Big Bang Question -- How was the first matter formed?

In summary: Current measurements don't rule out a finite but closed universe (and if the...The current measurements don't rule out a finite but closed universe (and if the universe is finite, it could still have an infinite number of universes). However, the most popular model of the universe, the FLRW model, assumes an infinite and open universe.
  • #1
TL;DR Summary
Big Bangs Theories
Big Bang singularity can never be solved, so

Could the "big bang" have been an event where a large sum of highly-dense dark energy converted into mass, and in doing the result is like a nuclear explosion?

Could the "big bang" just have been a large sum of matter where the core becomes super dense and at the same time the core surrounded by lots and lots of other matter which is less dense, but then the core gets super small and dense, not a singularity, and then pops pushing everything outward?

One of the TV shows mentions early universe as creating the 1st elements H, He, and Li. Why Li ?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
No and no.

The light elements were indeed created shortly after the Big Bang in what is known as BBN (Big Bang Nucleosynthesis). This is generally well understood.
 
  • Like
Likes horacio torres
  • #3
H comes from gamma ray interaction. He and Li from collisions.
 
  • #4
MagneticMagic said:
Summary:: Big Bangs Theories

Big Bang singularity can never be solved, so

Could the "big bang" have been an event where a large sum of highly-dense dark energy converted into mass, and in doing the result is like a nuclear explosion?
This is just nonsense. I suggest reading "The First Three Minutes"
 
  • Like
Likes diogenesNY, Vanadium 50 and Klystron
  • #5
MagneticMagic said:
One of the TV shows mentions early universe as creating the 1st elements H, He, and Li. Why Li ?
Lithium and other heavier elements, notably beryllium, are produced via a combination of reactions that are very unlikely to occur on average, which is why only trace amounts of anything over He is found prior to the first stars undergoing supernovae.

Li is produced mainly via the following reactions:
##^3_1H+^4_2He \rightarrow ^7_3Li##
##^7_4Be+ n \rightarrow ^7_3Li + p##
##^7_4Be +e^- \rightarrow ^7_3Li##
With Be produced by:
##^3_2He+^4_2He \rightarrow ^7_4Be##
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Some of those equations don't look balanced.
7Be + n → 7Li (Proton by-product?)
3He + 4He → 8Be (should be 7Be?)
 
  • #7
MagneticMagic said:
Summary:: Big Bangs Theories

Big Bang singularity can never be solved, so

Could the "big bang" have been an event where a large sum of highly-dense dark energy converted into mass, and in doing the result is like a nuclear explosion?

Could the "big bang" just have been a large sum of matter where the core becomes super dense and at the same time the core surrounded by lots and lots of other matter which is less dense, but then the core gets super small and dense, not a singularity, and then pops pushing everything outward?

One of the TV shows mentions early universe as creating the 1st elements H, He, and Li. Why Li ?
It is the "standard view" these days that our Universe is infinite. If this is so then it was infinite when it came into existence. Weird, eh?

Our visible universe is very homogenous, which means on a large scale it is pretty much the same everywhere. So when it first came into being it was extremely dense everywhere. I don't really know, but I'd suppose that it is hard to say what it was. After a while it cooled down enough to become matter and anti-matter. Mostly these annihilated one another into energy, mysteriously leaving a residue of matter. I suppose it was a quark-gluon plasma or something even more exotic. I don't know when the universe cooled enough for protons and electrons to appear en masse. The universe was still denser than the core of our sun so some of these particle fused into helium and lithium ions. After 300,000 years things had cooled enough that these ions could form atoms.

My main point is that matter appeared before atoms and ions made the scene.
 
  • #8
Hornbein said:
It is the "standard view" these days that our Universe is infinite.
Isn't this still not yet established? Please provide reference regarding what you are designating to be the "standard view" regarding that matter. I think that we still can't say for certain that the universe is or isn't finite.
 
  • Like
Likes Buzz Bloom and JandeWandelaar
  • #9
mjc123 said:
Some of those equations don't look balanced.
7Be + n → 7Li (Proton by-product?)
3He + 4He → 8Be (should be 7Be?)
Whoops. Corrected now. Thanks!
 
  • #10
sysprog said:
Isn't this still not yet established? Please provide reference regarding what you are designating to be the "standard view" regarding that matter. I think that we still can't say for certain that the universe is or isn't finite.
It's the standard view but that doesn't mean we've settled the matter completely.
 
  • #11
Drakkith said:
It's the standard view but that doesn't mean we've settled the matter completely.
Where is infiniteness {or finiteness) asserted to be a part of the 'standard view'? It seems to me that the FLRW model (which could be called a 'standard view') is silent regarding finiteness or infiniteness. I think that there's still no true consensus regarding the 'finite or infinite universe' matter yet.
 
  • #12
sysprog said:
I think that there's still no true consensus regarding the 'finite or infinite universe' matter yet.
Current measurements don't rule out a finite but closed universe (and if the universe is truly flat they never will), but if it's not infinite it would have to be extremely large compared to our observable universe.
 
  • #13
Ibix said:
Current measurements don't rule out a finite but closed universe (and if the universe is truly flat they never will), but if it's not infinite it would have to be extremely large compared to our observable universe.
Based on the evidence, it seems that we think that it's more discoid than spheroid, and apparently raggedy at the edges, if they can rightly be called edges, but the 'infinite or finite' dichotomous possibility pair seems to remain unsettled, so I think that we should in our discourse preferably not refer to infiniteness as part of the 'standard view'.
 
  • #14
sysprog said:
Based on the evidence, it seems that we think that it's more discoid than spheroid, and apparently raggedy at the edges
HUH ? "edges" ? --- whether it's infinite or finite, the universe does not HAVE edges.
 
  • #15
phinds said:
HUH ? "edges" ? --- whether it's infinite or finite, the universe does not HAVE edges.
If it's finite, wouldn't that mean bounded, and couldn't that mean edges ##-## I think that those questions aren't settled yet.
 
  • #16
sysprog said:
If it's finite, wouldn't that mean bounded, and couldn't that mean edges ##-## I think that those questions aren't settled yet.
Yes, they are settled. Finite does not require bounded. Think of the surface of a sphere (JUST the surface). That's finite but unbounded.
 
  • #17
sysprog said:
If it's finite, wouldn't that mean bounded, and couldn't that mean edges ##-## I think that those questions aren't settled yet.
Edges are not typically given serious consideration since edges have serious problems both conceptually and mathematically. Imagine the black hole singularity problem, but worse.
 
  • #18
phinds said:
Yes, they are settled. Finite does not require bounded. Think of the surface of a sphere (JUST the surface). That's finite but unbounded.
Isn't that surface legitimately viewable as a boundary wrt the sphere?
phinds said:
HUH ? "edges" ? --- whether it's infinite or finite, the universe does not HAVE edges.
I I think that I adequately gave recognition to that idea in the proviso "if they can rightly be called edges".
 
  • #19
sysprog said:
Isn't that surface legitimately viewable as a boundary wrt the sphere?
You are specifically ignoring what I said. To repeat "JUST the surface", which, again, is finite but unbounded.
 
  • #20
I acknowledge that the surface of a sphere is finite and unbounded, but is not the spherical surface itself the boundary of a ball?
 
  • #21
sysprog said:
I acknowledge that the surface of a sphere is finite and unbounded, but is not the spherical surface itself the boundary of a ball?
Sure, but so what? That has nothing to do with what we were discussing. You stated that if the universe were finite it had to be bounded. I demonstrated that that is not the case. Why are you changing the subject?
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke
  • #22
phinds said:
Sure, but so what? That has nothing to do with what we were discussing. You stated that if the universe were finite it had to be bounded. I demonstrated that that is not the case. Why are you changing the subject?
I'm looking at what so far seems to be a discoid finite universe expanding into an infinite accommodation.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes weirdoguy
  • #24
sysprog said:
I'm looking at what so far seems to be a discoid finite universe expanding into an infinite accommodation.
But the universe doesn't expand into anything.
 
  • #25
It seems to me that the 'finite or infinite universe' question is not yet settled.
 
  • #26
sysprog said:
I'm looking at what so far seems to be a discoid finite universe expanding into an infinite accommodation.
That's not how mainstream cosmologists model the universe. The best fitting model that makes the fewest assumptions is that the universe is unbounded and infinite with no center and not expanding into any preexisting space.
 
  • Like
Likes Klystron and phinds
  • #27
sysprog said:
It seems to me that the 'finite or infinite universe' question is not yet settled.
I agree, but again you are changing the subject. You keep dancing around the fact that you stated that if the universe were finite it had to be bounded. Do you still believe that?
 
  • #28
sysprog said:
Isn't that surface legitimately viewable as a boundary wrt the sphere?
No. The surface is the sphere. The embedding space is irrelevant to the actual description.

sysprog said:
I acknowledge that the surface of a sphere is finite and unbounded, but is not the spherical surface itself the boundary of a ball?
In an embedding space, yes. But the model does not include any necessity for an embedding space.
 
  • #29
phinds said:
This is just nonsense. I suggest reading "The First Three Minutes"

That answers all the OP's conundrums. It took me about 20 or 30 listenings in audiobook form to fully get all the subtleties. A classic.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970, ohwilleke and phinds
  • #30
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke and sysprog
  • #31
phinds said:
I agree, but again you are changing the subject. You keep dancing around the fact that you stated that if the universe were finite it had to be bounded. Do you still believe that?
I didn't state that; I asked wasn't it so ##-## I introduced the notion by raising a question; not by making a statement ##-## your point that finiteness does not entail boundedness is well taken.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes phinds
  • #32
sysprog said:
I didn't state that; I asked wasn't it so
Well, nuts. You are right of course. I sometimes get obsessed by something and I got it in my head that you had stated that. Sorry.
 
  • #33
phinds said:
Well, nuts. You are right of course. I sometimes get obsessed by something and I got it in my head that you had stated that. Sorry.
No sweat, Sir, and thanks for being such a great contributor to human understanding ##-## really :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #34
The usual FLRW models are infinite or finite but unbounded, depending on the initial conditions you feed in. The latter has spherical symmetry, so a line (drawn along a surface of constant cosmological time if you want to be pedantic) forms a closed loop of the same length whatever direction you pick. As I said earlier, the current best data is consistent with zero or negative curvature (infinite) and positive curvature (finite and unbounded, but very, very large).

We recently had a discussion about whether it's possible to have a finite bounded universe, at least in the sense that you could describe such a thing mathematically. I'm not sure we came to a firm conclusion either way, but the mere concept raises a lot of questions. How would a boundary even work? What does it separate us from? And why does the universe look very much the same everywhere if it has an edge, which is definitely not the same as everywhere else? It's a lot less parsimonious than a regular FLRW model, anyway, so absent any strong evidence I don't think it's considered very likely.
 
  • Like
Likes sysprog
  • #35
Ibix said:
The usual FLRW models are infinite or finite but unbounded
I’m not sure I would use the word ”unbounded” with the meaning ”without a boundary”. Bounded has a mathematical meaning which is quite different from set boundaries. Technically the word would be a singular n-cycle, but that is not very enlightening to someone who does not know what that is. I would probably just use with/without boundary.
 
  • Like
Likes mattt, Bandersnatch and sysprog

Suggested for: Big Bang Question -- How was the first matter formed?

Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
948
Replies
25
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
836
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top