Go Back   Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Jan 14th 2016, 05:50 AM   #21
Physics Team
 
ChipB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Morristown, NJ USA
Posts: 2,300
Originally Posted by kiwiheretic View Post
Why is the big bang better than its competing theories?
Not sure what competing theories you have in mind - but the reason the Big Bang theory is widely accepted is (as previously described) it does an excellent job of accounting for what we observe today in the universe, namely (1) cosmic expansion (Hubble's Law), (b) cosmic background radiation, (3) ratio of hydrogen to helium atoms.

Originally Posted by kiwiheretic View Post
Why does it struggle to explain how to acheive high molecular interaction, amidst so much energy, in the incredibly large distances over a rapidly expanding volume?
I don't think it "struggles" with this at all. The standard model does a pretty good job of explaining interactions all the way back to about T=10^-32 seconds. The "elephant in the room" (actually several elephants) is that (a) no one can explain how or why the inflationary period occurred, lasting from about 10^-36 seconds to 10^-32 seconds, during which the universe expanded from about the size of a proton to about the size of an orange, (b) no one has any idea what happened from T=0 to T=10^-36 seconds, and (c) no one knows the "cause" of it all at T=0. Lots of hypotheses are out there, regarding alternate universes and what-not, but personally as of now I think pixie dust is as valid a theory as any.
ChipB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14th 2016, 09:53 AM   #22
MBW
Senior Member
 
MBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bedford, England
Posts: 668
There is one "pre-bang" theory which I rather liked the idea of,
I'm not sure I can do it justice from memory on a short post, but will give it a go...

One of the issues that are currently bedevilling string theorists is that there are any number of equally reasonable solutions to their mathematics that could form a self consistent set of rules for a sensible universe.
So why is it that we see the particular set of rules we do find in the universe around us.
One argument is that it is not the only universe.
Now we postulate a new set of dimensions corresponding to variations in the various parameters that can be varied in string theory but still give rise to valid universes.
The theory I ran across indicated that causal waves could be defined within these meta-dimensions which when they reached a local maximum would spark the generation of a new universe.
Note that this event would generate its own ripples within the meta-dimensions, etc.
Note also that the meta causal dimension is not synonymous in any way with our time dimension.
__________________
You have GOT to Laugh !
MBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 14th 2016, 01:26 PM   #23
MBW
Senior Member
 
MBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bedford, England
Posts: 668
Here is a link describing the pre-bang theory I mentioned and how it relates to recent observations in the cosmic microwave background:
https://Laura Mersini-Houghton: How to Find a Multiverse
__________________
You have GOT to Laugh !

Last edited by MBW; Jan 14th 2016 at 01:35 PM.
MBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5th 2016, 11:07 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 534
Originally Posted by ChipB View Post
And recall that electrons and protons are naturally attracted to each other - it takes energy to keep them apart. Once the energy level decayed sufficiently there would be no keeping them apart.
What causes the energy level to decay? What mechanism is responsible for this and does it exist today or only the early universe?
kiwiheretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5th 2016, 01:12 PM   #25
MBW
Senior Member
 
MBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bedford, England
Posts: 668
Perhaps rather than energy level, we could think of energy density.
As the universe expands the energy per unit volume decreases,
so the energy levels between the electrons and protons decreases.
__________________
You have GOT to Laugh !
MBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5th 2016, 01:23 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 534
Originally Posted by MBW View Post
Perhaps rather than energy level, we could think of energy density.
As the universe expands the energy per unit volume decreases,
so the energy levels between the electrons and protons decreases.
Oh, really?! I had no idea it was that way.

So does that mean during inflation its not only space that is being created faster than the speed of light but that particles also are being dragged along, via the fabric of space, faster than the speed of light?
kiwiheretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5th 2016, 01:57 PM   #27
MBW
Senior Member
 
MBW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bedford, England
Posts: 668
That is my understanding of it,
though I have to admit my brain starts to boggle at about that point...
__________________
You have GOT to Laugh !
MBW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5th 2016, 02:26 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 534
early proton electron expansion.

Here is my attempt at a crude drawing what I think might have been roughly the scenario at the early universe. The protons and electrons have the same momentum but different mass. Therefore the electrons have greater velocity.

By the way are we assuming the early universe had a hard edge or closed and unbounded in both directions like a torus?

If my reasoning is correct I would imagine the electrons would behave a lot like simple harmonic motion, whereby the electrons would eventually lose kinetic energy at the periphery of their trajectory and accelerate towards the protons at the centre. They would then reach their maximum velocity at their original position and race off towards the other side of the universe like a giant pendulum. The whole process seems to be governed by conservative forces to me. Why do you think dampening of the oscillations would happen so as to produce stable atoms?
Attached Thumbnails
The big bang or the big fizz?-universal-expansion.png  
kiwiheretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5th 2016, 02:42 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 534
Originally Posted by MBW View Post
That is my understanding of it,
though I have to admit my brain starts to boggle at about that point...
well, if that's the case it is even worse, as now we're pulling free energy out of the ether (or the inflation field??). The particles are experiencing more distance per unit time than can be explained by their kinetic and potential energies alone. So we end up not having energy "decay" but the reverse!!!
kiwiheretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 5th 2016, 07:25 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 534
Here is the other diagram, companion to my earlier one, showing why the the big bang is not stable (at least according to my understanding). Notice since the protons repel each other they are now further apart from the centre. By the time the lighter and faster electrons are pulled back to their counterpart protons they have a lot of kinetic energy and I would say too energetic to be captured by the protons. Without dampening to this harmonic oscillator I am at a loss to see how this could account for stable electron orbits. Even with dampening, where did all the excess energy go?
Attached Thumbnails
The big bang or the big fizz?-universal-expansion-2.png  
kiwiheretic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Tags
bang, big, fizz



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More problems with big bang kiwiheretic Philosophy of Physics 14 Dec 29th 2016 04:19 PM
Can someone explain a bit about The Big Bang? Anonymous General Physics 7 Mar 25th 2014 11:23 AM
How did The Big Bang create the first elements? Anonymous General Physics 0 Mar 21st 2014 08:51 AM
My own take on Big Bang/Big Bounce idea, looking for criticism etc... anti me Special and General Relativity 1 Jul 26th 2009 08:05 PM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed