The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Non Life Sciences
  3. Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology
  4. What evidence in 1965 proved "background radiation" a remnant from the big bang?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

What evidence in 1965 proved "background radiation" a remnant from the big bang?

  • 27 Replies
  • 12215 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Karen W. (OP)

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • 31794
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 25 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
What evidence in 1965 proved "background radiation" a remnant from the big bang?
« Reply #20 on: 31/10/2007 00:00:33 »
NOT a chance but you would probably be all day and night explaining your explaining! LOL LOL!
Logged

"Life is not measured by the number of Breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away."
 



Offline syhprum

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 5064
  • Activity:
    8.5%
  • Thanked: 64 times
    • View Profile
What evidence in 1965 proved "background radiation" a remnant from the big bang?
« Reply #21 on: 31/10/2007 05:49:54 »
Sophie

"Good news for Hoyle - bad news for Bondi and Gould - the steady state proponents.
(When I was a lad, the Big Bang hadn't been considered as a serious model for the Universe)"

Hoyle was the originator of the continuous creation theory which I found very exciting when he first expounded it on the radio. 
 
 
Logged
syhprum
 

lyner

  • Guest
What evidence in 1965 proved "background radiation" a remnant from the big bang?
« Reply #22 on: 31/10/2007 15:09:09 »
Yes, I think I heard  him talk cosmology - I certainly heard Bondi when I was at Uni.i..
Oh, yes - he coined the phrase although he didn't go for the theory. (Quite a daft theory, but for the evidence!) It was  Georges Lemaître who started the big bang thing. Amazing for it to be a Catholic priest, bearing in mind all the stick Gallileo got.
I now remember his continuous creation -  much more satisfying as it puts off any ultimate questions to infinity, rather than a specific time.
« Last Edit: 31/10/2007 16:28:30 by sophiecentaur »
Logged
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12653
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
What evidence in 1965 proved "background radiation" a remnant from the big bang?
« Reply #23 on: 31/10/2007 21:33:04 »
Wasn't Lemaitre involved in the Copenhagen quantum thingy?
Logged
 

lyner

  • Guest
What evidence in 1965 proved "background radiation" a remnant from the big bang?
« Reply #24 on: 01/11/2007 14:13:05 »
afaik Lemaitre was a cosmologist and proposed the 'primeval atom' idea.
He published around 1927 - the same time as Bohr proposed the Copenhagen Doctrine, which  binds the particle and wave natures together in quantum theory.
The link between them was really, I reckon, in  the relevance of  expansion to Einstien's  fudge (cosmological constant)   and the difficulty in unifying quantum theory with relativity.
'They' (I nearly wrote 'we' but that would be presumptious) still have to sort out that one.
Lemaitre wasn't the first 'big bang' proponent, apparently. Charles Darwin's father suggested it as a possible start to the universe. There's nothin new under the sun is there?

Logged
 



Offline Dick1038

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • 56
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
What evidence in 1965 proved "background radiation" a remnant from the big bang?
« Reply #25 on: 02/11/2007 00:51:04 »
There appears to be no discussion about inflation after the BB.  That really blows the mind.  By the way how large was the estimated size change during the inflation period?
Logged
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12653
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
What evidence in 1965 proved "background radiation" a remnant from the big bang?
« Reply #26 on: 02/11/2007 08:24:21 »
Quote from: Dick1038 on 02/11/2007 00:51:04
There appears to be no discussion about inflation after the BB.  That really blows the mind.  By the way how large was the estimated size change during the inflation period?


1026. Quite a lot, eh!
Logged
 

Offline syhprum

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 5064
  • Activity:
    8.5%
  • Thanked: 64 times
    • View Profile
What evidence in 1965 proved "background radiation" a remnant from the big bang?
« Reply #27 on: 04/11/2007 07:43:09 »
Volume or linear ?.
Logged
syhprum
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

The Big Bang Theory has been discredited and the Red Shift theory is wrong?

Started by Joe L. OganBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 9
Views: 9284
Last post 08/02/2010 13:54:26
by PhysBang
What is the relationship between black holes, white holes and the big bang?

Started by MeganMBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 1
Views: 1703
Last post 19/03/2020 13:17:10
by Paul25
In the initial seconds of the Big Bang did matter travel faster than the speed of light?

Started by Brian StrappiniBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 9
Views: 6030
Last post 05/03/2009 17:35:31
by Vern
Does the expanding universe prove that dark matter existed before the big bang?

Started by thedocBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 2
Views: 1791
Last post 30/09/2016 22:58:18
by evan_au
Big Bang (or Evolutionary?) Theory versus Steady State questions...

Started by Scott MayersBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 0
Views: 1642
Last post 21/10/2016 20:11:50
by Scott Mayers
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.178 seconds with 52 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.