The big bang, the expanding universe, and the Higgs Boson.

[TheExplorer]

I know that the Big Bang theory came to be after Edwin Hubble discovered the expanding universe. Since the universe was expanding, it had to originate from one point back in time.

 

What caused the universe to expand? was it the energy from the dense universe? or perhaps the compacted universe was but a star in a sea of universe, and there was a force that acted like anti gravity, pulling the atoms away from each other.

 

Was it that the individual atoms expanded away from each other?

 

I read on a physics forum someone say, that the universe is not really 14 billion years old, it is 14 billion years from the oldest time our theories can make an accurate prediction.

 

Are their different interpretations of the math in the big bang theory? What do we really know about the big bang theory?

 

How is it that the universe was super dense and super small? how did all the atoms fit into such a small space if there was the same amount of atoms then, then there is now.

 

Also, if Higgs bosons give mass to matter, can some other particle take it away? Is there a Devil particle?

 

Thanks,

 

 

Read more: < advertising link removed>

This means that when we say 'the Universe is 14 Billion years old' what we really mean is that it is 14 Billions years from the oldest time our theories can make an accurate prediction. At some point as we wind the clock back and the Universe becomes more and more dense and hot we reach a point where we don't know how stuff behaves at those densities and temperatures. Our theories stop working, and we describe this as a 'singularity' but that is a description of an equation, not a physical 'thing'.

Edited August 15, 2014 by imatfaal

[Strange]

I know that the Big Bang theory came to be after Edwin Hubble discovered the expanding universe. Since the universe was expanding, it had to originate from one point back in time.

 

Hubble's observation was the first hint that this prediction of General Relativity was correct. The evidence that completely destroyed the alternative "steady state" theory was the discovery of the cosmic background radiation.

 

What caused the universe to expand?

 

It is kind of inevitable in GR. In the same way that lumps of mass will curve space time and cause the effect we perceive as gravity, in a homogeneous distribution of mass stuff will tend to move apart. (The early universe was thought to be homogeneous because it was too hot and dense for any structure to form and, on very large scales it is still homogeneous).

 

Was it that the individual atoms expanded away from each other?

 

There were no atoms at the earliest times we can talk about. I'm not sure if it is known exactly what there was. Something like a quark-gluon plasma, perhaps.

 

I read on a physics forum someone say, that the universe is not really 14 billion years old, it is 14 billion years from the oldest time our theories can make an accurate prediction.

 

Yes! Perfect. Our theories only go back so far. Before that, who knows. There is certainly no "creation" event in the theory.

 

Are their different interpretations of the math in the big bang theory? What do we really know about the big bang theory?

 

No significant differences that I am aware of. IT is a very advanced (and pretty complex) theory. It makes quantitative predictions (for example, the balance of different elements that should be present) which are largely correct. As with any theory there are things that are still not understood (e.g. why more matter than antim,atter, why more lithium than predicted, etc.) But that is what makes science fun.

 

How is it that the universe was super dense and super small?

 

No one knows. It may be unknowable.

 

Also, if Higgs bosons give mass to matter, can some other particle take it away? Is there a Devil particle?

 

 

I don't know. (But I doubt it.)

[Nicholas Kang]

Also, if Higgs bosons give mass to matter, can some other particle take it away? Is there a Devil particle?

 

Higgs Boson does not give mass to matter, it is Higgs Boson field, which is not located in the rest energy field.

 

I know that the Big Bang theory came to be after Edwin Hubble discovered the expanding universe. Since the universe was expanding, it had to originate from one point back in time.

 

 

Hubble's observation was the first hint that this prediction of General Relativity was correct. The evidence that completely destroyed the alternative "steady state" theory was the discovery of the cosmic background radiation.

 

Don`t forget about George Lemaitre. He actually published his articles earlier than Edwin Powell Hubble. The articles were sent to Arthur Eddington but was not realized by the public or the scientific community. When Hubble published his Hubble`s Law, Lemaitre reminded Eddington about his articles. Athough Hubble succeed first but soon Lemaitre go beyond him by relating the Hubble`s Law with the expansion of universe. Both of them should have been mentioned at the same time. This is an article from BBC Knowledge magazine published in Singapore but for sale only in Asia(Asia edition), maybe the contents are the same throughout the world.

 

Remember the Hubble`s Constant is somewhere near 100km/s/Mpc, according to Knowledge, differs from the initially thought 575km/s/Mpc by Hubble and 500km/s/Mpc by Lemaitre.

Was it that the individual atoms expanded away from each other?

 

There were no atoms at the earliest times we can talk about. I'm not sure if it is known exactly what there was. Something like a quark-gluon plasma, perhaps.

 

I think string theory should be included in this discussion. String should form first, shouldn`t it?

[Strange]

Don`t forget about George Lemaitre.

 

Indeed.

 

 

I think string theory should be included in this discussion. String should form first, shouldn`t it?

 

If string theory is correct.

[jibefan]

I believe the first entry of energy into the universe at the big bang,will eventually be proven to be a primal form of light,

Actually a photon with a wavelength much longer than radio waves. It's currently invisible to us, but I believe it's what

we now call Dark Matter.

[Mordred]

Photons is not dark matter regardless of wavelength.

 

The others have covered the main points. We're still unsure what the cause of inflation is. There is well over 70 inflation models. All of them are equally valid.

 

Most of them involve the inflation. Some involve the curvaton. My personal preference is the Higgs inflation models. In essence in the latter there is a high energy metastability in the Higgs boson. This metastability has a seesaw Mexican hat potential. The SO(10) MSM ( minimal standard model) shows how the Higgs field itself may be involved in inflation as a thermodynamic phase transition.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755

 

Here is an older paper on Higgs inflation. There has been substantial renewed interest due to the discovery of the Higgs. As well as the mass it was discovered to have.

More recent papers can be found in this thread.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83765-higgs-field-thermodynamic-research-cmb-and-now/

Edited November 18, 2014 by Mordred

[Mordred]

I've also posted further articles and info

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81395-order-and-entropy/page-3#entry838009