Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: jeffreyH on 21/09/2018 19:04:22
-
To be honest I am not sure if this question has any validity. I am thinking of what state would the vacuum be in before the big bang. Did it exist?
-
Would there have even been a vacuum before the Big Bang?
-
To : Jeffrey H.
Methinks your question has more to it than appears at first glance .
It requires acceptance of the concept of a multi-stage beginning to the universe . There has been more criticism of the Big Bang paradigm in recent years , but it has too much empirical evidence to actually be debunked . What appears more possible is that some variant or derivation ; a close cousin , is actually the case . There are many critiques , and conceptual difficulties with the theory but none fatal , IF one accepts the prior precept .
The specific issue you are moving towards can best be stated as :
" What was the nature of space before the introduction of energy ?"
This implies a " Big Heat " , after space itself was created . It also implies that space itself is a form of energy matrix . A very simple analogy would be a steam cloud . It takes energy to collect a pot of water , then it takes much more to make it boil , and produce a large amount of steam . The steam represents the energy released during the Big Heat . This radiation then turned into GUT. matter , baryonic matter , and so on . Dark Matter , however , appears not to be matter at all . It seems related to the substance of space itself .
Alright , beginning space was truly, unimaginably empty . Got it ?..P.M
》For more in-depth examination of this subject , link to NSF thread : How does the expansion of space work ?
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79683.new;topicseen#new
And : Why is it called dark-matter , instead of dark-gravity ?
www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=67557.new;topicseen#new
-
To be honest I am not sure if this question has any validity.
Can [nothing] be affected...
How would we tell?
What aspect of [nothing] could report back to us?
-
To : The Inquirers
I am going to answer that question with another .
Does not Lorentz Contraction imply Lorentz Expansion ?
The recent gravity-wave detections observed waves of space compression AND expansion . When these waves passed , the detector mechanisms actually expanded/contracted right along with them . This disproved the notion that even as space expands, the objects embedded in it do not , due to their atomic bonds .
This immediately means that as the universe expands , the objects within it should all expand right along with it . THEY DO NOT !
This is one of many serious problems with the Big Bang theory. Mr. Einstein had a giant , pulsating point , and I mean that in the nicest possible way !..........P.M.
-
To be honest I am not sure if this question has any validity.
Can [nothing] be affected...
How would we tell?
What aspect of [nothing] could report back to us?
Is the vacuum nothing?
-
Would there have even been a vacuum before the Big Bang?
If the big bang was embedded in a greater cosmic bulk, then maybe.
-
To be honest I am not sure if this question has any validity. I am thinking of what state would the vacuum be in before the big bang. Did it exist?
The question goes straight into Quantum Field Theory, and the nature of the false vacuum vs the true vacuum. From past posts I know you have some familiarity with QFT and the difference in vacuum energy density between false and true vacuums. Remember that even though the True Vacuum in QFT sounds like it might mean a pure vacuum (nothingness), it doesn’t. Even the true vacuum has some minimum level of energy density.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum)
According to QFT, when two nucleating bubble walls collide, particles and matter are produced, and logic says that could seed the resulting bubble with enough matter to eventually produce galactic structure, meaning it might look much like our observable universe.
If that is the case, it provides a possible theoretical answer to your question. The presence of matter in a nucleated false vacuum bubble would represent gravity in a QFT false vacuum.
-
To be honest I am not sure if this question has any validity. I am thinking of what state would the vacuum be in before the big bang. Did it exist?
First, you would need to answer the question: Did anything exist before the BB? That's a familiar minefield.
-
This immediately means that as the universe expands , the objects within it should all expand right along with it . THEY DO NOT !
Mark McCutcheon would disagree with that conclusion. :)
On a possibly less quirky note; Douglas White says:
https://www.dpedtech.com/FTreview.pdf
“There actually is some evidence in QM that supports the notion that everything at the subatomic level is rapidly expanding.”
-
If that be true , then the universe , as seen through expanding eyes , would not get bigger ( relatively ) , but would experience time-contraction . That would , of course , yield a graduated redshift , which is exactly what we see ..P.M.
-
First, you would need to answer the question: Did anything exist before the BB? That's a familiar minefield.
Alan Guths expansion theory has some suggestions on what came before the BB which you might be interested in. It didnt start with the outdated super heated singularity. Heres a pop science article from forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/21/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all/#5f46a7ac55df.
-
Einstein would love Alan Guth's view of the formation scenario . The exact causes & mechanisms will be debated & investigated for-ever , but he has really zeroed in on the fundamental processes superbly . It actually does reveal a universe constant in relative size since the CMB , while solving the curvature conundrum beautifully .
Kudos , Alan Guth , Kudos !..P.M.
-
The recent gravity-wave detections observed waves of space compression AND expansion . When these waves passed , the detector mechanisms actually expanded/contracted right along with them . This disproved the notion that even as space expands, the objects embedded in it do not , due to their atomic bonds .
The amount of expansion and contraction is extremely small, far too small to overwhelm molecular bonds. It's enough to change the distance between the atoms by a microscopic amount, but that's it.
This immediately means that as the universe expands , the objects within it should all expand right along with it . THEY DO NOT !
Because the forces holding them together are stronger than the forces that the metric expansion of space impose on them. The expansion of space does try to move a pair of atoms in a molecule apart, but it's far too weak to pull the molecule apart. On the scale of galactic clusters, the forces involved in spatial expansion overwhelm the relatively weak attraction of gravity at such enormous distances.
-
Ah Mr. Kryptid , correct as far as it goes , BUT... Lorentz Contraction/Expansion be a little bit different ! Everything involved expands or contracts uniformly , including size of particles , electron orbits , PASSAGE OF TIME . A classic example is the Relativistic Rocket of Special Relativity fame . To the universe ( us ) it is flat as a pancake , yet to the crew it appears normal . Lorentz Expansion makes everything in the universe objectively larger , but to the "crew" everything appears normal . The only evidence of the change is the frequency of the light emitted when the universe was objectively smaller and SLOWER .
Get it ? Got it ? Goood !.....P.M.
-
To all the curious , Lorentz Expansion is just as real as Lorentz Contraction . These effects exist because every bit of mass/energy in the universe is part and parcel of the space/time matrix . If the universe expands , everything in it expands proportionally with it , even electron orbits & molecular sizes . The observer inside it would also swell up , seeing the universe as constant in size . This observer would , however , see light from the earlier , smaller , slower universe as red-shifted , in a graduated manner , depending upon emission time-period .
Well , there it is . Subjectively constant universe , but with graduated red-shift . Just what we see today .
All right , critique away Gridley !
...................P.M.
-
Everything involved expands or contracts uniformly , including size of particles , electron orbits ,
No it doesn't.
PASSAGE OF TIME
Time does not have a size and therefore cannot expand.
-
Don't tell our GPS satellites that ! P
-
Don't tell our GPS satellites that ! P
Time magically "expanding" has nothing to do with the function of GPS. Time dilation? Yes. Time expansion? No.
-
Yes. Recall Hawking Radiation.
-
Nyuck , nyuck , nyuck !......nyuck .
..........P.M.
-
Quote from: Bill S on Yesterday at 16:02:03
First, you would need to answer the question: Did anything exist before the BB? That's a familiar minefield.
Alan Guths expansion theory has some suggestions on what came before the BB which you might be interested in. It didnt start with the outdated super heated singularity. Heres a pop science article from forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/21/the-big-bang-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all/#5f46a7ac55df.
Here is an article on Lindes ideas on the inflationery universe, he thinks there is a multiverse out there. There may not have been a single big bang. https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=32024
With inflation theory the concept of faster than light expansion is a bit odd. I wonder if the author was looking from the outside in or from the inside outwards relatively speaking :). Our universe is expanding at approx 3c wrt us on earth. Could the inflationery stage of this theory be viewed in a similar way as nothing special. Beyond the visual horizon of the universe how fast is space moving away from us.
Does any one have a comment on this. Did things accelerate away in the inflationary phase from a big bang flt or did space expand between things, increasing the distance between objects faster than light.
Edit a quick google revealed this paper " abrief history of a multiverse" by Andrei Linde so ive gone for a read https://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.01203.pdf
-
Yes. Recall Hawking Radiation.
Sorry, Pete, I'm not clear as to what this links to.
BTW; I look forward to seeing you in the "Does gravity have an infinite range?" thread. Nudge, nudge!
-
'pparently , it opened , it expanded , it unfolded , but there was nothing there for it to expand away from . If a bear spits in the woods , does it really stink ? or something like that . Subjectively , the universe does not expand . Our big heads expand even as it does . The light-waves are dusted ( temporally ) as we speed up , and what they show us is a Big Heat , not a Big Boom !
Whoa ! The Mechanic's Guide to the Universe ! Haha haha haha ha !
................P.M.
-
.........Answering the Question .
IF one accepts that the vacuum has intrinsic energy , and IF one accepts that the vacuum has virtual mass as a consequence , then you have Dark Matter/Mass . Thus ; gravity MUST profoundly affect " The Vacuum " .
P.M.
-
Well you have 'frame dragging', and that one is presumably experimentally confirmed. And as gravity is result of 'energy' not only 'mass', and if we presume a 'infinite energy' at some Big Bang event? Damn it, it shouldn't have happened at all !!!
=
Now, if you want to make it even more confusing you could ask yourself what happens inside a black hole, then look around :) Now, and again, that should change our BB into a BImp (The B_ig Imp_losion)
-
Is not Frame Dragging prima facia evidence that the substance of space is far stronger than any of the forces it conveys ?
P.M.