Reasoning behind the big bang theory

  • Thread starter Will
  • Start date

Will

[SOLVED] Reasoning behind the big bang theory

Is there are way to qualitativly explain this, or is the math beyond most people? I understand that according to this model, the universe expanded from an unimaginably tiny particle with unimaginable mass desity, and that during the first fraction of a second, the expasion was substanstial.
The concept is hard for me to accept, it seems so unreal, but many physicists subscribe to this model, and physicists are the most resonable people, so there must be some logic behind this. What experiments were carried out that confirmed this theory? Does one require a background in modern physics to grasp this logic? I only know some classical physics myself, so maybe Im just to ig'nant to be asking this!
 

FZ+

1,550
2
The Big Bang theory is based on a certain number of data that point to this hypothesis.

(1) Red shifting of galaxies, increasing with distance, suggest the expansion of the universe. Extrapolate back and.... ta da!
(2) Cosmic Microwave Background anistrophy. Basically, we can detect microwaves in space that may be explained as remnants of the BB. Further, study of the distribution of the radiation suggests a source, or major event.
(3) Relative abundancies of certain elemenst in the universe. The large amount of lighter elements, particularly hydrogen, suggest a reasonably young universe that probably was hence created.
(4) Logical thought that the universe must have been somehow created. Yes, pretty flimsy.

There may be others.
 

Alexander

Will, "a theory" in science mean PROVEN hypothesis. Newtonian theory. Einstein special relativity theory. Maxwell theory. Quantum theory. Evolution theory. Big Bang theory.

Unlike in layman terminology where word "theory" may mean anything but proven thing: "...my theory...", "Conspiracy theory", "In theory yes but in practice - no..." , "...this is just a theory", and so on.

By the way, in Europe usually even in everyday language "theory" is refered to as verified by observation hypothesis. I don't know why in US they frequently mix theory with hypothesis.
 

Will

Originally posted by FZ+
The Big Bang theory is based on a certain number of data that point to this hypothesis.

(1) Red shifting of galaxies, increasing with distance, suggest the expansion of the universe. Extrapolate back and.... ta da!


(3) Relative abundancies of certain elemenst in the universe. The large amount of lighter elements, particularly hydrogen, suggest a reasonably young universe that probably was hence created.
There may be others.
(1)Does this involve the doppler effect? Does the term red shift mean that because the object is moving away from us,( because of the expansion) the lowest visible frequency emmited from the source is percieved as having a lower frequency and not visible? If the universe was contracting, would we observe a "violet shift"


(3)Does this imply that as the universe gets older, there will exist even heavier elements than those known?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LURCH

Science Advisor
2,546
117
Originally posted by Will
(1)Does this involve the doppler effect? Does the term red shift mean that because the object is moving away from us,( because of the expansion) the lowest visible frequency emmited from the source is percieved as having a lower frequency and not visible? If the universe was contracting, would we observe a "violet shift"


Yes on both counts!

(3)Does this imply that as the universe gets older, there will exist even heavier elements than those known?
Not exactly, but more that as the universe gets older, the heavy elements will become more abundant as stars fuse hydrogen and supernovae make, well, everything heavier than iron, basically.
 

vshiro

Originally posted by Alexander
Will, "a theory" in science mean PROVEN hypothesis. Newtonian theory. Einstein special relativity theory. Maxwell theory. Quantum theory. Evolution theory. Big Bang theory.
I must disagree. No physics can be CONCLUSIVELY proven like a mathematical theorem. The best one can do is provide experimental data to SUPPORT the theory. But empirical data is not precise in the absolutel sense; it is possible that you may perform an experiment tomorrow which contradicts your theory.

As for evolution theory.. Not really a theory, when it doesn't make predictions that may be experimentally verified or refuted. I believe it's true, purely on blind faith and "it sounds reasonable, a hell lot more reasonable than that bible stuff."


Now, about the Big Bang... If we run the clock backwards, the begining of the universe resembles the creation of a sigularity inside the blackhole, which leads me to ask...
Is the known, observable universe contained inside the event horizon of a black hole with its time axis reversed?

(It is pointless to ask "is something really really true, in reality?" I meant are the mathematical frameworks equivalent.)
 
1,596
0
Originally posted by FZ+
The Big Bang theory is based on a certain number of data that point to this hypothesis.

..
(4) Logical thought that the universe must have been somehow created. Yes, pretty flimsy.
That point isn't logical. It would have been more "logical" if the universe exist in time without begin or end. A "begin of time" is incomprehensible.
Most theoretical models that try to explain the Big Bang therefore try to figure out what preceded and caused the Big Bang.
 

Will

Originally posted by Alexander
Will, "a theory" in science mean PROVEN hypothesis. Newtonian theory. Einstein special relativity theory. Maxwell theory. Quantum theory. Evolution theory. Big Bang theory.

Not to get of topic here, but what is the difference between "theory" and "law".
 

damgo

"Law" was considered hip terminology a couple hundred years ago; now "theory" is in. No real difference.
 

DrChinese

Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,190
1,008
If you read Steven Weinberg's excellent book "The First Three Minutes" you will walk away with a strong understanding of the Big Bang.

Also, you can debate theory vs. law vs. hypothesis all day long, the end result is that the Big Bang model provides a level of detail of explanation for observed phenomena which is noticably missing from its competitors (i.e. biblical creation, steady state, etc.). Anyone seeking to displace the Big Bang has some very big shoes to fill. The BB theory neatly plays back in time to when the universe was less than a second old.
 

Alexander

Originally posted by vshiro Now, about the Big Bang... If we run the clock backwards, the begining of the universe resembles the creation of a sigularity inside the blackhole, which leads me to ask...
Is the known, observable universe contained inside the event horizon of a black hole with its time axis reversed?

Yes, universe always was (and still is) a black hole.
 

Alexander

Originally posted by Will
Not to get of topic here, but what is the difference between "theory" and "law"?
Law is what we observe (bunch of related facts). Theory is a mathematical explanation of why facts are related the way we see them.

Say, Faraday law of e/m induction (bunch of facts about induced voltage in coils and motion of magnets around). Maxwell theory (= special relativity applied to electric charge) is the explanation.

Or, say, facts: human and chimp genes are 98.5% identical (call it law: all primates have similar genes). Explanation: branching from common ancestor (=evolution theory).
 

Related Threads for: Reasoning behind the big bang theory

Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Posted
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
9K
  • Posted
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
3K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top