The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Does the Big Bang Theory result in something like the Ultraviolet Catastrophe ?  (Read 2277 times)

Offline DeeDee

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
When I was young, Sir Fred Hoyle was a household name. What was really remarkable about those times was that everyone, school boys included, knew the answers to some of the deepest philosophical questions that could be asked.  The question of the origins of the Universe, for instance,  was clearly stated by the Standard Steady State theory, as something that had always existed in its present form and would forever continue to exist in its present form. There was little doubt in anyone’s mind that this was indeed the answer, and especially so since  solid state electronics were just coming into being and there seemed to be some co-relation between the two names. From time to time journalists would  question Sir Fred Hoyle about any changes that might take place  in the Universe and he would consider with a characteristic wave of the pipe that he habitually  smoked and state that any changes would be so minor that they could to all purposes be ignored. It was all very re-assuring, restful might be a more appropriate term. With the advent of the Big Bang theory, the Steady State theory was eclipsed as if the Big Bang were still taking place.  Rightly so, some might say, because if there is any one characteristic that sums up our existence, it is that the only thing that doesn’t change is change itself. In any case the Big Bang theory with its poetry, its dynamism, its blow by blow unfolding of events in trillionths of a second slices of time,  the sheer  drama of the accretion of matter, became a seminal experience in all our lives.

A billionth of a second after the Big Bang took place, nothing would have seemed to have happened, a billionth of a second could have passed or thousands of years could have passed, because at that moment time did not exist,matter did not exist, space did not exist, because space without time is dimensionless, all was a void.  Then the whole of the Universe was filled with light from the Big Bang. Yet the light was still it was frozen in place the mechanism for its propagation did not as yet exist. Then slowly the light faded what was seen thereafter were flashes of light as matter accreted in the colossal clouds  of intergalactic gases, but there was a difference these flashes of light were propagating.  The great question to consider is this. What happened to the light which had filled the Universe ? Here it is necessary to consider things from the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle point of view. It has already been widely accepted  that at the really micro scale at the sub-atomic scale, things might be so small that they can never be completely observed or fully comprehended by the human psyche.  The other less well known half of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle deals with the uncertainty relating to energy:
61e7cb31df828f354c957a28eaa2c059.gif
This equation states that the greater the uncertainty about energy then the greater is the uncertainty about the time duration. Thus in cases where really low energy comes into play, that satisfy the conditions in the above equation the time remains completely uncertain. In the case of the photons resulting from the first reactions in the Big Bang, if their energy drops to say 10 25 C, then in theory they could exist for practically ever. Think of what this means, at present only electrons and protons have lives of about 10 32 years, what if photons also posses similar life times ?  This would bring about a certain symmetry to matter.  Thus the photon in certain cases does not travel for ever, it does not travel until it is absorbed by an electron in an atom, in certain cases and certainly in the case of the proto-photons that existed at the inception of the Big Bang, like old soldiers they just fade away. Soon after that first all encompassing burst of light begins to fade or concomitant with it, the fabric of the Universe is born; everything, matter, time, the speed of light in a vacuum as a constant ( it can’t travel any faster), gravity ( following Newton’s theory of fluxions and tensors) had its inception at this moment.  Such a scenario would mean that the Universe exists in a sea of virtual photons, that have such low energy that they react with nothing. Matter is completely permeable to such virtual photons, since no atoms would recognise such low energies, it would be tasteless, odourless and practically impossible to detect. At the same time supposing that the photon had a bi-polar structure, loss of energy would mean that the photons would lose their orientation and be randomly oriented. When a real photon enters this virtual photon field the virtual photons line up in its direction of propagation forming a line whose ends rest on infinity, and the real photon propagates along this line of aligned virtual photons.  Consider the latest theories emerging from the CERN laboratories and the LHC: 

According to theory, there are countless electric dipoles created by virtual particles in any given volume of the quantum vacuum.
All of these electric dipoles are randomly oriented—like countless compass needles pointing every which way. But if the dipoles form in the presence of an existing electric field, they immediately align along the same direction as the field.
.

Now consider the implications if  light from the Big Bang propagated in the normal way and had its resolution in the accepted manner, what would be the result? If one tries to imagine that the light was absorbed by matter, something very like the Ultraviolet Catastrophe would result; absorption could not even account for even a very small fraction of the light that was generated.  What if the light continued to travel outside of the Universe ? BUT that is a void, nothing exists there, could light really travel under such conditions, speeding away billions of light years into the future? Not a very realistic scenario.
If on the other hand light from the Big Bang still exists, it means that the Universe is bounded by it.   



« Last Edit: 28/06/2015 14:22:24 by DeeDee »


 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1918
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: The Big Bang Theory and the Ultraviolet Catastrophe
« Reply #1 on: 28/06/2015 13:13:20 »
Welcome to the forum.
 The forums in  likes you to post questions in this area, but new theories can be posted in that section. So your title and post should be in question form.
I have noticed that long chatty posts tend to get ignored, whereas succinct posts seem to attract replies.

 

Offline DeeDee

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: The Big Bang Theory and the Ultraviolet Catastrophe
« Reply #2 on: 28/06/2015 14:15:05 »
Quote
Welcome to the forum.
 The forums in  likes you to post questions in this area, but new theories can be posted in that section. So your title and post should be in question form.
I have noticed that long chatty posts tend to get ignored, whereas succinct posts seem to attract replies.
Hi Colin,
Thanks, a pleasure to be here. I am wondering if indeed the whole thing can be rephrased as a question. Unfortunately these questions are so involved that a short post may not cut it. Look forward to interacting with the forum, DeeDee
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: The Big Bang Theory and the Ultraviolet Catastrophe
« Reply #3 on: 28/06/2015 16:56:53 »
Quote
Welcome to the forum.
 The forums in  likes you to post questions in this area, but new theories can be posted in that section. So your title and post should be in question form.
I have noticed that long chatty posts tend to get ignored, whereas succinct posts seem to attract replies.
Hi Colin,
Thanks, a pleasure to be here. I am wondering if indeed the whole thing can be rephrased as a question. Unfortunately these questions are so involved that a short post may not cut it. Look forward to interacting with the forum, DeeDee
Colin is quite correct. Posts that long rarely get read. I myself never read anything that long. In my 30 years as a physicist I've never seen a theory that needed that much explaining.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile



re."61e7cb31df828f354c957a28eaa2c059.gifThis equation states that the greater the uncertainty about energy then the greater is the uncertainty about the time duration. "No it doesn't; it states the opposite.Does that affect the rest of your post?TLDR.

 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Bored chemist
re."61e7cb31df828f354c957a28eaa2c059.gifThis equation states that the greater the uncertainty about energy then the greater is the uncertainty about the time duration. "No it doesn't; it states the opposite.Does that affect the rest of your post?TLDR.
This post is very unclear. However if someone is asserting that the time-energy uncertainty relation is a relationship between the uncertainty in energy and something called the "uncertainty in time" then they're quite wrong. That is a very common misconception in quantum mechanics.

For uncertainty in time to be meaningful then two things must be true (1) time must be an observable and not merely a parameter and (2) there must be a time operator which is an Hermitian operator, which there isn't. I.e. it's not a relationship between the uncertainty in time and the uncertainty in energy.

The correct interpretation is as follows: The value 5a72f1304af0783657605aed0e38201a.gif is the time interval after which the expectation value of a chosen observable changes appreciably. To see exactly what that means its best to follow the derivation. I placed it on my website at:
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/qm/time_energy_hup.htm
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1826
  • Thanked: 12 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: Colin
I have noticed that long chatty posts tend to get ignored, whereas succinct posts seem to attract replies.

Agreed; but having said that, I read this one, and so, it would seem, did at least three others.  Must be something about your style, DeeDee. :)

Quote
A billionth of a second after the Big Bang took place, nothing would have seemed to have happened, a billionth of a second could have passed or thousands of years could have passed, because at that moment time did not exist

I have to take issue with this because in order to reach “A billionth of a second after the Big Bang” you have to have travelled a billionth of a second, so time must exist. Even the use of the word “after” implies a passage of/through time. 
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
I only read bits of it.
I find it's often quickest to just skim through posts like that till I find an obvious mistake. After that I stop reading.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Had Colin not quoted the following comment I wouldn't have noticed it. Since he did quote it I'll respond since it's inconsistent with the Big Bang theory
Quote from: DeeDee
A billionth of a second after the Big Bang took place, nothing would have seemed to have happened, a billionth of a second could have passed or thousands of years could have passed, because at that moment time did not exist,matter did not exist, space did not exist, because space without time is dimensionless, all was a void.
That is incorrect. According to the Big Bang theory, a billionth of a second after the Big Bang occurred, matter,  time and space all did exist. In fact they existed earlier than that. You're reason for that assumption is because space without time is dimensionless, all was a void. but it's not true that space didn't exist without time. Time is what we measure with a clock or something that can change over time. Since particles can only move if time existed then there had to be time after the Big Bang, if not earlier (look up Pre-Big Bang Scenario).
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums