# Tag Info

-1

Our Big Bang produced only matter. 2. Big Bangs can produce either only matter or only antimatter. 3. Many universes (only two will not do) were formed. One half of them contain only matter. The other half contains only antimatter. The formation of universes will continue. It has no known beginning nor a known end.

2

Ever heard of the cosmic microwave background? The CMB is a relic from when the universe became "opaque" - when, as Wikipedia says, protons and electrons combined to form neutral atoms. These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and so the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog. So photons decoupled and the CMB was ...

0

I've found this paper: Cosmological quantum entanglement, of E. Martin-Martinez and N. C. Menicucci. (last revised 19 Oct. 2012) Abstract We review recent literature on the connection between quantum entanglement and cosmology, with an emphasis on the context of expanding universes. We discuss recent theoretical results reporting on the ...

1

To my mind, the Big Bang doesn’t refer to a distinct event but to a cosmogonic theory as a whole, that “predicts” ( should we say “retrodicts”?) many different events of the deep past. For example, there is such established term as “Big Bang nucleosynthesis” that describes an epoch several seconds past the Beginning of Time. The Beginning of Time in the ...

0

The main problem with this hypothesis is that Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems state existence of cosmological singularity at the beginning of time, unless (at great matter densities) either some mysterious fields intervene or General Relativity fails at all. Cosmological singularity is a thing definitely distinct from a supernova explosion, whichever ...

0

We may be Boltzmann Brains of the type that run simulations ie more of a "Boltzmann State Machine". 1 kg of mass converted to energy can execute approximately 10^50 operations, and that's assuming non-reversible classical computing. Which is quite enough to realistically simulate all of us on Earth, if not the rest of the universe in detail. The fact that we ...

0

$H$ tells us how fast the universe is expanding, relative to how much it has already expanded. It has units of inverse time. For example, if $H=0.1\ \mathrm{s}^{-1}$, then the universe is expanding by 10% every second. Suppose that the density of mass-energy in the universe was so small that deceleration was negligible, and suppose that at $t=1$ s, we have ...

0

You have to consider entropy to answer this question. The idea of the Boltzamnn brain presupposes an expectation of a universe at thermal equilibrium, or maximally high entropy. In order to create the initial state from which the natural processes you describe (evolution, development etc.) require to operate, the universe has to first start in a state of ...

-1

In a flat/Euclidean, isotropic, and homogeneous, Riedmann Universe, such as what we believe our own to be, space is infinite. This can be determined by solving the FLRW Metric with a curvature of $k=0$. The FLRW Metric for polar coordinates can be written as: $$ds^2 = -dt^2 + a^2(t) \left[ \frac{dr^2}{1 - kr^2} + r^2d\Omega^2 \right]$$ Since $r$ is the ...

2

Your questions are in no way challenging. The answer to both questions is the same: it could be, we do not know. Actually, you could also ask the opposite: how do we know that physical space is equivalent to the continuum (the real line) instead of being a larger infinite (by this a mean an ordered field of larger cardinality, such as the surreal line)

0

Um, a snarky answer is that now neither is proper. As Anna notes, the $r=0.20$ value assumes no contribution from galactic dust polarized emissions ("foregrounds"), while $r=0.16$ results from BICEP2's indirect estimate of such foregrounds. However, now Planck has published a much more direct measurement of these dust emissions, and they're much higher ...

0

Thus, the two primary options for flat finite space "shapes" are 3-D torus or video-game-screen. Not true. It's possible that the universe has a nontrivial topology, but there is no evidence for it, and it's not the most common assumption. The most common assumption is that if the universe is closed, it has the topology of a 3-sphere. I do not ...

0

Although I can't find an exact duplicate, you should have a look at the results of searching this site for edge universe for lots of related articles. The universe can be finite - for example a closed Friedmann universe has a finite size. However it can't have an edge because then you'd have to ask what's beyond the edge. The universe is by definition ...

3

So I've done some further research into this question and the result I found is quite surprising. There truly is no set definition. Some cosmologists will tell you (as John Rennie mentioned) to avoid using the term "Big Bang" unless you absolutely have to. However, that is a luxury not afforded to all cosmologists. The more surprising thing is that among ...

3

The total energy of the universe is a vexed issue since different commentators have different views about what the concept means. See the question Total energy of the Universe for a sampling of the various viewpoints. If you Google for zero energy universe you'll find several papers purporting to show that the total energy is zero. However since their ...

3

All statements like "when the universe was the size of a grapefruit" refer to the currently observable universe. As the universe has a finite age and light travels at a finite speed (and there is nothing infinite going on with expansion), the observable universe is a finite patch. I discussed some of the different notions of horizons in answering another ...

3

If we take the simple approach of determining the state of the "jerk" today by assuming an exponential expansion (e.g., $a(t)\sim\exp(H_0 t)$), then $$\dot a=H_0a\tag{1}$$ The derivative of this is then, $$\frac{d^2a}{dt^2}=H_0\dot{a}=H^2_0a$$ And now for the "jerk," $$\frac{d^3a}{dt^3}=H^2_0\dot{a}=H^3_0a\tag{2}$$ The Hubble constant is already pretty ...

2

At what speed does our universe expand? This question doesn't make sense in the form in which it was posed. To see why, let's start by thinking about how we know the universe is expanding. The expansion of the universe was originally discovered by Lemaître and Hubble, who found that the redshifts of galaxies were proportional to their distances from ...

0

As I stated in my comment, our observable universe is much larger than the Hubble radius: we can observe galaxies that are receding from us faster than the speed of light. I refer to this post of mine and links therein for more info: http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/63780/24142 Also, in the standard cosmological model, where the density of dark energy is ...

3

I had a quick look at the paper - its mostly nonsense. The intrinsic light from a quasar is completely dominated by its emission line spectrum and a mostly featureless continuum. The emission lines give the true redshift of the quasar. Absorption lines in quasar spectra are predominantly due to foreground gas clouds at lower redshifts than the more distant ...

0

If I understand correctly your question, you are essentially asking why is it, that we always see a potential of this form: Rather than a, say $V=-\phi^2 +\lambda \phi^4$ graph. Where in the first case the coordinate can roll-down only one direction, whereas in the other case it can roll down the other direction as well. It doesn't matter which you ...

1

There is no definite SIZE to the universe as such. There is however a size to the OBSERVABLE universe. These are very different. And indeed the observable universe is defined by Einstein information caveat where information cannot propagate faster than light. Now, it is in this sense, that Newtonian mechanics fails us, as newtonian gravity (and grav. ...

2

Only in the case of a static spacetime is the metric derivable from a scalar potential. Cosmological spacetimes aren't static, so they can't be derived from a potential.

-2

Here is a short description of Big Bang: Over the years, proponents of the big bang have tried heroically to change the name. They are dissatisfied with the common, almost vulgar connotation of the name and the fact that it was coined by its greatest adversary. Purists are especially irked that it was also factually incorrect. First, the big ...

1

Ulitimately the Universe's expansion is due to the initial conditions, unfortunately explaining why these initial conditions exist is beyond the scope of classical big bang theory as they exist as parameters than can be adjusted. However the expansion of the Universe is not independent of the matter it contains and the Friedmann equations link the rate of ...

3

The basic reason for cosmological expansion is simply inertia. Because the universe was in an expanding state soon after the big bang, it kept expanding. This is roughly analogous to Newton's first law of motion. In addition to this, dark energy is currently causing a significant acceleration of the expansion. (Its effect was not dominant in the past, and ...

0

You are apparently comparing with the expansion of some object, which is being heated. Well, such an object consists of particles, atoms in a lattice maybe, and each of those vibrate. More thermal energy makes them vibrate more violent, which make them fill more space. If all atoms require more space, the object expands, since they all "push" at each ...

4

One. The inflationary period is thought to have lasted from around $t = 10^{-36}$ seconds to $t = 10^{-33}$ seconds after the Big Bang. So while you're technically correct to say it lasted less than a second that's a bit of an understatement. Two. See my answer to What was the density of the universe when it was only the size of our solar system? for the ...

2

The F(L)RW metric comes with very few assumptions, though these are fairly strong: Spacetime is homogeneous. Spacetime is isotropic. Or, in other words, the cosmological principle is assumed. Philosophically this is very desirable, as the notion that there are preferred locations or directions in the Universe is, from a modern point of view, somewhat ...

3

We don't think the FLRW metric is valid throughout the entire history of the universe. If we take a metric of the form: $$ds^2 = -dt^2 + a^2(t) d\Sigma^2$$ then we expect this to be valid throughout the history of the universe as long as the universe is isotropic and homogenous. However we need to find the equation for the function $a(t)$, and this is ...

1

You presume causality, namely that something has to occur to instigate something else (cause and effect). In fact, you presume that there is a well-defined "time". However, our current best theories have problems defining time close to the start of the universe. If there is no clear way to define time then you cannot say that something has to precede ...

5

Have a read through Did the Big Bang happen at a point? and the answers to it. The singularity at the Big Bang is the zero time limit of the equation (the FLRW metric) that describes the expansion of the universe. Most physicists believe that this is a mathematical artefact and does not describe what actually happened. It seems likely that some quantum ...

0

Therefore could one say that the dust actually has a negative pressure p? In mechanics of solids, negative pressure (positive tension) means the internal forces resist expansion of the body due to external forces. If you have dust (rarified set of particles) in a syringe acting on each other with non-negligible gravitational forces, the gravitational ...

4

No, there is no contribution to the pressure from the gravitational attraction between the particles. To see this you need to appreciate that the pressure is an ensemble property, and look at the stress-energy tensor for a single point particle. This is: $$T^{\alpha\beta}({\bf x},t) = \gamma m v^\alpha v^\beta \delta\left( x - x_p(t) \right)$$ where $v$ ...

1

Black body radiation is a statistical description i.e. it assumes there are enough photons that they are distributed according to Boltzmanns law. At energies high enough for a single photon to equal the total energy of the system this assumption breaks down and the black body description will no longer apply. But by the point the energy has got this high ...

4

The following passage is extracted from Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time": In fact, various contemporaries of Newton had raised the problem, and the Olbers article was not even the first to contain plausible arguments against it. It was, however, the first to be widely noted. The difficulty is that in an infinite static universe ...

7

Who is interested can find detailed information at wiki, or here The problem is known (as you added in your edit) as Olbers' paradox, and was posed already in the mid 1500's, by Johannes Kepler in 1610 and even later by Edmond Halley in the eighteen century, and curiously, even the novelist an poet Edgar Allen Poe anticipated possible explanations as to why ...

13

I'm going to respond to (v1) of the question, which asks why the night sky is dark (black and unlit) compared to the day sky even though there are many light sources at night. The updated question references Olber's paradox, which has been answered many times before. Like most things we see in everyday life, there are a number of reasons contributing to ...

0

The problem is that galaxies come in all sorts of sizes and therefore with different lensing strengths. The experiment would be to measure the lensing of elliptical galaxies then compare this with their mass and see if the lensing looks bigger than the observed mass would suggest. The trouble is that while lensing measurements give us the total mass it's ...

0

Since the original BICEP2 publication there has been increasing suspicions that what they had seen was actually just a signal from interstellar dust. We've been waiting for data from the Planck experiment on the dust signal, and that data has just been released. Sadly it looks as if BICEP2 did indeed just see dust and not signals from gravitational waves. ...

12

My view is simpler and observational. Observations say that the current state of the observable universe is expanding: i.e. clusters of galaxies are all receding from our galaxy and from each other. The simplest function to fit this observation is a function that describes an explosion in four dimensional space, which is how the Big Bang came into our ...

90

The simple answer is that no, the Big Bang did not happen at a point. Instead it happened everywhere in the universe at the same time. Consequences of this include: The universe doesn't have a centre: the Big Bang didn't happen at a point so there is no central point in the inverse that it is expanding from. The universe isn't expanding into anything: ...

1

The scenario you are talking about may have taken place as a sort of a "Big bounce". Big bounce is the theory of a cyclic universe implying that the big bang in the past will be followed by a big crunch in the future, followed again by a new big bang and so on. However, currently a future big crunch is considered as less probable because it seems that ...

Top 50 recent answers are included