is Big Bang 100% true?


by stglyde
Tags: 100%, bang
marcus
marcus is offline
#37
Dec20-11, 10:08 PM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 22,803
BTW Glyde, Brian Powell said something useful a few posts back.
Quote Quote by bapowell View Post
Science is a dispassionate pursuit that does not benefit from preconceived notions of what "exceeds the imagination". It is an incorrect picture to imagine Planckian energy densities somehow confined to a small region, fighting against this confinement with outward pressure. It is true that both density and pressure determine the gravitational properties of the stress-energy, and, when you place near-Planckian energy densities into the Friedmann equation, you get a perfectly well-behaved cosmological solution.

Sure, such high densities have not been tested in the lab. But we understand the equation of state of radiation, and we have lots of observational evidence that supports the Friedmann model. Extrapolation of these physical theories into untested regimes (as long as the theory is appropriate to these regimes) is a perfectly reasonable and substantiated practice.
I have to go. I want to remark on something in Brian's post. Back later.

OK I'm back. BTW the conventional ideas of the radii of proton and observable U differ by a factor of 1041. My feeling is that this is not so surprising. I wouldn't say a proton is very SMALL compared with the photons of highest energy light. Indeed a proton is kind of mediumsized as things go. But the observable U is very large. So between medium size and large there are these 41 powers of ten.

If you want to find out some about Planck scale----energy, volume, density, mass, length etc.----Wikipedia is not too bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

The linear size associated with the proton is 10-15 meters. You can read what the plancklength is and see what their ratio is. The corresponding volumes would be related by the cube of that ratio, whatever you find it to be.

Ive got some other stuff to attend to, but see what you can find out meanwhile on your own.
stglyde
stglyde is offline
#38
Dec20-11, 10:55 PM
P: 275
Quote Quote by marcus View Post
Answer to blue question is yes. Actually much less than a few micrograms. A hydrogen atom is very big. To get PLANCK density you must compress observable down to something like the size of a proton, the nucleus of the hydrogen atom.

This is around 100 thousand times smaller than the atom, if I remember right.
Energy units are electrovolts.. for example.. the possible mass of Higgs boson to be 125 TeV. I wonder what is the electron volts of the energy of the entire "observable" universe. Now it's still unbelievable that when you put it in the diameter of the nucleus. The planck volume is almost negligible. But then energy doesn't have pauli exclusion so I wonder why a certain volume should hold certain energy or in what sense is the statement that the energy of the observable universe is put into the size of a hydrogen nucleus and the planck volume holds only a few microgram since energy doesn't have spatial extension. Anyone else can explain? Thanks (this paragraph is ignoring quantum gravity and HUP for sake of discussion of energy Tev of the universe and containment of it in a limited spatial extension like in a hydrogen nucleus).
Chronos
Chronos is offline
#39
Dec20-11, 11:02 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,182
I believe the most recent estimates on higgs mass are around 125 GeV.
ThomasT
ThomasT is offline
#40
Dec20-11, 11:36 PM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by stglyde View Post
... I wonder why a certain volume should hold certain energy ...
That would seem to me to depend on what's being talked about (ie., a certain volume of ... what?), and what it's assumed (or observed) to be doing.

Quote Quote by stglyde View Post
... or in what sense is the statement that the energy of the observable universe is put into the size of a hydrogen nucleus ...
Why would anybody want to suppose that the energy of the observable universe was ever the "size of a hydrogen nucleus"?

Regarding the title question of the thread, and your OP, the standard 'big bang' theory accounts (in a necessarily limited way) for the evolution of our universe from a point (the 'big bang') beyond which (ie., further into the past) backward extrapolation from current observation and theory is impossible.

Whether it's 100% true is a question/consideration that can't be answered. But it makes sense and it's internally consistent (afaik), and (also afaik) it doesn't say or imply that the observable universe was ever the size of a hydrogen nucleus, or the head of a pin, or whatever (also just afaik).

Kudos to bapowell and marcus for their usual informative replies, and to Astronuc for putting the (sophisticated) cosmological speculation into (imo) the proper perspective.

Would I bet my life on the standard big bang theory being 100% true? No. But it certainly makes sense insofar as it's relevant. If somebody comes up with a better account, I feel sure that they'll publish it.
marcus
marcus is offline
#41
Dec21-11, 12:51 AM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 22,803
Glyde what you said about radiation energy (light, UV, gamma etc) not having Pauli exclusion is very important. The shorter the wavelength the more energy, too. There is no limit to how many photons fit in the box AND the smaller they are the more energy each one carries.

Can't you estimate how many planck volumes are in a proton volume?

Planck length is about 10-35 meters and proton scale is about 10-15 meters. So cube their ratio.

Proton volume is about 1060 times planck volume. Like I said, the proton is kind of medium sized.

The standard metric unit of energy is a JOULE. It is the amount you expend if you lift a (kilogram) book about 10 centimeters off the table. It is the amount of thud you hear when you drop it back onto table.

The energy density of the U, with all matter converted to the common currency of light, is 0.22 nanojoules per cubic meter. What would density be if the volume of the observable were replaced by the proton volume but with same amount of energy. You know the linear size ratio (I gave it earlier).

I hope you get the hang of doing some simple physics arithmetic on your own soon if you have not already. Go ahead risk making mistakes. If you do someone will probably catch them, no harm done.
stglyde
stglyde is offline
#42
Dec21-11, 06:59 AM
P: 275
Markus, I'll ponder on the above. But I need to know something now and the reason why I wrote this thread. Remember Lorentz when he tried to explain the reason for the null result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment. He claimed length can contract and time can shorten when something moving in the ether, that's why the MMX produced null result and all experiments up to the present can't distinguish between Lorentz Ether Theory and Special Relativity because they both use the Lorentz Transformation (which was invented by Lorentz before Einstein discovered SR). I think you are pretty familiar with LET. Now let's not debate about LET. What I want to know is whether the Big Bang is compatible with Lorentz Ether or how the Big Bang can give birth to Lorentz Ether. If no experiment can distinguish LET and SR. Can LET perhaps be refuted by strong evidence of the Big Bang.. assuming Big Bang and Lorentz Aether is totally incompatible. If not. Any papers or models of how the Big Bang can give rise or give birth to the Lorentz Ether?
marcus
marcus is offline
#43
Dec21-11, 11:47 AM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 22,803
Quote Quote by stglyde View Post
Markus, I'll ponder on the above. But I need to know something now and the reason why I wrote this thread. Remember Lorentz when he tried to explain the reason for the null result of the Michelson-Morley Experiment. He claimed length can contract and time can shorten when something moving in the ether, that's why the MMX produced null result and all experiments up to the present can't distinguish between Lorentz Ether Theory and Special Relativity because they both use the Lorentz Transformation (which was invented by Lorentz before Einstein discovered SR). I think you are pretty familiar with LET. Now let's not debate about LET. What I want to know is whether the Big Bang is compatible with Lorentz Ether or how the Big Bang can give birth to Lorentz Ether. If no experiment can distinguish LET and SR. Can LET perhaps be refuted by strong evidence of the Big Bang.. assuming Big Bang and Lorentz Aether is totally incompatible. If not. Any papers or models of how the Big Bang can give rise or give birth to the Lorentz Ether?
Glyde, this is something of a new line of questioning. I will try to carry it along so we don't forget it. Maybe someone else will respond in a useful way, who knows more and has thought more about it than I have.

But before I try to understand the new I want to finish the discussion of Planck energy density and how to picture it.

People have different conjectures about the start of expansion---the actual start, that very moment, is not covered by classical GR and standard cosmology. So people are working on various models and they typically do involve densities around planck.

One very concrete and definite model of the start of expansion is the (LQC) BOUNCE and when they study different cases and either solve the equations or run the computer simulations with various inputs it typically happens that the bounce occurs when the density is 41% of planck.

In effect we always face the need to picture planck energy density, with whichever model.
If you iike to picture stuff in your mind, as many do. The simplest is to think of that density of LIGHT filling the universe. Imagine that ordinary matter boiled away into light already at lower density. Nothing that occupies any space is left. Only photons. You know from LASERS that you can put as many photons as you want on top of each other like sardines without limit.

The typical photon in the mix has wavelength equal Planck length. (the smaller the more energetic, the hotter the light). That is wavelength equal to 10-35 meter. So within the space of a proton sized 10-15 meter he has room for a lot of ripples. A proton is a huge space for these photons because, being such hot and energetic light their wavelength is very small. And they have no Pauli territoriality, they welcome each other's company.

So let's put some numbers. The energy equivalent of 22 micrograms (i.e. planck mass) is 1.9 billion joules or in round numbers 2 billion joules. It's like the energy equiv of a tank of gas. It is the planck energy unit.
So at planck density, or at 41% of planck energy or whatever, everything is pure energy and we can picture the U filled with very hot bright light with about a billion joules in each planck volume. Or two billion, if we are imagining planck density instead of 41% of it.
Quote Quote by marcus View Post
...

...estimate how many planck volumes are in a proton volume?

Planck length is about 10-35 meters and proton scale is about 10-15 meters. So cube their ratio.

Proton volume is about 1060 times planck volume...
The standard metric unit of energy is a JOULE. It is the amount you expend if you lift a (kilogram) book about 10 centimeters off the table. It is the amount of thud you hear when you drop it back onto table.

The energy density of the U, with all matter converted to the common currency of light, is 0.22 nanojoules per cubic meter...
So a proton volume has 1060 planck volumes each of which contains a two billion joules of light. So it contains 2x1069 joules.

Lets compare that with (the energy equivalent of) the observable universe. The Hubble distance is about 13.8 billion light years. If you type that into google you get
1.3 x 1026 meters. Radius of the observable is about 3.3 times Hubble distance so say 4x 1026 meters. I think that makes the observable volume about 2.5 x 1080 cubic meters. You might check that with a calculator.
So what do we get if each cubic meter of today's universe has on average the matter equivalent of 0.22 nanojoules? I get around 5 x 1070 joules.

This has been quick and sloppy, it is not good enough to quote in another post. anyone who cares to do so could improve the accuracy and the result might change by up to an order of magnitude. But it gives the right idea. If you think of the proton volume as a room containing jillions of photons of very high temperature short wavelength light, and you imagine that the energy density is Planck,

then that proton volume contains about the same as the energy equivalent of the observable universe volume. This is admittedly kind of clunky. Anyone who wants is welcome to make it neater and more precise.
Tanelorn
Tanelorn is offline
#44
Dec21-11, 12:04 PM
P: 695
Marcus, Re Proton energy ratios, that is very interesting that they are so close. It cant be any more than a mathemetical curiosity can it? Also how can all the protons in the observable universe have similar values of energy to just one proton?
marcus
marcus is offline
#45
Dec21-11, 12:18 PM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 22,803
Hi T., I did not see your post when I was typing this. Not sure how to respond to your question though. What I wanted to say was it's important to stress a point that Brian Powell made earlier. Not to think of the UNIVERSE as the size of a proton at the start of expansion.
We were talking about the observable and what is destined to expand to form the part that is currently observable to us.

The whole universe (at expansion start) is presumably quite a lot bigger than a proton!
And energy is all over the place. You cannot carve out and mentally isolate
a little protonsized pocket of it and say "this energy in this pocket is what is going to make our observable universe".

You could only do that if everything held still and remained nicely compartmentalized. But it is all over the place.

So all this mental exercise with the proton volume does for us is give us practice imagining the ENERGY DENSITY we think the U had, as a whole, at the start of expansion. At that moment the "observable" part was not well defined and was all over the place without clear boundaries, so it had as yet no meaning. So the exercise is simply about visualizing a density.

There is no meaningful entity that had, at that time, "the size of a proton". So one cannot say that what is now our observable U started out as something the size of a proton. It is not so neat and compartmentalized.

The actual energy is all over the place and we can't lay claim to some definite chunk of it as ours. But we can talk about the density. In each protonsize volume there was at that time AFAIK enough to be equivalent to what now is in our observable region. That gives an idea how much is in any given volume at the time expansion started.

The whole universe should be pictured as (probably much) much larger than a proton. All of that same density. And of course boundaryless. No edge and no outside.

Particular bounce cosmology models would give you different estimates of the exact density (like LQG fairly consistently says 41% of planck) but whatever the different models they tend to say something that is within an order of magnitude or so of planck density. So that is what the mental exercise is really about imagining.
===========
Tanelorn AFAIK the proton is just an arbitrary choice to establish a visual image of a scale of size and volume. AFAIK it primarily comes up in cosmo popularizations where they have to give the reader something to visualize, like an atom, or the nucleus of an atom, or in this case the nucleus of a hydrogen atom (i.e. proton). To establish an idea of scale.

So it's probably just completely arbitrary. And as you know from the point of view of the three little quarks inside, a proton is just this big empty space with three flies buzzing around in it. The flies think that THEY are fundamental, not the big room they are buzzing around in. So the proton is here just a nice way to imagine a convenient amount of nearly empty space that has a definite size.

That's what I think anyway. Could be wrong.
Tanelorn
Tanelorn is offline
#46
Dec21-11, 12:33 PM
P: 695
Hi Marcus, I just reread and saw that you said each cubic meter contains the same energy as a proton and not the whole observable universe. Thats what happens when you go speed reading!

Anyways seasons greetings to you and all at PF!
Notwen7
Notwen7 is offline
#47
Dec21-11, 06:43 PM
P: 11
Quote Quote by bapowell View Post
The standard big bang model purports that the big bang happened everywhere at once, not at a single point. This is an important misconception to straighten out. The colliding branes theory is a proposal that seeks to explain the physical mechanism for the big bang itself. Therefore, it is not in opposition to the standard big bang model; rather, it seeks to extend it. The colliding branes theory is still only hypothesis. The colliding branes theory has the rather unfortunate name of "ekpyrosis" in case you wish to read more about it.
Can you explain how it happened at multiple points at once? Also how do scientists arrive at these hypotheses?
Tanelorn
Tanelorn is offline
#48
Dec21-11, 06:58 PM
P: 695
Notwen you are being misled by a bad name. I dislike Big Bang the name a great deal for that reason.
It is not an explosion from a point.
Inflation from a state of very high density and high temperature takes place everywhere at the same time.
The universe was almost infinite then and much much bigger now!
Notwen7
Notwen7 is offline
#49
Dec21-11, 07:15 PM
P: 11
Quote Quote by Tanelorn View Post
Notwen you are being misled by a bad name. I dislike Big Bang the name a great deal for that reason.
It is not an explosion from a point.
Inflation from a state of very high density and high temperature takes place everywhere at the same time.
The universe was almost infinite then and much much bigger now!
Indeed, I am. So in a sense it is almost like the dew point of a liquid? I'm imagining the small little vapor bubbles forming simultaneously being similar to the release of energy and matter from many places of the universe?
Drakkith
Drakkith is offline
#50
Dec22-11, 01:55 AM
PF Gold
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,046
Quote Quote by Notwen7 View Post
Indeed, I am. So in a sense it is almost like the dew point of a liquid? I'm imagining the small little vapor bubbles forming simultaneously being similar to the release of energy and matter from many places of the universe?
No. Imagine being a raisin inside a muffin in the oven. As the muffin starts to rise, all the other raisins seem to get further away from you as the muffin bakes. The muffin is like space and the raisins are like galaxies. The big difference is that a muffin occupies a finite volume. The universe is thought not to. Imagine being inside an infinitely large muffin mix. The raisins 10 miles from you would be receding from you at a much higher rate than the raisins next to you. This is all the "Big Bang" is. It is simply that the universe was once in a much denser state than we are now, similar to how the muffin mix is much thicker before cooked. No explosion, no bang.
stglyde
stglyde is offline
#51
Dec22-11, 02:15 AM
P: 275
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
No. Imagine being a raisin inside a muffin in the oven. As the muffin starts to rise, all the other raisins seem to get further away from you as the muffin bakes. The muffin is like space and the raisins are like galaxies. The big difference is that a muffin occupies a finite volume. The universe is thought not to. Imagine being inside an infinitely large muffin mix. The raisins 10 miles from you would be receding from you at a much higher rate than the raisins next to you. This is all the "Big Bang" is. It is simply that the universe was once in a much denser state than we are now, similar to how the muffin mix is much thicker before cooked. No explosion, no bang.
How about spacetime.. isn't the fact that redshift occurs is because space is being expanded.. so can't we say spacetime was getting bigger from the initial core or Big Bang gave birth to spacetime? If not.. and if spacetime already exists. Can it also support the observation that redshift occurs and even the microwave background radiation becomes 3 degrees kelvin because the wavelength got expanded too. Can they do it without space being expanded?
Drakkith
Drakkith is offline
#52
Dec22-11, 10:02 AM
PF Gold
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,046
Quote Quote by stglyde View Post
How about spacetime.. isn't the fact that redshift occurs is because space is being expanded.. so can't we say spacetime was getting bigger from the initial core or Big Bang gave birth to spacetime? If not.. and if spacetime already exists.
You can say whatever you want. The theory that the Big Bang was conceived from says nothing about this, it only says that the universe was once in a very dense state.

Can it also support the observation that redshift occurs and even the microwave background radiation becomes 3 degrees kelvin because the wavelength got expanded too. Can they do it without space being expanded?
Can what support this?
stglyde
stglyde is offline
#53
Dec23-11, 05:57 AM
P: 275
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
You can say whatever you want. The theory that the Big Bang was conceived from says nothing about this, it only says that the universe was once in a very dense state.



Can what support this?
Isn't it that microwave background radiation 3 Kelvin temperature was a result of the wavelength being expanded due to spacetime being expanded from the Big Bang? So logic says spacetime was once smaller perhaps the same size as whatever bang...
Cosmo Novice
Cosmo Novice is offline
#54
Dec23-11, 08:04 AM
P: 366
Quote Quote by stglyde View Post
Isn't it that microwave background radiation 3 Kelvin temperature was a result of the wavelength being expanded due to spacetime being expanded from the Big Bang? So logic says spacetime was once smaller perhaps the same size as whatever bang...
This is completely moot if the U is infinite. If it is infinite now then it always infinite.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Is Big Bang true? Cosmology 84
If Big Crunch = True, then Reincarnation = True? Cosmology 18
The true, true stress-strain curve? General Engineering 3
big bang, schmig bang: everything's just shrinking General Astronomy 43
Big bang and small bang black holes Cosmology 5