How does the theory of general relativity predicts that the universe had a beginning?

Answer 1

The universe is expanding. Using the general theory of relativity, we can infer from this data that the universe would be smaller and smaller as one looks back into the past. However, this works only up to a point. There is a point in time called the “Planck Time,” before which our ability to infer the behavior of the universe on the basis of general relativity alone is destroyed. The problem is that prior to the Planck Time, the universe is so small that quantum mechanical effects become very important. Hence, a correct description of the behavior of the universe prior to the Planck time requires a synthesis of quantum mechanics and general relativity, which is known as the theory of quantum gravity. Unfortunately, to this date, no theory of quantum gravity has attained the consensus status that post-Planck-time Big Bang theory enjoys. Without such a theory, we can not draw from cosmology any conclusions about whether the universe had a beginning or not.

This is only one of the viewpoints as to the potential beginning of the universe using general relativity. There are actually a great number of others, but most of them coincide with a good portion of what i just said here.

Answer 2

The theory of general relativity does not predict that the universe had a beginning. It does predict that the universe could be expanding or contracting. When Hubble discovered the red-shift and the apparent motion of distant galaxies away from us, this led to the concept that the universe must have started from a single point. Unfortunately at the time, distance measurements were not accurate, and the predicted age of the universe based on how far away galaxies are, and how fast they are receding came up with an answer that was less than the known age of the earth. It wasn't until a few years ago that the recession speed vs distance (Hubble constant) was accurately determined, giving a reasonable figure for the age of the universe. In summary, the idea that the universe had a beginning is based on observation, not theory.

Answer 3

Actually, it does not. Einstein had to come up with a cosmological constant to explain how what he thought was a static universe could remain stable against the collective gravitational pull of everything, that should otherwise make everything fall unto itself. It was later observations by astronomers that revealed that the universe was expanding, negating the need for the cosmic constant, which was called by Einstein his "greatest blunder".

(Oddly enough, current cosmological theories may call for a cosmis constant of sort, to account for the "missing mass" of galaxies, and the initial theorized inflationist phase of the universe; but that is another story)

Answer 4

They call it the big bang theory. There was a mass which expoloded and created the fragments which are called gallexies and solar systems. The theory leads to so many unanswered questions. As proof they say it will take a life time to begin to answer.

Answer 5

Predictions are about the future. You are talking about the past. Repeat philosophy 101, take 2 aspirin, and call us in the AM.

Answer 6

not sure in specifics but basically they can measure the distance that the planets are expanding which all lead to a central spot. sort of like a balloon being blown up

Answer 7

as a results of fact the thirteenth century logician Thomas Acquainas articulated in Summa Theologica... some thing can no longer "reason" itself into life. An exterior stress would desire to consistently reason some thing. For some thing to act... like say the "massive bang" that element would desire to have attributes. yet earlier some thing exists.. it has no attributes. to that end it may no longer act. If it may no longer act with out attributes..then it may no longer create itself. as a result some thing would desire to ascribe to it attributes or use its own attributes to reason that some thing else to come again into life. Get the place i pick this? earlier the vast Bang.. time, the universe, did no longer exist. with out life it lacks the potential to act and as a result can no longer convey itself into life. some thing else, like God, or a "best Mover" had to be the only to kickstart it.. to create it, to "reason" it into life. IF potential and remember consistently existed, then the potential of the unvierse to be created additionally consistently existed. to that end remember and potential existed an infinitely long term in the past. if it is so, then the regulations of entropy dictate that the useable potential ought to have been used up a protracted time in the past. there's no reason, as a result for the Universe to all of sudden come into life because it fairly is proposed to have completed, whilst it did, with the aid of mere probability IF remember and potential consistently existed and entropy is known. So whether remember and potential consistently existed.. we nonetheless choose some thing or somebody to kickstart it, or to opposite entropy. the consequence of the vast Bang is that all of it looks to show decrease back to a minimum of one finite source - that being God or "The best Mover" the vast Bang became into FIRST proposed with the aid of George LeMaitre, a Catholic Priest and Physicist. on a similar time as he did no longer coin the term, "massive Bang" he DID take Hubble's paintings and play it backwards and observed a large Crunch on the commencing up of the universe. So, as initially proposed.. the vast Bang became into conceived with the aid of a non secular guy who believed in God..that the two God and the vast Bang ought to coexist peacefully.

Answer 8

well it's only a theory at best but the big bang is widely accepted by most if not all physicists

Answer 9

It doesn't have anything to do with it.
It has to do with the effects that matter has on time and space.
The link below has a good explanation if you care to read it.

Answer 10

the universe is unending it has no beginnig and no end so i dont know how your point can be proven