Big Bang Bullets II

[Catastrophe]

I think that Helio has made his point, and that BBT is pretty good beyond its scientifically accepted starting point, viz. very shortly after t = 0.

Also, that science cannot address t = 0, and that a singularity is an impossible fiction.
"There is no singularity established within the formal theory itself."

Just for the record, I would like to suggest, without prejudice, that there are alternatives to a singularity, although these may be beyond our comprehension, or, at least, beyond our ability to observe and, thus, to comment scientifically.

Thus, we have determined a starting point for BBT which should be generally accepted.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Just for the record, I would like to suggest, without prejudice, that there are alternatives to a singularity, although these may be beyond our comprehension, or, at least, beyond our ability to observe and, thus, to comment scientifically.

Right, BBT cannot confirm or deny any plausible supposition where the physics finds such ideas beyond its reach.

 

[rod]

Speaking of the physics of the Big Bang model, I read an interesting report in the May issue of Sky & Telescope.

The Lithium Problem, Croswell, K., Sky & Telescope 143(520-25, 2022, May issue. Here are some notes I compiled for my home database after reading this interesting report.

My note, 1. Halo stars contain about 1/3 lithium abundance as Big Bang model predicts. This is a problem.

My note, 2. Initially during BBN, beryllium-7 created and no electrons. About 800 years after BBN, the temperature of the universe falls to 80,000 kelvins. “Beryllium-7 could then acquire electrons, some of which soon fell into the nuclei and turned all of the beryllium into lithium. This lithium survived…This is how about 95% of primordial lithium was minted…”

My note, 3. “The problem: These nuclear reactions created three times more lithium than exists in halo stars.” My observation. Solutions are presented to the lithium problem.

My note, 4. “New Physics” is discussed (p. 24). Here are some new physics ideas presented. “Particle X” arose soon after the Big Bang. Particle X lived just a short-time, so it broke up, emitting neutrons that obliterated two-thirds of the beryllium-7 but managed to leave the deuterium and helium alone.” “Even wilder ideas exist. Perhaps some of the fundamental constants of nature, such as the speed of light or the charge of an electron, differed during the universe’s earliest moments. Or – most extreme of all – perhaps the disagreement between theory and observation means the whole theory is wrong: The Big Bang never happened.”

My note, 5. Another solution is the fault is in the stars. “Stars usually destroy the lithium, because the element is fragile. Protons split it apart once the temperature exceeds 2.5 million K. The Sun has annihilated nearly all of its lithium. Although the solar surface is too cool to harm the element, the outer parts of the Sun are convective. That means they bubble and boil, dragging surface material down into the hot interior, where protons destroy the lithium.” My note. This process described for lithium destroyed in the Sun is applied to old, halo stars that show lithium problem. Astronomers are searching to show that halo stars did erase their primordial lithium inherited from BBN and the postulated Big Bang pristine gas clouds that no one has seen in nature.

My note, 6. (p. 25), “To gauge opinions about those developments, scientists at a 2019 conference in Italy voted on their preferred answer to the lithium problem. The winning solution? The Big Bang nucleosynthesis calculations are fine; halo stars have destroyed two-thirds of their lithium. If so, then we currently have no direct measurement of how much lithium the primordial universe produced. Someday decades hence, with advanced telescopes, astronomers may discern this crucial number.”

My note, 7. (p. 25), “If such measurements someday succeed and show a high primordial lithium level that agrees with Big Bang theory, the result will affirm the standard cosmology. On the other hand, if the two numbers still disagree, astronomers will need to seek another solution to the lithium problem. And who knows: There’s even an outside chance that Big Bang skeptics such as the late Fred Hoyle – who coined “Big Bang” without believing in it – will have the last laugh.”

My observation. The lithium problem in Big Bang model and old halo stars seems to remain in this report. A question. 800 years after the Big Bang, the universe is expanding and cools to 80,000 K. Just how fast was space expanding? If you use the cosmology calculators and z=1100 for the CMBR, the size of the universe is about 80 million light years across when the CMBR forms or close to 41 million light years radius as if measured from Earth at the center. This expansion took place in 380,000 years so space is expanding much faster than c velocity for the Big Bang calculations to explain the origin of the CMBR it seems.

 

[Catastrophe]

Please pardon my making a comment.

Thank you Rod, for an excellent statement.

Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

CMBR is what it is.
To say that it backs the BBT, is a mistake.
If the Deep Field is correct at 13.4 Billion years North and similar south observing over 5000 galaxies in various phases of their evolution.
BB predicts the age of the universe to be 13.7 billion years,
This allows about 400 million years to evolve over 500 galaxies some much larger than the MW.
That’s in an area of a rice seed.
When you include the total sky, you have over a trillion galaxies formed in 400 million years.

 

[rod]

Referring back to post #103, I note this about the initial temperature reported for the Universe at Planck time in BB model, said to be 10^32 K degrees compared to the Sky & Telescope report on The Lithium Problem where the Universe temperature is 80,000 K, 800 years after BB.

The Temperature of the Universe During the Big Bang, https://sciencing.com/temperature-universe-during-big-bang-4822.html, 25-April-2017.

"The Big Bang The big bang is the instant when the primordial singularity became the universe. Based on observations of distant objects and measurements of the cosmic background radiation, scientists have deduced the temperature at the Planck time, which is 10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second. At that instant, the temperature was 100 million trillion trillion kelvins (180 million trillion trillion degrees Fahrenheit). The universe underwent a period of accelerated expansion that ended well before a second had elapsed. By this time, it had cooled to a temperature of 100 billion kelvins (180 billion degrees Fahrenheit)."

My note. At the Planck time in BB model, the initial temperature is 10^32 K degrees. Space then expands much faster than c velocity (inflation epoch > 10^20 c).

The report continues, "The First Moments of History Approximately one second after the big bang, the universe was about 400,000 times as dense as water, and the temperature was 10 billion kelvins. Matter consisted mainly of protons and neutrons. After 13.8 seconds, the temperature had dropped to 3 billion kelvins, and three minutes and 45 seconds later, it had dropped to 1 billion kelvins. At this point, the neutrons and protons began to form helium nuclei. The first atoms didn't form until 700,000 years after the big bang. By then, the temperature had dropped to several thousand kelvins, which was cool enough for protons and electrons to form hydrogen atoms."

My note. The CMBR is said to form about 380,000 years after Planck time in BB model and originally perhaps 3,000-3,300 K, thus redshift today assumed to be ~ 1100. Using various values for the Hubble Constant or H0, the cosmology calculators will show the radius of the universe when CMBR forms, ~ 39 to 41 million light years, thus the early universe when the CMBR forms is ~ 80 million light years diameter, compared to present size considered about 93 billion light years diameter, comoving radial distance when z ~ 1100 used in the cosmology calculators. The Sky & Telescope report on the Lithium Problem shows 800 years after BB or Planck time, the universe temperature 80,000 K.

My observation. Plenty is going on in the BB model to explain the origin of the CMBR observed today, including space expanding > c velocity. Some things to remember when accepting the CMBR as the cornerstone for the BB model.

 

[Helio]

Because this is a focused BBT thread, I will try to point-out where popular views should not be considered part of BBT.

The Temperature of the Universe During the Big Bang, https://sciencing.com/temperature-universe-during-big-bang-4822.html, 25-April-2017.

That's an example of a typical general public article written to include a little sizzle to hold the reader's attention, IMO.

[I just noticed that my page tab says, "Big Bang Theory for Kids". ]

Note all the errors, however:

1) "The big bang theory of the origin of the universe is a logical result of the discovery by astronomer Edwin Hubble that the universe is expanding." Hubble never claimed the universe is expanding. It was Lemaitre, using Slipher's redshifts and Hubble's distances, that introduced his GR model for Expansion. Hubble stated he wanted to let the theorists make conclusions (i.e. expansion), leaving the data-gathering to astronomers. I think he had other reasons to refrain from drawing the expansion conclusion given his friendship with De Sitter, whose initial model showed redshift does not imply expansion.

2) "If the expansion could be reversed, the entire universe would, at some point in time, contract into a single point in space."

That may be the popular and logical view, but that's not part of the scientific theory given that the equations go nuts at anything less than a Planck unit of time after t=0.

3) Scientists believe such a singularity exists at the core of a black hole, which occurs when a super-massive sun reaches the end of its life and implodes.

"Belief" and hard science are not equivalent.

4) General relativity also demands such a singularity must exist at the beginning of an expanding universe.

And here's where that implied equivalence fails. GR does not go to a singularity because GR is a scientific construct and it doesn't go where the math disallows it.

5)"The first atoms didn't form until 700,000 years after the big bang. By then, the temperature had dropped to several thousand kelvins, which was cool enough for protons and electrons to form hydrogen atoms."

My note. The CMBR is said to form about 380,000 years after Planck time in BB model and originally perhaps 3,000-3,300 K, thus redshift today assumed to be ~ 1100....

Yes, that's my understanding as well.

 

[rod]

Concerning the cosmological singularity in the BB model, this was reported many years ago.

Give Peas a Chance, Astronomy 27(9):38-46, 1999, Sep-1999.

Astronomy magazine in 1999 reported on efforts by Neil Turok and Stephen Hawking to answer what put the bang in the big bang. It turn out to be a pea instanton. This sidesteps the dreaded singularity in the big bang and inflation model. "One can predict everything about the universe from this initial instanton", Turok says, "The calculations are very precise", p. 38. Of course critics like Andrei Linde dismiss the instanton as an abstract of higher math with no reality to it."

"The singularity is what you'd see if the classic movie of the Big Bang and subsequent cosmic evolution were run in reverse to the opening frame. All the planets, all the stars, all the galaxies, all the intergalactic gas and dust, in short, all the matter and energy in the universe, would zoom backward in time and converge into an infinitely tiny, infinitely dense-and singularly unexplainable-speck. Here, all the laws by which scientists explain nature would break down…'The problem we have is that every particle in the universe originated in the singularity,' says Neil Turok, a mathematical physicist at Cambridge University in England. 'That's unacceptable because there are no laws of physics that tell you how they came out of it.' And so scientists are seeking to refine their explanation of the ultimate origin of the universe." - p. 38.

 

[rod]

Because this is a focused BBT thread, I will try to point-out where popular views should not be considered part of BBT.


That's an example of a typical general public article written to include a little sizzle to hold the reader's attention, IMO.

[I just noticed that my page tab says, "Big Bang Theory for Kids". ]

Note all the errors, however:

1) "The big bang theory of the origin of the universe is a logical result of the discovery by astronomer Edwin Hubble that the universe is expanding." Hubble never claimed the universe is expanding. It was Lemaitre, using Slipher's redshifts and Hubble's distances, that introduced his GR model for Expansion. Hubble stated he wanted to let the theorists make conclusions (i.e. expansion), leaving the data-gathering to astronomers. I think he had other reasons to refrain from drawing the expansion conclusion given his friendship with De Sitter, whose initial model showed redshift does not imply expansion.

2) "If the expansion could be reversed, the entire universe would, at some point in time, contract into a single point in space."

That may be the popular and logical view, but that's not part of the scientific theory given that the equations go nuts at anything less than a Planck unit of time after t=0.

3) Scientists believe such a singularity exists at the core of a black hole, which occurs when a super-massive sun reaches the end of its life and implodes.

"Belief" and hard science are not equivalent.

4) General relativity also demands such a singularity must exist at the beginning of an expanding universe.

And here's where that implied equivalence fails. GR does not go to a singularity because GR is a scientific construct and it doesn't go where the math disallows it.

5)"The first atoms didn't form until 700,000 years after the big bang. By then, the temperature had dropped to several thousand kelvins, which was cool enough for protons and electrons to form hydrogen atoms."

Yes, that's my understanding as well.

See my post #108 quoting concerning the cosmological singularity in the BB model. Helio, what is the starting temperature of the Universe at the Planck time if it is not 10^32 K as the source I used said?

 

[Helio]

Concerning the cosmological singularity in the BB model, this was reported many years ago.

Give Peas a Chance, Astronomy 27(9):38-46, 1999, Sep-1999.

Astronomy magazine in 1999 reported on efforts by Neil Turok and Stephen Hawking to answer what put the bang in the big bang. It turn out to be a pea instanton. This sidesteps the dreaded singularity in the big bang and inflation model. "One can predict everything about the universe from this initial instanton", Turok says, "The calculations are very precise", p. 38. Of course critics like Andrei Linde dismiss the instanton as an abstract of higher math with no reality to it."

"The singularity is what you'd see if the classic movie of the Big Bang and subsequent cosmic evolution were run in reverse to the opening frame. All the planets, all the stars, all the galaxies, all the intergalactic gas and dust, in short, all the matter and energy in the universe, would zoom backward in time and converge into an infinitely tiny, infinitely dense-and singularly unexplainable-speck. Here, all the laws by which scientists explain nature would break down…'The problem we have is that every particle in the universe originated in the singularity,' says Neil Turok, a mathematical physicist at Cambridge University in England. 'That's unacceptable because there are no laws of physics that tell you how they came out of it.' And so scientists are seeking to refine their explanation of the ultimate origin of the universe." - p. 38.

Yes, no doubt there are many scientists who favor, if not enjoy, talking about a singularity for the beginning and still within BBT. But the quote you included is very telling, "Of course critics like Andrei Linde dismiss the instanton as an abstract of higher math with no reality to it." I like the "of course" part.

A new thread, similar to this one, that provides objective evidence bullets -- unambiguous things we can test or observe -- would be very helpful in advancing the idea that a singularity is science, not pseudoscience or metaphysics.

If the reports I've read that note how the "wheels come of the wagon" in particle physics when at the Planck time point in BBT, it is a safe bet that we aren't able to include a singularity in BBT, at least not yet.

Is it even important to include a singularity in BBT? I don't see why it would be, though it adds a lot of extra sizzle that writers, editors and speakers enjoy.

 

[Helio]

See my post #108 quoting concerning the cosmological singularity in the BB model. Helio, what is the starting temperature of the Universe at the Planck time if it is not 10^32 K as the source I used said?

Rod, I find it too rare that you make errors for me to justify checking these things since your efforts are certainly trustworthy. My questions were directed to those you quoted, of course, who made common errors worth pointing out, IMO, especially in this thread.

 

[rod]

FYI, the Big Bang cosmological singularity is found in many papers, e.g. NASA ADS Abstract service.

Emergent universe from Energy-Momentum Squared Gravity, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PDU....3601013K/abstract, June 2022.

"In order to bypass the big bang singularity, we develop an emergent universe scenario within a covariant extension of General Relativity known as "Energy-Momentum Squared Gravity". The extra terms of the model emerge in the high energy regime. Considering dynamics in a Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker background, critical points, representing stable Einstein static states of the phase space, result as solutions. It then turns out that as the equation of state parameter ω gradually declines from a constant value as t → - ∞ , eventually some of the static past eternal solutions find the chance to naturally enter into thermal history through a graceful exit mechanism. In this way, the successful realization of the emergent universe allows an expanding thermal history without the big bang singularity for the spatially flat universe free of cosmological constant."

Using Google or MS BING will disclose many discussions on the *cosmological singularity* that appears in the FRW GR metric used in BB model. I considered this a component of BBT that is avoided in many discussions. Also starting temperature of the Universe at Planck time, 10^32 K. Many other features are buried inside BBT that should be plain to the public like cooling rate from 10^32 K to 80,000 K at 800 years after Planck time, as well as the rate of space expansion used, > c velocity all the way out to 46 Gyr light years today using the comoving radial distance for CMBR at z ~ 1100. Just my opinion about BBT discussions in general.

 

[Helio]

FYI, the Big Bang cosmological singularity is found in many papers, e.g. NASA ADS Abstract service.

Emergent universe from Energy-Momentum Squared Gravity, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PDU....3601013K/abstract, June 2022.

"In order to bypass the big bang singularity, we develop an emergent universe scenario within a covariant extension of General Relativity known as "Energy-Momentum Squared Gravity". The extra terms of the model emerge in the high energy regime. Considering dynamics in a Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker background, critical points, representing stable Einstein static states of the phase space, result as solutions. It then turns out that as the equation of state parameter ω gradually declines from a constant value as t → - ∞ ,...

This is using the math in FLRW to not only go to t=0, but to go back to negative infinity in time. There are a lot of solutions, no doubt, using math, but physics requires more.

Here is another paper that seems to do something similar with the math of FLRW. Note their qualifiers:

"We will not explore here the possibility that the Big Bang singularity is prevented to exist by quantum or other kind of effects, because we don’t have the complete theory which is supposed to unify General Relativity and Quantum Theory. What we will do in the following is to push the limits of General Relativity to see what happens at the Big Bang singularity, in the context of the FLRW model. We will see that the singularities are not a problem, even if we don’t modify General Relativity and we don’t assume very repulsive forces to prevent the singularity."

So, IMO, when physicists claim that the "wheels come off the wagon", they mean the math that covers all of physics, which must include QM, apparently.

I still doubt that there is a consensus favoring a singularity as actually being a part of BBT. Some doubt Inflation is part of it.

Also, I'd still like to see a bullet list. What test can we give scientists to verify this FLRW claim, especially the one that goes to neg. infinity?

Added: We should be very careful as a society to never let science transition to a belief system. We've gotten a taste of this recently regarding those that adopted belief in certain medical claims that failed the science test (of others) from the start.

 

[Harry Costas]

Backing the BBT by opinions.
One needs to remember the BB theory is based not on evidence but! On opinions backed by many scientists.
As for the Temperature 380 million years after a theoretical time that cannot be justified,
James Webb will give us an update soon.
It will look deeper and deeper and expose more observations,
As for the BBT occurring everywhere at the same time, producing Nucleosynthesis of all matter from a plank scale,
Think about the maths

 

[Catastrophe]

This thread is about the information bullets posted by Helio, and I think that he has done a first class job. I am happy that the BBT (as from just after t = 0) is adequately backed up by sufficient scientific evidence, and that Helio's bullets cover this comprehensively.

My personal belief, and it is only that, is that the singularity fiction is about as believable as cloud cuckoo land, and will be accepted at the same time as flying elephants with helicopter style rotors. Believing it won't make it happen. But, still, as I said, that is only my personal opinion.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Thanks Cat.

If one wants to tear down a tall building, then its pillars must come down. These "bullets" are those pillars. They aren't opinions; they are objective evidence supporting BBT. They, however, are not absolutes or proofs for BBT as science avoids such things. Perhaps someday one or more will be falsified, but objective evidence will be required to do so.

Any alternative theory must address each one of these. Beliefs and handwaving alone will not present an alternative theory worthy to be called a scientific theory.

The BBT predicts each of these bullets so it stands far above any other. Alternatives, of course, are very welcome, but not subjective suppositions.

 

[Catastrophe]

I would just like to clear up one point.

I accept BBT as a working model. I am not qualified to go into detail, but I accept Helio's points, and I do congratulate him on a good logical summary.

My interest is much closer to t = 0, where infinity, by division by zero becomes an issue.
If I understand correctly, "singularity" was once almost mainstream? In my view, singularity is the product (what is the correct mathematical term?) of division by zero. It does (and never did) exist in the real world. At least, not in our 5% of it. Nexus is equally (IMHO) problematical, fictitious, unreal. Singularity once had some acceptance by the mainstream community, and is somehow "better" than "nexus". Balderdash! I think that is a good old English word, but I could be wrong.

Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

Sometimes bullets land where we want.

 

[Spaceman11232]

Here is a tweaked and more colorful version of the prior arguments favoring Big Bang Theory. [Comments welcome, of course.]

[/url​

]

[url=https://postimg.cc/1fnG4G7L]

​

I have been reading about the Big Bang. and actually its part of the Visual Universe, whereas, on either sides there is the Universe that we can not see. that was not part of the Big Bang.The beginning of the Big Bang started in trillionths of a second. More later.

 

[Catastrophe]

Welcome to Spaceman 11232. Some thoughts for you to consider before your further comments:

"The beginning of the Big Bang started in trillionths of a second. More later."

Are we soon to expect reference to include the tiny amount of time between t = 0 and the BB itself, viz., the period which is not covered by science, due to inclusion of division by zero?

Also, the part of the Universe is assumed to be beyond the observable universe since it is now too far away for light to reach us. This means that it is part of the total Universe, and not some separate entity which exists separately from the observable universe. "And/or" are we to infer that the Universe is cyclic (suggested by the content "on either sides there is the Universe that we can not see")?

I know the answer = "Wait and see". So I am just trying to help it along a little by suggesting some "food for thought" which might be constructive meanwhile. Cat

 

[Helio]

I have been reading about the Big Bang. and actually its part of the Visual Universe, whereas, on either sides there is the Universe that we can not see. that was not part of the Big Bang.The beginning of the Big Bang started in trillionths of a second. More later.

Welcome aboard!

The original model (theory), interestingly, addressed the current expansion by using GR, thus Lemaitre wisely avoided the QM issues that dominant the Universe in that first instant.

It helps, IMO, to look at BBT the way it was proposed - current expansion + rewinding time.

The BULLETS OP lists the important objective elements that greatly strengthen the original, but tweaked, model. Any alternative model will have to explain these observations.

The current limit to direct observations is the CMBR, so we seem able to see 99.98% (time) of the universe, if you have a really large telescope.

There is hope neutrino mapping may be possible, which would take us extremely close to those early nanoseconds.

 

[Helio]

As a reminder, we are able to observe light that was emitted from regions that were traveling faster than c....relative to Earth. This light traveling towards us, simply soon enters a region that is traveling < c. Light emitted from this slower region will be traveling at the same speed as the more distant light.

 

[OliverClosehuf]

Glad I found this thread. I've always wondered why the expansion of the universe was run backwards to a singularity instead of stopping sooner, like at the big tear, or the big hernia, or the big flush (gives a new meaning to dark matter)

So with the modeling that's been done, has the suspected flash point of the big bang been identified?

 

[Helio]

So with the modeling that's been done, has the suspected flash point of the big bang been identified?

There seems to have been only one ingredient available just after the beginning (t=0) — energy. Physics can model to about t=1E-43 sec (1 Planck unit). Expansion was happening, thus cooling took place. This allowed quarks to emerge out of energy (e=mc^2). Then electrons, protons, etc. formed with more expansion/cooling.

 

[Catastrophe]

To me, this is a serious question. I see an issue, and just seek clarification, if I don't understand it.

I am very worries about these "1000 trillion degrees Celsius at just a tiny fraction of a second after the explosion" Afaics, these are based on a singularity at t = 0 (which is admittedly beyond the purview of science). My interest (not hobbyhorse) is this: In a cyclic model there is no singularity and thus temperatures need not be so extreme. Without these extreme temperatures, we do not need extremely short time intervals, like 1E-43 sec .. Is it the case that what is attributed to 1E-43 sec might have really been have taken a million years, or even a lot more? Are time distortions exponentially greater as we approach t = 0?

I hope someone will enlighten me as to how incredibly tiny time intervals are relevant to time units based on the (varying) rotation time of an obscure planet billions of years later. There is obviously some "translation" involved.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not trying to attack the conventional picture - I am seeking to understand issues which, to me, seem incomprehensible.

Cat