The Big Bang

[Styx87]

Okay, I would like to discuss the Big Bang.

To start, why do we think there was a big bang? The theory is based on cosmological observational evidence from the Hubble Space Telescope. Observations of various cosmological collections/bodies etc. including but not limited to solar systems outside of our own have shown us that the solar systems and other cosmological bodies are getting farther away from us. This can only mean that at one point or another they were all closer together.

Thus a theory was proposed that says if you break down everything in existence to the point where it can't be broken down anymore and smash it all together into a singularity that made up all matter and energy in existence then you would get the pre-big bang singularity. For whatever reason it expanded infinitely... *skips some technical stuff you probably don't care about* "blah blah blah so on and so forth"

Anyway, those basic constructs once cooled (as they would have been extremely hot) would have combined into Helium, Hydrogen and Lithium and combined into stars which would have created either in their fusion or subsequent demise all other elements including Oxygen.

That last bit is less speculative and more fact... but here's where I have issue...

If a singularity did exist where did it come from?

When it did come into existence the pressure between the singularity and reality would have been different so it wouldn't have been able to exist in this state for any extended period of time as the outward pull on it would have caused it to expand infinitely... that's what I think initially caused the bang part of the big bang... but... and here's why I don't think space is infinite... if it was and following the laws of inertia the matter produced wouldn't have ever stopped, but if the universe isn't infinite then it's possible pressure could regulate (think of it like filling a fish bowl full of water... the water spreads out until it hits the edges of the bowl). From there we follow the creation of protons and all other baryons, subsequently into the aforementioned elements and then through static electrical build up between particles molecular clouds, stars and so on.

So what of the origin of the Singularity? Could there have been more than one? I don't know, but does anyone have anything to add or any other hypotheses pertaining to this?

 

[AECellini]

the origin of the singularity is obviously not dealt with in the big bang theory because it is a cosmological model. in cosmology, you deal with the universe as it already exists. cosmogony on the other hand deals with the origins of the universe. there currently aren't any theories (at least that I know of) that explain the origin of the singularity, and any foray into its origins is purely speculation without defined mechanisms. there are still things with the universe as it exists to resolve (unification of gravity with other forces for example) that i think are more important at the moment than answering the question "why are we here?"

 

[Styx87]

There is one but I didn't mention it since I don't really give Quantum theory a whole lot of credit as a science.

They postulate that it originated from a different dimension. I don't even want to go into the implications of that! lol

 

[AECellini]

There is one but I didn't mention it since I don't really give Quantum theory a whole lot of credit as a science.

They postulate that it originated from a different dimension. I don't even want to go into the implications of that! lol

you should give quantum theory credit, it's very important to the understanding of the working of the universe. take the standard model for example. with it, to put it simply, identifies how subatomic particles interact with the weak, strong, and electromagnetic forces.

and i think that "theory" you mentioned stems from your own personal misunderstanding of another theory or hypothesis. possibly a variation of string theory. just a thought.

 

[AECellini]

if you're interested in some cool things regarding quantum mechanical systems, i'd look into the work of these guys The Nobel Prize in Physics 2012

they won the nobel prize this year in physics. they both did work on observing quantum mechanical systems before and after decoherence into a classical system. one with ions, the other with photons.

 

[ADTClone]

There is one but I didn't mention it since I don't really give Quantum theory a whole lot of credit as a science.

They postulate that it originated from a different dimension. I don't even want to go into the implications of that! lol

Quantum mechanics is one of the reasons you have a computer. It is fundamental in many other areas of our physical reality. Where you may have problems giving it credit is the fact that it simply describes what we see.

We observe at the most fundamental level that sub atomic particles exhibit probabilistic and other odd types of behaviour. By describing this weird phenomenon with quantum mechanics, we can make predictions and describe what we observe, which is very useful.

Science is focused on explaining the natural world, and quantum mechanics allows us to do that.

 

[Giberoo]

...So what of the origin of the Singularity? Could there have been more than one? I don't know, but does anyone have anything to add or any other hypotheses pertaining to this?

Simply put, we don't know.

Our knowledge is limited to knowledge about the universe. We know nothing at all about existence outside of the universe - or even whether such a concept makes any sense.

What we do know is that when it comes to singularities, all our theories about physics simply stop making sense.

If you wish to know more about them, I believe reading up on black holes would be relevant, as there are supposed to be singularities at the centre of them, unless I am mistaken.

Also of interest would be 'virtual particles' or 'quantum particles' which pop into and out of existence, literally uncaused. These are not hypothetical - we have direct evidence that they exist. I don't pretend to understand them, but they may provide vital clues in explaining how singularities could pop into existence too.

However, I would just like to point out that saying 'we don't know' is a perfectly valid position in science, and is absolutely not a justification for any God-of-the-Gaps explanation or any other place-holder hypothesis. Taking a scientific mystery and then saying "Surely it was God - how else did it happen? Scientists can't explain it!" is as valid as saying "Surely it was faeries - how else did it happen? Scientists can't explain it!" or "Surely it was magic unicorns - how else did it happen? Scientists can't explain it!"

 

[Styx87]

Perhaps I've been mislead. I heard some people raving about Quantum theory and this great movie they watched on the subject... "What the 'Bleep' do we know?". After watching it I never took it seriously again after that. The entire movie was based in assumptions of things we could never prove. The one experiment they did do was to write words in jars containing water and then observe the molecules, which for some reason had changed shape.

I think maybe that may have all been based on a completely different subject and I just misunderstood.

Edit: I like "I don't know"... "I don't know" is way better than "And then magic happened" or "Maybe it was a miracle?". lol but that's why I wanted to discuss it, see what we come up with as far as what may already exist or someone's own ideas.

 

[Giberoo]

Make absolutely no mistake, What The Bleep Do We Know? WAS a load of old guff and then some. But it isn't an accurate portrayal of Quantum Theory as it currently stands.

The one thing everyone seems to know about quantum theory is that it is very complicated. Richard Feynman famously once wrote: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

It is also truly bizarre. Some of the implications from quantum theory are rather mind-warping counter-intuitive to say the least. Sadly this makes it an absolute gold-mine for conmen and quacks wanting to peddle pseudo-scientific drivel - it is easy for them to claim their new age spiritual guff is 'backed up by quantum theory' and it takes a real expert to tell the "authentically quantum" mad-sounding stuff from the non-scientific, mad-sounding stuff.

 

[AECellini]

Perhaps I've been mislead. I heard some people raving about Quantum theory and this great movie they watched on the subject... "What the 'Bleep' do we know?". After watching it I never took it seriously again after that. The entire movie was based in assumptions of things we could never prove. The one experiment they did do was to write words in jars containing water and then observe the molecules, which for some reason had changed shape.

I think maybe that may have all been based on a completely different subject and I just misunderstood.

Edit: I like "I don't know"... "I don't know" is way better than "And then magic happened" or "Maybe it was a miracle?". lol but that's why I wanted to discuss it, see what we come up with as far as what may already exist or someone's own ideas.

what the bleep do we know is a bunch of woo. just like deepak chopra, they misuse a lot of words like superposition, decoherence, nonlocality, and they even throw the work quantum on top of spiritual things to make them sound scientific.

 

[SkyWriting]

So what of the origin of the Singularity? Could there have been more than one? I don't know, but does anyone have anything to add or any other hypotheses pertaining to this?

A good theory is that an infinite number of "big bangs" occur constantly. Otherwise there would be only one which is not easy to explain. Each occurs in a different dimension and together they cover all possibilities.

That's the cliff notes version and it explains how all things are possible with God.

 

[Styx87]

I can't easily subscribe to a belief in multiple dimensions. I haven't seen or even read anything that would indicate that this dimension isn't the only one.

But if there is scientific evidence of such, I'm willing to consider it at the very least .

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Okay, I would like to discuss the Big Bang.

To start, why do we think there was a big bang? The theory is based on cosmological observational evidence from the Hubble Space Telescope. Observations of various cosmological collections/bodies etc. including but not limited to solar systems outside of our own have shown us that the solar systems and other cosmological bodies are getting farther away from us. This can only mean that at one point or another they were all closer together.

Thus a theory was proposed that says if you break down everything in existence to the point where it can't be broken down anymore and smash it all together into a singularity that made up all matter and energy in existence then you would get the pre-big bang singularity. For whatever reason it expanded infinitely... *skips some technical stuff you probably don't care about* "blah blah blah so on and so forth"

Anyway, those basic constructs once cooled (as they would have been extremely hot) would have combined into Helium, Hydrogen and Lithium and combined into stars which would have created either in their fusion or subsequent demise all other elements including Oxygen.

That last bit is less speculative and more fact... but here's where I have issue...

If a singularity did exist where did it come from?

We don't know. What we know is that it, or something similar to it, once existed, and this has expanded for the past 13.5 billion years.

When it did come into existence the pressure between the singularity and reality would have been different so it wouldn't have been able to exist in this state for any extended period of time as the outward pull on it would have caused it to expand infinitely...

'Reality' isn't a thing that exerts pressure. The point is that there wasn't anything else to exert pressure. The singularity includes the spacetime continuum, which expanded under its own volition. It wasn't pulled apart by something external, as there was no external - there's no -1 o'clock, there's nothing north of the north pole, there's nothing 'before' time, and there's nothing 'outside' space.

that's what I think initially caused the bang part of the big bang... but... and here's why I don't think space is infinite... if it was and following the laws of inertia the matter produced wouldn't have ever stopped,

Why? Maybe only small spacetime continua create matter and energy. There's a limiting factor right there.

but if the universe isn't infinite then it's possible pressure could regulate (think of it like filling a fish bowl full of water... the water spreads out until it hits the edges of the bowl). From there we follow the creation of protons and all other baryons, subsequently into the aforementioned elements and then through static electrical build up between particles molecular clouds, stars and so on.

An interesting idea, but the energy was already there. This is evidenced by peering at things like the observational horizon - we can see the 'dark ages' where matter was too dense to allow light to travel, and then it became transparent. The formation of clusters like stars and galaxies resulted from small permutations when everything was tiny; as far as we can tell, there was no 'pouring in' of matter.

So what of the origin of the Singularity? Could there have been more than one? I don't know, but does anyone have anything to add or any other hypotheses pertaining to this?

The Big Bang theory tells us how the universe has changed over the past several billion years, and postulates that it expanded from a tiny, hot, dense state. What came before that is unknown - maybe that state resulted from the 'Crunch' of a previous universe, maybe it spontaneously popped into existence, maybe Brahaman hatched the Cosmic Egg and there it was.

 

[Inan3]

Simply put, we don't know.

Our knowledge is limited to knowledge about the universe. We know nothing at all about existence outside of the universe - or even whether such a concept makes any sense.

What we do know is that when it comes to singularities, all our theories about physics simply stop making sense.

If you wish to know more about them, I believe reading up on black holes would be relevant, as there are supposed to be singularities at the centre of them, unless I am mistaken.

Also of interest would be 'virtual particles' or 'quantum particles' which pop into and out of existence, literally uncaused. These are not hypothetical - we have direct evidence that they exist. I don't pretend to understand them, but they may provide vital clues in explaining how singularities could pop into existence too.

However, I would just like to point out that saying 'we don't know' is a perfectly valid position in science, and is absolutely not a justification for any God-of-the-Gaps explanation or any other place-holder hypothesis. Taking a scientific mystery and then saying "Surely it was God - how else did it happen? Scientists can't explain it!" is as valid as saying "Surely it was faeries - how else did it happen? Scientists can't explain it!" or "Surely it was magic unicorns - how else did it happen? Scientists can't explain it!"

Not so

 

[Styx87]

We don't know. What we know is that it, or something similar to it, once existed, and this has expanded for the past 13.5 billion years.

Got that part...

'Reality' isn't a thing that exerts pressure. The point is that there wasn't anything else to exert pressure. The singularity includes the spacetime continuum, which expanded under its own volition. It wasn't pulled apart by something external, as there was no external - there's no -1 o'clock, there's nothing north of the north pole, there's nothing 'before' time, and there's nothing 'outside' space.

Okay, "reality" was the wrong word... but since I figured "Universe" would cause a conceptual disconnect that's the one I chose instead... in any case maybe "Universe" would have been better anyway. The rest of that I already got.

Why? Maybe only small spacetime continua create matter and energy. There's a limiting factor right there.

An interesting idea, but the energy was already there. This is evidenced by peering at things like the observational horizon - we can see the 'dark ages' where matter was too dense to allow light to travel, and then it became transparent. The formation of clusters like stars and galaxies resulted from small permutations when everything was tiny; as far as we can tell, there was no 'pouring in' of matter.

So what I'm getting (in simple terms) is that initially the universe was empty... as in nothing, Right? And then the "Big" ummmm, "Banged" and now there's stuff... not stuff like today. Smaller stuff... like a quark–gluon plasma, which at some point engaged in baryogenesis and began to form quarks and leptons oh... and their counterparts in antimatter and tchit, right? Then after that we get Baryons like protons and neutrons... but not electrons yet... that has to wait.*there's some quantum physics tchit here that I don't get*

But after that we get electrons and positrons and then the temp of everything began to cool which resulted in the formation of Helium and Hydrogen and Lithium and then fast forward billions of years... through the genesis of earth, abiogenesis, evolution, civilization, and then Jeff Bridges plays in tron (which is completely irrelevant but I wanted to say "tron" again anyway).

Okay... so, help me fill in some gaps here and correct what I have wrong!

The Big Bang theory tells us how the universe has changed over the past several billion years, and postulates that it expanded from a tiny, hot, dense state. What came before that is unknown - maybe that state resulted from the 'Crunch' of a previous universe, maybe it spontaneously popped into existence, maybe Brahaman hatched the Cosmic Egg and there it was.

No magic... X(

Although I like the crunch thing. Perhaps something will cause a genocide of matter into antimatter causing everything to cool super rapidly and condense in on itself back into another "Big" patiently awaiting yet another "Bang" (which would actually violate some of the things we know about physics but hey, so does gravity so you never know, right?!)...

 

[Giberoo]

Not so

Why not?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. BB has good support, but it requireds an extraordinary mind to fully understand it. So I am left with an appeal to (qualified) authority. However that is not in my book a substantive a basis for knowledge as the authority has him or her self. So my "knowledge" of the BB is downgraded, and therefore more akin (in me) to other forms of knowledge which to you would seem weak imitations of science. In me its more like a friend telling me there's a sale on at the supermarket than it is for one who understands all the details in original form, who is more like the supermarket manager. Or like the "hammer and bell" device at the funfair where stronger people score higher up the scale. So my point is dont be too confused if non experts are more prone to skepticism as it is a more valid position for them than it is for an expert in the field.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Got that part...

Okay, "reality" was the wrong word... but since I figured "Universe" would cause a conceptual disconnect that's the one I chose instead... in any case maybe "Universe" would have been better anyway. The rest of that I already got.

So long as you grasp the idea, we don't need to quibble over semantics

So what I'm getting (in simple terms) is that initially the universe was empty... as in nothing, Right? And then the "Big" ummmm, "Banged" and now there's stuff... not stuff like today. Smaller stuff... like a quark–gluon plasma, which at some point engaged in baryogenesis and began to form quarks and leptons oh... and their counterparts in antimatter and tchit, right? Then after that we get Baryons like protons and neutrons... but not electrons yet... that has to wait.*there's some quantum physics tchit here that I don't get*

But after that we get electrons and positrons and then the temp of everything began to cool which resulted in the formation of Helium and Hydrogen and Lithium and then fast forward billions of years... through the genesis of earth, abiogenesis, evolution, civilization, and then Jeff Bridges plays in tron (which is completely irrelevant but I wanted to say "tron" again anyway).

Okay... so, help me fill in some gaps here and correct what I have wrong!

You have it largely correct, except for the very beginning. "Initially the universe was empty... as in nothing" is wrong, or rather, it's unknown. The earliest we can go is 13.5 billion years ago, when the universe was tiny, hot, and dense. Everything in the universe today was compacted into a space smaller than an atom - as spacetime itself was absurdly tiny - and from that state the universe has been expanding. Just where that tiny, hideously dense pea-like object came from, and what (if anything) came before it, is an open question.

'First' there was the 'singularity'. I say 'first' in inverted commas because that's simply the easiest we can go back (rather than any true beginning), and I say 'singularity' because it's a good, but technically inaccurate, word.

No magic... X(

No magic.

Although I like the crunch thing. Perhaps something will cause a genocide of matter into antimatter causing everything to cool super rapidly and condense in on itself back into another "Big" patiently awaiting yet another "Bang" (which would actually violate some of the things we know about physics but hey, so does gravity so you never know, right?!)...

When it comes to speculating about the very early universe, one of the things we know is that our current understanding of the laws of physics are wrong QM and GR don't give the same conclusions, so they can't both be true. QM is more accurate than GR, so may well outlast it, but it too will need to go. Thus, I don't find it massively useful to use modern physics to say an awful lot about what happened during a time when modern physics demonstrably fails.

Don't get me wrong, we have good evidence for what happened over the past 13.5 billion years. It's what happened before that, that's utterly unknown to us. And, as Stephen Hawking says, it may well not even matter (any information from before the Big Bang was lost in the hot, dense state, like how the tide wipes clean a beach).

 

[Styx87]

So long as you grasp the idea, we don't need to quibble over semantics


You have it largely correct, except for the very beginning. "Initially the universe was empty... as in nothing" is wrong, or rather, it's unknown. The earliest we can go is 13.5 billion years ago, when the universe was tiny, hot, and dense. Everything in the universe today was compacted into a space smaller than an atom - as spacetime itself was absurdly tiny - and from that state the universe has been expanding. Just where that tiny, hideously dense pea-like object came from, and what (if anything) came before it, is an open question.

'First' there was the 'singularity'. I say 'first' in inverted commas because that's simply the easiest we can go back (rather than any true beginning), and I say 'singularity' because it's a good, but technically inaccurate, word.


No magic.


When it comes to speculating about the very early universe, one of the things we know is that our current understanding of the laws of physics are wrong QM and GR don't give the same conclusions, so they can't both be true. QM is more accurate than GR, so may well outlast it, but it too will need to go. Thus, I don't find it massively useful to use modern physics to say an awful lot about what happened during a time when modern physics demonstrably fails.

Don't get me wrong, we have good evidence for what happened over the past 13.5 billion years. It's what happened before that, that's utterly unknown to us. And, as Stephen Hawking says, it may well not even matter (any information from before the Big Bang was lost in the hot, dense state, like how the tide wipes clean a beach).

Ok... so this is where I am now...

Spoiler: See

LMAO XD

 

[Loudmouth]

And then the "Big" ummmm, "Banged" and now there's stuff... not stuff like today. Smaller stuff... like a quark–gluon plasma, which at some point engaged in baryogenesis and began to form quarks and leptons oh... and their counterparts in antimatter and tchit, right? Then after that we get Baryons like protons and neutrons... but not electrons yet... that has to wait.*there's some quantum physics tchit here that I don't get*

The irony is that the Big Bang was quite small and it didn't bang. Fred Hoyle coined the term Big Bang as more of a term of derision than anything else (Hoyle was a long time opponent of the theory), but it caused enough of a chuckle amongst physicists that the name stuck.

As to the production of matter, it is simply a matter of energy density. When you have a lot of energy in small space you break stuff apart. This is the same concept that the Large Hadron Collider is using. They are actually doing the reverse of the Big Bang by increasing the energy and looking at the constituent parts of the larger particles. It's not as if quark-gluon plasmas can no longer exist. They can. It just takes a lot of energy to produce them from larger particles.

The BB, as proposed, starts with massively high concentrations of energy. As that energy spreads out during inflation then you get "cooling" which allows different types of matter to condense from the energy. If this process actually did occur, then it allows us to make an interesting prediction. At some point during this cooling the universe would have gone from an opaque plasma like state to a transparent uncharged state with wholly formed hydrogen and helium atoms. The temperature would have been nearly uniform across the universe at this point so the light moving about would have been nearly the same wavelength. Therefore, if the BB is true then we should observe that light, and it should show up as a very consistent background of radiation coming from all parts of the universe. Given the amount of time and the amount of inflation that has happened since this event the light will now be stretched to very long wavelengths.

So do we observe this light? Absolutely!!! It is called the Cosmic Microwave Background.

Cosmic microwave background radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scientists were able to predict that we would see this very background, and it was confirmed many years later. It is evidence like this that convinced scientists that the BB was an accurate theory.