Arch2008

The original “bang” is the energy you would get from one kilogram of matter. The “big” part came when the Superforce filled every part of the inflating universe. Then gravity and the other fundamental forces separated. The binding force that was freed up due to the separation is where you get the energy for everything in the observable universe. So the instanton particle or patch of negative pressure has a mass of around 1 kg. Also, this video is 5 years old. Perhaps Alan Guth is less embarrassed today. Also, galaxies collide for the same reason that meteors hit the Earth. Local gravity overcomes the inflation. Inflation is incredibly weak, but it's effect is everywhere. Only on immense scales does the DE overcome local gravity.

Gravity waves are real and have been verified from observation. http://www.universetoday.com/97107/effects-of-einsteins-elusive-gravity-waves-observed/ Some groups are trying to detect the gravity waves that happened during the inflationary epoch after the Big Bang. They have not been successful...yet. In GR, gravity propagates at the speed of light. If the Sun vanished, the Earth would continue to orbit the spot where the Sun had been for around 8 minutes.

Due to the pressure at the core of the Sun, friction heats that 100 kg of hydrogen to fifteen million degrees Fahrenheit. So the actual energy released by fusion may be less than that generated by a lizard, but it would be a well cooked lizard. The core of the Sun is a furnace, but fusion is not a magic wand. Our current fusion reactors use more energy than they produce.

1-Yes. 2-Yes. 3-No. You might want to try the Modern and Theoretical Physics section for a really detailed explanation. Three dimensions plus time exist in normal space. Inside the event horizon of a black hole, only one dimension exists, that which points to the singularity. So gravity “compactified” the other dimensions. After the Big Bang, the other dimensions that M-theory requires for strings to operate remained compactified.

Pluto is a dwarf planet. This is a term that in its definition extends to small bodies around the Sun and no where else in the entire universe, i.e., no dwarf exoplanets will ever exist. However, objects like Pluto will exist around other stars, which still makes them exoplanets. Until we develop satellite telescopes linked together for interferometry to actually image some exoplanets, we will not know how many if any have large moons.

Perhaps this should be asked in the Biology section? Other than the asteroid impact part, I don't see how this is astronomy or cosmology.

http://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso1007/eso1007.pdf Gotta run.

It is not possible to image individual stars in other galaxies unless they explode. So this is just the oldest star that can be imaged in the universe. The article explains how the star has an unusually low metallicity. This refers to the fact that its observed light spectrum displays the signature of fewer elements heavier than hydrogen. Normally, first generation giant stars fuse hydrogen into all the other elements during their lifetime and when they explode. The shock wave disperses these elements into the surrounding cloud of hydrogen and may even contribute to the collapse of this gas into stars like our Sun. This particular star was likely formed in a dwarf galaxy that was then torn apart as it approached the Milky Way. It may just be that this dwarf galaxy did not have enough mass for the statistically average number of first generation stars to form. So the lack of first generation stars gave this star fewer heavier elements in its make-up. No star can be older than the universe.

DE only has a measured effect over distances of megaparsecs between supergalaxy clusters, so I would say no.

This is a somewhat dated summary of Hawking Radiation: http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0409024v3.pdf Hawking originally described how virtual particle-antiparticle pairs can become real particles near an event horizon. The above paper shows how this extends to bosons and fermions, but only directly mentions neutrinos, photons and gravitons. So I am unable to confirm that quark-antiquark pairs, or any of the other particles you mention are a product of HR.

To my knowledge, not one single primordial BH has ever been detected. As to CP violation, IIRC B meson decay rates give something like one bilion anti-particles and one billion plus one particles, which accounts for all the matter. I believe that the LHC should have some data on this.

I would argue that "space" is misused in your statement. Einstein discovered that matter and energy are the same. If you mean the space between the planets, that is filled with the energy of the Sun and to a lesser extent some fraction of the energy from all the other stars in the observable universe. The space in and between galaxies is filled with this same energy. DE is also present and Dark Matter. If you only mean the space between my atoms' hadrons and electrons, that is filled with the EM force and at the nucleus by the strong force. So space is nowhere an empty space. Thus, the WMAP result is the only pertinent fact.

I read that each cubic cm of intragalactic space has about one hydrogen atom. The space between galaxies has even less density. According to the WMAP, about 72% of the universe is Dark Energy, 24% is Dark Matter and the rest is the more traditional stuff.

Exactly.

To clarify, space expanded faster than light, but a given point in space did not travel anywhere. The space between any two points inflated.