How does the red-shift of galaxies support the Big Bang Theory?

Answer 1

Firstly, the left over energy in the form of microwaves provides evidence for an expansion of space. Similarly, the structure of the CMBR is uniform with minor fluctuations, this shows how galaxies may have formed as the fluctuations allowed the clumping of mass at these points, increasing gravity and in turn causing more mass to gather together. The CMBR can tell us many things about the universe but only at the point of recombination, when the universe became transparent to photons.

The Big Bang Theory perfectly predicted the CMBR. No other hypothesis can adequately explain the CMBR other than saying, "It's just there and I have no way to explain why."

Answer 2

It is not so much that the universe is expanding, but rather the rationalization for its expansion that provides evidence to support the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang supports interpreted observational evidence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) barrier that there is an evolutionary expansion of the universe which promotes a finite age for the universe.

Answer 3

Hello , i am minakshi and the answer of your question is that the red shift support the big bang theory as red shifts of galaxies which was proved by edwin hubble

it states that the universe is expanding as a constant rate after the big bang. the red shift also states about the dopplers effect from which we the age of the universe.

Answer 4

Both the Red and Blue shifts are qualities of the doppler effect. Expansion of the universe is demonstrated via the redshift of galactic clusters (outside of the local galactic cluster which hosts the Milky Way galaxy). Contraction (or attraction) of interlocal galactic clusters is demonstrated via the blue shift.

Using the example of a speed of light (SOL) traveler speeding along at 186,000 miles in one second, to or from Earth, the SOL traveler would be perceived by an individual on Earth as being in motion via a shift in light's radiated wavelength toward the blue of red spectrum respectively. Another way of thinking about this is that the wavelength of light, to or from Earth, would be compressed (blue shifted) or dilated (red shifted). Alternatively the SOL traveler should observe an individual on Earth as being at rest (blue or red shifted) relative to their own SOL motion to or from Earth.

Answer 5

The red shift is a Doppler effect for visible light that implies an object is moving away from you. The blue shift is a Doppler effect for visible light that implies an object is moving towards you. Stars are distrbuted within galactic clusters. If a star is red-shifted, the distance between us and that galaxy is increasing. If it is blue-shifted, the distance between us and the galaxy is decreasing.

All galaxies outside our local galactic cluster produce light that is red-shifted; and the greater the distance between us and these outside galaxies, the greater the red shift. That the size of the red shift depends on the distance is considered isotropic (or the same in all directions), meaning the distance between our local galactic cluster and all other galactic clusters is increasing at the same ratio based on distance from us. These distant galactic clusters, demonstrating red shift, are supportive evidence that these outside galaxies are moving further apart consistent with the Big Bang Theory.

While the red shifted starlight is considered supportive evidence of an expanding universe, there are a few examples of blue shifted starlight within our Local galactic cluster. The Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards within the Milky Way galaxy, so when it is observed from Earth, its light is blue shifted. Any even within our own Milky Way galaxy, the Barnard Star is also moving towards Earth and appears to have a slight blue shift.

Answer 6

When we look at the light from other stars and examine the spectrum of their light, we can see dark "absorption lines" in the star's light. This helps us to determine what elements are in the star. Those lines are at VERY precise frequencies. When astronomers began measuring the spectrum of distant galaxies, they were unable to figure out what elements they were, because the patterns of lines in the spectrum didn't match up with any known elements.

Edwin Hubble realized in the 1920's that the spectrum lines matched known elements, but only if he assumed that those distant galaxies were moving away from us, that the lines were Doppler-shifted to the red end of the spectrum. (Hence, "red-shift") By measuring the amount of the shift, he was able to calculate precisely how fast the galaxies were moving away.

Answer 7

Redshift is "claimed" to be evidence for the big bang in that people assumed the redshift is the result of space expanding after the big bang. The issue of "space moving" away from the masses implies relativity in that the masses are separating from other masses in the "space" expansion.

Hubble believed the redshift is a "hitherto unknown principle of nature". The redshift is an indicator of scalar equilibrium in nature.

Answer 8

In that case, there would be no 'Big Bang' theory. Theories are proposed to account

for what is observed, and the Big Bang as it's presented now could not explain that

kind of observation.

With that said ... many nearby stars and galaxies actually do show a blue shift.

It's only when you really get way out there that the uniform, consistent Hubble

expansion emerges from the noise.

Answer 9

If our Universe has been expanding at a (fairly) constant rate for the last 14 billion years or so, then the time period during which nucleons were very close together to each would result in a certain fraction of those nucleons forming helium (also deuterium, tritium, and lithium). The fraction of our Universe that consists of helium is pretty much exactly as predicted by Big Bang Cosmology. All alternatives to BBC are reduced to stating, "The ratio of helium to hydrogen in our Universe just happens to be that number, and there is no way to explain it."

Answer 10

The CMBR is remarkably isotropic. Almost as if the entire universe had at one time been very hot, and not only that but essentially the same temperature everywhere. Hmm.

You can find pictures of the CMBR, and looking at them you could be forgiven for saying "that's not isotropic at all!" But they're colored to emphasize the (actually very small) variations that are present (it's not perfectly isotropic, after all).

Edit: 1) the temperature of the CMBR of about 2.7 Kelvin is quite important too.

2) You don't need to apologise for the radiation not being precisely uniform. The details in the small variations are probably the strongest evidence for the Big Bang.