Big Bang Theory (scientific model)

Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, who, in 1927, independently used Friedmann's equations to propose that the inferred recession of the spiral nebulae (per Edwin Hubble's discovery of 1924) was due to the expansion of the Universe, is called the pioneer or father of the Big Bang Theory. As such, the Jesuit priest Georges LeMaitre was credited with being the first to mathematically detail a cosmological study now known as the Big Bang.

However 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'.

Note: While the Friedmann Theory preceded the Big Bang Theory, the developed equations were fundamental to establishing a foundation for the Big Bang Theory. Alexander Alexandrovich Friedmann is best known for his pioneering theory that the universe was expanding, governed by a set of equations he developed from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity, showing that the Universe might be expanding in contrast to the static Universe model advocated by Einstein at that time. From these equations he postulated three Friedmann models describing positive, zero and negative curvature respectively. This dynamic cosmological model of general relativity would come to form the standard for both the Big Bang and Steady State theories.

________________________

The name "Big Bang" was coined by Sir Fred Hoyle, who was a life-long proponent of the alternative "steady-state" theory of the universe. He used the phrase "big bang" in a sarcastic way.

I'm not certain, because as an instruction on what happened at the Big Bang, it's COMPLETELY WRONG.

The BB was NOT an explosion of matter from a central point into empty space, like a firework. It was an expansion of space itself, taking matter with it, with no central point at all.

Background theory refers to the existing body of knowledge, principles, or hypotheses that provide context and support for the topic or research at hand. It helps establish a foundation for understanding the subject matter and may include established concepts, historical context, and relevant research findings.

If the Big Bang never took place, the universe as we know it would not exist. The universe began as a singularity and expanded rapidly from that point. Without this event, there would be no galaxies, stars, planets, or life as we know it.

The Big Bang theory can be debated by some based on semantics, as understanding and interpreting the terminology and concepts involved can vary between individuals. However, the overall theory itself, which describes the expansion of the universe from a singularity, is supported by extensive observational evidence.

The theory that suggests for every big bang there is a crunch is known as the "Big Crunch" theory. It proposes that the expansion of the universe will eventually stop and reverse, leading to a contraction of the universe back to a singular point, followed by another big bang.

If one does the mathematics (which are *WAY* beyond the math level of even most scientists), one finds that string theory works only if one assumes the vibrations are aking place in eleven dimensions. Choose another assumption and the mathematics falls apart. Or, more exactly, the mathe eventually leads to falsehoods.

It is SOMETHING like this: if one assumes that there are ten dimensions in string theory, you end up with 1 = 0

Only if you assume that there are eleven dimensions does one get 1 = 1

The supermassive black hole in the center of a quasar is surrounded by an accretion disk - a disk of gas rotating around the black hole. There is friction among the gas particles; this is due to the fact that different parts move at different speeds.

"Want to bang" is a colloquial and informal way of asking if someone wants to have sex. It is considered a crude and disrespectful way of expressing interest in a sexual encounter.

Yes, Fred Hoyle's use of the term "big bang" to describe the theory of the universe's origin was meant to be dismissive and to mock the idea. He believed in a steady-state theory instead. Despite his intentions, the term stuck and is now commonly used to describe the moment of the universe's creation.

Jesuit priest Georges LeMaitre did pretty much all the work that resulted in Big Bang Cosmology. His description was "primordial atom;" "the Big Bang" was the description of Fred Hoyle, a vocal opponent of LeMaitre.

Fred Hoyle was a theorist who was working on the opposing view to the Big Bang model, called the Steady State hypothesis. In an attempt to show how ridiculous he believed the premise of the Big Bang theory to be, he coined the term "Big Bang" as an insult to the theory. However, proponents of the theory liked the name, and so adopted it.

The problem with using the concept of the term Bang in the namesake theory called the Big Bang is that it inadvertently implies an explosive reference. The concept of the Inflationary model of the Universe is to provide an environment in which we can understand its dimensional boundaries. The Big Bang is more a reference to an unfolding evolutionary model of existence in which SpaceTime allows for the integration of positive matter (or an explosion of multiple dimensions from a more singular dimensional containment; i.e. singularity). The Big Bang expresses the understanding of an evolving universe from a one dimensional singularity to the traditional fourth dimensional model of our ever-accelerating universe.

Big Bang Pegasus is a Beyblade that belongs to the Burst system. Its Energy Layer is Big Bang and it features a Burst resistance of 5 out of 10, Weight of 6 out of 10, Agility of 1 out of 10, and Stamina of 4 out of 10. Its Performance Tip is Xtreme, offering aggressive movement and attack power.

The Big Bang theory was derived from observations made by astronomers in the early 20th century. By observing the redshift of distant galaxies, the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the abundance of light elements in the universe, scientists were able to piece together the idea of an expanding universe that originated from a hot, dense state known as the Big Bang.

The main components of the universe are matter (including atoms and particles), energy, and the fabric of spacetime. These elements interact and give rise to everything we observe in the universe, including galaxies, stars, planets, and living organisms. Additionally, dark matter and dark energy are believed to make up a significant portion of the universe, even though they cannot be directly observed.

the red shift: planets are moving away from us therefore appear red.

This implies that the universe is always expanding and so started from a very small and dense space ... The big bang was what triggered the change from small to ever expanding

Hypothetically "maybe," depending on your intent for the action of repeating. Regardless of the theoretical implications for cosmology, the Chaos Theory demonstrates the improbability of an exact duplication of our universe. However if the question is meant to refer to the ideology of the Oscillating Universe Theory, then it is "maybe." And such a hypothesis would depend on what was before our creation event, or how our traditional fourth dimensional reality was brought into existence.

Also while the Oscillating Universe Theory provides for more of a linear view of the possibility for multiple universes, the Multiverse hypothesis provides for more of a parallel view of the possibilities for multiple universe.

All black holes are theorized to have a singularity at their center, characterized by infinite density and gravitational pull. However, the exact nature of the singularity is still a topic of debate among physicists, as it involves the intersection of general relativity and quantum mechanics, which are not yet fully reconciled theories.

Permit me to do an interlude that should help understand how the Inflation Model came about.

Let's say you come back to your house one evening and you notice that a window is smashed in. You thus make the hypothesis that someone broke into your house.

After you enter the house, you notice muddy footprints going from this window to where you store your jewelry, AND that your jewelry is gone. Your initial hypothesis now fully explains three different facts that you notice about your house.

Your insurance agent, however, insists that none of these facts PROVES that you were robbed of your jewelry. Indeed, she demands that you test the mud on your floor to see if it matches the mud just outside your window -- noting that, if the mud doesn't match, then your hypothesis that someone broke into your house and walked to your jewelry box could not be true. You do the test, and find that the mud does match.

The above sums up the present state of the Inflation Model. The idea was first developed by Alan Guth in 1979, and he made this model to explain why there are no magnetic monopoles in our Universe. Later researchers noted that the Inflation Model also explains why our Universe is so uniform in its mass density AND how that mass density ended up so close to the density that permits life in our Universe. The latter question is important, because if we start with simple Hubble Expansion, then a Universe just 10^-16 more dense, or 10^-16 less dense, would result in no life in it.

None of the above PROVES Inflation, any more than the three facts about your house PROVES that you were robbed. However, it is significant that one assumption is CONSISTENT with all three observations, and it is difficult to explain even one without that assumption.

Furthermore, the Inflation Model makes specific predictions about the size of anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. If these are found to be larger than a certain size, then inflation can not be true. Measurements on these anisotropies have been done, and they have failed to disprove the idea. Again, this is not a PROOF of inflation, but scientists do like an idea that easily solves a lot of problems AND is consistent with experiments. Scientists that argue against the Inflation Model are beginning to sound like the insurance agent who refuses to agree that you've been robbed.

One observation supporting the big bang (its strength), are that the universe is expanding. Albert Einstein's initial equations for general relativity predicted our universe was not static. Had he simply accepted the math, instead of fudging it, credit for the discovery of the universe's expansion would have gone to Einstein instead of Edwin Hubble (who observed it via galactic redshift). The cosmic background radiation is another key piece of evidence. If the big bang occurred, space should have a temperature, an "echo" of the "bang". It does.

These are considered the two primary strengths (the expansion and microwave background radiation), but there are many others. If the big bang occurred, the most distant galaxies we observe should consist primarily of primordial elements. Indeed, our observations bear this out--the ratio of hydrogen to helium is consistent with predicted big bang values.

I believe everyone should be able to discern a certain amount of clarity from a rudimentary understanding of the varied cosmological theories, and decide for themselves which version supports their ideology for their existence in reality.

However to be taken seriously within the scientific community, one needs a doctorate (a lot of years of school) in one of the specialized fields of study for cosmology.

It is important to first realize that the big bang theory is a theory; it is not a physical law on its own for which there might be loopholes.

However, I think (correct me if I am wrong though), that you are referring to the idea that the big bang theory states that the Universe started with a bang which just came into being out of nothing.

This is not entirely correct, the big bang theory does not implicitly say that the Universe came into being at some point; it only says that in the distant past the Universe was very small and that it has been expanding ever since. This statement is well verified by observations and measurements. It does not claim or explain how the Universe came into being.

It might sound reasonable that the Universe somehow came into being as a point, and it would fit with the above statements, but the creation of the Universe itself is not yet something that science can say much about. There are models, such as string theory, that sometimes have things to say about this, but they are far from testable at this stage.

So, yes, it is possible that something else happened before the Universe became tiny and started to expand, and it wouldn't contradict with the big bang theory at all.

Uranium on Earth was formed outside of our solar system, billions of years before Earth, mostly in our Milky Way galaxy.

Uranium and the majority of the other heavy elements are formed by stellar nucleosynthesis in novas and supernovas.

Heavy elements from the various sources in our galaxy combined with the mass of hydrogen that was the beginning of the formation our solar system around five billion years ago.

Nucleosynthesis is the science that works to explain how elements are formed. Supernovae are responsible for the heaviest elements. Several other processes are involved in the creation of the lighter elements. See related links.