Who gave the Big Bang Theory? (about universe)?

Answer 1

The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory.

There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space?, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origin
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4

In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.


Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause".

Answer 2

His theory doesn't hold water. If the entire mass of the universe was at one point, at one time, and revolving very fast (tee-hee), how come some of the components are suddenly revolving in DIFFERENT directions, or even different planes altogether.

Something these space buffs and "STARTREK" folks don't seem to understand is that it takes TWICE as much energy to change directions and go in the opposite direction as it did to start in the first place, so that you're gonna be luggin' around some monster -sized boosters if you plan to turn on a dime, in mid-space without some conveniantly placed pivotal planet.

Anyhow, to answer your question, it's not his NAME that's important. Who remembers the name of that other guy, you know, the one who said that beans originally came from dried shrimp. Who cares! It was HE who was full o' beans, and I mean UPSTAIRS! These theories are purely mathmatical, and can only be "proven" by other hair-brained mathmatical theories.
They cannot be obseved NOR measured. And since they happened who knows how many billions of years ago we'll just leave a lot up to your imagination. (The more the billons, the taller the tale!)

Well what did I tell you? Mona Lisa there did her homework, but -essentially- said the same thing I did (I theeenk). It's a lot of mathmatical hooey! Somebody's talkin' about 137 Billion years; do my eyes serve me right? I seem to remember around 1986, after observing a super-nova with computers that scientists had REVISED their then-estimated age of the universe DOWN (overnight) from the then 4 1/2 billion, to about three (give or take a few hundred million) (TEE-HEE) -what it use to be in the fourties- (only forty years before) GIVE ME A BREAK! Well, somebody better figure it out pretty QUICK, 'cause we're probably gonna stink ourselves off the planet before another fourty passes and we'll all go to our monoxious graves, so sad because we didn't know how old the "BANG" was or the Universe was. Doesn't matter, The point is not that it's old, the point is that this theory, no mater WHO cooked it up, or later tried to get mileage out of it, is TIRED!

Answer 3

All count interior our universe is an identical volume from the day the super bang got here approximately to the factor it has larger subsequently some distance. Our universe would seem countless yet it fairly is basically via fact we gained't see the sting, in certainty, our universe remains increasing and the way long it is going to circulate on is a secret. some have faith that the reason at the back of this via fact of darkish count it fairly is forcing our universe to boost and then ultimately quit or decelerate yet new evidence has revealed that that's darkish potential forcing our universe to boost, however the version is that it is not struggling with. that's continuing to stretch forward and maximum probable will split our universe or proceed on, and if this the case then our universe is countless interior the certainty that it wont quit increasing. this would ultimately lead the universe to an acceleration factor the place it's going to be shifting so rapid that it will achieveable hit easy speed. this suggests whether we've been to attain easy speed in a deliver we would not even touch the sting of the universe provided that's shifting at a continuing speed previous our own. that's like if the universe replace into one hundred% we would purely be ninety 9.9% provided that 0.a million% is the hollow we would choose to sparkling to attain the sting yet this would by no potential take place. yet as quickly as we've been to sparkling it, we would maximum probable enter into the void. provided that's a confusing element of think of how the universe began, it may be the two confusing to think of earlier the universe via fact earlier the universe there replace into the void. It genuinely an area of countless nothingness or an absent area. not one of the classic rules of standard area and the universe exists, this consists of mass, potential, atoms, easy, even area and time. that's because of this scientists question how something got here into no longer something while there replace into no longer something first of all. that's a contradiction of existence. we would choose to comprehend the way this works earlier we are able to teach each and every little thing else. i'm hoping this replace into informative.

Answer 4

One theory was the continuous accretion theory but this needed an infinite universe.
The the big bang.
It required a ball of some size to contain all the mass and space needed to produce our universe.
It could be relative to nothing and when would it blow up,how long was it there?
The big bang stared with a single space-time pulse,that was spawned in a finite potential of nothing,it grew from there into the universe and us.

Answer 5

Yes you can cut and paste Wikipedia to your hearts content, but Sir Frederick Hoyle named the theory "The Big Bang" as a derogatory remark, as he proposed and supported an opposing theory called "The Steady State". What is really cool is that Hoyle was such a good scientist that much of his life's work led to PROVING the fact of the Big Band and leading to disproof of his own pet theory; truly the mark of a great scientist to humbly accept where the quest for the scientific truth leads him.

Answer 6

George Gamow.

Answer 7

I often end up writing the same question on other sites

Answer 8

jees. copy and paste wikipedia y don you! it was first proposed by a belgian catholic priest georges lemaitre in 1927

Answer 9

Terry Pratchett, in his book "The Colour of Magic".