Category: Big Bang Theory

Introduction

Since time immemorial, humans have questioned the origin of the universe. In a bid to establish the origin of the universe, scientists formulated some theories. The Big Bang Theory is one of the theories that explain the origin, development, and the nature of the universe. The theory uses physical laws and cosmic forces in elucidating the origin, development, and the nature of the universe. The premise of the Big Bang Theory is that the universe originated from a massive explosion of a mass of atoms. The massive explosion generated an explosive force that propelled matter at incomprehensible speed leading to the expansion of the matter into galaxies. Georges Lemaitre and Edwin Hubble are two discoverers of the Big Bang Theory, who made notable observations that the universe emanated from cosmic expansion because galaxies are drifting apart from the center of the universe (Bortz, 2014). The Big Bang Theory is very plausible in the scientific world because physical laws and cosmic forces support the expansion of matter and drifting of galaxies in the universe. This essay, therefore, examines the assumptions and scientific evidence that support the Big Bang Theory.

Assumptions and Evidence for the Big Bang Theory

The Assumptions

Cosmological singularity

One of the assumptions underlying the Big Bang Theory is the assumption of cosmological singularity. This assumption is very important in the explanation of the origin and development of the universe according to the principles of the Big Bang Theory. In this assumption of cosmological singularity, the Big Bang Theory holds that matter, cosmic forces, and physical laws originated from a finite time in the past prior to the existence of explosion and expansion of the universe (Tillery, Enger, & Ross, 2012). Cosmological singularity forms the basis of the Big Bang Theory because it assumes that matter originated from a finite point in time. The evolution of matter from a finite time resulted in cosmological singularity where the massive explosion took place and triggered the emergence of cosmic forces and physical laws. Scientists have formulated physical laws and identified cosmic forces, which could predict cosmological singularity. Hence, the major assumption of the Big Bang Theory is that matter existed prior to the emergence of the massive explosion.

Homogenous expansion space

In explaining the expansion of the universe, the Big Bang Theory assumes that expansion occurs in a definite space that is homogenous. In essence, the explosion of matter created a space that expands with time. The expanding matter that emanated from the explosion does not expand to fill a space, but it expands from within the expanding space while letting galaxies, objects, and other bodies to move proportionally (Tillery, Enger, & Ross, 2012). The law of relativity elucidates the expansion of space in terms of metric units of spacetime. Metric defines the distances between neighboring galaxies, objects, or other bodies that are in space. The coordinate chart can illustrate the distances of galaxies, objects, and other bodies in a manner that their relative positions indicate spacetime. Given that the expanding space is homogenous, the rate of expansion maintains the coordinates of the comoving points, and thus, coordinate distance remains proportionate to the expanding space. Hence, the assumption of the expanding space is central to the Big Bang Theory because it describes the nature of space in which explosion occurred and expanded into the universe.

Horizons

Since the Big Bang Theory elucidates the occurrence of explosion and expansion of the matter in spacetime, it assumes that there are horizons, which mark the past and future limits. The assumption of the horizons holds that events of the Big Bang Theory have finite attributes as speed, light, temperature, pressure, and density amongst others. The assumption of horizons implies that some events in the universe are not comprehensible because they might have reached their finite spacetime before humans perceived their existence. This assumption, therefore, gives Big Bang Theory the leeway of predicting the existence of galaxies and objects that have exhausted their lifetime in the universe (Bortz, 2014). The past horizon illustrates the existence of the furthest objects that are observable. In contrast, the future horizon illustrates the existence of the furthest objects that are predictable using physical laws and cosmic forces. Thus, the past and future horizons remain mere assumptions because they are not verifiable.

Scientific Evidence

Redshift of light

In elucidating the Big Bang Theory, Edwin Hubble used redshift of light as compelling evidence. The evidence is compelling because astronomers can determine the existence of redshift in the lights that galaxies emit (Rhee, 2013). Fundamentally, redshift means that observers on the earth surface perceive different frequencies of lights that galaxies emit in the universe owing to the difference in distances. During the explosion, the explosive force made different galaxies, objects, and other bodies to move at different speed. As the moving bodies migrate at different speeds, the lights that they emit experience the Doppler Effect. Essentially, Doppler Effect is the alteration of the frequency of the wave relative to the distance of the observer. In this case, the frequency of lights emitted by galaxies alters relative to distances of their emission from the earth surface. Observation of galaxies in space indicates that distant galaxies emit lights that have a longer wavelength than close galaxies. This observation is evident in the redshift of light emitted from distant galaxies.

Figure 1 and Figure 2 above illustrates redshift of light emitted from a distant galaxy relative to the sun (Rhee, 2013).

Edwin Hubble formulated the law that allows determination of redshift. The Hubbles law recessional velocity of a galaxy is directly proportional to their comoving distances (Rhee, 2013). Essentially, the formula is v = Hd, where v is recessional velocity, d is comoving distance, and H is Hubbles constant. Recessional velocities and distances of galaxies have a linear relationship in which the gradient is the Hubbles constant. Since the distance from the sun to the earth is known, the luminosity of galaxies relative to the sun provides a way of estimating distances (Rhee, 2013). Parallax aids in the estimation of distances based on the relative luminosity of galaxies in space. In the determination of velocities, wavelengths and frequencies of lights are applicable for they indicate the extent of redshift relative to the velocity of known bodies in the universe. Hence, Hubbles law is integral in elucidating the Big Bang Theory because it also offers compelling evidence. The existence of the mathematical formula that determines the existence of redshift supports the occurrence of the Big Bang Theory.

Cosmic background radiation

The discovery of cosmic background radiation by Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias in 1965 boosted the scientific stance of the Big Bang Theory. The premise of the cosmic background radiation is that the density of the universe has been decreasing with time owing to the expansion of space after the occurrence of the massive explosion. The interaction of matter and light in the universe creates cosmic radiation, which is the landmark of the Big Bang Theory. Rhee (2013) states that the Big Bang, which is the massive explosion that happed in the past horizon of spacetime, left the background radiation in the form of galaxies and stars. In essence, the background radiation offers a primitive view of space immediately after the occurrence of the Big Bang. Rhee (2013) asserts that the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation has undergone redshift owing to the expansion of space, according to the Big Bang Theory. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) launched a satellite, which detects the existence and pattern of cosmic background radiation across the globe. Hence, the existence and the variation of the cosmic background radiation across the globe effectively support the Big Bang Theory.

The abundance of primordial elements

The primordial elements, namely, hydrogen, helium, deuterium, and lithium are the most abundant elements in the universe owing to the explanation of the Big Bang Theory. These elements are primordial elements because they formed matter that existed during the Big Bang and consequently expanded to fill the universe. Canetti, Drewes, and Shaposhnikov (2012) assert when the primitive atmosphere cooled and allowed the existence of lighter atoms, the Bing Bang triggered nucleosynthesis of helium, deuterium, and lithium. Thus, the abundances of helium and deuterium in the universe formed the basis of the emission of light by the bodies in the universe. Rhee (2013) argues that helium and deuterium are abundant in the sun because they burn and emit enormous heat and light that reach the earth surface. Hence, the discovery of these primordial elements in the sun led to their identification in the universe and the stars. Rhee (2013) gives a precise proportion of primordial elements by stating that for every 10,000 atoms of hydrogen in the universe, there are 975 atoms of helium, six atoms of oxygen, and an atom of carbon (p. 48). In this perspective, the nucleosynthesis of the primordial elements supports the Big Bang Theory for the massive explosion causes existence of the current abundances in the universe.

Structure and distribution of galaxies

The structure and distribution of galaxies in space are in line with the tenets of the Big Bang Theory. The structure of the universe shows that planets and other bodies have oval structure owing to the centrifugal and centripetal forces. Centrifugal force causes bulging at the equatorial planes while centripetal force causes flattening at the polar planes (Anderson, 2015). Moreover, the structure of bodies in space follows some organization because there is a pattern of density in the structure of galaxies, galaxy clusters, and huge bodies. The arrangement of cosmic background radiation varies according to the temperature and density of their sources. Regarding the distribution of bodies in space, observations made on the universe show that galaxies emanated from the Big Bang. The attributes of the redshift, which are evident when observed from the earth, clearly depict the distribution of bodies. The distribution confirms that the Big Bag provided an explosive force that accelerated galaxies and other bodies in the universe. Anderson (2015) argues that the formation of stars and galaxies follows a hierarchical pattern in which the smaller structures form first, and then, they later coalesce into large structures. Therefore, the Big Bang theory provides a plausible explanation the structure and distribution of bodies in space

Existence of Pristine Clouds

Recent discovery revealed that primordial clouds exist in the universe. Analysis of the spectra that emanate from the distant quasars and galaxies indicate that primordial gas forms pristine clouds in the universe. Prior to the discovery, astronomers had established that galaxies and stars contain atoms that are usually lighter than the primordial elements such as lithium, deuterium, and hydrogen. In this view, Canetti, Drewes, and Shaposhnikov (2012) affirm that the primordial clouds formed when lighter atoms combined during the Big Bang. The Big Bang nucleosynthesis accurately predicted the existence of such clouds in the primitive space prior to the expansion of the universe and emergence of bodies. Anderson (2015) reveals that primordial clouds because the primordial matter existed as neutral hydrogen. Hence, the existence of primordial clouds offers compelling evidence that indeed Big Bang took place in the past horizon.

Conclusion

The Big Bang Theory has stood the test of time because it offers compelling evidence regarding the origin, development, and the nature of the universe. The theory relies on three assumptions, namely, cosmological singularity, homogenous expansion space, and infinite horizons. These assumptions set the background of the compelling evidence that support the occurrence of the Big Bang. The redshift of light, cosmic background radiation, the abundance of primordial elements, the structure and distribution of galaxies, and the existence of pristine clouds are five pillars that support the Big Bang Theory. Analysis of these evidence shows that the Big Bang Theory is still relevant to the modern world for astronomers continue to reveal additional findings.

References

Aunderson, R. (2015). The Cosmic Compendium: The Big Bang and the Early Universe. London: Lulu Publisher.

Bortz, F. (2014). The big bang theory: Edwin Hubble and the origins of the universe. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Canetti, L., Drewes, M., & Shaposhnikov, M. (2012). Matter and anti-matter in the universe. New Journal of Physics, 14(1), 1-20.

National Aeronautics Space and Administration: The Big Bang. (2015). Web.

Rhee, G. (2013). Cosmic dawn: The search for the first stars and galaxies. New York: Springer Science.

Tillery, B., Enger, E., & Ross, F. (2012). Integrated science. London: McGraw-Hill.

Introduction

Humans usually prefer conviction and claim it from preachers, doctors and scientists. Many fields of knowledge have raised concerns for ages. One of the fields where humans are struggling to offer convicting answers to is the field of astronomy. This field has attempted to explain a number of concepts, but none of them has been given more prominence than the issue of the origin and age of the universe. This essay attempts to examine the fundamentals of astronomy regarding the age and origin of the modern universe. It will also shed light on the measurement of the age of the universe. Though astronomy may seem a purely science-oriented subject, a number of theories have been advanced to explain how the universe was created. For purposes of this essay, the theory that will be given priority is the Big Bang theory. The essay will also expound on the implication on recent findings concerning the age of the universe, as well as their implications on future telescopic activities.

Cosmology and the Big Bang Theory

The study of the universe from a scientific perspective about the large-scale properties that make up it is known as cosmology. The popular theory that attempts to explain the origin and evolution of the universe is the famous Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory or model (as it will be frequently referred to in this essay) estimates the age of the universe to be 12 to 14 billion years. It posits that during that period, the portion of the universe that is visible today was only a few millimeters in size (Kutner, 2003 p. 21). Since then, it has stretched from its initial hot dense condition into the huge and much cooler cosmos currently inhabited by humans. Leftovers of the hot dense matter are seen as the modern very cold cosmic microwave background radiation, which is still found in the universe. These remnants are only visible to microwave detectors. They appear as a homogeneous glow across the entire sky.

Pillars of the Big Bang Model

The Big Bang model is based on two hypothetical pillars dating back to the early twentieth century. These pillars are General Relativity and Cosmological Principle. Albert Einstein developed the General Relativity pillar in 1916. One major postulation of the General Relativity concept is that gravity is no longer explained by a gravitational field but, instead, it should be a deformation of time and space itself. Physicist John Wheeler precisely posited that matter dictates space how to curve whereas space shows matter how to move (Freedman, 2002 p.13). One of the fundamental assumptions of the General Relativity principle is that matter in the universe is spread evenly on the largest scales.

Going by the above assumption, it is possible to calculate the equivalent gravitational impact of that matter. Given that gravity is a property of space-time according to the General Relativity principle, calculating this impact will be tantamount to calculating the dynamics of space-time itself (Porcellino, 2001 p.27). The second concept by which the Big Bang theory is based on is the Cosmological Principle. This principle postulates that matter in the universe is homogenous and isotropic when approximated over very large scales (Donald, 2001 p. 14). Just like the General Relativity principle, this principle is under constant tests to establish the actual distribution of galaxies.

The above discussions point out that matter plays a very pivotal role in cosmology. This is because the average density of matter distinctively dictates the geometry of the universe. For instance, if the density of matter is less than the so-called critical density, the universe will be open and inestimable. However, if the density is greater than the critical density, the universe will be closed and predetermined. In a scenario whereby the density of the matter is equivalent to that of the critical density, the universe would be flat but infinite (Lineweaver, & Davis, 2005, p.12). It is crucial to note that the value of the critical density is very minute. This has prompted modern scientists to question the density of the matter in the universe. Though they have not yet arrived at a precise answer, there is an apparent consensus that this density is relatively close to the critical density.

The dynamics of the universe

The focus of this essay now shifts to the dynamics of the universe. To understand this, it is important to know the density (mass per unit volume) and pressure (force exerted per unit area) of the universe. Nevertheless, the general impression is that the universe began from a very small volume with an initial expansion rate (Andrei, 2004 p. 24). This event came to be dubbed as the Big Bang.

The rate of expansion of the universe has been decelerating since the Big Bang. This deceleration has been occasioned by the gravitational pull of the matter on itself (Freedman, 2002 p.7). This raises a key scientific question as to whether or not the destiny of the universe can be reversed by the gravitational pull if the force is adequately strong to cause a reverse of the expansion hence leading to a collapse of the universe back on itself (Alan & Paul, 2002 p.13). In deed, observations in the recent times have indicated a probability that the expansion of the universe may be accelerating. As such, chances are high that the evolution of the universe is now subject to a peculiar type of matter having a negative pressure (Freedman, 2002 p. 23). The picture below brings the concept of the expansion of the universe into perspective.

The picture above picture demonstrates several probable causes for the relative size of the universe against time. The green curve stands for a flat critical density whereby the expansion rate is constantly decelerating (NASA, 2011 p. 12). The blue curve indicates an open, low-density universe whereby the expansion is also decelerating but not like the critical density universe due to differences in the strength of the pull of gravity. The red curve demonstrates a universe whose larger portion of its mass or energy is prone to be in the very vacuum of space itself. This phenomenon is referred to as the cosmological constant. This phenomenon is responsible for dark energy, which causes acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Growing evidence indicates that the universe is following the red curve.

Limitations of the Big Bang Theory

One of the crucial points worthy noting is that the Big Bang did not occur at one point in space as an explosion per se. Instead, the phenomenon is perceived as the concurrent appearance of space everywhere in the universe. The other important point in this unfolding discussion is that, going by the definition of the universe, the term entails all of space and time, as it is presently known. In this case, it is beyond the scope of the Biog Bang theory to determine to what the universe is expanding. In addition, it is also outside the scope of the Big Bang model to pinpoint what gave birth to the Big Bang despite an existence of a myriad of tentative theories on the topic (Lineweaver, & Davis, 2005, p.9).

To add on the above disclaimers, the universe must have a finite age, which is approximately 13.7 billion years. As such, it is only possible to view a finite distance out into space equal to 13.7 billion light years. This is the famous horizon. Going by this argument, the Big Bang theory does not try to explain that region of space beyond the horizon. In addition, it is also possible that the universe has a more sophisticated global topology than that explained by the Big Bang theory while still possessing the same local curve.

Types of matter in the universe

As mentioned earlier in this essay, the geometry and evolution of the universe are dictated by fractional distribution of various types of matter. Given that both energy density and pressure contribute to the strength of gravity in General Relativity, cosmologists group types of matter considering the connection between the two. The central categorization leads to four types of matter namely radiation, baryonic matter, dark matter, and dark energy. Radiation consists of particles without or almost without mass moving at the pace of light. Some of the existing radiation matter includes photons and neutrons. This category of matter has a large positive pressure (Porcellino, 2001 p. 32).

Baryonic matter is the common matter, which comprises of protons, neutrons and electrons. This type of matter has, in essence, no pressure of cosmological significance. The third category of matter, dark matter, stands for the exotic or non-baryonic matter that intermingles with ordinary matter. Dark energy is a peculiar type of matter, or may be a feature of the vacuum itself, marked by a large negative pressure. In addition, this is the sole type of matter that may lead to the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. One of the biggest modern challenges of cosmology is to come up with the relative and total densities in each of the above types of matter because this is important to comprehend the evolution and the destiny of the universe.

The current rate of expansion is usually articulated in terms of kilometers per second per Mega parsec or simply put, the Hubble Constant (Lineweaver, & Davis, 2003 p.21).

Measurement of the age of the universe: A brief history

The measurement of the speed by which the universe is expanding is dated back in the early 1920s when Edwin Hubble used a newly constructed 100-inch telescope to detect variable stars in a number of nebulae (Vogt, 2002 p. 6). He discovered that the variable stars had a certain pattern likened to that of a class of stars called Cepheid variables. Basing his argument on an earlier discovery, by Henrietta Levitt, connecting the period of a Cepheid variable to its luminosity, Hubble discovered that the nebula he had observed were not mere clouds within the earths Galaxy. Instead, they were external galaxies far outside the earths Galaxy (Peebles, Schramm, Turner & Kron, 2001(b), p.36).

It is believed that the Solar System is 4.5 billion years old while humans have been in existence for the last several million years (Peebles, Schramm, Turner & Kron, 2001 p.24). However, there seems to be an age crisis, astronomers approximate the age of the universe in two ways. The first is by measuring the age of the expansion of the universe and relating this to the Big Bang. The second means is by examining the oldest stars. The first means has been broadly discussed in the preceding section, As such; it is only fair if more attention is given to examining old stars (Schaff, 2001 p. 21).

Measurement of the universe by examining the oldest stars

Astronomers can put a lower boundary to the age of the universe by studying globular clusters. These are a dense collection of approximately a million stars. All the stars in a globular cluster formed at almost the same time. As such, they can function as cosmic clocks. For instance, a globular cluster that is more than twenty million years old will have all of its hydrogen burning stars will be smaller than that of ten solar masses (Kutner, 2003 p.41). This means that no single individual hydrogen-burning star will be more than a thousand times brighter than the sun. In a case where the globular cluster is more than a billion years old, there will be no hydrogen-burning star greater than two solar masses. Since the oldest globular clusters comprise of only stars smaller than 0.7 solar masses, they are dimmer than the sun. This implies that the oldest globular clusters are between eleven and eighteen billion years. Nevertheless, this approximation is not foolproof because there are uncertainties in the brightness of the stars or ignorance in the more details of stellar evolution.

Recent progress in astronomy

An earlier discussion in this attempted to show how astronomers use Cepheid variable as distance indicators. This endeavor has been faced by a number of challenges among them, difficulties in the determination of the distance to a nearby sample of Cepheid (Zeilik, 2002 p. 84). Luckily enough, recent technological advancements have made it possible for astronomers to use new detectors called change coupled devices or simply CCDS to fix these problems. Such evolutions have led to accurate study of the nearby galaxies. In addition, astronomers have come up with a number of new ways for determining relative distances tom galaxies (Schaff, 2001 p. 3

Conclusion

In conclusion, this essay is not a blue print for the determination of the modern age of the universe. Nevertheless, it has attempted to elaborate a number of concepts surrounding this hotly debated topic. In particular, the essay has taken a perspective of answering some of the frequently asked question in the field of astronomy and in particular, the age of the universe. Though many hypotheses explain this phenomenon, prominence has been given to the Big Bang theory, its limitations. The method of determining the age of the universe through a close, examination of the oldest stars has also been discussed. Lastly, the recent developments in the field of astronomy and their implications on the future of the field have been highlighted.

References

Alan, HG & Paul, JS, The Inflationary Universe, Scientific American, 2002.

Andrei, L, The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe, Scientific American, 2004.

Donald, G 2001, Einsteins greatest blunder? The Cosmological Constant and other fudge factors in the physics of the Universe, Harvard University Press: Cambridge.

Freedman, WL, The Expansion Rate and Science of the Universe, Scientific American, 2002.

Feurbacher, B & Scranton, R, 2006 Evidence of the Big Bang, The TalkOrigins Archive, Web.

Kutner, ML 2003, Astronomy: a physical perspective, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Lineweaver, CH & Davis, TM, Misconceptions about the Big Bang, Scientific American, 2005; pp.10.

NASA 2003, Space-based astronomy, Web.

NASA 2011, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), Cosmology: the study of universe, Web.

Osterbrock, DE, Gwinn, JA & Brashear, RS, Hubble and the Expanding Universe, Scientific American, 2003.

Peebles, PJE, Schramm, DN, Turner, EL & Kron, RN 2001, The Evolution of the Universe, Scientific American, 271, 29  33.

Peebles, PJE, Schramm, DN, Turner, EL & RG Kron 2001, The Case for the relativistic hot Big Bang Cosmology, Nature, 352, 769  776.

Porcellino, M 2001, Young Astronomers guide to the night sky, TAB Books, Blue Ridge Summit, PA.

Schaff, F 2001, Seeing the Solar System; Telescopic projects, activities, & explorations in Astronomy, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.

Vogt, G 2002, The Hubble Space Telescope, The Millbrook Press, Brookfield, CT.

Zeilik, M 2002, Astronomy: the evolving universe (9^th edition), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

The origin of the universe, on the premises of the superstring theory, was from nothing. In a way, this supports and opposes the creationist theory. It supports it because it implies that matter was created from nothing. Conversely, it contradicts it because the “physical” proof of nothing in the scientific understanding precludes the creator, who creationists claim transcends temporal and spatial dimensions.

The fundamental idea on which the string theory is based is that different particles in the standard model are manifestations of the primary object, which in this case, are represented by a hypothetical string. This begs the question, “how is that plausible?” For it to make sense, one must reconsider the traditional assumptions that underline the idea of electrons.

Contrary to the popular assumption that it is a point if the string theory is true, then it means that it is a point. The string theory makes sense because a string is capable of other actions apart from motion that electrons in the universe cannot achieve. A string can oscillate in various ways. However, when it is oscillating, one cannot distinguish the movement from a distance.

Thus, only a point is visible, which gives evidence to the idea of electrons. Retrospectively, scientists have been able to perceive these strings, and they assume that they are photons. Hypothetically, the string is so small compared to an electron. It is like a computer mouse compared with the solar system. However, following the logic of the string theory to its conclusion ultimately leads one into concluding that the universe is made up of strings as opposed to the conventional electrons (points).

From the information about the superstring theory, one can deduce the solution to other problems that have dominated theoretical physics for years. That is the explanation of why gravity appears to be so weak as compared to the other fundamental forces. Assuming that the strings are too small to measure, or incorporate into other dimensions, scientists have postulated that gravity in its entirety can only be felt at higher dimensions that human beings are incapable of perceiving.

Furthermore, given that the strings are too small to be seen through the application of the current technologies, some have proposed that the string theory is more of a philosophical than a scientific approach. Mathematically though, the string theory remains coherent and logical. However, to the frustration of many scientists, it remains stubbornly abstract and theoretically rendering any attempts to apply it or even experiment with it for empirical results.

While admitting that the theory indeed has a singular elegance in its mathematical profundity, one is nevertheless forced to contend with the fact that there are over five schools of thought dedicated to the superstring theory and, irrespective of the level of elegance, none of them can be deemed conclusive.

However, in this respect, there is a glimmer of hope since it is postulated that if an eleventh dimension was included, these theories might be reconciled as one different way of looking at the same thing rather than five different explanations of the same concept. This reasoning can ultimately lead to connecting the superstring theory with the supergravity one, which was postulated in the early 1980s, although it has been relegated to the periphery by contemporary theories about the universe.

The Introduction: Some Basic Assumptions Of The Universe Development

Generally, the Big Bang theory is recognized to be one of the ways to explain the appearance of the Universe. They say that our Universe expanded from hot structure. The structure existed more than thirteen billion years ago; so, they say that the Big Bang took place exactly at that time. The theory is based on the observations of cosmology. On the other hand, many astronomers rely on the so-called Hubble’s law. According to scientific data taken from the popular website Cornell.

External galaxies are receding in such a way that their recessional speeds are proportional to the distance they are away from us. This observation is explained well by a uniform expansion of the universe. If the universe is expanding, it must have started out very small some time far in the past. It is this point which has been called the beginning of the universe or the Big Bang (1).

On the other hand, one is to keep in mind the CMB radiation, which also explains the way the Universe appeared. Thus, according to radiation investigations, some scientists say that billion years ago the Universe was hotter. For this reason, one may affirm that cosmic microwave background radiation represents the first photons. The CMB radiation was predicted in the late forties; however, the phenomenon was observed only in the mid of the sixties. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson opened the CMB radiation.

Another important point, which is to be considered, is a large scale structure of the Universe. Thus, analyzing the structure, the scientists can study numerous aspects cosmology includes. Moreover, there is an opportunity to know more about the structure formation of our Universe.

The Thesis Statement

Generally, the Big Bang theory studies the process of cosmic evolution. The most important point is that the type of theory is recognized to be totally independent of other forms of evolution. The theory doesn’t disclose the origin of the Universe; it studies the way the Universe started.

The Body: The Most Widespread Attempts To Explain The Big Bang Theory

Björn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton say that No similar consensus has been reached on ideas about the ultimate origin of the universe. This remains an area of active research. That said, BBT is nevertheless about origins – the origin of matter, the origin of the elements, the origin of large scale structure, the origin of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, etc (1).

There are numerous misconceptions, which exist in persons’ mind about the BBT. The theory is not so easy to explain; however, the simplest affirmation is that when the Universe was expanded, it became cooler. The issue of the Universe expansion should be related to a space expansion. Anyway, there are many contradictions concerning the development of the Universe. Some scientists suppose that there was pre-existing volume, and the Universe had to reach the corresponding size. On the other hand, there are no facts, which could confirm the idea. Background knowledge about volume and geometry is at variance with the position. The BBT is also related to Einstein’s theory of General Relativity, and thus Björn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton state, “Energy determines the geometry and changes in the geometry of the universe, and, in turn, the geometry determines the movement of energy” (1). It is one more opinion, which is based on simple explanations. It is the so-called cosmological principle, which combines Einstein’s GR and BBT. Thus, there are two basic distributions of energy. The major assumptions are recognized to be homogeneous and isotropic distributions. The issues of matter, radiation and energy are rather important. One more important component of BBT is considered to be a dark energy. The basic parameters of BBT are the curvature of space, the scale factor, the Hubble Parameter, Deceleration Parameter, component densities, and Dark Energy Equation of State.

The basic problems with the Big Bang Theory are also to be taken into account. So, the central problems are the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and the monopole problem. According to the website. This general problem is called the horizon problem, because the inability to have received a signal from some distant source because of the finite speed of light is termed a horizon in cosmology. Thus, in the standard big bang theory we must simply assume the required level of uniformity (1). The main assumption of the flatness problem is that the development of the Universe on the basis of BBT is impossible due to its low geometrical curvature.

The conclusion: the most reliable theories on BBT

They say that there are only Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) which explain the issue of BBT. The theories are related to electromagnetic forces and their impact. The website UTK.edu explains, “Our current understanding of elementary particle physics indicates that such theories should produce very massive particles called magnetic monopoles, and that there should be many such monopoles in the Universe today” (1). Although the most important point is that the monopoles were not found.

Yuki D. Takahashi states, “The most conclusive evidence for the big bang arises from the observation of the cosmic background radiation” (1).

Works Cited:

Cornell. edu. Cosmology and the Big Bang, 2011. Web.

Feuerbacher, B., Scranton, R. Evidence for Big Bang, 2006. Web.

Takahashi, Y. Big Bang: How Did the Universe Begin? 2000. Web.

UTK.edu. Problems with the Big Bang, 2011. Web.

Introduction

Scientists and astronomers measure the universe’s age by either looking for old stars and observing them or computing the increasing rate of the cosmos then referencing it back to the big bang. The first attempts to measure the age of the universe were made by Georges Lemaître who coined the “hypothesis of the primeval atom”, which later came to be called the big bang theory. Georges pinned his hypothesis on Albert Einstein’s general relativity.

According to the Big Bang theory or Big Bang model and other established cosmological theories put forward, the universe is neither never-ending nor eternal; its age is estimated at about 13.7 billion years. The universe initially was blistering and had a thick accumulation of mass that expanded swiftly however it has cooled and has maintained its size in its current state. Germadnik (2001) suggests that the early universe looked quite different from today and the future universe will be very different as well.

She further states that the universe is “literarily exploding and terming it as just evolving is an understatement”. The big bang theory is one of the most comprehensive theories in figuring out the origins of the universe and its approximate age. Somehow it is more reliable since it gives scientific evidence and observations that support it.

How Old is the Universe?

Edwin Hubble determined that owing to the light seen from most galaxies being red-shifted, the universe had to be growing, hurried along by an explosion of an infinitesimal volume of a superhot substance, its concentration, and force. The explosion is most commonly referred to as the big bang, which scattered matter in different directions thus creating the universe. Astronomers usually estimate the universe’s age by the pace of expansion. The theory argues that an object with immense redshift shows that it is moving farther and farther away and more redshift is pronounced in its light (Lanzerotti & National Research Council (U.S.), 2005, 45).

Scientists have approximated the age of the universe to be about 13.7 billion years old though there is no assurance about the astronomical observations. A simple response is that the universe is estimated to be 10 to 20 billion light-years in radius. This figure is arrived at by multiplying the speed of light with the estimation of the age of the universe. The logic for this assumption is rather clear-cut: we are capable of only making out to that expanse when the universe began, from which light might have reached us since.

Measuring Age of the Universe

The Oldest Stars

The life cycle of a star depends on its mass, and as a result stars with soaring mass are brilliant than those with fewer mass and rage rapidly all the way through their hydrogen fuel supply. For example, a star twice as large as the sun which has enough fuel to burn up at its core at its present intensity for roughly 9 billion years, can burn through its reserves for about 800 million years. A star that is half the size of the sun burns slowly through its reserves and can take 20 billion years to burn out completely. Scientists can calculate roughly how old stars maybe by observing their globular clusters. These are solid collections of around 1 million stars formed at the same time and they produce much softer light as compared to the sun (NASA Goddard space flight center 2010).

These two scenarios form the basis of how the universe’s age can be measured and estimated to a close enough figure. Stars within a cluster form a cosmic clock as their formation takes place at just about similar periods, while stars within the most matured globular clusters have stars less than 0.7 solar masses. Therefore some of the old globular clusters can be estimated to be about 11-18 billion years. 10 million-year-old cluster hydrogen stars have approximately 10 solar masses in size.

This implies that “hydrogen flaming stars cannot burn 1000 times brighter than the Sun” (Fox 2002, 249). Clusters 2 billion years old do not have hydrogen-burning stars larger than 2 solar masses. The ambiguity in this estimate is due to the complexity in determining precise distance to a globular cluster therefore, there is doubt in the intensity (and mass) of stars within a cluster.

Estimating Back to the Big Bang

This method is commonly used by cosmologists. It uses the “Hubble constant” to determine the universe’s age and estimate it back to the big bang. It is a measure of the current expansion rate and relies on the existing concentration and makeup of the universe (Singh 2005; Freedman 2004, 73). The Hubble constant states that the age of the universe has high-density matter; its age will be 2/3 (HO) but on the other hand, if it has less dense matter then its age will be more than 1/3 (HO) and the indirect age can be greater if the conjecture of general relativity is customized to comprise an astrophysical constant.

Recent Findings in Relation to the Age of the Universe

The universe could be older than we may think if recent findings are anything to go by. Recent reports and measurements show the galaxy to be as huge and similarly dense as elliptical galaxies found a lot closer to us. Together with fresh observations by a different team that found an incredibly compact and tremendously dense elliptical galaxy in the early Universe – the dilemma of how wholly developed galaxies exist alongside seemingly immature compact galaxies in the young universe continues to simmer. Scientists have recently discovered new properties some of which contradict prevailing theories and have observed two dozen new supernovae (Kupperberg 2005, 158).

These findings emerged when a team of scientists using NASA’s swift satellite were trying to capture ultraviolet and X-ray images of normal supernovae moving normally. The findings were presented at a “High Energy Astrophysics Division of the American Astronomical Society assembly by” head of the mission Stefan Immler of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt. The report argued that it was possible to study inside hours to days the supernovae as opposed to before where there was a delay of days to weeks and clues are being found of how stars exploded (Trefil 2004, 67).

The team established facts to explain that an annihilated white dwarf star had been orbiting a red giant. This was observed from the SN 2005ke’s X-ray and ultraviolet light. This is the first Type Ia of supernova brilliant in ultraviolet than expected, monitored through X-ray wavelengths. Astronomers measure distances in the universe using Type Ia supernova since they have a known luminosity in their shine. This examination could possibly help scientists comprehend the origins and evolution of these supernovae, which is very vital to the study of cosmology and dark energy. The subsequent supernova Type II is the SN 2006bp, a central part disintegrates of an immense star once its fuel is depleted.

The team observed that a day after the explosion, X-rays were still present and that they were washed out within days. It implies that preceding supernova monitoring purely failed to observe them since X-ray observatories ignored star explosions for about a week. The team discovered that the X-rays gave direct information on the chemical content and immediate environs of the star. Burning gas that resulted from the blast in the star’s surrounding area was noted.

This was a surprise discovery because observation of the previous supernova purely missed them because X-ray observatories rarely observe explosions immediately and only pay attention to them a week after they take place. The implication of this is that the common thought that stars’ winds blow a cavity around stars before the explosion was not a practical observation (Fleisher 2006, 45).

Impact of Future Telescopes

The search for enhanced angular resolution consequently source detection and spectral resolution for extra information on source behavior has ever being ongoing since the first telescope was invented. The test of working in this complex energy range makes further demands on instrument developers than any other fields. It is expected that future telescopes will make use of more highly developed solid-state technology to prevail over some of these problems resulting to a provision of great, sensitive telescopes which will promote study of astronomy as an essential part of cosmological research.

The Hubble Space Telescope (HST), compared to standard ground telescopes can see much clearly and focus sharply at all wavelengths from the near-infrared to the ultraviolet. Its images are 5- 20 times sharper than standard grounds telescopes, whose vision is more often than not distorted by the atmosphere.

The extremely dark sky also helps the HST to see objects 10 times fainter than those seen with even the largest of ground telescopes (Kumar 2010, 48). Molding future telescopes on the Hubble will increase image intensity, sharpness and stable images. Each of these factors will signify progression for science as they would be much useful to the work of astronomers who depend on what they can observe in the universe so as to formulate their calculations and assumptions. This will result into the most reliable astronomical capability in the history of the universe and its study.

Future telescopes molded on the Hubble that are unmanned and orbit the space by use of robotics will be much advantageous to astronomers. NASA has been carrying out studies on whether to extend the scientific life of the Hubble through robotic servicing or to de-orbit it by 2013. Some of the advantages of future telescopes may include, astronomers will be able to look closely into the heart of galaxies to quantify orbital speeds of gases and stars close to their center due to high angular resolutions. Key information established will disclose a relationship between black hole mass and galaxy properties that might provide critical clues to how and why these holes formed.

Another advantage is that objects whose light has taken billions of years to get to us can be observed as they were some distant time in the past, therefore, showing the evolution of the universe, for example, the Hubble Ultradeep Field can infiltrate back more than 12 billion years to within 1 billion years of the Big Bang, baby galaxies can be seen still in their formation process (Seeds & Backman 2009, 243; The National Academic Press, 2010).

Conclusion

Obtaining an accurate figure of the age of the universe is almost impossible because of the several assumptions made by the models. Scientists and astronomers are constantly rechecking and replacing errors from prior models in order to achieve accurate results in their calculations and data. However, from the big bang model, the age of the universe (13.7 billion) is more or less an accurate figure to the particular error which represents the error in the type of instruments used to obtain this data.

Age can be measured in two different ways as mentioned above. The universe as we have seen is not ageless and is as complex thus need to constantly recheck the calculations and models being used. Analyzing by use of the Bayesian Statistical is an important element in the assessment of statistics used to ascertain the age of the universe for instance.

This standardizes data based on earlier data and quantifies any doubt in the precision of a dimension due to a particular model used. Advancement of science and formulation of accurate calculations as seen in this paper will also be achieved by the enhancing of instruments used in the future such as telescopes. Perhaps, unmanned space telescopes are the solution for future space study as they are more effective and astronomers will be able to calculate and measure the age of the universe more accurately despite the related errors in the models being used.

Bibliography

Fleisher, P., 2006. The big bang. Fairfield: Twenty-First Century Books.

Fox, K. C., 2002. The big bang theory: what it is, where it came from, and why it works. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Freedman, W. L., 2004, Measuring and modeling the universe. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Germadnik, M. L., 2001. How do we know the age of the universe. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Kupperberg, P., 2005. Hubble and the Big Bang. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Kumar, A., 2010. Big Bang? A Critical Review, Journal of Cosmology. Web.

Lanzerotti, L. & National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on the Assessment of Options for Extending the Life of the Hubble Space Telescope, 2005, Assessment of options for extending the life of the Hubble Space Telescope: final report. Washington: National Academies Press.

NASA Goddard space flight center, 2010. Advancing Aeronautical Safety:A Review of NASA’s Aviation Safety-Related Research Programs. Web.

Singh, S., 2005. The Origin of the Universe. New York: Harper Perennial.

Seeds, M. A. & Backman, D., 2009. Astronomy: The Solar System and Beyond. New York: Cengage Learning.

The National Academic Press, 2010. Advancing Aeronautical Safety:A Review of NASA’s Aviation Safety-Related Research Programs. Web.

Trefil, J. S., 2004. The moment of creation: big bang physics from before the first millisecond to the present universe. New York: Courier Dover Publications.

Introduction

Ralph Asher Alpher was a renowned American physicist whose Ph.D. dissertation in 1948 put forward a plausible mathematical formula covering the Big Bang Theory that spawned the universe 14 billion years ago (Cain). His dissertation was ridiculed and ignored by the scientific community for 16 years until two other scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize for Alpher’s discovery (Sullivan). Even after that, the man now firmly recognized as the pioneering architect of the Big Bang Theory for the origin of the universe (Union College) was denied recognition and honor for his discovery until he was literally on his deathbed.

Main body

In his dissertation, Dr. Alpher contended that the Big Bang was the logical explanation for the various plentiful elements in the universe. He also contended that the Big Bang had spawned an ‘echo’ which still exists in the universe as leftover radiation in the form of radio waves (Sullivan). Despite the backing of hundreds of supporters (Union College), Alpher’s dissertation was ignored by scientists and astronomers who were skeptical about the Big Bang theory and did not believe its ‘echo’ could be measured.

In 1964 a group associated with Princeton University reported that there existed radio waves in the universe as a legacy of the Big Bang (Sullivan). That same year, two astronomers working for Bell Labs in New Jersey (Cain) who had read the Princeton report, coincidentally discovered the existence of a definite, regular hissing sound when they turned their radio receiver into space. That same year Penzias and Wilson claimed that they had found the existence of leftover radiation from the Big Bang. They were later jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their ‘discovery’ in 1978 (Sullivan).

Alpher, who had tried his best to rectify the record and claim rightful recognition for the discovery, was so demoralized that he suffered a heart attack immediately after the Nobel Prize award was announced in 1978 (Cain). Thankfully, the attack did not prove fatal.

Conclusion

Alpher’s efforts towards gaining recognition for what was rightfully his did prove fruitful, albeit much later when he was about to die. In 2007, President George Bush conferred on him the National Medal of Science which is the most esteemed award for contribution towards science. As Alpher was ill and confined to a wheelchair at that time, his son Victor received the medal on his behalf from the President on July 27, 2007, at the White House. The citation read: “For his unprecedented work in the areas of nucleosynthesis, for the prediction that universe expansion leaves behind background radiation, and for providing the model and the Big Bang Theory” (Union College). Alpher died on August 12, 2007, at the age of 86 in Austin due to acute respiratory failure (Sullivan).

References

“Big Bang Pioneer Ralph Alpher Dies Following a Long Illness.” Union College. 2007. Web.

Cain, Jeanette. “Alpher, Ralph Asher: 1921-.” Light-Science.com. (N.d). 2008. Web.

Sullivan Patricia. “Ralph A. Alpher: Physicist Published Theory of Big Bang.” The Washington Post. 2007. Web.

The origin of the Universe has always been a debatable topic for many since there are still moments that require clarification. According to numerous sources and researchers, the Big Bang theory is the most reliable theory of origin, and it is corroborated by solid evidence. For example, there is a constant expansion of space and its bodies. Furthermore, the cosmic microwave background supports the Big Bang theory and states that with the help of this background, it becomes possible to see the past via the speed of light (Agrawal, 2021). Lastly, the presence of elements of all sizes indicates an explosion that resulted in macro and microbodies. Nevertheless, the theory violates several of the present laws established in science. For example, it does not comply with the first law of thermodynamics, which states that neither substance nor energy can be created nor destroyed (Agrawal, 2021). Additionally, the creation of stars and galaxies, according to some skeptics, defies the rule that states that structures of change grow less ordered with time (Agrawal, 2021). Lastly, the big bang theory is criticized for implying that the Universe was created from nothing.

Still, it is essential to analyze the theory of creation, which bases its views on the Scripture as its only source of authority. There is a particular argument for the support of the creation theory. For example, certain researchers contend that the world already possesses the qualities necessary to support life, and the Bible agrees (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2018). Furthermore, the Bible accentuates that everything created took time and was not established within a short period. Lastly, Bible emphasizes the creation of light as the first element, supported by the research. However, the theory of creation has shortcomings as well, such as the emphasis on the fact that everything was created within a week when in reality, it took billions of years. Furthermore, the Scripture says there is a genesis, but scientific science argues that the Universe is everlasting. Lastly, the Bible claims that the Universe was created out of void and emptiness, and yet particles and various elements that exist nowadays are the evidence against such a view. Thus, both the Big Bang Theory and the Creation theory have various support and points that make them less credible.

References

Agrawal, P. K. (2021). An alternative approach toward the origin of the Universe.Philosophy and Cosmology, 27(27), 5-21. Web.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2018). Creationism. Web.

Introduction

The study of the evolution of the universe is fundamental to understanding the driving forces behind the emergence of life. The Big Bang theory is the dominant version of what has happened to the world over time. It is expected that the universe gradually expanded, causing the distance between celestial objects to increase. This lab work aims to confirm this assumption empirically.

Hypothesis

As the balloon expands, the distance between points (galaxies) will continue to increase.

Variables

The independent variable of the test is the amount of air let into the balloon, while the dependent variable is the distance between neighboring points. The controlled variables are the use of the same balloon, the composition of the gas to be let in, and the initial distance between the dots.

Results

Questions and conclusion

1. The density decreases as the balloon expands. In other words, at the initial and final point of balloon inflation, the distance between galaxies is quite different: the more gas let in, the higher the distance and the lower the density.
2. The material of the balloon has an analogy with the matter of the Universe. As the Universe expands, galaxies also move away from each other as if they were dots on a balloon.
3. It is worth saying, however, that such an analogy is highly subjective: no unambiguous connection between balloons and the Universe can be made by this point. In addition, the Universe manipulates such a metric as temperature, while the balloon simply inflates. Temperature can make a tangible contribution to the expansion of the Universe.
4. The contradiction of the stationary state theory is the impossibility of determining the starting point for the start of the Universe. In addition, such a theory implied the self-nucleation of new galaxies in the expanding space between the previous ones: the experiment with the balloon showed that no new points are formed.
5. When yeast dough is infused, it increases in volume, distributing the components (raisins) further apart — this is also an excellent example of studying the expansion of the Universe.
6. This is probably an impossible scenario since the force of gravity is stronger than the urge to expand space. Nevertheless, assuming such a scenario, the gravitational force weakens slightly as it expands.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it should be noted that the Universe is expanding, and the current balloon experiment has relatively demonstrated this. It is an almost exponential increase in the distance between points. It was shown that the working hypothesis was fully confirmed.

Introduction

Since time immemorial, humans have questioned the origin of the universe. In a bid to establish the origin of the universe, scientists formulated some theories. The Big Bang Theory is one of the theories that explain the origin, development, and the nature of the universe. The theory uses physical laws and cosmic forces in elucidating the origin, development, and the nature of the universe. The premise of the Big Bang Theory is that the universe originated from a massive explosion of a mass of atoms. The massive explosion generated an explosive force that propelled matter at incomprehensible speed leading to the expansion of the matter into galaxies. Georges Lemaitre and Edwin Hubble are two discoverers of the Big Bang Theory, who made notable observations that the universe emanated from cosmic expansion because galaxies are drifting apart from the center of the universe (Bortz, 2014). The Big Bang Theory is very plausible in the scientific world because physical laws and cosmic forces support the expansion of matter and drifting of galaxies in the universe. This essay, therefore, examines the assumptions and scientific evidence that support the Big Bang Theory.

Assumptions and Evidence for the Big Bang Theory

The Assumptions

Cosmological singularity

One of the assumptions underlying the Big Bang Theory is the assumption of cosmological singularity. This assumption is very important in the explanation of the origin and development of the universe according to the principles of the Big Bang Theory. In this assumption of cosmological singularity, the Big Bang Theory holds that matter, cosmic forces, and physical laws originated from a finite time in the past prior to the existence of explosion and expansion of the universe (Tillery, Enger, & Ross, 2012). Cosmological singularity forms the basis of the Big Bang Theory because it assumes that matter originated from a finite point in time. The evolution of matter from a finite time resulted in cosmological singularity where the massive explosion took place and triggered the emergence of cosmic forces and physical laws. Scientists have formulated physical laws and identified cosmic forces, which could predict cosmological singularity. Hence, the major assumption of the Big Bang Theory is that matter existed prior to the emergence of the massive explosion.

Homogenous expansion space

In explaining the expansion of the universe, the Big Bang Theory assumes that expansion occurs in a definite space that is homogenous. In essence, the explosion of matter created a space that expands with time. The expanding matter that emanated from the explosion does not expand to fill a space, but it expands from within the expanding space while letting galaxies, objects, and other bodies to move proportionally (Tillery, Enger, & Ross, 2012). The law of relativity elucidates the expansion of space in terms of metric units of spacetime. Metric defines the distances between neighboring galaxies, objects, or other bodies that are in space. The coordinate chart can illustrate the distances of galaxies, objects, and other bodies in a manner that their relative positions indicate spacetime. Given that the expanding space is homogenous, the rate of expansion maintains the coordinates of the comoving points, and thus, coordinate distance remains proportionate to the expanding space. Hence, the assumption of the expanding space is central to the Big Bang Theory because it describes the nature of space in which explosion occurred and expanded into the universe.

Horizons

Since the Big Bang Theory elucidates the occurrence of explosion and expansion of the matter in spacetime, it assumes that there are horizons, which mark the past and future limits. The assumption of the horizons holds that events of the Big Bang Theory have finite attributes as speed, light, temperature, pressure, and density amongst others. The assumption of horizons implies that some events in the universe are not comprehensible because they might have reached their finite spacetime before humans perceived their existence. This assumption, therefore, gives Big Bang Theory the leeway of predicting the existence of galaxies and objects that have exhausted their lifetime in the universe (Bortz, 2014). The past horizon illustrates the existence of the furthest objects that are observable. In contrast, the future horizon illustrates the existence of the furthest objects that are predictable using physical laws and cosmic forces. Thus, the past and future horizons remain mere assumptions because they are not verifiable.

Scientific Evidence

Redshift of light

In elucidating the Big Bang Theory, Edwin Hubble used redshift of light as compelling evidence. The evidence is compelling because astronomers can determine the existence of redshift in the lights that galaxies emit (Rhee, 2013). Fundamentally, redshift means that observers on the earth surface perceive different frequencies of lights that galaxies emit in the universe owing to the difference in distances. During the explosion, the explosive force made different galaxies, objects, and other bodies to move at different speed. As the moving bodies migrate at different speeds, the lights that they emit experience the Doppler Effect. Essentially, Doppler Effect is the alteration of the frequency of the wave relative to the distance of the observer. In this case, the frequency of lights emitted by galaxies alters relative to distances of their emission from the earth surface. Observation of galaxies in space indicates that distant galaxies emit lights that have a longer wavelength than close galaxies. This observation is evident in the redshift of light emitted from distant galaxies.

Figure 1 and Figure 2 above illustrates redshift of light emitted from a distant galaxy relative to the sun (Rhee, 2013).

Edwin Hubble formulated the law that allows determination of redshift. The Hubble’s law recessional velocity of a galaxy is directly proportional to their comoving distances (Rhee, 2013). Essentially, the formula is v = Hd, where v is recessional velocity, d is comoving distance, and H is Hubble’s constant. Recessional velocities and distances of galaxies have a linear relationship in which the gradient is the Hubble’s constant. Since the distance from the sun to the earth is known, the luminosity of galaxies relative to the sun provides a way of estimating distances (Rhee, 2013). Parallax aids in the estimation of distances based on the relative luminosity of galaxies in space. In the determination of velocities, wavelengths and frequencies of lights are applicable for they indicate the extent of redshift relative to the velocity of known bodies in the universe. Hence, Hubble’s law is integral in elucidating the Big Bang Theory because it also offers compelling evidence. The existence of the mathematical formula that determines the existence of redshift supports the occurrence of the Big Bang Theory.

Cosmic background radiation

The discovery of cosmic background radiation by Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias in 1965 boosted the scientific stance of the Big Bang Theory. The premise of the cosmic background radiation is that the density of the universe has been decreasing with time owing to the expansion of space after the occurrence of the massive explosion. The interaction of matter and light in the universe creates cosmic radiation, which is the landmark of the Big Bang Theory. Rhee (2013) states that the Big Bang, which is the massive explosion that happed in the past horizon of spacetime, left the background radiation in the form of galaxies and stars. In essence, the background radiation offers a primitive view of space immediately after the occurrence of the Big Bang. Rhee (2013) asserts that the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation has undergone redshift owing to the expansion of space, according to the Big Bang Theory. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) launched a satellite, which detects the existence and pattern of cosmic background radiation across the globe. Hence, the existence and the variation of the cosmic background radiation across the globe effectively support the Big Bang Theory.

The abundance of primordial elements

The primordial elements, namely, hydrogen, helium, deuterium, and lithium are the most abundant elements in the universe owing to the explanation of the Big Bang Theory. These elements are primordial elements because they formed matter that existed during the Big Bang and consequently expanded to fill the universe. Canetti, Drewes, and Shaposhnikov (2012) assert when the primitive atmosphere cooled and allowed the existence of lighter atoms, the Bing Bang triggered nucleosynthesis of helium, deuterium, and lithium. Thus, the abundances of helium and deuterium in the universe formed the basis of the emission of light by the bodies in the universe. Rhee (2013) argues that helium and deuterium are abundant in the sun because they burn and emit enormous heat and light that reach the earth surface. Hence, the discovery of these primordial elements in the sun led to their identification in the universe and the stars. Rhee (2013) gives a precise proportion of primordial elements by stating that “for every 10,000 atoms of hydrogen in the universe, there are 975 atoms of helium, six atoms of oxygen, and an atom of carbon” (p. 48). In this perspective, the nucleosynthesis of the primordial elements supports the Big Bang Theory for the massive explosion causes existence of the current abundances in the universe.

Structure and distribution of galaxies

The structure and distribution of galaxies in space are in line with the tenets of the Big Bang Theory. The structure of the universe shows that planets and other bodies have oval structure owing to the centrifugal and centripetal forces. Centrifugal force causes bulging at the equatorial planes while centripetal force causes flattening at the polar planes (Anderson, 2015). Moreover, the structure of bodies in space follows some organization because there is a pattern of density in the structure of galaxies, galaxy clusters, and huge bodies. The arrangement of cosmic background radiation varies according to the temperature and density of their sources. Regarding the distribution of bodies in space, observations made on the universe show that galaxies emanated from the Big Bang. The attributes of the redshift, which are evident when observed from the earth, clearly depict the distribution of bodies. The distribution confirms that the Big Bag provided an explosive force that accelerated galaxies and other bodies in the universe. Anderson (2015) argues that the formation of stars and galaxies follows a hierarchical pattern in which the smaller structures form first, and then, they later coalesce into large structures. Therefore, the Big Bang theory provides a plausible explanation the structure and distribution of bodies in space

Existence of Pristine Clouds

Recent discovery revealed that primordial clouds exist in the universe. Analysis of the spectra that emanate from the distant quasars and galaxies indicate that primordial gas forms pristine clouds in the universe. Prior to the discovery, astronomers had established that galaxies and stars contain atoms that are usually lighter than the primordial elements such as lithium, deuterium, and hydrogen. In this view, Canetti, Drewes, and Shaposhnikov (2012) affirm that the primordial clouds formed when lighter atoms combined during the Big Bang. The Big Bang nucleosynthesis accurately predicted the existence of such clouds in the primitive space prior to the expansion of the universe and emergence of bodies. Anderson (2015) reveals that primordial clouds because the primordial matter existed as neutral hydrogen. Hence, the existence of primordial clouds offers compelling evidence that indeed Big Bang took place in the past horizon.

Conclusion

The Big Bang Theory has stood the test of time because it offers compelling evidence regarding the origin, development, and the nature of the universe. The theory relies on three assumptions, namely, cosmological singularity, homogenous expansion space, and infinite horizons. These assumptions set the background of the compelling evidence that support the occurrence of the Big Bang. The redshift of light, cosmic background radiation, the abundance of primordial elements, the structure and distribution of galaxies, and the existence of pristine clouds are five pillars that support the Big Bang Theory. Analysis of these evidence shows that the Big Bang Theory is still relevant to the modern world for astronomers continue to reveal additional findings.

References

Aunderson, R. (2015). The Cosmic Compendium: The Big Bang and the Early Universe. London: Lulu Publisher.

Bortz, F. (2014). The big bang theory: Edwin Hubble and the origins of the universe. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group.

Canetti, L., Drewes, M., & Shaposhnikov, M. (2012). Matter and anti-matter in the universe. New Journal of Physics, 14(1), 1-20.

National Aeronautics Space and Administration: The Big Bang. (2015). Web.

Rhee, G. (2013). Cosmic dawn: The search for the first stars and galaxies. New York: Springer Science.

Tillery, B., Enger, E., & Ross, F. (2012). Integrated science. London: McGraw-Hill.

Introduction

Humans usually prefer conviction and claim it from preachers, doctors and scientists. Many fields of knowledge have raised concerns for ages. One of the fields where humans are struggling to offer convicting answers to is the field of astronomy. This field has attempted to explain a number of concepts, but none of them has been given more prominence than the issue of the origin and age of the universe. This essay attempts to examine the fundamentals of astronomy regarding the age and origin of the modern universe. It will also shed light on the measurement of the age of the universe. Though astronomy may seem a purely science-oriented subject, a number of theories have been advanced to explain how the universe was created. For purposes of this essay, the theory that will be given priority is the Big Bang theory. The essay will also expound on the implication on recent findings concerning the age of the universe, as well as their implications on future telescopic activities.

Cosmology and the Big Bang Theory

The study of the universe from a scientific perspective about the large-scale properties that make up it is known as cosmology. The popular theory that attempts to explain the origin and evolution of the universe is the famous Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory or model (as it will be frequently referred to in this essay) estimates the age of the universe to be 12 to 14 billion years. It posits that during that period, the portion of the universe that is visible today was only a few millimeters in size (Kutner, 2003 p. 21). Since then, it has stretched from its initial hot dense condition into the huge and much cooler cosmos currently inhabited by humans. Leftovers of the hot dense matter are seen as the modern very cold cosmic microwave background radiation, which is still found in the universe. These remnants are only visible to microwave detectors. They appear as a homogeneous glow across the entire sky.

Pillars of the Big Bang Model

The Big Bang model is based on two hypothetical pillars dating back to the early twentieth century. These pillars are General Relativity and Cosmological Principle. Albert Einstein developed the General Relativity pillar in 1916. One major postulation of the General Relativity concept is that gravity is no longer explained by a gravitational field but, instead, it should be a deformation of time and space itself. Physicist John Wheeler precisely posited that matter dictates space how to curve whereas space shows matter how to move (Freedman, 2002 p.13). One of the fundamental assumptions of the General Relativity principle is that matter in the universe is spread evenly on the largest scales.

Going by the above assumption, it is possible to calculate the equivalent gravitational impact of that matter. Given that gravity is a property of space-time according to the General Relativity principle, calculating this impact will be tantamount to calculating the dynamics of space-time itself (Porcellino, 2001 p.27). The second concept by which the Big Bang theory is based on is the Cosmological Principle. This principle postulates that matter in the universe is homogenous and isotropic when approximated over very large scales (Donald, 2001 p. 14). Just like the General Relativity principle, this principle is under constant tests to establish the actual distribution of galaxies.

The above discussions point out that matter plays a very pivotal role in cosmology. This is because the average density of matter distinctively dictates the geometry of the universe. For instance, if the density of matter is less than the so-called critical density, the universe will be open and inestimable. However, if the density is greater than the critical density, the universe will be closed and predetermined. In a scenario whereby the density of the matter is equivalent to that of the critical density, the universe would be flat but infinite (Lineweaver, & Davis, 2005, p.12). It is crucial to note that the value of the critical density is very minute. This has prompted modern scientists to question the density of the matter in the universe. Though they have not yet arrived at a precise answer, there is an apparent consensus that this density is relatively close to the critical density.

The dynamics of the universe

The focus of this essay now shifts to the dynamics of the universe. To understand this, it is important to know the density (mass per unit volume) and pressure (force exerted per unit area) of the universe. Nevertheless, the general impression is that the universe began from a very small volume with an initial expansion rate (Andrei, 2004 p. 24). This event came to be dubbed as the Big Bang.

The rate of expansion of the universe has been decelerating since the Big Bang. This deceleration has been occasioned by the gravitational pull of the matter on itself (Freedman, 2002 p.7). This raises a key scientific question as to whether or not the destiny of the universe can be reversed by the gravitational pull if the force is adequately strong to cause a reverse of the expansion hence leading to a collapse of the universe back on itself (Alan & Paul, 2002 p.13). In deed, observations in the recent times have indicated a probability that the expansion of the universe may be accelerating. As such, chances are high that the evolution of the universe is now subject to a peculiar type of matter having a negative pressure (Freedman, 2002 p. 23). The picture below brings the concept of the expansion of the universe into perspective.

The picture above picture demonstrates several probable causes for the relative size of the universe against time. The green curve stands for a flat critical density whereby the expansion rate is constantly decelerating (NASA, 2011 p. 12). The blue curve indicates an open, low-density universe whereby the expansion is also decelerating but not like the critical density universe due to differences in the strength of the pull of gravity. The red curve demonstrates a universe whose larger portion of its mass or energy is prone to be in the very vacuum of space itself. This phenomenon is referred to as the cosmological constant. This phenomenon is responsible for dark energy, which causes acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Growing evidence indicates that the universe is following the red curve.

Limitations of the Big Bang Theory

One of the crucial points worthy noting is that the Big Bang did not occur at one point in space as an explosion per se. Instead, the phenomenon is perceived as the concurrent appearance of space everywhere in the universe. The other important point in this unfolding discussion is that, going by the definition of the universe, the term entails all of space and time, as it is presently known. In this case, it is beyond the scope of the Biog Bang theory to determine to what the universe is expanding. In addition, it is also outside the scope of the Big Bang model to pinpoint what gave birth to the Big Bang despite an existence of a myriad of tentative theories on the topic (Lineweaver, & Davis, 2005, p.9).

To add on the above disclaimers, the universe must have a finite age, which is approximately 13.7 billion years. As such, it is only possible to view a finite distance out into space equal to 13.7 billion light years. This is the famous horizon. Going by this argument, the Big Bang theory does not try to explain that region of space beyond the horizon. In addition, it is also possible that the universe has a more sophisticated global topology than that explained by the Big Bang theory while still possessing the same local curve.

Types of matter in the universe

As mentioned earlier in this essay, the geometry and evolution of the universe are dictated by fractional distribution of various types of matter. Given that both energy density and pressure contribute to the strength of gravity in General Relativity, cosmologists group types of matter considering the connection between the two. The central categorization leads to four types of matter namely radiation, baryonic matter, dark matter, and dark energy. Radiation consists of particles without or almost without mass moving at the pace of light. Some of the existing radiation matter includes photons and neutrons. This category of matter has a large positive pressure (Porcellino, 2001 p. 32).

Baryonic matter is the common matter, which comprises of protons, neutrons and electrons. This type of matter has, in essence, no pressure of cosmological significance. The third category of matter, dark matter, stands for the exotic or non-baryonic matter that intermingles with ordinary matter. Dark energy is a peculiar type of matter, or may be a feature of the vacuum itself, marked by a large negative pressure. In addition, this is the sole type of matter that may lead to the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. One of the biggest modern challenges of cosmology is to come up with the relative and total densities in each of the above types of matter because this is important to comprehend the evolution and the destiny of the universe.

The current rate of expansion is usually articulated in terms of kilometers per second per Mega parsec or simply put, the Hubble Constant (Lineweaver, & Davis, 2003 p.21).

Measurement of the age of the universe: A brief history

The measurement of the speed by which the universe is expanding is dated back in the early 1920s when Edwin Hubble used a newly constructed 100-inch telescope to detect variable stars in a number of nebulae (Vogt, 2002 p. 6). He discovered that the variable stars had a certain pattern likened to that of a class of stars called Cepheid variables. Basing his argument on an earlier discovery, by Henrietta Levitt, connecting the period of a Cepheid variable to its luminosity, Hubble discovered that the nebula he had observed were not mere clouds within the earth’s Galaxy. Instead, they were external galaxies far outside the earth’s Galaxy (Peebles, Schramm, Turner & Kron, 2001(b), p.36).

It is believed that the Solar System is 4.5 billion years old while humans have been in existence for the last several million years (Peebles, Schramm, Turner & Kron, 2001 p.24). However, there seems to be an age crisis, astronomers approximate the age of the universe in two ways. The first is by measuring the age of the expansion of the universe and relating this to the Big Bang. The second means is by examining the oldest stars. The first means has been broadly discussed in the preceding section, As such; it is only fair if more attention is given to examining old stars (Schaff, 2001 p. 21).

Measurement of the universe by examining the oldest stars

Astronomers can put a lower boundary to the age of the universe by studying globular clusters. These are a dense collection of approximately a million stars. All the stars in a globular cluster formed at almost the same time. As such, they can function as cosmic clocks. For instance, a globular cluster that is more than twenty million years old will have all of its hydrogen burning stars will be smaller than that of ten solar masses (Kutner, 2003 p.41). This means that no single individual hydrogen-burning star will be more than a thousand times brighter than the sun. In a case where the globular cluster is more than a billion years old, there will be no hydrogen-burning star greater than two solar masses. Since the oldest globular clusters comprise of only stars smaller than 0.7 solar masses, they are dimmer than the sun. This implies that the oldest globular clusters are between eleven and eighteen billion years. Nevertheless, this approximation is not foolproof because there are uncertainties in the brightness of the stars or ignorance in the more details of stellar evolution.

Recent progress in astronomy

An earlier discussion in this attempted to show how astronomers use Cepheid variable as distance indicators. This endeavor has been faced by a number of challenges among them, difficulties in the determination of the distance to a nearby sample of Cepheid (Zeilik, 2002 p. 84). Luckily enough, recent technological advancements have made it possible for astronomers to use new detectors called change coupled devices or simply CCDS to fix these problems. Such evolutions have led to accurate study of the nearby galaxies. In addition, astronomers have come up with a number of new ways for determining relative distances tom galaxies (Schaff, 2001 p. 3

Conclusion

In conclusion, this essay is not a blue print for the determination of the modern age of the universe. Nevertheless, it has attempted to elaborate a number of concepts surrounding this hotly debated topic. In particular, the essay has taken a perspective of answering some of the frequently asked question in the field of astronomy and in particular, the age of the universe. Though many hypotheses explain this phenomenon, prominence has been given to the Big Bang theory, its limitations. The method of determining the age of the universe through a close, examination of the oldest stars has also been discussed. Lastly, the recent developments in the field of astronomy and their implications on the future of the field have been highlighted.

References

Alan, HG & Paul, JS, “The Inflationary Universe”, Scientific American, 2002.

Andrei, L, “The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe”, Scientific American, 2004.

Donald, G 2001, “Einstein’s greatest blunder? The Cosmological Constant and other fudge factors in the physics of the Universe”, Harvard University Press: Cambridge.

Freedman, WL, “The Expansion Rate and Science of the Universe”, Scientific American, 2002.

Feurbacher, B & Scranton, R, 2006 “Evidence of the Big Bang”, The TalkOrigins Archive, Web.

Kutner, ML 2003, Astronomy: a physical perspective, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Lineweaver, CH & Davis, TM, ‘Misconceptions about the Big Bang’, Scientific American, 2005; pp.10.

NASA 2003, “Space-based astronomy”, Web.

NASA 2011, Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), Cosmology: the study of universe, Web.

Osterbrock, DE, Gwinn, JA & Brashear, RS, “Hubble and the Expanding Universe”, Scientific American, 2003.

Peebles, PJE, Schramm, DN, Turner, EL & Kron, RN 2001, “The Evolution of the Universe”, Scientific American, 271, 29 – 33.

Peebles, PJE, Schramm, DN, Turner, EL & RG Kron 2001, “The Case for the relativistic hot Big Bang Cosmology”, Nature, 352, 769 – 776.

Porcellino, M 2001, Young Astronomer’s guide to the night sky, TAB Books, Blue Ridge Summit, PA.

Schaff, F 2001, Seeing the Solar System; Telescopic projects, activities, & explorations in Astronomy, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.

Vogt, G 2002, The Hubble Space Telescope, The Millbrook Press, Brookfield, CT.

Zeilik, M 2002, Astronomy: the evolving universe (9^th edition), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.