting the big bang. It is not so much the evidence that supports the big bang but the conclusions that are drawn by scientific consensus. [see www.cosmology.info]



The truth is that the big bang theory is severely flawed and will likely be consigned to the history books within a decade or two. There is an increasing weight of evidence opposing it.



The strongest contradicting observations are probably these:

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110329redshifts.htm



...and here are some more:

http://phys.org/news190027752.html

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Bang_Afterglow_Fails_An_Intergalactic_Shadow_Test_999.html

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17752

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/09/the-great-walls-of-the-universe-challenge-big-bang-theory-todays-most-popular.html

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Quasar+clumps+dim+cosmological+theory.-a09364386



This page lists many deficiencies of the big bang theory:

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp



Alternative cosmologies that show some promise are the Plasma/Electric Universe theories:

www.plasmacosmology.net

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/about/syn/
Donut Tim
2014-12-24 04:37:49 UTC
The big bang is the expansion of the universe and is still visibly in progress. Evidence indicates that the present expansion had a start.



(One should not confuse a possible origin of the universe with the big bang. There is no evidence for or against the universe having an infinitely long past.)
Campbell Hayden
2014-12-24 11:18:19 UTC
The Big Bang was the result of a Singularity --

An event which combines just before, and during its inception

as a condensed product (unity) within one simultaneous moment of occurrence.



Allow for the fact that there may actually have been *nothing*, and everything came from intent.



Even if it came from nothing, can we call that intention *God*? .... we most certainly can.
2014-12-27 23:35:29 UTC
The Big Bang Theory was formulated by a Catholic Priest named Georges Lemaitre in 1927, when he first proposed his theory that the universe began with a "Primeval Atom." This atom, as he termed it, expanded from an infinitesimal point to create the entire Universe. Lemaitre taught mathematics and Relativity in Belgium and arrived at this theory by studying mathematical models based on Einstein's Field Equations.



Evidence to support this early model of the Universe arrived almost simultaneously when American astronomer Edwin Hubble announced that the galaxies were redshifted- they were all moving away from us and from each other at a steady rate. The measurement of this expansion is by a formula called "Hubble's Constant" or "The Hubble Constant." This is one of the most important equations in human history because it determines the age of the Universe and the rate of expansion.



If the Universe began as an expanding Primeval Atom, one that created space as it expanded, all the galaxies should be moving apart from each other. One popular way to explain this is to imagine a bunch of galaxies on a sphere- a balloon- as the balloon expands, each of these galaxies move apart at a roughly equal rate and distance. This is what Hubble discovered with the galaxies.



Another major discovery, one that was predicted by American physicist Edward Teller, was the Universe should be filled with a background radiation left over from the early Universe. It should be in the microwave region of the spectrum and should be everywhere because it fills the entire Universe. In 1965, two American physicists at Bell Labs in Holmdel NJ discovered this radiation. It is called the "Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation" or CMBR.



It is relevant that you are in a Christian school that the Big Bang Theory originated with a Catholic Priest. Prior to Lemaitre, the American poet Edgar Allan Poe wrote a brilliant little book called Eureka which describes the Big Bang Theory. This was in 1848. Poe was an amazingly erudite amateur astronomer who also correctly explained Olber's Paradox. His mechanism for the Big Bang was God!



It is also interesting to point out the theological debates that influenced the Big Bang Theory. When the Pope said in a speech that Lemaitre's theory supported the account of creation in the Book of Genesis, Lemaitre was livid. He chastised the Pope for mixing religion and science. Lemaitre may have been a Priest but he did not inject any matters of religion or Faith into scientific inquiry.



On the other hand, the Big Bang owes its name to an avowed Atheist named Fred Hoyle. He derided the theory and in a radio program called it the "Big Bang" in ridicule. One reason he didn't like it; he thought it was too close to the account of creation in the Book of Genesis! Hoyle stuck it out with his "Steady State Theory" long after it lost its viability.



I have given a brief history of the Big Bang Theory in hopes that it illustrates the fallacy of mixing religious matters with science. Logical thinking and human prejudices have an important role in science. From the standpoint of Faith, should Faith depend on science to support it? Should science be determined by religion? In both cases, no. It is very unfortunate that many people confuse the two or pit them against each other.
2014-12-24 04:29:23 UTC
In the beginning there was only God and he is made of magnificent energy more glorious than anyone can imagine. Everyone thinks he is an a form similar to man but he is not. And us as part of the divine are living this life in human form to learn and grow spiritually and when we are done we return to the divine source and we do maintain our individuality. I saw this in a vision and felt the presence of other souls and felt a love more wonderful than can be described in human terms. If only this could be conveyed to those who do not believe. A wonderful future awaits all who desire to return to our source of life and energy and from which all things were made. All souls are a part of him yet with a separate consciousness. All of us are a part of God and it is glorious and wonderful.
The Actionist
2014-12-24 04:18:55 UTC
I didn't think Christian schools believed in the Big Bang? Does yours believe that the earth is 6000 years old?
Eva
2014-12-26 16:28:16 UTC
I didn't think Christian schools believed in the Big Bang? Does yours believe that the earth is 6000 years old?
Hi T
2014-12-24 04:28:58 UTC
Not worth explaining really. Once there was nothing, then an accidental explosion happened from nothing and for no reason or purpose and therefore without meaning. And over billions of years nothing gradually turned into some thing and us. Has to take billions of years otherwise it would not fit with the theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxVxS0z3aTk

https://answersingenesis.org/search/?csrfmiddlewaretoken=uK4wa3YRl7tL1PUQGl5pUVSeesSqcbV8&site=AiGall&q=big+bang

One video for the Atheists:

http://www.evolutionvsgod.com/
vulcan_alex
2014-12-25 13:33:53 UTC
First without some Physics this theory is not that understandable. Next the start could be "let there be light" so those who think that science and religion are opposed are foolish.
Mohamed
2014-12-26 00:12:31 UTC
okay , in the first , the universe was like Screw head and that screw head must have been a high temperature and high Pressure , in second all of them exploded a great explosion we called big bang and started the universe consisting even Arrival to that moment
Emily
2014-12-29 21:18:20 UTC
Three or four real dorky guys all live together and hot chicks seem to dig 'em. It can't be explained.
Mia
2014-12-29 12:34:36 UTC
Three or four real dorky guys all live together and hot chicks seem to dig 'em. It can't be explained.
2014-12-24 04:48:18 UTC
It started with Heat or He at the cross.

A complex wave function arises because I need a way to describe the wave nature of particles, without having them actually be

a disturbance in some medium.

So I introduce a simple calculations field and have it oscillate in a simple dimensions.

So when two wave functions add I can have the wave type of destructive/constructive interference in a simple dimensions.

When I need to be brought back to physical reality, I find the length of the simple melody. (i.e. it's music).

So I use the simple addition description because it is a very easy way to describe reality,

even though mathematicians invented complex numbers thinking that they would have no real physical counterpart.

And it all works out quite well.



A wave function or wavefunction is a possibility amplitude in quantum mechanics describing the quantum state

of a particle or system of particles. Typically,

it is a function of space or momentum or rotation and possibly of time that returns the possibility amplitude of a

position or momentum for a subatomic particle.

Mathematically, it is a function from a space that maps the possible states of the system into a simple words.

The laws of quantum mechanics. It describe how the wave function evolves over time.



The possibility of finding your particle at a certain position or momentum at a specific time is given by the

magnitude squared of the wavefunction

(called the possibility density).] [This has the physical interpretation that when you make the measurement on that specific system,

it has whatever possibility of collapsing to be in a specific position or momentum range as defined by that possibility.

Mathematically speaking, you can only talk about ranges in which the particle's position of momentum can be since

any specific value probability is 0 statistically.

It can be 1 if you wanted it.



A potential energy is due to what is around the electron.

[An excellent and important example is You and me. You'll notice that this is the potential energy for a spring and is

governed by Hokes law.

It is called the simple Melody.

It looks parabolic and so any local minimum of a potential can use that approximation (the biggest the oscillation,

that is the best possibilities to go to the future.

The reason is that important potential is therefore that we are all just looking for own profit and the amplitude is too small.



Itis does describe the **possibility** of finding a particle at a specific location and time

(assuming you aren't using the time independent equation);

however it [does not describe the motion of the electron] because it is possibilities in nature.

The evolution of the wave function can give you a possibilities interpretation of how the electron will move, but not

"give location" with the wright word,

It would give "locations. When you have the time-independent potential, it turns out when you solve the equation",

it is only solvable for specific energies corresponding to stationary states.

Most of the potentials you work with in this case are indeed time independent and therefore solve as stationary states.

For example the musical melody is time independent and therefore solves to stationary states.
Maya
2014-12-27 21:47:58 UTC
You're just better off reading wikipedia.
?
2014-12-27 20:58:12 UTC
You're just better off reading wikipedia.
Adullah M
2014-12-24 04:44:53 UTC
As according to the Islamic teaching ,GOD create the first pure energy that can perform work by saying to nothingness BE and it is ,then GOD create universe by igniting this pure energy and by twikling of an eyes, then this big bang expand and turn to be masses and then GOD fill all these masses inside the space ,then GOD melted these three entities ie;Energy,Mass and Space in to time and fix all of their natures in to each of them ,in such a way that they can not exist with out one another.

Then GOD creates all the stars and planets and filled them in space ,having total number of 88 Constelations,similarly ,HE then creates 88 Elements ,that can exist by their own natures till the end of the world.

At the same time GOD creates all Angels from the radiant and fix them at every nook and corner of universe to praise the greatness of GOD.So there are 88 words of Angels in the whole Al-Quran.

As GOD promise that one day HE will surely cause all of HIS creations to be ended by revealing this truth in HIS Al-Quran ,Chapter 88 ,Al Quasheah,or the Overwhelming event or the Pall.

Hope this would help.
great knight
2014-12-24 21:23:41 UTC
Nothing "exploded" and supposedly formed perfect planes and galaxies. This is largely refuted by scientific facts like physics but it is the only atheistic explanation so they keep it. Here are some videos to show what I mean,"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbh7S6WWdMc" More space toward second half of video. Also, "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn84NYTZ-S0" and so on. they shouldn't teach it anywhere but they do....
Thomas
2014-12-25 11:48:31 UTC
Keep in mind:"The Big Bang Theory" is not fact.If, it is so give me proof,now.I have the Holy Bible & I choose to believe it .
timbers
2014-12-25 14:23:51 UTC
Sheldon cooper will


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...