Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 48

Thread: How Do We Know (Big Bang Initial Size)... ?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1

    Question How Do We Know (Big Bang Initial Size)... ?

    How do we know the big bang originated from something the size of a singularity and not from something the size of our moon or our planet for example.

    I heard the explanation once a long time ago, but can't remember from where or how it was known.

    Looking forward to your answer.

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,059
    Hi mdpalow, welcome to CQ.

    I've moved your thread from Astronomy to Q&A; I think you'll get a response faster here.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,312
    Short answer: We don't.
    Edit: That is to say we don't know it came from a singularity

    Our models only run back to about a million-millionth of a second prior to the point where a singularity would be if you just extrapolate back (we know that this extrapolation is not valid because we know our current theories of physics break before this point). At that point the entire observable universe was (from memory) of the order of metres across.

    So the things to bear in mind are that the current models don't say much about anything outside the observable universe. We suspect it is like what we see around us but we don't know - because we don't know how big the entire universe is. Also the singularity is not actually part of the current models. You get one by extrapolating back beyond the point at which we know they are not applicable.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    I can't add much to what Shaula said but that I thought the size of the observable universe was much smaller. At first thought one way to look at it is that at 10−37 the observable universe could be no bigger then the distance light can travel in 10−37s. A proton is ~10−15m. Light speed is ~3x108...if I wasn't up all night with a massive tooth ache I might actually get the fairly straightforward math right in my head. But now that I think about it ... this is all dependent on opposite sides of the observable universe being at thermal equilibrium. Which if it was the size it was for a long time wouldn't be an issue either. Either way I thought the observable universe was on the size of a proton back then.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,312
    I am taking the end of inflation as the point where we have sufficient confidence that we can predict a size - current models of inflation only put bounds on how much of an effect it could have had rather than giving us exact numbers. Hopefully when/if we pin down a mechanism for it we'll get better numbers out. So I was going from about 10e-32s (when the observable universe was between the size of a grapefruit and a beachball).

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    Ah got you.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by mdpalow View Post
    How do we know the big bang originated from something the size of a singularity and not from something the size of our moon or our planet for example.

    I heard the explanation once a long time ago, but can't remember from where or how it was known.

    Looking forward to your answer.

    Thanks!
    We don't know that "big bang" even happened

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,506
    Quote Originally Posted by mdpalow View Post
    ...something the size of a singularity...
    Besides, a singularity is not a thing. It's a point where the mathematics - in this case, the mathematics of general relativity - become undefined, or inapplicable, or incomplete. That's because quantum processes become very significant at such an early stage of the universe's evolution, and general relativity does not incorporate quantum processes.

    Further, to talk about size, you have to define a metric, i.e., a way to measure size. This is not so clear cut when considering the state of the universe so close to the beginning.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,059
    Quote Originally Posted by effingham View Post
    We don't know that "big bang" even happened
    effingham,

    Do not advocate non-mainstream positions in Q&A. Q&A is only for mainstream answers.

    If you have not reviewed our rules (link in my signature), I suggest you do so soon.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by effingham View Post
    We don't know that "big bang" even happened
    We know that the "big bang" in the sense of the universe expanding from an earlier hot, dense state happened - and is still happening. That is what the term origianlly described.

    Since then the popular press and some science writers have used it to refer to some sort of "creation event"; it is probably true that we don't know if such a thing happened or not.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,782
    Relatively minor disagreements with Shaula and Wayne:

    General relativity plus the observation that galaxies are
    moving apart unambiguously predicts a singularity. That
    singularity was the beginning of the Universe. GR has no
    problem with that, all the way back to t=0.

    It so happens that close to the singularity, the energy
    density approaches infinite. At t=0 it would have been
    infinite. Neither of those fits in with the known laws of
    quantum mechanics. So either there was no singularity,
    or the laws of QM need to be added to, or GM needs to
    be revised, or some combination of the above.

    I think it is clear that QM has to be extended in order to
    account for the Big Bang. That could result in elimination
    of the singularity without any change to GR. Or it could
    simply alter the conditions near the singularity such that
    the density did not approach infinite.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,029
    The big bang was more a point in time than space. It could have been any size, including infinite. It is problematic to dimensionalize the big bang. We know, for example, the surface of last scattering appeared about 400,000 years after the BB, but, cannot assign it a size - only a scale factor relative to 'today'. We would need to know the entire expansion history of the universe, which is unknown, to even make an approximation.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    Quote Originally Posted by mdpalow View Post
    How do we know the big bang originated from something the size of a singularity and not from something the size of our moon or our planet for example.

    I heard the explanation once a long time ago, but can't remember from where or how it was known.

    Looking forward to your answer.

    Thanks!
    Bah didn't notice this was an old post...that I already replied to.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    We don't. In fact saying the big bang started from a size of zero volume is not really science. It is a pop sci answer that extrapolate further back then the models allow. The observable universe started out very small and we can calculate that back with high energy physics to smaller then a proton but there is a point before that were our models break down.

    The big bang assumes as non zero volume of space to begin with. Until we get a proper quantum theory of gravity we probably won't be able to say much on what happened before the point where our current models fail.
    Now the why was the observable universe smaller then a proton and not the size of the moon? I believe the answer to that lies more in that there is no reason it should stop at the size of the moon. Our current theories work many orders of magnitude beyond that size. The trick seemed to be how did the early universe get big enough that it didn't immediately crunch back down on itself and that seem to because the initial inflation was fast enough to get over that limit.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,692
    Quote Originally Posted by effingham View Post
    We don't know that "big bang" even happened
    We do know that it happened. We have multiple lines of evidence that it happened. If it didn't happen we wouldn't be here :P
    Seriously the Big Bang is the best explanation for the observations we have and we have a ton of observations that all point to the same thing. That our observable universe was in a very hot dense state and that it had a rapid period of inflation...blah blah blah...current day cosmic expansion is not only happening but also increasing in its rate.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,434
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    GR has no
    problem with that, all the way back to t=0.
    We should emphasize that "back to t=0" does not include t=0 because that is where GR fails. Better stated as "back toward t=0".
    Replace GR and QM with a new theory (quantum loop gravity, string theory, etc.) that incudes them and the expectation is that the singularity goes away. Of course quantum field theories have plenty of singularities of their own (see renormalization).
    But this is not GR or for that matter QM. The singularity remains in GR.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,782
    I still don't see any evidence that GR fails at t=0. That
    has been asserted many times by many posters here on
    CosmoQuest, but almost nowhere else.

    As far as I can see, GR works just fine all the way back to
    t=0, as I said. The problem arises only when other physics
    is applied -- namely quantum mechanics. GR predicts infinite
    density at t=0, which QM can't handle. QM can't handle
    extremely high densities shortly after t=0, either, so the
    actual conditions shortly after t=0 can't be modelled with
    current theory.

    The prediction by GR of a singularity at t=0 was possible
    because GR *does* work all the way back to t=0. If it
    failed, it would not be able to predict the singularity.

    And to be boringly repetative, that doesn't mean there was
    a singularity at t=0 or that the density was infinite -- it just
    means that QM isn't complete.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    I still don't see any evidence that GR fails at t=0. That
    has been asserted many times by many posters here on
    CosmoQuest, but almost nowhere else.
    A quick check on Arxiv finds several papers saying the same thing.

    If it failed, it would not be able to predict the singularity.
    In what way is predicting something that almost certainly doesn't exist not a failure?

    it just means that QM isn't complete.
    While QM may not be complete, I assume you mean GR in this context?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,782
    No, as I've said maybe six or seven times in various different
    threads, including previously in this one, I meant QM, not GR.

    And as I've said several times, we know for sure that QM has
    to be extended to account for whatever happened at the Big
    Bang. As it stands now, it can't do that. Extending it in that
    way might, for example, describe how all the matter-energy
    of the Universe came into existence over a period of time
    (maybe a second, or a picosecond), eliminating the infinite
    density predicted by GR. No change needs to be made to GR
    to change the result of GR's prediction. GR's prediction is
    calculated with the assumption that the mass-energy of the
    Universe doesn't change.

    If I have an apple (which I do), and multiply the number of
    apples I have by two every day, in less than two months I'll
    have over a quintillion apples. Certainly that number of
    apples doesn't exist in the whole world. Multiplication must
    be incorrect, mustn't it? It failed by predicting an impossible
    number of apples in a perfectly reasonable period of time.

    Or maybe one of the inputs into the multiplication was wrong.
    Maybe it wasn't a failure of multiplication, but a failure to
    account for the fact that I can't increase the number of apples
    I have in the way I assumed.

    GR might be incomplete, like QM, but the fact that it predicts
    a singularity and infinite density at t=0 is not a failure of GR.
    It is a correct prediction by GR from the assumption that the
    mass-energy of the Universe is unchanging.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    GR might be incomplete, like QM, but the fact that it predicts
    a singularity and infinite density at t=0 is not a failure of GR.
    Well, if you don't think that dividing by zero is not a sign of failure, I don't know what is.

    We probably need a theory of quantum gravity (an extension to GR, taking into account quantum-level effects) to properly describe black holes and the earliest times of the universe.

    Extending it in that
    way might, for example, describe how all the matter-energy
    of the Universe came into existence over a period of time
    (maybe a second, or a picosecond), eliminating the infinite
    density predicted by GR.
    Or maybe a theory of quantum gravity (an extension to GR) would not predict a singularity.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,506
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    I still don't see any evidence that GR fails at t=0.... GR predicts infinite density at t=0....
    Does "infinite density" make sense to you?

    It is the prediction of infinite density, among other things, that demonstrates GR has gone off the tracks.
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    And wouldn't it be more accurate to say that density is undefined, as it involves a division by zero?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    GR might be incomplete, like QM, but the fact that it predicts
    a singularity and infinite density at t=0 is not a failure of GR.
    Well, if you don't think that dividing by zero is not a sign of
    failure, I don't know what is.
    This division by zero is essentially a division of the mass
    of the Universe by the volume of the Universe. If the volume
    was zero at the very beginning, then division by zero occurs
    at that point.

    It does not suggest any kind of failure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    We probably need a theory of quantum gravity (an extension
    to GR, taking into account quantum-level effects) to properly
    describe black holes and the earliest times of the universe.
    Saying that we "probably" need a theory of quantum gravity
    goes beyond what we know. We *might* need a theory of
    quantum gravity. We *know* we need a more complete
    quantum theory. That alone might suffice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Extending it in that way might, for example, describe how
    all the matter-energy of the Universe came into existence
    over a period of time (maybe a second, or a picosecond),
    eliminating the infinite density predicted by GR.
    Or maybe a theory of quantum gravity (an extension to GR)
    would not predict a singularity.
    As I said in post #11, which is not all that far back. And
    as I implied in the last sentence of post #16, less than
    twelve hours ago.

    The prediction of the singularity of the beginning of the
    Universe was so profound that it gave the title to what
    may be the most well-known popular science book ever
    written: "A Brief History of Time" It is the notion that
    time started at the Big Bang which GR predicts and labels
    a "singularity".

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And wouldn't it be more accurate to say that density is
    undefined, as it involves a division by zero?
    No, the density clearly and unambiguously approaches
    infinite value asymptotically as the time is asymptotically
    regressed to t=0. I see no reason to avoid saying so.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    Does "infinite density" make sense to you?
    Rather surprisingly, yes, it does.

    My own guess is that the density was never *extremely*
    high in the first moments of the Big Bang, but that, as I
    suggested a couple of posts back, the mass-energy of the
    Universe grew from zero to a very large value over some
    (possibly very, very short) period of time. But still, I have
    no problem with idea of the matter in the center of a black
    hole becoming more and more dense without limit as it is
    continually crushed more and more by its own weight.
    It would only reach infinite density in infinite time, which
    does seem like a sort of cop-out... especially considering
    how quickly it would reach densities QM can't describe.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    My own guess is that the density was never *extremely*
    high in the first moments of the Big Bang, but that, as I
    suggested a couple of posts back, the mass-energy of the
    Universe grew from zero to a very large value over some
    (possibly very, very short) period of time.
    Maybe you would like to support that in ATM?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by Cougar View Post
    Does "infinite density" make sense to you?

    It is the prediction of infinite density, among other things, that demonstrates GR has gone off the tracks.
    "Other things" meaning what? Time? Distance? Expansion velocity? Something else?
    Depending on whom you ask, everything is relative.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Wild West
    Posts
    9,506
    Quote Originally Posted by mkline55 View Post
    "Other things" meaning what? Time? Distance? Expansion velocity? Something else?
    Well, I mainly added that so as not to be overly limiting in my statement. But the "singular" conclusion typically claims infinite density along with zero volume - another prediction that makes utterly no sense at all. I think it was caveman who pointed out that it is not "the mathematics" of GR that "break down." The mathematics work just fine. But, I would add, the conclusion or prediction that the mathematics leads to involves impossible, nonsensical infinities. When this happens in physics, it basically means "back to the drawing board."
    Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    We know that the "big bang" in the sense of the universe expanding from an earlier hot, dense state happened - and is still happening. That is what the term origianlly described.

    Since then the popular press and some science writers have used it to refer to some sort of "creation event"; it is probably true that we don't know if such a thing happened or not.
    Until such evidence arises showing that the universe

    a) is expanding (Expanding into what, exactly? Do you even realize the logical absurdity of "expanding universe"? The universe is all that exists, into what can it expand if it encompasses all that exists? Ex nihilo creation myth, anyone? Expanding universe is "fact" yet expanding earth is met with hysterical crying?)

    and/or b) the universe has an origin, edge, limit, side, top, bottom, inside, outside and/or an end, both these notions may safely be deemed riotous fantasy.

    Consensus of belief systems is not a requisite of science. It doesn't matter how many people believe in a creation myth, it is still a myth until some evidence arises supporting it.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    Relatively minor disagreements with Shaula and Wayne:

    General relativity plus the observation that galaxies are
    moving apart unambiguously predicts a singularity. That
    singularity was the beginning of the Universe. GR has no
    problem with that, all the way back to t=0.

    It so happens that close to the singularity, the energy
    density approaches infinite. At t=0 it would have been
    infinite. Neither of those fits in with the known laws of
    quantum mechanics. So either there was no singularity,
    or the laws of QM need to be added to, or GM needs to
    be revised, or some combination of the above.

    I think it is clear that QM has to be extended in order to
    account for the Big Bang. That could result in elimination
    of the singularity without any change to GR. Or it could
    simply alter the conditions near the singularity such that
    the density did not approach infinite.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    Not all galaxies are moving apart, your gibberish thesis is invalid therefore.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Thanatos View Post
    The big bang was more a point in time than space. It could have been any size, including infinite. It is problematic to dimensionalize the big bang. We know, for example, the surface of last scattering appeared about 400,000 years after the BB, but, cannot assign it a size - only a scale factor relative to 'today'. We would need to know the entire expansion history of the universe, which is unknown, to even make an approximation.
    "surface of last scattering" is a spurious notion with utterly no empirical referent

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    Bah didn't notice this was an old post...that I already replied to.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    We don't. In fact saying the big bang started from a size of zero volume is not really science. It is a pop sci answer that extrapolate further back then the models allow. The observable universe started out very small and we can calculate that back with high energy physics to smaller then a proton but there is a point before that were our models break down.

    The big bang assumes as non zero volume of space to begin with. Until we get a proper quantum theory of gravity we probably won't be able to say much on what happened before the point where our current models fail.
    Now the why was the observable universe smaller then a proton and not the size of the moon? I believe the answer to that lies more in that there is no reason it should stop at the size of the moon. Our current theories work many orders of magnitude beyond that size. The trick seemed to be how did the early universe get big enough that it didn't immediately crunch back down on itself and that seem to because the initial inflation was fast enough to get over that limit.
    Compressing matter until it is smaller than a proton defies all known physical laws, it is sheer fantasy.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •