At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Has modern science proven the ages of the Universe and the Earth? Also, has science retreated on the theory of the Big Bang, or do most astronomers still hold to this theory?
Science is one of those things that keeps changing.
How many scientists and religous leaders had "proof" and "pure faith" that the Earth was flat? Even up until the time of Columbus when there was good evidence to doubt a flat Earth, it was still a "fact".
Maybe the big bang theory is true, or partially true, or a complete misconception of science...
Our understanding in the theory of the universe is so insignificant... it's going to change - and probably significantly - as our understanding of science improves.
I'm pretty sure that the Ancient Greeks figured out that the earth was round and even calculated the size of it (they were only 10% off on their estimate). They even calculated the distance to the moon. Many credit Pythagoras for finding out that the earth is round, but anyway, people knew this for a long time.
I do believe you that some people at that late of a time didn't believe in a round earth. I never underestimate peoples' ability to dodge knowledge.
Oh, yes. Most scientists believe in the Big Bang theory now. All the evidence points to it. Evidence: Red shift of galaxies far, far away, radiation data from satillites orbiting around earth. It is believed now that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old and that the universe is 14 to 20 billion years old.
The idea that the Big Bang theory states the universe started out the size of a dime is not exactly what most scientist believe that work on this problem. Yes, from what they have been able to calculate, it seems that we can guess what the universe was like when it was the size of a dime, but have no way of knowing what it's nature was went it was smaller.
It is believed that the matter in the universe, all the energy and matter, AND all the space was concentrated in this one dime sized thing. As the big bang progressed, the space unfolded like a big rubber sheet, along with the energy. The some of the energy started to change into matter during the early universe.
So, when you ask what is out side the ball ... there was truely nothing, not even space. If you think of it that way, space exists so matter, energy and time can exist in it. Outside the dime sized universe there was no space, no place were matter could exist. In this "area outside" (not really an area at all) the infant universe, there was no time either. Time started with the big bang.
If that starting point was a dime. What was the box the dime was in ? What was not there before the dime ?
This is a common misconception. It is incorrect to think of the universe when it was the size of a dime as somehow hanging in space, and expanding into that space (like a balloon expanding when you blow it up). Rather, the dime sized universe was all the space there was - there was no "outside" of it. As the universe expands it is space itself within the universe that is expanding, so it doesn't make sense to ask what is outside of the universe. These are hard concepts to grasp, but come directly from the implications of Einstein's theory of general relativity.
As for what was there before the dime - another misconception, built on an assumption that time is infinite, causing you to wonder if the universe is 13 billion years old what was there 14 billion years ago. The answer is that there was no 14 billion years ago - time didn't exist until the universe existed. Asking what was there before the big bang is a bit like asking what is north of the north pole - you can only go so far and the concept of going further just doesn't work any more.
This is a common misconception. It is incorrect to think of the universe when it was the size of a dime as somehow hanging in space, and expanding into that space (like a balloon expanding when you blow it up). Rather, the dime sized universe was all the space there was - there was no "outside" of it. As the universe expands it is space itself within the universe that is expanding, so it doesn't make sense to ask what is outside of the universe. These are hard concepts to grasp, but come directly from the implications of Einstein's theory of general relativity.
As for what was there before the dime - another misconception, built on an assumption that time is infinite, causing you to wonder if the universe is 13 billion years old what was there 14 billion years ago. The answer is that there was no 14 billion years ago - time didn't exist until the universe existed. Asking what was there before the big bang is a bit like asking what is north of the north pole - you can only go so far and the concept of going further just doesn't work any more.
Hope this helps.
Just a slight addition to this, several scientists are beginning to question whether or not the question of "what was before the big bang?" should be asked or not. And it seems to be spawning a lot of good ideas about what might possibly have been before the big bang. Most of the ideas are fantasy right now, and need a lot of work to produce predictions that might be testable.
An idea that is quite appealing is Penrose's idea that the maximum entropy death of one universe is the minimum entropy birth of the next universe. Again, right now it is just speculation, but it's a question that people are beginning to ask, as the answer that it's meaningless to ask what was before the big bang is not very satisfactory to many people.
So, the universe did have a beginning and it appears it will have an end. All those stars giving out all that energy (what? ... 400 billion starts in our galaxy, The Milky Way alone?) will be exhausted probably within the next 10 billion years.
But is there any importance at all discussing the ideas of "maximum entropy death" and "minimum entropy birth" of the next universe. The next universe? Why do some scientists (like Penrose, who is a great, great theoretical scientist) have the need to talk about the possiblity of another universe coming after the one we live in now?
Back when Enstein came up with his original theories of relitivity, he incorpriated the idea that the universe was static, meaning he belived the universe was and alway would be like it is now. Later he stated that it was one of his most grievious errors.
Isn't it just as possible that the universe will continue to expand until all the universe turns dark and cold .... for eternity??
Linear Mode
