0
How did scientists provide evidence by looking at the expansion of the universe?
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Every element gives off light of a certain frequency when an electron in its outer shell drops to a lower energy state. Every element absorbs light of a certain frequency when an electron in its outer shell jumps to a higher state. They make a slight change when in compounds. That light of a certain frequency is called spectral lines. When a green line comes toward you real fast, it changes to blue. That is called a blue shift. When an orange line goes away from you, it changes to red. That is called a red shift.
By looking at the amount of red shift, scientists can tell how fast a galaxy is moving away from this galaxy. The way red shift is occurring, scientists know that at present, the galaxy is expanding.
We do not know if the Universe will continue expanding or not or what it will do. The Universe curves back on itself whatever that means. The radio waves from the original big bang comes equally to the earth from all directions. If they are related, this current expansion was predicted by a Russian Physicist shortly after Einstein published his Theory of Relativity. That Physicist lost his life in Stalin's purges in 1938. A mechanism to end it was also predicted at the Leningrad institution.
In 80 billion years we will need to see if it works.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the role of the dark energy in the expansion of the universe?
The universe is expanding faster than it would be, if the only source of energy for that expansion derived from the big bang. In face, recent astronomical observations have shown that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing, which indicates that there is some force still at work, pushing on galaxies and making them move faster. We have very little idea what that source of expansion is, but we have called it "dark energy" to reflect the fact that we cannot see it (or haven't seen it so far; maybe we aren't looking in the right place).
What types of evidence do scientists use to study prehistoric times?
Scientists use a variety of evidence to study prehistoric times, including fossils, geologic strata, archaeological artifacts, DNA analysis, climate data, and isotopic analysis of elements found in ancient specimens. By examining these different types of evidence, scientists can reconstruct past environments, track the evolution of species, and understand human history.
How can scientists estimate when the big bang happened?
I guess they'd do it by looking at when the term "big bang" started showing up in papers. Or, maybe by looking at TV Guide. (Hint: I don't think "theory" means what you think it means.) I'll answer the question you were probably trying to ask also: A variety of ways that are probably too complicated to explain in detail here, but involve looking at redshifts of distant galaxies and the cosmic microwave background.
How do the scientists know the universe is expanding?
The main piece of evidence (there are others) is the redshift from distant galaxies. This is usually interpreted as a result of the Doppler effect - i.e., the galaxies are moving away from us.
How can you say that a scientist is an open minded person?
scientists are open minded because there theories fit the evidence, rather than looking for evidence to fit his theories. If the evidence starts to contradict the theories, then an open minded scientist will adjust his theories, or suggest a new hypothesis. A dogmatic, or closed minded person will ignore the evidence in order to protect the believe.
What scientist believe provides evidence of the big bang theory?
Scientists do not sit in the coffeeshop and dream up a theory and thengo looking for evidence to support it. Scientists make observations andmeasurements of what IS ... the "evidence" you might say ... and then tryto put together a theory to explain what they see.The "Big Bang" theory is the best explanation so far for the observation that allgalaxies in every direction are receding from us at speeds that are proportionalto their distance from us, and for the observation that all of space is filled withan almost uniform level of electromagnetic radiation with a distribution of wavelengthsthat is characteristic of a blackbody at the temperature of 2.7 K, and for theobservation that on the largest scale, the universe consists of roughly 75%hydrogen and 24% helium.
Studies say that the Earth came from different theories like the big bang theory but how can they explain it if they have no evidence?
Citing a site like cosmos.com, you get the following explanation.Because current instruments don't allow astronomers to peer back at the universe's birth, much of what we understand about the Big Bang Theory comes from mathematical theory and models. Astronomers can, however, see the "echo" of the expansion through a phenomenon known as the cosmic microwave background.So although we aren't completely sure about the Big Bang, there IS evidence to support the theory:First of all, it is fairly certain that the universe had 'a' beginning.Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
What evidence can scientists provide to support the Big Bang theory?
There is cosmic background radiation that is thought to be the "smoke" after the big bang which can still be measured in space today. This is low energy radio waves (which we pick up as static) that can be detected at about the same level wherever we look, leading scientists to think that it is the result of the entire universe having expanded from a single point. Then there is a specific ratio of the elements. After the Big Bang, it is believed only the simpler elements, such as hydrogen and helium, existed and that all other elements were created in the high energy environment of stars.==================================Once again, the question has the whole thing backwards.Scientists do not get together at the coffee shop to dream up a theory, and thengo out looking for evidence to support it. That's not how it works. Scientists makemeasurements and observations that describe what is, and then work to assemblea theory that can explain the evidence they already have.From that point, their job is to tell a good theory from a bad one. Any theory thatseems to explain what has already been seen also predicts things that have notbeen seen yet, and that leads to the other half of the scientists' job ... testingthe predictions of the theory. NOT looking for evidence to support it, but testingthe predictions it makes to see whether they're true ... Or not. If most of themare true, then the theory survives, with possibly a few changes. If most of themare not true, then the theory is out. The evidence is still there, along with thenew evidence that came from testing the predictions, but the theory itself is asgood as gone.Scientists are human people, which leads to the inconvenient fact that there aregood scientists and poor ones. The scientists who go around looking for evidenceto support their favorite theory are generally not the good ones.
Do scientists die looking at sharks?
because they like eating scientists they like their legs <--------&
How are the moon's craters evidence that large meteoroids probably hit Earth?
Looking at the evidence of meteor strikes on the moon is obvious. It would be logical to assume that celestial bodies have struck the earth in the past even though the evidence has been covered up by erosion, plant, growth, and other environmental factors.
Why are scientist resistant to change in scientific thought in light of new evidence?
Scientists are not resistant to change, they are always ready to look at new evidence for scientific theories. But science develops by looking at new ideas and rejecting the ones that can be proved wrong, so this is why scientists always have to look at new ideas when they come along and try to disprove them. The scientific theories that last are the ones that could never be disproved.
Why are scientist still resistant to change in scientific thought in light of new evidence?
Scientists are not resistant to change, they are always ready to look at new evidence for scientific theories. But science develops by looking at new ideas and rejecting the ones that can be proved wrong, so this is why scientists always have to look at new ideas when they come along and try to disprove them. The scientific theories that last are the ones that could never be disproved.
