# Big Bang

## Recommended Posts

1. Energy/Mass conversion – E = mc2

"The speed of lightin vacuum,usually denoted by C. Itsvalue is 299,792,458 metres per second. M= Mass."

In Nuclear energy, a few grams of mass generatea huge energy. Therefore, in a reversible process, a huge energy is needed tocreate just few grams of mass. Hence, in order to generate the whole mass of theuniverse in a split of a second an infinite and irrational energy is needed. Therefore, is it a feasible process???

2. What is the source for this energy??? Is it possible that it was an outcome of Nuclear energy (which came of of mass) so there was a mass before the big bang...

3. Overcomingthe force of gravity (escape velocity) – The requested escape velocity fromblack hole is so high that even the light can't escape. In the universe thereare billions of black holes. If we placed all of them in one singular point andwe also add the whole mass of stars in the universe, than the estimated therequired escape velocity would be so high that nothing could escape. Therefore,even if there was the energy that created the whole mass in the universe in a fractionof a second, than the requested escape velocity would be so high that notingcould escape. Anyhow, the requested escape velocity should be million or even billontimes faster than the speed of light. Is it feasible???

4. Mass travel at a speed higher than the speedof light – let's assume that there was an energy that create the whole mass of the universe and there was the power to overcome this ultra highescape velocity... In this case, the escape velocity should be much, much higherthan the speed of light. Therefore, the Mass should travel at a speed higherthan the speed of light. So is it feasible that there are some galaxies whichare traveling at this ultra speed of light? Hence, there are some galaxies which wecan't see. is it possible?

5. Is it possible that the steady state theory is correct? Just as Fred Hoyle have stated: " In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands"

• Replies 53
• Created

#### Popular Days

I just typed out a whole load there to find out the system glitched. And my work no longer exists.

Short version:

No you can't talk about time before the big bang. In fact you can even talk about relativistic time during the first instances of the universe since there was no geometry involved ie. All objects in the universe diverged from a single point (without dimensions). So time as we usually see it, cannot be viewed in it geometrical form at the very beginning. This can only happen when geometrogenesis occurs.

(I don't understand some of what you are saying, so I will skip to Hoyle part)

As far as we know it, the Steady State theory has been overthrown by the back ground radiation ---- However, the back ground radiation may have a different explanation, such as being the limiting temperature of stars, which is entirely feasible. Was it Eddington who calculated this? My memory is a bit hazy.

##### Share on other sites

In Nuclear energy, a few grams of mass generatea huge energy. Therefore, in a reversible process, a huge energy is needed tocreate just few grams of mass. Hence, in order to generate the whole mass of theuniverse in a split of a second an infinite and irrational energy is needed. Therefore, is it a feasible process???

The energy needed to generate the observable universe is not infinite, and has in fact been calculated. There is nothing irrational about it. The energy generated by the decay of the inflaton field which drove inflation is more than enough to account for the matter in the observable universe.

2. What is the source for this energy??? Is it possible that it was an outcome of Nuclear energy (which came of of mass) so there was a mass before the big bang...

No, there was no mass before the BB, The energy had nothing to do with Nuclear reactions. See above.

3. Overcomingthe force of gravity (escape velocity) – The requested escape velocity fromblack hole is so high that even the light can't escape. In the universe thereare billions of black holes. If we placed all of them in one singular point andwe also add the whole mass of stars in the universe, than the estimated therequired escape velocity would be so high that nothing could escape. Therefore,even if there was the energy that created the whole mass in the universe in a fractionof a second, than the requested escape velocity would be so high that notingcould escape. Anyhow, the requested escape velocity should be million or even billontimes faster than the speed of light. Is it feasible???

Gravitational attraction falls off as the square of the distance. So no matter how much mass you have in a BH, the effects drop off dramatically with distance. Furthermore, the expansion of the universe is not matter being moved through space, it is space itself expanding. Nothing is escaping from the universe, so the whole question of 'universe escape velocity' is moot.

4. Mass travel at a speed higher than the speedof light – let's assume that there was an energy that create the whole mass of the universe and there was the power to overcome this ultra highescape velocity... In this case, the escape velocity should be much, much higherthan the speed of light. Therefore, the Mass should travel at a speed higherthan the speed of light. So is it feasible that there are some galaxies whichare traveling at this ultra speed of light? Hence, there are some galaxies which wecan't see. is it possible?

Mass does not travel at a speed higher than light. It has nothing to do with how much energy was applied. The universe can expand at a speed higher than light, but there is nothing which moves in the universe at a faster speed. Expansion is not matter being propelled, as in an explosion. Expansion is more space being created between things. That stated, there are indeed galaxies who's light, due to the expansion of space, will never reach earth.

5. Is it possible that the steady state theory is correct? Just as Fred Hoyle have stated: " In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands"

The steady state theory also predicts that the proton will decay. There have been many highly accurate experiments designed to detect that decay, but they never have.

The CMBR is not explained by the steady state theory, yet it is EXACTLY predicted by the BH. Also SS fails in predicting the relative amounts of the primodial elements, hydrogen, helium, deuterium and lithium.

Even Hoyle admitted that the SS theory doesn't work.

##### Share on other sites

Gravitational attraction falls off as the square of the distance. So no matter how much mass you have in a BH, the effects drop off dramatically with distance. Furthermore, the expansion of the universe is not matter being moved through space, it is space itself expanding. Nothing is escaping from the universe, so the whole question of 'universe escape velocity' is moot.

I think the question is how the mass contained in the singularity prior to the big bang could have spread out in the first place. It is like asking how mass within a black hole could suddenly spread out (it can't). If there is not enough energy available to cause the mass in a black hole to spread out, how could there be enough energy available to cause the mass at nearly t=0 to spread out? Expansion should have nothing to do with it as it is not a powerful enough force to separate matter that is gravitationally bound.

##### Share on other sites

I think the question is how the mass contained in the singularity prior to the big bang could have spread out in the first place. It is like asking how mass within a black hole could suddenly spread out (it can't). If there is not enough energy available to cause the mass in a black hole to spread out, how could there be enough energy available to cause the mass at nearly t=0 to spread out? Expansion should have nothing to do with it as it is not a powerful enough force to separate matter that is gravitationally bound.

At the time of Inflation, (about 10–36 seconds to 10–32 seconds) all the energy in the universe was tied up in the Inflaton field, and there was no gravity. The symmetry breaking which established gravity as a seperate force had not yet happened. When the Inflaton field dropped to it's vacuum level and the energy of the field coalesed into matter, the initial inflationary push was enough to keep the process going and slowing, until about 7 billion years ago, when it began to accelerate.

##### Share on other sites

At the time of Inflation, (about 10–36 seconds to 10–32 seconds) all the energy in the universe was tied up in the Inflaton field, and there was no gravity. The symmetry breaking which established gravity as a seperate force had not yet happened. When the Inflaton field dropped to it's vacuum level and the energy of the field coalesed into matter, the initial inflationary push was enough to keep the process going and slowing, until about 7 billion years ago, when it began to accelerate.

I was unable to find what is believed to have happened to establish gravity. Is it because at the time of symmetry breaking the Higgs Boson came into being?

Also, if I read it correctly it seems that if the universe were to start all over again, that because of symmetry breaking we might end up with very different laws of physics. Is that correct?

##### Share on other sites

Even Hoyle admitted that the SS theory doesn't work.

That's simply not true, he defended his theory to his death.

In fact, Hoyle continued to point out flaws with the BB, even though most cosmologists had abandoned the Steady State theory, and as this link shows you, he never gave that up.

##### Share on other sites

At the time of Inflation, (about 10–36 seconds to 10–32 seconds) all the energy in the universe was tied up in the Inflaton field, and there was no gravity. The symmetry breaking which established gravity as a seperate force had not yet happened.

Can anyone say how large the universe was when the force of gravity came into being? When gravity originated, it must have been too late for it to halt the expansion.

##### Share on other sites

In Nuclear energy, a few grams of mass generatea huge energy.

...Therefore, in a reversible process, a huge energy is needed tocreate just few grams of mass. Hence, in order to generate the whole mass of theuniverse in a split of a second an infinite and irrational energy is needed. Therefore, is it a feasible process???

The zero-energy universe hypothesis states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero. The total energy from matter is positive. The total energy of the gravitational field is negative. The sum is zero. See details at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

[/font][/size]3. Overcomingthe force of gravity (escape velocity) – The requested escape velocity fromblack hole is so high that even the light can't escape. In the universe thereare billions of black holes. If we placed all of them in one singular point andwe also add the whole mass of stars in the universe, than the estimated therequired escape velocity would be so high that nothing could escape. Therefore,even if there was the energy that created the whole mass in the universe in a fractionof a second, than the requested escape velocity would be so high that notingcould escape. Anyhow, the requested escape velocity should be million or even billontimes faster than the speed of light. Is it feasible???

No. In order to do what you say you'd have to move stars and black holes around. It takes energy to do that. There may not be enough energy available in the universe to do that. There are also other laws that you'd have to violate to ger that done like conservation of momentum, conservation of the center of mass etc.,

4. Mass travel at a speed higher than the speedof light –..

That's impossible. You may be confusing the faster than light expansion of space as moving particles faster than the speed of light.

5. Is it possible that the steady state theory is correct? Just as Fred Hoyle have stated: " In steady state views, new matter is continuously created as the universe expands"

No. It is not possible. Observation tells us that its not true.

No you can't talk about time before the big bang.

The standard model cannot tell you what happened before the big bang. That doesn't mean you can't ask about what happened before it. There are other theories which allow one to ask such questions. One such theory is the Pre-Big Bang Scenario. E.g. see http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9907067

##### Share on other sites

The standard model cannot tell you what happened before the big bang. That doesn't mean you can't ask about what happened before it. There are other theories which allow one to ask such questions. One such theory is the Pre-Big Bang Scenario. E.g. see http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9907067

I agree... It cannot tell you what happened.

I won't argue.

If any of these pre-bang situations are your topic, I will argue them however... maybe these cyclic theories?

The world is not cyclic, they certainly happened once and right now.

... and nothing is isotropic to these actions.

Edited by Aethelwulf
##### Share on other sites

I agree... It cannot tell you what happened.

I won't argue.

If any of these pre-bang situations are your topic, I will argue them however... maybe these cyclic theories?

The world is not cyclic, they certainly happened once and right now.

... and nothing is isotropic to these actions.

Peebles has some interesting comments on the Big Bang. From Principles of Physical Cosmology, page 6

If there were an instant, at a "big bang," when our universe started to expanding, it is not in our cosmology as now accepted, because no one has thought of a way to adduce objective physical evidence that such an event really happened.

##### Share on other sites

Nice quote thank you.

I agree strongly with that statement. I have even remarked myself in the past, that the beginning of the universe is devoid of such order that we associate to things today. I will expand on this if you want.

##### Share on other sites

Nice quote thank you.

I agree strongly with that statement. I have even remarked myself in the past, that the beginning of the universe is devoid of such order that we associate to things today. I will expand on this if you want.

##### Share on other sites

Well I figure, to have an ordered set of events you need to be able to speak about time. In the beginning, there was no kind of time we can deal with in a relativistic sense. We are traditionally told, that everything diverged from a ''single point'' without dimensions. If this is the case, then the kind of time we often think about, the conventional space-time doesn't really hold. So whilst we may speak of ''first instances'' there was no kind of geometry to actually speak about time. Geometry only appears a little later when the universe has cooled down sufficiently to allow geometrogenesis. Which is actually a topic I believe Wheeler introduced, you may have heard of it?

##### Share on other sites

Well I figure, to have an ordered set of events you need to be able to speak about time. In the beginning, there was no kind of time we can deal with in a relativistic sense. We are traditionally told, that everything diverged from a ''single point'' without dimensions. If this is the case, then the kind of time we often think about, the conventional space-time doesn't really hold. So whilst we may speak of ''first instances'' there was no kind of geometry to actually speak about time. Geometry only appears a little later when the universe has cooled down sufficiently to allow geometrogenesis. Which is actually a topic I believe Wheeler introduced, you may have heard of it?

Isee what you're saying. I had forgotten about that notion. Thanks for reminding me. No. I never heard of geometrogenesis. What us it?

##### Share on other sites

I feel that even if the big bang was feasible, it is unlikely. I still find it hard to swallow the fact that there was "nothing" before the big bang. I mean there can't be such thing as "no matter" and there had to be time before the big bang didn't there? I personally have been through many different beliefs about the universe's creation. So far I have not found one I am happy with. All seem too controversial. There literally has not been any ACTUAL evidence prooving or disprooving the big bang. All we have at our disposal is logic. And logic can be tough to work with sometimes.

Edited by MrAndrew1337
##### Share on other sites

There literally has not been any ACTUAL evidence prooving or disprooving the big bang. All we have at our disposal is logic. And logic can be tough to work with sometimes.

Science doesn't work by proving theories. Observations either provide evidence to support a theory or they can prove a theory wrong. But no amount of evidence can prove a theory right.

##### Share on other sites

I feel that even if the big bang was feasible, it is unlikely. I still find it hard to swallow the fact that there was "nothing" before the big bang. I mean there can't be such thing as "no matter" and there had to be time before the big bang didn't there? I personally have been through many different beliefs about the universe's creation. So far I have not found one I am happy with. All seem too controversial. There literally has not been any ACTUAL evidence prooving or disprooving the big bang. All we have at our disposal is logic. And logic can be tough to work with sometimes.

That is not correct.

The Big Bang is a well-tested scientific theory which is widely accepted within the scientific community because it is the most accurate and comprehensive explanation for the full range of phenomena astronomers observe. Since its conception, abundant evidence has arisen to further validate the model.

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

##### Share on other sites

Science doesn't work by proving theories. Observations either provide evidence to support a theory or they can prove a theory wrong. But no amount of evidence can prove a theory right.

Yes, exactly.

##### Share on other sites

Thank you all for your replies.

Unfortunately, so far, I didn't get a real answer for the feasability of the Big Bang...

There are also new subjects to verify. (Which will be follow…)

Never the less, at this phase, I will address only one issue:

What is the source for the Big Bang energy???

The answer was ---" The energy needed to generate the observable universe is not infinite, and has in fact been calculated. There is nothing irrational about it. The energy generated by the decay of the inflation field which drove inflation is more than enough to account for the matter inthe observable universe."

1. Calculated energy – Do we realy have the calculated energy which is requested to generate the matter in the sun? In the Milky Way? In the universe? Where canwe see it?

2. Inflation & decay - It is a new theory which should support the current theory of the Big Bang. Do we know for sure that there was inflation??? Where it's come from? Why we do not call it the Big Inflation Bang??? If the inflation generates the energy which was needed for the big bang, than what was the source for the inflation energy??? You might say that this energy comes out of a new magnetic field or Abra-Cadabra theory… But please, energy should come out of something real…

3. Dark Matter - What about the energy which is needed for the dark matter. (20 times bigger than the observed universe).

Edited by David Levy
##### Share on other sites

Unfortunately, so far, I didn't get a real answer for the feasability of the Big Bang...

Please define what you would consider to be a "real answer" for us...

IMHO zapatos's post #19 has a good quote with link about the scientific consensus thereof.

##### Share on other sites

Let's stat with - "What is the source for the Big Bang energy???

##### Share on other sites

Why should anyone devote time on a prolonged explanation for you, when it ends with you simply disregarding scientific consensus as not real answers?

Edited by Spyman
##### Share on other sites

In Wikipedia it is stated: "While the Big Bang model is well established in cosmology, it is likely to be refined in the future. Little is known about the earliest moments of the Universe's history. The equations of classical general relativity indicate a singularity at the origin ofcosmic time, although this conclusion depends on several assumptions"

My main focus is exactly about "the earliest moments of the Universe's history". The Big bang theory had been established based on "several assumptions". My questions relate directly to those assumptions.

I would like to thank you all for the valuable answers which were based on those assumption. Never the less, shouldn't we try to verify those earliest moments and assumptions (or even pre-earliest moments)???

Therefore, I have asked to verify some key points in those earliest moments, including the source of the energy which has started the whole process…

We might find a real breakthrough in our history, if we could get better understanding on those assumptions.

Edited by David Levy

## Create an account

Register a new account