How fast was the expansion during the big bang?

[Javaxcore]

i haven't even got any idea how what to search in order to find such an answer, but whenever i watch a documentary about physics, astrophysics, astrobiology,.etc and they do thr token intro of this is how the universe began... this question always niggles... because i don't reckon it would of been all that "big" of a bang actually nanoscopic or some such scale in all probability but the big probably meant to capture the significance of the moment... however my question mark still remains firmly over my head? Remember i mean in literal terms when i ask how big... i mean in terms of however they measure neutron mergers and supernovas and that type of stuff?

 

[Bandersnatch]

The question of size when applied to the Big Bang doesn't even make much sense, since the event (BB is an event in time, not an explosion in space) marks the early stages of the whole universe. Since it happened everywhere in the universe, its size was 'as big as the universe', including the possible case of 'infinitely large'.

 

[Javaxcore]

The question of size when applied to the Big Bang doesn't even make much sense, since the event (BB is an event in time, not an explosion in space) marks the early stages of the whole universe. Since it happened everywhere in the universe, its size was 'as big as the universe', including the possible case of 'infinitely large'.

Are there many theories pre-bang possibilities?

 

[Vanadium 50]

The question doesn't have an answer. It's the same question as "How big is 2001?"

 

[pbuk]

From a popular science point of view It occurred at the same time throughout the Universe and the amount of mass energy released was the mass energy of the Universe - you can't get any bigger than that in either respect.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Are there many theories pre-bang possibilities?

As far as I'm aware, no real theories - all propositions remain firmly in the realm of hypotheses that still need to develop testable predictions. Google: 'cyclic cosmology' to learn more.

 

[_PJ_]

(BB is an event in time,).

How can you state this?
Aside from cyclic or possibly certain multiverse theories (that have notions fo an overarching 'pproper time'), the very concept of time as a causal parametric is intimately connected to the "fabric of the universe" itself (i.e. spaceTIME - The initiation of which was only resultant from the Big Bang (or the process which constructed the Big Bang) - without the Big Bang, there is no temporal arena, no means to determine any such properties, therefore, no 'time' - there is no external observer from which a frame of reference can be ascertained.

I am really struggling to understand how you mean occurring 'IN TIME', please can you help?

 

[Bandersnatch]

How can you state this?
Aside from cyclic or possibly certain multiverse theories (that have notions fo an overarching 'pproper time'), the very concept of time as a causal parametric is intimately connected to the "fabric of the universe" itself (i.e. spaceTIME - The initiation of which was only resultant from the Big Bang (or the process which constructed the Big Bang) - without the Big Bang, there is no temporal arena, no means to determine any such properties, therefore, no 'time' - there is no external observer from which a frame of reference can be ascertained.

I am really struggling to understand how you mean occurring 'IN TIME', please can you help?

This confusion probably comes from the two ways Big Bang is used in literature - it can mean either 'the hot, dense state in the early universe', or 'the big bang singularity'.
The former is just what it says on the tin: a period and a state the universe was some time before now, that extrapolating the observed expansion backwards in time predicts. The latter is what you get if you keep on extrapolating until the model ends up in a singularity.
The thing is, the BB singularity is not thought to be an actual physical feature in the history of the universe, but more of an indication of limitations of the model that gives raise to it. I.e., the BB theory, strictly speaking, doesn't have anything to say about the genesis, which is what focusing on the singularity might suggest.
That's why it is preferred to use BB in the former sense, as it describes the actual, physical state in the history of the universe, and is a valid domain of the theory.

 

[alw34]

As far as I'm aware, no real theories - all propositions remain firmly in the realm of hypotheses that still need to develop testable predictions

yes.

The question of size when applied to the Big Bang doesn't even make much sense, since the event (BB is an event in time, not an explosion in space) marks the early stages of the whole universe.

But it might make sense. Nobody really knows.

It's not just that we have no testable theory, we don't even have a generally agreed upon theory past about 10^-32 seconds after the 'big bang'. There is no real framework to answer the question.

Wikipedia has a good descriptive passage here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline

"Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinitedensity and temperature at a finite time in the past.[18] This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity and thus, all the laws of physics. How closely this can be extrapolated toward the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. .."

I'm not sure "all the laws of physics" really break down. I'd prefer to say we may need to transition from the large scale laws of general relativity to inflation theory [which has been done] and then back to the small scale laws of quantum physics, but no one yet knows how to do that or if it can be done.

Also, click on the Wikipedia illustration under "Introduction" for a visual representation.

 

[Bandersnatch]

But it might make sense. Nobody really knows.

No, it doesn't make sense. We're not talking about anything with spatial extent as a property.

 

[_PJ_]

"I'm not sure "all the laws of physics" really break down."

Oh they do - largely due to the irreconcilability you mention between GR and QM.
At a singularity, spatial and temporal) extent becomes 0, so density becomes infinite - QM would require that the universe seeps out from this 0 spatial extent, but SR would forbid this. A point has fewer degrees of freedom, therefore higher potential for symmetry, but the this would not allow for a Big Bang, since entropy tends to increase...
There are lots and lots of physical principles that simply do not work with a singularity. Our current physics, whilst acceptably accurate for their respective domains (GR for the large, QM for the small) fail to provide meaningful results when applied to these extremes.

 

[alw34]

No, it doesn't make sense. We're not talking about anything with spatial extent as a property.

Since there is no theory, I can't disagree!

 

[alw34]

"I'm not sure "all the laws of physics" really break down."

Oh they do - largely due to the irreconcilability you mention between GR and QM.

Nature seems to get along splendidly; it's our current best models that are not up to the job.

 

[_PJ_]

i haven't even got any idea how what to search in order to find such an answer, but whenever i watch a documentary about physics, astrophysics, astrobiology,.etc and they do thr token intro of this is how the universe began... this question always niggles... because i don't reckon it would of been all that "big" of a bang actually nanoscopic or some such scale in all probability but the big probably meant to capture the significance of the moment... however my question mark still remains firmly over my head? Remember i mean in literal terms when i ask how big... i mean in terms of however they measure neutron mergers and supernovas and that type of stuff?

The actual term "Big Bang" was meant disparagingly, but light-humoured. At the time of Hubble's discovery that the universe consisted of other galaxies and these all expressed motion away from each other etc. the only other theories around consisted of 'steady state' theories in which stars and such were somewhat constant in nature and that the universe existed for infinite duration, or variations whereby new stars would be created and die out striking an overall balance and of course, the religious impositions on ideas too.
On Hubble's discovery, the implication was apparent that, if everything was moving apart, then in the past, extrapolation logically deduced that everything must have been closer together. This became the basis for the idea that the universe 'exploded' (in terms of perceived motion, not necessarily of any pyrotechnic event) from a pointlike region
Fred Hoyle, who opposed this notion, referred to it in something along the lines of "I reject the idea that the universe started with a Big Bang" and thus, the theory gained a popular - if rather unimaginative name.

 

[_PJ_]

Nature seems to get along splendidly; it's our current best models that are not up to the job.

Precisely. And our 'laws of physics' are those models. Which break down.

 

[_PJ_]

Max Tegmark writes ( from the perspective of Inflationary Theory), that the Big Bang occurred within "a region of space...but much smaller than an atom" that it was not at all points, but a defined region of spatial extent.

The catch here, is that within the theory, regions of a bulk universe can (and necessarily do) undergo inflationary periods, some continuing indefinitely, others ending with an actual Big Bang event and nucleosynthesis. Though our 'universe' is then but a bubble in a larger expanse of spacetime, it takes no more actual volume of that spacetime, therefore this is largely regarded as a 'mutiverse' where each bubble is a separate universe, rather than the traditional all-encompassing universe.

As far as I'm aware, no real theories - all propositions remain firmly in the realm of hypotheses that still need to develop testable predictions. Google: 'cyclic cosmology' to learn more.

What of "spectral tilt" within the CBR as predicted by the basic Steinhardt/Turok cyclic/epkaryotic universe?

Google Cyclic Cosmology to learn more.

 

[gjonesy]

hmmm since the bb was considered the beginning of the universe it was the size of,.. well,...the universe (at the time).

 

[Bandersnatch]

What of "spectral tilt" within the CBR as predicted by the basic Steinhardt/Turok cyclic/epkaryotic universe?

Fair enough, they're testable. I should probably have said 'none give predictions allowing to distinguish them from inflationary models with our current observations'. As far as I remember a recent discussion here on PF, the 2015 Planck results were still inconclusive in this respect.

Google Cyclic Cosmology to learn more.

Heh. Thanks. It wasn't my intention to sound patronising.

 

[_PJ_]

Fair enough, they're testable. I should probably have said 'none give predictions allowing to distinguish them from inflationary models with our current observations'. As far as I remember a recent discussion here on PF, the 2015 Planck results were still inconclusive in this respect.Heh. Thanks. It wasn't my intention to sound patronising.

:) 'll admit, it was lucky I only came across this recently:

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/InflationVCyclicTilt.pdf

But it's quite interesting (though I feel it's a little more shaping the lock to fit a key).

 

[zanick]

i don't think the entire universe as we see it was compacted in the size of an electron ... does anyone... it all mathematically works out until we try to explain why things are still accelerating? :) We have all these complex formulas and calculations that all go to pot, and we just interject the biggest variable possible.. a variable greater than the subject matter, that of " Dark Matter", and say that it is causing things to accelerate and not decelerate as we would first guess.
so many holes, but humans with all the ego, don't want to accept something that can t be explained. there might have been a big bang event, but i don't think everything exploded from something the size of an electron, do you?? I am thinking something the size of a galaxy, maybe! :)

 

[_PJ_]

It's Dark Energy that results in expansion, not Dark Matter :)
But the jury is still out on if there's any direct connection between DE and the Big Bang or Inflation.

Well, the obvious question is how did the something the size of a galaxy get to be there and get to be the size of a galaxy?
When considering any concept of the early universe's size, one must consider the 'Horizon Problem' - that there is a seeming connection or "synchronicity" in the energy density of a point on any "side" to its "antipode" - therefore, the upper limit on any size must have been that which allows for light (as causality) to cross from one side to the other.
Then, there is a minimal size, too, requiring the quantum uncertainty to be stretched through the expansion to result in the variations measured in the CMB today.

These two problems must be both addressed by any coherent theory of the universe origins.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

I often here in documentaries about the big bang, that in the first Planck time, the universe was smaller than an atom, then a few Planck times later it's the size of a grapefruit. This really irks me. What they mean is that the OBSERVABLE universe fit in such a size, the universe itself is much larger than what we can observe, and could be infinite.

 

[marcus]

A personal observation FWIW. Maybe somebody else will find it helpful.
I try to avoid using the term "Big Bang" both in writing and in my own thoughts. It is used so vaguely in so many different ways that it really has no meaning.

Instead (see if this seems reasonable) I talk about "the start of expansion". We see distances expanding according to GR--if we follow it back it seems it must have begun somehow. So "the start of expansion" has some simple concrete meaning--at least to me.

Different theories or models represent the start differently, so they would give different answers about conditions (density, size of what became the currently observable region, matter content if any, evolution of the Hubble expansion rate i.e. inflation or no-inflation, etc etc).

IOW there is no one "Big Bang". There are different versions of the start of expansion. So asking questions about the "Big Bang" (as if it meant something definite) tends to lead to confusion.

For me the easiest version of the start of expansion to imagine, and read research papers about, is the LQC bounce. There you have estimates of the density at bounce. You have computer models run under a variety of conditions---and a solvable equation model. You have definite predictions that can be tested by further observations of the CMB. For example see the recent paper by Ivan Agullo
Just google "agullo lqc predictions" and you should get
http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.05693
Detailed analysis of the predictions of loop quantum cosmology for the primordial power spectra
We provide an exhaustive numerical exploration of the predictions of loop quantum cosmology (LQC) with a post-bounce phase of inflation for the primordial power spectrum of scalar and tensor perturbations. We extend previous analysis by characterizing the phenomenologically relevant parameter space and by constraining it using observations. Furthermore, we characterize the shape of LQC-corrections to observable quantities across this parameter space. Our analysis provides a framework to contrast more accurately the theory with forthcoming polarization data, and it also paves the road for the computation of other observables beyond the power spectra, such as non-Gaussianity.
24 pages, 5 figures

Or if you don't recall Agullo's name, just google "lqc detailed predictions".
That also brings up the paper as the first hit.

 

[Chronos]

I share Marcus's discomfort with BB terminology. The way I see it, the BB is a causality based attempt to explain the origin of the universe - which assumes the universe actually had an origin at some finite time in the past. I feel it is perfectly reasonable to dispense with the classical notions of causality, where all events are the determinstic [or quantum probabilistic] consequences of a definable preexisting set of conditions. The obvious question here is what could have preceeded the universe, which by definition unconditionally includes all of physical reality - bearing in mind the 'observable universe' is merely a subset of the totality of physical reality just like integers are merely a subset of rational numbers. A precursor state would, afterall, still meet the definition of a universe. This line of reasoning merely pushes the question of origins back to the origin of the state that led to the BB. It's obviously a classic chicken and egg paradox. Scientists and philosophers are obviously no dummies, so this is less a 'Eureka' moment than an indictment of the limited ability of the human mind to comprehend reality on the grandest of scales. Most scientists are content to say 'we don't know', which is perfectly legitimate yet somehow unsatisfying. At some point we must relax our cherished notions of causality to achieve a deeper understanding of the universe. An interesting try is the universe from nothing idea. Nothing is famously resistant to definitions, the best obvious try is nothing is merely the absence of something and reminiscent of a mathematical proof that 0=0. In the end it becomes little more than an intriguing diversion strugglling under the weight of axioms. As mathematicians well know, proving an axiom is the road to insanity.

 

[JustinM523]

A couple of the responses in this thread were probably the most helpful things I've read to explain my misunderstanding of the Big Bang (or they just made me feel significantly more confident about a misunderstanding!)

Can someone help me make sure I understand the model correctly?
1. ~13.8B years ago, the observable universe was something smaller than an atom (probably the size of the Planck constant, maybe a singularity, etc. -- some debate).
2. This "universe that was smaller than an atom" was really inside of a much larger (potentially infinitely large) universe. (let's call this "the Larger Universe")
3. The spatial fabric of the universe expanded enormously fast for a very short period of time (an explosion of space) like a balloon. And then the matter moved away from each other.

Is that right? And if so:
1. Do we think the rest of The Larger Universe experienced the same inflation?
2. Is the same inflation that caused the Big Bang still the cause of continued expansion, or is that something else? (If something else, then what?)
3. Here's where I'm particularly confused. According to Wiki, here's what caused the Big Bang:

In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. Approximately 10−37 seconds into the expansion, a phase transition caused a cosmic inflation, during which the universe grew exponentially.

If the observable universe was really inside a larger universe, does this explanation really make sense?

 

[OCR]

The question of size when applied to the Big Bang doesn't even make much sense, since the event (BB is an event in time, not an explosion in space) marks the early stages of the whole universe. Since it happened everywhere in the universe, its size was 'as big as the universe', including the possible case of 'infinitely large'.

My strike-through...

Since it happened everywhere in the universe, its size was 'as big as the universe', including the possible case of 'infinitely large'.

Sorry for being nitpicky, but... you do see the issue, right ?

 

[Bandersnatch]

you do see the issue, right ?

No. Unless you're one of them brown-shirt grammarians who can't stand redundancy in a sentence, even if evidently used for intensive purposes and without introducing any ambiguity.

 

[OCR]

No.

OK, carry on...

 

[megacal]

i don't think the entire universe as we see it was compacted in the size of an electron ... does anyone... it all mathematically works out until we try to explain why things are still accelerating? :) We have all these complex formulas and calculations that all go to pot, and we just interject the biggest variable possible.. a variable greater than the subject matter, that of " Dark Matter", and say that it is causing things to accelerate and not decelerate as we would first guess.
so many holes, but humans with all the ego, don't want to accept something that can t be explained. there might have been a big bang event, but i don't think everything exploded from something the size of an electron, do you?? I am thinking something the size of a galaxy, maybe! :)

My thoughts exactly!

This is very timely for me...I've seen & heard so many un-supported statements that prior to the BB, all the mass of the (observable) universe was contained in
a volume infinitely smaller than e.g. a proton. (re: The Universe S1 E14, "Beyond the Big Bang").

I don't have a math background higher than basic calculus, so maybe that's what prevents me from grasping, if not embracing, the proposition of there being a singularity prior to the BB.

Even though you can extrapolate backwards, why is it not possible that all the mass was contained in a volume, e.g. the earth? Or
the MilkyWay? How could a singularity possibly be stable pre-BB?

My pardon...I just realized I'd missed page 2, and Marcus' post about the LQC Bounce, which
seems much more reasonable to me, mathematically challenged as I am. ;)

 

[rootone]

You must always keep in mind that these singularities which appear in some BB and black hole models are not representative of some physical object.
They are generally taken to imply that the mathematical model breaks down at at this point.
The model is incomplete, something must be happening physically which is outside of our present knowledge.
However GR describes 'normal' spacetime very accurately and that is useful.
Since I have no expectation of suddenly being transported to the centre of a black hole, or to the initial moment of the big bang,
I won't be losing sleep over this, (although some might), but it is intriguing to think (speculate?) about it.

 

[megacal]

You must always keep in mind that these singularities which appear in some BB and black hole models are not representative of some physical object.
They are generally taken to imply that the mathematical model breaks down at at this point.

Maybe even waaaaay before that point. Math may predict it, but it seems like an impossibility,
and there's no way to prove it directly. But your answer gives me some peace of mind. =)

it is intriguing to think (speculate?) about it.

Yes, it is...so many mind boggling speculations!
E.g., to trace the origins/paths of the atoms/particles that make up our bodies during our lifetimes. =O

One thing...I greatly appreciate the help of you all who have great understanding of higher mathematics and
physics...that you try to communicate with those of us who don't, but are interested and intrigued by the
mysteries of life & the Universe (observable or not). I don't take it for granted. ;)

Thank you.

 

[jackmell]

In my humble opinion, it is precisely mathematics that gives us a reasonable answer to this and many other puzzling phenomena about the Universe but unfortunately it is an emergent one; one that only comes from a long, tedious, time-consuming study of non-linear differential equations. We so often wish to pursue understanding of Nature by continuous means, applying what is known, to what is not known and although that is successful in many cases, such an approach often fails because Nature is massively non-linear and non-linear systems very often have critical-points which cause the system to change qualitatively. It is the intuitive understanding of that property that comes from studying non-linear DEs and is key I think to finding solace in coming to terms with many questions about Nature.

Think about the concept of "swimming". At the critical point of freezing, swimming looses meaning. It no longer makes sense to ask, "How does one swim in (pure) water at the point of freezing or at a colder temperature?" The dynamics of water and temperature reaches a critical point as the system qualitatively changes state. (Some) of the old laws above the freezing point, must be replaced by new laws below it.

This phenomenon, critical point phase-transitions, are a very common property of our Universe; we see them everywhere and one not unreasonably wonders if this is a local property of our Universe or something more general. It may have been a critical-point transition that led to the creation of the Universe so that the physical laws we observe now in Nature might not be applicable to describing the dynamics at the time of creation or before it: the laws may have been qualitatively different. So to ask "how big the BB was?" could be an ill-posed question because concepts such as size, matter, energy, distance, speed and other physical qualities we observe on this side of the critical-point (BB), may not be applicable in describing both the critical point and the pre-existence. We may need to create a qualitatively different physics to describe the critical-point and beyond simply by virtue of the intrinsic non-linear dynamics and the evidence we see all around us of other non-linear systems transitioning across critical points.

 

[megacal]

Just found this amazing site/sight. I don't know if it is based on the Big Bang or the Big Bounce, but is
wondrous to behold.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Just found this amazing site/sight. I don't know if it is based on the Big Bang or the Big Bounce, but is
wondrous to behold.

Illustris visualises the evolution of cosmological structure in the recent times, past the recombination period - i.e., the contentious issues of very early history is completely irrelevant.
I do agree (and who wouldn't?) that it's a marvel to behold.

 

[Tomon]

In the light of this all, I have a question regarding the travel of light since the beginning of the universe. I thought about opening a new topic for it, but maybe I can post the question here.
People talk about the light traveling 13 or so billion years to reach us when we look as far as we can through telescopes to see the outer limits of the universe.
My problem is, when light travels 13 billion years to reach us, and 13 billion years ago the universe started to expand, at the beginning the light was already ´here´, at the same place ´we´ also were. So how did it travel? One thing I can think of is that the expansion in the beginning was much faster than the speed of light.

 

[Bandersnatch]

the beginning the light was already ´here´,

It wasn't.
The oldest light we see (the cosmic microwave background radiation, or CMBR) was emitted about 380 000 years after the big bang singularity (understood here as the limiting point of the theory rather than a physical entity). Before that time, the universe was so dense and so hot that all the matter was in the plasma state, which is opaque to light. The gas that emitted CMBR was 40 million ly away from the gas that ended up as our galaxy.
The oldest galaxies we see needed time to form, and during the few hundred million years the expansion kept on doing its thing, and much more rapidly than it does today. The farthest, oldest galaxy we can observe was at about 3 billion ly distance when it emitted the light we get to see now.

One thing I can think of is that the expansion in the beginning was much faster than the speed of light.

While you're right that the rate of expansion in the early universe was much higher than today's, it makes no sense to talk about the whole expansion being of any speed. It always depends on which galaxy (or more generally, which object) you look at. At any given time in the history of the universe you'll have objects that are receding from the observer at speeds in excess of c.
For example, galaxies currently observed as receding at c lie at the so-called 'Hubble radius' distance, which in terms of proper distance (meaning how far away something is NOW) is equal to ~14.4 billion light years. Those same galaxies, if observed at the time they were forming, would recede at over 3c, and the gas that ended up as those galaxies would be seen receding at over 20 c at the time of recombination (when the universe stopped being opaque).