Notices
Results 1 to 19 of 19
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Chrispen Evan

Thread: Question About The Big Bang

  1. #1 Question About The Big Bang 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5
    Back in my pre-requisite college days I took three courses and a lab in astronomy. However, while I'm trying to remember everything I've learned (going through old notes and such), a question came to mind I never thought to really ask before.

    I know planets and everything that we have come to know exists in space (stars, planets, asteroids, etc.) are a result of an exploding star. Could the Big Bang have been a really really really massive star (a size that would seem inconceivable) or multiple really really really massive stars exploding outward to create what we know as the Universe? Could what we believe to be considered the Universe be a sort of planetary nebula (in this case a galactic nebula)? If so in this case wouldn't the Universe as a whole be much older because we are only able to see to the distant edges of our own "galactic nebula", and further out there are more "galactic nebula's" as a result of other Big Bangs? Would this mean the contents of the Universe are getting smaller but the extent of it wider (not necessarily traveling outward to create a larger distance but larger distances between being a result of everything getting smaller)? Would there be a size too small for the Universe to create if any of this is true?

    Just stuff that pops into my head in the early morning before breakfast...

    - Ricky


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by RickyD3 View Post
    I know planets and everything that we have come to know exists in space (stars, planets, asteroids, etc.) are a result of an exploding star. Could the Big Bang have been a really really really massive star (a size that would seem inconceivable) or multiple really really really massive stars exploding outward to create what we know as the Universe?
    No. The standard cosmological model relies on the idea that there was no explosion of a thing into a space, it was the expansion of space filled with dense, hot stuff that was expanding at all points of that existing space. The standard cosmological model that is referred to as the Big Bang theory does not comment on how anything came into being, it just starts with a dense, hot universe.

    The expansion of space at all points leads to the dense contents of the universe thinning out and cooling in predictable ways. This leads to the characterstics of the background radiation and to the current contents of the universe in terms of the ratios of hydrogen to helium, lithium, and deuterium.

    The explosion of a thing into space could not produce these things.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    There are several problems with the idea of a supermassive star as the origin of the now observable universe. I suppose, you do not really refer to the so called Big Bang as such, but rather the uniform background radiation that according to the standard paradigm was produced by a hot, uniform and intransparent universe about 380000 years after the Big Bang.

    Regardless of the interpretation of the CMBR, we have independent results strongly suggesting the expansion of the universe. Already those results give a good estimate on the age and extent of the visible universe, our local horizon. Based on these results alone, there is not much room for a much older universe.

    If you want to explain the background radiation we see now with a shell of an expanding bubble of a supernova remnant, you would have to explain how the diameter of this bubble could be as large as the distance to the "local horizon" of the universe. Note that all visible objects are found to be in front of the CMBR. Expansion rates of SNRs are much too small to a grow to the necessary size. Further problems are that we measure the same redshift/temperature of the CMBR in all directions. If the radiation were due to an expanding bubble, we would have to be in the centre, which would be a big coincidence. This paradox is avoided in the standard model by recognising that everything was in the centre of the universe once.



    I leave describing further problems with this idea to other forum members.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    I'm 10 years old.
    Posts
    270
    No, because of the microwave background radiation, it doesn't correspond to anything massive. Rather, a point infinitly small. Before the bang there was nothing, because we refer on OUR time dimension, and our time started with a bang. We don't know however how many other dimensions are out there, I have explained this in some other post. For example, when you unplug your computer, the PC time stops and everything occuring in the computer stops, but you however, you can still move and act in your environment. This show how existence is not to be confused with Universe.

    The best way to go crazy is to try and imagine what "was" before the bang. Like, if you make a videogame where the carracters have artificial intelligence and are self aware, they will go crazy trying to imagine what's beyond their zeros and ones...0100101010, and will never figure out that humans are having sex in the same room the computer is located. Lol. It's an extradimensionality that absolutely no one can imagine.

    Others argue, "there is no other dimension, it ends with us!" Really? If that's true than, how come you can create another dimension in such a videogame? If dimensions cannot be created, how come you can? And then the question that comes next is, are we a simulation, and who runs it? If you want a naive picture of how this would look you can watch the Matrix movie.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Dishmaster View Post
    There are several problems with the idea of a supermassive star as the origin of the now observable universe. I suppose, you do not really refer to the so called Big Bang as such, but rather the uniform background radiation that according to the standard paradigm was produced by a hot, uniform and intransparent universe about 380000 years after the Big Bang.

    Regardless of the interpretation of the CMBR, we have independent results strongly suggesting the expansion of the universe. Already those results give a good estimate on the age and extent of the visible universe, our local horizon. Based on these results alone, there is not much room for a much older universe.

    If you want to explain the background radiation we see now with a shell of an expanding bubble of a supernova remnant, you would have to explain how the diameter of this bubble could be as large as the distance to the "local horizon" of the universe. Note that all visible objects are found to be in front of the CMBR. Expansion rates of SNRs are much too small to a grow to the necessary size. Further problems are that we measure the same redshift/temperature of the CMBR in all directions. If the radiation were due to an expanding bubble, we would have to be in the centre, which would be a big coincidence. This paradox is avoided in the standard model by recognising that everything was in the centre of the universe once.



    I leave describing further problems with this idea to other forum members.
    Okay, I think I got what you are saying here, but let me make sure by maybe re-wording things a little (I'm a history guy so I may think slightly differently than science folk, and I'm no astronomy expert -- I'm probably at a sophomore/maybe beginning junior level). So say that you are the size of an atom or even smaller, the size of a single electron, trapped in a SNR. If you looked out to the distant horizons and did all of the fancy light, redshift/temperature calculations, your data would not appear similar to the CMBR? I may be assuming that our current instruments cannot look beyond the CMBR because of a lack of technological advancement. Or is there simply nothing else beyond that horizon? I'm guessing from what you are saying, that a SNR does not expand out as the CMBR has because the redshift is not equal in all directions...?

    And concerning the Big Bang originating from a point infinitely small, wouldn't that be similar to a star going supernova? Because I thought that when a star goes supernova, it collapses in on itself and then explodes outward... or is it that when a star collapses in on itself it is forming a black hole and everything gets essentially sucked in...?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    117
    Listen - forget about stars. The primordial singularity contained the energy equivalent of far more mass than any single star.

    You need to study up on the CMB, the cosmic heat death of the universe, superfluids and the 3rd law of thermodynamics - none of this is easy reading but
    you should have a better picture of what the big bang was.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by tszy View Post
    Listen - forget about stars. The primordial singularity contained the energy equivalent of far more mass than any single star.

    You need to study up on the CMB, the cosmic heat death of the universe, superfluids and the 3rd law of thermodynamics - none of this is easy reading but
    you should have a better picture of what the big bang was.
    Yes, I certainly do need to read up on it. Probably not any time soon, but it is something that I am interested in. Do you have any recommendations?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,637
    Quote Originally Posted by RickyD3 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tszy View Post
    Listen - forget about stars. The primordial singularity contained the energy equivalent of far more mass than any single star.

    You need to study up on the CMB, the cosmic heat death of the universe, superfluids and the 3rd law of thermodynamics - none of this is easy reading but
    you should have a better picture of what the big bang was.
    Yes, I certainly do need to read up on it. Probably not any time soon, but it is something that I am interested in. Do you have any recommendations?
    One of the more readable sources online is certainly Ned Wright's Cosmology FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology

    There is also a more in-depth tutorial on his site (he's a prof at UCLA). You might find his writing to your liking.

    The Wikipedia entries on the Big Bang, CMB and related terms are also worth reading, although you might want to start with Prof. Wright's stuff. Then ping-pong back and forth as needed.

    Key take-aways: There was no explosion of something into space; there was an "explosion" of space itself. We can never see farther back than the "time of last scattering," when the universe was cool enough to allow radiation (photons) to escape. The CMB tells us that, at that moment, the universe was amazingly uniform in temperature. The remarkable uniformity, plus the spectrum's near-perfect conformance to a blackbody spectrum, tells us a lot about the universe's evolution, and also tightly constrains theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Seventh, you already have your own thread. Please don't pollute other people's threads with your stuff. It is not polite. Any further posts will be removed. Thanks.

    KALSTER - Admin
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    317
    I don't know if there was only one Big Bang or an infinite number in an infinite Multiverse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Kerling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by RickyD3 View Post
    Back in my pre-requisite college days I took three courses and a lab in astronomy. However, while I'm trying to remember everything I've learned (going through old notes and such), a question came to mind I never thought to really ask before......pops into my head in the early morning before breakfast...

    - Ricky
    Well Ricky, I cannot tell you too much about it, as well it is an ongoing research and I don't want any scoops. But the idea of a super-massive star isn't so weird. But one would have to realise that such a 'star' would be one step further then degenerate mass. (And that is where i come in) It would however explain inflation. As if we start from a finite radius, there is no problem.

    Also the background radiation idea is a little fuzzy. the variations are tiny, and one would expect the differences to be correlated with matter that is left behind but it doesn't. This is peculiar.

    But I personally think the multi-verse interpretation is intrinsically unprovable, but If they propose experimental proofs then sure I am more then willing to look at it again.
    In the information age ignorance is a choice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    985
    This is slightly off topic, but although I understand the general idea of the "big Bang", I have one problem with it. If the primoidial point mass contained, as it must, all the matter and energy of our universe, would it not have the characteristics of a black hole? And if it has the characteristics of a black hole how can it "explode"?

    Or perhaps our universe still does have the characterists of a black hole in that we can't "see" out of it, all lines of sight being bent to within the curvature of our space?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    500
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    This is slightly off topic, but although I understand the general idea of the "big Bang", I have one problem with it. If the primoidial point mass contained, as it must, all the matter and energy of our universe, would it not have the characteristics of a black hole? And if it has the characteristics of a black hole how can it "explode"?
    The early universe has one thing a black hole does not have: a expansion of space already built into the fabric of spacetime. Yes, the massive density would cause a serious restriction on how far light could travel, but the space in which the light was traveling was itself getting larger and escaping the limits of the black hole that we might hypothesize to exist at every point.
    Or perhaps our universe still does have the characterists of a black hole in that we can't "see" out of it, all lines of sight being bent to within the curvature of our space?
    This must be the case. The only somewhat exception is if the universe is infinite in spatial extent; in this case, no bending is needed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    316
    i would like to add that the misconception that the early universe was akin to a blackhole seems to be a widespread one. a blackhole is the event horizon of the "singularity" at the centre and as such can only exist within spacetime. the "singularity" from which our universe arose was not embedded in any pre-existing spacetime and thus had no event horizon. or so i'm led to believe.

    :-)
    SpeedFreek likes this.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    proton proton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Incline Village near Lake Tahoe
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by RickyD3 View Post
    Back in my pre-requisite college days I took three courses and a lab in astronomy. However, while I'm trying to remember everything I've learned (going through old notes and such), a question came to mind I never thought to really ask before.

    I know planets and everything that we have come to know exists in space (stars, planets, asteroids, etc.) are a result of an exploding star. Could the Big Bang have been a really really really massive star (a size that would seem inconceivable) or multiple really really really massive stars exploding outward to create what we know as the Universe? Could what we believe to be considered the Universe be a sort of planetary nebula (in this case a galactic nebula)? If so in this case wouldn't the Universe as a whole be much older because we are only able to see to the distant edges of our own "galactic nebula", and further out there are more "galactic nebula's" as a result of other Big Bangs? Would this mean the contents of the Universe are getting smaller but the extent of it wider (not necessarily traveling outward to create a larger distance but larger distances between being a result of everything getting smaller)? Would there be a size too small for the Universe to create if any of this is true?

    Just stuff that pops into my head in the early morning before breakfast...

    - Ricky

    An unbelievably big star outwardly exploding into empty space before space existed seems plausible to emit an expanding mini universe. The model of the "Big Bang" presumes a first event singularity from nothing even no space. The event Horizon for the "Big Bang" would be much different than a traveling shock wave of the Plasma from your Exploding Star Model.

    proton
    ....
    "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...." President Thomas Jefferson .......... proton
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    316
    An unbelievably big star outwardly exploding into empty space before space existed seems plausible to emit an expanding mini universe.
    this doesn't make sense.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    An unbelievably big star outwardly exploding into empty space before space existed seems plausible to emit an expanding mini universe.
    this doesn't make sense.
    There's an unfortunately high correlation between idiosyncratic font choices and idiosyncratic post content.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    proton proton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Incline Village near Lake Tahoe
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    An unbelievably big star outwardly exploding into empty space before space existed seems plausible to emit an expanding mini universe.
    this doesn't make sense.
    There's an unfortunately high correlation between idiosyncratic font choices and idiosyncratic post content.

    there we go. you heard it from the source.

    .....space before space is a boundary expanding into nothing.

    proton
    ...
    "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...." President Thomas Jefferson .......... proton
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    If a bang was big but nobody was there to hear it... did it make a sound?

    Theres two very important things to know about the big bang.

    Firstly ofcourse it was a bang, secondly it was big. It's important that we keep this in mind lest it should ever be forgotten.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Big Questions About the Big Bang Theory
    By suziwong in forum Links
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 30th, 2013, 01:41 PM
  2. Question on Higgs field & Big Bang
    By Maximise24 in forum Physics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 17th, 2011, 07:06 AM
  3. big bang question
    By megamoo in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 19th, 2010, 01:57 PM
  4. Silly question about the Big Bang
    By Leszek Luchowski in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 12th, 2009, 09:21 PM
  5. The Big Bang and Maths(Question)
    By Always.Asking in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: May 9th, 2009, 09:47 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •