I always grin at the opportunity to tell people that a Catholic priest actually developed the Big Bang theory. Monsignor Georges Lemaitre was the first one to develop Hubble's Law (2 years before Hubble published); is the author of the "Big Bang" theory (although it wasn't called that at first); and co-developed the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker Metric (which is the basis of the current Standard Model that cosmologists use today). He was a busy guy!
Anyway, his work was based on redshifts of galaxies and supernovae as well as the Cosmic Background Radiation (towards the very end of his life). As a Christian I think it's an elegant scientific explanation of what Genesis 1 meant. It's mind-blowing to realize that billions of years and all that awe-inspiring change occurred over the course of a verse or two!
"1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness...."
At first glance the big bang appear to violate the conservation of mass & energy. But I have to introduce to you something in quantum mechanics. Negative energy. Particle of positive and negative energy are always popping in and out of existence. The particle and antiparticle have exactly reversed properties of each other. However the net energy in the system always remains 0. If all positive and negative energy is added up in the universe it would equal 0. So the universe is nothing.
All of the mass was always kind of there, even before the Big Bang. The mass just happened to not strictly be "mass," but instead was pure energy at that point. Using E=mc^2, we find that energy is potential mass, but it happens to be going at very high speeds.
The big bang theory did happen. How did earth get here if it didn't??????? I don't understand how we are living here today without it, trust me, I've done my research. So if the big bang theory didn't happen, tell me: what did happen????? I personally think that it did, because of facts proven by scientists, and because i trust stephen hawking. So there, theres the reason why.
The theory itself by no means breaks the conservation of mass, assuming the matter already existed. The Big Bang is an explanation for the creation of the physical universe, but not necessarily space-time itself. This is when the concept of God comes in to play. Whether one chooses to believe in the existence of a deity or not depends on their theories for the creation of space itself.
When the universe was created- after the Big Bang- all that existed were a bunch of protons, neutrons, electrons, and other, even smaller scientifically important things I haven't learned about yet(I'm 15).
However, these were unevenly spaced, and because of gravity, over millions of years these start to form into groups. And because gravity is a positive feedback loop, these groups got larger and larger and hotter and hotter- because of gravity- until enough heat was generated that the first stars were born.
Now, I understand your thoughts. "If the universe is getting bigger, then how did all the stuff in it fit at first?" Well, you have to understand, the universe was expanding so fast at its creation that it was millions of light-years across mere seconds after the Big Bang occurred. That, and all this space was only filled up with sub-atomic particles, with a minuscule size and a fraction of an amount of mass each. That, and as the universe was created, physics also were created- because physics is all about interactions, right? But can they exist if there is nothing there to interact? No.
The Big Bang can be thought of as a universe wide supernova. In a supernova, A massive star condensed by gravity then explodes, Sometimes creating a black hole. There’s also density, A meter cube of napkin is lighter than a meter cube of steel. So the Big Bang was possibly a super dense material (steel in our example) decondensing (into napkins in our example)
Astronomers think that the Universe started with the Big Bang. As with all science, this is based on evidence; so what is the evidence for the Big Bang theory?
1. Redshift of Galaxies
The redshift of distant galaxies means that the Universe is probably expanding. If we then go back far enough in time, everything must have been squashed together into a tiny dot. The rapid eruption from this tiny dot was the Big Bang.
Cosmic Microwave Background
2. Microwave Background
Very early in its history, the whole Universe was very hot. As it expanded, this heat left behind a "glow" that fills the entire Universe. The Big Bang theory not only predicts that this glow should exist, but that it should be visible as microwaves - part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum.
This is the Cosmic Microwave Background which has been accurately measured by orbiting detectors, and is very good evidence that the Big Bang theory is correct.
The Sun is a fairly new star
3. Mixture of Elements
As the Universe expanded and cooled down, some of the elements that we see today were created. The Big Bang theory predicts how much of each element should have been made in the early universe, and what we see in very distant galaxies and old stars is just right.
You cannot look in new stars, like the Sun, for this evidence, because they contain elements that were created in previous generations of stars. As such, the composition of new stars will be very different from the composition of stars that existed 7 billion years ago, shortly after the Big Bang.
Galaxies of long ago
4. Looking back in time
The main alternative to the Big Bang theory of the Universe is called the Steady State theory. In this theory, the Universe does not change very much with time.
Remember that because light takes a long time to travel across the Universe, when we look at very distant galaxies, we are also looking back in time.
From this we can see that galaxies a long time ago were quite different from those today, showing that the Universe has changed. This fits better with the Big Bang theory than the Steady State theory.
N o o n e u n d e r s t a n d s p h y s i c s a n y m o r e . R e a d a b o o k h o l y s h i t ! !
The Big Bang doesn't violate the law of conservation of energy. The theory dictates that all matter in the universe had to have been compressed into a single point, from which it rapidly expanded into the (still expanding) universe we have observed today. Have any of you heard of a doomsday called the 'Big Crunch?' It dictates that, as the universe expands, it will gradually lose speed until it stops expanding. At this point, it's own gravitational field will cause it to collapse and implode. The imploding universe will form a single, intense point, similar to our own universe before the 'Big Bang'. Perhaps the Big Bang has happened before?
I don't understand how nothing can change into something. Mass cannot be created nor destroyed. We always have a set number of mass in the universe. I don't understand how people can think that this happened. Obviously the universe had to have been here forever as time as begun but it wasn't until millions of years ago that humans were evolved into what they are.
The bible all I need to say
stupid needed words, no more evidence is needed, Scientology isn't real don't believe it please be sensible this breaks ALL physics where did the matter come from??? Please rethink your evidence thank you
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
If you are a Christian then you will know the first line of the Bible it states "In the beginning God...." This alone should be enough proof. Not in the beginning BANG. (onomatopoeia wasn't invented then anyway) Also what is the likelihood that an explosion caused the perfect atmosphere for which we as humans can survive? The fact is, the world and us are adapted to suit each other, there is beauty in the world and no environmental flaws therefore logically the explanation of a creator God is not at all irrational.
There is an entire 1000 and more page book which recounts the happenings of Earth before any of us were actually alive, and while it may seem hogwash to some, that is more evidence than science has ever provided of the contrary.
Do I need to add that by stating The BBT happened science if contradicting particle theory that matter can neither created or destroyed. Scientists, as usual will not except they don't know the answer to something and therefore have tried to come up with a reasonable explanation for something they actually have no evidence to support happened
If it really did happen then I would like a better explanation than what the common supporters of the theory say because they aren't very thorough on how they explain the theory. Also, what created the big bang if it is real? Was there a big bang before the one we have all heard of?
I don't care about mass or whatever but the big bang theory is all a lie!!!!! Evolution is a theory just like the big bang theory!!!! Why didn't the kangaroos evolve?! There was nothing in this universe that made a huge explosion and created life! Do bombs create life? No! So whatever you think, you should let god enter your life!
What created it and what damage did it cause. We as humans have no proof whatsoever of it ever really happening.Also tell me this if you can when it happened what planets got destroyed and what planets were made? Any way whats to say something smaller than that happened i mean look at it.
O people who say it's true give me evidence that is saying that it's true. And dont say researchers and scientists said blah blah who knows they may be wrong themselves come on pepole think about it and i hope you guys think very well so choose very very wisley
There is lack of fundamental physical principles. Mass can not/ could not be created and mass is conserved as per conservation of Mass. Changes are happening like happening in electromagnetism/ mechanical principles/ etc...; and also I have determined the how the transformation was happened and will be happen in future. Resistance to transformation is a very important consideration to determine life of the existing system.