Register to reply

Is Big Bang 100% true?

by stglyde
Tags: 100%, bang
Share this thread:
stglyde
#73
Dec27-11, 07:02 PM
P: 275
Quote Quote by marcus View Post
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.


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.

In Wikipedia in the entry on Planck Density, it is said:

"This is a unit which is very large, about equivalent to 1023 solar masses squeezed into the space of a single atomic nucleus. At one unit of Planck time after the Big Bang, the mass density of the universe is thought to have been approximately one unit of Planck density."

Based on marcus calculation. 1023 solar masses would have 2x1069 joules of energy? Hope someone can confirm or calculate accurately.

Also how many 2x1069 joules are there in 5 x 1070 joules. Dividing them one would get 2.5 x 10 1 so I guess the observable universe can be contained in at least 3 protons or at least the volume of a helium isotope3 with 2 protons and one neutron)? Can anyone confirm this, thanks!


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.
stglyde
#74
Dec29-11, 06:12 AM
P: 275
Quote Quote by stglyde View Post
But you still haven't answered what could be the smallest size from extrapolating of all the cosmic data. Let's supposed the observable universe were just 10% of the true size but still they could all fit in a ping pong ball (remember our observable universe can fit into a hydrogen nucleus volume). Yet you said the initial ping pong ball was infinite. I understand there is no edge assuming the ping pong ball is 4 dimensional (space+time), but still any version of light or others there (supposed for sake of illustration they were not blocked) could cross the infinite universe round turn in a few seconds. This is what I meant by estimating the initial size. I was not imagining looking it from outside view because it's null or invalid and we could only describe internally within spacetime. So perhaps the best way to ask is to get estimate of how many seconds it would take for light to go around the universe at such ping pong ball size. Now with this context. So there is no refutation to the idea that the universe of billions and billions and billions (or is it zillions) were once the size of a ping pong ball, right? Or is it the size of Kansas? What's the most logical based on your opinion assuming the observable is at least 10% of the true size?

Many thanks for your helpful assistance making bare the essence of

"To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour."
Reflecting on all this. Remember we only knew the universe was expanding early this century and the expansion accelerating just in 1998. But the further away we look, at a distance just on the edge of the Observable universe, we can see the original fireball. So this means there is at least a fireball. Therefore in the initial Big Bang.. the universe really started from a dense state maybe less than the size of a milky way. Hence Big Bang is getting more and more plausible.. although we must not forget the possibility it may be all an optical illusion. Remember all information in a volume can be located in the area... so all this going on here may be projection from a distance surface as per Jacob's holographic bound. So we must not give up trying to think of alternatives to Big Bang. If anyone has encounter any promising avenues in the near future.. just be sure to drop us a line.
Cosmo Novice
#75
Dec30-11, 09:31 AM
P: 366
Quote Quote by Calimero View Post
Not quite. You would encounter same patch infinite amount of times. Read this, if you have time and will, interesting stuff!
Hello Calimero,

Although I agree it may be possible to encounter a "similar" patch of Universe, which may appear to be the same, it is in fact totally distinct from the other patch even if it was "identical". Ie: there would be no casual relationship between the two; so they are actually not the same part of "spacetime".

I would go further to say that any replication of all mass, energy, waves, spatial curvature and anything and everything else probably would exceed the sum of infinities. Thankyou for the discourse and appreciate the link although I have not found the time to read it.

Regards
Imax
#76
Dec31-11, 12:22 AM
P: 186
Quote Quote by stglyde View Post
Would you bet your life on it?

Big Bang proof supposedly came from:

1. Redshift
2. Cosmic Background Radiation
3. Deuterium and baryogenesis
If you look at spacetime as possibly forming a Compact Lorentzian Manifold, then time could have a curvature. Extrapolating linearly backward in time by 13.7 billion years could be meaningless. So no, I wouldn’t bet my life on it.
stglyde
#77
Dec31-11, 06:41 AM
P: 275
I just finished watching Stephen Hawking Discovery Curiosity documentary. He said that in the beginning, there was nothing.. and somehow nothing produces positive and negative energy, the positive energy becomes the mass/stress/energy or the substance part of the universe and the negative energy becomes space. And herein lies the secret to the mystery of the Big Bang.
thorium1010
#78
Dec31-11, 08:58 AM
P: 200
Quote Quote by stglyde View Post
I just finished watching Stephen Hawking Discovery Curiosity documentary. He said that in the beginning, there was nothing.. and somehow nothing produces positive and negative energy, the positive energy becomes the mass/stress/energy or the substance part of the universe and the negative energy becomes space. And herein lies the secret to the mystery of the Big Bang.
I think Stephen hawking is going way overboard into speculation, instead of actual facts and observation. Where is the evidence for all that he said saying there was nothing in the beginning ?.That's the difference between pop science,speculation etc and actual science.
stglyde
#79
Dec31-11, 09:14 AM
P: 275
Quote Quote by thorium1010 View Post
I think Stephen hawking is going way overboard into speculation, instead of actual facts and observation. Where is the evidence for all that he said saying there was nothing in the beginning ?.That's the difference between pop science,speculation etc and actual science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg

In the video, Stephen Hawking wanted to debunk the idea that the universe was created by someone or something. So he said the Big Bang created time and space, so there was no "before" prior to the Big Bang so how could anyone have created it when time was only produced by the Big Bang. But I remember Marcus saying the new consensus is that time and space already exist prior to the Big Bang and that it only expanded what already existed? But there was zero evidence for it too.
thorium1010
#80
Dec31-11, 09:38 AM
P: 200
Quote Quote by stglyde View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg

In the video, Stephen Hawking wanted to debunk the idea that the universe was created by someone or something. So he said the Big Bang created time and space, so there was no "before" prior to the Big Bang so how could anyone have created it when time was only produced by the Big Bang. But I remember Marcus saying the new consensus is that time and space already exist prior to the Big Bang and that it only expanded what already existed? But there was zero evidence for it too.
I am not an expert on the theory. Ideas and to some extent speculation are okay, BUT THEY SHOULD be backed by evidence. Discussion about creation or creator is not science, because that kind of philosophy , so far or in the future (IMO) cannot be proved or disproved.
sirchick
#81
Jan3-12, 03:39 PM
P: 52
The problem i have is - if there was inflation in every point of space, then surely that causes a problem in explaining why it was not uniform.

Because as i would imagine ... everything would be occurring equally in every direction..
bapowell
#82
Jan3-12, 04:18 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,681
Quote Quote by sirchick View Post
And the big bang is not an explosion as such. I see it more like a perfectly sphere balloon being pumped up - everything on the surface of the balloon is being inflated outwards from every direction equally.
This is the right way to think about expansion.

And the air in a balloon is the dark energy which is in another dimension possibly which is causing the expansion of the universe that we see even today. That was a theory i had a while ago.
This is not the right way to think of it. The inside of the balloon, in fact, the higher-dimensional space in which the balloon is embedded, is superfluous. The curvature of the manifold, and hence, the gravity, is a property of the manifold itself, irrespective of the embedding. The hypothesized dark energy is a field defined on the manifold itself (the surface of the balloon); it results in an accelerated expansion.

Quote Quote by voxila
In my opinion the big bang is an exploded black hole consisting of subatomic particles that can travel much faster than light (we are getting some real evidence about this at CERN).
Opinions don't matter in the face of evidence. This is science.
voxilla
#83
Jan3-12, 09:23 PM
P: 38
Quote Quote by bapowell View Post
Opinions don't matter in the face of evidence. This is science.
Yes, I'm a scientist, I wan't quotes to be fully backed up with evidence.
If you can prove my reasoning wrong than you are right.
tfsc
#84
Jan3-12, 09:33 PM
P: 4
Quote Quote by voxilla View Post
Yes, I'm a scientist, I wan't quotes to be fully backed up with evidence.
If you can prove my reasoning wrong than you are right.
You have to prove your reasoning has valid potential with evidence which you did not - for it to be taken with serious thought.
voxilla
#85
Jan3-12, 09:40 PM
P: 38
Quote Quote by tfsc View Post
You have to prove your reasoning has valid potential with evidence which you did not - for it to be taken with serious thought.
For the sake of science, don't we want to have a valid, verifiable theory that can explain black holes, the big bang, dark energy/matter, ... ?

Some theories only get validated many years after they have been postulated, mostly due the invention of new tools.
bapowell
#86
Jan3-12, 09:46 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,681
Quote Quote by voxilla View Post
If you can prove my reasoning wrong than you are right.
I cannot. But this is due to the extreme imprecision of your statement. If you would like to propose a more detailed explanation of your suggestion (which is teetering on the edge of forum rules, by the way) I'd be happy to explain why the universe most certainly is not a black hole with superluminal particles flying about. At face value, your suggestion exemplifies a lack of familiarity with modern cosmological theories and a misunderstanding of general relativity.
voxilla
#87
Jan3-12, 09:54 PM
P: 38
Quote Quote by bapowell View Post
I cannot. But this is due to the extreme imprecision of your statement. If you would like to propose a more detailed explanation of your suggestion (which is teetering on the edge of forum rules, by the way) I'd be happy to explain why the universe most certainly is not a black hole with superluminal particles flying about. At face value, your suggestion exemplifies a lack of familiarity with modern cosmological theories and a misunderstanding of general relativity.
Let's say a black hole can compress atomic particles into subatomic particles.
alexg
#88
Jan3-12, 09:56 PM
alexg's Avatar
P: 126
Quote Quote by voxilla View Post
Let's say a black hole can compress atomic particles into subatomic particles.
Let's not, because it doesn't.

Atoms and subatomic particles are different things. One does not turn into the other.
voxilla
#89
Jan3-12, 10:02 PM
P: 38
Quote Quote by alexg View Post
Atoms and subatomic particles are different things. One does not turn into the other.
For sure they are different, what happens if you smash atomic particles in a LHC ?
bapowell
#90
Jan4-12, 07:35 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 1,681
Quote Quote by voxilla View Post
For sure they are different, what happens if you smash atomic particles in a LHC ?
You sound incredibly confused. The LHC is not colliding atoms, rather, it is colliding hadrons (which are subatomic particles comprised of quarks, which are elementary). We do know that atoms can be compressed into subatomic matter -- this is what happens in the formation of a neutron star. It is, of course, less clear what happens inside a black hole. Even if black holes could somehow transmute atomic particles (how about we call them atoms?) into subatomic particles, how is this at all relevant to your claim that the universe is a black hole? Also, I'd advise you at this point to be careful about making overly speculative claims or proposals, as this is against PF rules.


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 Astronomy & Astrophysics 43
Big bang and small bang black holes Cosmology 5