Big Bang Theory (scientific model)

If our entire Universe was once so dense that all protons and neutrons were crammed together as tightly as they are in nuclei, and this time of density for our entire Universe lasted about fifteen minutes, then we can calculate the probability of some nucleons (ie, protons and neutrons) joining together to form helium nuclei versus the odds of others not doing so. Calculations show that such a "soup" would, given the density of nucleons and the time for combination, result in about 8% of the resulting nuclei would joing to form helium, while almost all the rest would remain as singular protrons -- ie, hydrogen. In addition, this ratio is VERY sensitive to both the density of nucleons and the time they are close enough to join together. Increase or decrease the density or time by just a factor of two, and the ratios would be very different.

Remarkably, this ratio of hydrogen to helium matches almost exactly what we find in all parts of our Universe.

Big Bang Cosmology is alone in correctly predicting this ratio; no other hypothesis can explain why helium is more than 1% of our Universe. Proponents of these hypotheses are left to say, "That's just the way our Universe is, and there's no explanation why it would be that way."

As of my last update, Big Bang's T.O.P has not publicly disclosed any information regarding his marital status.

The Big Bang theory imposes a limit on how far we may look out in space as well as in time.

Also, the Big Bang theory precludes the possibility of Earth being in any kind of privileged position (the cosmological principle).

In the Steady State model, it is theoretically possible for the universe to exist eternally unchanged.

Yes, a blue jay named "Morty" made a few appearances on the TV show "The Big Bang Theory" as a pet owned by Sheldon.

it helps us in many ways, in fact big bang gave birth to this universe, it always believed that a tiny ball exploded to a huge extent then the temperature rose to 1000 trillion degrees it exploded 15-20 billions years ago which generated heat and gases. particles move at the speed of 300,000,000 meters second.the particles moved all the four directions, due to this explosion, the expansion occurred A space was occurred then it pulled rapidly then gradually it starts cooling to fast rate then gave rise to the matter. The two things developed it was protons and neutrons and then they tend to react with each other. Then after few seconds,it develops electrons and protons.then they tend to collide with each other

that's all i know, this info is just general but sometimes helpful

The Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago from a cloud of dust and gas in space, a remnant of the solar system's formation from a nebula. Gravity caused the cloud to collapse, forming the Sun at the center and the planets, including Earth, from the remaining material in orbit around it.

No, it was not. The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe that is best supported by all lines of scientific evidence and observation. As used by scientists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day. Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, although he called it his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom'. The framework for the model relies on Albert Einstein's General Relativity as formulated by Alexander Friedmann. After Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts, this observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity.[1] If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment on and test such conditions, resulting in significant confirmation of the theory, but these accelerators have limited capabilities to probe into such high energy regimes. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant. The observed abundances of the light elements throughout the cosmos closely match the calculated predictions for the formation of these elements from nuclear processes in the rapidly expanding and cooling first minutes of the universe, as logically and quantitatively detailed according to Big Bang nucleosynthesis. Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the phrase 'Big Bang' during a 1949 radio broadcast, as a derisive reference to a theory he did not subscribe to.[2] Hoyle later helped considerably in the effort to figure out the nuclear pathway for building certain heavier elements from lighter ones. After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its collective frequencies sketched out a blackbody curve, most scientists were fairly convinced by the evidence that some Big Bang scenario must have occurred. No, the Big Bang was not a supernova in another universe. Though it is unclear where the "material" involved in the Big Bang came from, from what we know of regarding a supernova or a black hole, our universe did not appear as a result of these phenomena in another universe.

Cosmological red-shift tells us that the space within our Universe is expanding. It is NOT that the matter within our Universe exploded; rather, SPACE ITSELF is growing bigger. Until about 1995, nobody knew of any entity, other than gravity, in our Universe that could alter the rate of expansion -- and gravity could only slow down this rate. The question was how much was gravity slowing this expansion. Several researchers worked to resolve this question.

When Saul Parlemutter first calculated that the rate of expansion had actually increased over time (we're talking billion of years, mind you), he was sure he had made a dreadful mistake, and diligently searched for his error. After much effort, he finally concluded he had NOT made a mistake, and that the rate of expansion of the space in our Universe really IS increasing.

So what IS the entity that is causing the rate of expansion to increase? We have NO IDEA!! That's why it's been given the name "dark energy." We know it's there because we can see its effects, but (for now) we don't know what it is.

So how do we "calculate" dark energy? We simply compare the change in the rate of expansion that we SHOULD see (ie, what we would expect if dark energy didn't exist) -- and this rate should be very close to zero -- with the change that we do see. The difference is the amount of dark energy in our Universe.

The redshift of galaxies is evidence for the Big Bang theory because it shows that the universe is expanding. When light from distant galaxies is redshifted, it means that those galaxies are moving away from us, indicating that the universe is getting larger and supporting the idea that everything originated from a single point in a massive explosion.

For some people, the fact that scientists are unable to explain how lightning occurs in the sky would mean (if these people were consistent in their logic) that lightning doesn't happen. In these people's minds, the following is "evidence" against the Big Bang, in that scientists are unable to explain:

1) the origin of the dense state of matter prior to inflation.

2) the mechanism for inflation.

3) why inflation stopped.

4) the prevelance of matter over anti-matter - the two should be exactly equal.

Until about fifteen years ago, calculations of the age of globular star clusters indicated an age of 15 billion years -- older than the calculated age of our Universe. This has been resolved by more refined calculations of the former.

Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago from a cloud of gas and dust called the solar nebula. Gravity caused the nebula to collapse, forming the Sun at the center and the remaining material to clump together to form planets like Earth.

The similarity of spraying air freshener to the Big Bang is not very striking, however, both the universe, and the cloud of air freshener, originate in a small location and then expand outward.

Practically all astronomers and physicists accept the Big Bang model, and more specifically, the LCDM model. Outside of the fields of astronomy and physics, acceptance may be a bit less, but still constitutes a vast majority of the scientific community.

Bernadette's father on "The Big Bang Theory" is Mike Rostenkowski. He is portrayed by the actor Casey Sander. Mike is a tough former cop who has a strained relationship with his daughter.

The Big Bang Theory is a widly accepted theory in the scientific world because of the fact that it has less loopholes than others made to oppose it.I believe 1-2 loopholes are contained in The Big Bang Theory.

First it is necessary to understand how the early universe evolved according to the big bang model.

Initially the universe was extremely small and extremely hot, comprised of energy rather than material. As the universe began to expand, it also began to cool (more space and less energy means less energy per unit of space). As the universe continued to cool, some of that energy began to condense into quarks which later formed protons and neutrons, and electrons (as well as a myriad other particles we need not concern ourselves with).

Eventually (after about 3 minutes) the universe was now at the temperature where nucleosynthesis could occur. Protons and Neutrons fused together to form heavier nuclei, first heavier hydrogen nuclei, then helium, then lithium. By about 20 minutes after the beginning of the universe, the temperature had fallen too much to allow nuclear fusion, and this process stopped.

For approximately the next 400000 years, the universe was a sea of nuclei and electrons, then the temperature finally dropped to the point that nuclei could capture those electrons, forming neutral atoms.

There is, of course, much more to it than this, but this is sufficient for our purposes.

The three most substantial (there are more) pieces of evidence for the big bang are the Hubble expansion, the cosmic microwave background and the relative abundances of lighter elements.

The Hubble expansion is named for the astronomer Edwin Hubble, who was the first to knowingly observe galaxies beyond the Milky Way. Not only did he discover these galaxies, he discovered that they were all moving away from us. This discovery was achieved by examining their spectra. If an object emitting light or sound is moving relative to an observer, that light or sound is observed at different wavelengths than it is emitted. If the emitter and observer are moving towards each other, the observed wavelength decreases (gets shorter). If the emitter and observer are moving away from each other, the observed wavelength increases (gets longer). You can observe this yourself by listening to the change in sound of vehicle's siren as it approaches, passes, and moves away from you.

This phenomenon is known as Doppler shift, named for Christian Doppler. In the case of light, if the observed wavelength increases, then the light has moved toward the red end of the spectrum and is described as "red shift". Conversely, if the observed wavelength decreases, moving towards the blue end of the spectrum, it is described as "blue shift".

However, Hubble's observations of the red shift of galactic spectra were too extreme be explained by mere Doppler shift. It was not simply that the light was red-shifting as it travelled the distance between the galaxies and Hubble's telescope, but that the actual space between them was expanding, creating a greater distance between the galaxies and us, increasing that red-shift.

Since the light from those galaxies had been travelling for billions of years, it follows that over those billions of years the universe has experienced expansion. This was the first observational evidence of the big bang.

The cosmic microwave background, first observed by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1964, is a sea of photons in the microwave band which fills the entire observable universe. In whichever direction Penzias and Wilson pointed their telescope they observed this phenomenon, which they initially believed to be caused by an equipment malfunction. Further observations measured this radiation as being a black body spectrum (emitted by an opaque body as a feature of its temperature) with a peak wavelength of 1.873 mm.

Since this radiation is observed everywhere, it must have been emitted everywhere; it could not be a local phenomenon. Logically, this requires the entire universe to have at one time been opaque and suddenly become transparent. When this happened, photons would now be able to move freely through space and - like the light Hubble observed from distance galaxies - red shift as the universe expanded.

There is only one event that could have caused this phenomenon; the spontaneous universal recombination of nuclei and electrons into neutral atoms. When this happened, the universe changed from being a soup of ions constantly interacting with photons to being a somewhat less thick soup of neutral atoms which did not. While neutral atoms can absorb photons, because the universe had cooled so much by this point, the energy of the background photons was several orders of magnitude too low to be absorbed, and so those photons continued on their merry way.

The third significant piece of evidence, the abundance of light elements, is a relic of the period of nucleosynthesis. Since we know what reactions can and therefore would have happened and how long those reactions take, and our model predicts how long the universe would have been at the appropriate temperature to allow those reactions, we can predict the relative abundances of everything up to and including lithium-7.

Our observations of the material composition of the Universe almost exactly match those predictions. At the end of primordial nucleosynthesis, by mass, the universe was approximately 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, with other nuclei making up about 0.01%. Since that time the composition has changed slightly due to stellar nucleosynthesis.

It is important to recognise that the big bang model is constantly being refined as more and better observations can be made. However, the model is extremely robust, and since these discoveries there has been no competing theory.

Jesuit priest Georges LeMaitre was the first person to note that Special Relativity did not permit a Universe of infinite age; space was either expanding or contracting. LeMaitre also suggested that the red shift of distant nebula (they were not known to be galaxies in 1929) could be explained by this expansion.

Albert Einstein initially told LeMaitre, "Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable." Einstein later admitted that his failure to see what LeMaitre saw was his "greatest blunder."

-------------------------------------

Lemaitre came up with the idea of an expanding universe, but Fred Hoyle actually came up with the phrase "Big Bang" to describe the beginning of our universe from what Lemaitre called a "Primeval Atom".

Absolutely not.

This is a common misconception, not helped by popular presentations and by statements that "the Universe" was once the size of a proton.

The problem comes about partially due to the careless failure to distinguish between "the entire Universe" and "that part of the entire Universe that we can presently observe." Many people -- scientists included -- refer to both as simply "the Universe" without making clear that the latter is (at most) an infinitesmal subset of the former.

The present observable Universe is a sphere of radius about 46 billion light years. THAT small fraction of the total Universe was, indeed, the size of a grapefruit at one time. How much larger the ENTIRE Universe was at that time is, at present, impossible to determine -- and may always remain unknowable. The entire Universe may be a "mere" 100,000 times large than the observable Universe, or infinitely large. The only guesstimate ever made was that our entire Universe must be no less than 10^23 times larger than the observable universe.

Thus, what BB cosmology states is that our Universe was once un-imaginably denser than it is now.

Also, please be aware that BB cosmology does NOT state that matter was compressed into a smaller volume. Our Universe is not becoming less dense because matter is spreading out through empty space. It is becoming less dense because SPACE ITSELF is expanding (not exploding) -- matter is simply coming along for the ride.

In terms of pure attack power, Big Bang Pegasis is generally considered to be stronger than L-Drago Destroy. However, the outcome of a battle between the two Beyblades would also depend on the bladers' skills and strategies.

Yes, Bang Bros is a real adult entertainment company that produces and distributes pornographic films and online content. They have been in operation since the late 1990s and are well-known in the industry.

G-Dragon is often considered the most popular member of Big Bang due to his role as the group's leader, main rapper, and main songwriter.

The universe and all the planets and stars in it are apparently slowing moving outwards.

+++

Also a pervasive background microwave radiation. The outwards movement is shown by the light being "red-shifted" by Doppler effect, but is not apparent from planets or even individual stars, only from very distant galaxies.

Your question shows a basic misunderstanding of the Big Bang, common even amongst scientists and fostered by popular mis-representations.

Our Universe did not begin with an expansion from a center point. In particular, it was not an explosion of matter into empty space. Instead, it was an expansion of space itself, in which matter came along, becoming less dense as space expanded. There was no center point from which space expanded; all points in our Universe expanded away from all other points in exactly the same way. If this were not the case, then the strenfth of the cosmic background radiation would have a preference in direction. Instead, the CBR is isotropic to one part in 10,000.

The best way to envision our expanding Universe -- and even this way has its flaws -- is to think of space as the surface of an expanding balloon, with matter and galaxies like ink dots on this surface. You'll notice that no point on this balloon's surface has any right to claim itself as the center of the expansion; all points are simply moving away from each other.

The problems with THIS viewpoint is that space (ie, the balloon surface) is viewed as (1) expanding INTO something, (2) two-dimensional, and (3) curved -- whereas space in our Universe is instead not expanding into anything, three-dimensional, and (as best we can tell) mathematically "flat."

If your actual question is "Why did space start to expand about 13.7 billion years ago?", the answer is that we don't know yet. We're pretty much like Johannes Kepler when he observed that planetary orbits were eliptical -- we know this to be true, we just haven't found out what's causing it.