The Small Particle That Started The Big Bang

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ryuk1990
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang Particle
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the origins of the universe as described by the Big Bang theory, specifically focusing on the nature of the initial particle or state that led to the universe's expansion. Participants explore theoretical implications, philosophical questions, and the limitations of current scientific understanding regarding the conditions before the Big Bang.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Philosophical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how the first tiny particle could have originated, suggesting that if it formed from nothing, it may contradict established scientific laws.
  • Others introduce the idea of infinite regression in explanations of the universe's origins, referencing the "turtles all the way down" analogy.
  • A participant notes that the Big Bang theory does not necessarily imply a finite age for the universe and discusses the breakdown of known physics at extreme densities.
  • Some propose that the universe could have existed in a dense state indefinitely before beginning to expand, allowing for various interpretations of the Big Bang theory.
  • There are mentions of quantum gravity and the potential for something to emerge from nothing without violating scientific laws, although this remains speculative.
  • Participants express uncertainty about the nature of spacetime and its relationship to particles, suggesting that spacetime properties may give rise to particles.
  • Some argue that at the Planck scale, the universe is chaotic and unstable, leading to the emergence of various phenomena, including the possibility of multiverses.
  • One participant humorously claims that the Big Bang resulted from "hyperdimensional turtles mating," emphasizing the speculative nature of explanations without empirical evidence.
  • Another participant highlights that pre-Big Bang events may not adhere to logical consistency or causality, referencing a paper by Max Tegmark.
  • Concerns are raised about comparing unconventional hypotheses, like the "hyper-dimensional turtle" idea, to more established theories, as it may undermine serious scientific discourse.
  • There is a statement that all points in the universe are equal, challenging the notion of a central point in the expansion of the universe.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no consensus on the origins of the universe or the validity of various hypotheses. Disagreement exists regarding the implications of the Big Bang theory and the nature of pre-Big Bang conditions.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the limitations of current scientific understanding, particularly regarding the conditions at or before the Big Bang, and the speculative nature of many claims made in the discussion.

  • #31
DaveC426913 said:
One of the models of the universe has it wrapping around, so that heading off in one direction will have you eventually arrive back at your starting point. (Again, the balloon analogy works this way.) This is a universe that has a measurable diameter, yet has no boundary and nothing outside it.

But where we stand now, it is also the model which is less likely to be true. It appears to be flat, thus infinite.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
But isn't this pure theory, can you give me reference, because their must be something that I need to read - instead of picking up this idea one piece at a time?

What would indicate that the edge of the universe loops around to the other side, and what difference would it make if it did?
 
  • #33
One model has finite content, other infinite.
 
  • #34
One note, the auto-link --> edge of the universe does not really help to make this clear so If you could point me to a particular reference, that would be helpful.
 
  • #35
try this:http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_03.htm"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
Pattonias said:
But isn't this pure theory, can you give me reference, because their must be something that I need to read - instead of picking up this idea one piece at a time?

What would indicate that the edge of the universe loops around to the other side, and what difference would it make if it did?
The difference it makes is that it shows that there is no "place outside of the universe into which the universe is growing".

Sorry, I don't have any references available right now.
 
  • #37
DaveC426913 said:
The difference it makes is that it shows that there is no "place outside of the universe into which the universe is growing".

You have to put that bubble somewhere. I, on the other hand, think that flat universe solves that issue very nicely.
 
  • #38
Does our Universe give some sign that there are no other universes that exist (somewhere else) that could have originated by a big bang or other matter generating event?
 
  • #39
We can only speculate about other universes. No physical evidence exists.
 
  • #40
Thank you S. Vasojevic for the reference, it is making this a little easier to understand.

Are there particles or masses in the Universe that are more or less sensitive to gravity than others?

For instance, I have heard it said that light has no mass, yet it can be trapped by a black hole. Is it possible that it is only sensitive to extreme gravity?
For instance, the slight bend of a beam of light as it passes near a star. Is it possible that light is actually unaffected by gravity below a certain strength or that gravity below a certain strength has no effect on certain particles at all?

Does the intensity of a gravity actually affect the speed at which it reaches out to an object?
 
  • #42
Pattonias said:
Are there particles or masses in the Universe that are more or less sensitive to gravity than others?

No. Gravity affects everything.

For instance, I have heard it said that light has no mass, yet it can be trapped by a black hole. Is it possible that it is only sensitive to extreme gravity?
For instance, the slight bend of a beam of light as it passes near a star. Is it possible that light is actually unaffected by gravity below a certain strength or that gravity below a certain strength has no effect on certain particles at all?

Light is affected by gravity. There is no threshold of sensitivity. Smaller the potentials -smaller the result.

Does the intensity of a gravity actually affect the speed at which it reaches out to an object?

Not at all. Gravity propagates at C, same speed as light do.
 
  • #43
S.Vasojevic said:
Not at all. Gravity propagates at C, same speed as light do.
Well...

Gravity does not travel at all. Gravity is a field, which means it is always everywhere, all the time. Changes in gravity do, however, propagate at the speed of light.
 
  • #44
DaveC426913 said:
Well...

Gravity does not travel at all. Gravity is a field, which means it is always everywhere, all the time. Changes in gravity do, however, propagate at the speed of light.

That makes sense, I have seen gravity described as a fabric and the fluctuations in gravity around a black hole as ripples in this fabric. (Feel free to disect this statement, but I was putting no weight into it :wink: )
 
  • #45
S.Vasojevic said:
DaveC426913 said:
The difference it makes is that it shows that there is no "place outside of the universe into which the universe is growing".
You have to put that bubble somewhere.
No, you don't.
 
  • #46
Official WMAP site:
WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to within 1% of "flat" Euclidean, improving on the precision of previous award-winning measurements by over an order of magnitude


DaveC426913 said:
No, you don't.

That doesn't even matter. Question is, is it curved or is it flat, and we will probably never know. If we could measure its curvature we can exclude it being flat, but not the other way around. Even when some future measurement comes out saying "flat-Euclidean within 0.1%", we could always say that curvature is so slight that it lays within error margin.
It is again Nature playing tricks on ourselves. You want to know do you live in finite or infinite universe? You will have to try much harder than that.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Graduate Form of energy at time of big bang
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Undergrad Question about the big bang singularity
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
Undergrad Did James Webb cast serious doubt on the Big Bang?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
High School Does an infinite universe contradict a Big Bang origin?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
8K
High School Big Bang and Infinite Universe
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
High School How Does Modern Particle Accelerator Energy Density Compare to the Big Bang?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School Did the Big Bang follow multiple bangs? How did matter come to collide?
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
High School I don't understand the evidence or possibility of the Big Bang
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Is it time to take the 'bang' out of the Big Bang?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
High School Big Crunch, Big Bang and information loss
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
8K