Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Origin Of The Universe.
What is the latest scientific thinking on how the universe originated?
I am not talking about the mechanics of the big bang and expansion, but where the first particles and energy came from, and how?
I know that attempts to answer this would be long and complex, but just a few pointers for me, a layman, would be very much appreciated.
Thank you.
I am not talking about the mechanics of the big bang and expansion, but where the first particles and energy came from, and how?
I know that attempts to answer this would be long and complex, but just a few pointers for me, a layman, would be very much appreciated.
Thank you.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
It is difficult because it depends on concepts which are not layman-friendly.
that is that they are things we do not experience in our everyday lives and so seem strange and incomprehensible because of this.
Firstly you have to accept the idea that time is not how we perceive it, linear flowing, dependable - it changes, it can speed up or slow down or stop.
If you travel towards a black hole time starts to slow in the intense gravitational field until eventually it stops.
The big bang is like a black hole in reverse. At "Time-zero" there is no time.
No causality, nothing can cause something else because there is no time.
This is beyond anybody's ability to visualise - even our language is completely riddled with verbs and other words relating to time and cause and effect.
Essentially what I'm saying is the question "where did the first particles come from and how?" is actually a question that doesn't make sense in a scientific context because at that point there is no before there is no how because there is no before.
If you're really interested you could do worse than watch Stephen Hawkings YouTube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg
I know it's pretty atheistical but it doesn't do a bad job of explaining the ideas (Even though IMHO he really should at least mention Alan Guth who was, I think the first to come up with the key idea in the video)
that is that they are things we do not experience in our everyday lives and so seem strange and incomprehensible because of this.
Firstly you have to accept the idea that time is not how we perceive it, linear flowing, dependable - it changes, it can speed up or slow down or stop.
If you travel towards a black hole time starts to slow in the intense gravitational field until eventually it stops.
The big bang is like a black hole in reverse. At "Time-zero" there is no time.
No causality, nothing can cause something else because there is no time.
This is beyond anybody's ability to visualise - even our language is completely riddled with verbs and other words relating to time and cause and effect.
Essentially what I'm saying is the question "where did the first particles come from and how?" is actually a question that doesn't make sense in a scientific context because at that point there is no before there is no how because there is no before.
If you're really interested you could do worse than watch Stephen Hawkings YouTube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg
I know it's pretty atheistical but it doesn't do a bad job of explaining the ideas (Even though IMHO he really should at least mention Alan Guth who was, I think the first to come up with the key idea in the video)
One concept is that all natural laws exist. Every different combination of laws that is possible each in one of 10^500 diferent possible variants of universes.
The laws in our universe are appropriate to produce the life we know. That is why we are here to see a universe that is remarkly well suited to us.
The laws in our universe are appropriate to produce the life we know. That is why we are here to see a universe that is remarkly well suited to us.
I think this paragraph from "The Universe Forum" produced for NASA by Harvard University describes clearly the problem faced by current theories:
"Understanding how the universe began requires developing a better theory of how space, time, and matter are related. In physics, a theory is not a guess or a hypothesis. It is a mathematical model that lets us make predictions about how the world behaves. Einstein's theory of gravity, for example, accurately describes how matter responds to gravity in the large-scale world around us. And our best theory of the tiny sub-atomic realm, called quantum theory, makes very accurate predictions about the behavior of matter at tiny scales of distance. But these two theories are not complete and are not able to make accurate predictions about the very earliest moments when the universe was both extremely dense and extremely small."
This leads to a discussion about "string theory", which, at least for me, becomes more bizarre the more one investigates its premises. My limitation, admittedly.
Jake and I've gone around the mulberry bush "ad infinitum" concerning the perception of "no" time before the Big Bang. While he is quite succinct in his description, it boils down to the definition of "Planck Time" which I've also quoted numerous times.
Simply put, without putting words in Jake's mouth (or any other's for that matter) his reliance on "no" existence of time before the Big Bang is pegged (no pun) on our simple inability to determine time before 10^-43 seconds "after" the Big Bang. (Planck time is the time it takes for a photon to travel 1 Planck unit of distance which is 1.616199(97)×10^−35 metres).
So, it seems to me that the limitation is ours, but it doesn't mean that the event didn't have momentum before 10^-43 seconds, does it? By the way, we're unable to measure time even close to Planck time.
So... what happened before 10^-43 seconds remains a matter for conjecture... at least except for a small handfull of theorists that are steeped in quantum theory. (Sorry Jake... I just had to explain it one more time...)
"Understanding how the universe began requires developing a better theory of how space, time, and matter are related. In physics, a theory is not a guess or a hypothesis. It is a mathematical model that lets us make predictions about how the world behaves. Einstein's theory of gravity, for example, accurately describes how matter responds to gravity in the large-scale world around us. And our best theory of the tiny sub-atomic realm, called quantum theory, makes very accurate predictions about the behavior of matter at tiny scales of distance. But these two theories are not complete and are not able to make accurate predictions about the very earliest moments when the universe was both extremely dense and extremely small."
This leads to a discussion about "string theory", which, at least for me, becomes more bizarre the more one investigates its premises. My limitation, admittedly.
Jake and I've gone around the mulberry bush "ad infinitum" concerning the perception of "no" time before the Big Bang. While he is quite succinct in his description, it boils down to the definition of "Planck Time" which I've also quoted numerous times.
Simply put, without putting words in Jake's mouth (or any other's for that matter) his reliance on "no" existence of time before the Big Bang is pegged (no pun) on our simple inability to determine time before 10^-43 seconds "after" the Big Bang. (Planck time is the time it takes for a photon to travel 1 Planck unit of distance which is 1.616199(97)×10^−35 metres).
So, it seems to me that the limitation is ours, but it doesn't mean that the event didn't have momentum before 10^-43 seconds, does it? By the way, we're unable to measure time even close to Planck time.
So... what happened before 10^-43 seconds remains a matter for conjecture... at least except for a small handfull of theorists that are steeped in quantum theory. (Sorry Jake... I just had to explain it one more time...)
You are talking about the proposed quantization of time Clanad
If that is the case (and I don't believe there is experimental evidence for it) then the word inability is inappropriate.
Like our inability to see half an electron or heard half a sheep, quantization of time means that before 10^-43 seconds is actually meaningless
The limitation is not ours, like the Uncertainty Principle, the inability to precisely determine momentum and position is not a limitation of human ingenuity but a fundamental constraint of the Universe.
If you have not yet understood this feature of the Uncertainty Principle I urge you to look into it in more detail - it really is a shock to the system when you grasp this
If that is the case (and I don't believe there is experimental evidence for it) then the word inability is inappropriate.
Like our inability to see half an electron or heard half a sheep, quantization of time means that before 10^-43 seconds is actually meaningless
The limitation is not ours, like the Uncertainty Principle, the inability to precisely determine momentum and position is not a limitation of human ingenuity but a fundamental constraint of the Universe.
If you have not yet understood this feature of the Uncertainty Principle I urge you to look into it in more detail - it really is a shock to the system when you grasp this
Quantization of time eh ? Glad to hear that is being considered as a possibility. I recall asking on a BBC forum, of I can't recall how many decades ago, when they had them on the site, whether time came in chunks rather than be continuous, as it was something that for whatever reason appealed to me. I was informed by someone purporting to be working in that field it was not the case. Either I was misinformed or thoughts on the subject change rapidly these days.
Now all I need to hear is that there is a reference direction in the universe after all ;-)
Now all I need to hear is that there is a reference direction in the universe after all ;-)
Seems to me, Jake, that an understanding of the Uncertainty Principle, at least as annunciated by Heisenberg, is, itself, well... uncertain.
Heisenberg, on at tleast three different occasions (paper presentations) declined to call his theory a "Principle"... in fact his somewhat infamous relation with Shroedinger (he of cat fame) revolved around an attempt to assign a specific interpretation to the German word "anschaulich" (more accurately "anschaulichkeit") since his works were in that language. Even his somewhat less contentious exchange with Bohr retained bits and pieces of that discussion.
However, more to the point, although in 1927, Herr Heisenberg initially stated "...At the instant of time when the position is determined, that is, at the instant when the photon is scattered by the electron, the electron undergoes a discontinuous change in momentum. This change is the greater the smaller the wavelength of the light employed, i.e., the more exact the determination of the position. At the instant at which the position of the electron is known, its momentum therefore can be known only up to magnitudes which correspond to that discontinuous change; thus, the more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known, and conversely" (Heisenberg, 1927, p. 174-5). He later (1930) however, revised this to state: "...If the velocity of the electron is at first known, and the position then exactly measured, the position of the electron for times previous to the position measurement may be calculated. For these past times, δpδq is smaller than the usual bound." (Heisenberg 1930, p. 15)
Heisenberg seems to be saying: "the uncertainty relation does not hold for the past"...
At any rate... fascinating stuff, no?
I see in another post you hold a degree (or at least higher education) in Astronomy... while mine is Geology... both dealing with the larger scales in the Earth and (U)niverse, neither probably well suited to the scales proposed in quantum...
Thanks for your input, nevertheless...
Heisenberg, on at tleast three different occasions (paper presentations) declined to call his theory a "Principle"... in fact his somewhat infamous relation with Shroedinger (he of cat fame) revolved around an attempt to assign a specific interpretation to the German word "anschaulich" (more accurately "anschaulichkeit") since his works were in that language. Even his somewhat less contentious exchange with Bohr retained bits and pieces of that discussion.
However, more to the point, although in 1927, Herr Heisenberg initially stated "...At the instant of time when the position is determined, that is, at the instant when the photon is scattered by the electron, the electron undergoes a discontinuous change in momentum. This change is the greater the smaller the wavelength of the light employed, i.e., the more exact the determination of the position. At the instant at which the position of the electron is known, its momentum therefore can be known only up to magnitudes which correspond to that discontinuous change; thus, the more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known, and conversely" (Heisenberg, 1927, p. 174-5). He later (1930) however, revised this to state: "...If the velocity of the electron is at first known, and the position then exactly measured, the position of the electron for times previous to the position measurement may be calculated. For these past times, δpδq is smaller than the usual bound." (Heisenberg 1930, p. 15)
Heisenberg seems to be saying: "the uncertainty relation does not hold for the past"...
At any rate... fascinating stuff, no?
I see in another post you hold a degree (or at least higher education) in Astronomy... while mine is Geology... both dealing with the larger scales in the Earth and (U)niverse, neither probably well suited to the scales proposed in quantum...
Thanks for your input, nevertheless...
"For someone attributed with creating a universe, God is getting rather small and ever harder to find these days."
Not really. It was forever thus that a diety can stay hidden if they desire. After all if the universe has been created correctly it needs no later manipulation. And if an infinite number of universes were created then at least some of them ought to be stable for long enough to be useful.
Not really. It was forever thus that a diety can stay hidden if they desire. After all if the universe has been created correctly it needs no later manipulation. And if an infinite number of universes were created then at least some of them ought to be stable for long enough to be useful.
Many, including Heisenberg, never fully grasped the fundamental weirdness that defines reality. Einstein never accepted Quantum Mechanics. Morley never even accepted the results of his own experiments with Michelson about the speed of light.
But all of it has since been shown to be fact. The Uncertainty Principle is fact, not some limitation of the ability of humans to observe. It is just the way of reality.
Atoms can be put into situations where they both exist and don't exist or exist in two separate places at the same time.
There is no evidence that Time in the context of our Universe exists before the Big Bang.
Don't expect Quantum Mechanics to conform to human notions of plausability becuase it has already been proven well beyond any doubt that it doesn't.
But all of it has since been shown to be fact. The Uncertainty Principle is fact, not some limitation of the ability of humans to observe. It is just the way of reality.
Atoms can be put into situations where they both exist and don't exist or exist in two separate places at the same time.
There is no evidence that Time in the context of our Universe exists before the Big Bang.
Don't expect Quantum Mechanics to conform to human notions of plausability becuase it has already been proven well beyond any doubt that it doesn't.
Latest Posts
Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works12 mins ago
Lord Peter Mandelson, Uk Ambassador
News19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
ChatterBank22 mins ago
News23 mins ago
