How Small Was the Big Bang Singularity When It First Exploded?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the size of the universe at the moment of the Big Bang, with a specific mention of a size estimate of 10^-36 meters. This figure likely refers to the Planck length, which is approximately 10^-35 meters, a scale where current theories of gravity may fail. The conversation highlights that estimates of the universe's size are often limited to the observable universe, which could have been larger than the Planck length at the time of the Big Bang. Calculations suggest that if the observable universe were compressed to Planck density, its radius would be around 5*10^-16 meters, still larger than the Planck length. Overall, while the universe was significantly smaller than it is today, its exact size at the Big Bang remains uncertain and complex due to quantum effects.
dheeraj
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
hello everyone

like the prevailing theory now on how our universe origin has taken is THE BIG BANG.

BUT i am studying in 11th and one of my lecturer told me that our universe when exploded from the big bang singularity it's size was 10^-36 m
any idea on that? like how scientists calculated that value

you can find this at this website http://universevolution.blogspot.in/
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
dheeraj said:
hello everyone

like the prevailing theory now on how our universe origin has taken is THE BIG BANG.

BUT i am studying in 11th and one of my lecturer told me that our universe when exploded from the big bang singularity it's size was 10^-36 m
any idea on that? like how scientists calculated that value

you can find this at this website http://universevolution.blogspot.in/

Such estimates always apply only to the OBSERVABLE universe, not "the universe" (which was of indeterminate size, possible infinite, at the singularity). I've heard estimates ranging from smaller than a proton to the size of a beach ball (and again, this is for the OBSERVABLE universe)

EDIT: I just checked the link and indeed, it says "our universe", which is a VERY sloppy way of saying "observable universe" (OR, the writer doesn't know what he is talking about and really did mean "the universe")
 
Last edited:
I imagine your lecturer was referring to the Planck length, though it's closer to 10^-35 meters. The Planck length is thought to be about the length scale at which the current best theory of gravity, general relativity, would probably become totally inaccurate and we would need a more accurate theory of quantum gravity to replace it (see my recent post here discussing how the Big Bang can be derived from using general relativity to project the observed expansion of the universe backwards). However, I don't think it's accurate to say that quantum gravity becomes important when the universe is the size of a Planck length--probably it would be more like when the density of the universe was high enough to reach the "Planck density", or Planck mass per Planck volume (Planck length cubed), which would mean the observable universe as a whole could have been significantly larger in size than one Planck length. That's just a rough guess though, quantum gravity effects might start to become important a little before it reached that density, for example I found this page from physicist [URL='https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/author/john-baez/']John Baez[/url] which says:
Anyway, what are the results? What does the currently popular theory of loop quantum cosmology imply?

In a nutshell: if you follow the history of the Universe back in time, it looks almost exactly like what ordinary cosmology predicts until the density reaches about 1/100 of the Planck density.
Loop quantum gravity is one attempt to develop a theory of quantum gravity, the other major one being string theory.

Let's do a back-of-the-envelope style rough calculation. According to this, the current density of all forms of mass and energy (and energy can be treated as a form of mass by E=mc^2) is about 0.85 * 10^-26 kg/m^3. The Planck density is around 5*10^96 kg/m^3. So to squeeze the observable universe to the Planck density, you'd have to divide its volume by about 6*10^122. Since the volume of a spherical region is the cube of its radius, we have to take the cube root of this to find how much to divide the radius, or 8*10^40. The radius of the observable universe is thought to be about 47 billion light years which works out to about 4*10^25 meters, so dividing this by 8*10^40 implies the radius of the observable universe would be about 5*10^-16 meters if it was squeezed to the Planck density. That's fairly close to the size of a proton, about 9*10^-16 meters. So the observable universe would have been small, but still many orders of magnitude larger than the Planck length.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 2 people
Nice job, JesseM. Many people do not understand the science behind approximating the size of the observable universe at the instant of the BB. Partly because it is poorly explained, and partly, IMO, because of fear an attempt to explain it would create more confusion than illumination. Some writers try to force fit the 'initial' size of the universe into a Planck length, which is unrealistic if you assume the total energy content of the universe was the same as it is in the present and the Planck density is the controlling factor. Quantum effects further compound matters. It is unclear how this might impact maximum permissible density, hence initial size of the universe. As a consequence of these kinds of bias, size estimates in the popular press vary. We can safely say it was very much smaller than at present.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
wonderful replies guys...thanks everyone :)
 
Chronos said:
... We can safely say it was very much smaller than at present.
You don't say!
:))
 
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
177
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
6K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
999
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top