Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Big Bang theory and the known universe

  1. Jun 19, 2017 #21

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I think the difference is that Russ is describing the origin of a light cone which, as he correctly points out, IS a geometric point, and I am discussing the volume of the observable universe at ~ one Plank Time which was not a geometric point. My post had in mind the original question, which did not involve a light cone but was a question about the volume.
     
  2. Jun 19, 2017 #22

    Ssnow

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    @phinds thanks for the precisation ...
    Ssnow
     
  3. Aug 30, 2017 #23

    ISamson

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I would like to point out, that the Big Bang itself is a theory and we do not have definitive proof of its existence. We have some theories predicting its existence, but we are not 100% sure.
     
  4. Aug 30, 2017 #24

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    That is incorrect. I think perhaps you misunderstand just what the Big Bang Theory IS.
     
  5. Aug 30, 2017 #25

    ISamson

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Could you explain yourself a bit more?
     
  6. Aug 30, 2017 #26

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Just read up on the BBT(*). It's a description of the expansion of the universe from a dense hot plasma, after the age of Inflation (which is itself problematic but that's irrelevant since it's before the BBT starts) to now. It is a very successful theory.

    * But watch out for pop-sci presentations which always get it completely wrong, starting with the incorrect statement that the universe started with either a point of infinite mass and zero volume, or that it started with a "singularity" which they define poorly or just, again, as a "point" which is not what that word means.
     
  7. Aug 30, 2017 #27

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The BB theory makes no attempt to explain the origin of the universe, it only asserts that a very long time ago the universe was fantastically dense and hot. The confusion arises when you attempt to force it back beyond its realm of applicability [i.e.,, t=0]. Modern modeling suggests the big bang was preceded by a brief period of inflation. What came before inflation is still unknown - although that has never prevented a good guess.
     
  8. Aug 31, 2017 #28
    I am trying to improve some Wikipedia articles on this, and I think it's an excellent thread to seek some clarifications on Big Bang theory. In regards to "early BB", where in time current BB theories are becoming more speculative? What is known with near 100% certainty, and how this percentage goes lower and lower when we go back in time.

    Let me start, and feel free to chime in:

    - we are very close to 100% certain about conditions at recombination, ~380 thousand years since BB (matter and energy contents of the Universe, temperature, pressure, isotope balance, size of the volume which will become "observable Universe", etc...). The only thing we don't know is what exactly dark matter particle(s) were (at any moment in the history of Universe, not only this moment).

    - BB nucleosynthesis (~10 to 1000 seconds since BB). We are almost as certain about this moment in history too.

    - Neutrino decoupling (~1 second). This is still fairly well understood. Since this corresponds to about 1MeV temperature, it is well within the explored area of particle interactions. We still know all particle types which should have been present at this moment, no unknowns here. Our knowledge might become even better when (and if) primordial neutrino background from this moment will be detected, similar how study of CMB improved our knowledge in the past. (How big the radius of volume of future "Observable Universe" was at this point, was is ~15 ly? What was the average density?)

    - Quark-gluon plasma epoch, followed by "hadron epoch". (Currently Wiki states that these periods were roughly at [10^−12, 10^−6] seconds and [10^−6, 1] seconds since BB. Does this look about right for you?) We have mostly good grasp of hadron physics, byt our knowledge of high-density states of hadronized matter (neutron stars, for example) and quark-gluon plasmas is relatively new and is evolving. We have qualitative understanding of it, but precise, sub-1% predictions are not currently available.

    - Electroweak symmetry breaking. Temperature was about ~100 GeV. Was it at about 10^−32s "since BB"? Unknown particle flavors may be present (semi-random example - nuMSM extension of standard model says additional heavy neutrinos existed at this time, and they decayed before neutrino decoupling occurred).

    - End of inflation, reheating. This is increasingly speculative territory, but I think scientists do have good ideas what temperatures should be achieved by reheating (too high temperature may cause unwanted particle types to be generated, such as magnetic monopoles. Inflation theory one of the reasons of existence is to "dilute" them to zero density and thus explain why they are not observed - can't have that ruined, right?). What are these temperatures?

    - "Grand unification epoch", inflation, quantum gravity epoch. This is speculative territory. We don't know whether there _is_ a GUT. We don't know how long inflation lasted, and what field causes it. We don't know how cold Universe become during inflation, before reheating - 10^22K? 1K? Practically zero kelvins? We have no well-developed quantum gravity theory. Also, "N seconds since BB" times stop making sense here, "since BB" is the backward continuation of observed Hubble expansion and is not a hard rule, and this continuation stops being valid. Am I right about this?
     
  9. Aug 31, 2017 #29

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I wouldn't exactly say that's wrong (albeit not well worded), just overused and essentially pointless. Every theory is by definition not 100% proven. So what? I wouldn't go betting against the sun rising tomorrow because GR isn't 100% proven!
     
  10. Aug 31, 2017 #30

    George Jones

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hi Ivan. I see that you are young (12), and that you are interested in learning about science. What Russ wrote is important.

    In one of his books, Robert Geroch, a top mathematical physicist, elaborated on this:

     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted