Was the Universe Bigger During the Big Bang Than We Thought?

kurious
Messages
633
Reaction score
0
In the following discussion we will use an equation which is a possible candidate for quantum gravity to demonstrate that the size of the universe at the time of the Big Bang could have been much greater than is currently thought by the majority of physicists.

Using mvr = nh/2pi from Bohr’s theory of the hydrogen atom:

v = nh / 2pi m r

acceleration = (v1 – v2) / t = (n1/m1r1 – n2/m2r2) ( h / 2pi ) / t

acceleration = q^2/ 8 pi^2E0 h t x [ 1/n1 – 1/n2 ] using r = 4 pi x E 0 n^2h^2/ me^2

acceleration = 10^12 ( 1 – 1/ n2)
assuming that for the minimum velocity n1 = 1 and t = 10 ^ - 8 seconds which is what t is for electrons in most atoms.

At the surface of the sun acceleration = 10^2 m/s or thereabouts.
This means n2 must be about 1.0000000001 in the equation above.

If we imagine the universe reached the size of the Sun, then bearing in mind its mass is 10^22 times greater than the mass of the Sun and assuming 1/n2 is proportional to mass then 1/n2 at the surface of the universe was about 1 x 10^22 for a quark, let’s say.
So acceleration = 10^12 x 10^22 = 10^34 m/s^2.

A quark sits at the surface of the universe.
Let’s see what happens if we assume Newtonian physics or at least some of it applies to quarks.We assume also that the the quark consists of a sphere of electric charge and that the charges on this sphere repel one another and that the force of repulsion exactly matches the force of gravity trying to compress the quark at 10^8 metres:

Force = quark mass x acceleration ( we’ll use the mass of an up quark )

Force = 10^ -28 x 10^ 34 = 10^ 6 Newtons.

Now the force of repulsion is given in classical physics by:

kq^2/ r^2

So kq^2 / r ^ 2 = 10^6

10^9x 10^ -38 / r^ 2 = 10^ 6

r = 10^ -18 metres.

There are about ten quarks per cubic metre in the universe, so since
total number of quarks in a particular direction is about 2 (cubed root of ten)
per metre nowadays, there can be about 10^26 quarks in a particular direction
(10^26 = maximum size of universe) nowadays and in the past.If each quark was about 10^ -18 metres in diameter at the start of the universe then the size of the universe was 10^26 x 10^ -18 metres = 10^ 8 metres.
Just what we said it was at the beginning of this exercise!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need psychiatric help.
 
I agree. Don't know where to begin on that one.
 
'There are about ten quarks per cubic metre in the universe'

Try thinking a little. Quarks are in atoms(nucleus), and there are about 1 Billion atoms in on cubic nanometer!
 
'quantum gravity to demonstrate that the size of the universe at the time of the Big Bang could have been much greater than is currently thought by the majority of physicists.'

Uhh, COSMOLOGISTS and the Big Bang was the ONLY thing in the Universe! BIG BANG=Beginning of Universe! The universe was one singularity, and you are saying that the universe was bigger when there was only one singularity there. BIG BANG=rapid expansion of universe.. The Universe simply WASN'T THERE at that time!

Read a little. Even I know that.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
248
Replies
58
Views
6K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
21
Views
330
Replies
13
Views
2K
Back
Top