Big bang clarification?

Hello, I have spent a few hours today watching science videos again.

I try to use reliable sources, such as discovery channel shared on you tube. One of the videos I watched today was of the big bang, to me the video seemed contradictory of itself and left me with several questions about the video.

Firstly before I ask the questions and waste anyone's time, is this video reliable and accurate to present information?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not going to watch a 45 min video. What are the contradictions?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ditto the remark by Origin!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

theorist-constant12345, the video is what I refer to as Pop-Science Entertainment.
It appears to present, to me at least, an easily processed simple version of the speculative nature of the BB theory, ala Physicists Hawking, Kaku and Krauss.

I would not consider it to be anything more than "entertainment".

Given that, I would find it somewhat "Odd" if anyone DID NOT find some things in it "contradictory" and "question(able)".

 

Discovery Channel is generally NOT a "reliable source".
It's pop science mulched down for those with a low attention span.

 

Discovery has been marketing themselves to the lowest common denominator for years now. So not a reliable source.

 

Any "video" of the BB is like all analogies rather limited, and in this case completely impossible to assign to a video.
The BB theory of Universal evolution is well supported and strong, despite unsupported derisions here to the contrary.
Firstly why it is virtually impossible to present on video, is because the BB in that first instant was an evolution of space and time, henceforth known as space-time.
In that respect it was not like any conventional "explosion" as a video would present.
Being an evolution of space and time [space-time] as we know them, it can be seen that the BB did not happen at any particular place, rather everywhere at the same time.
The main points of evidence for the BB are as follows.....
The observed expansion of the Universe-space-time.
The presence of the fossil left over heat of the BB we call the CMBR [Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation] at 2.7K.
The abundance of the lighter elements.


The main opponents of the BB were the Steady State theory of Fred Hoyle fame, and the Oscillating theory.
Both have died out as evidence mounted for the BB, the CMBR being the final nail in the coffin.

 

http://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/

What Is The Evidence For The Big Bang?

Almost all astronomers agree on the theory of the Big Bang, that the entire Universe is spreading apart, with distant galaxies speeding away from us in all directions. Run the clock backwards to 13.8 billion years ago, and everything in the Cosmos started out as a single point in space. In an instant, everything expanded outward from that location, forming the energy, atoms and eventually the stars and galaxies we see today. But to call this concept merely a theory is to misjudge the overwhelming amount of evidence.

There are separate lines of evidence, each of which independently points towards this as the origin story for our Universe. The first came with the amazing discovery that almost all galaxies are moving away from us.

In 1912, Vesto Slipher calculated the speed and direction of “spiral nebulae” by measuring the change in the wavelengths of light coming from them. He realized that most of them were moving away from us. We now know these objects are galaxies, but a century ago astronomers thought these vast collections of stars might actually be within the Milky Way.


In 1924, Edwin Hubble figured out that these galaxies are actually outside the Milky Way. He observed a special type of variable star that has a direct relationship between its energy output and the time it takes to pulse in brightness. By finding these variable stars in other galaxies, he was able to calculate how far away they were. Hubble discovered that all these galaxies are outside our own Milky Way, millions of light-years away.


So, if these galaxies are far, far away, and moving quickly away from us, this suggests that the entire Universe must have been located in a single point billions of years ago. The second line of evidence came from the abundance of elements we see around us.

In the earliest moments after the Big Bang, there was nothing more than hydrogen compressed into a tiny volume, with crazy high heat and pressure. The entire Universe was acting like the core of a star, fusing hydrogen into helium and other elements.

This is known as Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. As astronomers look out into the Universe and measure the ratios of hydrogen, helium and other trace elements, they exactly match what you would expect to find if the entire Universe was once a really big star.

Line of evidence number 3: cosmic microwave background radiation. In the 1960s, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson were experimenting with a 6-meter radio telescope, and discovered a background radio emission that was coming from every direction in the sky – day or night. From what they could tell, the entire sky measured a few degrees above absolute zero.

Theories predicted that after a Big Bang, there would have been a tremendous release of radiation. And now, billions of years later, this radiation would be moving so fast away from us that the wavelength of this radiation would have been shifted from visible light to the microwave background radiation we see today.

The final line of evidence is the formation of galaxies and the large scale structure of the cosmos. About 10,000 years after the Big Bang, the Universe cooled to the point that the gravitational attraction of matter was the dominant form of energy density in the Universe. This mass was able to collect together into the first stars, galaxies and eventually the large scale structures we see across the Universe today.

These are known as the 4 pillars of the Big Bang Theory. Four independent lines of evidence that build up one of the most influential and well-supported theories in all of cosmology. But there are more lines of evidence. There are fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation, we don’t see any stars older than 13.8 billion years, the discoveries of dark matter and dark energy, along with how the light curves from distant supernovae.

So, even though it’s a theory, we should regard it the same way that we regard gravity, evolution and general relativity. We have a pretty good idea of what’s going on, and we’ve come up with a good way to understand and explain it. As time progresses we’ll come up with more inventive experiments to throw at. We’ll refine our understanding and the theory that goes along with it.

Most importantly, we can have confidence when talking about what we know about the early stages of our magnificent Universe and why we understand it to be true.

http://www.universetoday.com/106498/what-is-the-evidence-for-the-big-bang/

 

...Fraser Cain...

 

Pretty sure his name's Frasier Crane and what does that have to do with the topic?

 

So says you, Kristoffer.

As for "what" it has "to do with the topic?"
Ask the Poster that "quoted" the article by...Fraser Cain....

 

Hi Kristoffer.
Fraser Cain is the publisher/author of the reputable well know "Universe Today"
He has many video chats weekly featuring astronomers etc as well as meaningful evidenced backed articles such as the BB [that I referenced] and often articles exposing mythical concepts and agenda laden unreasonable cynicism by others.

 

My own little error highlighted by omitting the fourth pillar supporting the BB at post 7 [off goes my head, on goes a pumpkin!]
But I will extend on that slightly as I understand it.
There are very slight minute variations in the generally uniform CMBR temperature, [a few parts per million] and these were consequently the seeds for galactic formation.
This was picked up by WMAP.

 

Thank you Paddy for your time and replies.

hmmm, I did have a whole list of questions about that particular video but now most of my lines of questioning about the Physics involved seem inappropriate after Yourself and Dy have explained about the videos.

In that video and mentioned by professor Stephen Hawking's in another documentary video the story of everything, a pure energy is mentioned , professor Hawking's refers to it as a pure energy cloud at a singular point where the big bang started the expansion and creation of the Universe.

If this is correct and the big bang was initialised by a pure energy, does that not mean and show that something pre-dated the big bang because the pure energy was there to start off with?

In Physics is energy not a part of a process and not in essence a thing on its own merit?


According to the theory and videos the accelerating particles that proceeded mass, continued to travel until they cooled down and slowed.
My question on this is how do these particles slow down if there is yet no mass formed?

What force would hold this singularity of pure energy together in the first place and apply enough centripetal force/pressure to make the cosmic event?

 

Cooled down, not slowed down.

 

Ok , thank you for the answer , I am sure it said slowed down in the video, but like Dy said not quite reliable.

In response I will ask , how and why did some of these particles change velocity to/of the expansion or in ignorance of the expansion to remain centralised?

 

Guess I learned who Fraser Cain is.

 

Our models and theories break down at t+10-43 seconds after the initial BB event. This is where we need a QGT to explain.
Anything before 10-43 seconds after the event is only speculative.

 

Just to add, at that quantum/Planck level, we do not have the technology to observe at such minute scales, and also temperatures and pressures were such that matter could not exist.
Until we have a QGT or are possibly able to observe at such levels, scietists are unable to say what caused the BB or why it happened.
Again all we can do is speculate.

 

Thank you Paddy , im going kip now, will ask more tomorrow.