0
Big Bang Theory (scientific model)
The Big Bang Theory is an event that caused the creation of the universe according to cosmological theories.
652 Questions
What are the origions of fundamental forces?
The Big Bang Theory promotes the concept of the singularity as the origin of all fundamental forces (i.e., the gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak forces). The Big Bang singularity represents a true one dimensional consideration maintains that all the physical manifestations of our fourth dimensional reality, like the fundamental forces or primary interactions of the physics (i.e., gravitational, electromagnetic, strong and weak) and the individual attributes of Space and Time itself, were all defined within a one dimensional SpaceTime continuum. From our fourth dimensional subsistence, it is difficult to imagine other varying dimensional states, or transitions from these states.
Who called the big bang the big bang?
answ2. The Big Bang in which our universe was created was about 13.7x109 years ago.
It was not a bang, for there was no atmosphere.
It was not bright, for atoms may have taken as long as 100x106 years to form. And then electrons could drop down in their orbit and emit light.
It was named the Big Bang by Fred Hoyle.
We know that the universe is expanding, and reversing the timeline of this expansion, all the things would have been together at 13.7x109 years ago.
Our Solar System is about 4.5x109 years old, and was formed from the explosion of a super nova. This has the energy to create the elements we have.
A sun like ours cannot manufacture elements heavier than iron.
Folk who study nucleosynthesis have determined this.
What are big bang member favorite color?
T.O.P- Red
TY- Red or Blue or black
GD-Green
DS- White
SG-Purple
Why is the elevator on the big bang theory always broken?
The broken elevator in The Big Bang Theory is used as a comedic element in the show to create humorous situations and stir up conflict among the characters. It also serves as a recurring gag to highlight the quirky and chaotic nature of the characters' lives in the apartment building.
What technologies discovered the big bang theory?
Edwin Hubble, using the Hubble telescope, is credited with the discovery that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts (as in the doppler effect); an idea which was originally predicted by Lemaître in 1927. Hubble's 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.
Other supportive evidence for the big bang Theory - Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation has been discovered via WMAP mission and it is suggested that this has been left over from the Big Bang and galactic clusters are still moving away from each other at an ever increasing acceleration. WMAP's measurements played the key role in establishing the current Standard Model of Cosmology: the Lambda-CDM model. In the Lambda-CDM model of the observable universe, the age of the observable universe is 13.772 ± 0.059 billion years.
How does the predicted abundance of H and He in the universe support the big bang theory?
In the early seconds after the end of Inflation, protons and neutrons were very close to each other. Because we know the strength of the strong nuclear force, we know the probability for these nucleons at this density to form deuterium, tritium, and helium. Since the latter is far more stable than the first two, it is more likely that any such formation would remain as such. We also know the amount of time between the formation of hadrons and the density falling to the point where no more formation of helium could occur. From these two numbers, we can calculate the percentage of hydrogen that should have been converted into helium during that early time, and the result is that about 10% of the hydrogen should have done so. This corresponds well with the observed ratio of hydrogen to helium in all parts of our Universe. When a hypothesis makes predictions that are confirmed by experiment, that hypothesis is elevated to a theory. This happened with planetary gravity, and also happened with the Big Bang -- both are on the same level of scientific support.
What was one of the problems scientist discovered with the big bang theory?
While the equations of classical general relativity indicate a singularity at the origin of cosmic time, this conclusion depends on several assumptions. Moreover, calculation based upon the Theory of General Relativity break down during this condition of singularity, before the Universe reaches the Planck temperature. However a more correct treatment of quantum gravity may avoid the would-be singularity. Still the varied proposals for a more correct treatment of quantum gravity are just as hypothetical as the employment of the singularity.
Why the age of the universe equals 66.6 percent of hubble time?
As far as I understand, the projected age of the universe is about 99.5% of the estimated "Hubble time". The age is projected by applying a correction factor to the inverse Hubble constant. The correction factor applied depends on the value of the cosmological constant. The constant is derived from WMAP observation data, and valued at 0.976. For a flat universe without cosmological constant, the value would have been 0.666, resulting in a projected age 66.6% of the Hubble time.
What was the reaction to the Big Bang Theory when it was announced?
When Jesuit priest Georges LeMaitre first presented the concept of an expanding universe in 1927, very few scientists even read the article -- it was in fairly obscure journal. Not until Arthur Eddington, in 1930, translated LeMaitre's work did other cosmologists take note -- and a lot of the response was derisive. LeMaitre quoted Einstein as saying, "Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable."
When LeMaitre explicitly stated that our Universe once had (his words) "a day with no yesterday," most scientists rejected the idea, preferring the Steady State Model.
When the cosmic microwave background radiation was discovered in 1964, Big Bang Cosmology was accepted by the vast majority of scientists. As more and more of its predictions were found to perfectlyl match observations, the steady state model went further and further to the fringes, and is now considered almost pseudo-science.
Why scientist are responsible for big bang theory?
Actually is it not just scientists who are responsible for the Big Bang Theory. In fact it was a non-secular theologian who is credited with fathering the theory of the Big Bang; i.e. the current consensus for our inflationary theory of the universe.
The Jesuit priest Georges LeMaitre was, in 1927, the first to mathematically detail a cosmological study now known as the Big Bang.
The consensus for modeling cosmology was agreed upon based on the work of four scientists: Alexander Friedmann, Georges Lemaître, Howard Percy Robertson, and Arthur Geoffrey Walker. Occasionally referred to as the FLRW, FRW, FL, or RW (e.g., a complete or partial combination of their last initials) Universe, it presents a metric used to explain Einstein's field equation of general relativity and thus became the foundation for the currently understood version of the standard 'Big Bang Theory'.
How does a hurricane featuring in a rubbish heap blow around and gather all the rubbish particles into an aeroplane? The chances are astronomical against! That is my effort at 'quoting' (it isn't exact - word for word - but the idea is there) a similar argument, one mentioned by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion. The watch-in-a-bag reminds me of Paley's 19th century watch lying around waiting to be discovered and used to back an argument from design. The ideas above focus on a creationistic attitude to biological evolution. The question asked about a cosmological likelihood and I want to emphasise the distinction between cosmology and biology - that the theory of evolution is biology, not cosmology. I defend my insertion of the above in that anti-evolution design arguments like Paley's watch play with probability as does the watch-in-a-bag. What are the chances of a watch without a designer? What are the chances of life without a designer? What on Earth are the chances of the Universe without a designer? It must also be stressed that probability is (probably) a very tricky point to argue.
Life changes by chance mutation that is acted upon by non-random selection. That does away with the aeroplane and Paley's watch. What of the Universe?
At each point of biological evolution, the situation has to be at point x for selection to act. There has to be something to act on. There has to be matter. There was no matter at he time t = 0, the point of the big bang and thus it doesn't matter what state particles were in at the point of the big bang. What particles? There weren't any particles until after the big bang, the initial expansion of space-time. Thus the watch-in-a-bag argument is backwards. If you shake all the particles in the Universe up after the big bang, what has that got to do with the chances of the big bang? You have to shake everything up before the big bang to affect its chances of happening. Which is impossible of course, as t = 0 at the point of the big bang. You can't prevent a car crash after it has happened and nor can you fail to have given birth moments after the doctor cries "It's a boy!".
Perhaps the creationist giving the argument thinks, by their argument, that they mean the difficulty of the Universe arranging itself into its marvellous atoms and magnificent galaxies and planets after the big bang was too difficult without a creative hand. Moments after the big bang, the Universe was boiling hot and a seething mass of particles and antiparticles. When the Universe coolled, atoms formed and electrons took up their space-filling arrangements around atoms. And since there were atoms, why not nebulae and then stars and galaxies. At this point, ask what the creationist knows of particles and the 4 forces of nature(gravity, the strong force, the weak force etc) anyway! It may be that no particle (due to interactions with other nearby particles) could have ever been in any other place other than where it actually was. There is a peculiar habit of electrons to fill up space, to move apart, to only fill an electron shell in a pattern of two electrons per orbital. This is called the Pauli exclusion principle. Matter spreads out and fills up space. Planets can thus form, taking up space. And stars are so hot that elements up to iron can be produced, and in supernovae and through radioactive decay, all elements can be formed. It appears quite a lot can happen all by itself without the need of a creator. And even things many creationists and scientists alike may take for granted - the fact that matter takes up space - can exist by quantum principles like Pauli exclusion.
It may be that there is an analogy of natural selection in the cosmos. All that exists, can exist. That which tries to exist but can't, doesn't. Atoms in a state all mixed up and unassembled like a shattered watch could not be in any better state moments after the big bang as it was too hot. Stars can only form without a narrow range of masses. There is no magic, only what can or cannot be. The best way forward for all (creationists included) is to study and learn.
The shaking of a broken watch does not disprove the big bang at point t = 0, nor shower doubt upon the post-big bang formation of atoms and stars and galaxies. Besides, the concept of 'fixing' itself is a bit naive. If it could, it would. If it couldn't, it wouldn't. The question also assumes that a 'fixed' watch is an ideal, that the random movement of particles immediately after the big bang was not ideal, not a Universe. At any point, consider this, what could be, may be and what could not be, would not be. So a watch is not fixed! So what? Whatever is 'fixed' should be perfectly explicable within the laws of physics and logic and this possibly analogy of natural selection.
Who discover big crunch theory?
The concept of the Big Crunch theory was primarily developed by physicist George Gamow in the 1940s, building upon the expanding universe theory proposed by Georges Lemaître and Edwin Hubble. It suggests that the universe could eventually stop expanding and collapse back into a hot, dense state, leading to a potential "crunch" where all matter is squeezed into a tiny space.
How does the CMBR serve as evidence for the Big Bang theory?
Cosmic microwave background radiation is a thermal radiation which fills our universe uniformly. Before the formation of stars and planets when universe was young, it was much smaller and hotter and filled with uniform glow of hydrogen plasma but As the universe expand it grew Cooler and when universe is cool enough electrons and protons form neutral atom then these atom No longer absorb thermal radiation and universe become transparent instead of being opaque fog and thus this theory explain the evidences of big bang that it's really a phenomena that creates everything that you see
No, the Big Bang was not an asteroid. The Big Bang theory is the scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, proposing that it began as a singularity and has been expanding ever since. An asteroid is a rocky object in space that orbits the Sun, and is not related to the concept of the Big Bang.
What is the pictorial representation or sketch of the big bang theory?
Best pictorial representation of the Big Bang Theory is the extension of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) mapping of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) barrier, known online as the Graphical Timeline of the Big Bang.
What theory is expansion and contraction is repeated after billion of years?
You are thinking of the Big Bang Theory, where the universe has been expanding for about 14 Billion years. Some scientists think that the universe will continue to expand indefinitely. Others think that the universe will reach a point where the expansion will reverse to a contraction, which would ultimately result into a reversal of the whole Big Bang process. Here is a link that will explain more details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_theory
What happens to the generative nucleus after pollination?
The generative nucleus divides mitotically to produce two sperm nuclei. One of those will fertilize the egg to produce the zygote, and the other will fuse with the two polar nuclei in the embryo sac to produce the endosperm in a process called "double fertilization".
How did the universe star according to bigbang theory?
One idea is the "Big Crunch" theory. It works like this. Edwin Hubble figured out that distant objects (galaxies, etc.) are moving away from uo. The farther away they are, the faster away they're moving. It only took a little creative thinking for this idea to arise: If the universe is expanding now, what happens when we rewind the tape and look back into time? The universe "banged" into existence. Got it so far? It continues to expand. One of two things is possible. Does it expand forever, or is there enough mass in the entire universe to slow everything down and then "pull it all back together" in the "Big Crunch" at the end of time? You make the call. Start by hitting the provided link to the Wikipedia article on the Big Crunch.
What occupanies the space between the planets?
First, dust, debris and gases, left over from the formation of the sun and the planets.
Second, gases and radiation produced by the sun (eg. solar wind).
Third, various spacecraft and other technological artifacts, shot into space by humans (eg. the Pioneers and Voyagers launched by NASA).
What you call sister in Malayalam?
In Malayalam, 'sister' means 'Sahodhari'. (Chechy = elder sister, Anujathy = younger sister)
What are the piano notes to the big bang theory theme tune?
The main melody for "The Big Bang Theory" theme song is in the key of D Major and includes the notes D, F#, G, A. The specific arrangement and chords may vary depending on the version you are referencing, but these notes can help you get started playing the theme on piano.
Nothing and everything.
A very difficult question to answer.
It is an attempt by cosmologists to answer what is perhaps the most fundamental question.
Many things about such matters are not easily explainable. Some people turn to spirituality, and leave it to a god or gods, some others dig more deeply
Do Jewish scientists believe in genesis or the big bang theory?
Almost all Jewish scientists, like almost all Gentile scientists, accept the Big Bang as the correct description of our Universe.
The only people who accept Genesis are Biblical literalists, and they do so in spite of scientific evidence. There is no serious evidence whatsoever to support a Universe that has existed for only a few thousand years. That being an irrefutable fact, I seriously doubt there are many Jewish scientists that are Biblical literalists.
Is the big bang theory a strong challenge to the cosmological argument?
As far as I understand, the Big Bang theory is not a challenge to the cosmological argument at all. The cosmological argument states that there must have been a beginning to the universe, which is confirmed by modern science. The cosmological argument further is often held to indicate that that beginning must have been an intelligent agent, which is neither confirmed nor denied by cosmology.
There is no commonly recognized term "bang bang army." It may refer to something specific within a local context or a colloquial term unrelated to any established concept.
