dark age after inflaion?

[36grit]

Is there a scientific explanation for the dark ages after the inflatioinary period after the BB ?

[pantheory]

Is there a scientific explanation for the dark ages after the inflatioinary period after the BB ?

 

.........The early Universe was so hot and dense that it was like the conditions within a particle accelerator or nuclear reactor. As the Universe expanded it cooled, so that the average energy of its constituent particles decreased with time. All of the high energy particle and nuclear physics was over in the first 3 minutes (see the book of that name, written by Steven Weinberg in 1977). By that time all of the main constituents of the Universe had formed, including the light elements and the radiation. It is generally believed that little of note happened for the next 300,000 years or so. This period is sometimes referred to as the "Dark Ages" of the Universe.

(quote from link below)

 

The present Big Bang model' (BB) assertions concerning the dark ages are explained by the quote above and the link below. It must be noted that no such observations have been seen at the presently most distant observable parts of the universe. If such an era were ever discovered it would be strong evidence in favor of the BB model, if it is not found by the next round of space telescopes such as the James Webb, some might then question the theory. The dark ages cannot be seen (hence dark ages ) directly but the first stars, according to present theory, should have been different than present-day stars seen in any galaxy today. If instead all we ever see is more distant galaxies, then the BB model will seemingly be in trouble maybe within 5 years after the James Webb goes up.

 

http://www.astro.ubc.../cmb_intro.html

Edited August 8, 2011 by pantheory

[imatfaal]

Pan - I am not sure what you mean by "no such observations have been seen at the presently most distant observable parts of the universe"?

 

We observe the CMBR - anything more distant or older than that cannot be observed through the use of any wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. Before the surface of last scattering - when the CMBR was emitted - the universe was ionised, hot, light-emitting, and opaque; there just is no radiation for us to observe from before the epoch that gave rise to the CMB. Any probing of the universe before this will have to be done by inference from the anisotropy and imperfections in the CMB - or at a much later date when we can use something that the <300,000 year universe was not opaque for, ie gravitational waves or neutrino.

[pantheory]

Pan - I am not sure what you mean by "no such observations have been seen at the presently most distant observable parts of the universe"?

 

We observe the CMBR - anything more distant or older than that cannot be observed through the use of any wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. Before the surface of last scattering - when the CMBR was emitted - the universe was ionised, hot, light-emitting, and opaque; there just is no radiation for us to observe from before the epoch that gave rise to the CMB. Any probing of the universe before this will have to be done by inference from the anisotropy and imperfections in the CMB - or at a much later date when we can use something that the <300,000 year universe was not opaque for, ie gravitational waves or neutrino.

I agree; my statement you quoted does not make sense according to the Big Bang model. Maybe I should have just said that if we only continue to see more galaxies appearing the same after the James Webb goes up, as far as we can observe, then I think within a decade thereafter the BB model will be replaced.

/

Edited August 8, 2011 by pantheory

[imatfaal]

Pan - ah, yes; if (and it's a big if which I do not think will come to pass) we observe galaxies redshifted by a greater amount than the cmbr then the whole model collapses

[pantheory]

Pan - ah, yes; if (and it's a big if which I do not think will come to pass) we observe galaxies redshifted by a greater amount than the cmbr then the whole model collapses

I think the problem will become evident at a redshift of maybe 10, that if we see galaxies appearing similar to the Milky Way at a distance of 13.3 Billion light years, then the present BB model would seem extremely improbable and I would expect at that time there would be a serious search for an alternative model. Of course they can again create another ad hoc hypothesis to extend the age/time allowed by the BB model as long as needed , or to simply assert that 400 million years is enough time to create a galaxy which appears the same as the Milky Way, or worse, a larger Elliptical galaxy in an old appearing cluster.

//

Edited August 10, 2011 by pantheory

[Realitycheck]

You mean like this one?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UDFy-38135539

 

Oops. I thought you said 13 bly ago. My mistake. I guess 13 bly ago is kind of irrelevant, but it looks pretty large and organized for being that old. But then again, 300 million years is a pretty long time in a much more condensed universe.

Edited August 10, 2011 by Realitycheck

[36grit]

When you say "condensed" your refering to the particle/distance ratio of space?

When you say "hot" you mean the state of particle excitment ?

[Realitycheck]

Yes and yes.