What existed shortly after the Big Bang?

[dysert]

This is a serious question. Assuming there was a singularity and that some point in time that singularity exploded/expanded in a *very* fast amount of time, what all existed after that explosion/expansion when things settled down? I was thinking it was just rocks and gas, but maybe I'm wrong and/or there were other things that formed as well? Thanks.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Depends what you mean by settled down. As the universe expanded, its average temperature falls, and it went through several different phase transitions when it was finally cool enough for certain things to exist. Short answer - it was probably all gas when things settled down. Wiki has a nice article on it. I'll quote from the summary:

In the first phase, the very earliest universe was so hot, or energetic, that initially no matter particles existed or could exist perhaps only fleetingly. ... Gradually the immense energies cooled – still to a temperature inconceivably hot compared to any we see around us now, but sufficiently to allow forces to gradually undergo symmetry breaking, a kind of repeated condensation from one status quo to another, leading finally to the separation of the strong force from the electroweak force and the first particles.

In the second phase, the resulting quark–gluon plasma universe then cooled further, the current fundamental forces we know take their present forms through further symmetry breaking ... and the full range of complex and composite particles we see around us today became possible, leading to a gravitationally dominated universe, the first neutral atoms (~ 80% hydrogen), and the cosmic microwave background radiation we can detect today. Modern high energy particle physics theories are satisfactory at these energy levels, and so physicists believe they have a good understanding of this and subsequent development of the fundamental universe around us. Because of these changes, space had also become largely transparent to light and other electromagnetic energy, rather than "foggy", by the end of this phase.

The third phase started after a short dark age with a universe whose fundamental particles and forces were as we know them, and witnessed the emergence of large scale stable structures, such as the earliest stars, quasars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies and superclusters, and the development of these to create the kind of universe we see today.

 

[dysert]

Depends what you mean by settled down. As the universe expanded, its average temperature falls, and it went through several different phase transitions when it was finally cool enough for certain things to exist. Short answer - it was probably all gas when things settled down. Wiki has a nice article on it. I'll quote from the summary:

In the first phase, the very earliest universe was so hot, or energetic, that initially no matter particles existed or could exist perhaps only fleetingly. ... Gradually the immense energies cooled – still to a temperature inconceivably hot compared to any we see around us now, but sufficiently to allow forces to gradually undergo symmetry breaking, a kind of repeated condensation from one status quo to another, leading finally to the separation of the strong force from the electroweak force and the first particles.

In the second phase, the resulting quark–gluon plasma universe then cooled further, the current fundamental forces we know take their present forms through further symmetry breaking ... and the full range of complex and composite particles we see around us today became possible, leading to a gravitationally dominated universe, the first neutral atoms (~ 80% hydrogen), and the cosmic microwave background radiation we can detect today. Modern high energy particle physics theories are satisfactory at these energy levels, and so physicists believe they have a good understanding of this and subsequent development of the fundamental universe around us. Because of these changes, space had also become largely transparent to light and other electromagnetic energy, rather than "foggy", by the end of this phase.

The third phase started after a short dark age with a universe whose fundamental particles and forces were as we know them, and witnessed the emergence of large scale stable structures, such as the earliest stars, quasars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies and superclusters, and the development of these to create the kind of universe we see today.

Thank you. I had read the Wiki article before posting here, but the reason I posted was because I didn't really follow the Wiki article. Hence, I'm having trouble following the excerpt you posted.

I realize a lot depends on what I mean by "settled down". Without being precise, I mean that the temperatures have become greatly reduced, and the stuff is in the process of shooting out from each other. Maybe even clusters are starting to form.

What I'm after, but I've been reluctant to say it, is if there were any "elements" produced from the BB, and if so, were they anything other than the light elements of Hydrogen and Helium? (Did the BB result also in the formation of Oxygen, Nitrogen, and Carbon, for example, or did these come much later as the lighter elements started interacting with each other?)

Thanks.

 

[Oafman]

What I'm after, but I've been reluctant to say it, is if there were any "elements" produced from the BB, and if so, were they anything other than the light elements of Hydrogen and Helium?

Not really, it was pretty much all hydrogen and helium, though apparently trace amounts of beryllium and lithium were also created

Big Bang nucleosynthesis

 

[SkyWriting]

This is a serious question. Assuming there was a singularity and that some point in time that singularity exploded/expanded in a *very* fast amount of time, what all existed after that explosion/expansion when things settled down? I was thinking it was just rocks and gas, but maybe I'm wrong and/or there were other things that formed as well? Thanks.

Looking at all the evidence:

"...one cannot reliably surmise past events from physical evidence
unless there is only one plausible explanation
for that evidence."

 

[Skaloop]

Looking at all the evidence:

"...one cannot reliably surmise past events from physical evidence
unless there is only one plausible explanation
for that evidence."

OK, what is another plausible explanation?

 

[lesliedellow]

Depending upon how far into the process you start, sub atomic particles emerged from the big bang. They had far too much kinetic energy for atoms to form, but as the universe began to cool, electrons began to become attached to protons, the first hydrogen and helium atoms formed, and you had clouds of gas floating around. Gradually gravity drew those clouds together, making larger and larger balls of gas, until the pressure at the centre of those balls pushed the temperature high enough for nuclear fusion to begin. That was the birth of the first stars. Also, the fusion process going on at the centre of those stars was beginning to manufacture the heavier elements.

 

[Strathos]

It's also possible that there were black holes scattered about that may still exist today.

 

[SkyWriting]

OK, what is another plausible explanation?

"One alternative theory is the Steady State universe. An early rival to the Big Bang theory, Steady State posits continuous creation of matter throughout the universe to explain its apparent expansion. This type of universe would be infinite, with no beginning or end.

Another alternative is the Eternal Inflation theory. After the Big Bang, the universe expanded rapidly during a brief period called inflation. The Eternal Inflation theory posits that inflation never stopped, and has been going on for an infinite length of time. Somewhere, even now, new universes are coming into existence in a vast complex called the multiverse. Those many universes could have different physical laws.

The Oscillating model of the universe involved an endless series of Big Bangs, followed by Big Crunches that restarted the cycle, endlessly. The modern cyclic model involves colliding "branes" (a "membrane" within a higher-dimensional volume called the "bulk").

Implications found in quantum gravity and string theory tantalizingly suggest a universe that is in reality nothing like how it appears to human observers. It may actually be a flat hologram projected onto the surface of a sphere, for example."

 

[Skaloop]

"One alternative theory is the Steady State universe. An early rival to the Big Bang theory, Steady State posits continuous creation of matter throughout the universe to explain its apparent expansion. This type of universe would be infinite, with no beginning or end.

Another alternative is the Eternal Inflation theory. After the Big Bang, the universe expanded rapidly during a brief period called inflation. The Eternal Inflation theory posits that inflation never stopped, and has been going on for an infinite length of time. Somewhere, even now, new universes are coming into existence in a vast complex called the multiverse. Those many universes could have different physical laws.

The Oscillating model of the universe involved an endless series of Big Bangs, followed by Big Crunches that restarted the cycle, endlessly. The modern cyclic model involves colliding "branes" (a "membrane" within a higher-dimensional volume called the "bulk").

Implications found in quantum gravity and string theory tantalizingly suggest a universe that is in reality nothing like how it appears to human observers. It may actually be a flat hologram projected onto the surface of a sphere, for example."

Thanks.

Numbers two and three include a Big Bang, so aren't exactly alternatives to Big Bang. They are alternatives to what happened after the Big Bang. Numbers one and four don't mention any Big Bang, but also don't rule it out.

 

[AV1611VET]

Assuming there was a singularity and that some point in time that singularity exploded/expanded in a *very* fast amount of time, what all existed after that explosion/expansion when things settled down?

Phyllis Diller?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Looking at all the evidence:

"...one cannot reliably surmise past events from physical evidence
unless there is only one plausible explanation
for that evidence."

Only if one relies exclusively on deductive reasoning, and not inductive reasoning. If I can be 99.99% sure of a past event thanks to looking at the evidence, why jump on the .01% that encompasses every alternative?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I am not trying to be funny but 'what difference does it make'?

Whatever answers you get will only be conjecture anyway because no one really knows. how can they know?

We know because there is evidence. And we know enough about physics at high energies to know what the universe must have been like at that time.

 

[florida2]

I am not trying to be funny but 'what difference does it make'?

Whatever answers you get will only be conjecture anyway because no one really knows. how can they know?

Firstly, learning for the sake of learning is always a reason in itself.

Secondly, you never know where research is going to lead. Research into atomic structure and quantum mechanics has lead to the transistor (which makes computers possible),CDs, lasers and more - all of which have gone in many different directions of research themselves. Look at the advancements in medicine thanks to computers and laser surgery. The modern world economy is dependent on computers and the internet.

The other great example is the space program and continuing research in space.

If you were to ask the physicists in the 1920s during the birth of modern quantum mechanics what their research and equations were useful for, they wouldn't be able to answer you.

 

[dysert]

Depending upon how far into the process you start, sub atomic particles emerged from the big bang. They had far too much kinetic energy for atoms to form, but as the universe began to cool, electrons began to become attached to protons, the first hydrogen and helium atoms formed, and you had clouds of gas floating around. Gradually gravity drew those clouds together, making larger and larger balls of gas, until the pressure at the centre of those balls pushed the temperature high enough for nuclear fusion to begin. That was the birth of the first stars. Also, the fusion process going on at the centre of those stars was beginning to manufacture the heavier elements.

Was it these heavier elements that then produced organic material?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Was it these heavier elements that then produced organic material?

Yes, in particular carbon was not produced directly by the Big Bang. The carbon that exists now was largely created through nuclear processes in stars. And carbon forms the basis of organic chemistry.

 

[Loudmouth]

Was it these heavier elements that then produced organic material?

The breakdown of elements and their origins:

Hydrogen and helium (plus a little lithium and beryllium): The condensation of energy from the Big Bang

Elements between helium and iron on the periodic chart: Nuclear fusion in stars

Elements between iron and uranium: Supernovae

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is a serious question. Assuming there was a singularity and that some point in time that singularity exploded/expanded in a *very* fast amount of time, what all existed after that explosion/expansion when things settled down? I was thinking it was just rocks and gas, but maybe I'm wrong and/or there were other things that formed as well? Thanks.

Plasma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

"After inflation stopped, the universe consisted of a quark–gluon plasma, as well as all other elementary particles."

We won't get into the fact that according to them inflation never actually stopped but is still increasing.

And 13+ billion years later 99% is still plasma. But at least they are actually finally starting to study it.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/rbsp/news/electric-atmosphere.html

"Beyond Earth's protective atmosphere and extending all the way through interplanetary space, electrified particles dominate the scene. Indeed, 99% of the universe is made of this electrified gas, known as plasma."

So tell me - do you actually believe they can determine the dynamics of the universe by applying existing theory for the behavior and charge of clumps of matter to single particles?

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2008/10apr_moondustinthewind/

""We've had some surprising results," says Abbas "We're finding that individual dust grains do not act the same as larger amounts of moon dust put together. Existing theories based on calculations of the charge of a large amount of moondust don't apply to the moondust at the single particle level."

We will ignore the fact that Plasma Physicists have been trying to tell this to them for 200+ years, but they have finally begun to figure it out on their own.

So tell me - do you really believe that because they keep attempting to sledgehammer existing theory for the behavior and charge of clumps of matter to single particles (plasma) and then have to add 96% ad-hoc assumptions because they ignored how single particles behaved is science???? Despite the rather small fact that we will ignore as well I guess - that not one single plasma physicist in one single plasma laboratory uses any theory but particle physics and electromagnetic theory to describe the behavior and charge of those single particles????

If you are sick - do you go to a doctor or a geologist? So if you really wanted to understand how a universe composed of 99% plasma behaved, why would you not go to a plasma physicist that actually understands how plasma behaves??? Why would you accept ad-hoc explanations for ignoring how single particles behave because they chose to treat it like clumps of matter - despite the science forbidding this and plasma physicists openly stating they are practicing pseudo-science?

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1970/alfven-lecture.pdf

"However, these theories had initially very little contact with experimental plasma physics, and all the awkward and complicated phenomena which had been treated in the study of discharges in gases were simply neglected. The result of this was what has been called the thermonuclear crisis some 10 years ago. It taught us that plasma physics is a very difficult field, which can only be developed by a close cooperation between theory and experiments. As H.S.W. Massey once said (in a somewhat different context): « The human brain alone is not able to work out the details and understanding of the inner workings of natural processes. Without laboratory experiment there would be no physical science today. »
The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come."
​

But it is right on the doorstep as we speak.

I predict that nothing but excuses and ad-hoc assumptions will be presented to counter the scientific data from those that believe in Fairie Dust. Not saying you are one of them - apparently you are simply seeking the truth.

To question "is" science. To refuse to update one's belief's when the data goes against their beliefs is religion. One simply can not treat those single particles like one treats clumps of matter.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation