How To 

What Happened During the Big Bang?



The Big Bang. That incredible, cosmic moment that led to everything we see and everything we know today. When the theory was first suggested, it seemed outlandish. Impossible. Insane. But when it comes to the universe, what seems crazy is often true. We understand the overarching concept of the Big Bang, but what exactly happened? Here’s what we know (or suspect) about the first moments of the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago:



1. First, there was nothing. Then, there was a singularity.
The question of what came before the Big Bang is both frustrating and futile. There was nothing, according to the theory, so there was no “before”. It came about suddenly, instantaneously. First, nothing. Then, a singularity, or something very close to a singularity, which is an infinitely small point, arose. This singularity is what “experienced” the Big Bang. It contained everything, all the mass and all the space-time that would be ejected out in the next phase.

2. In one big rush of inflation, the universe expanded.
The reason we call it the Big Bang is due to the main event, inflation. In a single moment, the singularity expanded rapidly at a rate that we believe was faster than the speed of light. Space-time itself was expanding, and suddenly all the mass contained within the singularity was released and began to expand as well.

The theory suggests that the original matter was actually dark energy, which then converted into ordinary matter. This conversion, which we call reheating, made the existing universe very hot. All this heat gave rise to a quark-gluon plasma. These extreme temperatures didn’t last forever, though.



3. Plasma cools, leaving protons and neutrons to form.
As the universe began to cool, elementary particles that had been freely shooting around in the energetic universe were finally able to combine to form protons and neutrons. Many of these protons and neutrons then combined into deuterium and helium, but most of the protons hung around by themselves to remain as hydrogen nuclei. Eventually, the hydrogen and helium began to collect electrons, which had been moving too quickly to be combined before that point. Once these particles were combined, photons could more easily move about.

There’s a lot more to know about the Big Bang, of course, but this simplistic overview gives a general image of what we know, and how we can explain what we see today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,114
783
2,560
Concise here and easy to read and follow. I note about point 2 "The reason we call it the Big Bang is due to the main event, inflation"

Inflation was never part of the original, standard Big Bang model (go back to George Gamow and Ralph Alpher in late 1940s). It was developed by Alan Guth et al to answer the horizon-problem in the Big Bang model. Energy and information can only exchange at velocity c so the origin of the cosmic microwave background would be very lumpy all over as the universe expanded and not smooth as observed today. The standard Big Bang model has a light-travel-time issue in the model that inflation seeks to answer - as well as find a way out of the *singularity* in the beginning :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,114
783
2,560
If their was no before then how can their be an after? Maybe that was just the birth of this universe among an infinite number of universes. I think we need to understand this is just one universe among an infinite number?
Okay, according to the model of an *infinite number* of different universes, e.g. the multiverse, is this science as well tested and supported as the science that resulted in the overthrow of the geocentric universe paradigm in astronomy and acceptance of the heliocentric solar system? Example, Galileo documented four small lights moving around Jupiter 1609/1610 using his telescope. Using my telescopes today in 2019 - I can see the same Galilean moons orbiting Jupiter. When it comes to exoplanet studies documenting 4150 confirmed now, The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia, does the infinite number of universes model, measure up to the same standard of scientific verification as that used to confirm the exoplanets?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007
Maybe a neighbor universe collided with our universe size black hole that started the expansion.
At some point we will run into our neighbors and begin to contract.
Each universe started from (nothing) just potential energy of void space.
Over colossal lengths of time each one grew.
Will and has happened forever.

No singularity and magical appearance needed.
All JMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,114
783
2,560
Maybe a neighbor universe collided with our universe size black hole that started the expansion.
At some point we will run into our neighbors and begin to contract.
Each universe started from (nothing) just potential energy of void space.
Over colossal lengths of time each one grew.
Will and has happened forever.

No singularity and magical appearance needed.
All JMO
The answer provided does not meet the level and standard of scientific verification that astronomy used to overthrow the geocentric universe teachers in the past, and does not meet the standard of verification used to accept exoplanets confirmed today. Whatever standard of science is used to promote the multiverse model, it is apparent to me (my opinion) that the standard for verification is very different than the past history of astronomy and standards used to overthrow the geocentric teachers or the standard used to accept exoplanet studies as confirmed today.
 
The answer provided does not meet the level and standard of scientific verification that astronomy used to overthrow the geocentric universe teachers in the past, and does not meet the standard of verification used to accept exoplanets confirmed today. Whatever standard of science is used to promote the multiverse model, it is apparent to me (my opinion) that the standard for verification is very different than the past history of astronomy and standards used to overthrow the geocentric teachers or the standard used to accept exoplanet studies as confirmed today.
Standard thinking was made to be broken.
Almost a guarantee that everything taught in physics will be wrong and continue to be wrong.

At best the brightest minds of today won't be right.
All just best guess work.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,114
783
2,560
Standard thinking was made to be broken.
Almost a guarantee that everything taught in physics will be wrong and continue to be wrong.

At best the brightest minds of today won't be right.
All just best guess work.
Okay, so we live on a flat disk earth where the Sun moves above the flat disk earth in a circle, this can be true too using your standard for verification in science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007
Dec 11, 2019
533
198
560
Okay, according to the model of an *infinite number* of different universes, e.g. the multiverse, is this science as well tested and supported as the science that resulted in the overthrow of the geocentric universe paradigm in astronomy and acceptance of the heliocentric solar system? Example, Galileo documented four small lights moving around Jupiter 1609/1610 using his telescope. Using my telescopes today in 2019 - I can see the same Galilean moons orbiting Jupiter. When it comes to exoplanet studies documenting 4150 confirmed now, The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia, does the infinite number of universes model, measure up to the same standard of scientific verification as that used to confirm the exoplanets?
Well as far as I know Quantum Physics is finding some interesting things. And if it isn't an infinite number of universes I think more then likely their is more then one. Yea I know we are just finding planets we didn't know about in this massive universe but I like to think outside the box.

Ponder this: What is at the end of this Universe? I know they have seen the end but if you were to fly to the end of this universe would it be kind of like what happens when you leave a planet? Also if you could fly through a black hole would that be like a wormhole to another universe?

I don't claim to be an expert on this at all but I do like to ponder on this. I do believe in the future we will find that this is not the only universe. And what about even parallel universes that are like this but a little different ?Such as their is still and earth in a parallel dimension but maybe in the parallel one earth has more land and less ocean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Dec 11, 2019
533
198
560
Okay, so we live on a flat disk earth where the Sun moves above the flat disk earth in a circle, this can be true too using your standard for verification in science.
I think the only way this could be called a flat earth is if the whole universe is flat. Such as if the universe was on a credit card. Other then that from our perspective all the planets are definitely round including our earth.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,114
783
2,560
Well as far as I know Quantum Physics is finding some interesting things. And if it isn't an infinite number of universes I think more then likely their is more then one. Yea I know we are just finding planets we didn't know about in this massive universe but I like to think outside the box.

Ponder this: What is at the end of this Universe? I know they have seen the end but if you were to fly to the end of this universe would it be kind of like what happens when you leave a planet? Also if you could fly through a black hole would that be like a wormhole to another universe?

I don't claim to be an expert on this at all but I do like to ponder on this. I do believe in the future we will find that this is not the only universe. And what about even parallel universes that are like this but a little different ?Such as their is still and earth in a parallel dimension but maybe in the parallel one earth has more land and less ocean.
Given some of your comments here, I think you may enjoy this book, if you do not already have it. *Black Holes & Time Warps Einstein's Outrageous Legacy* by Kip S. Thorne, forward by Stephen Hawking. My copy is from 1994. This book talks about quantum gravity and that quantum gravity used to model the Big Bang and black holes - is not well understood. Unlike Kepler's planetary laws, Newton's laws of motion, gravity, etc. those laws are defined by math and tested now for several centuries. I have never seen quantum physics or mechanics applied to model the motion of the Galilean moons at Jupiter and publish a QM ephemeris table for astronomy to use to view and test Galilean moon events at Jupiter and what telescope users on Earth should see along with the time of these events too. In fact, I have not seen a QM electron gazer's almanac published for 2020 like I have for upcoming celestial events viewable published by Sky & Telescope magazine. My point - quantum physics has its domain but not perhaps, an unlimited domain and application for everything we see today in nature, macro astronomical celestial events like the Galilean moons and motion looks like one of those areas and is better modeled and explained using old school astronomy :)

When it comes to other dimensions and parallel universes or other worlds in quantum thinking, last night I was out viewing Auriga constellation using my telescope and enjoyed views of four, open clusters. NGC 1857, M38, M36, and M37 in Auriga. I could plainly see the Earth is rotating in the field of view (the angular velocity rate across the field of view), however, I did not see any other universes peering back at me using my telescope :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007
Well as far as I know Quantum Physics is finding some interesting things. And if it isn't an infinite number of universes I think more then likely their is more then one. Yea I know we are just finding planets we didn't know about in this massive universe but I like to think outside the box.

Ponder this: What is at the end of this Universe? I know they have seen the end but if you were to fly to the end of this universe would it be kind of like what happens when you leave a planet? Also if you could fly through a black hole would that be like a wormhole to another universe?

I don't claim to be an expert on this at all but I do like to ponder on this. I do believe in the future we will find that this is not the only universe. And what about even parallel universes that are like this but a little different ?Such as their is still and earth in a parallel dimension but maybe in the parallel one earth has more land and less ocean.
Nothing wrong with thinking outside the box when the box is probably wrong.
IMO most important thing we can do is question what is believed of today.
 
I think the only way this could be called a flat earth is if the whole universe is flat. Such as if the universe was on a credit card. Other then that from our perspective all the planets are definitely round including our earth.
I always wondered if we are just 1 of an infinite number of universes are we part of a galaxy of universes.

Infinite regression.
Make some seance that if it goes on forever a structure would appear in the forever .
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,114
783
2,560
FYI. At the present, telescope observations cannot look beyond the CMBR (cosmic microwave radiation) in the Big Bang model so all observations of an object with large z numbers (redshifts), the calculated distance is based upon look-back time, not where the object actually exist in the Big Bang model, see cosmology calculators https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html There is the open universe vs. flat universe (inflation) models. An object for example with z=3.0, could be close to 12 billion light-years distance or look-back time but the actual location is billions of light-years farther away. Telescope observations at present do not confirm this component of Big Bang cosmology as telescopes observations confirmed the heliocentric solar system model vs. geocentric solar system astronomy. Seldom in cosmology reports do I see this pointed out clearly to the public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
Dec 11, 2019
533
198
560
Given some of your comments here, I think you may enjoy this book, if you do not already have it. *Black Holes & Time Warps Einstein's Outrageous Legacy* by Kip S. Thorne, forward by Stephen Hawking. My copy is from 1994. This book talks about quantum gravity and that quantum gravity used to model the Big Bang and black holes - is not well understood. Unlike Kepler's planetary laws, Newton's laws of motion, gravity, etc. those laws are defined by math and tested now for several centuries. I have never seen quantum physics or mechanics applied to model the motion of the Galilean moons at Jupiter and publish a QM ephemeris table for astronomy to use to view and test Galilean moon events at Jupiter and what telescope users on Earth should see along with the time of these events too. In fact, I have not seen a QM electron gazer's almanac published for 2020 like I have for upcoming celestial events viewable published by Sky & Telescope magazine. My point - quantum physics has its domain but not perhaps, an unlimited domain and application for everything we see today in nature, macro astronomical celestial events like the Galilean moons and motion looks like one of those areas and is better modeled and explained using old school astronomy :)

When it comes to other dimensions and parallel universes or other worlds in quantum thinking, last night I was out viewing Auriga constellation using my telescope and enjoyed views of four, open clusters. NGC 1857, M38, M36, and M37 in Auriga. I could plainly see the Earth is rotating in the field of view (the angular velocity rate across the field of view), however, I did not see any other universes peering back at me using my telescope :)
I do love reading so thanks for the tip on the book. It does sound very interesting. Have you ever heard of exopolitics? You seem very intelligent so I am sure you have. Here is an interesting link for you to check out if you get time. https://www.exopolitics.org/

Wow! You must have a pretty awesome telescope! Are you able to take pictures of what you see through it? That is really neat. I am pretty sure you wouldn't be able to see other universes or dimensions with the naked eye. After all isn't the universe roughly 68% dark energy. Yes we don't know what it is exactly but I have my theories. Lol!
Image result for how much dark matter is in the universe
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,114
783
2,560
I do love reading so thanks for the tip on the book. It does sound very interesting. Have you ever heard of exopolitics? You seem very intelligent so I am sure you have. Here is an interesting link for you to check out if you get time. https://www.exopolitics.org/

Wow! You must have a pretty awesome telescope! Are you able to take pictures of what you see through it? That is really neat. I am pretty sure you wouldn't be able to see other universes or dimensions with the naked eye. After all isn't the universe roughly 68% dark energy. Yes we don't know what it is exactly but I have my theories. Lol!
Image result for how much dark matter is in the universe
FYI, I do not take photos with my telescopes. I use a 90-mm refractor on simple, altitude-azimuth tripod with slow motion controls and a 10-inch, Newtonian reflector on a Dob mount system. My comments about what I observed in Auriga is more fun. I encounter various flat earth groups and their videos on astronomy like the flat moon that is translucent with stars shining through during lunar eclipses or what they report about Venus or stars. I can say when I view the same targets using my telescopes - I do not see what others are claiming, that includes other universes staring back at me or UFOs buzzing by the field of view or when using my 10x50 binoculars :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007
Dec 11, 2019
533
198
560
I always wondered if we are just 1 of an infinite number of universes are we part of a galaxy of universes.

Infinite regression.
Make some seance that if it goes on forever a structure would appear in the forever .
Well yes. As the ancient axiom states as above so below. We are here inside a planet. The planet is inside the universe. So what is outside this universe? Probebly another universe in which this universe coasts around in.
 
Dec 11, 2019
533
198
560
FYI, I do not take photos with my telescopes. I use a 90-mm refractor on simple, altitude-azimuth tripod with slow motion controls and a 10-inch, Newtonian reflector on a Dob mount system. My comments about what I observed in Auriga is more fun. I encounter various flat earth groups and their videos on astronomy like the flat moon that is translucent with stars shining through during lunar eclipses or what they report about Venus or stars. I can say when I view the same targets using my telescopes - I do not see what others are claiming, that includes other universes staring back at me or UFOs buzzing by the field of view or when using my 10x50 binoculars :)
I think the whole flat earth theory was some kind of psyops created by something such as the CIA to see how gulliable people can be. But I don't know for sure but clearly it is a fact our Earth and the Sun and all the other planets are round. But hey to each their own I guess.:D I mean many people are gullible enough to think some Jesus is coming back to save them.:D:D

I had a telescope at one point but it wasn't very good or worth even using. I am guessing you have to spend in the 1,000 dollar range to get anything worth looking into.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,114
783
2,560
I think the whole flat earth theory was some kind of psyops created by something such as the CIA to see how gulliable people can be. But I don't know for sure but clearly it is a fact our Earth and the Sun and all the other planets are round. But hey to each their own I guess.:D I mean many people are gullible enough to think some Jesus is coming back to save them.:D:D

I had a telescope at one point but it wasn't very good or worth even using. I am guessing you have to spend in the 1,000 dollar range to get anything worth looking into.
Yes, a good, quality telescope can be expensive but reflectors are generally cheaper than refractor models. On my 90-mm refractor, I use a Telrad targeting device that runs on two, AA batteries. About $50.00 investment. The Telrad shows rings with bulls-eye ring in the center as a heads up display - like a fighter pilot :). Align with three simple adjustments screws, point the telescope with Telrad target rings to a point in the sky using your star chart - look into the eyepiece and it is there :) Very easy. Other telescopes use GoTo technology and GPS or Intelliscope like my 10-inch. The simple and cheaper solution is the Telrad device mounted on the telescope tube, software like Starry Night and Stellarium allow you to view your chart with Telrad rings on the image so you can know your area of view and targets easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007
Dec 11, 2019
533
198
560
Yes, a good, quality telescope can be expensive but reflectors are generally cheaper than refractor models. On my 90-mm refractor, I use a Telrad targeting device that runs on two, AA batteries. About $50.00 investment. The Telrad shows rings with bulls-eye ring in the center as a heads up display - like a fighter pilot :). Align with three simple adjustments screws, point the telescope with Telrad target rings to a point in the sky using your star chart - look into the eyepiece and it is there :) Very easy. Other telescopes use GoTo technology and GPS or Intelliscope like my 10-inch. The simple and cheaper solution is the Telrad device mounted on the telescope tube, software like Starry Night and Stellarium allow you to view your chart with Telrad rings on the image so you can know your area of view and targets easily.
Great! I will have to check that out. Thanks for the information.:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,114
783
2,560
Great! I will have to check that out. Thanks for the information.:)
Yes, and a recommendation here. Stay away from telescopes that use 0.965 inch focusers. The better eyepieces are 1.25 inch and the more expensive group, 2-inch eyepieces :) My 10-inch uses both types, 2-inch and 1.25 inch. Yes, I did buy an expensive 2-inch eyepiece to use with my 10-inch too, that provides a low power view near 35x and almost 2-degree true field of view in the eyepiece. Great views of galaxies like M31/Andromeda :)
 
I did not see any other universes peering back at me using my telescope
A long time ago I read reports that there was a dark patch in the CMB and some even suggested it might be another universe colliding with ours. I haven't heard much since, so I thought you would be the best person to ask. Are there still any outstanding anomalies in the CMB or have they all been explained. In other words, if you had a bigger telescope is there still a hope of seeing another universe?
 
Last edited:

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,114
783
2,560
A long time ago I read reports that there was a dark patch in the CMB and some even suggested it might be another universe colliding with ours. I haven't heard much since, so I thought you would be the best person to ask. Are there still any outstanding anomalies in the CMB or have they all been explained. In other words, if you had a bigger telescope is there still a hope of seeing another universe?
David-J-Franks, you are correct about the multiverse and a fingerprint in the CMBR. My telescopes cannot see detail like this in the CMBR, I enjoy optical light viewing in the eyepieces. I have not seen anything on this topic since the Dec 2012 Sky & Telescope magazine. This is a quick summary of the S&T report, 'Cosmic Collisions' in the December 2012 issue which reviewed the multiverse or bubble cosmology. Efforts are underway in cosmology to establish that the big bang is part of an eternal inflating universe which during the early inflation period, about 10^-35 second after the big bang, some bubbles collided with our universe and left behind fingerprints in the cosmic microwave background radiation or CMBR that point to other universes and bubbles in cosmology. These bubble fingerprints could support that the universe is just part of a grand multiverse that is eternal and according to string theory, perhaps 10^500 different universes exist (p. 23). Cosmologists are studying intently WMAP data and waiting for results from the European Space Agency Planck spacecraft measurements to look for evidence of past colliding bubbles in the CMBR. Some problems were discussed in the big bang model that inflation solves like the missing magnetic monopoles, uniformity of space in all directions and the flatness problem of the universe. The largest conflict between calculation and observation was discussed, namely dark energy influence should be > 10^100 than observations allow. This is considered to be the largest discrepancy between theory and observation in science. However the multiverse using string theory could solve this. As the report stated – “String theory could solve this problem if multiple universes exist. The theory implies the existence of 10^500 different types of empty space, with different particles, forces, and amounts of dark energy allowed in each, Guth explains. If instead of just one, every one of these 10^500 possible solutions is correct – meaning each solution matches a different universe that exists in a larger multiverse – then dark energy’s value isn’t weird at all. We just live in one of the universes where the amount of dark energy is what we measure it to be, a value particularly friendly to our existence. These theoretical arguments do not constitute direct evidence for multiple universes. But such evidence might be found. The infinite, higher-dimensional multiverse (the cheese in the Swiss cheese) into which these bubble universes are born would expand faster than any of its individual bubbles, but if enough universes popped into being in this landscape, some of them might form close enough to collide with our own. This collision could leave a temperature bruise in the CMB’s mottled surface shaped like a faint, round disk. Such a disk would consist of photons that are slightly warmer (or cooler) than the surrounding CMB, anomalies that are even weaker than those that show up in the iconic map from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). That’s saying something, because the CMB’s 2.7-kelvin temperature deviates by at most 0.0002 kelvin from one point to another across the entire sky.” – page 23., ref - Cosmic Collisions, Sky & Telescope 124(6):20-26, 2012 (December)

When I view galaxies like M31, M33, and others, I have very good views using my 10-inch telescope and cannot observe anomalies in the CMBR. According to the Big Bang model and especially inflation theory, there is an immense space beyond the CMBR but telescopes do not observe this universe :) When George Gamow and Ralph Alpher developed the Big Bang in the late 1940s, the background radiation was supposed to be some 50 kelvin degrees and very lumpy that would be seen, not smooth and near 3 kelvin degrees. The cosmology department went to work explaining what was found in the 1960s, now we have inflation and the multiverse :) For me, I can see M31, M33, etc. but no multiverse :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY