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

[PeterDonis]

The "what is beyond space" statement is simply a response to the statement that space is finite.

Even if our universe is spatially finite (which is still a possibility allowed by the data although it is currently considered unlikely), there would not be anything outside it. A spatially finite universe does not have to have a boundary; the simplest model of such a universe has the spatial topology of a 3-sphere, which has a finite volume but no boundary (just as a 2-sphere has a finite area but no boundary).

Drakkith's seems to hypothesized the whole universe as a big matter with nothingness as the background.

He said no such thing. Our current model of the universe has the same average density everywhere. There is no finite region of matter with the rest being "nothingness".

As I already pointed out, only matter is finite while the background (doesn't matter what people called them space, vacuum, void, etc.) is infinite.

This is wrong.

This is not your thread and you are cluttering it with speculation and incorrect statements. You have now been banned from further posting in this thread.

 

[JandeWandelaar]

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.

I think you're right. It's very close to flat, but just as flat-Earthers assume a globally flat Earth, flat spacers assume an infinite flat universe. But it could very well be that the curvature is very close to flat and that the universe is a closed structure, like the surface of the Earth. So if the non-flatness is very small, it could be that we just can't measure it (yet).

 

[Drakkith]

I think you're right. It's very close to flat, but just as flat-Earthers assume a globally flat Earth, flat spacers assume an infinite flat universe.

Whoa, whoa. Let's not compare cosmologists to flat-Earthers. The latter group believes the Earth is flat in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The former models the universe as flat because there's no evidence otherwise.

 

[JandeWandelaar]

Whoa, whoa. Let's not compare cosmologists to flat-Earthers. The latter group believes the Earth is flat in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The former models the universe as flat because there's no evidence otherwise.

Well, we don't know. Long time ago people thought the Earth was flat because they didn't have evidence yet it was a globe. I think we're in the same state nowadays insofar space is concerned. We assume if flat because of lack of the contrary. It could have started in an infinite space or in a small closed one. You can assume both and closed spacers are as right as flat-spacers. It depends on your theory or model which you prefer.

 

[Orodruin]

We assume if flat because of lack of the contrary.

This assertion is simply false and misleading. Nobody who works in cosmology would tell you the universe is flat at 100% certainty. That is just a misrepresentation of the current state of cosmology. What they will tell you is that if it is not flat then it has a pretty enormous radius of curvature many many times bigger than the size of the observable universe

 

[JandeWandelaar]

This assertion is simply false and misleading. Nobody who works in cosmology would tell you the universe is flat at 100% certainty. That is just a misrepresentation of the current state of cosmology. What they will tell you is that if it is not flat then it has a pretty enormous radius of curvature many many times bigger than the size of the observable universe

Exactly. That's what I meant. I used the wrong wording. Thanks.

 

[phinds]

What they will tell you is that if it is not flat then it has a pretty enormous radius of curvature many many times bigger than the size of the observable universe

And they might add that of ALL the infinite values it COULD have, the fact that it is flat within our ability to measure it is just one HELL of a co-incidence if it's not actually flat. That's not any kind of proof but it sure is suggestive.

 

[JandeWandelaar]

And they might add that of ALL the infinite values it COULD have, the fact that it is flat within our ability to measure it is just one HELL of a co-incidence if it's not actually flat. That's not any kind of proof but it sure is suggestive.

Why would the fact that it's flat within our ability to measure be a concidence if space is closed with a huge radius? It would be logical then that we measure flatness within our ability. We couldn't measure non-flatness then. So it suggests that the radius is huge.

 

[horacio torres]

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.

the statement ¨Our visible universe is very homogenous, which means on a large scale it is pretty much the same everywhere¨

It means that we are like bacterium compare with the all universe that we actual see it is an real big one space with spot every 300 mm Years light of matter and energy.Horacio

 

[phinds]

Why would the fact that it's flat within our ability to measure be a concidence if space is closed with a huge radius?

To me, that question reads exactly as follows "if the universe were almost flat why would it be a coincidence that it is almost flat?"

 

[phinds]

It means that we are like bacterium compare with the all universe that we actual see it is an real big one space with spot every 300 mm Years light of matter and energy.

What's your point? Are you just being nihilistic or is it something else?

 

[JandeWandelaar]

To me, that question reads exactly as follows "if the universe were almost flat why would it be a coincidence that it is almost flat?"

I merely quoted your statement. If it's almost flat it surely is not a coincidence we measure it close to flat.

 

[phinds]

I merely quoted your statement. If it's almost flat it surely is not a coincidence we measure it close to flat.

You're missing the point. There are an infinite number of values that flatness COULD have. The coincidence would be that it just HAPPENS to be almost exactly flat to within our ability to measure it instead of any of the other infinite values it could have.

 

[Orodruin]

I merely quoted your statement. If it's almost flat it surely is not a coincidence we measure it close to flat.

No, you either misread it, misunderstood it, or willfully misrepresented it. Neither of which is very constructive to further the conversation.

 

[jbriggs444]

You're missing the point. There are an infinite number of values that flatness COULD have. The coincidence would be that it just HAPPENS to be almost exactly flat to within our ability to measure it instead of any of the other infinite values it could have.

Without knowing the distribution of values that the flatness could have, it is perhaps premature to be using uppercase letters to express amazement that the flatness is zero to within the sensitivity of our measurements.

 

[Orodruin]

Without knowing the distribution of values that the flatness could have, it is perhaps premature to be using uppercase letters to express amazement that the flatness is zero to within the sensitivity of our measurements.

I mean, one of the purposes of inflation is to drive the universe undistinguishably close to flatness from basically any other curvature distribution. It all depends on what one assumes, but almost any distribution that is somewhat ”natural” without additional mechanisms such as inflation will typically result in larger expected deviations.

 

[JandeWandelaar]

And they might add that of ALL the infinite values it COULD have, the fact that it is flat within our ability to measure it is just one HELL of a co-incidence if it's not actually flat. That's not any kind of proof but it sure is suggestive.

There are more almost flat universes than universes with small radius.

I mean, one of the purposes of inflation is to drive the universe undistinguishably close to flatness from basically any other curvature distribution

Is it the purpose of inflation or the effect of inflation that the universe is driven to (close to) flatness? Or was it invented with the purpose of explaining observed flatness? Maybe it's just playing with words...

 

[phinds]

Or was it invented with the purpose of explaining observed flatness?

Well, yes and no. Guth "invented" it to explain flatness but it was then discovered that it ALSO explains other serious problems so it is a highly favored theory, albeit not proven.
https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html

It is definitely not just playing with words.

 

[Orodruin]

There are more almost flat universes than universes with small radius.

According to what measure?

Is it the purpose of inflation or the effect of inflation that the universe is driven to (close to) flatness? Or was it invented with the purpose of explaining observed flatness? Maybe it's just playing with words...

You are just playing with words. Obviously no physical model has any form of deeper purpose other than describing observations.

 

[JandeWandelaar]

Obviously no physical model has any form of deeper purpose other than describing observations.

I think this is not so obvious. Besides describing the observations the model can show us what reality looks like.

But let's not go philosophical...