Crosswords0 min ago
Before the big bang
I'm sure its not just me that finds it hard to comprehend what what before the big bang.
I asked my newly qualified chemistry teacher who has a phd in chemistry 'if in all chemical reactions nothing is gained or lost, just changed around, how can you have nothing before the big bang then lots of elements after it' as we are told that there was nothing before the big bang, it flumuxed him.
so how you can you have nothing then probably an infinite amount of stuff in the universe?
I asked my newly qualified chemistry teacher who has a phd in chemistry 'if in all chemical reactions nothing is gained or lost, just changed around, how can you have nothing before the big bang then lots of elements after it' as we are told that there was nothing before the big bang, it flumuxed him.
so how you can you have nothing then probably an infinite amount of stuff in the universe?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mollykins. 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.
The one area of no disagreement with the honorable JTP is the fact that "Space and Time both started at the big bang"... absolutely. This makes Mr./Ms. Wroe's contention simply inadequate, regardless of how strongly believed that thing's "must" be.
However, the "extra" dimensions that were "potential" but remained unfurled (for lack of a better description) are certainly contained within the era "Before 1-Planck". Reverting, for the moment, to JTP's reference to Black Holes... thing is, beyond the "event horizon" nothing factual can be described "within" the Black Hole"... however that doesn't prohibit theory and certain limited (for the present) understanding of the phenomena itself. It's just that, in the case of time before 1- Planck the general idea is that we can make no meaningful observations within the framework of classical gravitation. A large part of trying to understand gravity is part and parcel of the GUT (Grand Unification Theory)... an attempt to understand what happened pre-1 Planck.
(Contd.)
However, the "extra" dimensions that were "potential" but remained unfurled (for lack of a better description) are certainly contained within the era "Before 1-Planck". Reverting, for the moment, to JTP's reference to Black Holes... thing is, beyond the "event horizon" nothing factual can be described "within" the Black Hole"... however that doesn't prohibit theory and certain limited (for the present) understanding of the phenomena itself. It's just that, in the case of time before 1- Planck the general idea is that we can make no meaningful observations within the framework of classical gravitation. A large part of trying to understand gravity is part and parcel of the GUT (Grand Unification Theory)... an attempt to understand what happened pre-1 Planck.
(Contd.)
(Contd.)
Current theory explains that "...at a time around 10^-36 seconds, present models project a separation of the strong force, one of the four fundamental forces. Before this time the forces other than gravity would be unified in what is called the grand unification. The spontaneous symmetry breaking which occurs in this era would distinguish as a separate interaction the force which would hold nuclei together in later eras..." (Source: Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Georgia {U.S.}). The symmetry breaking that separates off the strong force, models suggest an extraordinary inflationary phase in the era 10^-36 seconds to 10^-32 seconds. Therefore, at 1 - Planck, momentum had already been achieved as seen by the later infationary era just described. The temperatures (10^27 K) are unimaginable, as are the energies required, but the scale of the momentum are explainable and necessary pre 1- Planck...
Current theory explains that "...at a time around 10^-36 seconds, present models project a separation of the strong force, one of the four fundamental forces. Before this time the forces other than gravity would be unified in what is called the grand unification. The spontaneous symmetry breaking which occurs in this era would distinguish as a separate interaction the force which would hold nuclei together in later eras..." (Source: Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Georgia {U.S.}). The symmetry breaking that separates off the strong force, models suggest an extraordinary inflationary phase in the era 10^-36 seconds to 10^-32 seconds. Therefore, at 1 - Planck, momentum had already been achieved as seen by the later infationary era just described. The temperatures (10^27 K) are unimaginable, as are the energies required, but the scale of the momentum are explainable and necessary pre 1- Planck...
Clanad I don't know but it sounds like you are still thinking in terms of evernotions of time especially when you use terms like "before 1-planck"
Our current models break down long before we get there.
Anyway lets delve into the something from nothing bit that's upsetting Sandy and others.
I mentioned before that there are things called virtual particles that instantaneously appear and disappear. It's called pair creation. A particle and it's anti-particle are created and normally destroyed -literally from nothing.
This happens all the time -what looks like the vacuum of space is a seething mass of virtual particles. Around a black hole's event horizon they cannot destroy each other which is where the idea of Hawking radiation comes from.
Anyway the larger the mass of these pair the less probable their existance.
Now we come to the remarkable observation that all the matter in the Universe if converted to energy seems to almost exactly match the Gravitational energy in it - they cancel each othe out - the Universe's net energy seems to be zero.
So the only thing remarkable about the Universe spontaneously creating itself in this way is the incredible improbability of it.
But remember there is no time - probability is a function of time and so this could easily happen.
Now this isn't a serious explanation but the logic was put forward 30 years ago by Alan Guth - it gives a view as through a glass darkly (sorry cosmology loves to steal biblical language) of some processes involved
Our current models break down long before we get there.
Anyway lets delve into the something from nothing bit that's upsetting Sandy and others.
I mentioned before that there are things called virtual particles that instantaneously appear and disappear. It's called pair creation. A particle and it's anti-particle are created and normally destroyed -literally from nothing.
This happens all the time -what looks like the vacuum of space is a seething mass of virtual particles. Around a black hole's event horizon they cannot destroy each other which is where the idea of Hawking radiation comes from.
Anyway the larger the mass of these pair the less probable their existance.
Now we come to the remarkable observation that all the matter in the Universe if converted to energy seems to almost exactly match the Gravitational energy in it - they cancel each othe out - the Universe's net energy seems to be zero.
So the only thing remarkable about the Universe spontaneously creating itself in this way is the incredible improbability of it.
But remember there is no time - probability is a function of time and so this could easily happen.
Now this isn't a serious explanation but the logic was put forward 30 years ago by Alan Guth - it gives a view as through a glass darkly (sorry cosmology loves to steal biblical language) of some processes involved
This site tells lies. I'm trying to post less than 2000 characters at a time, I've had the text editor count them.
What an interesting thread and I've missed it so far. I'm not a scientist, but as someone who avidly looks for the popular science in the media, I can give you my opinion/understanding.
I think you need to avoid considering this "a chemical question". Until there is enough matter to form elements in quantity, chemistry can't really apply.
There even seems to be some disagreement whether the big bang is the start or whether there is a cycle of such things, or whether new universes are created from an existing one. It's all very front line stuff. But a popular theory seems to be that there was no before. So, asking where it all came from becomes invalid, there was no existence before. Matter, space, and time all came into existence in this universe together. To ask what was before the start is a bit like asking what's north of the north pole.
The concept of things springing into existence from nowhere may seem difficult to accept, but there seems to be something similar happening in outer space. Admittedly in space, by definition we already have space :-) but particles and anti-particles come into existence all the time, then after a while meet up and annihilate each other.
What an interesting thread and I've missed it so far. I'm not a scientist, but as someone who avidly looks for the popular science in the media, I can give you my opinion/understanding.
I think you need to avoid considering this "a chemical question". Until there is enough matter to form elements in quantity, chemistry can't really apply.
There even seems to be some disagreement whether the big bang is the start or whether there is a cycle of such things, or whether new universes are created from an existing one. It's all very front line stuff. But a popular theory seems to be that there was no before. So, asking where it all came from becomes invalid, there was no existence before. Matter, space, and time all came into existence in this universe together. To ask what was before the start is a bit like asking what's north of the north pole.
The concept of things springing into existence from nowhere may seem difficult to accept, but there seems to be something similar happening in outer space. Admittedly in space, by definition we already have space :-) but particles and anti-particles come into existence all the time, then after a while meet up and annihilate each other.
(continued)
Even if you think there was something earlier it is difficult to investigate since the laws of physics as we understand them break down in the extreme conditions of the big bang. To try to understand the big bang difficult, to tell what, if anything, was before, would seem miraculous.
Why can there not have been just nothing ? We may not want there to be just nothing because our minds find it difficult to comprehend. But I find it equally difficult comprehending why there is something. Whenever someone attempts an answer it seems to simply invoke further questions rather than be definitive.
We need more threads like this, preferably with large disagreements between knowledgeable posters with an ability to explain things simply :-D
Even if you think there was something earlier it is difficult to investigate since the laws of physics as we understand them break down in the extreme conditions of the big bang. To try to understand the big bang difficult, to tell what, if anything, was before, would seem miraculous.
Why can there not have been just nothing ? We may not want there to be just nothing because our minds find it difficult to comprehend. But I find it equally difficult comprehending why there is something. Whenever someone attempts an answer it seems to simply invoke further questions rather than be definitive.
We need more threads like this, preferably with large disagreements between knowledgeable posters with an ability to explain things simply :-D
as space is nothingness, do the planets and stars in the unvierse jsut stop after million of millions of millions . . . of miles and its jsut empty space beyond them and thats what they're expanding into.
so, say our sun will last for infinity (it won't but for this say it will) and everything in the universe is moving from one cnetral point, eventually, will we be beyond where the endge of the universe(s) were?
so, say our sun will last for infinity (it won't but for this say it will) and everything in the universe is moving from one cnetral point, eventually, will we be beyond where the endge of the universe(s) were?
They don't expand into space, as space isn't there to expand into. If you look at it that way you have the wrong image.
As I understand it the universe expands by effectively -creating- space.
I have seen it claimed that the universe is infinite, but I just can not see it. If we agree that at the Big Bang it was finite, and if we agree that there has been no period of infinitely fast expansion since, then surely the universe must still be finite, albeit bigger than we can reasonably imagine.
There is no edge to 'hit' or go beyond. The only way I can conceive of it is if space bends back on itself. So if you try to go in one direction to an imagined edge, and were you able to survive long enough :-) you would find yourself heading back to where you started but from another direction. It's possible I have the wrong image but that helps me visualise the situation.
As I understand it the universe expands by effectively -creating- space.
I have seen it claimed that the universe is infinite, but I just can not see it. If we agree that at the Big Bang it was finite, and if we agree that there has been no period of infinitely fast expansion since, then surely the universe must still be finite, albeit bigger than we can reasonably imagine.
There is no edge to 'hit' or go beyond. The only way I can conceive of it is if space bends back on itself. So if you try to go in one direction to an imagined edge, and were you able to survive long enough :-) you would find yourself heading back to where you started but from another direction. It's possible I have the wrong image but that helps me visualise the situation.
