Big bang - put bigger thing into smaller container?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Saint, Feb 8, 2017.

  1. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Our common senses tell us we cannot put bigger things into smaller container.
    But why do we believe the observable universe with every thing in its can be squeezed into a point?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,427
    Define common sense.
    Science isn't about conforming to some narrow version of what you claim as common sense, it's about observing, experimenting, creating models, making predictions, and if those predictions are correct, then the model maintains credibility and being the accepted incumbent model, until something better at predicting comes along...if at all that happens.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,427
    Let me also add that if you were to put the nucleus of an atom in the middle of the Sydney Football Stadium, the electrons would be orbiting at around the outer grandstand seats...the rest of it is just space.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I'll also give you a more detailed answer here.......
    https://www.quora.com/How-is-it-pos...ncredibly-small-size-just-before-the-Big-Bang
    That's a common misconception based on a popular belief that everything came from a singularity. Cosmologists don't believe that -- only laypeople do.

    Prior to the initial period of cosmic inflation (what you call the Big Bang), there was nothing except an infinite number of virtual particles popping in and out of existance. These virtual particles had no mass, only an incredibly tiny amount energy. They came and went so quickly that they could not have been detectable -- an infinite number of them came and went at any instant.

    As long as the sum of all of the energy in these particles in any given instant was either positive or negative, by any amount at all, they were too unstable to persist and they immediately disappeared to be replaced by other virtual particles. This went on for an eternity. Unstable virtual particles popping in and out everywhere (although there was really no "where" as there was no "space").

    As would inevitably happen during the long eternity of this rolling, boiling mess of virtual particles, at some point they all eventually popped into existence in a single instant with a net energy charge of precisely zero. An impossibly unlikely thing to happen, but eventually it did. All of the instability cancelled itself out and that changed everything.

    Suddenly, the virtual particles could persist. And they did persist. They were still completely massless, but now there was energy -- persistent energy. This energy required space in order to persist. So space resulted merely from the presence of this persistent energy. This new space had to do actual work to come into existence to accommodate this new energy. This work was itself a form of energy that added to the newly persistent energy, and a snowball effect took place very very quickly -- the universe creating space to accommodate a growing amount of energy requiring more space to reach equilibrium. All of this energy got very hot very fast and pushed itself instantly into a bigger and bigger area and that's what we commonly refer to as the Big Bang.

    This run-away inflation of heat was probably infinite and expanded in all directions. As the size of the new universe expanded, the area of expansion continued to heat up to impossible temperatures, but the earlier areas were able to start cooling down as the farther reaches of space continued to heat up and expand. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is what is left of the area of expansion as it continues to cool.

    There was still no mass anywhere. None. It was only energy. The universe was too hot for mass to exist. About 380,000 Earth-equivalent years later, after large areas (where the universe began) started to cool down, the building blocks of mass began to precipitate from the cooling energy. These building blocks had enough electromagnetic attraction that they came together in very predictable ways to create the lightest of atoms, hydrogen and helium. These atoms attracted each other to create the first stars. These first stars grew massive enough to explode from the enormous pressures at their core, creating the first heavier elements.
    https://www.quora.com/How-is-it-pos...ncredibly-small-size-just-before-the-Big-Bang
    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    here's another answer....................
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/according-to-the-big-bang/
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    Yet another example of paddoboy trawling without checking. Or maybe it passed YOUR filter? Whatever - so many contradictory and erroneous statements there it aint funny. I just highlight words and passages. Could have added some more but what's in red is enough to show how bad that piece is. If you can't figure what the issue is for each one, no surprise. One or two others here should.
    The author of above; Ron Wiseman, Executive, engineering, US manufacturing, science guy - is NOT up to covering the topic sensibly. Keep trawling - responsibly.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,427
    Thanks my friend!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Perhaps it by passed your own filters that that particular rundown among three answers I gave, was from
    Lawrence Krauss' A Universe From Nothing.
    You have a good day, OK?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,427
    Hey q-reeus! In your eagerness to catch me out again, you forgot to give your own answer!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    Think nothing of it. Which is probably the case.
    ????? I decided to leave in the last bit linking to the SciAm article for 'balance', but made no comment on it. Which article was contributed to by, in order,
    Scientific American astronomy editor George Musser
    Robert J. Nemiroff, assistant professor of physics at Michigan Technological University
    Christ Ftaclas ... associate professor of physics, also at Michigan Tech
    Edward L. ("Ned") Wright ... vice chair for astronomy at the University of California at Los Angeles

    No contribution from Lawrence Krauss. Are you feeling ok paddoboy? I'm a bit concerned.
    Sure will try, and same 2U2.
     
  11. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    I felt that I had. Some answers are better pitched as 'have a think about that'. Best way to learn is usually to try and figure it out solo style - with maybe a few hints as guide. Seems good?
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,427
    Just at first glance, q-reeus is totally wrong re his red penning the Singularity aspect........

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Cosmologists don't believe that -- only laypeople do.
    Not sure what he has in mind and not really that interested, but most now accept that the singularity is simply a breakdown of GR and its equations, and should disappear with the advent of a QGT.
    The same applies to BH singularities of course.
    In essence. all a singularity is, is an indication of the limits of our knowledge.
    This will obviously upset q-reeus no end [shock horror!!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ]
    But he must learn to accept that he isn't yet the be all and end all of science, let alone this forum.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2017
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,427
    You should be concerned as you are wrong.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://www.quora.com/How-is-it-pos...ncredibly-small-size-just-before-the-Big-Bang
    These atoms attracted each other to create the first stars. These first stars grew massive enough to explode from the enormous pressures at their core, creating the first heavier elements.

    See Lawrence Krauss' A Universe From Nothing.
     
  14. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    So what are you suggesting here? That Ron Wiseman plagiarized a line from LK? Well I'm not conversant with everything written by LK so couldn't be expected to know if it's so. Anyway, LK was being careless with words there if it was the case. How about just honestly admitting you stuffed up badly in carelessly cut & pasting that Quora piece by the not-so-Wiseman? Come on, can't be that big a deal, even for you.

    PS - no email notification after my last post. Someone maybe giving you a bit of assistance under the counter. No matter. We are (terribly disfunctional) Family!
     
  15. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    And I could trawl away and furnish quotes from top notch cosmologists who DO say it all began with a singularity. But you gave one already - see first contribution in that SciAm article, the one you linked to at end of the awful post #3 being passably 'discussed'.
     
  16. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    ...those "common senses" are correct...
    Saint, not sure who those "we" that you refer to are, but neither myself nor any of the other Scientists, Scholars or Engineers that I have ever or currently work with "believe the observable universe with every thing in its can be squeezed into a point"!
     
  17. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    ...in reality "that particular rundown among three answers" was Authored on Jul 1, 2015 by Ron Wiseman, Executive, engineering, US manufacturing, science guy...
    ...
    Nowhere in "that particular rundown among three answers" did the author state, claim nor imply (NOT infer!) that he was quoting Lawrence Krause...
    ...at the end of it, it is simply stated : "See Lawrence Krauss' A Universe From Nothing."
    ...
    it could possibly be that the Author may have been "paraphrasing", or been giving his own personal interpretation of Lawrence Krauss' A Universe From Nothing,
    ...or it could also possibly be that the Author was simply attempting to provide another source for an "Answer"...
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,427
    "Hell hath no fury like women scorned"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    attributed to whoever!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    I searched my hard copy of A Universe from Nothing and couldn't find that quote.
     
    Q-reeus likes this.
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,953
    Really? Huh.

    So I can not put 80 cubic feet of air in a .39 cubic foot scuba tank.

    My life is a lie.
     
    Bells likes this.
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,427

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    No, it was a quote from Professor Krauss as inferred and as Krauss is well known to push.......
    see.....
    https://www.quora.com/How-is-it-pos...ncredibly-small-size-just-before-the-Big-Bang
    These atoms attracted each other to create the first stars. These first stars grew massive enough to explode from the enormous pressures at their core, creating the first heavier elements.

    See Lawrence Krauss' A Universe From Nothing.

    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,533
    In post #3, you had book-end sandwiched the Quora quote of Ron Wiseman between two identical links to that article. Hence in my response in #7 I was assuming it was a complete quote and not as it turned out, cropped. I merely did a quick scan there to confirm the passage was an accurate reproduction, not necessarily an entire reproduction. So you had excised the ref. at end of Wiseman's piece to Lawrence Krauss. Bid deal - not. The real issue remains you are unrepentant at having posted a piece of misleading junk.
     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,953
    I'm being facetious here, but the point is made: the OP's simplistic assertion that - big things can't be compressed into small volumes at high density - is false.
    The question needs to be restated.
     

Share This Page