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

Evidence for pre Big Bang physical universe?

  1. Dec 22, 2009 #1
    If the universe is shown to have angular velocity, is this evidence of a physical universe prior to the "Big Bang"?

    Several studies are being undertaken currently to determine the rotational velocity of the universe. So far they have all indicated a positive velocity although the values determined are not all the same depending on the computational model used.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/t42n638233258641/fulltext.pdf

    Rotational velocity of a mass implies angular momentum, remember the spinning ice skater in high school physics. Angular momentum is always conserved it is a basic law of physics. Now lets shrink the universe, as we travel back in time 13.7 billion years. What happens as the universe shrinks? It spins faster and faster. There is a recognised limit ie c the speed of light. So the "big bang" proto-universe was probably spinning, and pretty fast at that, but at or less than the speed of light. Given we have the total mass/energy of the universe with all its inertia in a very small space spinning pretty fast, we have one very large amount of angular momentum.

    Of course there are paradoxes, if the universe is spinning where is its axis? When we look at the universe it seems uniform all over with no indication of an actual physical center. That aside I continue.

    My question is if the proto-universe has all this angular momentum, where did it come from? Could I hypothesis that it is possibly the legacy of some pre-existing massive spinning object obeying the conservation of angular momentum law? Could I further hypothesis that it is implied evidence of real physics prior to the "Big Bang" phenomena, such as a previous rotating universe's "Big Crunch".

    I know this is a place where angels (and scientists) fear to tread, but it does work on the basis of normal natural physics. If the universes rotational velocity is measured, could this not be a priori evidence for a closed oscillating universe.

    I am fully aware that current evidence indicates the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerated rate. This would lead to the conclusion that, contrary to the above, the universe is open. Its fate the same as a flat universe, cold, dead, infinitely diluted, spread across a dark cryogenic void. This would indicate the big bang was a one off event and generates paradoxes such as how do you get such a massive amount of something like a universe, from a void of nothingness. The intellectually simpler answer is a closed universe eg oscillating universe, with no beginning or end thus removing the paradoxical question of how did it begin.

    However, to be closed we need to account for the mass that appears to be missing, that would be required for the total gravity of the system to counter the expansion, slowing it, causing a reversal and eventual collapse into the next "Big Crunch".

    This has prompted us to look for the "hidden" missing matter and has led to the discovery of dark matter/energy, although its exact nature is unknown it is apparently non-Baryonic.

    It appears to me that a closed universe must take into account all energy/matter equivalence. During the "Big Bang" expansion phase, and matter antimatter annihilation stage, massively vast quantities of gamma radiation were emitted these would have radiated out at the speed of light in an expanding shell like process. (ever seen the old footage of a nuclear blast). Lets call this the gamma photosphere. In theory it should now have a diameter of 27.4 Billion light years, and be around 380,000 light years thick. As massive as it is I doubt we would ever be able to see it.

    If E=mc^2, then the gamma photons that constitute this photosphere, have a mass equivalent of m=E/mc^2=hv/mc^2. Could this be part of our "missing" mass. But photons are massless! Are they? It seems gravity affects them and black holes trap them.

    If large masses affect photons, do photons affect large masses?

    Next take this shell idea to its absurdity. Although we see the Big Bang as more of an expansion than explosion over about 380,000 years, I still feel it was a fairly tumultuous environment, matter antimatter energetics are fairly explosive. So I envisage the proto-universe as some sort of violent hot quark soup, where some areas are cooler, eg the outside, allowing sub-nuclear binding, eventually forming leptons and baryons etc and emitting lots of gamma hv. I believe these particles especially on the outer fringes are literally blasted into the void continuously during this period.

    Lets assume that the particles all have the same force applied (Dangerous assumption on my part but I have to start somewhere), ie total impulse, since the particles have different masses the velocity these are expelled at, will be inversely proportional to their mass. The long and the short of this model, is that like the photo sphere mentioned earlier there may be successive shells like the rings of an onion, all with far smaller diameter spheres. May be the neutrino sphere is followed by the negatively charged leptons and much further in because of their far greater mass, baryons, a shell of positively charged protons, next neutrons, alpha particles (Doubly charged), then eventually atoms ions compounds and us.

    Of course this could all be arrogant nonsense because I am missing some pertinent facts, but if my logic makes sense then the question arises. What is the effect of having charged shells surrounding the inner universe, could the induced electrostatic attraction be sufficient to account for the accelerating expansion that is currently being observed?

    Some things to measure and ponder.

    Cheers
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 22, 2009 #2
    Rotational velocity of a mass implies angular momentum, remember the spinning ice skater in high school physics. Angular momentum is always conserved it is a basic law of physics. Now lets shrink the universe, as we travel back in time 13.7 billion years. What happens as the universe shrinks? It spins faster and faster. There is a recognised limit ie c the speed of light. So the "big bang" proto-universe was probably spinning, and pretty fast at that, but at or less than the speed of light. Given we have the total mass/energy of the universe with all its inertia in a very small space spinning pretty fast, we have one very large amount of angular momentum.

    I'm curious. Why do you start with the assumption that the rotational speed be limited to < c? I thought GR and all the peer efforts showed that in the singularity space is collapsed and the rotational speed has no theoretical limit. Einstein described a collapsing star spinning at speeds above c ( and was certain it would fly apart before actually collapsing into a singularity ).

    I just got warned yesterday so I won't make the same mistake here, but the rotational speed is a direct result of mass ... so a black hole/singularity containing all the mass of the visible universe would have a pretty high rotation. And were it to 'go off' you would have to assume serious angular momentum ... among other effects ....
     
  4. Dec 22, 2009 #3
    I guess as the stationary observer on the outside, if such a place existed , I assumed c would apply, if we bring in GR and SR then we may observe from the inside other effects and greater speed. But the speed is not central to my argument about how and why a pre-existing angular momentum is present, I see it as the possible final remaining evidence of a previous collapsed universe?.

    Second if we have a transition to a quantal state surely it must be a macro effect ie a quantal fluid ie Bose-Einstein condensate like cooled liquid helium. This is because a quantal singularity could not exist as a single defined point. Quantum physics says we cannot determine both position and velocity at the same time as they are probability curves of standing waves. However we could have a quantum fluid a finite volume behaving similar to liquid helium.

    Cheers
     
  5. Dec 22, 2009 #4
    The crux of my model is ... the critical mass point of a black hole is EXACTLY equal to the total mass/energy of the visible/local universe. Everything that came FROM the big bang is the exact amount of mass necessary to CAUSE the big bang. As an eternal closed loop ... moving in a linear fashion through time ... this would be a good explanation for 'pre-existing' angular momentum.

    As far as your second paragraph, I think we don't know enough about the properties of a singularity and the space it 'occupies' to make definitive assumptions.
     
  6. Dec 22, 2009 #5
    Tiapan wrote ...

    My question is if the proto-universe has all this angular momentum, where did it come from? Could I hypothesis that it is possibly the legacy of some pre-existing massive spinning object obeying the conservation of angular momentum law? Could I further hypothesis that it is implied evidence of real physics prior to the "Big Bang" phenomena, such as a previous rotating universe's "Big Crunch".

    ............................................................................................

    One of the fallacious presumptions of our species is that nothing existed before we ( and OUR universe ) came along. I am at a loss to understand why physics would not have existed prior to the existence of our visible universe. Because we we not there to observe it? Because 'ours' is the first physical object to have ever existed? This has always seemed the height of arrogance ... of unsupported ego.
     
  7. Dec 22, 2009 #6
    Unfortunately I can't access that paper. My understanding is that all of the observations of the early universe is consistent with zero rotation.

    I think you have the idea that the big bang was an explosion of something expanding into something else. It's better to think of the big bang as an explosion that was happening everywhere. At a given time post-big bang, one part of the universe is going to look a lot like another part of the universe, so you don't have separate onion shells.

    Except that the big bang isn't expanding into anything. When the matter-antimatter annihilation happened, then the universe was dense and hot enough so that the photons aren't going to get very far before getting reabsorbed.
     
  8. Dec 22, 2009 #7
    It's possible that nothing existed before the big bang. It's possible that everything existed before the big bang. Given a lack of evidence, then anything is possible.
     
  9. Dec 22, 2009 #8
    "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." This is true only where there is an ABSENCE of evidence. We have mountains of evidence that 'space' exists and is uniform unless disturbed by mass. It would be illogical to presume 'anything is possible' in the light of the available evidence.

    Shall we say it's 'possible' that you might get a gold atom if you fuse two hydrogen atoms? No. The evidence is sufficient to reject that possibility.
     
  10. Dec 22, 2009 #9
    Thank you twofish. My model would be better described as a confluence of events. 'Local' space was collapsed into the singularity just before the 'bang'. When critical mass was achieved, collapsed space 'reverted back to shape' taking radiation, and hydrogen/helium from the 'big bang' with it. Additionally there would have been the initial angular momentum resulting from the near infinite rotational speed of the singularity.

    The first part of this would explain isotropy ... the homogenous hydrogen, helium, CMBR, etc. So no, I am not thinking of the big bang as a simple explosion spreading out into space from a 'central' location.
     
  11. Dec 22, 2009 #10

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It has been 'space' itself that has been expanding since the BB. At the BB 'space' did not exist, in any meaningful sense. Any volume of occupied space, such as that of the observable universe, would have had zero volume.

    At the BB the singularity was one of time as well as space so there is no 'evidence' that there was a 'before'.

    If we are dealing with physics and not metaphysics then we can only approach the singularity from the positive time axis, but not actually reach it.


    Garth
     
  12. Dec 22, 2009 #11
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2009
  13. Dec 22, 2009 #12

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    What evidence do you have to support that assertion?

    How do you know what a given theoretical physicist believes? The cosmologists I know of do not say, in their papers, that they believe the models they have proposed. One puts forward a model if one thinks it is worth testing and the purpose of presenting it is to get it considered by others and tested.

    If a guy expresses his reservations about a model and makes it clear he does not believe it but is offering it for comparison with data, then one what basis do you, pywakit, claim that he is not telling the truth---that he actually believes, prior to empirical testing, that his theory is right?
     
  14. Dec 22, 2009 #13
    I like to pick on Frampton ... so I will again. He offered up his 'empty packet' theory to the science world, and everything I have read about it fairly screams "I BELIEVE!" ...

    Wonder what experiments his peers came up with? Theorems? Yes. No doubt there are many occasions where a reasonable hypothesis might be expressed with reservations. Certainly there are many scientists who have doubts ( serious or otherwise ) about the validity of their hypothesis. Yes there are 'truthful' scientists.

    My point was only that beliefs cloud logic, and rationality.
     
  15. Dec 22, 2009 #14
    Garth wrote ....

    "Any volume of occupied space, such as that of the observable universe, would have had zero volume."

    Zero stored energy, too?
     
  16. Dec 22, 2009 #15
    Thank you Twofish for your reply.

    Sorry here is the abstract
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/t42n638233258641/"

    Newer data may supersede this, also the point that if there is no external reference how does one determine as an observer whether the object you are sitting on is rotating or not. Perhaps Coriolis effect or measurable angular acceleration component, neither of which are apparently within our current measurement limits at present.

    Yep I hear what you are saying and the fact that the physical properties of the universe we observe are so homogeneous eg 4K background, suggests that model may be correct. I guess the difference is that even if our real space is in fact a "space" on the "skin" of an expanding bubble would still indicate a hypothetical center of the locus in space-time ie the center of the bubble, does this imply this is a virtual center, not found in our real space hence a paradox.

    I am aware of that position. However this model assumes a definition of "universe" along the lines of "That which is all". I query this, and am open to the concept which defines a "universe", as that which has its genesis in a "Big Bang" phenomena?

    The latter could imply that there is space/void being expanded into, that these events occur within ie that which is from the "Big Bang" but accordingly that which is outside the "Big Bang" is also valid theoretically. It also allows multiple instances of other possibly concurrent "universes". Intuitively I can relate better to this latter scenario than the idea of a one off everything. But intuition is not scientific fact. This shifts the gravitational dynamics, in that we could now deal will smaller fractions of local mass where a closed universe may be achievable.

    Could quasars and superclusters be other universes separate to our own ie not formed from our Big Bang? If true one would expect these distant objects to be fixed with local stars and galaxies (native to our universe) moving past them. Have we observed these with sensitive enough equipment to perceive any change in relative position, I get the feeling the measurement would take significant time to see a measureable change if the rotational velocity, if it exists, is slow.


    I guess I am looking at it being analogous to a star. Photons in the stellar center may take years to reach the outer surface because of the convoluted path of absorbing electronic transitions and re-emmissions, while transiting the dense cauldron of seething matter. However once at the surface a photon which has a directional vector of velocity, which can if facing away from the dense matter expand away from the source massive object, and further I wonder what (type of) force would be necessary to alter its path especially a 180 degree turn in such a small distance except massive gravity, but that cant be correct because a Big Bang event is an apparent breach in gravitional containment. Hence the onion rings idea.

    I wish I knew more so I could determine the methods to test my ideas better. But whilst I bow to those such as Lorentz, Boltzman, Bohr, Einstein, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Hawking, I still like to look at the evidence then draw a conclusion of my own, then check if these others have similar ideas, and feel proud if I come close.

    Particularly whether we have a closed, flat or open universe. the first would explain a lot of awkward questions the latter two have too many paradoxes, yet the evidence at present is in their favor. I find it is often the simplest solution that is closest to the truth.

    BTW just saw this vid so I am feeling more optimistic.


    Cheers
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  17. Dec 22, 2009 #16
    Similar to the open, flat or closed universe hypothesis three situations are available, only evidence will ultimately determine which of the three is correct. At present the evidence is favor of the more problematic solutions. So your "critical mass point" could be greater than, equal to or less than the universes total energy/mass. If it is greater than, then the anomalous breach of gravitational constraint would not occur so I guess we can rule that one out, assuming you are suggesting this as the source of the Big Bang. To be exactly equal to leaves no room for loss or error, yet we have Mr. Heisenberg that may defeat that. This leaves us with the less than scenario, which may imply what I am saying. Sure we could have a big bang which forms our universe but there is a bit (or lots) left over ie that which is separate to our universe.

    Perhaps I can answer some of the paradox as follows
    Lets say we have three types of space
    1. Normal space ie a spacial volume containing matter eg solid, liquid, gas, plasma, dark matter, which at any particular instant may contain transiting electromagnetic or "dark" energy eg the 4K background.
    2. Classical vacuum ie a spacial volume containing NO matter eg solid, liquid, gas, plasma, dark matter, but which at any particular instant may contain transiting electromagnetic or "dark" energy eg the 4K background. So can we define it as really empty?
    3. Absolute vacuum ie a spacial volume containing NO matter eg solid, liquid, gas, plasma, dark matter, and which at any particular instant contains NO transiting electromagnetic or "dark" energy eg the 4K background. In other words it is a true void it contains nothing, zilch, vacant, empty. Surely this kind of space could only exist beyond our universe. Is it a case of defining Nothing = Something. If this something os nothing then that matches the other theory of the bubble expanding but there is "nothing" beyond that it is expanding into.

    True but we are free to meditate and discuss hypothesis. My point was not so much about a singularity but whether or not it can be quantal.



    Cheers
     
  18. Dec 22, 2009 #17
    Could you expand on this statement please

    Cheers
     
  19. Dec 22, 2009 #18
    I am not sure I agree totally, I believe angular momentum could be valid physical evidence, I have already given my reasons why above provided the universe rotates (at any speed).

    I agree apart from this we have no other observable evidence to work with, so we cannot postulate mechanisms without evidence. But does that rule out negative or normal time pre big bang? I think not.

    I have problems visualising singularities thinking them more quantal in nature as a standing wave where position and velocity can not be measured simultaneously. I prefer the concept of quantal fluid with a finite volume. Just my thought. All facts start off as a simple ideas.

    The asymptotic example does not rule out its sister the other side of the mirror to maintain symmetry.

    Cheers
     
  20. Dec 23, 2009 #19
     
  21. Dec 24, 2009 #20
    We have evidence that this is how the universe works today. There's no reason to think that this is how the universe worked pre-big bang.
     
  22. Dec 24, 2009 #21
    That's a very old paper. It's an 1985 paper that refers to a 1982 paper by Birch

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Natur.298..451B

    and the title of *that* paper is "Is the universe rotating?" rather than "The universe is rotating!!!"

    More recent papers with a lot, lot better data give results of the global rotation of the universe that are consistent with zero rotation.

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997PhRvD..55.1901K
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PhRvL..77.2883B

    But it's not. You have to be careful not to confuse metaphors with reality. What the situation is that there is no reason that distances have to be Euclidean. If you have a right triangle, there is no reason why c^2 has to equal a^2 + b^2. It's just a property of the universe that we live in that it does.

    Now you could have other rules for distances which behave *as if* they were on some sphere in a higher dimensional Euclidean space. But that is just a metaphor for how distance behave. There is no reason for the higher dimensional space to exist.

    But observationally, there is no reason to presume that the big bang is expanding into something.
    ble.

    There is no reason to think that they are and some good reasons to think that they aren't. In particular, if you have quasars and superclusters that formed independently, then you should see elemental abundances that are very, very different. Right now everything that we've seen has about 25% helium with other stuff and the older the object is, the less other stuff we see. If you have quasars and things form from separate big bangs, then you should see quasars with 15% helium, some with 50% helium, and we don't see that.

    Also a single big bang provides a nice explanation for why we don't see nearby quasars. Quasar ate up all of the gas and dust and there isn't any more.

    During the 1960's-1970's, there was a huge amount of work done on trying to figure out what the universe would look like if there wasn't a big bang or if there were lots of little bang's. As we've gotten better data, it's moved things toward a big bang.

    I think you have a misunderstand of how the big bang model works. It's ok to reject the big bang model, but at least you have to have a clear idea of what it is that you are rejecting. In the big bang cosmology, you *don't* have an explosion that is moving into empty space. You have everything expanding from everything else.

    The problem is that it's not. Again, you can create your own model of cosmology, but if you want to reject the standard model, you have to understand it so that you can explain why you are rejecting it.

    There's no surface or edge in the BB cosmology. It's not an explosion that's expanding into something.

    First you understand the models. Once you understand the models, then you throw darts at it.

    You really shouldn't. Each one of these people got something seriously wrong.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  23. Dec 24, 2009 #22
    Yes it is because at that point you have a model that is not the big bang model. One thing about the BB model is that it assumes that at very large scales the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. Which is to say that one part of the universe is more or less like another part of the universe, enough so that the details don't matter enough when you are doing a basic calculation.

    If you have matter going into a vacuum, then this isn't the situation since at that point things are no longer homogeneous and isotropic. At this point, you are no longer working with anything resembling the standard big bang model at all.
     
  24. Dec 24, 2009 #23
    I respectfully disagree. We have 13.7 billion years worth of evidence. You make an illogical assumption based on many other illogical assumptions.

    What there is 'no reason' to believe is that the 'universe' ( infinite or finite ) operated in any other fashion before our BB. You make the baseless ( other than Man's ego ) assumption that our universe created it's own physics, rather than 'rightfully' assuming ( as a working model ) that every process that has occurred since the BB is simply part of the 'laws of space'.

    I will never understand the 'anything is possible' mentality. Once again. Mathematical probability/certainty does not equate to 'actually existing' in the universe.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2009
  25. Dec 24, 2009 #24
    I'm sorry. You misunderstood what I meant, I think. That analogy applied to the space between the finite universes such as ours. The property of space I am referring to tries to make the 'lines' straight. To get rid of gravitational ripples. To make it homogenous and isotropic. So space will work to spread them as far apart as it can.

    If space had it's way, every sub-atomic particle in the infinite universe would be equidistant.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2009
  26. Dec 25, 2009 #25
    Actually, we have volumes of evidence from experimental particle physics which clearly demonstrates successive degrees of unification at higher energies. As we reach back to the earlier portion of the Grand Unification epoch, even gravity is indistinguishable from the electronuclear force.

    That's quite different than the way the universe operates today.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook