Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By Neverfly

Thread: Before the Big-Bang !

  1. #1 Before the Big-Bang ! 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    5
    Every body now agree with the Big-Bang (BB) theory.

    The period preceeding the BB remains a mystery.

    I have not found yet the following raisonning about the period preceeding the BB

    The smallest particules (quarks) have been formed just after the BB

    Before the BB there was no particles. However, a hudge energy was necessary to induce the BB. The only energy was an enormous quiescent electromagnetic field

    For unknown reason this hudge energy was able to concentrate abrupty

    There are several hypothetical possibilities for concentration such as a vortex like phenomenon


    1. Is it possible that this field was able to concentrate in a particular area triggering the phenomenon ?


    We will have in France at the end of next year one of the first megajoule laser


    2. It can be interesting to know if this energy with maximal concentration is able to produce quarks and in fact protons ?


    I need this info for the writing of a book chapter on the philosophy of the End of Life in cooperation with a friend writing a Doctorate Thesis of Law on this subject


    Best regards

    GF


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    The notion of "before the BB" has no meaning. You cannot go "back" in time from the Big Bang any more than you can go further north when you stand at the north pole.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    5
    Thanks for this swift answer,

    I know very well this answer which is "classical", but I am not satisfied by it as many other people speaking on this forum

    I am not convinced by an equation. Remember that Einstein was never able to cope with the "quantum theory" and died trying in total suffering unable to obtain the equation explaining all the universe the socalled "Final Theory".

    In fact my question was more about the physics of electromagnetic fields. It is known that a powerful radar can burn instanly a human body at a short distance therefore enormous concentration of EM field is possible by
    "focalisation" of the radiation. No answer concerning the megajoule Laser beam !


    GF
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    12,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Fontaine View Post
    We will have in France at the end of next year one of the first megajoule laser
    2. It can be interesting to know if this energy with maximal concentration is able to produce quarks and in fact protons ?
    No. Far too weak by orders of magnitude.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    5
    That was my fear.
    However, if the order of magnitude was correct, is it possible to think that high energy is theoretically able to produce particles ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Fontaine View Post
    That was my fear.
    However, if the order of magnitude was correct, is it possible to think that high energy is theoretically able to produce particles ?
    Yes. This happens at fairly low energy levels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

    In terms of quarks specifically, these are created when enough energy is supplied to split a proton, as in the collisions in the LHC. The energy needed to pull two quarks apart is enough to create new quarks to bind with them and prevent there being any free quarks.

    Note that at the very earliest stages of the big bang, it probably doesn't make much sense to speak of electromagnetism specifically as it was certainly merged with the weak forces and probably with others. The fact is, we don't understand the physics very early on, which is why we cannot "wind the clock back" to time zero.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    5
    I know the splitting of a proton This was one of the reasons to build the LHC !

    My concern was to go from Radiation to quarks production

    Can you answer ?



    In term of moving the clock backward. This depends on YOUR decision where you put the time "zéro"

    Like the North pole image this looks to me "anthropomorphism" which means subjectivism and that is not science !

    Where are you located Asian country ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Fontaine View Post
    My concern was to go from Radiation to quarks production
    As far as I know, gamma rays are not produced directly by quark to quark interactions (but I could be wrong). If so, I assume there is no means to go directly from gamma rays to quarks.

    However, powerful electromagnetic fields (around a neutron star or black hole, for example) could form natural particle accelerators and produce quarks in similar ways to the LHC.

    In term of moving the clock backward. This depends on YOUR decision where you put the time "zéro"
    It is not an arbitrary choice, it is defined by the math of GR. However, we do know that GR is probably not applicable in the extreme conditions in the centre of black holes or the early stages of the big bang (that is kind of why singularities arise). But as we have no other theory, anything else is just speculation.

    Where are you located Asian country ?
    I like to imagine I am in Japan.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Fontaine View Post
    I know very well this answer which is "classical", but I am not satisfied by it as many other people speaking on this forum
    No one is satisfied by that answer. That's why physicists continue to have jobs; so they can keep asking the questions.

    If you extrapolate time back to a hypothetical zero in equations for singularities, you get infinity as a result. It's not that we refuse to look further back, it's just that we don't know how. I use "we" very tentatively as I am barely capable of programming my microwave, much less pondering the origins of the universe.
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55° N, 3° W
    Posts
    1,085
    Many cosmologists seem quite happy to talk about times before the big bang. In some cosmological models you are allowed to speak of events before the big bang. For example in Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology there are very clearly times prior to the big bang.

    Note that it doesn't particularly matter for the argument I'm making here whether or not CCC it true or not; the point is, time before the BB is something than can be discussed, depending on your model.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    Many cosmologists seem quite happy to talk about times before the big bang. In some cosmological models you are allowed to speak of events before the big bang. For example in Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology there are very clearly times prior to the big bang.

    Note that it doesn't particularly matter for the argument I'm making here whether or not CCC it true or not; the point is, time before the BB is something than can be discussed, depending on your model.
    Indeed. But those models are all pretty speculative. They have to go beyond current theory and they are all, so far, completely untested.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Talking about it is fine. Saying you have a theory about it is something else, altogether.
    Cogito Ergo Sum likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Before the Big-Bang (2) 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    5
    I am glad to see that my question on the BB has triggered a lot of discussions

    My goal is to try to go beyond speculations !

    May I start with the most simple and basic question ?

    If the BB uses a tremendous amount of energy and there is no particle already built, then the energy has to be present from a non-particle medium

    Some believers think that this the mark of Allah or any beautiful biblical story. I pertain to seven religions but I not a believer....

    Is it possible to think and to accept that before the BB the only form of energy available is an EM field ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Fontaine View Post
    My goal is to try to go beyond speculations !
    Then you probably need many years of postgraduate study of relativity, quantum theory and cosmology.

    Is it possible to think and to accept that before the BB the only form of energy available is an EM field ?
    I would say no, because we know that the various forces become unified at high energy.
    Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So there wouldn't have been a separate EM field.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Fontaine View Post
    Is it possible to think and to accept that before the BB the only form of energy available is an EM field ?
    No. Go back close enough to the Big Bang and EM fields are no different than any other form of energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Fontaine View Post
    I know very well this answer which is "classical", but I am not satisfied by it as many other people speaking on this forum
    Neither am I, but it is the only correct answer that can be given while staying within the confines of currently understood physics.

    Remember that Einstein was never able to cope with the "quantum theory" and died trying in total suffering unable to obtain the equation explaining all the universe the socalled "Final Theory".
    He never stood a fighting chance to come up with a TOE, because in his lifetime he was missing too many pieces of the puzzle, specifically the finer points of QFT, and pretty much most of the details of what is now known as the Standard Model.
    Technically he never even attempted to formulate a TOE, all he was trying to do was unify gravity and electromagnetism. He did not succeed in that.

    In term of moving the clock backward. This depends on YOUR decision where you put the time "zéro"
    No, because we are dealing with cosmological time, which is defined by the FLRW metric. Zero is where global space-time curvature becomes singular; you cannot choose this at random, it is a geometric invariant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko View Post
    Many cosmologists seem quite happy to talk about times before the big bang. In some cosmological models you are allowed to speak of events before the big bang. For example in Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology there are very clearly times prior to the big bang.

    Note that it doesn't particularly matter for the argument I'm making here whether or not CCC it true or not; the point is, time before the BB is something than can be discussed, depending on your model.
    That is true, simply because in CCC the Big Bang is replaced by a "Big Bounce" - there is no geometric pole, only a singularity akin to black holes, i.e. space-time is normal and regular "either side" of it. That is not the case in the Big Bang model though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Fontaine View Post
    Remember that Einstein was never able to cope with the "quantum theory" ...
    That is not a good example because ... he was wrong.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Big Bang or Big Hoax?
    By Manynames in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: October 28th, 2013, 12:24 AM
  2. Big Bang, Big Schmang
    By Couch Scientist in forum Physics
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: June 15th, 2013, 01:13 PM
  3. Big Questions About the Big Bang Theory
    By suziwong in forum Links
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 30th, 2013, 01:41 PM
  4. Big Bang or Big Expand?
    By iBlackSunday in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: June 24th, 2010, 09:09 AM
  5. Could there be many big bangs, instead of one Big Bang?
    By jsaldea12 in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: May 24th, 2010, 03:19 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
  •