Early BB at the edge of time

[Helio]

As per other's request, here is an installment of some snippets I find intersting from the book I'm enjoying, "At the Edge of Time" by Dan Hooper (Fermi scientist).

He presents a nice illustration of 13 eras that I would replicate but I might need his permission. Do I?

Chapter 1:

After the first 10^-43 sec., gravity may have started to behave as we “know and love”.
But EM, strong and weak force “likely appeared very differently from the way they do today.”

“Then things got weird.” Inflation likely took place at about 10^-32 sec. The universe grew in volume almost instantly by a factor of perhaps 10^75. “...every particle was left in isolation”, and space was once again filled with matter and energy. “Our universe got a new start and a second beginning.”

“After one trillionth of a second, all four of the known forces were in place.” Temperatures were about 10^15 degrees. “Exotic particles like the Higgs boson and top quarks were as common as electrons and photons.”

After a millionth of a second, the lower temperature allowed quarks and gluons to bind together, forming the first protons and neutrons.

After a few minutes, things cooled enough to allow fusion to form atomic nuclei. “During this era, our entire universe resembled the core of a modern star.”

After a few hundred thousand years (380k), electrons combined with these nuclei to form the first atoms.

About 200 million years later came the first stars.

It is still unknown how matter exists when the earliest moments should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter, cancelling one another.

What DM is remains a mystery, but “it was almost certainly formed in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang.”

The inflation period possibly involves dark energy.

Our “universe’s greatest mysteries are firmly tied to its first moments.”

Although many thought the LHC would “lead us to a qualitatively superior understanding of our universe and its origins…the machine has not discovered any of the new particles [except the Higgs boson] or other phenomena that we anticipated.”

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, as the 'other' mentioned, may I thank you for fulfilling your kind suggestion

I, and many more, I suspect, found great interest. I quote the following as areas I particularly appreciate:

QUOTE
He presents a nice illustration of 13 eras that I would replicate but I might need his permission. Do I?
I am no expert in copyright law, but I think the touchstone is damage to the author. If full acknowledgment of source is given, and the quote enhances interest in the content (viz, sells books), rather than gives so much, that the reader needs not buy the book, then, imho, it appears that no damage is done (in fact, apparently, the opposite) and the author feels pleased, not damaged. Anyway, that is just my personal opinion. Nevertheless, in the book I edited for Marcel Dekker, I was careful to follow the convention and sought approval for substantial quotes.

Chapter 1:
. . . . . .

What DM is remains a mystery, but “it was almost certainly formed in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang.”

The inflation period possibly involves dark energy.

Our “universe’s greatest mysteries are firmly tied to its first moments.”
My emphasis.

I was particularly pleased with this. As you may have noticed this is a particular hobby horse of mine, and I am pleased to see it given prominence

Although many thought the LHC would “lead us to a qualitatively superior understanding of our universe and its origins…the machine has not discovered any of the new particles [except the Higgs boson] or other phenomena that we anticipated.”

This, again, particularly interests me. Is he questioning the utility of these experiments in respect of their 'similarity' to the BB?

The rest of the quote seem, to me, to be reiterating well known ideas, but in a very useful and summarising manner.

QUOTE

As you state, this relates to Chapter One. I, for one, am keen to get my hands on the book itself (paper, Kindle, or whatever format).

Incidentally, I had forgotten about this:

Has Dark Energy Been Debunked? Probably Not. | Page 2 | Space.com Forums

Helio, Thanks, again, for drawing this book to our attention, and for remembering to come back and tell us more.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Just an extra point on copyright. Again, this is just my personal 'take', so if anyone has a 'professional' interest, they should consult an appropriate patent agent or lawyer.

Above, I was referring to copyright in relation to books. In magazines, or other means of communication, the situation may be different. For example, in a magazine article, the author is not selling a book, and any 'damage' may rather be to ownership of an idea or to standing or reputation in his/her field.

In this case, it may be appropriate or 'safer' to refer in your reply, e.g.,
"The author uses his/her well known expertise in this field to . . . . . . "
"The author refers to the work of xxx in this field to describe . . . . . . "
"This suggestion is based on the work of xxx . . . . . . "
. . . . . . or something similar.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Thanks Cat!

Of course, I’m skipping the bulk of his well-written work to bring the more salient points. Things most already known aren’t likely to make the list.

The LHC may have not met the expectations for new animals for the particle zoo, but it has served wonderfully in other matters, such as verifying the Standard Model. More on this in other chapters.

 

[Pogo]

CC by SA license, I believe, allows an action like this. One is permitted to use a short quotes as long as proper attributes are given. Many wikis use that license, including Wikia’s fandom. Especially for educational purposes, and this site is certainly educational.

I imagine most authors would not mind as it gives their work exposure. Perhaps someone reading this will be spurred to by a copy to learn more.

You see attributed quotes in books, magazines, news items, and science and others television shows all the time.

 

[Helio]

Here is my color version of Dan Hooper's excellent illustration:

 

[Helio]

Chapter 2

“And with a high degree of confidence, we can describe what our universe was like as early as a few seconds after the Big Bang.”

“Unlike people from any other time in history, we know what we are looking at when we look upon the night sky.”

“Without time, nothing happens. Without space, nothing is.”

“We now understand that space and time can change and evolve, and be shaped, stretched, and deformed. Space and time can expand, contract, wrap, twist, disconnect, inflate, or even cease to begin or cease to exist.”

“When mass or other energy distorts the shape of the surrounding space, the straight lines within the space become curved…. This distortion of space and time acts just like an attractive force – just like gravity. In fact, this is exactly what gravity really is… a manifestation of the geometry of space and time.”

“To date, no experiment or test has ever been found to conflict with the predictions of general relativity.”

“Even the GPS would not work if it did not take into account the effects of GR [& SR]. In order to do their job, GPS satellites have to keep time within and accuracy of about 20 nanoseconds.” [As discussed in another thread, UnclearEngr notes that relativity accounts for a net of about 38 milliseconds difference than otherwise.]

The Sun’s mass distorts space so that Earth so that the path the Earth travels “along the most direct route possible, which happens to be an orbit in the form of an ellipse.”

“From this perspective, gravity isn’t a force at all. Instead, it’s the direct consequence of the geometry of space and time.”

“When Einstein published is general theory of relativity in 1915, he didn’t seem to have had cosmology in mind.” [This view seems consistent with Einstein’s responses to cosmological ideas. Even his trip to Mt. Wilson seemed more about his interest in solar physics (and how it bends light) than anything Hubble showed him. Einstein’s diary never mentions Hubble during this time, oddly enough. Also, his negative opinions towards the GR solutions of Friedman and, later, Lemaitre demonstrate a further level of disinterest, IMO.]

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, does he elaborate on what he means by the following quote?
Does he include in this 'biting its own tail'?
Or twisting into a torus, which is 'boundless' in the way that the surface of a sphere is 'boundless' - but only when imagined from the viewpoint of a lesser dimension.

"We now understand that space and time can change and evolve, and be shaped, stretched, and deformed. Space and time can expand, contract, wrap, twist, disconnect, inflate, or even cease to begin or cease to exist.”

Also, it seems that he does seem to keep alluding to Einsteinian view of gravity.

But certainly thought provoking.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

It seems as if it might be heading in the same direction as the Astronomy article 'Is the Big Bang in Crisis'.

. . . . . . we are profoundly puzzled , especially when it comes to the earliest moments of cosmic history. I have no doubt that these moments hold incredible secrets, and perhaps the keys to a new scientific revolution . . . . . . it is up to us to coax these secrets from its grip, transforming them from mystery into discovery.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Helio, does he elaborate on what he means by the following quote?
Does he include in this 'biting its own tail'?
Or twisting into a torus, which is 'boundless' in the way that the surface of a sphere is 'boundless' - but only when imagined from the viewpoint of a lesser dimension.

No elaboration, at least in these first two chapters. He’s a particle physicist, after all.

But this isn’t something new. Consider the hypothesized wormholes, which goes beyond “twisting”.

I suspect that little more will be said on this; it’s hard to swallow even though it’s verified.

That spacetime is a something and found to be malleable helps us understand better its weird early behavior, perhaps.

Also, it seems that he does seem to keep alluding to Einsteinian view of gravity.

Yes, even explicit. What he brings to us is early gravity’s likely odd and even reverse actions.

 

[Helio]

It seems as if it might be heading in the same direction as the Astronomy article 'Is the Big Bang in Crisis'.

Hyperbole, IMO. BBT isn’t on the slide down, but it might be moved upward with new discoveries.

 

[Helio]

Another book I'm reading is called Gravity.... by a. zee (2018). I don't actually read books very often, but I'll throw short-read ones in the "throne room" occasionally.

It is a well-crafted book that holds a general reader's attention. There are insights that are quite helpful. For instance, the history of EM beginning with Faraday, then to Maxwell, then to Einstein, shows that a field is a physical entity. It pulses but it also can simply take off into space (ie photons). This is a higher level of thought than I 'd really considered in the past. This propagation through space is the analogy of why gravity waves were easy for scientists to quickly assume existed.

This traveling through space also serves to connect the idea that light has only one speed, regardless of the reference (inertial) frame. That's always been a tricky thought since it is counter intuitive with experience. [Once one (Einstein) assumes c is the same regardless of one's speed, then time dilation (or length contraction) becomes an automatic given.]

I read in the past that prominent scientists in the early 1900's were realizing that a problem was growing in physics with so many motions we, our planet, our Sun, our galaxy, our Local Group, etc. may require knowledge of their speed in order to do calculations for things like how we interpret redshifts, etc. This seems to have been one reason Einstein thought heavily about light, armed with Maxwell's equations that produced a set speed for light that did match known measurements, as well as, the null result from Michelson-Morley.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, is that "On Gravity" by A. Zee. That is the only quick Google result.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

https://imgur.com/a/qmefoAX

View: https://imgur.com/a/qmefoAX

 

[Helio]

Helio, is that "On Gravity" by A. Zee. That is the only quick Google result.

Yep. [Hence my lower case. ] It is an easy, quick read, though I only take a little at a time due to "environmental circumstances". But there are a number of nuggets that are far better understood when consumed in small bites.

He, apparently, wrote a lengthy book on gravity and was encouraged to write a short one, so we are fortunate that he did.

 

[Catastrophe]

Helio, I agree that BBT presents a cohesive framework. It may be improved in time, but what can't?

We know that t = 0 is, for the moment, inscrutable, and beyond the purview of science. We have entered the realm of metaphysics, with all its caveats. I don't think Hooper is attacking BBT (from the article - the book I have not got) but you have more information on that eventuality than I. To me, he seems to be saying that we may eventually know more about t = 0.

Cat

 

[Helio]

Helio, I agree that BBT presents a cohesive framework. It may be improved in time, but what can't?

Indeed, especially me.

We know that t = 0 is, for the moment, inscrutable, and beyond the purview of science.

Nicely stated! "Inscrutable" is likely the best possible word for it!

We have entered the realm of metaphysics, with all is caveats. I don't think Hooper is attacking BBT (from the article - the book I have not got) but you have more information on that eventuality than I. To me, he seems to be saying that we may eventuality know more about t = 0.

The more I read his book, the more he uses Big Bang to refer to those first events, contrary to how I look at BBT by recognizing the overall theory. In fairness, the most "bang" was in those first nanoseconds, but let's not forget "Big Bang" (coined by its greatest opponent, Hoyle) was meant as a pejorative, IMO, even if he later denied it. [He did offer his knowledge to advance BBT because he was an honest scientist, apparently. Though he made some enemies over the years, apparently, he did not deserve the snub treatment by the Nobel folks when the prize went to the experimental physicist that simply and quickly followed Hoyle's hypothesis for resonant carbon. This was the break-through for all of nucleosynthesis.]

 

[Catastrophe]

I believe that the worst mistake in cosmology in the last 100 years was to adopt Fred Hoyle's pejorative description "Big Bang" as the main attested theory. Imagine - in what other field can you imagine a name being adopted for a proposed model, based on a disdainful appellation?

Cat

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I believe that the worst mistake in cosmology in the last 100 years was to adopt Fred Hoyle's pejorative description "Big Bang" as the main attested theory. Imagine - in what other field can you imagine a name being adopted for a proposed model, based on a disdainful appellation?

Cat

Well, that is what scientists tend to do. When they got the first experimental data on the size of an atomic nucleus (of uranium), somebody who was surprised it wasn't smaller said "That's as big as a barn!" And, from that, the standard unit for the dimension of nuclei was named the "barn" = 10^-28 square meter. A slightly doctored etymology is provided here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barn_(unit) . A "megabarn" is a 10^-22 square meter - and you still can't get a single cow into it!

 

[Catastrophe]

OK, but I had 40+ years in a scientific capacity, and I do not recall such an instance. More usual is the name of the inventor or discoverer, but I do understand the unusual circumstances in this case.

International System of Units - Wikipedia

E.g., ampere, kelvin, ohm, Planck, Avogadro, and Boltzmann. Of course, there are also common units, such as metre and second, and obvious derivations such as candela.

Cat

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Naming things after physicists is an egocentric process in the society of physicists. For example, "cycles per second" was "cps" and worked fine in any system of measure, but still was renamed "Hertz", apparently to make sure that most people would not understand what physicists are talking about.

And, of course, units are renamed to change from one to another standard system of units. I grew up in the system that was based on the length of some ancient king's foot, and now some people insist that I should instead be using a system based on somebody else's estimate of the distance from a city (Paris) to Earth's north pole. Both systems are based on arbitrary choices for a standard length. (Yes, I know that scientists have now tried to tie all of these arbitrary measures to natural phenomena, but those are actually conversion factors to get the natural measures to the arbitrary systems for the purpose of increasing accuracy.)

The metric system just has the seemingly simple attribute that everything differs by factors of 10. But, when using computers, things differing by a factor of some power of 2 would have been easier. If we had used a "byte" system, based of powers of 8 instead of ten, people who count on their fingers and skip their thumbs would find computer math a lot easier to understand.

My personal pet peeve with physicists was their insistence for transforming the nomenclature for radioactivity and radiation dose to the metric system by changing all of the previous units named after people to new units named after other people. "Curies" went to "Becquerels ", but Becquerels are just decays per second, which are just 1/60 times the previously used "dpm" for "decays per minute. So, why not just call that "dps" for "decays per second"? Radiation dose in energy went from rads to Grays, and biological dose equivalent went from rems to Sieverts. But, the only difference is in the names and the fact that measurements in the new units are 0.01 times the value for the measurements in the old units. Maybe there was a little "PR" involved in that decision? People were getting used to the idea that 450 rems to a population is expected to kill half of them within 30 days, but 4.5 Sieverts in an accident dose projection doesn't sound as scary if you don't know the conversion factor.

BTW, note that herein I still capitalized the people's names that are used as the new units of measure. That was specifically to remind readers here that those are people's names, not fundamental descriptions of physical phenomena, such as "cps" and "dpm". So, spare me the lecture on how "unit" names are not supposed to be capitalized - this is my form of protest.

 

[Helio]

Given all the colorful history in science, an etymology thread would be interesting. [I wonder if a sense of humor correlation could be established with time. ]

Sizzle! An editor told me that an effective advertisement heading needs sizzle. “Big Bang” has that.

I suspect the, perhaps, frivolous phrase of Hoyle’s “big bang” used while on a radio show got picked-up by the media. Once this happens, corrections become difficult. Only the Silly Rule can dislodge obfuscating terms, IMO.

This seems to have been the case for Relativity by some accounts. Einstein, more appropriately, called his theory the Invariant Theory, dispelling the notion that all things are relative. The media felt otherwise, apparently. [I did read where a scientist used “Relativity” in 1616, which adds to the story.]

All industries have these issues. “Caterpillar”(tractors) was coined by the photographer Holt and Best hired to take pics of their new creation.

 

[billslugg]

Naming things after people is fraught with risk of having to rename in the future as moral standards change. Today's bridge named after John Doe may have to be renamed 100 years from now when it is found that he held dogs and cats captive in his house.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Um, Bill, I think it is the cat that has me hostage. At least that is what the dog is telling me.

But, yep, we are already there with the name of our latest space telescope.

Maybe NASA could increase its budget by selling "naming rights" like what is currently done for sports venues? Like the "GoDaddy Mars Lander" or the "New Verizon's Pluto Probe".

 

[billslugg]

Hey, my cats hold me hostage from outside the house!

I am not a big fan of buying naming rights. The word "crass" comes to mind. The name is at the mercy of the viability of the company. Enron Field is a good example. When the company goes belly up, the owners of the stadium have a boat anchor around their necks.
Candlestick Park in San Francisco was 3Com Park for 7 years, Monster Cable park for 4 years then after the contract ran out a ballot initiative forced a rename to Candlestick. Meanwhile the pundits called it "Commercial Stick Park". Fans do not like having to mouth the name of a corporation every time they refer to their beloved team's park.

I am currently listening to a Braves game. They just got a rally going. The opposing manager is on his way to the mound. The announcers mentioned that he will be making "The Arrow Exterminator call".