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

  • Thread starter Thread starter MagneticMagic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang Matter
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on theories regarding the formation of matter during the Big Bang, questioning whether it was a singularity or an event where dark energy converted into mass. Participants debate the production of light elements like hydrogen, helium, and lithium, with a focus on the mechanisms behind lithium's formation. The conversation also touches on the current understanding of the universe's finiteness or infiniteness, with no consensus reached on whether the universe is finite and bounded or infinite and unbounded. The complexities of cosmological models, including the FLRW model, are highlighted, emphasizing that the nature of the universe remains an open question. Overall, the discourse reflects ongoing inquiries into the fundamental aspects of the universe's origins and structure.
  • #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 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 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 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 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 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

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K