Unraveling the Big Bang Question: Escaping the Gravitational Pull of Black Holes

[LongOne]

There is not such thing as the breaking down of the fundamental laws of the universe.

Scientists make theories and come up with what they call laws. Those man-made laws can indeed break down but that is due to the theory not due to nature.

By the way the term "law" is a misnomer IMHO, nature does not follow or break laws.

Someone correct me if I've misunderstood, but when someone uses the phrase "laws break down", it's not that the existing laws don't work, but rather that the existing laws of physics do not apply. In this situation, the singularity (infinite mass in an infinitely small space) cannot be described correctly either by the theory of quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity. And right now, we're not smart enough to know how to combine these two fundamental "laws" of physics to handle the situation of a singularity (or just at the Big Bang -- if that was also a singularity).

 

[LongOne]

On the matter of time

Up until the last few years, it seems to me that most discussions of the Big Bang included the notion that the beginning of time happened as part of the Big Bang, i.e., time did not exist before the Big Bang.

Recently, there have been discussions of the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, along with other notions of multiverses, etc.. Many of these theories and discussions have provided for the creation of the universe(s) and, further, implied or stated that time DID exist before the Big Bang, as we know it, happened.

I can't describe time any better than anyone else .. probably less well, but the definition I use is one I read once that goes something like "time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once".

So, using this definition (Is there a better one?), how can time have a beginning concurrent with the Big Bang? How can anything exist BEFORE time exists? Can the membranes of M-Theory exist before time exists?

An ancillary question: Can time stop? Would this be the same as not having time? Can time be suspended (stopped and restarted)?

If someone could spend a paragraph or two on this matter, it would certainly be appreciated. Or if you could point me to some rather definitive documentation on the web or in a book.

 

[Chronos]

Time is not clearly more fundamental than space or matter. These three measurable aspects of the universe are the holy trinity of science. It's an eerie thing with obvious religious overtones. An infinitely old universe is untenable [olber's paradox]. And a cyclical universe merely dodges the question. It is hard to imagine such a universe devoid of fragments from an infinite number of prior incarnations.

 

[terminal_man]

when someone uses the phrase "laws break down", it's not that the existing laws don't work, but rather that the existing laws of physics do not apply.

The answer would be at once Yes and No, with a Maybe and an Irrelevant included.

The traditional use of "Breaking Down" is based on the understanding that all such 'Laws' are theories based upon mathematical models derived from observation and extrapolation, with a little bit of intuition included. What 'Breaks Down' is the mathematical model. Observations and predictions no longer match, so the validity of the model is broken - in that situation.

Sometime it becomes apparent that the model is fundamentally flawed, and cannot be used in relation to the situation. In which case, YES you're right.

However, if the model still works in all other situations and is fundamental to the understanding of the Universe, as a whole, it is not necessarily true that it no longer applies, only that we don't know how it applies. So in that case, NO you're wrong.

Then again it's not always easy to tell if if does or does not apply, or if there is something else in the way we are interpreting the data which is affecting the result.
For example, if you concur with Stephen Hawking's concept of an Unbounded Universe, wherein a singularity only exists as a theoretical construct which exists only in a particular theoretical timeframe the model may be both applicable and not applicable at the same time. So it's MAYBE.

However, if singularities do exist and your specifically referring to the twin Big Bang & Big Crunch singularities, then neither of them actually exist within this Universe, so it becomes IRRELEVANT.

Oh, why can't we go back to just blaming God for everything and let the priests deal with it. then we can all go off and have a lovely war.

 

[terminal_man]

I can't describe time any better than anyone else .. probably less well, but the definition I use is one I read once that goes something like "time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once".

So, using this definition (Is there a better one?), how can time have a beginning concurrent with the Big Bang? How can anything exist BEFORE time exists? Can the membranes of M-Theory exist before time exists?

Einstein's works showed that time and space are not separate, but conjoined. Spacetime as he called it. So time could not exist before the Big Bang or after any Big Crunch.

How can this be, well yes it can, but only if you remember that this applies only to 'our' spacetime. The Multiverse concept identifies tha fact that there can be any number of spacetimes, each uniquely different or vastly similar but separate.

What separates them? no idea. using the fish analogy (if Chronos will permit me) each one exists within it's own little fishbowl. Because the analogy is incomplete, fish can't have a complete concept of water, not just because they are immersed within it, but because being trapped within it they can never understand the concept of the bowl and what's outside it.

Oh yes, time or more correctly 'our' or any other universes spacetime can stop. Any one of the fishbowls can fall on the flaw and shatter, but the floor, the room the air even the bowl itself go on. if our spacetime ends the rest of the multiverse could still continue on in some other kind of spacetime, but we will probably never understand what that is, sadly.

 

[LongOne]

How can this be, well yes it can, but only if you remember that this applies only to 'our' spacetime. The Multiverse concept identifies tha fact that there can be any number of spacetimes, each uniquely different or vastly similar but separate.
QUOTE]

The notion of separate time for the "super"-thing (whatever it is/was) and the universe instantiated by the Big Bang, and that the Big Bang Universe's time could not exist prior to the Big Bang, was so obvious to me that I had failed to make a distinction between the two. Your answer cleared up something that has bothered me for some time now. Thank you very much!

 

[Eric DMC]

There is not such thing as the breaking down of the fundamental laws of the universe.

Scientists make theories and come up with what they call laws. Those man-made laws can indeed break down but that is due to the theory not due to nature.

By the way the term "law" is a misnomer IMHO, nature does not follow or break laws.

In M-theory before the big bang our universe is non-existent. But in the 11th dimension there is a "sea of membranes" witch cannot possibly be governed by our laws we have today, it would be like comparing laws the govern plaints to laws that govern atoms. Then in the 11th dimension two membranes touched witch set off the Big Bang, and our universe was born. I am talking about 100,000,000th of a second after the Big Bang our laws had not taken control of the chaos.

Also the laws of the universe are not theories, and yes nature "atlease our universe" follows laws.

 

[Fluxman]

How do you measure empty space?

 

[Blueprint]

With a ruler and protractor...

Seriously tho, how are the rules of science, like the mass of an electron or proton, chosen?

Alot of theories, and I think this includes classical relativity, don't suggest or predict these masses, they have to be inputted.

Ive been reading and thinking about it, and I think our universe is pretty much weak anthropic principle related. The extra dimensions from 5 onwards are like the pitted skin of an orange if viewed close up, from distance all u will notice are a smooth 3 and time curvature. The very small dimensions mean time travel loops like wormholes are too small for spaceships or even astronauts, well living life anyway, if matter reconstruction could be figured out.

I see our universe as a bubble in the complete universe. There are lots of other bubbles... self-contained universes that don't allow life... conditions are wrong... this is ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE (we are here and questioning why it is so, because if it were any different, it would not be possible). It explains a lot without really explaining anything but you can't fault its logic.

I don't like the clashing of branes concept for big bang conception either, just... no.

 

[Eric DMC]

I don't like the clashing of branes concept for big bang conception either, just... no.

I am neither for nor against the big bang. I simply do not know!

Sometimes I even question if there was ever a beginning, as humans everything we know, see, touch, and experience has a begging and end.

First there was the question of how the universe was born, answered by the big bang.
Then what caused the big bang, answered by the 11th dimension and its sea of membranes.
But where did the membranes come from? There is no end to this line of thought.
As a human I want to say where the beginning is, but perhaps in ways that out 3 dimensional brains can not comprehend there is no begging or end in the grand scheme of things, maybe our universe had a begging but perhaps the multi-verse is eternal!

 

[LongOne]

Like many others, I stand convinced of the "Big Bang", but am unconvinced that anyone has any meaningful grasp on what happened before the Big Bang or even what caused the Big Bang. Someday, M-theory might prove to be right, but it seems just too speculative, without solid underpinnings, to be a viable explanation yet.

Although we don't know what physics existed in the "time" just before and in the first few seconds after the Big Bang, I don't believe that this situation necessarily negates any knowledge of how physics worked during more "normal" times before the Big Bang (assuming the Big Bang was a relatively unusual event). By "normal", I mean the ongoing existence of the conditions prior to the clash of Branes (or whatever) that actually initiated the Big Bang. We seem to be very intent on saying that those conditions are not the physics of today, but since we don't know what the conditions were, how can we say that? (I realize that the Big Bang encompasses conditions where quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity can't be reconciled, but that particular time was one of Big Bang, not the "normal" time before the Big Bang, whatever that means)

I am of the opinion that at some time in the future, hopefully sooner rather than later, we'll have another Einsten (or Newton) who can develop a notion of what really happened and how. It will be simple, too. And we'll all probably call him/her looney for a period of time until the theory begins to be proven. It seems to me that today too much of the revolutionary science that needs to be developed to explain our origins is being negated by brain trusts that focus current efforts into pre-defined paths of thinking. These brain trusts are necessary as they fill in all the details and extend our thinking, but to me, it seems they seldom provide the truly revolutionary ideas necessary to see the bigger picture. Where are the "wild ducks"?

 

[russ_watters]

Seriously tho, how are the rules of science, like the mass of an electron or proton, chosen?

Alot of theories, and I think this includes classical relativity, don't suggest or predict these masses, they have to be inputted.

You are correct, those are inputs: The masses of objects are not theories/rules, they are measured properties from which theories are derived.

 

[wolram]

Your point escaped me, wolram.

There is no physical measurement, apart from (local) bodies, all the theories in academia can be shoe horned into some theory or other, the fact is you guys do not have a clue what the universe is about.

 

[Fluxman]

You are correct, those are inputs: The masses of objects are not theories/rules, they are measured properties from which theories are derived.

Speaking of matter, what do theories say?...Is the amount of matter in the universe now exactly or closely equal to that at the beginning of the universe or not?

 

[LongOne]

Realize that at the instant of the Big Bang, there was no matter, if by matter, you mean atoms. It was only much later, in a process called "recombination" that matter, as we know it, came to be.

One big question about the amount of matter present after recombination relates to the matter/anti-matter question. As far as I know, we don't have a good theory for why there is only matter currently in the universe. Baryogenesis theories don't seem right because of the horrendous mismatch in quantities of matter/anti-matter and leptogenesis theories don't seem much better, but they're less well understand, from what I know.

I recently read an excellent book on this subject by Helen Quinn and Yossi Nir titled "The Mystery of the Missing AntiMatter". This book is eminently readable and presents the entire subject without the use of virtually any math references. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in quantum mechanics, the Big Bang vis-a-vis matter creation, and particularly about the matter/anti-matter imbalance.

 

[Fluxman]

Realize that at the instant of the Big Bang, there was no matter, if by matter, you mean atoms. It was only much later, in a process called "recombination" that matter, as we know it, came to be.

One big question about the amount of matter present after recombination relates to the matter/anti-matter question. As far as I know, we don't have a good theory for why there is only matter currently in the universe. Baryogenesis theories don't seem right because of the horrendous mismatch in quantities of matter/anti-matter and leptogenesis theories don't seem much better, but they're less well understand, from what I know.

I recently read an excellent book on this subject by Helen Quinn and Yossi Nir titled "The Mystery of the Missing AntiMatter". This book is eminently readable and presents the entire subject without the use of virtually any math references. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in quantum mechanics, the Big Bang vis-a-vis matter creation, and particularly about the matter/anti-matter imbalance.

Ok, here goes:

1. By matter I don't mean atoms, I mean anything - protons, neutrons, electrons, mesons, quarks or anything else that would not qualify as or be considered "energy".

2. I'm only asking about matter, not anti-matter.

Is the quantity of matter that exists in the universe now the same, or virtually the same, as existed in the universe at its beginning?

If theories say that there was nothing but "energy" at the beginning, then say so.

 

[Blueprint]

Theres an addage in quantum mechanics that states "Anything which is not forbidden is compulsory."

This means that even in a vacuum with zero energy, particle-antiparticle pairs can pop into existence out of nothing at all, provided they almost immediately annihilate each other (in a sense before the universe notices), and give back the energy they borrowed from the vaccuum.

The quantity of matter is not the same... many many particle-antiparticle pairs have annihilated each other since conception, while many particles have avoided their antiparticle to exist as well.

You got to think of the big bang as a mass of energy... not matter, then the answer to your question is obviously no. Later the energy formed matter (quantum fluctuations during inflation gave rise to galaxies). During this inflation, the antiparticles were lost.. or perhaps pushed outside the bubble, so that matter could exist, that's what I read.

 

[LongOne]

Ok, here goes:

1. By matter I don't mean atoms, I mean anything - protons, neutrons, electrons, mesons, quarks or anything else that would not qualify as or be considered "energy".

2. I'm only asking about matter, not anti-matter.

Is the quantity of matter that exists in the universe now the same, or virtually the same, as existed in the universe at its beginning?

If theories say that there was nothing but "energy" at the beginning, then say so.

OK, to the best of my understanding, there was nothing but pure, unadultered, raw energy of immense proportions (read "hot - hot - hot", say 10 million degrees or something of that nature) immediately after the Big Bang.

 

[Blueprint]

I read immediately after the Big Bang VERY HEAVY particles (X-particles) were made with masses billions that of a proton (which is pretty heavy for a particle), which then decayed very quickly, fragmenting into showers of other particles and antiparticles.

From this mass annihilation, there would have been no particles, only light, and due to the tiny unevenness in the laws of physics, these X-particles decayed into a billion and 1 particles for every billion antiparticles.

This not only explains why there is more matter than antimatter, but the microwave background, as well as why there are a billion photons in the universe for every particle we estimate to exist in the stars and galaxies.

 

[LongOne]

I read immediately after the Big Bang VERY HEAVY particles (X-particles) were made with masses billions that of a proton (which is pretty heavy for a particle), which then decayed very quickly, fragmenting into showers of other particles and antiparticles.

From this mass annihilation, there would have been no particles, only light, and due to the tiny unevenness in the laws of physics, these X-particles decayed into a billion and 1 particles for every billion antiparticles.

I'm relatively familiar with the Big Bang/Inflation model as well as a couple of others, such as Hoyle's "Steady State", but I've never run across the "X Particle". Being curious about it, I attempted to "google" it, only to find one mention of it from the National Chinese University in a hypothesis from 2007, but it had to do with "sigma decay" and the particle was light, only 214.3MeV, I believe. Wikipedia also turned up nothing.

Can you provide me with a link to something that talks about the X particle and it's Big Bang involvement? Thanks.

 

[Blueprint]

The Little Book of Science, John Gribbin, Penguin, First ed 1999. Note he's written a biography of Hawking and Feynman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gribbin

Missing from his bibliography there tho, it does say its a partial list

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0140280057/?tag=pfamazon01-20

"The favoured theories of how the forces and particles of nature work say that the first particles that were produced in the Big Bang... each had a mass one million billion times the mass of a proton. They are known as X-particles. Within a billionth of a billionth of a billionth (10-27) of a second, the X-particles decayed, fragmenting into showers of other particles and antiparticles."

 

[gtimespace]

I have heard initial conditions before the big bang described as a singularity, but never a Black hole. I wonder, If there was nothing else in the universe before then, how could we call it a hole?

It is interesting to note that the quantum jitters we see at the subatomic level are reflected in background radiation studies.

I would begin by reading about inflation theory. May I suggest The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene.

 

[PanTheory]

gtime,

No, I have never heard of a theory where the beginning of the universe was a black hole. There are only two possibilities for the beginning universe. Either it was finite, or infinite concerning time. Look up the definitions for each of these words and you will see that it would be impossible for either to have a cause based upon the unambiguous definitions of the words.

The quantum jitter are called Zero point fluctuations. It is believed to be omni-present. As far as unseen matter there is the theory of dark matter. Put them together, both being omni-present. Do you think one is causing the other?

Inflation Theory is plain wild. If Occam's razor were applied the theory would by on shaky grounds.

 

[PanTheory]

By definition, the gravitational force associated with a black hole precludes anything, even energy, from escaping once inside the event horizon, hence the name. If all of the matter and energy which exist in the Universe today were supposedly once contained within a space no bigger than a proton wouldn't that equate to a single enormous black hole? How did the Universe escape from it?

Bill, some BB theorists that I have read consider that the bigging was a form of compressed energy, thereby they avoid the potential gravitational influences of a beginning black hole scenario. Alternative cosmologists have responded that such compressed energy has never been observed in a lab condition.

 

[cristo]

Inflation Theory is plain wild. If Occam's razor were applied the theory would by on shaky grounds.

Care to explain why?

 

[PanTheory]

Care to explain why?

"Inflation Theory is plain wild. If Occam's razor were applied the theory would by on shaky grounds."

Cosmic inflation theory, proposed first by Guth and then by others, is the idea that the nascent universe began as a phase of exponential expansion that was driven by the negative-pressure of the vacuum energy density. These assertions, like the BB itself, requires a great deal of new physics that could never seemingly have an observable counterpart. Even the wording "negative-pressure vacuum energy", to my knowledge, has no present meaning outside of this relatively complicated theory, and possibly some theories concerning the nature of zero-point-fluctuations

Occam's Razor asserts that "All else being equal, the simplest explanation for some phenomenon is more likely to be correct than a more complicated explanations; that explanations of anything should make as few assumptions as possible."

Inflation is a theory with a lot of "hair" (a number of new laws and formulations of physic, with new assumptions). All of these individually are undesirables in a new theory, according to the simplicity principle, unless it is perceived to be necessary to keep a theory afloat.

Occam's razor (the simplicity principle) would suggest that a theory with excessive complication is less likely to be true, and that another BB version or alternative cosmological model without this complication would have a higher probability of being correct, all else being equal.

 

[cristo]

Hold on a minute: Occam's razor only applies when you have two theories that both agree with observations to precisely the same level; then one can invoke the principle and say that the simplest is most likely to be true. But you can't apply Occam's razor to a conjectured new theory: that is, you must have two competing theories before you can even think of applying it.

And inflation only requires a scalar field, which isn't too crazy a suggestion.

 

[PanTheory]

Hold on a minute: Occam's razor only applies when you have two theories that both agree with observations to precisely the same level; then one can invoke the principle and say that the simplest is most likely to be true. But you can't apply Occam's razor to a conjectured new theory: that is, you must have two competing theories before you can even think of applying it.

And inflation only requires a scalar field, which isn't too crazy a suggestion.

It's not that its a crazy suggestion, its the extent of the scaler-field math required. It took 3 men, 3 years. Inflation, New Inflation, Newer Inflation, and many other newer versions. There is no general consensus that any of these theories have any validity, although most BB theorist would agree that one or another version in general makes the BB a stronger theory.

Look above at the second part of Occam's razor. ... "explanations of anything should make as few assumptions as possible."

Occam stressed this Aristotelian principle that entities must not be multiplied beyond what is necessary. This principle became known as Occam's Razor.

In science today it is often currently stated as, "the simplest theory that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected." Not that Occam's razor is the holy grail of theoretical proposals, but it least for logic's sake, it should be considered. I believe they probably can't make it simpler and have it still be functional.

 

[PanTheory]

Ok, here goes:

1. By matter I don't mean atoms, I mean anything - protons, neutrons, electrons, mesons, quarks or anything else that would not qualify as or be considered "energy".

2. I'm only asking about matter, not anti-matter.

Is the quantity of matter that exists in the universe now the same, or virtually the same, as existed in the universe at its beginning?

If theories say that there was nothing but "energy" at the beginning, then say so.

Fluxman,

A number of BB theorists believe there was nothing but energy in the beginning. This gets
around the problem of a beginning black hole and which may better enable the formulation of the equations of Inflationary models.

As far as the quantity of matter, there are many versions of the beginning BB whereby each would have different time-frames and conditions where matter would "condense/ formulate" from this energy. There would become a time in all of these theories where the amount of matter would have been determined. After that BB theorists disagree to what extent matter remains a constant. Some assert that matter is destroyed in Black holes never to return, while others propose that new matter may come out of a "white hole" somewhere, be created by energy interactions, or be created in some other theorized manner .

There is no consensus amongst theorists in many details of BB theory.

 

[cristo]

It's not that its a crazy suggestion, its the extent of the scaler-field math required.

What do you mean by "scalar field math"? All this entails is throwing a scalar field into the energy momentum tensor, and using Einstein's field equations for GR, with a FRW metric.

It took 3 men, 3 years. Inflation, New Inflation, Newer Inflation, and many other newer versions.

I don't know the three people you've got in mind, but there are WAY more people than three that have worked on inflation, even in the early days.

There is no general consensus that any of these theories have any validity, although most BB theorist would agree that one or another version in general makes the BB a stronger theory.

No, there isn't "no general consensus that any of these theories have any validity": regardless of your Lagrangian these "theories" are all inflation; that is, they all do basically the same thing; produce an exponential period of expansion. What we don't know is the particular mechanism for inflation to take place. However we can still make predictions that agree with observations.

Look above at the second part of Occam's razor. ... "explanations of anything should make as few assumptions as possible."

Occam stressed this Aristotelian principle that entities must not be multiplied beyond what is necessary. This principle became known as Occam's Razor.

In science today it is often currently stated as, "the simplest theory that fits the facts of a problem is the one that should be selected." Not that Occam's razor is the holy grail of theoretical proposals, but it least for logic's sake, it should be considered. I believe they probably can't make it simpler and have it still be functional.

But who are you to decide how simple nature is? You can't decree that a theory is not simple enough to be correct The most you can do is, if presented with two theories making identical predictions, use Occam's razor to say that the simplest one is most likely to be true. Occam's razor says nothing about theories that make different predictions. I appear to be repeating myself here: is there something I am saying that you don't understand?