Talk:Big Bang/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Question: did everything sometime, somewhere moved faster than light?

I mean if a black hole is an object so massive with such a strong gravitational pull that not even electromagnetic radiation can escape (like light) and at some point in time all the matter that now makes up the universe was 'clumped' toghether in a very dense region and exploded (big bang), then it must mean that everything moved faster than light (considerably faster) for some time. I mean, i think i'll be a preaty safe assumtion that the excape velocity of what was in escence the biggest of all black holes would be A LOT faster than light. right? Please i know this is not the right place to ask this, but i already tried the refference desk and i got no satisfactory answer.Nnfolz 19:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the question is not accurate. You'll want to read up on the spacetime expansion, linked from the article. There wasn't a black hole in an empty spacetime when everything was at a singularity -- spacetime itself was in that pointlike thingie, so how would you measure velocity? Xiner (talk, email) 20:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the expansion of spacetime, unlike the trasmission of information, is not limited by the speed of light. A good place to get an answer from people other than non-physicists like me is the reference desk. Xiner (talk, email) 20:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this conversation belongs in the refference desk, but i asked there a couple of months ago and nobody gave me an answer (they guessed). With that said thank you for taking the time to answer me ad if it's not much of an inconvinience i've got a couple more questions like: If it was space tiem itself that was 'moving at that speed' (for lack of a better way of saying it) isn't that impliying that everything within it is moving at that speed too (the same way that i'm moving at 50 miles per hour if i'm in a car moving at that speed)? also once the universe was created: how could everything continue to expand against the force of gravity? I have a ton more, but i'll probably give you a headache if i ask them all at once. BTW: i cound't find the spacetiem expansion article you mentioned. (i know my questions requiere rather long and complex answer and I don't expect you to write an essay, but if you'll just point me in the right direction i'll be gratefull). Thanks in advance.Nnfolz 18:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It'd be really helpful if a physicist can answer this question, but here's my decidedly amateurish attempt. I'd compare the speed-of-light limit to an ant's speed in the example give in Metric expansion of space, and the expansion of space to that of the balloon itself. As for gravity slowing down the expansion, yes, I think it's happening, but the "force" is simply too weak against the mysterious expanding power of space itself. Again referring to the ant-on-balloon analogy, gravity would pull the ant towards another ant, but if the balloon is expanding fast...Xiner (talk, email) 19:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The above is a pretty good answer, basically you need to distinguish expansion and movement within spacetime, from change of the fabric of spacetime itself. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay, I got it right. Thanks for the confirmation, FT2. Xiner (talk, email) 03:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The new edits

The Big Bang is a theory and that should be in the intro. This edit also reads like OR, with no sources provided. Given that this is an FA article, I'd really like to see better referencing than that. Xiner (talk, email) 20:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The above edit has been partially reverted (see diff). Please discuss it before reverting. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 21:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"Its nature remains one of the great mysteries of the Big Bang. Possible candidates include a scalar cosmological constant, quintessence and virtual particles (mostly photons) making up physical vacuum." Is the italicized addition necessary? Xiner (talk, email) 20:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Part 2

The latest [1] would welcome citations or fact-checking. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 14:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation, Cxat, but I'm not sure about a page that dares Wikipedia editors to delete links to it. I don't want to remove it without a discussion though. Xiner (talk, email) 01:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

(possibly a new section) I have a few thoughts about the big bang theory and dark matter. They are only hypothesis, perhaps only speculation, and chances of these ideas being correct are low.

During the earliest stages of the big bang, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, and this period is called inflation , right? When did it end? Was it when photon could exist? After all, if the limitation on speed is the speed of light (photons), this would not apply if conditions in the universe do not permit photons to exist, right? So the universes initial energy and matter could have spread out pretty far, right?

Current estimates of the size and mass of the universe are based on how far we can see, right? What if the universe, because of the faster than light inflation, is spread out beyond where we can see? Of course, the mass of the universe would be proportionally increased (or maybe not as much). Since we think we can only see 20% of the mass of the universe, for a first approximation lets say the universe was this mass, but the 80% we cannot see is simply beyond viewing range. Due to the early faster than light inflation, possibly beyond viewable range. This matter is so far away that its light can never reach us. Remember the 2.7K infared readings from the big bang date from when photons could be emitted. So this energy and matter in those parts of the universe cannot be detect by photon, because they could not yet exist. How do this help us? This is the missing dark matter that is pulling our portion of the universe apart. It is just ordinary matter beyond our viewing (viewable) range. How would we try to model this? Model 1: A nested set of ballons blowing up, speeds in reference to the mythical center point. A 1 foot ballon at 50% the speed of light inside a 10 foot weather balloon at 90% the speed of light inside a 100 foot hot air ballon at 130% the speed of light. But any galaxy at any particular layer can only see to nearby sections of the next inner and outer layers, and each galaxy thinks that is the limits of the universe, and nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Model 2: think of this as 1 inch balloons expanding to 1 foot balloons held snugly together in a net. From a particular galaxy, they can only see from the center of a balloon to the outside of the balloon, where speeds approach the speed of light. All matter with viewable range within the bubbles obeys the speed of light, yet if you try to compare to a bubble 5 bubbles over it is travelling 4 times the speed of light compared to you.

Here is a published article with some of the above considerations. http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070501/sc_space/darkfuturepredictedfortheuniverse;_ylt=As_uPS60qYiuJnjb6bEyW9lxieAA

Have you ever heard of the Pauli (?) exclusion principle? This is a principle (eg rule) that says 2 particles cannot occupy the same place at the same time Eg, in a Neon atom, there can be 1 electron in the 1st spherical shell with a clockwise spin, and 1 in an anti-clockwise spin. Same with the 2nd spherical shell and the 3 p-orbits. The three different orbits are really best described as an energy wave with the Schrodinger (sp?) equations. The subatomic speeds are so fast and the distances so tiny and the Hisenburg uncertainy constant so large in comparison that each electron could be at any point in the orbit that any attempt to locate the electron does not change the probability of it being in any particular location and must be considered a wave. How strong a wave is this? You cannot push two atoms together and make the orbits overlap, instead the two atoms will share the electron and form a chemical bond. You link up a bunch of Carbon atoms in a tetrahedral structure, we call those diamonds. And so these electron waves around a nucleus form what are call hard surfaces. To overide this wave, you have to pile on about 10% of the sun's mass before you can start to force a few electons into the nucleus and form H2 then He4, etc. in nuclear fusion. If you pile up about 4 sun's mass and wait a few billion years for the energy to be released and enough iron to be formed, a collapse of the center portion of the start will all collapse into one huge atom, a neutron star.

This exceeding the speed of light when photons cannot be present does present another idea too. Photons, in the waveform (vs particle) consideration also have magnetic and electrical characteristic. This is how generators, motors, electromagnets, and other electronic devices work. What would happen if a strong magnectic or electric field where set up around an object? So strong that photons inside the field cannot get out and photons outside cannot get in? Well, would your bubble of space be free to travel? Since photons inside and outside cannot interact relative speeds can no longer be compared. If you were to apply a slight directional force, you might be transported hundreds of miles away, or to another star system, or galaxy. We really don't have a theory on what keeps the arrow of time proceding forward. If you cut off a bubble of space away from the rest of the with such a strong field, when it re-intergrates it might possible be forward or backward in time. I have no possible idea about what force could propel you forward or backward in time. Another possible effect would be to override the Exclusion principle. Eg the force that keeps atoms apart might be suppressed enough that electron orbits around can overlap. You would have to design the field so that you have a clean bubble around the object, and not let the field inside be strong enough to supress the exclusion principle. If you did, a person in such a field might put thier hand into a suddenly soft wall, or sink into a sponge that used to be a floor. Scary aint it? Also sounds just like the Philadelphia experiment. Could also explain Star trek warp fields and transporter beams and transporter accidents.

Maschwab 13:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Please note that the premise of your question is incorrect. Please read metric expansion of space. Also, please use the forums listed on top of this page for discussions of original research. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 14:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for tiny edit by an authorised user

Okay, this is almost embarassingly trivial but... the opening paragraph reads, "calculated to be 13.7 billion (1.37 × 1010) years ago (±2%)"... would it be okay to insert a space before the 2%? In the font used, the '±' character bleeds into the '2' making it hard to read. Thanks! SheffieldSteel 03:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I've done it just to prove to you that it's alright. Be bold. Xiner (talk, email) 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Multi-level Cosmology

I deleted the information on multi-level cosmology. Recently, a standalone article on multi-level cosmology was deleted, and was even considered as a scientific notability test case. After a unanimous vote for deletion, it was speedily deleted. Given the strong consensus about deletion, and for the reasons cited in this test case, I feel it's justified to delete the information from this article. Kevinwiatrowski 04:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

About time. Xiner (talk, email) 20:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Theory

The Collision of 02 four-dimensional Structures would give origin to 01 three-dimensional Structure + Energy. This theory would explain many of the anomalies of the Universe that the Big Bang cannot explain. As why the material in the exterior of the universe is younger than in the center of the Universe. The universe is created in its Edges as both four-dimensional Structures interact one against the other. It explains also the X ray Radiation that comes from the exterior part of the universe. Two four-dimensional structures interacting between each other could be expressed by the following formula: (wxyz) (wxyz) = xyz E. The point of the beginning of the collision of these four-dimensional structures would resemble an explosion or Big Bang, and as they are interacting between each other, would resemble an expansion in which the xyz space is created plus the Energy filling this space. It is possible to have a proportional example, on having pressed two spheres (Three-dimensional spaces xyz) one against the other, a plane (Two-dimensional space xy) is created between them and an also Energy “filling” this plane.

Felipe Galvez de la Puente —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Felipegalvez (talk • contribs) 22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

This is original research, unsourced. Please note the warnings on top of this page. Xiner (talk, email) 23:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Big Bang Pictures?????????

hey out there, anybody know where i can find a pic of the Big Bang anywhere????????? Lover of the sand 22:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's one. Well, okay, technically that's a snapshot from when the Universe was about 400,000 years old, but it's the next best thing - see Cosmic microwave background radiation. Gandalf61 22:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks a bunch!!!!! but I have to get one for a friend to draw and she dosen't like it. I think its pretty. Thanks again! Lover of the sand 14:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Big Bang Criticism

Where is the not even a mention of Halton Arp? Are the thought police controlling wiki now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.4.81 (talk • contribs) on 04:16, 5 April 2007.

This was hashed out many months ago. Long story short, the (small) section about alternatives to the Big Bang was removed for two reasons. First, per WP:NPOV, the article should give space to views in proportion to the number of experts who consider them plausible. The overwhelming majority of astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists, and so forth consider the Big Bang to be approximately correct. Minority views might merit a sentence or two, at most. Second, it has been pointed out in past discussions about this and similar topics that this article is about the Big Bang model, and so discussion of other models has questionable place in the article. Alternate proposals, including Arp's, are discussed at more length at Non-standard cosmology. --Christopher Thomas 04:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Opinions like Arp's are briefly dismissed at Big Bang#Features, issues and problems, although we know those opinions are still much more popular in places like blogs. Art LaPella 05:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Falsifiable?

I wonder, is it accurate to describe the theory as a "scientific theory" (although I agree with this nomenclature)? From what I gather, it's not directly falsifiable is it? I.e., various underpinnings may be, but not the big bang itself. I've been curious if this is technically pseudoscience as a result of this non-falsifiability. I'd hate to call it "pseudoscience" though, as that seems to have negative connotations associated with it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.1.130.41 (talk • contribs) on 19:10, 14 April 2007.

Non-detection of the CMB would have falsified it. Sufficient deviation of the CMB from a black-body spectrum would have falsified it. Detection of objects demonstrably much older than the predicted age of the universe would have falsified it. Sufficient deviation of primordial element abundances from those predicted by big bang nucleosynthesis would have falsified it. It seems falsifiable enough to me. --Christopher Thomas 19:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to say falsifiablity is a necessity, but current theory is open enough to be unfalsifiable. Most notably, the addition of kludges and general acceptances of everything in the `features/problems' section. All of those issues call into question the testability of the theory. In any case, I do not belief falsifiability to be a necessary condition to label this a "scientific theory" as this is the "best guess" under given circumstances.74.134.251.144 15:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

This article should clear up one of the common misconceptions of the Big Bang

For instance; that the Big Bang is a creation account. It is not.

Oh yeah? Do you have notable sources that prove that arguement?
Kind regards, MisteryX 13:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for new lead section

In response to Adam Cuerden's comments at the Big Bang FA Review page, I am proposing a re-write of the article's lead paragraphs as follows (references temporarily omitted for clarity):

In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago.

Observations of shifts in the spectrum of light in images of distant galaxies show that these galaxies are moving away from us in a consistent fashion - an observation known as Hubble's law. If we assume that the Earth is not in a special position in the universe (the cosmological principle) then this suggests that space itself is expanding.

Mathematical models of an expanding universe can be built that are consistent with the principles of general relativity - one such model is the Robertson-Walker model. These models predict that the universe has expanded from a initial state in the distant past in which all matter and energy was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity.

Precise and detailed calculations of the rate of creation of elements in the early universe, known as Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory, produce results that are consistent with observations of the present universe. The existence of a background of weak microwave radiation filling the whole universe - the cosmic microwave background radiation or CMB - was also predicted as a consequence of the Big Bang. The discovery of the CMB in 1964 led to the general acceptance amongst physicists of the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos.

I have tried to retain the contents and flow of the current lead section, while providing brief explanations of some of the technical terminology. Comments ? Gandalf61 16:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• The fact that all the shifts are redshifts is important. Hiding it behind the pipe is problematic.
• The Copernican principle is what demands the Earth is not at a special position, not the cosmological principle.
• The cosmological principle is important, however, because it drives a fundamental homogeneity and isotropy of space (not time) necessary for the Robertson-Walker metric. This is not mentioned, but maybe should be (though it is covered better in the overview)
• "One such model" is a bit nebulous. FRW models are the models that describe expanding universes.
• The models don't necessarily predict the changing density (the Cosmological Principle predicts it in a weak sense and it is confirmed by observations).

--ScienceApologist 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That looks pretty good. Doppler shifts aren't easy to explain, and, well, when it comes down to it, this is a complicated theory, and you're going to have to make some bold assertions in the lead with the promise of explaining it later. I agree redshifts are important, but it may be best to be a bit vague for a moment, and give a full explanation in the history section immediately after the lead, since that removes the pressure to be concise, allows the use of diagrams, and, after all, it is a fairly important aspect of the history, so far as I understand it. Otherwise, I'd say put in Science Apologist's accuracy tweaks, and run with it.

The rest of the article could probably use a bit more explanation of things as well, and a little orginisation of material so the easiest-to-understand parts come first. However, great work - and very quickly too - in explaining it so far! Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Gandalf61, I think the intro is definitely moving in the right direction. I'd suggest switching the third and fourth paragraphs (and adding some transition between them). This is because the introduction you've written introduces the three main "observational" pillars of the Big Bang (Hubble redshifts, nucleosynthesis, and CMB) as well as the main "theoretical" motivation (General Relativity + Copernican/cosmological principle implies Robertson-Walker models). I like how they're all introduced without too much technical stuff, but as-is they're spread about. Wesino 18:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the very positive comments. I have amended my re-write to try to accommodate everyone's feedback, and have put it into the article. Enjoy ! Gandalf61 13:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

Coming to this discussion a bit late, it's too bad the lead doesn't mention the specific lambda-CDM model that has been converged on since WMAP, etc. The lead currently reads a bit like all we know about cosmology is that redshifts and BBN indicate a big bang. It's also disappointing that it doesn't mention inflation, which is a closely related topic of much current interest. I realize the article is called "Big Bang," not "Cosmology," but I think a somewhat more modern flavor would be useful. Gnixon 15:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, suggesting a GR singularity must be very misleading to the novice reader---physicists simply expect GR to break down at some point, and there are fairly specific ideas about how it will happen. Gnixon 15:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)