Is The Big Bang Real

  • #1

Main Question or Discussion Point

You probably know that there is a lot of evidence supporting the big bang, like the expansion of the universe, and many others that i can't name from the top of my head, but I heard on a TV show that the starting partials that came out of the Big bang were faster then the speed of light. They concluded this because if thing did come out the speed of light then we should be able to see the whole universe, although we can't. There is still a very large portion of the universe we cant see because its out of seeing range. So my question is how could the Big Bang be real if it expanded faster than the speed of light, and i think we all know that nothing can go than the speed of light, even though there are some exceptions like techions that go back wards in time and are faster than the speed of light. Also another thing If partials can go over the speed of light, would the big bang appear before it actually blew up. Please correct me if i'm wrong, i was watching the history channel, and not everything is true on that channel.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
mathman
Science Advisor
7,797
428
Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. However, it is possible for space itself to expand faster than the speed of light. Right after the big bang space underwent a period called inflation where this happened.
 
  • #3
isn't space already present before the big bang actually blew up, but if it come form the big bang does space help the atoms move through it to make it move faster than the speed of light for it to reach the distance they are, because they said that there are galaxy's we can't see because they traveled faster than light
 
  • #4
bcrowell
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
6,723
423
So my question is how could the Big Bang be real if it expanded faster than the speed of light, and i think we all know that nothing can go than the speed of light, even though there are some exceptions like techions that go back wards in time and are faster than the speed of light.
In general relativity, there is no unambiguous way to define the relative velocity of two objects that are at a cosmological distance from each other. The impossibility of motion faster than c applies to objects that are close enough so that the velocity of object A relative to object B is well defined. Cosmological redshifts can be interpreted either as Doppler shifts due to relative motion or as being due to the expansion of the space in between.
 
  • #5
2
0
Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. However, it is possible for space itself to expand faster than the speed of light. Right after the big bang space underwent a period called inflation where this happened.
did this expansion of space include dark matter/energy ? or was it already there ?
Since most dark matter is supposed nonbaryonic and does not interact with space directly,
it does not exclude the concept of space/time expansion.
The theory doesn't say anything about it, does it?
 
  • #6
6
0
You probably know that there is a lot of evidence supporting the big bang,
Just using a logic of the top of ones head:
if planets are attracted to each other by gravitational force then they will tend to combine into a cluster or a bigger planet. Now if planet gets bigger at some point the gravitational force would be so strong that may create an explosion which will in turn create smaller planets we call the galaxies or universe.
Finally the big bang would be just one of many or continuous periodic collapsing and exploding.



Mathew Orman
 
  • #7
2,471
1
Just using a logic of the top of ones head:
if planets are attracted to each other by gravitational force then they will tend to combine into a cluster or a bigger planet. Now if planet gets bigger at some point the gravitational force would be so strong that may create an explosion which will in turn create smaller planets we call the galaxies or universe.
Finally the big bang would be just one of many or continuous periodic collapsing and exploding.
1. Big Bang is not an explosion Check FAQ
2. "gravitational force would be so strong that may create an explosion" makes no sense, because gravitation tends to attract, not to repel.
 
  • #8
6
0
1. Big Bang is not an explosion Check FAQ
2. "gravitational force would be so strong that may create an explosion" makes no sense, because gravitation tends to attract, not to repel.
I was thinking more like extreme gravitational force triggering a nuclear explosion in the core of sufficiently large planet.

Mathew Orman
 
  • #9
2,471
1
1. Solid planets (like Earth) consist of heavy atoms which won't produce a lot of energy.
2. The process you described is possible if we take giant planets, like Jupiter for example, but:

3. This process can't be 'periodic' because finally all matter would be converted into heavy elements;
4. It is possible in a very narrow mass range, any collision which produces objects heavier than 150-200 solar masses would reasult in 'failed supernova' - gravitational collapse. That is, no fusion reaction can overcome gravity from such heavy objects and stop the collapse, no matter what temperatures and pressure are created.

5. Finally, these local and tiny (on cosmological scale) explosions have nothing in common with the Big Bang.
 
  • #10
6
0
1. Solid planets (like Earth) consist of heavy atoms which won't produce a lot of energy.
2. The process you described is possible if we take giant planets, like Jupiter for example, but:

3. This process can't be 'periodic' because finally all matter would be converted into heavy elements;
4. It is possible in a very narrow mass range, any collision which produces objects heavier than 150-200 solar masses would reasult in 'failed supernova' - gravitational collapse. That is, no fusion reaction can overcome gravity from such heavy objects and stop the collapse, no matter what temperatures and pressure are created.

5. Finally, these local and tiny (on cosmological scale) explosions have nothing in common with the Big Bang.
So, the theory of Big Band assumes some magical force and or matter creating entity which evidence of does not exist at presence.
I wonder what entity is that.

Mathew Orman
 
  • #11
2,471
1
The current theory of the Big Bang does not include the Big Bang. It is a theory of what happened AFTER the Big Bang (excluding t=0).

There are no theories which can explain the BB itself; even there are some candidates; but they are very far from being final. Note that BB is much more fundametal than just an explosion, which can be explained by 'force'. Force itself creates pressure and contre-intuitively slows down the expansion, because pressure creates gravity. Therefore, even 'force' can explain local expansion of some area/object in space, in can't, in principle, explain the expansion of the whole Universe. Also, force is acting in space in time while BB is about how the very fabric of space and time is created.
 

Related Threads on Is The Big Bang Real

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
732
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Last Post
5
Replies
105
Views
17K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
Top