Big bang clarification?

To me, the main problem with Big Bang is extrapolation beyond observational evidence to either a singularity or an incredibly dense finite volume.

A singularity usually implies a problem or complete breakdown of a theory.

The extremely dense finite volume seems like a better assumption than a singularity.

Somebody with serious credentials once said something like the following

The prevailing POV is that the matter in our universe is the excess left after mutual annihilation with primordial anti-matter.

The above suggests that the universe might have started with a large volume of space containing matter & anti-matter, with an excess of matter.

Incredible inflation is required to support the current Big Bang cosmology. An alternative is to assume that the mutual annihilation energy was the motive force for the expansion.

Perhaps extrapolating to a small extremely dense volume is not is not as reasonable as it seems.

At the emotional level, I liked the Steady State (aka Continous Creation) cosmology which was shot down due to the very distant Quasars & the absence of Quasars less than billions of light years from the Solar system.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I generally refer to the evolution of space-time as we know them. Meaning what existed before t+10-43 seconds was speculatively some concoction of space-time as we don't know them.

http://www.physics.org/article-questions.asp?id=121
One of the experiments at CERN has observed D-mesons ‘flipping’ between matter and antimatter.

Antimatter is identical to normal matter but with opposite charge, spin and other quantum numbers. Mesons are a type of particle made up of a quark and an antiquark. Quarks are the particles that make up the protons and neutrons found in atomic nuclei, and come in six ‘flavours’ – known as ‘up’, ‘down’, ‘strange’, ‘charm’, ‘bottom’ and ‘top’.

The D-mesons in the CERN experiment are made up of one charm quark and one charm antiquark. The physicists have witnessed the D-mesons oscillating between being a normal particle and an antiparticle, a process that has previously been observed in K-mesons (composed of a strange quark and an up or down antiquark) and B-mesons (a bottom antiquark and any of an up, down, strange or charm quark). When this happens, the constituent quark becomes an antiquark and vice-versa, so for example the antimatter partner to the K-meson is made up of a strange antiquark and a ‘normal’ up or down quark.

But in some cases this flip-flopping happens at different rates depending on whether a meson is transforming into an antimeson or the reverse is happening. Experiments in the 1960s showed that K-mesons are more likely to change from their antiparticles to their normal particles than the other way round, and some observations at Fermilab up to 2010 have suggested that the same is true of B-mesons.

This is an example of what is known as CP violation – an exception to the principle that physical laws should be the same for a particle as they are for an antiparticle with its direction reversed. This may help to explain why the universe appears to be made entirely of matter with no antimatter except that which is created in high-energy particle collisions.

One would expect the Big Bang to produce equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and, since the two annihilate one another on contact, this should have led to a universe with no particles, filled only with radiation.

This problem can be solved if there exists some process that favours matter over antimatter, leading to the excess that we see today.

Alternative explanations include the possibility that there are regions of the universe made of antimatter – which is thought to be unlikely since any overlap with matter regions would produce easily detectable radiation – and the suggestion that antimatter also exhibits gravitational repulsion, which would keep such regions separate.

I think also it donates a center of sorts which is abohrent thinking when talking cosmology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/26/1/26-1-sather.pdf

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...e-matter-than-antimatter-in-the-universe.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Great post thanks, I quite the like idea of rewinding the big bang expansion but not to a singular point,but rather to a steady state Universe that had a catastrophic collapse of balance, if everything was perfect we would not be here.
Maybe the Big bang is wound back to far by human imagination, considering a nothing for the starting point premise, a zero point time and space.

 

Steady State has failed. Steady State denotes a center of sorts which is cosmologically abhorent.
My speculative thoughts prefer the old Oscillating theory. Reason? Because it could extend the parameters of the BB model, without invalidating the BB.
NOTE CAREFULLY: SPECULATION TO FOLLOW:
Perhaps where the present BB and GR fails at 10-43 seconds could in effect be an ERB or wormhole throat, leading to a BH in another space-time. This would make our present BB a WH in effect. And speculatively speaking this BH/ERB/WH scenario may go on ad infinitum.
END OF SPECULATION:
If this were shown to be valid, it would not invalidate our present BB model, which is confined by set parameters, t+10-43 seconds being one of those.

Must correct myself there. What I speculated is not Oscillating theory per se...Oscillating being expansion/collapse/expansion/collapse.

 

I am unfamiliar with an Oscillating theory, I will have to look that up, also ERB?

I am all for infinite and if a WH is anything like a marble sitting inside a bigger marble but at the bottom of the larger marble I like that to.

 

Just corrected myself in previous post. What I speculated is not Oscillating theory [Just had that on my brain for some reason]
ERB: Einstein Rosen Bridge. [wormhole throat]

WH is simple a theoretical arse end of a BH, or "out pouring" of space-time.

 

Arr right thanks paddy I did look up an oscillating theory which looked a bit strange. Do you not think the entire answer lies at point zero time?

Do you not consider for a big bang to happen there had to be force and something has to make that force?

Nothing existed before the BB, is that saying no negativeness and no positiveness as well?

 

Between point zero time and t+10-43 seconds.

We don't know, quantum fluctuation??

The BB tells us that it was an evolution of space-time [as we know them]
According to the BB and t=0, there was no before by definition.

 

''The temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.''

That suggests energy is already there to notice an energy change?

So I would say doubtful.

I understand t=0 by definition, but is that just not from an observer point of view from rewinding the expansion back and considering a singular point in the first place?

From our relative view the Earth and looking at the expansion found by Hubble and confirmed by Doppler, why did the Earth remain where it is and the planets and our sun, why did they not follow the expansion?

 

What?
What makes you think they don't?

 

The Universe-space-time undergoes expansion on larger scales.
On smaller scales, regions of space-time density that are high, as in our solar system, our galaxy, our group of galaxies, our cluster of galaxies, are "disconnected" from the overall expansion.
or to put that another way, space-time curvature, opposes the overall expansion rate of the Universe-space-time

 

If we followed the expansion would we not be travelling with/near to the expansion at the near speed of light?

and if something is expanding away from us that means it is either travelling the same direction at a greater speed or we are travelling the opposite way, final option centralised?

 

Did the expansion not proceed space time curvature?

 

We ARE.

Or expanding in any other direction.
I.e. moving AWAY from us.

 

Actually [for a change] a good question.
At the BB, the Universe-space-time was packed to within a very small volume, or a very hot, dense state.
It would have been highly curved in other words...Then Inflation took hold and it expanded at an extremely accelerated rate many times FTL. [And no that did not contravene any laws of relativity, as it was space-time expanding not matter/energy]
From that point the expansion rate slowed to a more sedate pace, governed by the mass/energy density at each epoch.
As expansion continued, and consequently mass/energy density lessened, [same mass/energy density, more space-time] the Universe-space-time has started to speed up again in that expansion rate, and this has been recently observed as "accelerated expansion" and the theoretical application of a DE component.
That's a pretty rough and ready lay person description, so if anyone would like to elaborate on that scenario, please do.

 

I don't usually speculate/comment in discussions involving ultimate origins.., like the Big Bang... But assuming that the BB theory is even close to correct, I am not sure you would wind up with any significant spacetime curvature until at least the formation of baryonic matter (protons and neutrons). Even then at the early stages (before the formation of atoms, molecules and complex massive objects), any curvature may not have been significant, when compared to the overall dynamics.

 

As I understand it 1 kg of matter or the energy equivalent of 1 kg of matter will warp space the same amount so if the same volume of space contained either baryonic matter or the equivalent amount of energy the curvature of space would be the same.

 

Since you're discussing spacetime curvature it's the stress energy tensor that completely sums everything that effects the local spacetime curvature.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress–energy_tensor

 

Thanks brucep!