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

The Big Bang

  1. Sep 15, 2005 #1
    All right, so what I dont understand about the big bang theory is that when it describes the creation of atoms, does it mean that the particles were already in existence and the explosin only made the particles come together? or were the particles actually created by the big bang? If the particles were actually created by the big bang than how would that be possible with out those fundemental particles being composed of anything smaller?
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 15, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    According to theory, no particles existed until after the big bang. They basically 'froze' out of the energy field. And these were fundamental particles - quarks followed neutrons, protons and electrons. Atoms were unable to form until much later, relatively speaking.
  4. Sep 19, 2005 #3
    but how were particles able to form out of the explosin if they themselves were not composited of anything smaller?
  5. Sep 20, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    There were fields, which are more fundamental than particles. Particles are local excitations of fields.
  6. Sep 20, 2005 #5

    Ok,, First: The Big Bang wasn't an explosion, it was the expansion of Space.

    Second: E=mc*2.. Meaning matter and energy are the same thing. As Space expanded and the universe cooled, matter participated out of the energy.

    Third: Go here and youtr questions about the Big Bang, at least what is known for now, can be answered:

  7. Sep 21, 2005 #6
    so then is m-theory more correct than particle theory on the count of it dealing with feilds and waves, but if particles are waves coming off of strings than how does it explain particle movments? Like how in nuclear power plant we are able to extract electrons to harness for energy but if the particles were waves bound to a string how could the wave be extracted from the string with out bringing the entire string with it?
  8. Sep 21, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What was there before the big bang? Was it just a big vacuum?
  9. Sep 22, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The model describing the creation of particles from fields is based on the principles of quantum field theory, and has nothing to do with M-theory or strings.
  10. Sep 22, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It was nothing, the universe said while blushing...
  11. Sep 22, 2005 #10
    Nothing Changed much except expansion of space

    According to Big Bang theory, what I understand, every thing is the same as it is now but in infinite compression state. Big Bang expanded the space. There is no explosion. So the correct name should be Big Xpan! :rofl:
  12. Sep 22, 2005 #11
    So what is field theory? and how accurate is it?
  13. Sep 24, 2005 #12
    what happened during the big bang, was that, everything that exists now, has always existed in a infinite fundamental level within a singularity, and then there was an unidentified event that created space-time, before the big bang there was a 0 dimensional space, there were no dimensions, there was only energy, when the big bang happened, the dimensions start to unfold like a cube being drawned in a paper, and all that super heated energy begins to being filled with empty space, and expanding even further, that expansion is the big bang, while expanding, the universe slowly cools down and the energy begins to form elementar particles, in a certain way we are still in the big bang. we are still expanding, at an even faster rate that when we started, the universe keeps on cools faster and faster.
  14. Sep 28, 2005 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There are many ways to answer this. One of the simpler answers is that there was no "before" because Time started with the Big Bang. Of course, that doesn't satisfy many people. So then you're faced with at least a couple problems (1) modern physics does not have a good explanation for a singularity and (2) we can't see/measure/test anything beyond/outside/before our universe. So Big Bang Theory does not include an "outside" or "before" the universe. That is simply seen as non-existant. The vacuum of space in our current universe is still something (even if there is no normal matter, there are still energy fields, gravitational fields, virtual particles, etc.). There are many scientific speculations/hypotheses to try to explain the cause/source of the Big Bang and some refer to a bigger type of universe which spawned this one. String Theory (M-Theory) is one of the latest examples getting a lot of attention. Others will say that we just need to include that grander expansion into our current definition of The Universe (obviously we have a lot more to learn about our universe since it seems that the majority of it contains still-mysterious dark matter/dark energy). Research goes on. Stay tuned.
  15. Oct 4, 2005 #14
    Not to worry. A rash of recent findings are casting doubts on inflation and the big bang theory. It may not have happened at all.
  16. Oct 4, 2005 #15
    I'm glad to hear it. I believed it for many years until recently. The shadow of doubt is becoming very long.

    Are there any relativity doubters here? I'm doing some homework and would like to gather a sampling of various other theories. Thanks
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2005
  17. Oct 4, 2005 #16


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Can you provide any links to these findings - or names, details, etc., so we can check them out?
  18. Oct 4, 2005 #17
    Here is a short summary:


    Here is a little longer summary:


    I'd also recommend the cover article of the August 2005 issue of Scientific American for a summary of the problems found in the WMAP survey of the CMB, which is based on a journal article from:
    http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000093000022221301000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes [Broken]

    you might try these articles as well:

    http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=5721 [Broken]

    Most of these are popular-science journal articles, but they identify the main issues
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  19. Oct 5, 2005 #18


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A rash is a good caricaturization. Casting doubts on inflation and BBT has been in vogue for a long time. But don't pony up the farm just yet. This horse is still way out in front of the pack for a number of unconnected reasons that point toward the same conclusion.


    1] you are observed standing over a corpse in a vacant lot
    2] holding a smoking gun
    3] the gun is registered in your name
    4] forensics matches the fatal bullet to the gun

    This is analogous to the four pillars of BBT. Compelling evidence is required to break this case. A single anomaly, like Eric [the math challenged] Lerner's recent surface brightness paper [which I think is flawed], is not nearly enough to overcome the preponderance of evidence.

    "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community"

    is, IMO, a whiny diatribe of little substance. Researchers seek, and are awarded funds to test interesting new ideas all the time. If you repeatedly butt heads with 'the bosses' and fail to produce results, is it realistic to expect them to take your next research proposal seriously? The signatories of this petition are pretending no one ever gave them a chance, and that [for the most part], is simply not true [again IMO].
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2005
  20. Oct 27, 2005 #19
    Chronos hides behind his anonymity to make groundless accusations and to avoid any semblance of scientific debate. I would be curious to know what mathematical errors he claims to find in my papers, or is “math-challenged" just a typical substitute for real scientific arguments?

    More important, “chronos” whoever he is, does not seem to know what the scientific method is. Science advances though theories that make quantitative predictions that can be validated by observation. That is what makes science useful. When a theory makes clear predictions which are contradicted by observation it is falsified and has to be rejected. All Big Bang, expanding universe theories predict that surface brightness(AB magnitudes) decreases as (z+1)^-3. The data I presented in my recent paper shows that surface brightness is constant, as predicted by all non-expanding universe theories. The data further indicated strongly that it is physically impossible for “evolution” to compensate for the (z+1)^-3 decline due to absorption of UV by the dust that supernovae produce. If further work confirms this result, it is not an “anomaly”, it is a clear-cut invalidation of the expanding universe theory by the scientific method that has served us so well for four centuries or more.

    Nor is it true that any of the “pillars” of the Big Bang remain standing. The light-element abundance predictions are clearly invalidated. For example, lithium-7 abundance is less than a quarter of the level predicted and almost every month there is more evidence that Li-7 could not have been substantially reduced by stellar processing. The Big Bang theory of the CBR, which predicts a Gaussian distribution of anisotropy, is clearly in contradiction with WMAP results. If anyone wants more contradictions, visit www.bigbangneverhappened.org.

    If it concerns a theory that, like Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism, has billions of accurate predictions to its credit and something seems to contradict it, that is “an anomaly”. But if you have a theory like the Big Bang, which has not a single accurate quantitative prediction—made BEFORE observation-- to its name, and is modified every time new data becomes available (inflation, dark mater, dark energy etc.) then observational contradictions invalidate the theory.

    Eric Lerner
  21. Oct 28, 2005 #20


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Hi Eric and welcome to these Forums!

    We have discussed your paper here.

    At about the same time another paper was published completely independently: A large population of galaxies 9 to 12 billion years back in the history of the Universe that seem to be describing the same effect, though using a different data set, but explaining it as an enhanced star formation period in the early universe.

    Given that galaxies go through star-burst episodes do you not think that it is likely that they do so when they first form and now observed at relatively high red-shift?

    It may indeed be true that as the standard ‘mainstream’ model and the theory it is dependent on, GR, requires Inflation, DM and DE, none of which has been confirmed in laboratory experiments, then it may need modification. However it is difficult to deny that the whole universe has gone through a period of intense compression, density and temperature to produce the relative abundances and CMB as observed.

    Last edited: Oct 28, 2005
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook