# The history of the universe: Big Bang to now in 10 easy steps

#### rod

The article opens up, "The history of the universe and how it evolved is broadly accepted as the Big Bang model, which states that the universe began as an incredibly hot, dense point roughly 13.7 billion years ago. So, how did the universe go from being fractions of an inch (a few millimeters) across to what it is today?"

I point out that inflation is not in the millimeter size for the early universe. We know what Alan Guth said in 2013 paper on inflation. Alan Guth provides inflation scale 10^-53 m to 1 m size today, Quantum Fluctuations in Cosmology and How They Lead to a Multiverse, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1312.7340G/abstract, December 2013. My observation. Alan Guth in the paper says "From the end of inflation to today the universe would expand by another factor of ∼ 10^15 GeV/3K ≈ 10^27. This means that a distance scale of 1 m today corresponds to a length of only about 10^−53 m at the start of inflation, 18 orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck length (∼ 10^−35 m)."

That is something to ponder 10^-53 m and now the universe expanded to some 93 billion light years in diameter, https://phys.org/news/2021-03-myths-big.html, Five myths about the Big Bang 22-Mar-2021, "That which we call the observable universe is a bubble surrounding us that is 93 billion light-years in diameter." So applying the scale where 1 meter today = 10^-53 m at the start, we have the universe begin ~ 8.8 x 10^-27 m size and expand to ~ 8.8 x 10^26 m size today in 13.8 billion years, ~ 4.352 x 10^17 seconds. Space and time expands by some 10^53 order of magnitude or more to create the universe we see today.

It should be clearly pointed out to the public that this is not 3D space expanding in the BB model but 4D space. That means the explanation for redshifts, including the redshift for the CMBR where z ~ 1100, uses a hyperspace dimension where objects with z => 1.4 are moving away from our frame of references on Earth, faster than c velocity. We can see this clearly using the various cosmology calculators available like LAMBDA - Calculators (nasa.gov) or Cosmology calculator | kempner.net examining the comoving radial distances shown. During inflation, 4D space expands some 10^21 c or faster. The Founder of Cosmic Inflation Theory on Cosmology's Next Big Ideas, https://www.scientificamerican.com/...nflation-theory-on-cosmologys-next-big-ideas/

I enjoy some geeky stuff where objective, verifiable science can be presented and weed out what could be razzle-dazzle answers

#### rod

Another note here, the article says about the CMBR, "A key part of this comes from observations of the cosmic microwave background, which contains the afterglow of light and radiation left over from the Big Bang. This relic of the Big Bang pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors, which allows scientists to piece together clues of the early universe."

This is the foundation for the BB model. However, what I find not commonly reported to the public, redshift to CMB temperature plots supporting the CMB temperature extrapolation is very limited as reported. Here is a new report as an example. Shadow of cosmic water cloud reveals the temperature of the young universe (phys.org)

The NASA ADS Abstract, Microwave Background Temperature at a Redshift of 6.34 from H2O Absorption, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220200693R/abstract, February 2022.

HFLS3 with redshift 6.34 is said to match CMB temperature in the range 16.4 to 30.2 K. This is used to claim it fits the cooling rate for the CMB starting at or near 3300 K with redshift ~ 1100 today and near 3 K observed today. What about reports now for redshifts z = 13.27? Do these match the temperature reduction curve plotted for the CMB? George Gamow and Ralph Alpher calculated a background glow some 50 to 51 K originally that could be observed today and lumpy temperature differences, not 3300 K starting point with redshift ~ 1100 with very smooth CMBR observed today. Do we currently have redshifts from objects say z = 0.1 to 13.0 showing a CMB temperature match fitting the extrapolated temperature curve used in BB model? This new report for HFLS3 suggest most studies fall z = 0 to 1.0 range with a smaller number 1.8 to 3.3, now this report z=6.34.

The limited number of objects with redshifts used to show CMB temperature fitting the curve used in the BB model (to explain what we see today in the CMBR), in my opinion indicates we do not conclusively know the early universe was much smaller, denser, and originated at a much higher temperature. Perhaps more reporting like this is needed for the public - my opinion.

#### rod

Follow up note on post #3. Here is a bit more on efforts to measure the CMB temperature and map to specific redshift observations to support the BB model showing CMB temperature reduction as space (4D space not 3D space) expands. Here is another report where z=0.89 and TCMB = 5.08 K. You could plot a graph where TCMB=f(z) where TCBM is Y axis, f(z) along the X axis.

How the Universe Has Cooled Since the Big Bang Fits Big Bang Theory, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130123101622.htm, "Summary: Astronomers have taken the universe's temperature, and have found that it has cooled down just the way the Big Bang theory predicts."

"Context. According to the Big Bang theory and as a consequence of adiabatic expansion of the Universe, the temperature of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) increases linearly with redshift. This relation is, however, poorly explored, and detection of any deviation would directly lead to (astro-)physics beyond the standard model. Aims: We aim to measure the temperature of the CMB with an accuracy of a few percent at z = 0.89 toward the molecular absorber in the galaxy lensing the quasar PKS 1830-211. Methods: We adopted a Monte-Carlo Markov chain approach, coupled with predictions from the non-LTE radiative transfer code RADEX, to solve the excitation conditions of a set of various molecular species directly from their spectra. Results: We determine TCMB = 5.08 ± 0.10 K at 68% confidence level. Our measurement is consistent with the value TCMB = 5.14 K predicted by the standard cosmological model with adiabatic expansion of the Universe. This is the most precise determination of TCMB at z > 0 to date."

So the universe begins at a size ~ 8.8 x 10^-27 m size (using Alan Guth 2013 paper), expands to ~ 8.8 x 10^26 m size today in 13.8 billion years and a limited number of redshifts where TCMB can be measured. Example z=0, TCMB ~ 3 K, z=0.89, TCMB = 5.08 K, z=6.34, TCMB 16.4 - 30.2 K, said to fit the curve used in the BB model to explain the origin of the CMBR and how it cooled. What is the postulated redshift for the CMBR today? z ~ 1100 thus the comoving radial distance from earth using cosmology calculators, shows a distance near 46 billion light years radius.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

Opposed wording that changes the universe and space-time from a closed systemic finite absolute to an open systemic infinite:

1.) Creation view: The speed of light, space and time, is absolutely fixed to the Earth observer both locally and non-locally like a fishing line he, or she, tosses out to farthest distances and horizons, getting weighty, almighty weighty, weighty almost to the point of infinitely weighty 'complexity'.

2.) My 'infinity' view: The speed of light, space and time, is closed systematically local and constant. That fishing line build in 'complexity' has no existence in reality, thus no weight, non-locally.
-------------------------
1.) Creation view: "Cooled" from origin, absolute finite singularly "cooled."

2.) My 'infinity' view: 'Cools' from superposition origin, timelessly continuously 'cools', until reach to universe's radius, physic, '1/2', the universe's point of 'turn'. I might be wrong, but I will advance the view that to the Universe (U) and universes (u), at their levels that is, there is no such thing as any "point of no return."
---------------------
1.) Creation view: "evolved" from origin, absolute finite singularly.

2.) My 'infinity' view: 'evolves' from superposition origin, timelessly continuously, until reach to universe's radius, physic, '1/2', the universe's point of 'turn'.
-----------------------
1,) Creation view: The universe's 'relativity' to the Earth observer has never collapsed and never will collapse. The universe is absolutely singular, absolutely finite, absolutely relative to the Earth observer.

2.) my 'infinity' view: Relativity to the Earth observer begins collapse in horizon (to 'uncertainty') immediately beyond any local and fades to complete collapse in horizon with all distance gaining from the local. The universe has similarity to a living energetic cell. In its case, a cell among cells, horizons within horizons, already divided to timeless infinity (each and all existing in hyper space-time plane).
---------------------------
1.) Creation view: There are absolute 'physical' proofs of the universe's singularity, and singularity of origin, existing.

2.) My 'infinity' view: 'Origin' is built-in timelessly continuing constant; built into the collapsed horizon of infinity (the Universe (U)). The physical proofs attached, tied, to distance by the Earth observer, are not proofs of the universe's singularity of existence or origin. The distantly observed collapsed horizon of infinity (constant of infinity = '1') produces exactly the same physical output / input proofs from it (out of the everywhere and nowhere superposition horizon of infinity). The BC (M) | BV ((C) (C^2)) | BB (E) is Universe (U), the Big Mirror, to the infinities of universes (u) mirrored, mirroring, within. It is the horizon, on, in, the horizon of them all. All, together, a multi-faceted, multi-dimensional, Multiverse Universe (it's Cosmological Constant being base2 'primordial' base, '0' and/or '1' ((+/-) 1)). It's tyranny, no tyranny. It's anarchy, no anarchy. It's rules at top and bottom (farthest outside / farthest inside), few but maximized for being few (not to get religious but to quote two of our greatest physics geniuses-- Albert Einstein: "God doesn't play dice with the Universe!" Stephen Hawking: "Yes He does, but they're loaded").

Last edited:

Replies
7
Views
358
Replies
0
Views
68
Replies
2
Views
177
Replies
13
Views
382
Replies
7
Views
400