Microwave echoes detected in space confirm the big bang?

Question

Those two scientists (of which names I can't recall) discovered in the 70s that the faint hiss we hear on any modern radio reciever is the echo of the Big Bang. Several years later they published a "map" depicting the shape of the universe as an oval shaped structure with varied densities.

My question is that how is it possible to map (or mearly compute) something that is theoretically trillions upon trillions of light years in diameter? Is the universe really so "simple" to see in whole?

Answer 1

Penzias and Wilson. It was an accidental discovery, and they didn't realize what it meant at first. I don't recall whether or not they tried to map it. Probably not, as the variations in intensity are very small and only became readily detectable with the advent of microwave astronomy satellites. The COBE satellite and the WMAP satellite, both very recent, did the high-definition mapping that you're probably thinking of.

Answer 2

It would be impossible to map something as big as the universe. If you have doubts about that just watch Space Television and you will see scientists are constatly changing their calculations for the age of the universe due to discovery of galaxies moving away from earth at further and further distances.
If I remember correctly, the big bang theory is just that. A theory. I remember reading in Stephen Hawkins A brief History of Time, that there are still a lot of questions about how a single explosion in space could have led to the universe in its current state. I remember him discussing the idea that all of the galaxies and matter once may have existed in a much smaller space but that theoretically may not have occupied a single point in space (which would have been required for a big bang to be true).

Answer 3

Interesting question. Its in lines of asking whether the universe is finite or infinite. The answer, I think, is pure speculation. When scientists come up with the possible shape of the universe, its not that they get a out of the box view of the universe, but its based on intelligent and scientific speculation and is based on the visible universe, x-ray & gamma ray detection from deep space, the arrangement (or should i say spread of) galaxies and most importantly the inflation rate of galaxies.

Here is an analogy. First we thought that earth was flat. Then, early astronomers proved it wrong. They came to know that the earth is round instead of flat. This was long before we sent the space probes. Early astronomers could speculate the shape of the earth by observing the movement of starts against farther starts and the movement of sun.

Speculation of the size or shape of the universe is the same. Well...it is still a speculation until proven so....we might have to wait for a long long time. But there are interesting theories out there. Theories from finite universe to infinite universe, theories from single big bang to multiple big bangs (rise and fall of universe or multiverse), theories from single universe to parallel universe. Whatever the actual reality might be, there surely is lot of enthusiasm in studying "it", trying to understand "it" and speculate "it". Whatever "it" might be.

Answer 4

That's not actually a map of the whole universe; it's based on what we can see from Earth. (the "map" is 2-D like photos of the sky; the universe is of course 3-D)

Also the microwave background doesn't prove the big bang, but it was a prediction made by the big bang theory that turned out to be true. A theory is never "true"; however it is useful if it makes true predictions, and it's thrown out or modified if it makes false predictions.

Answer 5

I met Arno Penzias once, he gave a lecture at my university. Any big band, like the creation of the universe, would have to leave some residual radiation as evidence of the explosion. That radiation would be reduced in frequency and level after so many billions of years, but it must still be detectable. When they used their microwave receiver, it detected in all directions. It was needed as confirmation of the explosion. If the microwave radiation didn't come from the big bang, then what created it?

Answer 6

I believe you are talking about penzious and wilson.
You can map millions of lightyears visually by looking at the
night sky can't you? I can.
They took pictures in the microwave spectrum off the sky ...
but it was an accident I think. They were working on a
transmission project or someting from AT&T Bell Labs
and stumbled across this.
Then they figured out what it was.
The universe is glowing - radiating at a specific frequency due
to leftover heat from the big bang.

Answer 7

First of all, the universe was NOT created by a BIG BANG. That is preposterous. Our particular Universe was created by a harmonic wave passing through a quantum soup or "suspension" and precipitating matter as we know it out. That matter then congealed over time into the stars, planets, comets, etc that we are familiar with.

This harmonic wave resulted from two "membranes" colliding (m-theory).

Our particular Universe is finite in size. Once this harmonic wave ran out of the energy required to precipitate matter out of the quantum soup, matter as we know it, ceased to be created. That being said, there is "infinite" space beyond the edge of the "matter zone" - however, there is nothing "perceptible" there.

Think of this wave as a pebble being dropped in an infinitely large pond. The waves would travel outward in all directions but eventually lose their energy and subside.

If you accelerate matter to the speed of light, it breaks down and returns to its quantum state. This is why matter seems to be traveling at the speed of light at the event horizon of a black hole. There is no "mass" in a black hole as many believe. It is just the event horizon of matter being broken down to its original state - law of entropy.

Answer 8

Microwave radiation does not confirm the Big Bang

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v18/i2/echoes.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/microwave.asp

Answer 9

New one to me. My understanding is that one small piece of data does not confirm anything, it can only add to the proof. But just remember one thing: i before e except after c. "Receiver" not "Reciever", since it is after "c". Either that or CHECK SPELLING.