Big Bang and only 14 billion years?

[Jiggerj]

Does anyone else get a sense that 14 billion years isn't enough time for the universe to have formed into what it is today?

 

From the Big Bang we got a whole lot of gas: (From Wiki) The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Eventually, clouds of hydrogen would coalesce through gravity to form stars, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.

 

 

With so many galaxies in the cosmos it seems like it would have taken TRillions and Trillions of years for enough gas to coalesce into the matter we see today. Added to this is the fact that the ever expanding universe would have been pulling hydrogen, helium, and lithium atoms away from each other, causing the formation of stars even that much more difficult and time consuming.

 

The accepted time of 14 billion years just seems way WAY off to me.

[Spyman]

With so many galaxies in the cosmos...

Galaxies don't take turns to form, they form independently in parallel, if one can form in 500 million years then infinite galaxies can form simultaneously.

[CaptainPanic]

What's a factor of 1000 in such a giant scheme of things? And for that matter, what is the point you're trying to make?

 

Did you spot a bottleneck in the process, for which 14 billion years is not enough? If so, please tell us.

 

If this is "just a feeling", then we might as well close the thread.

[Schrödinger's hat]

Also, do you have any idea how long a billion years is?

I'd warrant that even a millenia is more than a human can truly comprehend.

 

Also, to add to what spyman said.

Stars form in parallel too.

The time it takes for one star to form is enough for a galaxy worth of stars to form. (although the stars we see aren't the first stars that formed).

[michel123456]

Also, do you have any idea how long a billion years is?

I'd warrant that even a millenia is more than a human can truly comprehend.

 

A millenia is about 33 generations (counting 30 years/generation).

So if you made a family reunion with 66 people all your fathers, fathers of fathers, etc. one of them would be synchronous with Jesus Christ.

 

The Milky Way Galaxy makes a full rotation every 225 million years approx. which means about 4,5 rotations each billion years. 13 billion years represent about 58 rotations of the Milky Way.

[Jiggerj]

Also, do you have any idea how long a billion years is?

Stars form in parallel too.

The time it takes for one star to form is enough for a galaxy worth of stars to form.

 

How much of the gasses (helium, hydrogen, lithium) would it take to make one star? Maybe somebody knows the answer, but it's mind boggling to me. In my mind I'm seeing a whole universe of gasses to make that star, and with hydrogen and helium being the lightest of the gasses, I'd go so far as making that TWO universes worth of gasses.

 

Let's just say it took a cosmic amount of space filled with gasses to make one star. Now, my thinking is that SOME of the gasses came together, and this tiny mass acquired a little bit of gravity to draw more hydrogen into it. But that gravity could only have drawn in the gasses within its vicinity - certainly not enough to even make a mass the size of a golf ball.

 

And with the ever expanding universe, those gasses that were just out of gravity's reach had to have been moving further and further away from the smaller-than-a-golf ball mass.

 

So (admittedly in just my imagination), it feels like the time it took to go from a gas-filled space to a huge star should have taken an eternity.

 

If we could take our sun apart and spread its gasses out, how much space would it occupy? I can't even fathom it.

 

What's a factor of 1000 in such a giant scheme of things? And for that matter, what is the point you're trying to make?

 

Did you spot a bottleneck in the process, for which 14 billion years is not enough? If so, please tell us.

 

If this is "just a feeling", then we might as well close the thread.

 

A feeling. A question. A friendly chat. If you don't like it, then I won't hold it against you if just don't respond.

[Airbrush]

Does anyone else get a sense that 14 billion years isn't enough time for the universe to have formed into what it is today?

 

From the Big Bang we got a whole lot of gas: (From Wiki) The first element produced was hydrogen, along with traces of helium and lithium. Eventually, clouds of hydrogen would coalesce through gravity to form stars, and the heavier elements would be synthesized either within stars or during supernovae.

 

Keep in mind that the early universe had many more very massive stars that went supernova after only millions of years. Big stars blow up early.

[Jiggerj]

Keep in mind that the early universe had many more very massive stars that went supernova after only millions of years. Big stars blow up early.

 

 

And I'm suggesting that the 'BIG' early stars were formed from the very thinnest of gasses that were spreading out all through the cosmos.

 

How about this: Have you ever seen old engine oil spreading out over water in your driveway? Imagine that oil is the hydrogen spreading out over the infant universe. How much of that oil would it take to equal just our sun? How long would it take to gather that oil, especially since it is streaming away from where it was dropped? Does a million years sound like enough time to you? It really doesn't to me.

[Schrödinger's hat]

And I'm suggesting that the 'BIG' early stars were formed from the very thinnest of gasses that were spreading out all through the cosmos.

 

How about this: Have you ever seen old engine oil spreading out over water in your driveway? Imagine that oil is the hydrogen spreading out over the infant universe. How much of that oil would it take to equal just our sun? How long would it take to gather that oil, especially since it is streaming away from where it was dropped? Does a million years sound like enough time to you? It really doesn't to me.

 

I don't quite understand.

The early universe was full of gas, there was nowhere for it to run to.

It was also already non-homogeneous after the early time of rapid inflation. There would have been dense patches which laters coalesced further into galaxies.

Each one of those billions of clouds (or denser parts of the big cloud) had enough gas for 100s of billions of stars already.

[Spyman]

How much of the gasses (helium, hydrogen, lithium) would it take to make one star?

"Stars are thought to form inside giant clouds of cold molecular hydrogen-giant molecular clouds roughly 300,000 times the mass of the Sun and 20 parsecs in diameter. Over millions of years giant molecular clouds are prone to collapse and fragmentation. These fragments then form small, dense cores which in turn collapse into stars. The cores range in mass from a fraction to several times that of the Sun and are called protostellar (protosolar) nebulae. They possess diameters of 0.01-0.1 pc (2,000-20,000 AU) and a particle number density of roughly 10,000 to 100,000 cm⁻³.

 

The initial collapse of a solar-mass protostellar nebula takes around 100,000 years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_hypothesis#Formation_of_stars_and_protoplanetary_disks

 

And I'm suggesting that the 'BIG' early stars were formed from the very thinnest of gasses that were spreading out all through the cosmos.

If you look backwards in time on the "ever expanding universe", you will see that 13.7 billions years ago the gasses were not so thin at all.

[ajb]

The accepted time of 14 billion years just seems way WAY off to me.

 

Sure, it does not sound that long. However, this is what our studies of the Universe coupled with our theoretical work are telling us.

[Airbrush]

And I'm suggesting that the 'BIG' early stars were formed from the very thinnest of gasses that were spreading out all through the cosmos.

 

How about this: Have you ever seen old engine oil spreading out over water in your driveway? Imagine that oil is the hydrogen spreading out over the infant universe. How much of that oil would it take to equal just our sun? How long would it take to gather that oil, especially since it is streaming away from where it was dropped? Does a million years sound like enough time to you? It really doesn't to me.

 

Engine oil does not clump from gravity. The early universe was much denser than now, and gravity clumped gasses early. Those clumps were the seeds to galaxy clusters, which stopped expanding. Expansion has only been between proto-superclusters. So the answer to your question is gravity.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Airbrush

[CaptainPanic]

Engine oil does not clump from gravity.

It does, actually.

But it is also attracted by the rest of the planet, and universe... so it's own gravitational pull is rather negligible.

[michel123456]

The early universe was much denser than now (...)

 

What do you mean by "early universe" ? the one we are looking at when observing very very very distant galaxies?

[Airbrush]

What do you mean by "early universe" ? the one we are looking at when observing very very very distant galaxies?

 

Even earlier than the furthest galaxies we can see, before there were any galaxies, all the way out to the Cosmic Microwave Background, and beyond.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Airbrush

[Jiggerj]

Engine oil does not clump from gravity. The early universe was much denser than now, and gravity clumped gasses early. Those clumps were the seeds to galaxy clusters, which stopped expanding. Expansion has only been between proto-superclusters. So the answer to your question is gravity.

 

LOL I was hoping someone would bring up gravity. As long as everyone knows my background in science is zilch and a lot of curiosity, I can add this idea:

 

What about the kuiper Belt? I read that these rocks-of-all-sizes have been travelling in the same circle for 4.5 billion years. How come gravity hasn't snagged all of them and made one whole planet in over four billion years?

[Schrödinger's hat]

LOL I was hoping someone would bring up gravity. As long as everyone knows my background in science is zilch and a lot of curiosity, I can add this idea:

 

What about the kuiper Belt? I read that these rocks-of-all-sizes have been travelling in the same circle for 4.5 billion years. How come gravity hasn't snagged all of them and made one whole planet in over four billion years?

 

Well, for one, the kuiper belt isn't very dense. Even if you gathered up all of the objects we've seen, you still wouldn't have much of a planet.

Also AFAIK, most of the formation of the planets happened when there was still a lot of gas, dust and much smaller particles around.

Before the sun was dense and hot enough to start radiating, there was a lot more stuff around for any small rocks to gather up. Once a rock or planetoid had gathered some dust and gas, then it would be big enough to hold on to larger and larger objects without the energy of the collision causing it to fly apart.

 

After the radiation pressure (yes, light exerts pressure) and solar wind from the sun started, a lot of the lighter stuff was blown away.

This leaves any rocks and asteroids floating about without much of a chance to gather stuff and get more massive.

They're also too small to have a good hold on anything they do bang into.

 

If you get two rocks from the beach and smash them together, you won't see them clump up and form a larger rock. Instead the pieces fly off in different directions. The gravity of the rocks is simply insignificant compared to the energy they had when they bashed into each other. Asteroids and kuiper belt objects are bigger, but there is still a tipping point below which they won't stick very well anymore. Without all the tiny dust and gas around (which would not have been dense at that distance from the centre of the solar system in the first place) they can't continue gathering up small stuff until they're big enough to gather big stuff.

 

TL;DR They missed their chance, if they even had one in the first place, because they started so far from all the action.

[Jiggerj]

they can't continue gathering up small stuff until they're big enough to gather big stuff.

 

TL;DR They missed their chance, if they even had one in the first place, because they started so far from all the action.

 

So, why isn't it the same scenario with the beginning gasses? When matter was forming it had to start out small and most definitely away from all the action.

 

I imagine that, first, a tiny spot of matter formed. Its gravity could only reach out so far and take in a very small area of surrounding gasses. How else could it be? What would compel the out-of-reach gasses to be drawn into the tiny spot of matter?

Edited February 17, 2012 by Jiggerj

[Spyman]

I imagine that, first, a tiny spot of matter formed. Its gravity could only reach out so far and take in a very small area of surrounding gasses. How else could it be? What would compel the out-of-reach gasses to be drawn into the tiny spot of matter?

Gas is matter and attracts itself.

[Jiggerj]

It does, actually.

But it is also attracted by the rest of the planet, and universe... so it's own gravitational pull is rather negligible.

 

If oil's gravitational pull is 'rather negligible' then how can the early gasses of the universe have more gravitational pull - enough to form whole stars???

 

Gas is matter and attracts itself.

 

Oops, I meant solid matter. But, right now isn't the universe filled with hydrogen? If this gas attracted itself, then what's going on here? Why aren't we seeing the formation of new solid matter just outside of our galaxy?

[Spyman]

If oil's gravitational pull is 'rather negligible' then how can the early gasses of the universe have more gravitational pull - enough to form whole stars???

The gravitational pull from the engine oil in one tiny motor is negligible compared to the whole Earth's mass.

 

 

Oops, I meant solid matter. But, right now isn't the universe filled with hydrogen? If this gas attracted itself, then what's going on here? Why aren't we seeing the formation of new solid matter just outside of our galaxy?

No, space is very very very empty.

[Airbrush]

If oil's gravitational pull is 'rather negligible' then how can the early gasses of the universe have more gravitational pull - enough to form whole stars???

 

 

 

Oops, I meant solid matter. But, right now isn't the universe filled with hydrogen? If this gas attracted itself, then what's going on here? Why aren't we seeing the formation of new solid matter just outside of our galaxy?

 

The early gasses had enough pull to form stars because it was dense enough in the early universe to clump in huge clouds. Within these huge-mega clumps, smaller even more dense regions clumped even more rotating about itself, and the more massive they became, and denser until the stars ignited.

 

The remaining hydrogen scattered between galaxies is too rarified, only a few atoms per cubic meter, to come together. Solid matter is created when a massive star forms an iron core and goes supernova creating even heavier, solid elements.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Airbrush

[Jiggerj]

No, space is very very very empty.

 

From wiki:

"In the space between galaxies, matter density can be as low as a few atoms of hydrogen per cubic meter."

 

Is this saying that (other than those few atoms of hydrogen) there is NOTHING else in those cubic meters? How is this even possible?

 

A baseball is moving through outerspace. (See image attached.) First it moves from Point A. to Point B. So, what completely filled in the space that the ball previously occupied at Point A? We can't say that NOTHING filled in that space, because NOTHING can't do that. NOTHING can't move, and it can't flow like a liquid or a gas. NOTHING has no height, width, or length. NOTHING is not hard, soft, or maleable. We can't say that there was once a solid object occupying a space, but when that object was removed it was replaced by NOTHING. It's just not possible.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Jiggerj

[swansont]

From wiki:

"In the space between galaxies, matter density can be as low as a few atoms of hydrogen per cubic meter."

 

Is this saying that (other than those few atoms of hydrogen) there is NOTHING else in those cubic meters? How is this even possible?

 

A problem with argument from incredulity is that nature doesn't care whether you understand it or not. And that other people have gotten past this and developed an understanding. Addressing "How is this even possible" requires that you expend some effort learning physics.

 

A baseball is moving through outerspace. (See image attached.) First it moves from Point A. to Point B. So, what completely filled in the space that the ball previously occupied at Point A? We can't say that NOTHING filled in that space, because NOTHING can't do that. NOTHING can't move, and it can't flow like a liquid or a gas. NOTHING has no height, width, or length. NOTHING is not hard, soft, or maleable. We can't say that there was once a solid object occupying a space, but when that object was removed it was replaced by NOTHING. It's just not possible.

 

What moves out of the way for the baseball to occupy point b? If it's something, then there has to be collision of some sort, and a transfer of momentum, and the ball has to slow down. We observe this behavior on earth — air gives resistance to motion. In space, not so much. There is a tiny amount, once you get away from massive bodies, because there is the odd atom here and there.

[Jiggerj]

A problem with argument from incredulity is that nature doesn't care whether you understand it or not. And that other people have gotten past this and developed an understanding. Addressing "How is this even possible" requires that you expend some effort learning physics.

 

Come on, it's just common sense. As for learning physics, it's just like saying learn the math. But, (I forget his name) some genius used the math to come up the fact that the universe is a hologram spewing out from a black hole. <--- What does this prove? It proves that if someone wanted to use the math to prove the universe is made out of peanutbutter, then they'll find that equation. And they'll find the equation to prove that NOTHING is SOMETHING.

 

 

 

What moves out of the way for the baseball to occupy point b?

 

Another one of those common sense things: In the realm of SOMETHING, every moving object must go through a process of Displacement and Replacement. If a baseball moves through space it is displacing SOMETHING. It simply cannot move through nothing. And as it moves, SOMETHING must replace (fill in) the space the ball previously occupied. Without the Displacement and Replacement of SOMETHING, everything would be locked into place.

 

Addressing "How is this even possible" requires that you expend some effort learning physics.

 

I'm truly enjoying this chat, so don't get nasty.