The Big Bang and Magnetic fields

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by river, Dec 7, 2013.

  1. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    At the point of BB concentration , the absolute smallest that the contraction point could be , just before the critical point of the bang its self

    What were the magnetic fields strength
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    The thing is , is this ;

    How you can have condensed matter , with NO magnetic fields until after the fact ?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Simple, the the BB was not a creation/evolution, of matter/energy, it was a creation/evolution of space and time.
    Then we had a period of Inflation where the space and time expanded at FTL velocities. Matter and energy came later, in fact the first 380,000 years was [wait for it] Plasma. Electrons were not able to connect to atomic nucleus during this hot/dense period.
    But essentially gravity was the controlling force. Without it, atomic nuclei would not have formed, neither would atoms, and especially not stars and planets.

    What you find hard to believe is a matter of fact. *shrug*
     
  8. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The problem I have with this is based on experimental proof. I can expand a large ball of matter with an explosion, and because the mass density decrease, the local space and time will expand with the lowering mass density. We have mass leading space-time.

    How do you prove space-time can expand first, and separate matter? What experiment has been done to make sure this is real and not just a wishful assumption needed to sure up weak theory? What lab test was done to show this?
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Experimental proof for the BB does not exist as far as I know. The BB also was a term of derision applied by Freddy Hoyle who used to push "Steady State" theory, and is not anything like what we would call an explosion.
    It follows from the observed expansion, and the present CMBR, that the Universe was smaller in the past. That eventually takes us back to the Planck volume. It follows logically from " E=Mc2 " that mass does not lead space/time as you put it.

    What actually makes space/time expand is not as yet known, although we do theorise a force called the Cosmological Constant or Dark Energy.
     
  10. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I think the CMBR experiments would confirm the existence of the CMBR and the Big Bang. Guth is pretty clear about how inflation could occur [the physics] to initiate the big bang. Experimental evidence included.
     
  11. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    Disagree

    How does space and time evolve , without energy and matter ?
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Matter/energy sprung from space and time....Roughly speaking, we had all the forces combined in the first instant of time, after the initial event and space and time evolved from the singularity [or the nature of space and time between t=0 and t= 10-45 sec]
    As temperatures and pressures started to drop phase transitions and false vacuums were created, which led the excesses of energy between different states to form our first fundamentals [electrons, quarks etc]
    From there it was plain sailing and as indicated by standard cosmological data and of course gravity, as you have been told many times by many people.
     
  13. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    You didn't answer my question

    How does space and time evolve and create , without energy and matter ?
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Yes I did. You are burdened somewhat though with your plasma/electric Universe rubbish.
    Again, The BB was an evolution of space and time from a hotter denser state....Matter came later.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    E=Mc2 E=Mc2 E=Mc2
     
  16. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Answer your own question . Answering your own question would require doing a little research into the physics of cosmology. Do it and show some intellectual honesty. The only way you will learn is thru river research efforts since river makes it a point not to ever listen to anybody else.
     
  17. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    How does space and time become hotter and denser ?
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Yep, I truly think that is a shame.
     
  19. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    How is it possible that space and time have any temp. values , without energy and matter present
     
  20. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    What is the temperature of space? What is the temperature of time? ? A good place to begin is Guth's Eternal Inflation theory and the experimental results associated with the theoretical predictions inflation makes about the beginning of this universe and possible others in a predicted multiverse. A good place to find out much about this science is the WMAP site where they provide theoretical information how the experimental results correlate with theoretical predictions. Good reading.
     
  21. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    Give a link and/or website
     
  22. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Wow!! This is seeming to prove (in reality - not theoretically!!) to be an informative Thread.

    Although, not informative as for the answer to to the question asked in the OP, nor for that matter many questions asked since!

    It seems to be very informative though as to the lengths some people will go to protect the emotional, logical and mental aspects of their tiny *Monkeysphere(s)*.

    to wit : (quotes edited/condensed to conserve space - real space, not theoretical - not content!)

    1.) - OP initial question and follow ups - (real questions, not theoretical)
    2.) - response (theoretical, not real) and meh! (real, not theoretical) - first inkling of *Ms*
    3.) - an honest (real) follow up/feedback on theoretical answer(!?!?) ^^above^^
    4.) - more answers (theoretical, not real) and admission to no real answer or logical basis for theoretical ones(!?!?) - more inkling of *Ms*
    5.) - non-concur/honest (real) follow up/feedback on theoretical answer(!?!?) ^^above^^
    6.) - theoretical repeating - begin belittling - more than inkling of *Ms*
    7.) - ???!!!/honest (real) follow up/feedback on theoretical answer(!?!?) ^^above^^
    8.) - seemingly defensive attacks for not accepting theoretical parroting - full on *MS*
    9.) - honest (real) follow up/feedback on theoretical answer(!?!?) ^^above^^
    10.) - seemingly defensive attacks - full on *MS*

    @paddoboy
    @brucep

    If you can not answer the questions, why Post theoretical ramblings and digs at other Posters who are simply asking honest questions?

    If you honestly and fully understand the theoretical physics you parrot/repeat ad nauseam in the Thread (Forum!) why not :
    1.) - simply answer the question in layman's terms - not that hard if you honestly and fully understand the theoretical physics
    2.) - simply be truly honest and say that you have no answer
    3.) - simply refrain from Posting - esp. answers seemingly designed to show some sort of intellectual superiority

    I, too, would appreciate honest answers to the questions broached in this Thread !
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225


    That's easy to answer...THE QUESTIONS ARE NOT HONEST.
    rivers has been baiting in many threads with no desire what ever for an honest answer, because any honest answer immediatley discredits his Plasma/Electric Universe nonsense.

    If Idiots are unable to see that all the observable Universe/space/time packed to within the volume of an atomic nucleus would not create high temperatures and pressures, then like you, they do not want to learn.
    Yes, that which I state is the mainstream view and I'll continue to state it while evidence supports it.
    The very nature of gravity sees it as the overwhelming factor in the creation of matter, from as I have already said, phase transitions.

    The onus is on you and other anti mainstream nutters to supply evidence to show otherwise.
     

Share This Page