The Small Particle That Started The Big Bang

[Ryuk1990]

Now, assuming the big bang theory is true, how can we explain how that first tiny particle got there? If that small particle of energy did form from nothing, what are some of the scientific laws that this would go against?

[DavidSnider]

A well-known scientist once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever", said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"

These sorts of questions lead to an infinite regression.

[mikelepore]

A modern scientist might have quoted it, but the original source of "turtles all the way down" is an old Hindu story, as explained in the book by mythology scholar Joseph Campbell.

[Wallace]

Note that the Big Bang theory (the scientific one, not the popular cartoon version) does not state that the Universe began from a single particle. It does not require the Universe to have a finite age. The scientific theory explains the Universe from today up until around 13-14 Billion years ago when the Universe was very hot and dense. However we cannot extrapolate beyond a limiting density, because the laws of physics that we understand breakdown.

Therfore the BBT is compatible with the Universe being infintely old (it could have been in a very dense state for an eternity, and then for some reason began expanding), compatible with infinite cycles of expansion and contraction, or just about anything else you can think of.

The are limits to the applicability of our known laws of physics, that these limits mean that you are not characterising the BBT, you are talking about one possible extrapolation of it into unknown territory.

[Arch2008]

Ryuk1990, do you mean getting the universe from an instanton?
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_qc.html
We don’t have a physics of quantum gravity that tells us what happened at time = zero, so something may form from nothing and it wouldn’t go against any existing scientific laws.

[friend]

Now, assuming the big bang theory is true, how can we explain how that first tiny particle got there? If that small particle of energy did form from nothing, what are some of the scientific laws that this would go against?

At this small of a scale I think it must be the case that the single particle was equivalent to all of spacetime itself; the properties of spacetime at that time was equivalent to the properties of the single particle at that time. This is a hint that in general spacetime gives rise to particles. virtual particles no doubt. I suspect that there must be a way to equate particle characteristics to spacetime characteristics; one must be an alternative view of the other.

It is completely logical to have a true conclusion from a false premise, at least this is what we are told from the truth table for the logical connective of material implication, you know, the IF, THEN statements. And to start any description of something you must start with a coordinate system. So it seems we must start with the ability to describe material implication with coordinates before we can proceed to particles properties.

[Pattonias]

At this small of a scale I think it must be the case that the single particle was equivalent to all of spacetime itself; the properties of spacetime at that time was equivalent to the properties of the single particle at that time. This is a hint that in general spacetime gives rise to particles. virtual particles no doubt. I suspect that there must be a way to equate particle characteristics to spacetime characteristics; one must be an alternative view of the other.

It is completely logical to have a true conclusion from a false premise, at least this is what we are told from the truth table for the logical connective of material implication, you know, the IF, THEN statements. And to start any description of something you must start with a coordinate system. So it seems we must start with the ability to describe material implication with coordinates before we can proceed to particles properties.

Isn't that a really drawn out way of saying that we are guessing?

[Naty1]

how can we explain how that first tiny particle got there

Well nobody really knows.
At Planck scale and smaller supposedly everything is violent and energetic.."quantum foam" like a roiling malestrom....the smaller the distance/volume the more wild quantum undulations become exhuibiting increasing instantaneous bursts of Planck Energy. "Everything that is not prohibited is mandatory" suggests all sorts of things will pop from such instability...even multiverses....there are an infinite number of undulations going on all the time so expect everything imaginable to occur.

[WaveJumper]

Well nobody really knows.
At Planck scale and smaller supposedly everything is violent and energetic.."quantum foam" like a roiling malestrom....the smaller the distance/volume the more wild quantum undulations become exhuibiting increasing instantaneous bursts of Planck Energy. "Everything that is not prohibited is mandatory" suggests all sorts of things will pop from such instability...even multiverses....there are an infinite number of undulations going on all the time so expect everything imaginable to occur.



I was going to say the same thing

[friend]

Isn't that a really drawn out way of saying that we are guessing?

Yes, I just wanted to suggest some elements that would be necessary to figure out a ToE that includes how the universe began. Certainly, a coordinate system is necessary simply to distinguish one thing from another. And of course logic will be necessary in order that you have a consistent description.

[twofish-quant]

Yes we are guessing. I claim that the big bang was the result of hyperdimensional turtles mating. Prove it wasn't. If you can't, then that explanation is just as good as any other explanation.

Now if you can come up with an explanation for the big bang that you can *disprove* via observations then we are getting somewhere. Once you get to the inflationary era, then we are in the realm of statements that we can make that we can show to be wrong. But you reach a point at which "hyperdimensional turtles mating" is just as good an explanation as any other.

[twofish-quant]

Also there is no particular reason to think that what happens pre-big bang has to be logically consistent or follow the rules of causality. In fact there is a cool paper by Meg Tegmark that argues that you can only have causality under certain numbers of dimension, and it's easy to come up with mathematical structures which are not logically consistent.

[twofish-quant]

This is a great quote from "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

Criswell: My friend, you have seen this incident based on sworn testimony. Can you prove that it didn't happen?

[DaveC426913]

This is a great quote from "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

Criswell: My friend, you have seen this incident based on sworn testimony. Can you prove that it didn't happen?Of course, the same thing can be said about some accounts of ghosts and unicorns... :wink:

[Pattonias]

Could you say that, beyond the fact that the visible universe appears to be expanding from a central point, we still have no idea what actually took place at the center point. The "hyper-dimensional turtle" hypothesis while good at making a point does kind of detract from the other theory. If you propose a hypothesis and then compair it to a HDT (hyper-dimensional turtle) you run the risk of the two being seen in the same light.

[Dmitry67]

There is no 'central point'
All points are equal

Another important note: mass and energy are not conserved in the Cosmology

[Pattonias]

There has to be a central point if there is supposed to be a single point or origin for big bang to occur from.

My reference is to the "big bang origin" being 0,0,0.

I'm not trying to argue that there is a preset grid for the universe.

[S.Vasojevic]

No there is not. Just live with it, no mater how counter-intuitive it is. Any way it is considered as temporal singularity, not spatial. And if there was central point cosmological principle would be doomed.

[Dmitry67]

Also, if Universe is infinite now, it was infinite from the very beginning

[DaveC426913]

There has to be a central point if there is supposed to be a single point or origin for big bang to occur from.

My reference is to the "big bang origin" being 0,0,0.

Back to the ol' balloon analogy.

The universe is a three-dimensional volumetric thing, but for clarity, let's drop a dimension and consider a universe that is only two-dimensional. It is in the shape of a deflated latex balloon, and starts at zero size.

The balloon now inflates to two feet in diameter. Where on the surface of the balloon is the origin: 0,0? There is no unique point on the surface. All points on the surface of the balloon started off at coordinate 0,0.

Furthermore, an observer anywhere on the surface of the balloon will see himself as stationary while all other points on the balloon move away from him, making it appear (rightly so) that he is at the centre of the universe.

[Pattonias]

Back to the ol' balloon analogy.

The universe is a three-dimensional volumetric thing, but for clarity, let's drop a dimension and consider a universe that is only two-dimensional. It is in the shape of a deflated latex balloon, and starts at zero size.

The balloon now inflates to two feet in diameter. Where on the surface of the balloon is the irigin: 0,0? There is no unique point on the surface. All points on the surface of the balloon started off at coordinate 0,0.

I think we are arguing about two different things. I guess my grid would exist withen "space". Defining space as the place where the Universe exists (or doesn't). Would this be a better way to word my statement?

I wasn't really trying to make an argument based on the grid coor. as defined by the universe, but one defined on space.

[DaveC426913]

I wasn't really trying to make an argument based on the grid coor. as defined by the universe, but one defined on space.
And the difference is?

[Pattonias]

And the difference is?

That is a very good question?

What difference does it make. I am making an argument that the Universe is expanding from a common point. You are saying that all points are equal. This is a unrelated argument. If you are saying that within the Universe points don't matter, it doesn't change the fact that there appears to be a common origin. It is more of a philosophical argument that all of the points in the universe are equal. You can establish a grid from any point that you choose within space.

On the other hand, the Universe is expanding... What is it expanding in?

Why can there be no explanation for what the universe exists in, I had always thought this was considered to be space. Space exists in the same realm as time. They are both simply a measure of something, or nothing in this matter.

Am I starting to drift into another realm of science here?

[Pattonias]

If you think that my separate definition of space and the universe are flawed can you please give me a word that describes a grid which contains the universe in which the axis extends infinitely beyond the limits of the observable and theoretical universe?

[S.Vasojevic]

I think we are arguing about two different things. I guess my grid would exist withen "space". Defining space as the place where the Universe exists (or doesn't).

There is no "outside" of the universe, just inside. Balloon analogy is nice, but it has its flaws. One being that it implies some kind of boundary.

[Pattonias]

There is no "outside" of the universe, just inside. Balloon analogy is nice, but it has its flaws. One being that it implies some kind of boundary.

Having that to work with, how about this?

The matter within the universe is expanding and had a starting point. In order make questions easier to word, can it be said that all the matter in the Universe originated in a single set (of) event(s).

It seems like a pointless argument to speculate whether or not the Universe existed before this event. You pretty much have to assume it existed whether it had matter/energy in it or not.

[Dmitry67]

Deja vu :)
There was no starting point.

[S.Vasojevic]

Having that to work with, how about this?
The matter within the universe is expanding and had a starting point. In order make questions easier to word, can it be said that all the matter in the Universe originated in a single set (of) event(s).


In the observable universe, yes.

[DaveC426913]

That is a very good question?

What difference does it make. I am making an argument that the Universe is expanding from a common point. You are saying that all points are equal. This is a unrelated argument. If you are saying that within the Universe points don't matter, it doesn't change the fact that there appears to be a common origin. It is more of a philosophical argument that all of the points in the universe are equal. You can establish a grid from any point that you choose within space.



But you then go on to try to create a grid within the universe and wonder where you would place the origin. That's where you run into trouble.

If you tried to place a grid on the balloon, you could not assign the grid any other way than completely arbitrarily.

[DaveC426913]

Having that to work with, how about this?

The matter within the universe is expanding and had a starting point. In order make questions easier to word, can it be said that all the matter in the Universe originated in a single set (of) event(s).

It seems like a pointless argument to speculate whether or not the Universe existed before this event. You pretty much have to assume it existed whether it had matter/energy in it or not.

No. There is no space outside the universe.

One of the models of the universe has it wrapping around, so that heading off in one direction will have you eventually arrive back at your starting point. (Again, the balloon analogy works this way.) This is a universe that has a measurable diameter, yet has no boundary and nothing outside it.

[S.Vasojevic]

One of the models of the universe has it wrapping around, so that heading off in one direction will have you eventually arrive back at your starting point. (Again, the balloon analogy works this way.) This is a universe that has a measurable diameter, yet has no boundary and nothing outside it.

But where we stand now, it is also the model which is less likely to be true. It appears to be flat, thus infinite.

[Pattonias]

But isn't this pure theory, can you give me reference, because their must be something that I need to read - instead of picking up this idea one piece at a time?

What would indicate that the edge of the universe loops around to the other side, and what difference would it make if it did?

[S.Vasojevic]

One model has finite content, other infinite.

[Pattonias]

One note, the auto-link --> edge of the universe does not really help to make this clear so If you could point me to a particular reference, that would be helpful.

[S.Vasojevic]

try this:http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm

[DaveC426913]

But isn't this pure theory, can you give me reference, because their must be something that I need to read - instead of picking up this idea one piece at a time?

What would indicate that the edge of the universe loops around to the other side, and what difference would it make if it did?
The difference it makes is that it shows that there is no "place outside of the universe into which the universe is growing".

Sorry, I don't have any references available right now.

[S.Vasojevic]

The difference it makes is that it shows that there is no "place outside of the universe into which the universe is growing".


You have to put that bubble somewhere. I, on the other hand, think that flat universe solves that issue very nicely.

[Pattonias]

Does our Universe give some sign that there are no other universes that exist (somewhere else) that could have originated by a big bang or other matter generating event?

[S.Vasojevic]

We can only speculate about other universes. No physical evidence exists.

[Pattonias]

Thank you S. Vasojevic for the reference, it is making this a little easier to understand.

Are there particles or masses in the Universe that are more or less sensitive to gravity than others?

For instance, I have heard it said that light has no mass, yet it can be trapped by a black hole. Is it possible that it is only sensitive to extreme gravity?
For instance, the slight bend of a beam of light as it passes near a star. Is it possible that light is actually unaffected by gravity below a certain strength or that gravity below a certain strength has no effect on certain particles at all?

Does the intensity of a gravity actually affect the speed at which it reaches out to an object?

[Dmitry67]

no, light is affected by very low gravity too, for example, by Sun
Another examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

[S.Vasojevic]

Are there particles or masses in the Universe that are more or less sensitive to gravity than others?


No. Gravity affects everything.

For instance, I have heard it said that light has no mass, yet it can be trapped by a black hole. Is it possible that it is only sensitive to extreme gravity?
For instance, the slight bend of a beam of light as it passes near a star. Is it possible that light is actually unaffected by gravity below a certain strength or that gravity below a certain strength has no effect on certain particles at all?

Light is affected by gravity. There is no treshold of sensitivity. Smaller the potentials -smaller the result.

Does the intensity of a gravity actually affect the speed at which it reaches out to an object?

Not at all. Gravity propagates at C, same speed as light do.

[DaveC426913]

Not at all. Gravity propagates at C, same speed as light do.Well....

Gravity does not travel at all. Gravity is a field, which means it is always everywhere, all the time. Changes in gravity do, however, propogate at the speed of light.

[Pattonias]

Well....

Gravity does not travel at all. Gravity is a field, which means it is always everywhere, all the time. Changes in gravity do, however, propogate at the speed of light.

That makes sense, I have seen gravity described as a fabric and the fluctuations in gravity around a black hole as ripples in this fabric. (Feel free to disect this statement, but I was putting no weight into it :wink: )

[DaveC426913]

The difference it makes is that it shows that there is no "place outside of the universe into which the universe is growing".
You have to put that bubble somewhere.No, you don't.

[S.Vasojevic]

Official WMAP site:
WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to within 1% of "flat" Euclidean, improving on the precision of previous award-winning measurements by over an order of magnitude


No, you don't.

That doesn't even matter. Question is, is it curved or is it flat, and we will probably never know. If we could measure its curvature we can exclude it being flat, but not the other way around. Even when some future measurement comes out saying "flat-Euclidean within 0.1%", we could always say that curvature is so slight that it lays within error margin.
It is again Nature playing tricks on ourselves. You want to know do you live in finite or infinite universe? You will have to try much harder than that.