Big Bang

Holographic Universe or Computer Simulation? Big Bang or God?

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Big Bang

Postby Slippery Jim » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:01 pm

This has been bothering me for a long while and I hope some luminary on here can clear it up for me.

If all the matter in the known universe was present at the start and in a very small space, why didn't it form a black hole?

Only a tiny percentage of all the matter in the universe is required to form a black hole.

Why didn't the Big Bang cause one too? :?:

SJ
You couldn't find your own arse with two hands, a map and Google!
User avatar
Slippery Jim
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 6:14 am


Re: Big Bang

Postby m0r1arty » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:13 pm

It may have done and we are at the other side of it!

I think that there being no space or time to be gobbled up into said black hole meant that an easier route would be to create space and time first. Eventually all black holes will meet up and presumably all matter will then be sucked into it.

So in the 'time of universes' the big bang did indeed create a big black hole after it cooled down enough.

Pretty trippy stuff which I hope someone more versed with these concepts can correct or high five me for my offering.

-m0r
Thanks to BIAD for the avatar!
User avatar
m0r1arty
Reality Is In Sight
Reality Is In Sight
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: Big Bang

Postby Access Denied » Sun Dec 19, 2010 2:40 am

Slippery Jim wrote:If all the matter in the known universe was present at the start and in a very small space, why didn't it form a black hole?

Essentially it was a black hole, more precisely a type of singularity like that found in the center of one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity

Also, a common misconception is that black holes “suck in” everything around them and eventually the Universe will become one big black hole. Actually, the exact opposite is predicted to happen but more on that later…

A black hole’s gravitational pull is initially only as strong as that of the mass of the star that collapsed to create it. For example, if our Sun was big enough to collapse, the planets would still continue to orbit around it almost as if nothing had happened. Of course since nothing including light can escape from it the difference is you wouldn’t be able to see the “Sun” and the planets would get very cold. Only things that got too close to it would be “sucked in” just like before.

Now there is such a thing as a supermassive black hole (also the name of a cool song lol) believed to be at the center of most galaxies that formed by “sucking in” matter around them but those too only have a limited “range”…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole

Anyway, the current prediction is the Universe will continue to cool and expand forever and eventually even black holes will radiate away resulting in the “heat death” of Universe…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

From the Big Bang through the present day and well into the future, matter and dark matter in the universe are thought to be concentrated in stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters. Therefore, the universe is not in thermodynamic equilibrium and objects can do physical work. The decay time for a supermassive black hole of roughly 1 galaxy-mass (10^11 solar masses) due to Hawking radiation is on the order of 10^100 years, so entropy can be produced until at least that time. After that time, the universe enters the so-called dark era, and is expected to consist chiefly of a dilute gas of photons and leptons. With only very diffuse matter remaining, activity in the universe will have tailed off dramatically, with extremely low energy levels and extremely long time scales. Speculatively, it is possible that the universe may enter a second inflationary epoch, or, assuming that the current vacuum state is a false vacuum, the vacuum may decay into a lower-energy state. It is also possible that entropy production will cease and the universe will achieve heat death.

In other words it appears the Universe will end with a Big Whimper… :)

Image
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Big Bang

Postby m0r1arty » Sun Dec 19, 2010 8:55 am

I don't think anyone yet knows the ultimate fate of the universe. The heat death theory is well known as is the big crunch theory I hinted at.

There are many variables which keep the true nature of the universes end at bay, not least of which is dark energy and dark matter.

In response to the original question though space was still being formed, and quite possibly the rules of the universe too, so expecting it to be self contained or not is the big 'how' of existence.

I personally think that it will all collapse into itself at the end and as such the universe did explode into a black hole, we're just here at some point between that starting and ending observing it.

-m0r
Thanks to BIAD for the avatar!
User avatar
m0r1arty
Reality Is In Sight
Reality Is In Sight
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:54 pm

Re: Big Bang

Postby Gary » Sun Dec 19, 2010 4:14 pm

The universe is not classical (i.e. gravitational theory) but is quantum; therefore, the leading theory is that the universe was born from a quantum fluctuation, out of nothingness (out of the vacuum of spacetime). Quantum theory allows for real matter to appear out of the vacuum under special conditions.

Mag Tegmark on video here:

http://www.closertotruth.com/video-prof ... gmark-/886
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Big Bang

Postby Access Denied » Sun Dec 19, 2010 6:02 pm

Gary, got a citation for that? Tegmark’s video is good though…

m0r, it should be noted the Big Crunch has been ruled out by recent observations and it has been abandoned by cosmologists because it would violate the cosmological principle and the second law of thermodynamics.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Big Bang

Postby Gary » Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:40 am

Here's an explanation:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_04.htm

The inflationary scenario invokes a vacuum energy density. We normally think of the vacuum as empty and massless, and we can determine that the density of the vacuum is less than 10-29 gm/cc now. But in quantum field theory, the vacuum is not empty, but rather filled with virtual particles.

And, the Wiki entry looks promising...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Inflation answers the classic conundrum of the Big Bang cosmology: why does the universe appear flat, homogeneous and isotropic in accordance with the cosmological principle when one would expect, on the basis of the physics of the Big Bang, a highly curved, heterogeneous universe? Inflation also explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the universe (see galaxy formation and evolution and structure formation).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

Quantum fluctuations may have been very important in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Big Bang

Postby Access Denied » Mon Dec 20, 2010 5:39 am

No Gary, quantum fluctuations during the inflationary epoch of the Big Bang (not before it) is mainstream. This is not…

Gary wrote:The universe is not classical (i.e. gravitational theory) but is quantum; therefore, the leading theory is that the universe was born from a quantum fluctuation, out of nothingness (out of the vacuum of spacetime).

Present your evidence that universe is not classical and was born from a quantum fluctuation out of nothing and this is the “leading theory” or retract the claim. The concept of a vacuum and spacetime is meaningless before the Big Bang…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

All ideas concerning the very early universe (cosmogony) are speculative. As of early 2010, no accelerator experiments probe energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed during this period.

Also, this is highly misleading…

Gary wrote:Quantum theory allows for real matter to appear out of the vacuum under special conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space…

Virtual particles obey the conservation laws such that no new matter is actually created…

They are allowed to have mass (which consists of "borrowed energy") because they exist for only a temporary time, which in turn gives them a limited "range". This is in accordance with the uncertainty principle which allows existence of such particles of borrowed energy, so long as their energy, multiplied by the time they exist, is a fraction of Planck's constant.

Evidently your “understanding” of the Big Bang is either incredibly naïve or deliberately deceptive. Which is it?


P.S. I moved your post about Tegmark's (highly speculative and untestable) “multiverse” to Dan’s thread. We don’t need a new thread since we already hashed that all out there for anybody’s that interested.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Big Bang

Postby Gary » Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:20 am

AD, you seem to be confused on a few topics (granted they are somewhat murky even for the experts).

A pop level explanation from Michio Kaku is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkW7lPMhqSI

Kaku explains how we will be able to experimentally look past the Big Bang in the near future.

Here is how Mad Max Tegmark explains it (in layman's terms):

In the endevour to understand where everything comes from, two partial answers have in my opinion been found:

• Q: Where does the observed matter come from?

A: Inflation can produce it all from almost nothing.

• Q:Where does the observed complexity come from?

A: Parallel universes can produce it all from almost nothing, with the fundamental laws being simple and almost all the complexity existing only in the mind of the beholder, since the individual parallel universes require vastly more information to describe than the multiverse as a whole [53].

In conclusion, the age-old question “How did it all begin” has been dramatically refined in recent years, transformed
into a quest to understand cosmological inflation and physics at the highest energies. In this quest, parallel
experimental and theoretical progress has fruitfully connected mainstream empirical work to fundamental theoretical research that in turn has profound philosophical implications regarding our cosmic origin, our cosmic future, fundamental/environmental laws and parallel universes. In other words, looking ahead, if has never been
more interesting than now to ask how it all began.

Link to the complete paper is here:

How did it all begin?

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0508429v1
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Big Bang

Postby Gary » Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:42 am

Or to quote from Rocky Kolb:

www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/30/2/30-2-kolb.pdf

One of the consequences of the uncertainty principle is that a region of seemingly empty space is not really empty, but is a seething froth in which every sort of fundamental particle pops out of empty space for a brief instant before annihilating with its antiparticle and disappearing. Empty space only looks like a quiet, calm place because we can’t
see Nature operating on submicroscopic scales. In order to see these quantum fluctuations we would have to take a small region of space and blow it up in size. Of course that is not possible in any terrestrial laboratory, so to observe the quantum fluctuations we have to use a laboratory as large as the entire Universe.

In the early-Universe theory known as inflation, space once exploded so rapidly that the pattern of microscopic
vacuum quantum fluctuations became frozen into the fabric of space.

The expansion of the Universe stretched the microscopic pattern of quantum fluctuations to astronomical size.
Much later, the pattern of what once were quantum fluctuations of the vacuum appear as small fluctuations in the mass density of the Universe and variations in the temperature of the background radiation

If this theory is correct, then seeds of structure are nothing more than patterns of quantum fluctuations from the inflationary era. In a very real sense, quantum fluctuations would be the origin of everything we see in the Universe
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Big Bang

Postby Gary » Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:09 am

This might help to clarify the issue:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteri ... uth_1.html

Despite its name, the classical form of the big bang theory is not really a theory of a bang at all. It really describes only the aftermath of the bang...Inflation, on the other hand, can explain the “bang” of the big bang...Inflation is the proposal that the expansion of the universe that we see today is the result of the gravitational repulsion of a false vacuum that filled the universe during a small fraction of a second of its early history.
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Big Bang

Postby Access Denied » Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:33 am

[face palm]

Planck epoch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_epoch

In physical cosmology, the Planck epoch (or Planck era), named after Max Planck, is the earliest period of time in the history of the universe, from zero to approximately 10^−43 seconds (Planck time), during which, it is believed, quantum effects of gravity were significant. One could also say that it is the earliest moment in time, as the Planck time is perhaps the shortest possible interval of time, and the Planck epoch lasted only this brief instant. At this point approximately 13.7 billion years ago the force of gravity is believed to have been as strong as the other fundamental forces, which hints at the possibility that all the forces were unified. Inconceivably hot and dense, the state of the universe during the Planck epoch was unstable or transitory, tending to evolve, giving rise to the familiar manifestations of the fundamental forces through a process known as symmetry breaking. Modern cosmology now suggests that the Planck epoch may have inaugurated a period of unification or Grand unification epoch, and that symmetry breaking then quickly led to the era of cosmic inflation, the Inflationary epoch, during which the universe greatly expanded in scale over a very short period of time.

[...]

As there presently exists no widely accepted framework for how to combine quantum mechanics with relativistic gravity, science is not currently able to make predictions about events occurring over intervals shorter than the Planck time or distances shorter than one Planck length, the distance light travels in one Planck time—about 1.616 × 10^−35 meters. Without an understanding of quantum gravity, a theory unifying quantum mechanics and relativistic gravity, the physics of the Planck epoch are unclear, and the exact manner in which the fundamental forces were unified, and how they came to be separate entities, is still poorly understood. Three of the four forces have been successfully integrated in a common framework, but gravity remains problematic. If quantum effects are ignored, the universe starts from a singularity with an infinite density. This conclusion could change when quantum gravity is taken into account.

And...

Inflationary epoch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch

The expansion is thought to have been triggered by the phase transition that marked the end of the preceding grand unification epoch at approximately 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang. [...] This expansion explains various properties of the current universe that are difficult to account for without such an inflationary epoch.

It is not known exactly when the inflationary epoch ended, but it is thought to have been between 10^-33 and 10^-32 seconds after the Big Bang.

What part of this...

Access Denied wrote:No Gary, quantum fluctuations during the inflationary epoch of the Big Bang (not before it) is mainstream.

And this...

Access Denied wrote:The concept of a vacuum and spacetime is meaningless before the Big Bang…

Did you not understand?

For the last time, present your evidence or retract your claim...

Gary wrote:The universe is not classical (i.e. gravitational theory) but is quantum; therefore, the leading theory is that the universe was born from a quantum fluctuation, out of nothingness (out of the vacuum of spacetime).

Quantum fluctuations (plural) only explain the observed structure…

Tegmark wrote:Inflation is simple and elegant, requiring merely the existence of some form of matter that stubbornly refuses to have its density diluted as space expands. The cosmic density fluctuations are explained as the quantum fluctuations required by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, magnified by the stretching of space and amplified by gravity.

And inflation only explains the observed (forms of) matter…

Tegmark wrote:Q: Where does the observed matter come from?

A: Inflation can produce it all from almost nothing.

It does not explain the origin of the “almost nothing” i.e. the singularity.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Big Bang

Postby Gary » Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:59 pm

AD, I am not in disagreement with the points you made above; this is largely an issue of semantics.

However, there is no singularity per say; this is an artifact of applying classical ideas outside of their domain of validity.

There are numerous speculative explanations for the 'how' and the 'why' of the bang; brane world collisions, for example.

The key point (I believe we both would agree) is anything beyond dynamics (in other words, beyond the point where space and time have meaning) becomes metaphysics. Cosmologists are looking for dynamical linkage to other universes (Kaku's umbilical cord) as one possible explanation of what 'existed' prior to the bang.

So again, to make my point: the singularity is trumped by quantum uncertainty. And virtual processes do violate (briefly) the conservation of energy principle.

Quantum mechanics trumps classical General Relativity, unless, like Roger Penrose, you are suggesting a dynamical gravitational collapse mechanism for the wave function?

[Note to readers: this entire field is highly contentious and speculative; take the opposing camps of string theory and loop quantum gravity, as an example.]
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Big Bang

Postby Gary » Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:11 pm

In the sense of 'initial conditions' leading to the observable universe today (the only meaningful measure of 'creation' of the universe) ... quantum mechanics is fundamental to gravity, a classical theory of space-time.

Excellent interview with Guth on all of this here:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/guth02/guth02_p4.html

The universe is fundamentally a quantum mechanical system, so perhaps quantum theory was necessary not just to understand atoms, but also to understand galaxies. It is a rather remarkable idea that an aspect of fundamental physics like quantum theory could have such a broad sweep. The point is that a classical version of inflationary theory would predict a completely uniform density of matter at the end of inflation. According to quantum mechanics, however, everything is probabilistic. There are quantum fluctuations everywhere, which means that in some places the mass density would be slightly higher than average, and in other places it would be slightly lower than average. That's exactly the sort of thing you want to explain the structure of the universe. You can even go ahead and calculate the spectrum of these non-uniformities, which is something that Paul and I both worked on in the early days and had great fun with. The answer that we both came up with was that, in fact, quantum mechanics produces just the right spectrum of non-uniformities.

The whole interview is here:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/guth02/ ... print.html
Gary
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 845
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 1:28 am

Re: Big Bang

Postby Access Denied » Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:31 am

Gary wrote:AD, I am not in disagreement with the points you made above; this is largely an issue of semantics.

No, it isn’t. As usual you made an ill-conceived claim and you’ve been trying to extract your foot out of your mouth ever since…

Gary wrote:However, there is no singularity per say; this is an artifact of applying classical ideas outside of their domain of validity.

There is no quantum theory of gravity Gary and until there is, all anybody can say is GR predicts a singularity that’s by definition undefined. You don’t have to like it but that’s the way it is and I would suggest you get used it because there’s actually reason to believe there may never be a successful quantum theory of gravity. If you have to ask why then you really don’t understand the first thing about quantum mechanics. See the measurement problem if you want to avoid any further embarrassment to yourself…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem

Gary wrote:So again, to make my point: the singularity is trumped by quantum uncertainty.

No, it isn’t, and that wasn’t your “point”… you claimed “the universe was born from a quantum fluctuation, out of nothingness (out of the vacuum of spacetime)” and I had to teach you why that’s complete nonsense.

Gary wrote:And virtual processes do violate (briefly) the conservation of energy principle.

No, they don’t. Jesus, you’re more clueless than I thought. Maybe this site designed for kids by Berkeley Lab will help since you didn’t get it the first time…

The Particle Adventure | Particle decays and annihiliations | Virtual particles
http://www.particleadventure.org/virtual.html

Particles decay via force carrier particles. But in some cases a particle may decay via a force-carrier particle with more mass then the initial particle. The intermediate particle is immediately transformed into lower-mass particles. These short-lived high-mass force-carrier particles seem to violate the laws of conservation of energy and mass -- their mass just can't come out of nowhere!

A result of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is that these high-mass particles may come into being if they are incredibly short-lived. In a sense, they escape reality's notice. Such particles are called virtual particles.

Virtual particles do not violate the conservation of energy. The kinetic energy plus mass of the initial decaying particle and the final decay products is equal. The virtual particles exist for such a short time that they can never be observed.

Most particle processes are mediated by virtual-carrier particles. Examples include neutron beta decay, the production of charm particles, and the decay of an eta-c particle, all of which we will explore in depth soon.

Now what part of “virtual” did you not understand?

Do you not understand the equation E=mc^2 either?

It’s really quite profound, it means mass and energy are equivalent. You should learn about it…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80 ... quivalence

Gary wrote:
Guth wrote:The universe is fundamentally a quantum mechanical system…

There you go quote mining again. Keyword fundamentally… meaning at microscopic scales, not the macroscopic world we live in where quantum effects are insignificant and the Universe behaves classically. Quantum effects likely dominated the Universe for a few billionths of a second during it’s “birth” leading to the non-uniform (i.e. random) density distribution of matter we see today but that’s it, “knowing” what’s going on “under the hood” offers us no deeper insight into the nature of reality…

Quantum gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

Observed physical phenomena in the early 21st century can be described well by quantum mechanics or general relativity, without needing both. This can be thought of as due to an extreme separation of mass scales at which they are important. Quantum effects are usually important only for the "very small", that is, for objects no larger than typical molecules. General relativistic effects, on the other hand, show up only for the "very large" bodies such as collapsed stars. There is a lack of experimental evidence relating to quantum gravity and classical physics adequately describes the observed effects of gravity over a range of 50 orders of magnitude of mass, i.e. for masses of objects from about 10^−23 to 10^30 kg.

Sorry Gary, quantum mechanics doesn’t explain consciousness, the origin of the Universe, alleged psychics, or anything else you’re trying to sell…

Speaking of, I see George Knapp will be pimping you and Dan to the gullible on Coast To Coast this Sunday to kill the last two hours… must be a slow night and talk about the blind leading the blind, all three of you haven’t got a single thing right yet.

Anyway, thanks for the teachable moment…
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Next

Google

Return to Reality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

cron