R
Raandan
Guest
...prove it to be true? I am for the Big Bang (affirmative). Thanks.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Im doing a science debate on the Big Bang theory. What is some evidence I can use to...
Z
Zeynab O
Guest
evidence, not proof.
but very good evidence is
cmbr and redshifting distant galaxies
but very good evidence is
cmbr and redshifting distant galaxies
T
Tom a
Guest
As mentioned, it is a theory. But the definition of "theory" is not what most people think. A theory is developed after OBSERVATION of what's happening, and EXPLANATION for why based on that observation. It does not mean an idea that someone thought up because it sounds good.
Before we begin, don't forget to look not only at the points that you can make, but also at what the negative side will say, so you can refute that.
1. Where did the "something" come from, because you can't get something from nothing?
The Big Bang is the term for the sudden expansion of matter, not the origin of it. Where the first "drop" of matter came from is debated and sweated on by scientists, but everything can be worked out back to a time of 10^-43 of a second. That's a tenth of a thousandth of a millionth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the expansion began. Give them credit for figuring out what's happened in the 14 billion years since that unimaginable fraction of a second.
2. In a fraction of a second, the universe became the size of a galaxy. How can that be, when nothing goes faster than light?
Space also came into being at the Big Bang. Matter doesn't travel faster than light through space, but the space itself was expanding.
3. If the universe is expanding away from the Big Bang, how is it that galaxies sometimes collide?
The expansion is happening on a large scale, but gravity still holds things together at a smaller scale. If it didn't, we wouldn't be here. On a local level, objects attract matter and become massive enough to have gravitational attraction to other large objects in the area.
Go get 'em.
Before we begin, don't forget to look not only at the points that you can make, but also at what the negative side will say, so you can refute that.
1. Where did the "something" come from, because you can't get something from nothing?
The Big Bang is the term for the sudden expansion of matter, not the origin of it. Where the first "drop" of matter came from is debated and sweated on by scientists, but everything can be worked out back to a time of 10^-43 of a second. That's a tenth of a thousandth of a millionth of a billionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the expansion began. Give them credit for figuring out what's happened in the 14 billion years since that unimaginable fraction of a second.
2. In a fraction of a second, the universe became the size of a galaxy. How can that be, when nothing goes faster than light?
Space also came into being at the Big Bang. Matter doesn't travel faster than light through space, but the space itself was expanding.
3. If the universe is expanding away from the Big Bang, how is it that galaxies sometimes collide?
The expansion is happening on a large scale, but gravity still holds things together at a smaller scale. If it didn't, we wouldn't be here. On a local level, objects attract matter and become massive enough to have gravitational attraction to other large objects in the area.
Go get 'em.
B
Billy Butthead
Guest
It had to start some where and we are the proof it did occur
A
alex
Guest
First is the CMB radiation, which is the remnant of the huge fireball the occurred after the Big Bang. Originally, this radiation was in the form of light energy, but as the universe expands, the wavelengths expand as well, and since microwaves have longer wavelengths than light, it is what we get today.
The expansion and cooling of the universe also means that the universe must have begun from a smaller, hotter area.
The Big bang also explains why lighter elements are more abundant than heavier elements in the universe today.
General Relativity also states that the Universe must be either expanding or contracting; it cannot stay the same size.
If the Universe is infinitely large and old, than Earth should receive much more light in the night sky than it does. The fact that it doesn't is called Olber's paradox. The Big Bang resolves it by stating that the universe has not always existed.
It is sad that people still debate over the Big Bang, because the evidence is in our face.
Hope this Helps!
The expansion and cooling of the universe also means that the universe must have begun from a smaller, hotter area.
The Big bang also explains why lighter elements are more abundant than heavier elements in the universe today.
General Relativity also states that the Universe must be either expanding or contracting; it cannot stay the same size.
If the Universe is infinitely large and old, than Earth should receive much more light in the night sky than it does. The fact that it doesn't is called Olber's paradox. The Big Bang resolves it by stating that the universe has not always existed.
It is sad that people still debate over the Big Bang, because the evidence is in our face.
Hope this Helps!
It is amazing that debates on Big Bang theory are still out there
It has been proven already
Anyway,There are many proofs.
Cosmic Microwave background radiation:
Perhaps the most conclusive (and certainly among the most carefully examined) piece of evidence for the Big Bang is the existence of an isotropic radiation bath that permeates the entire Universe known as the "cosmic microwave background" (CMB). The word "isotropic" means the same in all directions; the degree of anisotropy of the CMB is about one part in a thousand. In 1965, two young radio astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, almost accidentally discovered the CMB using a small, well-calibrated horn antenna. It was soon determined that the radiation was diffuse, emanated unifromly from all directions in the sky, and had a temperature of approximately 2.7 Kelvin (ie 2.7 degrees above absolute zero). Initially, they could find no satisfactory explanation for their observations, and considered the possibility that their signal may have been due to some undetermined systematic noise. They even considered the possibility that it was due to "a white dielectric substance" (ie pigeon droppings) in their horn!
However, it soon came to their attention through Robert Dicke and Jim Peebles of Princeton that this background radiation had in fact been predicted years earlier by George Gamow as a relic of the evolution of the early Universe. This background of microwaves was in fact the cooled remnant of the primeval fireball - an echo of the Big Bang.
If the universe was once very hot and dense, the photons and baryons would have formed a plasma, ie a gas of ionized matter coupled to the radiation through the constant scattering of photons off ions and electrons. As the universe expanded and cooled there came a point when the radiation (photons) decoupled from the matter - this happened about a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. That radiation cooled and is now at 2.7 Kelvin. The fact that the spectrum (see figure) of the radiation is almost exactly that of a "black body" (a physicists way of describing a perfect radiator) implies that it could not have had its origin through any prosaic means. This has led to the death of the steady state theory for example. In fact the CMB spectrum is a black body to better than 1% accuracy over more than a factor of 1000 in wavelength. This is a much more accurate black body than any we can make in the laboratory!
By the early 1970's it became clear that the CMB sky is hotter in one direction and cooler in the opposite direction, with the temperature difference being a few mK (or about 0.1% of the overall temperature). The pattern of this temperature variation on the sky is known as a "dipole", and is exactly what is expected if we are moving through the background radiation at high speed in the direction of the hot part. The inference is that our entire local group of galaxies is moving in a particular direction at about 600 km/s. In the direction we are moving the wavelengths of the radiation are squashed together (a blue-shift), making the sky appear hotter there, while in the opposite direction the wavelengths are stretched out (redshift), making the sky appear colder there. When this dipole pattern, due to our motion, is removed, the CMB sky appears incredibly isotropic. Further investigations, including more recent ones by the COBE satellite (eg Smoot et. al.), confirmed the virtual isotropy of the CMB to better than one part in ten-thousand.
Einstein predicted the expansion of the universe before Hubble but he dismissed the idea of an expanding universe as Big Bang was not laid out then
Besides this,Hubble proved with his telescope that galaxies are getting farther away.
It has been proven already
Anyway,There are many proofs.
Cosmic Microwave background radiation:
Perhaps the most conclusive (and certainly among the most carefully examined) piece of evidence for the Big Bang is the existence of an isotropic radiation bath that permeates the entire Universe known as the "cosmic microwave background" (CMB). The word "isotropic" means the same in all directions; the degree of anisotropy of the CMB is about one part in a thousand. In 1965, two young radio astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, almost accidentally discovered the CMB using a small, well-calibrated horn antenna. It was soon determined that the radiation was diffuse, emanated unifromly from all directions in the sky, and had a temperature of approximately 2.7 Kelvin (ie 2.7 degrees above absolute zero). Initially, they could find no satisfactory explanation for their observations, and considered the possibility that their signal may have been due to some undetermined systematic noise. They even considered the possibility that it was due to "a white dielectric substance" (ie pigeon droppings) in their horn!
However, it soon came to their attention through Robert Dicke and Jim Peebles of Princeton that this background radiation had in fact been predicted years earlier by George Gamow as a relic of the evolution of the early Universe. This background of microwaves was in fact the cooled remnant of the primeval fireball - an echo of the Big Bang.
If the universe was once very hot and dense, the photons and baryons would have formed a plasma, ie a gas of ionized matter coupled to the radiation through the constant scattering of photons off ions and electrons. As the universe expanded and cooled there came a point when the radiation (photons) decoupled from the matter - this happened about a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. That radiation cooled and is now at 2.7 Kelvin. The fact that the spectrum (see figure) of the radiation is almost exactly that of a "black body" (a physicists way of describing a perfect radiator) implies that it could not have had its origin through any prosaic means. This has led to the death of the steady state theory for example. In fact the CMB spectrum is a black body to better than 1% accuracy over more than a factor of 1000 in wavelength. This is a much more accurate black body than any we can make in the laboratory!
By the early 1970's it became clear that the CMB sky is hotter in one direction and cooler in the opposite direction, with the temperature difference being a few mK (or about 0.1% of the overall temperature). The pattern of this temperature variation on the sky is known as a "dipole", and is exactly what is expected if we are moving through the background radiation at high speed in the direction of the hot part. The inference is that our entire local group of galaxies is moving in a particular direction at about 600 km/s. In the direction we are moving the wavelengths of the radiation are squashed together (a blue-shift), making the sky appear hotter there, while in the opposite direction the wavelengths are stretched out (redshift), making the sky appear colder there. When this dipole pattern, due to our motion, is removed, the CMB sky appears incredibly isotropic. Further investigations, including more recent ones by the COBE satellite (eg Smoot et. al.), confirmed the virtual isotropy of the CMB to better than one part in ten-thousand.
Einstein predicted the expansion of the universe before Hubble but he dismissed the idea of an expanding universe as Big Bang was not laid out then
Besides this,Hubble proved with his telescope that galaxies are getting farther away.
T
thexfilez
Guest
There is no proof that is why it is a theory.