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

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MagneticMagic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang Matter
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the formation of the first matter in the context of the Big Bang, exploring various hypotheses about the nature of the event and the processes involved in the creation of light elements such as hydrogen, helium, and lithium. The conversation touches on theoretical aspects, cosmological models, and the implications of current understanding in cosmology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the Big Bang could have involved a conversion of highly-dense dark energy into mass, likening it to a nuclear explosion.
  • Others assert that light elements were created shortly after the Big Bang during Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), which is generally well understood.
  • One participant suggests that lithium is produced through specific reactions that are rare, leading to its trace amounts prior to the formation of stars.
  • There are challenges regarding the balance of certain nuclear equations presented in the discussion.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the nature of the universe, discussing whether it is finite or infinite, and whether this is part of the "standard view." They note that current measurements do not rule out a finite but closed universe.
  • Disagreement arises over the implications of finiteness and boundedness, with some arguing that finite does not necessarily imply bounded, using the analogy of the surface of a sphere.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach consensus on the nature of the universe (finite vs. infinite) and the implications of this for the discussion. Multiple competing views remain regarding the formation of matter and the processes involved in the early universe.

Contextual Notes

Some equations presented in the discussion are noted to be unbalanced, and there are unresolved questions about the definitions and implications of finiteness and infiniteness in cosmological models.

  • #61
horacio torres said:
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?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #62
phinds said:
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.
 
  • #63
JandeWandelaar said:
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.
 
  • #64
JandeWandelaar said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: phinds
  • #65
phinds said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: malawi_glenn
  • #66
jbriggs444 said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jbriggs444
  • #67
phinds said:
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.
Orodruin said:
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...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Rev. Cheeseman and malawi_glenn
  • #68
JandeWandelaar said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Orodruin and JandeWandelaar
  • #69
JandeWandelaar said:
There are more almost flat universes than universes with small radius.
According to what measure?

JandeWandelaar said:
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.
 
  • #70
Orodruin said:
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...
 

Similar threads

High School How can a single Big Bang be true?
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Graduate Form of energy at time of big bang
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
High School Big Bang and Infinite Universe
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Undergrad Shouldn't the Big bang be physically impossible?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
High School Did the Big Bang create space and time?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
High School Did the big bang create something from nothing?
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
High School Did the Big Bang follow multiple bangs? How did matter come to collide?
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
High School Before Big Bang: What Surrounds the Singularity?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
High School What Are Common Misunderstandings About the Big Bang Theory?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
High School Is Entropy the Key to Understanding the Big Bang and the Fate of the Universe?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K