What Was the Initial Size of the Big Bang?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter rogerl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang Initial
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The initial size of the Big Bang cannot be defined in conventional terms, as it is fundamentally a process of space expansion rather than an explosion in a pre-existing space. Cosmological models suggest two scenarios: a spatially infinite universe, which has no measurable size, and a spatially finite universe, which approaches a volume of zero as time approaches zero. Current understanding indicates that the observable universe's radius is approximately 46 billion light years, expanding over time. The concept of the Planck scale emerges as a potential limit for the initial size in quantum gravity theories.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity (GR)
  • Familiarity with cosmological models
  • Knowledge of the Planck scale and constants
  • Basic concepts of the observable universe
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of spatially infinite versus spatially finite universes
  • Study the role of general relativity in cosmology
  • Explore theories of quantum gravity and their impact on cosmological models
  • Investigate the significance of the observable universe's radius and its expansion
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physicists, cosmologists, and anyone interested in the fundamental nature of the universe and the Big Bang theory.

rogerl
Messages
238
Reaction score
2
How big is the initial size of the Big Bang... inside a Planck length? Can it fit inside? Or as big as an egg? Or a kilometer?
 
Space news on Phys.org
There are two kinds of cosmological models. One is spatially infinite and always has been spatially infinite. The other is spatially finite and always has been. Current measurements of curvature are statistically consistent with flatness, which puts us on the fence between these two cases.

In either case, it's not valid to imagine the Big Bang as an explosion with a certain size that happened against a backdrop of empty space. In all cosmological models, the Big Bang is a process in which space itself stretches out. Every region of space on a cosmological scale increases its own volume over time. In the early universe, all regions of space were uniformly filled with hot matter and radiation.

In the spatially infinite case, the universe has been spatially infinite at all times, so there is no way to measure the diameter or volume of the Big Bang with a real number.

In the spatially finite case, the universe wraps around on itself spatially, like a sphere. There is no edge. It does have a well-defined volume at any given time. According to general relativity, this volume approaches zero in the limit as time approaches zero. GR does not describe t=0 itself as a moment in time.

The above picture of the finite case would presumably be modified by quantum effects at early times. We don't have a theory of quantum gravity, but there is only one length scale that you can make by combining Planck's constant with c and G, and that's the Planck scale.

So in summary, there are three possible answers to the question: infinity, approaching zero, or the Planck scale.

A somewhat different question is the initial size of the *observable* universe. The current radius of the observable universe (i.e., the region of space from which light has had time to reach us since the Big Bang) is about 46 billion light years. (This is greater than the result you get by naively multiplying the age of the universe by c, because space has been expanding.) Yesterday the observable universe was smaller, and tomorrow it will be bigger. In all cosmological models (in GR), the radius of the observable universe for an observer at time t approaches zero as t approaches zero (although of course there were no actual observers present in the very early universe). A hypothetical theory of quantum gravity might change this answer to the Planck length.

[EDIT] Fixed a mistake in my original answer, then rewrote it from scratch.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K