The Hubble Expansion of the Universe

This is the first of the key predictions of the Big Bang theory, that everything in the Universe will expand according to Hubble's Law, or that the speed that other galaxies recede from us is proportional to their distance from us. Let's jump into the details of why the Big Bang predicts it, and how we know it to be true.

We know that a static Universe is crazy. Sorry Einstein, I know you liked it, but it's nuts. Why? Because gravity is unstable. Mass attracts more mass. Imagine setting up a perfect, evenly spaced, infinite grid of points, all with the same mass:

Well, according to the laws of gravity, this is stable. But if I move just one point, even slightly, the whole thing goes chaotic and collapses. On a much bigger grid, this winds up looking like this, due to gravity alone:

Not static. So a static Universe is unstable, which means either the Universe has to be expanding or collapsing. Well, we observe Hubble's Law, which means we see things that are farther away moving at faster velocities, so we know the Universe is expanding. How did it get to be that way? Or maybe a better question is, if things are moving away from one another now, where were they in the past? What about billions of years ago?

Take anything that you see expanding today, and you know it had to be denser and hotter in the past. Extrapolate it all the way back to the beginning, and what do you get? The Big Bang! And that's where the idea comes from. Sure, other things are consistent with an expanding Universe, but are they also consistent with the light elements and the background radiation? Come back over the next two days and I'll tell you. (Okay, the answer is no. But come back anyway.)

More like this

By 1948, our view of the Universe had changed drastically from 1909. Instead of space being run by Newton's Gravity, where our Milky Way comprised the entire Universe, we had learned that space and time are governed by Einstein's General Relativity, that our Universe contained at least many…
Recently, a discussion started in one of my comment threads about whether the Big Bang was necessarily valid or not, and whether there were any reasonable alternatives. The answer is that not only is the Big Bang the best theory to explain the start and evolution of the Universe, it's the only one…
"If we lived on a planet where nothing ever changed, there would be little to do. There would be nothing to figure out. There would be no impetus for science. And if we lived in an unpredictable world, where things changed in random or very complex ways, we would not be able to figure things out.…
There are two mistakes one can make along the road to truth... not going all the way, and not starting. -Siddhārtha Gautama, a.k.a. Buddha Last week, I started a new series on The Greatest Story Ever Told, about the origin and evolution of the Universe. In it, I asserted that inflation is the very…

Could the universe be rotating like a huge mega-galaxy? Is it possible that the expanse is so large that we are not able to view the rotation and thus it only appears to us that things are moving away from us?

The universe could be spinning. It is possible the expanse is really large.

Neither mean that the appearance of universal expansion is explained by the combination of both.