Revisiting the Big Bang

[questor]

if the BB originated as a point or small sphere containing all matter in the universe, it must have been at a density far more compact than a black hole.

if there was an explosion or sudden expansion, all particles for some reason would have expanded from this sphere and rushed away from its center. several questions occur :

1. where was the location of this sphere in the universe? if all particles rushed outward 15 billion years ago, wouldn't there now be a void at the center area of the original sphere?

2. how did this point that composed the original mass of the universe compare in density to a black hole?

3. how was this original point compacted? who put the mass into this point?

4. were the 4 natural forces also included in the point, or did they come later?

5. imagine the immensity of the force needed to start the explosion. where did this energy come from, and where is it now?

6. what was the need for spin and orbiting and how was this imparted to particle and planets which were blown straight out in a straight path from the center?

7. as the particulate matter expanded at a certain speed, what slowed the expansion enough to allow gravity to capture the stars and planets to form galaxies in a certain way?

8. if the planets were formed by superheated gases cooling and condensing

as they were expanding straight outward, at what point did they decide to start orbiting the sun?

9. if the force of gravity is not strong enough to pull the earth into the sun,

how is it strong enough to keep Uranus or Pluto in orbit?

[Erasmus00]

9. if the force of gravity is not strong enough to pull the earth into the sun,

how is it strong enough to keep Uranus or Pluto in orbit?

 

For this, and a few other of your questions, I suggest picking up an intro mechanics book. They all cover central force motion. You could also google angular momentum.

-Will

[sergey500]

Well then, nice questions, I am no expert on this, but I will give you my full opinion, which means a lot of reading for you.

 

Hokay...This is my idea, hypothsis, guess on what happened to form the big bang. So as you wish, you may read "What IS space?" by me, so a long all those pages, i stubbornly and stupidly insist that space in between particles is uniform energy. If this is true, and indeed the "nothings" is energy, then i can create this idea. Ok we rewind 15 billion years to the big bang (did i get the right year?) we have nothings, well pure energy in my idea. This energy deveoped out of itself and formed from the non existant nothingness (ask me about this later, or else i will take up more space) so this energy grew and grew, eventually some parts were more compressed than others. The energy compacted together and formed a shell with properties, this is what matter is. Now we have particles that keep growing due to the free energy. So they created minture gravity and collide with each other. Eventually it collides with so much force it explodes everywhere and creates more solid particles and then we go along with rest of big bang, creation of the universe idea.

 

I recommand you ask "Cold Creation" about this topic, he would be the expert on this.

 

1. where was the location of this sphere in the universe? if all particles rushed outward 15 billion years ago, wouldn't there now be a void at the center area of the original sphere?

Of course, but like exploding something underwater, this void got filled up. Where is location? if the universe is indeed a sphere then it is at center of the universe.

2. how did this point that composed the original mass of the universe compare in density to a black hole?

Unlike a black hole, this was forming space, not ripping it. Mass grew to unimaginable levels, tempertures soared to almost infinty, and in billionths of a second it all finally exploded.

3. how was this original point compacted? who put the mass into this point?

Read my summary. Who? No one, particles themselfs due to their nature.

4. were the 4 natural forces also included in the point, or did they come later?

Four natural forces....uh...can you be more specific?

5. imagine the immensity of the force needed to start the explosion. where did this energy come from, and where is it now?

Read above. Now? Distrubuted all over the galaxy.

6. what was the need for spin and orbiting and how was this imparted to particle and planets which were blown straight out in a straight path from the center?

Spin? it just started spinning when it slowed down since it was still in motion.

7. as the particulate matter expanded at a certain speed, what slowed the expansion enough to allow gravity to capture the stars and planets to form galaxies in a certain way?

Slowed down? Who said it was slown down, according to the non-infinty universe ideas, the universe is still growing until the big crunch.

8. if the planets were formed by superheated gases cooling and condensing

as they were expanding straight outward, at what point did they decide to start orbiting the sun?

When the immense gases did not cool they formed stars, like sun, the sun captured the planets in orbit. The planets have nothing to say about this, even if they could.

9. if the force of gravity is not strong enough to pull the earth into the sun,

how is it strong enough to keep Uranus or Pluto in orbit?

Only at certain point will the sun actuelly start pulling in object. If you ask this question, then ask why doesn't the Earth pull the moon into itself? Or Jupiter, it enourmous gravity pull extends to saturn, why is it that that is not being puilled in?

 

BUT of course i can, and probably am, wrong about most of that stuff. It just my opinion and it seems to work for me.

[Tormod]

I'll try to answer as far as I understand the standard Big Bang theory.

 

if the BB originated as a point or small sphere containing all matter in the universe, it must have been at a density far more compact than a black hole.

 

No, at the moment of, and immediately after, there was only energy, no matter. We cannot know the zero state with our current physics (sorry, it's a cop-out).

 

if there was an explosion or sudden expansion, all particles for some reason would have expanded from this sphere and rushed away from its center.

 

No. We don't know the geometry of the big bang. From our vantage point the universe appears spherical. We have way (currently) to prove the shape of the universe. We don't know if it exists inside another universe, whether it is one of many, or the shape of things "outside" our universe.

 

1. where was the location of this sphere in the universe? if all particles rushed outward 15 billion years ago, wouldn't there now be a void at the center area of the original sphere?

 

There was no sphere. Everything that exists in our universe today is a result of the big bang. As the universe grew, it cooled off, and matter condensed out of the energy.

 

2. how did this point that composed the original mass of the universe compare in density to a black hole?

 

Impossible to say. It is not an object, and it did not exist in a space-time, since space-time was created during the big bang.

 

3. how was this original point compacted? who put the mass into this point?

 

Impossible to answer on both counts.

 

4. were the 4 natural forces also included in the point, or did they come later?

 

This depends on which theory we use. The braneworld theory will say that gravity permeates our universe from another dimension, and as such could have existed during the big bang. But all the forces within our universe, and the values for them, are a result of the big bang.

 

5. imagine the immensity of the force needed to start the explosion. where did this energy come from, and where is it now?

 

No force was needed to create this explosion. Technically speaking, the big bang *was not an explosion*. It was the birth of our universe. We don't know what caused it, but all the energy that was created during it is still in our universe today, in one form or another.

 

6. what was the need for spin and orbiting and how was this imparted to particle and planets which were blown straight out in a straight path from the center?

 

I don't think I understand this question. The first stars formed hundreds of millions of years after the big bang. The first planets probably formed after that, as a result of protoplanetary disks around the stars.

 

7. as the particulate matter expanded at a certain speed, what slowed the expansion enough to allow gravity to capture the stars and planets to form galaxies in a certain way?

 

It is the universe that expands, not the particles. Gravity caused clusters of particles to concentrate. Over time this lead to galaxies, stars, and planets.

 

8. if the planets were formed by superheated gases cooling and condensing as they were expanding straight outward, at what point did they decide to start orbiting the sun?

 

The planets were formed out of a protoplanetary disk which orbited the sun, which actually formed from the same disk - 99% of the matter in the solar system is inside the sun.

 

9. if the force of gravity is not strong enough to pull the earth into the sun, how is it strong enough to keep Uranus or Pluto in orbit?

 

It *is* strong enough to do that. If the Earth did not orbit the Sun it would eventually fall into it.

[questor]

thanks for the replies. the underlying answer here is--we don't know. most of these issues defy logical explanation, but they do exist. i still don't understand how particles subjected to a violent outward expansion in a straight line can develop orbits. and don't forget, as new cells develop in a growing human being, they also develop spin and orbiting. if the effect is spin, what is the cause? i also notice that it is very difficult to discuss these phenomenae without using the concept of creation, like time-space was created with the BB. if one could accept the fact that certain things were created..time, space, gravity, energy, the one must ask what created them. if it was a natural force that created them, then what was that force? is it a force that can be observed or measured? if there is no evidence whatsoever for that force, if it cannot be defined, observed, measured, detected or

mathematically modeled or predicted, then why could we not assume it is supernatural?

[Vending]

if it cannot be defined, observed, measured, detected or

mathematically modeled or predicted, then why could we not assume it is supernatural?

 

It is a very poor practice to ascribe that which you cannot understand to the supernatural. A long time ago people ascribed the sun to a supernatural being...now we know better (at least some of us do).

 

 

The point is baising an argument on your ignorance (like not understanding the big bang) is never a good idea. It is always better to formulate an arguement from things that you know, not things that you don't know.

 

BTW. i was not trying to be insulting, no one is not ignorant when it comes to the big bang. At least not yet.

 

i still don't understand how particles subjected to a violent outward expansion in a straight line can develop orbits.

 

As long as the trajectories were not all perfectly perpindiculare to the outside of a sphere then spin is going to result. Any process that is violent will have turbulence and the trajectories of the matter will be deflected. Thus, spin will result. Basically, anytime that you have a force on an object that does not maintian the same position relative to the object, you will develope spin. With all the mass moving around after the big bang in a semi choatic manner (see: turbulence, above) the forces acting on the mass that was present would nessesitate the emergence of spin.

[questor]

the spin happens to be in controlled directions rather than random.

the word supernatural means above or more than can be explained by natural causes. if you have the explanation of the cause, please let me know, otherwise you may want to refrain from admonishing others about their ignorance.

[coldcreation]

the spin happens to be in controlled directions rather than random.

the word supernatural means above or more than can be explained by natural causes. if you have the explanation of the cause, please let me know, otherwise you may want to refrain from admonishing others about their ignorance.

 

Well well, hello again señor Questor,

Two quick points. All of these problems are well known. The answers are easlily available online. (Some cannot be answered as Vending and Tormod noted). You don't even need to go to a physics library at your local Ivy Leage college (though that is where you may find what you're really looking for, not online).

 

First: According to the standard model there is no center of the universe, there never was a point of origin, energy and eventually matter would thus not be projected outwards from some point in spacetime, let alone in straight lines. As I understand the theory, space expands carrying with it galaxies, stars and people (though I've never heard or read in my local Ivy Leage physics library a physical explanation as to how that is possible, i.e., how space is created, grows or expands). Each observer can consider herself at rest, or nearly at rest.

 

The other point to make: I didn't think Vending was admonishing.

 

PS. The "supernatural" is for the theology section (or strange claims).

 

Hasta Siempre

 

CC

[questor]

Hola CC, as i understand it, expansion means to grow outwardly. unless a particle in the expanding object also expands, it will either expand as the object expands and maintain its position, or move outward as the object expands, which would lead to straight line movement unless acted upon by an outside force.

[Tormod]

Hola CC, as i understand it, expansion means to grow outwardly. unless a particle in the expanding object also expands, it will either expand as the object expands and maintain its position, or move outward as the object expands, which would lead to straight line movement unless acted upon by an outside force.

 

Like I said - it is the universe that expands, not it's contents. The galaxies are actually stationary but appear to recede from each other (or in some cases move closer to each other and collide/merge). Space between the galaxies expand.

 

The particles were never flung out in any direction. The spin has nothing to do with the big bang.

 

I would recommend reading up on the issue. Simong Singh has a book out which is quite recent, titled "Big Bang". It might help you understand the theories.

 

You are correct that in many ways we don't know. We have absolutely no idea what existed before the big bang (some will also claim that there was no big bang, or that it was a "local" big bang in a larger universe). Nor can we explain what caused it. That's why comsology is extremely interesting. It merges philosophy and physics (and a host of other fields) into a giant pile of theories.

 

Our current physics can explain what happens all the way back to an unthinkably short time after the big bang - but we are still talking about theories, hypotheses, and assumptions. Some of these will never be proven.

 

As to whether it would not be easier to assume a supernatural power - I'd argue that there is no reason to assume anything except what we observe, and what the theories that we can derive from our observations tell us.

[Boerseun]

1. where was the location of this sphere in the universe? if all particles rushed outward 15 billion years ago, wouldn't there now be a void at the center area of the original sphere?

Every single cubic millimeter of space is the exact center of the universe, and the precise location of the Big Bang. This is due to the fact that Space itself grew out of the Big Bang, and is still expanding as we speak.

2. how did this point that composed the original mass of the universe compare in density to a black hole?

Not very favourably, I'd guess. When we speak of a 'Black Hole', we speak of something that's causing a dent in physical 'space'. When we talk of the Big Bang, we talk of a phenomenon that occupied all perceivable space, all at once.

3. how was this original point compacted? who put the mass into this point?

Keep this in mind - this is fundamental to all of cosmology: The compacted 'point' was, and still is, the whole of the universe. That point is today the 28-30 odd billion light-year diameter worth of space we perceive on good ole' terra firma. Back then it was a lot smaller... NOT. There was no external space to be measured against. The universe (from a measurable point of view) was exactly the same size a second after the Big Bang, than it is today. The gimmick with this statement, of course, is that all our measuring equipment have expanded in lockstep with space! :P

4. were the 4 natural forces also included in the point, or did they come later?

Probably later, although I have to go with Tormod here: We don't know.

5. imagine the immensity of the force needed to start the explosion. where did this energy come from, and where is it now?

Dunno. Answer that, and you can found your own religion. Hey - it worked for Ron Hubbard, didn't it?:lol:

6. what was the need for spin and orbiting and how was this imparted to particle and planets which were blown straight out in a straight path from the center?

Spin and orbiting: (I assume you're referring to a spherical body spinning on its axis when you're talking about 'spin'). Matter of fact, the spin of planetary bodies is ascribed to the rotation of gas clouds collapsing under their own weight, rotating ever faster as the cloud collapses. The Earth is spinning today because a cloud of crap decided to collapse under its own gravity about 4 billion years ago. Since then, there was nothing to stop it from spinning. In a frictionless environment, the Earth will spin. Orbiting is a function of gravitational attraction vs. liear motion. The nett result is a spherical (well, almost) path around the more massive body.

7. as the particulate matter expanded at a certain speed, what slowed the expansion enough to allow gravity to capture the stars and planets to form galaxies in a certain way?

Gravity is moving together with the object from where it originates. The matter in the universe don't have to slow down in order for gravity to play catch-up.

8. if the planets were formed by superheated gases cooling and condensing as they were expanding straight outward, at what point did they decide to start orbiting the sun?

Round about the time they started experiencing the Sun's gravitational dent in the space/time continuum. In other words, from the moment our Solar System's protoplanetary disk started collapsing on itself. But then - that was a kazillion years before the first planet condensed out of the mess that was orbiting the clump of crap that eventually became out beloved sun.

9. if the force of gravity is not strong enough to pull the earth into the sun,

how is it strong enough to keep Uranus or Pluto in orbit?

The sun will pull the earth into it - before you can say "remove Uranus from my Sofa". The reason it's not doing it though, is forward motion married to angular momentum. In other words, an orbit.

The Sun is pulling all the planets towards it, and all the planets are indeed falling towards the sun. The trick for the planets, however, is to learn how to miss the sun. We're doing pretty good, so far.

[questor]

Boersun, thanks for your effort. let me ask this question. you said:

 

''Keep this in mind - this is fundamental to all of cosmology: The compacted 'point' was, and still is, the whole of the universe. That point is today the 28-30 odd billion light-year diameter worth of space we perceive on good ole' terra firma. Back then it was a lot smaller... NOT. There was no external space to be measured against. The universe (from a measurable point of view) was exactly the same size a second after the Big Bang, than it is today. The gimmick with this statement, of course, is that all our measuring equipment have expanded in lockstep with space! ''

 

if this statement is true , then why do our measuring devices show a universe rapidly expanding? does this not indicate all particles rushing away from each other? if this is true, then logic decrees a center, if the universe is a sphere. if particles are rushing outward and you could make them return to where they started, you would have a center.

[Tormod]

if this statement is true , then why do our measuring devices show a universe rapidly expanding? does this not indicate all particles rushing away from each other?

 

If everything was expanding (including the space between the particles), then our measurement tools would also expand and we would observe no expansion.

[Southtown]

Measuring equipment, LOL. You mean redshift?

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-news/1745-can-distant-quasar-lie-within-nearby.html

http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts&ArticleId=1

[questor]

if everthing is expanding at the same time, we would have no awareness of expanse at all. what evidence do we have of expanding ?

[Southtown]

They attribute "all" redshifts to recession velocity via Hubble's Law.

[lindagarrette]

If everything was expanding (including the space between the particles), then our measurement tools would also expand and we would observe no expansion.

 

Doomsday scenarios: :lol:

 

"As if in a dream where we swam but could not reach the shore, the universe likewise recedes as we study it, destined to disappear at the whim of time, space and the laws of physics. All that will be left are fading ghosts of distant galaxies, each an afterimage preserving a final moment as a swarm of stars slips into a netherworld of cosmic invisibility."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/universe_end_011212.html

"The projected end is, reassuringly, 20 billion years away. If our species survives the next 19 billion years (and there are serious doubts about this, given our Sun's projected fate) here are some signs that scientists of the future will want to look for.

• A billion years before the end, all galaxies will have receded so far and so fast from our own as to be erased from the sky, as in no longer visible.
  
• When the Milky Way begins to fly apart, there are 60 million years left.
  
• Planets in our solar system will start to wing away from the Sun three months before the end of time.
  
• When Earth explodes, the end is momentarily near.

At this point, there is still a short interval before atoms and even their nuclei break apart. "There's about 30 minutes left," Caldwell said, "But it's not quality time."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_rip_030306.html