just after the big bang

[ridgey]

If 2 identicle particles are travelling in the opposite direction just after the big bang, will they be opposites of each other? eg. particle/antiparticle

[CPL.Luke]

you already said that the particles were identicle.

 

but, if you think of the big bang in terms of inflation (like it should be), the directoin doesn't really matter, the big bang happened everywhere

[Bettina]

Ok...I have to get this clear in my mind. What is meant by " The big bang happened everywhere"...and at the same time.

 

Bettina

[ridgey]

if you change the direction of identicle mangnets you get opposites!

[CPL.Luke]

particles aren't exactly the same as magnets.

 

Bettina the big bang according to inflation theory and most modern cosmological modles occured everywhere in the universe at the same time, basicly everything in the universe suddenly "winked" into existance 13 billion years ago, since then the universe as expanded and everything that "winked" into existance then has since gotten further apart.

[Daecon]

You have to wonder where all this matter/energy came from in the first place. There's definitely a hell of a lot of it in the universe.

 

But I guess that's a more philosophical question...?

[Bettina]

particles aren't exactly the same as magnets.

 

Bettina the big bang according to inflation theory and most modern cosmological modles occured everywhere in the universe at the same time' date=' basicly everything in the universe suddenly "winked" into existance 13 billion years ago, since then the universe as expanded and everything that "winked" into existance then has since gotten further apart.[/quote']

 

Ok, I don't believe I'm hijacking this thread since the original post was answered but I've always been confused about the explanation "the same time or everywhere"

 

When it says the big bang occured everywhere at the same time, is it the inflationary bubble that came into existence quickly? Then matter expanded later? I know it was all born at the same time, but did matter, or the energy that preceded matter happen at the same time?

 

Bettina

[CPL.Luke]

I believe it was energy that came first, everything I've ever read seems to describe energy later forming into matter. However its still a mystery where the antimatter went.

[Stumblebum]

Wouldn't a place to put all that energy and matter come first?

[CPL.Luke]

maybe, but (assuming I understood you right) that place would be before the big bang, and we wouldn't have any evidence for its existance

[Severian]

When it says the big bang occured everywhere at the same time' date=' is it the inflationary bubble that came into existence quickly? Then matter expanded later? I know it was all born at the same time, but did matter, or the energy that preceded matter happen at the same time?

[/quote']

 

The energy doesn't preceed the matter as such. Energy is just a property of matter (or force carriers). The main supposition is that matter and anti-matter were created in equal amounts with a large amount of energy, everywhere in the universe at once. The energy from this explosion caused space-time itself to expand, but not terribly quickly. Pretty soon though inflation kicks in and the universe grows exponentially for a while (we are still less than a second in though).

[Bettina]

The energy doesn't preceed the matter as such. Energy is just a property of matter (or force carriers). The main supposition is that matter and anti-matter were created in equal amounts with a large amount of energy, everywhere in the universe at once. The energy from this explosion caused space-time itself to expand, but not terribly quickly. Pretty soon though inflation kicks in and the universe grows exponentially for a while (we are still less than a second in though).

 

I know thru Einsteins equation that energy and mass are interchangeble, and I was taught that at the first instant of "creation" or "big bang", there was nothing but pure energy. In the next instant this energy begins converting into particles, antiparticles, etc, then matter, but I still have a problem with "everywhere at the same time".

 

When the gym teacher turns on the lights in the gym, everything is illuminated everywhere in the gym at once. However, I know it doesn't. When he throws that switch, I can visualize light starting at the lamps, eminating thru the air, and finally reaching the walls until everything is illuminated. It didn't happen everywhere at the same time. Light didn't reach the far wall ahead of the hoop in front of it.

 

All the books I read still says everywhere at the same time and it bugs me.

 

Bettina

[Klaynos]

you must remember that everywhere was at the same place an instant after the big bang, and since then everywhere has spread out...

[Severian]

I know thru Einsteins equation that energy and mass are interchangeble' date=' and I was taught that at the first instant of "creation" or "big bang", there was nothing but pure energy. In the next instant this energy begins converting into particles, antiparticles, etc, then matter, but I still have a problem with "everywhere at the same time".

[/quote']

 

We actually don't know what happened exactly at the the big bang, and we probably never will, because the energys involved were so huge that no data survives. By 'energy' your teachers probably meant photons (ie. light), because people tend to think of light as 'pure energy', but it really isn't - it has other properties as well as its energy. These photons could then have plit into particle anti-particle pairs.

 

If fact, 'light' isn't really right either since there is no such thing as light at high energies. It would have to be some other force carrier, like a hypercharge boson, or something more exotic, like strings.

 

When the gym teacher turns on the lights in the gym, everything is illuminated everywhere in the gym at once. However, I know it doesn't. When he throws that switch, I can visualize light starting at the lamps, eminating thru the air, and finally reaching the walls until everything is illuminated. It didn't happen everywhere at the same time. Light didn't reach the far wall ahead of the hoop in front of it.

 

This is correct, but it isn't the analogous picture for the bgi bang. People tend to thing of the big bang as a big explosion, because of the name, but an explosion in real life is localized to a small area, and then spreads out. This isn't how the big bang (is thought to have) started - the big bang's explosion is not localised to one place - everywhere explodes at once! It has to be this way, because space-time was supposed to be created at the big bang. If it wasn't created everywhere at once, there would be no space for the light from a localized explosion to move into anyway.

[Bettina]

This isn't how the big bang (is thought to have) started - the big bang's explosion is not localised to one place - everywhere explodes at once! It has to be this way, because space-time was supposed to be created at the big bang. If it wasn't created everywhere at once, there would be no space for the light from a localized explosion to move into anyway.

 

This is what I read too, but I just can't visualize it because it doesn't make any sense. I've read about branes, and strings, and I'm a tough sell on that too. I think the universe is simpler than that. What Klaynos said above makes me ponder....

 

I know I have a lot to learn about this, but I can only go with my own feelings until I read more about it, but I visualize space exploding from a single point....not everywhere at once.... in the form of a "pure energy envelope", that rapidly expanded in all directions...like a balloon that was instantly inflated. This expansion of space and time was much faster than the speed of light and for that first instant, it was all energy.

 

Another form of energy followed, only much slower than the speed of light, giving way to the matter we see today, that is still travelling in this envelope.

 

I know I'm off the wall, but I'm still learning and have always had a tough time with "everything at the same time". I would appreciate any links to articles...I read them all.

 

Bettina

 

Bettina

[CPL.Luke]

hey severian at what energy does light cease to be light?

[Severian]

hey severian at what energy does light cease to be light?

 

174GeV or so. Above that the electroweak symmetry is unbroken and the natural states are the pure SU(2) and U(1) (hypercharge) gauge bosons. The photon is a mixture of SU(2) and U(1) fields.

[Bettina]

I've been reading this link. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html and it has the following paragraph.

 

Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

 

The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." It is better thought of as the simultaneous appearance of space everywhere in the universe. That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from. In the ball analogy, the radius of the ball grows as the universe expands, but all points on the surface of the ball (the universe) recede from each other in an identical fashion. The interior of the ball should not be regarded as part of the universe in this analogy.

 

I understand the ball analogy and know theres nothing inside the ball, but still have a problem with "everywhere" especially when they present this line to me...

 

"That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past."

 

Maybe its semantics that is confusing me. I'm not saying that the big bang was the birth of our universe in space, I am saying that if in the beginning there was nothing, no space or time, then space-time appeared from a single point and rapidly expanded, isnt that an "explosion" or big bang?

 

Bettina

[swansont]

Maybe its semantics that is confusing me. I'm not saying that the big bang was the birth of our universe in space' date=' I am saying that if in the beginning there was nothing, no space or time, then space-time appeared from a single point and rapidly expanded, isnt that an "explosion" or big bang?

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

Basically.

 

To use your gym analogy from before: when the room lights are turned on, the walls of the room are right where the light bulb is. There's no larger room that contains the bulb, or the room - the room itself is being created.

[Bettina]

Basically.

 

To use your gym analogy from before: when the room lights are turned on' date=' the walls of the room are right where the light bulb is. There's no larger room that contains the bulb, or the room - the room itself is being created.[/quote']

 

I know I seem dumb and these are very basic questions, but please stay with me for a little longer... So, as the "room" is being created, (space, time, matter, etc) it is also expanding outwards in all directions from its "central" starting point.....the singularity. I want to know three more things....

 

One...The center. Everyone says there is no center to the universe, but it was once a singularity.

 

Two...Since there is no "other room" that its expanding into, what is it occupying. Is it expanding into nothing?

 

Three...Is it correct to say the "walls" are moving faster than the light is able to reach?

 

Bettina

[CPL.Luke]

the universe is infinite, and so there can be nothing "outside" of it.

 

even if there was an "outside" to space, there would be no definition of it so it doesn't exist, and it doesn't take up space. The idea that our universe has to expand into something basicly stipulates that there is some form of coordinate system outside of the universe

[Bettina]

the universe is infinite' date=' and so there can be nothing "outside" of it.

 

even if there was an "outside" to space, there would be no definition of it so it doesn't exist, and it doesn't take up space. The idea that our universe has to expand into something basicly stipulates that there is some form of coordinate system outside of the universe[/quote']

 

How is it proven that there is nothing outside? How do we know.

 

Bettina

[Bettina]

Yoo Hoo.......Hello?

 

Bettina

[5614]

How is it proven that there is nothing outside? How do we know.

For you to correctly say there is something "outside" you'd need to prove it, since you cannot prove it you cannot be correct (if you can prove it then well done, you'll probably become famous quite quickly!)

 

Obviously the same applies to the other side of the argument. However saying space is infinite means there can be nothing outside, if space is truley infinite there is nothing other than it.

 

So either space is infinite and no outside, or it is not infinite and therefore there could be something outside.

 

The reason you have to prove your idea correct (there is something outside) and I don't have to prove mine (outside doesn't exist) is because it is already commonly accepted that the universe is infinite, you are coming from the 'outsiders' (haha, get it, outside, nevermind) view and so you have to counteract current theories with solid proof, which you can't do.

 

(I know it might not be your view, you're only questioning, but it's easier to say "your" and "mine" so that was just an example)

[Bettina]

For you to correctly say there is something "outside" you'd need to prove it' date=' since you cannot prove it you cannot be correct (if you can prove it then well done, you'll probably become famous quite quickly!)

 

Obviously the same applies to the other side of the argument. However saying space is infinite means there can be nothing outside, if space is truley infinite there is nothing other than it.

 

So either space is infinite and no outside, or it is not infinite and therefore there could be something outside.

 

The reason you have to prove your idea correct (there is something outside) and I don't have to prove mine (outside doesn't exist) is because it is already commonly accepted that the universe is infinite, you are coming from the 'outsiders' (haha, get it, outside, nevermind) view and so you have to counteract current theories with solid proof, which you can't do.

 

([i']I know it might not be your view, you're only questioning, but it's easier to say "your" and "mine" so that was just an example[/i])

 

Ok...but just because it is commonly accepted that there is nothing outside our universe doesn't mean its correct. I always believed that we are not unique and that this universe is expanding into something.

 

Infinite means without end, so why can't our universe be infinitely expanding into something that is infinitely bigger. A big nothing that has infinite room. This is what I believe, since the singularity happened in this infinite nothing.

 

NOw....what about my other questions 1 and 2.

 

Bettina