The Big Bang

Styx87 · Oct 25, 2012

Now this has really got me thinking. It wasn't so much a "Bang" as it was a rapid inflation of what the universe already was. A hyper dense, uber hot, super tiny mass composed almost entirely of energy as even the most basic of sub-atomic matter would have been broken down into even more basic forms due to the high concentration of energy, down to the most basic until it can't be broken down anymore.

Now as it expanded and things began to cool and form more complex forms of matter (like protons) it's interesting to note that everything would have still been extremely hot and therefor as protons were created would have been easily excited allowing this expansion to feasibly visible throughout the entirety of the inflation process until things expanded and cooled to such a point that the protons lost the ability to be excited and visible until stars came along.

Or, as everything was still relatively close together is it possible that MC's could have formed and began producing stars before all of the protons lost their energy and excitement?

I'm still wrapping my mind around the concept that the entire universe was all super tiny at one time. My brain wants instead to imagine this mass as more a composition of all the matter the universe contains therein and the universe is just the container for both the "Big" and the matter it contained and that the universe always was.

But even trying to imagine that is causing a conceptual disconnect that's making it tough to conceive... it's all very boggling @_@ !

Wiccan_Child · Oct 26, 2012

Styx87 said:
Now this has really got me thinking. It wasn't so much a "Bang" as it was a rapid inflation of what the universe already was. A hyper dense, uber hot, super tiny mass composed almost entirely of energy as even the most basic of sub-atomic matter would have been broken down into even more basic forms due to the high concentration of energy, down to the most basic until it can't be broken down anymore.

Now as it expanded and things began to cool and form more complex forms of matter (like protons) it's interesting to note that everything would have still been extremely hot and therefor as protons were created would have been easily excited allowing this expansion to feasibly visible throughout the entirety of the inflation process until things expanded and cooled to such a point that the protons lost the ability to be excited and visible until stars came along.

Or, as everything was still relatively close together is it possible that MC's could have formed and began producing stars before all of the protons lost their energy and excitement?

The 'cosmic dark age' is the term for when things were hot enough to give off light, but dense enough to occlude that light. It's like stone giving off light - yes, it's shining, but the rock isn't transparent in any way, so the light doesn't actually travel anywhere. As the universe expanded and cooled, the light was still given off (something we see today as the CMBR, a paltry 2.3 K), but it wasn't until stars, supernovae, and, counter-intuitively, black holes, that the universe was 'lit up'.

Styx87 said:
I'm still wrapping my mind around the concept that the entire universe was all super tiny at one time. My brain wants instead to imagine this mass as more a composition of all the matter the universe contains therein and the universe is just the container for both the "Big" and the matter it contained and that the universe always was.

But even trying to imagine that is causing a conceptual disconnect that's making it tough to conceive... it's all very boggling @_@ !

Our brain evolved to find fruit in trees, and the height of its cognition is to scream at monkeys so they too know where to find fruit in trees. Comprehending high-energy particle physics at the crucible of creation is somewhat outside its remit

Still, it's interesting that we can do it, even marginally.

Loudmouth · Oct 26, 2012

Styx87 said:
Now this has really got me thinking. It wasn't so much a "Bang" as it was a rapid inflation of what the universe already was.

Right. The analogy that is often used is a balloon. For this analogy to work you have to take out one dimension so that our 3D universe is modelled by the 2D surface of the balloon. If you pretend that our universe is the surface of an inflating balloon you will understand how inflation works and why everything is moving away from everything else.

Did the Universe start from a Singularity? – Starts With A Bang

But even trying to imagine that is causing a conceptual disconnect that's making it tough to conceive... it's all very boggling @_@ !

Analogies like the one above will help.

Naraoia · Oct 26, 2012

AECellini said:
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?"

And unifying all the forces might just answer the other question

Styx87 said:
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.

The number of dimensions is simply the number of coordinates you need to unambiguously describe where things are. On a sheet of paper or a computer screen, two are enough: you say how far a point is from the left side and the bottom, and you're done. In 4D spacetime, like the spacetime of relativity, you need four coordinates (three for where and one for when). And so on. Extra dimensions in physics aren't like different planes of existence. There's nothing mystical about them except for the fact that (so far as I know) there's at this point zero empirical evidence for their existence

(They are also not the same idea as extra universes)

Styx87 · Oct 26, 2012

So again, that implies that the universe is not infinite! That also implies that there could potentially be more than one... like you said... nit different planes, like the same concept as a galaxy only the next step up and as it applies to a universe. That about right?

Loudmouth · Oct 26, 2012

Styx87 said:
So again, that implies that the universe is not infinite!

It depends on how you look at it. Using the surface of a sphere to model our universe once more, let's pretend that the Earth loses it's oceans and mountains so you can walk anywhere on the surface of the Earth. How long would it take before you walked off the edge of the Earth? It wouldn't happen, correct? In this respect, the Earth is infinite. You never come to the end of it. However, the Earth is still made of a finite amount of space and matter.

If my understanding of modern physics is correct, our universe may be the same. It may be a curved 3D space where you can travel in a straight line for an infinite amount of time but still have a finite amount of space and matter.

SkyWriting · Oct 27, 2012

Styx87 said:
Now this has really got me thinking. It wasn't so much a "Bang" as it was a rapid inflation of what the universe already was. A hyper dense, uber hot, super tiny mass composed almost entirely of energy as even the most basic of sub-atomic matter would have been broken down into even more basic forms due to the high concentration of energy, down to the most basic until it can't be broken down anymore.

Now as it expanded and things began to cool and form more complex forms of matter (like protons) it's interesting to note that everything would have still been extremely hot and therefor as protons were created would have been easily excited allowing this expansion to feasibly visible throughout the entirety of the inflation process until things expanded and cooled to such a point that the protons lost the ability to be excited and visible until stars came along.

Or, as everything was still relatively close together is it possible that MC's could have formed and began producing stars before all of the protons lost their energy and excitement?

I'm still wrapping my mind around the concept that the entire universe was all super tiny at one time. My brain wants instead to imagine this mass as more a composition of all the matter the universe contains therein and the universe is just the container for both the "Big" and the matter it contained and that the universe always was.

But even trying to imagine that is causing a conceptual disconnect that's making it tough to conceive... it's all very boggling @_@ !

Yes that's all the theory. You need to take into consideration the track record science has for correctly recreating past events. For your chosen topic, no lives are at stake when making up stories about the big bang.

Louisiana death row inmate 300th prisoner freed by DNA evidence - Los Angeles Times

SkyWriting · Oct 27, 2012

Styx87 said:
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 .

String theory covers 5 or 12 dimensions, I forget. Theorists have determined that the extra dimensions help explain things.
Looking for extra dimensions

SkyWriting · Oct 27, 2012

Styx87 said:
So again, that implies that the universe is not infinite! That also implies that there could potentially be more than one... like you said... nit different planes, like the same concept as a galaxy only the next step up and as it applies to a universe. That about right?

It is somewhat infinite.

Wiccan_Child · Oct 27, 2012

SkyWriting said:
Yes that's all the theory. You need to take into consideration the track record science has for correctly recreating past events. For your chosen topic, no lives are at stake when making up stories about the big bang.

Louisiana death row inmate 300th prisoner freed by DNA evidence - Los Angeles Times

Woah! This thread derailed so fast I think I got whiplash!

Naraoia · Oct 28, 2012

SkyWriting said:
String theory covers 5 or 12 dimensions, I forget. Theorists have determined that the extra dimensions help explain things.
Looking for extra dimensions

String theories propose 10 dimensions, which is mentioned in your link

AECellini · Oct 28, 2012

if i recall from Through the Wormhole (not the most credible source, I know), m theory proposes 11 spatial dimensions and 1 time , but 12 dimensions can be stable with two time dimensions without collapsing back down to 11 mathematically.

SkyWriting · Oct 28, 2012

Naraoia said:
String theories propose 10 dimensions, which is mentioned in your link

10, 11 and sometimes 12 are all correct answers.

Naraoia · Oct 29, 2012

AECellini said:
if i recall from Through the Wormhole (not the most credible source, I know), m theory proposes 11 spatial dimensions and 1 time , but 12 dimensions can be stable with two time dimensions without collapsing back down to 11 mathematically.

Ah, yes. Through the Wormhole wasn't terribly memorable for me, it seems

The Big Bang

Everyone pays the Ferryman.

Contributor

Contributor

Apprentice Biologist

Everyone pays the Ferryman.

Contributor

The Librarian

The Librarian

The Librarian

Contributor

Apprentice Biologist

Newbie

The Librarian

Apprentice Biologist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency