Big Bang

[JHAQ]

I know all the current thinking & evidence on the origin of the universe is the Big Bang theory but why , with such an immense amount of matter & energy was not the energy for expansion of any mass within it infinite & why was it not a vast black hole in its early stages ? Infinite means infinite as per Einsteins equtions -- or does it ?

[timo]

I know all the current thinking & evidence on the origin of the universe is the Big Bang theory but why , with such an immense amount of matter & energy was not the energy for expansion of any mass within it infinite

I have no idea what you mean. Perhaps you should clarify that point.

 

& why was it not a vast black hole in its early stages ?

Cosmology assumes a mostly uniform distribution of mass in the universe. A black hole assumes all mass being at a single point (or at least a small area with a lot of void around it). So it does not seem the same to me.

 

Infinite means infinite as per Einsteins equtions -- or does it ?

I dunno. Since it was you who said something about something being infinite, it should be you who knows what´s meant by it.

[DaveC426913]

I know all the current thinking & evidence on the origin of the universe is the Big Bang theory but why , with such an immense amount of matter & energy was not the energy for expansion of any mass within it infinite & why was it not a vast black hole in its early stages ? Infinite means infinite as per Einsteins equtions -- or does it ?

Black holes are composed of matter that has collapsed from its own gravity. There is no (significant) outward force.

 

In the BB, it was too hot for matter to even exist (matter did not "freeze out" until long after the BB). No matter, thus no (significant) collapsing force. Moreover, what there was, was a lot of energy, creating a strong expansive force.

[psynapse]

So before the BB there was no gravity because there was no matter to induce it? Gravity then only "appeared" when the first little bit of energy "condensed" into a particle. If this is true then if we could turn all the mass of the universe into energy would there be no gravity?

[FTL Machine]

I think Dark Energy could be considered this energy that instantly spread through the galaxy at the BB. I think it is lighter and faster then Mass or Mass that produces significant gravity. My guess is that energy (or maybe Dark Matter or Energy) spread like a blanket instantly at BB and then grew or produced larger Mass creating gravity later. Like islands of planets and stars.

[[Tycho?]]

Ok, big important point:

 

Gravity does not require matter, it requires energy. Remember E=mc^2. So saying there was no gravity because there was no matter is incorrect. So long as there is energy, then there is gravity.

[S.Ingvar]

Big bang is a misinterpretation of the spectral lines' redshift which is an entropy displacement effect that force the radiation's energy towards equilibrium.

This entropy law is the same for electrodynamics (as light) and hydrodynamics (as water) and aerodynamics (sound).

But the constant's size depends on the matter.

 

Se example on http://www.theuniphysics.info

 

Ingvar, Sweden

[[Tycho?]]

Mmmmhmm, so new physical principal that nobody has noticed? Yet you find it hard to get papers published?

 

The important discovery is that there is a constant wave-elongation that is proportional to the waves' propagated distance.

This new discovery implies that the long searched natural law and mechanical principle behind the radiation entropy now is found.

This simple entropy law is the same for electrodynamics (light) and hydrodynamics (water-waves) and aerodynamics (sound).

 

Color me skeptical.

[Spyman]

I know all the current thinking & evidence on the origin of the universe is the Big Bang theory but why , with such an immense amount of matter & energy was not the energy for expansion of any mass within it infinite & why was it not a vast black hole in its early stages ? Infinite means infinite as per Einsteins equtions -- or does it ?

In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago.

 

Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity.

 

The Big Bang model admits very exotic physical phenomena that include dark matter, dark energy, and cosmic inflation which rely on conditions and physics that have not yet been observed in terrestrial laboratory experiments. While explanations for such phenomena remain at the frontiers of inquiry in physics, independent observations of Big Bang nucleosynthesis, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Type Ia supernovae strongly suggest the phenomena are important and real cosmological features of our universe.

 

Though some aspects of the theory remain inadequately explained by fundamental physics, almost all cosmologists accept that the close agreement between Big Bang theory and observation have firmly established all the basic parts of the theory.

 

During inflation, the universe undergoes exponential expansion, and regions in causal contact expand so as to be beyond each other's horizons.

 

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

 

Big Bang was an explosion of space not an explosion in space.

 

When moving through space there is a universal speed limit © witch causes the Event Horizon around Black Holes but there is no known speed limit for the expansion of space. If the expansion speed is several times greater than c inside a Black Hole then it will be torn apart in all directions.

[aguy2]

;308289']Ok' date=' big important point:

 

Gravity does not require matter, it requires energy. Remember E=mc^2. So saying there was no gravity because there was no matter is incorrect. So long as there is energy, then there is gravity.[/quote']

 

Yes, in regards to gravitation, energy seems to have a 'mass equivilence' to the ratio E=MC^2. Thus if the universe is seen as a system, gravitation is conserved within the system.

 

I have what I consider to be an important question regarding 'angular momentum'. Angular momentum is also considered to be conserved within a system, and if the universe is considered a system, when did angular momentum 1st appear? Wouldn't it seem possible that the pre-inflationary era BB event/body displayed a high degree of angular momentum, and would have been rotating?

aguy2(amen)

[Spyman]

I have what I consider to be an important question regarding 'angular momentum'. Angular momentum is also considered to be conserved within a system, and if the universe is considered a system, when did angular momentum 1st appear? Wouldn't it seem possible that the pre-inflationary era BB event/body displayed a high degree of angular momentum, and would have been rotating?

You are asking if Dark Energy could be the angular momentum of a rotating Universe ?

 

Rotating on all three axes in all three dimensions or in another dimension ?

[aguy2]

You are asking if Dark Energy could be the angular momentum of a rotating Universe ?

 

The model I am working with posits that the visible, all matter universe is not itself rotating, but is a result of a pre-inflationary BB event/body that was.

 

Rotating on all three axes in all three dimensions or in another dimension ?

 

All that would be necessary is that whatever the pre-inflationary BB event/body rotation or rotations would take, its angular momentum would of necessity be 'translatable' to the newly forming sub-atomic 'particles'.

aguy2

[Martin]

I know all the current thinking & evidence on the origin of the universe is the Big Bang theory...

 

What you think you know is not, in fact, true.

 

If you are going to ask this sort of question you should get up to speed on current thinking.

 

One of the most highly regarded journals to publish in, for theoretical physics, is PHYSICAL REVIEW SERIES D. Here is something recent from PR-D.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0607039

Quantum Nature of the Big Bang: Improved dynamics

Abhay Ashtekar, Tomasz Pawlowski, Parampreet Singh

Revised version to appear in Physical Review D

IGPG-06/7-2

Phys.Rev. D74 (2006) 084003

 

"An improved Hamiltonian constraint operator is introduced in loop quantum cosmology. Quantum dynamics of the spatially flat, isotropic model with a massless scalar field is then studied in detail using analytical and numerical methods. The scalar field continues to serve as 'emergent time', the big bang is again replaced by a quantum bounce, and quantum evolution remains deterministic across the deep Planck regime. However, while with the Hamiltonian constraint used so far in loop quantum cosmology the quantum bounce can occur even at low matter densities, with the new Hamiltonian constraint it occurs only at a Planck-scale density. Thus, the new quantum dynamics retains the attractive features of current evolutions in loop quantum cosmology but, at the same time, cures their main weakness."

 

If you want to ask, IMHO you should take the trouble to get an idea of what mainstream world-class experts in this area actually think. Ashtekar is definitively world-class in this area. Please, listen to what he says and take it in

 

quantum evolution remains deterministic across the deep Planck regime.

 

this is new. in the old view there was an unexplained abrupt beginning. now Ashtekar and co-workers have mapped out a continuous evolution across the time-period in question.

 

there are still plenty of people who have all kinds of different speculative pictures including the "big bang singularity" and the "colliding branes" and whatever Stephen Hawking advocates.

 

But at least in one quarter you see plain old mechanistic development predicted by the best quantum model those particular researchers have been able to construct.

 

I am not saying this model of the beginning of expansion is RIGHT. What I am saying is that it is a major player and you need to take account of it.

==================

 

I would suggest reading another paper by Ashtekar which is more for the general audience. Skip the math and read whatever purely verbal parts you can understand----the introduction, part of the conclusion. I will get a link:

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0605078

The Issue of the Beginning in Quantum Gravity

Abhay Ashtekar

15 pages, 2 figures. History and Philosophy of Physics. Based on an invited talk at the 7th International Conference on the History of General Relativity (HGR7), "Einstein and the Changing World View of Physics, 1905-2005", held at Tenerife, Canary Islands in 2005

IGPG-06/05-3

 

 

"The goal of this report is to provide an up to date account of results on the quantum nature of the big bang, obtained in loop quantum cosmology. They suggest a radical modification of the paradigm provided by general relativity for the issue of the Beginning. The article is addressed primarily to historians and philosophers of science. "