Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Roy Perry

What if the bang was the spark of life?

56 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Cookie Monster

God belief

What if the bang was the spark of life?

01\27\2016

We must look at Periodic table which has Elements to number 117 discovered today while I believe there more elements than 117 my theory would be 120 elements but that just me. Each element was a dust rock otherwise Hydrogen would join together with Hydrogen and Oxygen and join together with Oxygen there would at least 117 rocks out there. Otherwise everything would made solid Oxygen to hit a Hydrogen rock because it only nature like kinds come together.

But in the big bang they ran into each other cause the spark of life setting some on fire as mix with each other. The mixing up of elements was like a mixing a cake with a mixer that hit was the mixup that give us 117 elements that is the make up our earth. Which would light our stars and sun because the spark would set to fire gases known to start fires causing like materials to encircle each other!

Holding them in orbit from the motion of themselves some way creating the gravity of the Sun keeps the planet in their orbits. Each planet is made up from different elements and because the sun was light up otherwise set to fire by the big bang alone the stars we have sun light. Plants grow because of photosynthesis which were cause when our earth creative life by mixing up elements to made seed that evolve over time.

Man kind and animal kind were the next thing our earth creative we came out of the water that were join together to make up water the mixture two elements. So the spark of life was one mixing with another making fire which made plant life and water life. Just because we cannot see it does not mean it is not there.

Love Roy

If the big bang was the creation of the universe then the present theory says there were no atoms then. Those didn't form until the early universe cooled down. And it is nuclear fusion inside starts that produces heavy elements up to and including Iron. It is not currently known how heavier stuff is produced. The reason being is when a star has finished fusing Iron and starts contracting the weight behind the contraction is too great to start up the fusion of heavier elements. Instead it creates anti-matter blowing the star apart. I think that is the type 2B supernova, I haven't checked which one.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

So you are at the same level as the OP. Or above.

You're point?

Well, yeah, I think that was understood, when I said the above post. Although, whether what Roy said is correct or not, I find it impressive that he did post some things, and I am interested in what those who do have that answer and what we all can come up with. The OP's post brought up something, that I think could be a good thought provoking thread.

Roy Perry:

toast yes Stubbly_Dooright has high IQ
Awww, shucks Roy. Thanks. The thing is, Toast could have a point about my 'IQ' ;)

( to point out, your's is not slacking I feel. Keep up the good work. :tu: )

I do have a slight learning disability, as I have mentioned at certain times before in other threads, and it takes me a bit to understand fully. In which, that is why I posted what I posted. I think this forum is for all of us to learn and to provide in a fun way. I am curious to what others and you come up with. If I find something that I could bring into this, I'll be happy to. ( If I can :w00t: ) But all in all, I'm curious! :yes:

So, frankly, I am interestingly curious as to why my intelligence level is pointed out ( or your's for that matter ) and if it's pertinent to the topic of your thread.

( plus, I made mention that SCIENCE is not my strong point. I didn't say that about all subjects. ;) )

Well, other than that, *shrugs* We'll see. :D

Emma_Acid:

The reason why I responded to this thread was that almost nothing hacks me off more than people who try and co-opt scientific ideas into religious ones.
Well, I do agree with this. Sorry Roy. *looks sheepish*
You're making the mistake that almost every pop science show on TV makes. The big bang was not an explosion. An explosion is, among other things, identified by the pressure differences between an outward force and a container. It's a bomb's casing that causes it to explode, not the explosive material itself.

The big bang was an expansion. Not an explosion.n

Oh yeah. I have to admit, I remember coming across varying wordings, ( I have to be careful in calling it literature, meaning that it's called fiction, and it's not. ) well, wordings that has pointed that out.

Would one believe me, when I say, despite my LD, this makes sense to me?

(plus, would the creators of the tv show 'Big Bang Theory' have to change the title of the show? :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roy Perry

Thanks RabidMongoose and Stubbly_Dooright

RabidMongoose that is something to think about which the reason show my guess so I can learn, think more because you must start somewhere

Stubbly_Dooright don;t count yourself out I think slow because of the stoke having a slight learning disability too but on trying and that what needed to learn

love Roy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

If theories are not guesses how can they be proven wrong?

A theory is not an absolute statement of fact. It is the best explanation of a phenomenon that exists. Tests cannot always give definitive proof.

I remind you that the Planet Vulcan was never proven to exist. To do that, an astronomer would have to say look HERE. This is where it is. And anybody could look and see where it was. Nobody ever did that with Vulcan. Its existence was completely hypothetical, a postulate needed to explain the orbit of Mercury.

Aristotle postulated spontaneous generation of life, but he never tested it. Without testing, an idea never becomes a theory.

Expanding earth? That's a new one on me. And I took geology-for-jocks back in the 60s from a prof who didn't accept plate tectonics. He explained mountains as a function of geosyncline formation: put enough weight here (as in a growing river delta) and something has to come up over there (as in a mountain range). Besides, your article says the expanding earth idea was never really disproved. You ought to read past the headlines.

Phlogiston was never established as a theory because: there were no tests indicating it to be true. Like Aristotle, it was a hypothesis. But when tested, it failed.

Martian canals: once again, a hypothesis. Based on poor-quality telescopes. When better-quality telescopes were invented, the idea was tested by simply pointing those better telescopes and looking to see if there were really "canals" there.

The ether: Again a hypothesis developed to explain how light or radio waves could travel through empty space. The test that did in the ether idea was one in which a light beam was split into two beams. Mirrors were used to aim one beam along the earth's direction of travel and spin so as to give that beam the longest route through the ether. The other beam was aimed to the side, so as to give that beam the shortest possible route through the ether. Other mirrors returned the beam to its source so that the two beams would exactly merge if they had traveled the same distance. Thus the test was: if the two beams failed to merge, the ether was real, but if they merged, there was no such thing as the ether. They merged.

The blank slate: I have to wonder about psychology tests. There really is no definitive proof for or against the blank slate idea. Ultimately, it's one hypothesis replacing another one.

Phrenology: another idea that was never properly tested before being accepted by a large number of people. You'll note in the article that it never has been accepted in main stream science.

Einstein's Universe: all ideas of cosmology start with a hypothetical model. As these are tested, the disproven ones are eliminated. But that's a slow process, as cosmology has a lot of stuff to explain. Right now, string theory is actually a hypothesis with little to support it. Someday, maybe evidence to support it will be found. In the meantime, ideas developed from it, like the multiverse, are nothing more than technical speculation.

Cold fusion: just a case of bad data. Cold fusion could exist in principle, but it has never been demonstrated. Since Fleischman and Pons, cold fusion claims are being carefully tested. So far, none has panned out. Cold fusion is not a theory - yet.

It seems that every one of your examples is a case of scientific theory overturning poor hypotheses. Only string theory actually carries the name "theory" and that is a misapplication.

Science, at least, has the ability to identify and correct its mistakes. That is not possible with subjects like theology.

I put God is my theory because I believe I can hear God

If you want god to be a theory, tell me where I can tune in.

But it not prove there is a God nor have you prove anything it just your belief in science to your God

Love Roy

I agree. Nobody has proven there is or is not a god. But if you start by making no assumptions, you cannot prove the existence of god. Proofs of god start from the assumption that god exists and try to show by default that no other possibilities exist. They fail if there is just one exception.

There are an awful lot of popular press articles published that get science wrong (And even a peer-reviewed journal blows it occasionally.). Be careful where you're getting your "science" information and question it, even then.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast

You're point? Well, yeah, I think that was understood, when I said the above post. Although, whether what Roy said is

correct or not, I find it impressive that he did post some things, and I am interested in what those who do have that

answer and what we all can come up with. The OP's post brought up something, that I think could be a good thought

provoking thread.

My apologies if you understood my post as to be harsh, it wasnt meant so. My point was/is that it is no problem if

somebody does not have a deeper knowledge in a specific field but it is a problem if a person who has no knowledge

in a specific but claims so by telling a pile of nonsensical rubbish, as the OP did.

The thing is, Toast could have a point about my 'IQ' ;)

I had that point already and you were and still are on the winner side. :yes:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roy Perry

I am not trying to win anything I just have my understanding

open mind is being willing call yourself wrong and right in the same theory or guesswork

like a cult I went said scripture and verse all the time but i would tell there no proven thing as scripture and verse because it was added later

otherwise when it was wrote they saw no need for that

an open mind thinks both sides otherwise I have belief in theory and I have unbelief in un-theory the two sides to everything

one needs to see both sides

I can explain both sides yet but I am learning

because we need to call a fact and un-fact to explain it completely

love Roy

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

one needs to see both sides

But one also needs to accept or reject one side or the other when sufficient evidence is presented. If additional evidence later on reopens the issue, then one must be willing to change his mind, based on the evidence.

Seeing both sides does not keep one from rejecting one side or the other.

Doug

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grandpa Greenman

Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong)

If theories are not guesses how can they be proven wrong?

I put God is my theory because I believe I can hear God

which your understanding that that good enough

But it not prove there is a God nor have you prove anything it just your belief in science to your God

Love Roy

Science changes as evidence through testing is gathered. The reason spontaneous generation was proven wrong was because people started testing through scientific method. Before people started using a method of testing many thing were assumed to be true, which we know are false. At the time the Bible was written scientific method didn't exist, so they made a lot of assumptions without testing to see if they were true. To prove that god exist you have to go through the steps.

Good luck.

A linearized, pragmatic scheme of the four points above is sometimes offered as a guideline for proceeding:[68]

Define a question

Gather information and resources (observe)

Form an explanatory hypothesis

Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner

Analyze the data

Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis

Publish results

Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

https://en.wikipedia..._method#Process

To prove god doesn't exist, invite him to meet us at a local pub for a few rounds and if he doesn't show, ask him again, several times and if he still doesn't show, then there is a good chance he isn't there.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

The reason why I responded to this thread was that almost nothing hacks me off more than people who try and co-opt scientific ideas into religious ones.

You're making the mistake that almost every pop science show on TV makes. The big bang was not an explosion. An explosion is, among other things, identified by the pressure differences between an outward force and a container. It's a bomb's casing that causes it to explode, not the explosive material itself.

For your own safety I urge you to read up on gas vapor explosion. And dont get hit by its pressure wave ! ( Unless you want to postulate that in that case, you are the 'containment ' ) .

In any case, an explosion is an 'expansion' it just happens very quickly . Anyway , it was all based on the 'void being flammable' in the first place . I guess you took it seriously ?

The big bang was an expansion. Not an explosion.

A fastly expanding bang is an explosion .... but not one that requires a container.

We could play further though and postulate a container for the big bang as gravity from whatever banged .

Do you have a reference showing that there is an issue with the current understanding of how stars form?

Nope, just some science doco on tv last week (refer to my original comment, not just the section you quoted ) .... That is what the dude was saying (in front of a black board of symbols and squiggles) .

My understanding is that the force of the heat cannot overcome the force of gravity - hence a star forms.

As I said above .... seems rather obvious ... or they would have never formed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roy Perry

Einstein Quotes

01\29\2016

“If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.” otherwise changed the guess

“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” otherwise if we were not guessing we know what we are doing

“When the solution is simple, God is answering.” God is the answer I guess

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” otherwise science is vain of understanding

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” otherwise I am just guessing

“A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?” otherwise are people mad

“Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.” otherwise belief against unbelief

“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.” otherwise man weakness God understands

“True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness.” otherwise truth is truth

These are just of Einstein quotes he must believe in God did he see prove that was a God?

thanks Roy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

toast:

My apologies if you understood my post as to be harsh, it wasnt meant so. My point was/is that it is no problem if

somebody does not have a deeper knowledge in a specific field but it is a problem if a person who has no knowledge

in a specific but claims so by telling a pile of nonsensical rubbish, as the OP did.

Ahhh, thank you for this and for clarifying. :):yes:

Well, yes, I don't want to others think I'm knowing of something, in which I wasn't, because I would want to know, so I'm hoping that those that honestly do know, will educate, meaning me too.

I think we all know by now, when someone sayins they do, and it ends up wrong.

I had that point already and you were and still are on the winner side. :yes:

Thanks toast, extremely appreciated. :) Edited by Stubbly_Dooright
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

The reason why I responded to this thread was that almost nothing hacks me off more than people who try and co-opt scientific ideas into religious ones.

I could not agree more, and feel very much the same way.

Hell, who am I kidding, I have to be the biggest Emma fan on the forum. Have been for a long time. If you say anything, it is worth reading about. If I was in the UK, I would crawl across a room of broken glass to listen to you in person for 5 minutes. You have never done anything other than impress the living heck out of me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

was you there because that the only I believe you

I live in Australia.

If you have never visited Australia, does that mean I do not exist?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roy Perry

thanks psyche101

so you were a live when the big bang happen

because you were been able to see it in Australia

that would millions years I think because do know when the big bang was

because I look for Jan 28 2016 at 08.43 AM

love Roy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

thanks psyche101

so you were a live when the big bang happen

because you were been able to see it in Australia

that would millions years I think because do know when the big bang was

because I look for Jan 28 2016 at 08.43 AM

love Roy

You said you do not believe that the Big Bang is a solid hypothesis because nobody was there to see it.

If you have never been to Australia, does the same notion apply? Does Australia not exist because you have not seen it?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roy Perry

thanks psyche101

No I never said it did not happen

you either want to start a fight or you did not understand me

love Roy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid

Einstein Quotes

01\29\2016

“If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.” otherwise changed the guess

“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?” otherwise if we were not guessing we know what we are doing

“When the solution is simple, God is answering.” God is the answer I guess

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” otherwise science is vain of understanding

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” otherwise I am just guessing

“A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or are the others crazy?” otherwise are people mad

“Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.” otherwise belief against unbelief

“I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.” otherwise man weakness God understands

“True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness.” otherwise truth is truth

These are just of Einstein quotes he must believe in God did he see prove that was a God?

Lots to respond to in this thread, but thought I'd just jump in here. Einstein was a physicist, not a theologian. I wouldn't ask him for his thoughts on god any quicker than I'd ask him to fix my fridge.

Hell, who am I kidding, I have to be the biggest Emma fan on the forum. Have been for a long time. If you say anything, it is worth reading about. If I was in the UK, I would crawl across a room of broken glass to listen to you in person for 5 minutes. You have never done anything other than impress the living heck out of me.

Aw well that's made my Sunday :blush:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Smoke aLot

where did all this expanding stuff come from in the first place ?

Surely it is expanding but from our point of view and it's what we can say with current understanding. Who knows what it ( the Universe ) looks like on much greater scale. Oh, i would do anything for a chance to see the Universe 'from above'.

Big Bang won't be viable for much longer time and it will get replaced by much better model which actually makes sense if you look at it from any angle, unlike current one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

thanks psyche101

No I never said it did not happen

you either want to start a fight or you did not understand me

love Roy

I am not starting a fight Roy, I am making a point. You said that nobody was there for the big bang, so that does not mean it happened. If you apply that logic to other things like countries, it shows how the statement does not make sense.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roy Perry

thanks psyche101

I did want it sound it did happen

because there was a big bang

the truth we do not know as whether the big bang or not

sorry

I guess we just misunderstood each other my grammar might the cause

love Roy

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

I am not starting a fight Roy, I am making a point. You said that nobody was there for the big bang, so that does not mean it happened. If you apply that logic to other things like countries, it shows how the statement does not make sense.

Maybe to go on with a point here, I may have not been to Australia, or been there doing the Big Bang, but like the movies, and such, and groups, like my fav, "Men At Work" I have come to the very strong theory, a personal theory, that Australia exists. ( I might need more plausible information on that though, if only I get to go there and enjoy *ahem* experience that theory, ............ in my mind of Australia. ;):D )

So, I feel, why can't it be objectively seen that clues, evidences from the big bang, can be used in that way?

Just wondering......................... ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather

Actually there is a class of atoms that are yet to be made that are theorized to be stable. The atomic numbers of the particles before are indeed unstable and the ones we have made fall apart as expected by theory, but if we can get a particle accelerator strong enough we can get to the next class of particles that are very very heavy but should exhibit stability. These elements dont exist because there were not heavy elements to collide in the very early universe which was the only time there were energy levels sufficiently strong enough to create them. In several hundred years if we continue to develop our technology we should have a particle accerator strong enough to produce the next class of very heavy but stable elements. A new era of materials could start though I'm not sure they would ever make enough of it to do anything. These new elements will exibit their own properties just like the current elements do, but how they combine with the rest will user in a new dimension to chemistry. We may on day have the most amazing materials ever thought of.

It's misnomer that there was no void prior to the Big Bang. It has to do with the physical definition of space and what "space" really is. When physicists say something they have very specific definitions of things that most people don't really think of in the same way. This screws up their understanding of what the scientist is trying to say.

The physical definition of space therefor used by Physiists is about the space (distance) between things that are measurable. The void is really what the laymen views as space does not expand though there are forces with in the void that push things apart at intergalactic distances. So no space itself ( the void) does not expand, but physical space ( the space between things) expands and contracts all the time.

The Big Bang was not an explosion or any kind of pressure distortion. It was a rippling of potential energy over a stretch of the void where a rare quantum tunneling event most likely ocured setting the potential energy of the universe at the top of a hill and it's been rolling down ever since. The potential energy sets the quantum probabilities for the manifestation of sub atomic particles to higher than normal average and walla hydrogen atoms can start to form in the rather dense probability soup. But there was a period of rapid expansion so dark energy must have been greater. That's one of those things that they just throw in there to keep their theories straight. Who the hell knows what happened. My guess is that it was never a singularity or anything like it. The inflation model has some gaping holes. Just because it's popular and is a current best fit didn't mean it's right.

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Codenwarra

BIG BANGS

Before the First World War, the US astronomer Vesto Slipher made some observations of distant "nebulae" or clouds which were at the time believed to be clouds of dust and gas within the Milky Way. The light emitted by these nebulae was analysed spectroscopically and was found to be red shifted. What this means is that all the bright lines characteristic of hydrogen (and other elements) were not quite in the same places as spectra obtained on Earth, but they were still in the same places relative to each other.

If this concept is difficult to understand, let me put it this way. If you move a car a foot in any direction, it is not in the same place as it was before, but the headlights, windscreen, door handles and tail lamps are still in the same places relative to each other. This has nothing to do with Einstein, by the way. A shift to the red end of the spectrum shows that the object is moving away, a blue shift means it is getting closer. The amount of the shift is a measure of the velocity of the object in relation to the observer. Slipher's observations showed very rapid recession of a few of the things he measured. Nobody knew what to make of these things at the time.

After the First World War, American astronomers got a new telescope, the largest in the world at the time. By good luck or good management, it was placed in a good spot on Mount Wilson near Los Angeles which was a much smaller city then. This gave it higher resolution than any telescope that had been built before, in other words it could see finer detail. That's like going from 240p on a YouTube video to 480p. A long series of observations and photographs of nebulae showed that some were made up of stars while others were indeed clouds of gas and dust and in the Milky Way. Observations like these are not based on one or two quick looks, but dozens taken over several hours and repeated months to years later.

By the mid 1920s the lead observer Edwin Hubble, assisted by former mule driver Milton Humason had collected enough information to show that a proportion of the nebulae were very distant, contained individual stars and were receding rapidly. Thus Hubble could say that that dozens of objects formerly thought to be within the Milky Way were in fact "island universes" separated from it. They were called "galaxies", note the lower case "g" to contrast with the formal name of our Milky Way, the Galaxy, note the capital "G".

So things stood for a few years until 1931 when the physics professor and priest Monsignor Georges Lemaître of Belgium gave a lecture in which he proposed that all objects in the visible Universe were at one time in the same place. This was based on his 1927 solutions to Einstein's equations which provided for an expanding Universe and later on him learning of Hubble's and Humason's observations. This hypothesis (not theory) was therefore backed up by experimental observations and equations which had been known to be good since 1919. This hypothesis was dubbed the "cosmic egg" or "primeval atom". Everything being in the same place produces a singularity, which is a mathematical way of saying that there are infinities involved and we don't know what's going on. And we still do not. What we do know is what probably happened later.

Fred Hoyle, a British physicist was a thorough atheist in the 1940s and believed the primeval atom hypothesis sounded too much like the first few verses of Genesis. He proposed a rival idea in which the Universe expanded by the appearance of one hydrogen atom in every cubic kilometre of space every several thousand years. This idea could explain the observed expansion and had the consequence that the Universe was already almost infinitely old. Hoyle stuck to this idea throughout his life. During a radio talk on the British Broadcasting Corporation about 1952 he called the primeval atom idea the "big bang" as a joke and the name stuck. There was of course no "bang". But as far as the evidence existed at the time, both the primeval atom and Hoyle's steady state hypotheses seemed to make sense.

Over the next dozen years there was no experimental confirmation of either hypothesis. Astrophysicists spent much of their time trying to work out what was going on in the Sun and other stars and about 1955 Fred Hoyle produced the great work of his life, an account of the nuclear reactions inside stars which still stands.

A little work was done on the consequences of Lemaitre's and Hoyle's ideas and it was realised that if Lemaitre was correct, then some hundreds of thousands of years after the initial expansion a burst of mostly visible light and ultraviolet radiation should have happened as free electrons combined with free nuclei to form atoms. That would combine with other radiation and fill all space. However, owing to the apparent expansion, this radiation would have been stretched out and by our times would be in the radio region and have a particular spectrum. Since nobody had a good handle on exactly how old the Universe was in Lemaitre's model, then the exact radio frequencies where this would appear could only be calculated approximately. Between 1946 and 1964 several independent calculations were made in the old Soviet Union and the USA. These calculations were hypothetical and the initial versions were revised to give a spectrum at longer wavelengths, as far down as the lower end of the Super High Frequency band between 3000 megahertz and 30,000 megahertz.

In Hoyle's steady state model, this radio frequency radiation would not exist.

In 1957 the former Soviet Union launched the first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1. It contained a radio transmitter which could be picked up by anyone who had the right gear. Though in low orbit, it was realised that it was just a matter of more powerful rockets to put a radio repeater in space in a geosynchronous orbit. This follows an idea put forward in the 1940s by science fiction writer and communications expert Arthur C. Clarke. So communications companies around the world began to prepare for this.

The Bell Telephone Co. had a large research facility and built a big antenna in to be used in radio experiments for the new era of satellite communications. They hired two radio physicists, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson to do the experiments. These two found a noise in their equipment and strenuous efforts including chasing pigeons and cooling the receiver with liquid helium failed to remove it. It persisted day and night wherever the antenna was pointed. The spectrum of the noise peaked at about 4,080 megahertz. Almost by chance, someone told Penzias about the calculations made by others and they realised they were detecting the radiation predicted for the primeval atom hypothesis. From then on, with two legs of evidence, the big bang became a real theory. Penzias and Wilson got Nobel Prizes for that.

This accidental discovery pretty much confirmed Lemaitre's ideas and disposed of Hoyle's steady state hypothesis.

More later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.