1
   

space the final frontier

 
 
udayan
 
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 11:50 am
"BIG BANG THEORY" is one of the largely accepted probability for the birth of our universe. But what would have been the situation before the big bang took place ? what substance/what matter was there which eventually caused "big bang" ? If there was anything then how long it was there ?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 574 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 12:41 pm
I cannot personally answer you, although I have heard the explanation from a professional in this very field, but I do know that your question cannot be answered in terms of concepts familiar in our everyday experience. I suggest you do a Google search on "Inflationary Cosmology."

Here is one such link:

http://universe-review.ca/R02-13-inflation.htm
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 May, 2007 02:14 pm
Re: space the final frontier
udayan wrote:
"BIG BANG THEORY" is one of the largely accepted probability for the birth of our universe. But what would have been the situation before the big bang took place ? what substance/what matter was there which eventually caused "big bang" ? If there was anything then how long it was there ?


Nobody has an answer for this.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 May, 2007 04:25 am
Actually, the "bang" occurred in steps, apparently, and they know one heck of a lot about those steps now. It's just hard to explain it to anyone not in the field.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 May, 2007 01:12 am
No they don't, and the question was about before the big bang not the steps of the big bang anyway.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 May, 2007 05:29 am
stuh505 wrote:
No they don't, and the question was about before the big bang not the steps of the big bang anyway.

Well, about half a year ago, someone active in the field (numerous publications in Phys Rev, etc.) explained the whole thing to me, and it certainly sounded like they had learned an immense amount in the past few years about a whole timeline for a multi-step bang, and obtained all kinds of confirmation from measurements. Maybe he was hallucinating.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 May, 2007 05:32 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_timeline
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 May, 2007 10:20 am
Brandon, one can study the universe their whole life but their guesses are still going to be limited by the physical evidence. I am only interested in "nearly absolute" truths and so for the most part I am not interested in other peoples wacky unsubstantiated theories. Some key excerpts from this Wiki page you have provided are...

Quote:
The very early universe, which is still poorly understood, was the split second in which the universe was so hot that particles had energies higher than those currently accessible in particle accelerators on Earth. Therefore, while the basic features of this epoch have been worked out in the big bang theory, the details are largely based on educated guesses.


Quote:
All our understanding of the very early universe (cosmogony) is speculative. No accelerator experiments currently probe sufficiently high energies to provide insight into this period. Scenarios differ radically. Some ideas include the Hartle-Hawking initial state, string landscape, brane inflation, string gas cosmology, and the ekpyrotic universe. Some of these ideas are mutually compatible, others are not.


Quote:
If supersymmetry is correct, then at this time the four fundamental forces - electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and gravity - all have the same strength, so they are possibly unified into one fundamental force. Little is known about this epoch


Quote:
The temperature, and therefore the time, at which cosmic inflation occurs is not known for certain.


Quote:
No known physics can explain the fact that there are so many more baryons in the universe than antibaryons. In order for this to be explained, the Sakharov conditions must be met at some time after inflation. There are hints that this is possible in known physics and from studying grand unified theories, but the full picture is not known.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 May, 2007 09:07 am
stuh505 wrote:
Brandon, one can study the universe their whole life but their guesses are still going to be limited by the physical evidence. I am only interested in "nearly absolute" truths and so for the most part I am not interested in other peoples wacky unsubstantiated theories. Some key excerpts from this Wiki page you have provided are...

Quote:
The very early universe, which is still poorly understood, was the split second in which the universe was so hot that particles had energies higher than those currently accessible in particle accelerators on Earth. Therefore, while the basic features of this epoch have been worked out in the big bang theory, the details are largely based on educated guesses.


Quote:
All our understanding of the very early universe (cosmogony) is speculative. No accelerator experiments currently probe sufficiently high energies to provide insight into this period. Scenarios differ radically. Some ideas include the Hartle-Hawking initial state, string landscape, brane inflation, string gas cosmology, and the ekpyrotic universe. Some of these ideas are mutually compatible, others are not.


Quote:
If supersymmetry is correct, then at this time the four fundamental forces - electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and gravity - all have the same strength, so they are possibly unified into one fundamental force. Little is known about this epoch


Quote:
The temperature, and therefore the time, at which cosmic inflation occurs is not known for certain.


Quote:
No known physics can explain the fact that there are so many more baryons in the universe than antibaryons. In order for this to be explained, the Sakharov conditions must be met at some time after inflation. There are hints that this is possible in known physics and from studying grand unified theories, but the full picture is not known.

On what basis do you conclude that these theories are wacky or unsubstantiated? Unfortunately, this topic is over my head, but did you know, for instance, that they are able to get important confirmation from the dipole and higher moments of the vacuum polarization?

Also, from the Wikipedia:

Quote:
....Inflation is a concrete mechanism for realizing the cosmological principle which is the basis of our model of physical cosmology: it accounts for the homogeneity, isotropy of the observable universe. In addition, it accounts for the observed flatness and absence of magnetic monopoles. Since Guth's early work, each of these observations has received further confirmation, most impressively by the detailed observations of the cosmic microwave background made by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite. This analysis shows that the universe is flat to an accuracy of at least a few percent, and that it is homogeneous and isotropic to a part in 10,000.

In addition, inflation predicts that the structures visible in the universe today formed through the gravitational collapse of perturbations which were formed as quantum mechanical fluctuations in the inflationary epoch. The detailed form of the spectrum of perturbations called a nearly-scale-invariant Gaussian random field (or Harrison-Zel'dovich spectrum) is very specific and has only two free parameters, the amplitude of the spectrum and the spectral index which measures the slight deviation from scale invariance predicted by inflation (perfect scale invariance corresponds to the idealized de Sitter universe). Inflation predicts that the observed perturbations should be in thermal equilibrium with each other (these are called adiabatic or isentropic perturbations). This structure for the perturbations has been confirmed by the WMAP satellite and other cosmic microwave background experiments,[35] and galaxy surveys, especially the ongoing Sloan Digital Sky Survey. These experiments have shown that the one part in 10,000 inhomogeneities observed have exactly the form predicted by theory....


Wikipedia

I freely admit that this is over my head, and I suspect that you are discussing a subject you know very little about.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 May, 2007 06:27 am
Depends on your theoretical framework with no adequate proof yet. FOr example, in M-theory two suitable membranes existing in a virtual 11 dimensional super gravity space go into resonance and interact, to form a new membrane that inflates its dimensions initially past lightspeed until the period of quantum gravity ends as the single unifying forces breaks down into four forces model and then relativity holds sway in most environments of the observable universe.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » space the final frontier
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/15/2025 at 01:00:24