does anyone know anything about the 'red shift' that has to do with the big bang?
488636
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia\n(Redirected from Red-shift)\n\n    This article is about the optical phenomenon. For the photochemical usage, see bathochromic shift. For other uses of the phrase "Red Shift", see Red Shift.\n\nIn physics and astronomy, redshift is an observed increase in the wavelength and decrease in the frequency of electromagnetic radiation received by a detector compared to that emitted by the source. For visible light, red is the color with the longest wavelength, so colors experiencing redshift shift towards the red part of the electromagnetic spectrum. The phenomenon goes by the same name even if it occurs at non-optical wavelengths (in fact, longer-wavelength radiation "redshifts" away from red). The corresponding shift to shorter wavelengths is called blueshift.\n\nAstrophysical redshift occurs, for example, when a light source moves away from an observer in an analogous but not equivalent fashion to a Doppler shift of sound waves from a receding object. Redshift is used as a diagnostic in spectroscopic astrophysics to determine information about the dynamics and kinematics of distant objects. Most famously, redshifts are observed in the spectra from distant galaxies, quasars, and intergalactic gas clouds to increase proportionally with the distance to the object. This is generally considered to be one of the major forms of evidence that the universe is expanding, supporting the Big Bang model.
477793
The Big Bang \n\nAbout fifty years ago, American astronomers studying the galactic star clusters, stumbled on evidence that the entire Universe is blowing up before our eyes. According to their observations, all the galaxies in the Universe are moving away from us and from one another at very high speeds, and the most distant are receding at the extraordinary speed of hundreds of millions of miles an hour.\n\nFirst there was nothing and it blew up and then there was everything and scientists have calculated that it all happened in 1043 of a second. [The] echo of that explosion can still be heard bouncing around in space. Scientists claim that in the big bang all of the fundamental particles necessary for life were formed. All of the complexity we see around us is the result of this massive explosion.\n\n"The new finding hit the scientific world like a thunderclap." It meant that the idea of an ultimate beginning was no longer merely religious dogma. Science itself now indicated that the universe burst into existence at a particular time in the remote past.\n\nIn 1992 measurements by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and by the Hubble Space Telescope seemed to confirm beyond any reasonable doubt that the Big Bang cosmology is indeed correct. George Smoot, Professor at the University of California at Berkeley and Principle Investigator of the COBE team which made the discovery, said regarding these new observations, "What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe . . . It's like looking at God."\n\nWorking backwards, the evidence implies that there was a time when the universe was infinitesimally small. The evidence from general relativity also indicates that it was not merely a case of the matter in the universe being concentrated at a particular location, but that space itself was this tiny. At a sudden instant in time all of the energy and mass in the universe was located at this infinitesimally small point and exploded. The currently observed outbound motion of the galaxies from each other is a continuing effect of that explosion.\n\n"The scientific community is prepared to consider the idea that God created the universe is a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years," Frederic B. Burnham, science historian, declared.\n\nHowever, some die-hard secularists propose that the universe goes through endless cycles of expansions and collapses. Hence, eternity becomes nothing more than an eternal succession of big bangs followed by big crunches followed by big bangs followed by big crunches over and over again and again forever.\n\nBut this violates the second law of thermodynamics, the law of decay, that implies that the universe is in a process of gradual disintegration - running down, like a wound-up clock. And if it is running down, then there must have been a time when it was wound up. Once the big bang takes place and the universe begins its expansion, entropy starts to increase. From this point on it will never be able to go back to its original state.\n\nWhat's more, the first law of thermodynamics (the conservation of matter) implies that matter cannot just pop into existence or create itself. And therefore, if the universe had a beginning, then something external to the universe must have caused it to come into existence - something, or Someone, transcendent to the natural world.\n\nThe facts clearly indicate that the universe is not eternal, and it cannot originate itself The implication is that the universe began at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy. Science has begun to sound eerily like Genesis 1: "And God said, 'Let there be light"' (1:3).\n\nThe evidence requires that we believe God formed the universe at His command, pointing to the importance of taking God at His word literally - from the beginning both of time and the Bible. Second, there is such a striking parallel between the Hebrews 1
407630
Very good.  You are close to the truth.\n\nSpace alternately expands and contracts over a two billion year cycle.\n\nWe are now nearing the end of the expansionary phase.  So all the scientists on primitive planets hypothesize a big bang and talk about red shift.\n\nIn the following phase, scientists on other primitive planets will hypotehsize a fiery, incandescent end in the middle of everything and talk a lot about blue shifts.\n\nThe reasons for this have to do with the benefits of dynamic equilibrium.  Static would not work.  Apparently God already knows about this, but so do some physicists.\n\nSoem Dutch guy named DeSitter was also close, I have heard.
196438
In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from an enormously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The Big Bang theory is based on the observed Hubble's law redshift of distant galaxies that when taken together with the cosmological principle indicate that space is expanding according to the Friedmann-Lemaître model of general relativity. Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity (for reporting on some of the more notable speculation on this issue, see cosmogony).\n\nThe term Big Bang is used both in a narrow sense to refer to a point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble's law) began — calculated to be 13.7 billion (1.37 × 1010) years ago (±2%) — and in a more general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the origin and expansion of the universe, as well as the composition of primordial matter through nucleosynthesis as predicted by the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory [1].\n\nOne consequence of the Big Bang is that the conditions of today's universe are different from the conditions in the past or in the future. From this model, George Gamow in 1948 was able to predict, at least qualitatively, the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) [2]. The CMB was discovered in the 1960s and further validated the Big Bang theory over its chief rival, the steady state theory.\n\nThe Big Bang theory developed from observations and theoretical considerations. Observationally, it was determined that most spiral nebulae were receding from Earth, but those who made the observation weren't aware of the cosmological implications, nor that the supposed nebulae were actually galaxies outside our own Milky Way[3]. In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître independently derived the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae, that the universe began with the "explosion" of a "primeval atom"—what was later called the Big Bang[4].\n\nIn 1929, Edwin Hubble provided an observational basis for Lemaître's theory. He discovered that, relative to the Earth, the galaxies are receding in every direction at speeds directly proportional to their distance from the Earth. This fact is now known as Hubble's law [5]. Given the cosmological principle whereby the universe, when viewed on sufficiently large distance scales, has no preferred directions or preferred places, Hubble's law suggested that the universe was expanding contradicting the infinite and unchanging static universe scenario developed by Einstein.\n\nThis idea allowed for two opposing possibilities. One was Lemaître's Big Bang theory, advocated and developed by George Gamow. The other possibility was Fred Hoyle's steady state model in which new matter would be created as the galaxies moved away from each other. In this model, the universe is roughly the same at any point in time[6]. It was actually Hoyle who coined the name of Lemaître's theory, referring to it sarcastically as "this big bang idea" during a program broadcast on March 28, 1949 by the BBC Third Programme. Hoyle repeated the term in further broadcasts in early 1950, as part of a series of five lectures entitled The Nature of Things. The text of each lecture was published in The Listener a week after the broadcast, the first time that the term "big bang" appeared in print. [7]
857388
I think it is some calculation based on the most distant objects we can see (with radio telescopes etc.) and interpretation of 'background' radio echos attributed to the big bang. One figure gave the universe a diameter of 26 billion light years.\nI have heard about the big bang theory and people say they have evidence and the scientist are not really disputing it. As a lay reader this will do it for me.\nBut other possibilities do exist that remain consistent with what we have found out about our universe.\nIs this the first big bang in this universe, could we be expanding in the wake of the last such explosion that occurred in this part of a larger universe?.\nHow many universes are there?\nFrom a mental point of view I find it hard to assign a boundary to the universe and just accept there is nothing beyond it.
757860
One of the latest theories (not widely accepted) is that it was caused by the interaction of two other universes at the sub-atomic super-string level. This collision caused a catclysmic explosion at a  point of singularity, creating all the matter and energy we now have in our universe, which then began to expand and cool. \nSimple isn't it?\n\nAnother theory is that the universe is a state of perpetual pulsation. It expands, and then crashes in on itself to a singularity point, and then explodes again, this has been going on forever.\nEven simpler isn't it?\n\nThis could explain why so many people believe in God. It is simpler to understand. \n\nWhich theory you believe is up to you.
50905
good question....its kind of complicated but basically, one type of Red Shift is similar to the doppler effect for sound. When an ambulance screams towards you the siren gets noticable higher pitched, then when it races away the pitch drops. This is because the sound waves are traveling at a fixed speed  toward your ears, but the fast movement of the ambulance is changing the frequency, or the rate at which those waves hit you. it is essentially smushing more of the sound waves together as it approaches you and stretching them out as it moves away. This same principle applies to light and all electromagnetic waves. \n\nThe other type of red shift include cosmological redshit, and gravitational or (relativistic red shift). \n\nCosmological red shift can occur as space it self expands, this expansion of space expands the actual photons and inturn drops the frequency of the light towards red. \n\nGravitational Red Shift can occur when ever light passed through a gravitational field. Gravity imposses a time dilation effect on anyting in the field and so photons are also subject to this. The result is the drop in frequency towards red. \n\n(it is also important to note that the red shift also applies to all electro magnetic waves visible or not, and in cases where the light would be infra red or already at a lower frequency than red, a red shift would actually shift that wave further away from red.)
895712
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147\nhttp://universeadventure.org/\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_cosmology\nhttp://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm\nhttp://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html\n\nthe cosmic microwave background comes from a time when the universe was about 380 000 years old, and we see it in every direction we look, but the universe was much smaller then.  about 380 000 years after the big bang, the universe had expanded and cooled enuf for electrons to combine with atomic nuclei to form atoms (about 74 percent hydrogen and 26 percent helium).  light was then able to pass unscattered by the free electrons so the universe became transparent.  before this, the universe was much like a heavy fog.  we see this light today stretched to microwave wavelengths.  its spectrum shows a blackbody temperature of 2.7 kelvins.  that is 2.7 degrees centigrade above absolute zero.\n\nanything with a cosmic redshift of 1.7 is far enuf away that the expansion of the universe is carrying it away at light-speed, c.  the red shift of the cmb is 1089 so it seems to be receding at my times c.  redshift has three causes:  1) the rapid recession of a light source, 2) an extremely massive and dense light source, and 3) the stretching of spacetime due to the expansion of the universe.\n\nthe cmb seems to be at least 46 billion light years away, yet the universe is only 13.7 billion years old.
725562
The essence of the Big Bang theory is pretty simple:  sometime billions of years ago the universe began;  everything now in the universe was created from energy/matter that was compacted into a really, really small volume/space, and indeed that really, really small volume/space was all there was to the universe at that moment; and since the universe began, it's been expanding.  These are the essential points of the theory.  Over time, we've added new details, such as pinning down the age of the universe to within a few hundred million years (last I heard, we thought it was 13.7 +/- 0.2 billion years old).  And a lot of theoretical and observational work have gone into investigating and refining the theory.\n\nAs to why we think that there was a Big Bang instead of, say, a universe which had always existed or a universe which came into being pretty much fully formed, the main reason and the reason we started thinking there was a Big Bang in the first place is because of very peculiar observations that we can make of distant galaxies.  This observation is that, except for a bunch galaxies which are both nearby and gravitationally bound to our own galaxy, all the galaxies we can see are moving away from both our galaxy and all other galaxies.  Also, the speed with which a galaxy is moving away from us depends directly on how far away from us it is (e.g. galaxies farther away from us are moving away from us faster than galaxies which are closer).  And the reason we first infered a Big Bang from this is that if you imagine running this movement backwards, doing a cosmic rewind if you will, then all the galaxies will be moving back towards each other, and eventually will all find themselves in the same place.\n\nSeveral years after this observation, a key predicition of the Big Bang theory was verified.  When the universe was young, it was also really hot and so for a time would have given off light all its own (I'm simplifying things a bit, but these are the essential facts as we know them).  It was predicted that some of this light should still be around.  And, lo and behold, at the very same time that people were making this prediction and beginning to think of looking for it, practically right down the road some experimentalists stumbled upon it accidentally.\n\nSo, in short and hopefully simple words, that's what the Big Bang is and why we think it happened.
205397
It is the theory that this universe was cause by a large explosion from which hydrogen atoms where release forming different elements and what not. I have no idea, but I don't know how they came up with such theory. I believe it's plausible, but I doubt it's accurate.
924822
This is something related to what is called the Doppler effect. You can experience it first hand when a police car is approaching and then going away: the sound of the siren is higher pitched when it is getting closer, and lower pitched when it goes away.\nThe same effect occurs with light.  A light emitter -- a star of a whole galaxy -- will seem to be bluer (higher frequency) if it is getting closer, or redder if it is moving away.  How much bluer or redder is called blue (or red) shift. If one knows what should be the neutral color of the light (and we do, thanks to the spectroscopic lines of emission) then the speed of the object can be derived by said amount of blue or red shift.  This is what allowed Edwin Hubble to deduct that the universe was in expansion, as most galaxies have a redshift that is greater the further they are.
642657
Yes, it is akin to asking why red is red. In fact, it is a very deep and philosophical, almost religious, question. The short answer is that it is just one of the fundamental constants of the universe. The long answer is: google for the numerous discussions on this topic.
465735
The Universe is Expanding because it has been observed that the galaxies within the Universe are moving away from us at tremendouse speeds. The Doppler Effect explains the red shift observed through hundreds of telescopes which confirms the fact that the galaxies are moving away from us. If the Universe were not expanding, then the Galaxies would not be all moving away from us, but moving with us. The more perplexing question is if the Universe is expanding, then it is expanding into what?
297935
Big Bang is a theory that tries to explain the formation of the universe, its galaxies, its stars and planets etc.\n\nIt says that the Universe was created by an explosion of a Primeval Atom thus causing it to expand and move away from each other. This was actually based on the Hubble Law which says that Galaxies around us are expanding at speeds directly proportional to their distance from Earth, based on the observation of Edwin Hubble, 1929.\n\nIts a huge topic with lots of technical arguments and counter arguments. Here is the link that will satisfy your quest on Big Bang, atleast for starters...\n\n.:Fishie:.
6752
Blue shifting galaxies are ones that are headed more towards us than away. The spectrum we see from a galaxy is a combination of its more or less random speed relative to us due to interations with other galaxies, and the redshift from the expansion of the universe.\n\nUnless a galaxy is very close, the redshift expansion will dominate so that only redshifts are detected.\n\nThe big exception is the Andromeda galaxy, which is a spiral just like the Milky Way galaxy, and a "mere" 2.9 million light years away and is the closest big galaxy to ours. \n\nIn terms of being worried about it well...Andromeda is heading out way, and well collide with the Milky Way Galaxy in about 4 billion years or so.\n\nThat means is one were to stand on Earth or Mars the sky would be increasingly taken up by the fuzzy blog of Andromeda until suddenly (relativity speaking) the whole things is a huge explosion of stars.\n\nNot a literal explosions. Stars are very far apart from each other relative to their size, and about zero stars will actually collide.
454817
the doppler effect means that if an object is moving away from us the light it is sending out is slightly more red than normal (the wave length is longer)-a red shift, if it is moving towards us the light from it is slightly more blue(wavelength is shorter)- a blue shift. Most of the galaxies we see in space are red shifted so everything is moving away from everything else. This proves that so far the universe is expanding. If gravity gets the better of us and all the galaxies begin to move in on each other then they would be blue shifted. This may well happen in the far off future- we can't tell yet, but Even if this was happening they wouldn't all meet in a 'big crunch' (the opposite of the big bang) for a few billion years so it's not really anything to worry about!
80584
This question is completely confused. I have attached a web site about the big bang you might find useful.