One detail about the Big Bang that I am still not to clear on...

[Excalibur0047]

I wont claim to be well versed by any standard on this subject so please be nice. One detail I am not sure of about the Big Bang is how much the big bang created and how big researchers are predicting how large the initial amount of mass could have been to accomodate that size of reaction. Did the big bang create just the Milky Way galaxy and other Big Bangs created other galaxies or was it just one giant Big Bang and, over time, the other galaxies separated and gained substantial distance from eachother? Could someone please clarify this/these details for me? I cant seem to find the answers myself no matter how hard I search.

[zztop]

I wont claim to be well versed by any standard on this subject so please be nice. One detail I am not sure of about the Big Bang is how much the big bang created and how big researchers are predicting how large the initial amount of mass could have been to accomodate that size of reaction. Did the big bang create just the Milky Way galaxy and other Big Bangs created other galaxies or was it just one giant Big Bang and, over time, the other galaxies separated and gained substantial distance from eachother? Could someone please clarify this/these details for me? I cant seem to find the answers myself no matter how hard I search.

It is explained well here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Inflation_and_baryogenesis

Read the next paragraph as well.

[StringJunky]

This might add to what zztop posted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

[Airbrush]

The big bang created as far as we can see and probably much further.

 

One big bang created all the galaxies that we can see and probably many further away.

 

The universe could be infinite or finite, but more likely finite.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Airbrush

[MigL]

Just to be clear...

There was no initial mass.

 

The property of mass was acquired by certain particles which interact with the Higgs field, itself a result of the symmetry breaks which separated the fundamental forces.

[StringJunky]

The universe could be infinite or finite, but more likely finite.

Citation.

[Strange]

I wont claim to be well versed by any standard on this subject so please be nice. One detail I am not sure of about the Big Bang is how much the big bang created and how big researchers are predicting how large the initial amount of mass could have been to accomodate that size of reaction. Did the big bang create just the Milky Way galaxy and other Big Bangs created other galaxies or was it just one giant Big Bang and, over time, the other galaxies separated and gained substantial distance from eachother? Could someone please clarify this/these details for me? I cant seem to find the answers myself no matter how hard I search.

 

 

The big bang theory doesn't say anything about the creation anything. It describes how the universe evolved from an early hot, dense state. The amount of stuff that existed then (which may be infinite) is the same as now. There is no evidence that new matter is created.

[Airbrush]

Citation.

 

Because nature takes the simplest course, like water flowing in a stream. The universe could be infinite, but it is a lot easier to be finite. That the universe exists at all is an amazing accomplishment, to suppose the universe not only came into existence but was ALSO infinite in size is an extra leap nature needs to take. And that is possible, however I suppose the universe is a little more likely FINITE.

 

This is purely speculative, and will most likely remain that way because of the nature of this unknowable issue in cosmology.

Edited January 8, 2017 by Airbrush

[StringJunky]

 

Because nature takes the simplest course, like water flowing in a stream. The universe could be infinite, but it is a lot easier to be finite. That the universe exists at all is an amazing accomplishment, to suppose the universe not only came into existence but was ALSO infinite in size is an extra leap nature needs to take. And that is possible, however I suppose the universe is a little more likely FINITE.

 

This is purely speculative, and will most likely remain that way because of the nature of this unknowable issue in cosmology.

You don't need to make that leap because if it is infinite it has always been around. and has always been infinite.

[Strange]

 

Because nature takes the simplest course, like water flowing in a stream. The universe could be infinite, but it is a lot easier to be finite. That the universe exists at all is an amazing accomplishment, to suppose the universe not only came into existence but was ALSO infinite in size is an extra leap nature needs to take. And that is possible, however I suppose the universe is a little more likely FINITE.

 

This is purely speculative, and will most likely remain that way because of the nature of this unknowable issue in cosmology.

 

I have seen about the same number of people use similar arguments to insist that it is "simpler" or "more logical" or just "necessary" that the universe is infinite.

 

Basically, the universe could be finite of infinite. We don't know. And, quite possibly, we can't know.

 

As there is no evidence that the universe "came into existence" the isn't much point basing an argument on that.

[Airbrush]

Stars have solar systems, they make up a galaxy, galaxies make up clusters, and clusters make up superclusters. The trend is higher levels of clustering. The next logical clustering is big bangs or universes.

[StringJunky]

Stars have solar systems, they make up a galaxy, galaxies make up clusters, and clusters make up superclusters. The trend is higher levels of clustering. The next logical clustering is big bangs or universes.

But each level is not getting denser, it's getting bigger with greater distances in between.

[Berj / KI3U]

StringJunky wrote : " But each level is not getting denser, it's getting bigger with greater distances in between. "

 

Perhaps that's just a natural consequence of clustering at bigger and bigger scales.

 

Berj / KI3U

[Cosmo_Ken]

If we assume for a minute that there is something wrong with the current thinking that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and assume that it is in fact still decelerating and will eventually stop and then begin the Big Crunch, the Big Bang in reverse, at the end of the Big Crunch could some fundamental instability be reached that would trigger another Big Bang? If this were the case then start of Big Bang to end of Big Crunch could represent just one cycle in an infinite series of such cycles, such that the universe, in one form or another, has always exists and will always exist? Meaning that there was no beginning and there will be no end. No need for a creator or anything like that.

[StringJunky]

If we assume for a minute that there is something wrong with the current thinking that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and assume that it is in fact still decelerating and will eventually stop and then begin the Big Crunch, the Big Bang in reverse, at the end of the Big Crunch could some fundamental instability be reached that would trigger another Big Bang? If this were the case then start of Big Bang to end of Big Crunch could represent just one cycle in an infinite series of such cycles, such that the universe, in one form or another, has always exists and will always exist? Meaning that there was no beginning and there will be no end. No need for a creator or anything like that.

That's one scenario that is in the melting pot.