Big Bang

[David Levy]

In This Topic I would like to use an electronic element in order to get better understanding of the Big Bang starting point.

The main Idea is that the Science have found a way to convert nothing into something!!!

 

For the following question: "How can you agree that an energy came out of nothing???"

I have got the following answer: "As long as the net energy of the universe is zero, and it may well be, there is nothing which prevents the universe from starting as a quantum fluctuation."

 

So let's assume that the quantum fluctuation is a blackbox.

As Electronic Engineer, I realy don't care how it works inside. This is the job for scientist.

The most important issue is that the input in this case is nothing and the output is someting.

 

So, 13.2 billion years ago this blackbox had converted nothing into something. This generate the Big Bang!!!

 

As this is a natural blackbox, my questions are as follow:

 

1. Why it couldn't function 100 billion years ago, 1 Billion year ago or even tommorow?

2. Why this blackbox function only one time?

3. Is there a chance that there will be a new big bang in the future???

 

4. Why we couldn't estimate that there is a reversabale blackbox in the nature? So it could convert someting to nothing???

5. Is there a chance that we will become nothing in the future???

Edited July 2, 2012 by David Levy

[ACG52]

So let's assume that the quantum fluctuation is a blackbox.

 

Let's assume that the quantum fluctuation produced the energy equivalent of about 26 grams of mass, in a volume about equal to a proton. This energy was in the form of a gauge field called the inflaton field, which has the unusual property of having an energy density when the field is at it's vacuum value. This energy field, as it dropped from it's zero point, which is where the energy level is highest, generated a negative vacuum pressure, which drove the universe to expand by 80 orders of magnitude. (A negative vacuum pressure has the property that the more vacuum there is, the more pressure is generated, which generates more vacuum, which generates... you get the picture) When the field dropped to it's vaccum level, the energy tied up in the field was released and created all the mass and energy in the universe. This all took place in about 10 ^-35 seconds. Up until about 7 billion years ago, the expansion was slowing down as the original impetus died down, but then the gravitational density of the universe dropped to the point where another expansion driving force, which we call Dark Energy (having nothing at all to do with Dark matter, other the word dark), began to accelerate the expansion.

 

I like those assumptions better than 'blackbox'.

 

 

To question 1. It could have. But instead it happened 13.7 billion years ago (+ or - about .7 billion years).

 

Answer to question 2. Because the universe is no longer of quantum dimensions, and the inflaton field is at it's vacuum level. Energy densities are many orders of magnitude less than they were and symmetries among the fundamental forces in the universe have been broken. (Although a variation on Inflation theory, called Eternal Inflation argues that once inflation begins, it is continuous, spawning other universes disconnected from ours. Our universe has passed through the inflation stage)

 

Question 3. See answer to question 2.

 

Question 4. Doesn't mean anything.

 

Question 5. You will be.

Edited July 2, 2012 by ACG52

[robheus]

Being passing over into nothing and nothing passing over into being happens all the time, we call it becoming (or ceasing to be).

 

In This Topic I would like to use an electronic element in order to get better understanding of the Big Bang starting point.

The main Idea is that the Science have found a way to convert nothing into something!!!

 

Get the idea out of your mind that:

1. The big bang means: start of the universe (start of space,time and matter) because

- This is not what the big bang theory says (the big bang theory only says how on long cosmological time scales the universe develops, expands)

- This is not what physically can happen anywhere at any time.

- Nothing (as in not-something) is only nothing, it contains no being and it is no beginning. For something to begin, you already need some form of being.

- The vacuum or empty space does not equate "nothing" since even the most empty vacuum still contains energy.

[imatfaal]

Being passing over into nothing and nothing passing over into being happens all the time, we call it becoming (or ceasing to be).

 

 

 

Get the idea out of your mind that:

1. The big bang means: start of the universe (start of space,time and matter) because

- This is not what the big bang theory says (the big bang theory only says how on long cosmological time scales the universe develops, expands)

- This is not what physically can happen anywhere at any time.

- Nothing (as in not-something) is only nothing, it contains no being and it is no beginning. For something to begin, you already need some form of being.

- The vacuum or empty space does not equate "nothing" since even the most empty vacuum still contains energy.

 

Rob - the big bang is a theory of the very early development of the universe and deals in time scales of around 10^-37 seconds and longer. The long term cosmological development that we are still experiencing, whilst intimately tied into theories of the big bang is not limited by them. For instance, well after the big bang theory it was completely unsettled as to whether the universe would continue to expand, stop, or contract in the fullness of time; it is now thought that not only will it continue to expand, but that expansion is accelerating.

 

Your comments on the vacuum containing energy is quite true - but space-time did not (does not) expand into the vacuum; "all that there is" got bigger, it didnt expand into anything as it is the totality.

[robheus]

Rob - the big bang is a theory of the very early development of the universe and deals in time scales of around 10^-37 seconds and longer. The long term cosmological development that we are still experiencing, whilst intimately tied into theories of the big bang is not limited by them. For instance, well after the big bang theory it was completely unsettled as to whether the universe would continue to expand, stop, or contract in the fullness of time; it is now thought that not only will it continue to expand, but that expansion is accelerating.

 

Your comments on the vacuum containing energy is quite true - but space-time did not (does not) expand into the vacuum; "all that there is" got bigger, it didnt expand into anything as it is the totality.

 

I use spacetime and vacuüm interchangebly, and you are right of course that the universe did not expand "into" pre-existing spacetime but that it is spacetime itself that expands.

[JohnStu]

Big Bang eh?

 

 

 

Hmm, ever think that maybe we are made up of nothing? Maybe, maybe nothing is something?

 

 

 

just like how 0 is a number

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

paradigm,

This is not a speculations thread, nor is it the place to air your own personal beliefs on astronomy and cosmology. I refer you to our forum rules, specifically rule 2.10, which states that:

Keep alternative science and your own personal conjecture to the appropriate forum (Speculations). Threads in the ordinary science forums should be answered with ordinary science, not your own personal hypothesis. Posting pet "theories" in mainstream science forums is considered thread hijacking.

!

Moderator Note

In accordance with this, staff would appreciate you did not post in the manner you have been in this thread. As well, I have removed the posts in question (and subsequent replies) so as not to confuse it with the actual topic. In addition, I realise that it can sometimes be quite annoying to lose posts you have put time and effort into and so I would be more than happy to send transcripts of your posts through PM if you wish to use them or keep them for whatever purpose (please let me know via PM if this is the case).

If you wish to start a thread with your own ideas and speculation, you are most welcome to do so in the Speculations forum, found here. Please be aware that this forum also has an additional set of rules that you will be asked to comply to, should you choose to post there.

If you would like to discuss this mod note, please do so via PM or by using the report feature (the button on the bottom left of each post) to alert your grievances to staff.

[Severian]

I don't like the quantum fluctuation idea because it is anthropic. Quantum fluctuations are allowed to borrow energy for a time [math]\Delta t \sim \hbar / \Delta E[/math]. Since the energy of the universe is very large, the time it exists should be very small. This is of course a statistical relation, so in other words, the probability of our universe arising is extremely small. You would more naturally expect much smaller and shorter lived universes. Since we need a long lived one to exist, you are then forced to say that we observe a long lived one simply because we exist - an anthropic argument.

 

And this is only if you are willing to claim that space and time weren't created at the Big bang but pre-existed, in order to give you a space-time continuum in which the fluctuation can occur.