OT: Very well-written article on Cosmic Inflation and the Big Bang

[LionJim]

News to me: The Big Bang happened but isn’t quite the very first thing that happened. Cosmic Inflation is. I will check but recall reading that the Big Bang happened around one second after the singularity.

This guy is a terrific writer. Very clear with no wasted phrases. Clear as a bell, bravo.

Surprise: the Big Bang isn't the beginning of the universe anymore

We used to think the Big Bang meant the universe began from a singularity. Nearly 100 years later, we're not so sure.

bigthink.com

 

[PrtLng Lion]

Good article, pretty persuasive. I, for one, always had problems with infinity (infinitely large, infinitesimally small, infinitely high temperature, etc.) because I think they're concepts with no actual physical manifestation (like "nothing"). So this inflation before Big Bang makes more sense to me.

I also like that Siegel says we just can't know how/if the universe started. Too many scientists that are certain they "know" the answers.

The author made a statement towards the end which didn't seem to be explained: "When inflation ended, the universe reheated to a high, but not arbitrarily high, temperature, giving us the hot, dense, and expanding universe that grew into what we inhabit today." What caused it to reheat?

Edit: this also seems to add possible credibility to the Turok/Steinhardt cyclic universe theory.

 

[Leo Ridens]

News to me: The Big Bang happened but isn’t quite the very first thing that happened. Cosmic Inflation is. I will check but recall reading that the Big Bang happened around one second after the singularity.

This guy is a terrific writer. Very clear with no wasted phrases. Clear as a bell, bravo.

Surprise: the Big Bang isn't the beginning of the universe anymore

We used to think the Big Bang meant the universe began from a singularity. Nearly 100 years later, we're not so sure.

bigthink.com

Nice article. Cosmic inflation was originally developed to explain why we do not observe magnetic monopoles. According to Dirac and others, there is no reason why they should not exist. Cosmic inflation at a very early stage would have them swept away so that their density per cubic meter in our region is unsetectably small (but not zero). The other predictions following from cosmic inflation are an unexpected bonus.

 

[Woodpecker]

 

[Cletus11]

Been listening to some Carl Sagan video's on youtube the last few weeks. There are a lot of nice 5-15 minutes video's of his show back in the 70's and 80's I think is when it aired. If you haven't watched him since you were a kid or never watched them at all, highly suggest it. We need another person like him out there now, when you listen to his stuff, he weaves both astronomy with normal human every day things and philosophy without jamming it down your throat like everything is done now-a-days.

 

[91Joe95]

I've been extremely skeptical of the Big Bang Theory since I realized no one had a clue where the center of the universe was supposed to be. I also find not being able to address how long the singularity existed, nor what caused the imbalance that caused the explosion troubling.

 

[sluggo72]

Open this thread or the new hooters outfits????

 

[91Joe95]

Open this thread or the new hooters outfits????

Inflation is real.

 

[sluggo72]

Inflation is real.

I thought it didn’t effect the wealthy

 

[GOLDBANGER]

Nice article. Cosmic inflation was originally developed to explain why we do not observe magnetic monopoles. According to Dirac and others, there is no reason why they should not exist. Cosmic inflation at a very early stage would have them swept away so that their density per cubic meter in our region is unsetectably small (but not zero). The other predictions following from cosmic inflation are an unexpected bonus.

I thought the theory of inflation was developed to explain the uniformity of temperature across the universe. Not a physicist BTW. Just a business guy fascinated by this topic.

 

[LionJim]

I've been extremely skeptical of the Big Bang Theory since I realized no one had a clue where the center of the universe was supposed to be. I also find not being able to address how long the singularity existed, nor what caused the imbalance that caused the explosion troubling.

The singularity occurred at t=0, and only at t=0. When t>0, we’re past the singularity. The mathematics and physics work fine when t>0 but break down at t=0.

As for being skeptical of the Big Bang Theory because no one can identify the center of the universe, it’s not a problem because there is no center of the universe. People make the mistake of visualizing the Big Bang as being similar to a explosion of a stick of dynamite or a bomb, an explosion with a defined center. The Big Bang wasn’t like this at all. If there were a center of the universe then the universe would look different depending on where you look. It isn’t like this at all: it all looks the same in whichever direction you look, and wherever in the universe you look from.

Where Is the Center of the Universe?

The universe has no center, at least according to the leading explanations for how it expanded in the moments after the Big Bang.

www.google.com

 

[TiredOldLion]

I thought I read the Inflation theory is not able to define t=0 status because it can only approach 0 but never be 0 because of the infinity issue.
Interesting article but above me but after trying to follow thru with the author it seems he punted at the end and still declared victory.

 

[91Joe95]

The singularity occurred at t=0, and only at t=0. When t>0, we’re past the singularity. The mathematics and physics work fine when t>0 but break down at t=0.

As for being skeptical of the Big Bang Theory because no one can identify the center of the universe, it’s not a problem because there is no center of the universe.

Where Is the Center of the Universe?

The universe has no center, at least according to the leading explanations for how it expanded in the moments after the Big Bang.

www.google.com

So if I understand this correctly for the big bang theory, the singularity formed and instantly exploded. There was nothing before it, or matter and energy simply hadn't coalesced? Any theories on what caused the trigger?

 

[rudedude]

You got your cosmic inflation, I got my Cosmik Debris!

 

[LionJim]

So if I understand this correctly for the big bang theory, the singularity formed and instantly exploded. There was nothing before it, or matter and energy simply hadn't coalesced? Any theories on what caused the trigger?

We are unable to make any predictions for t<0. Your final question, it’s above my pay grade.

 

[Nit Nolte]

Lowes. I prefer blue over orange

 

[rudedude]

Lowes. I prefer blue over orange

There was a Lowe’s during the Big Bang?

 

[Leo Ridens]

So if I understand this correctly for the big bang theory, the singularity formed and instantly exploded. There was nothing before it, or matter and energy simply hadn't coalesced? Any theories on what caused the trigger?

Some cosmologists postulate a single quantum fluctuation that continued in time (and actually created both time and space) with a total net energy of the universe = 0. This could be true if all the mass (E = mc^2) and non-mass (i.e., kinetic) energy of the universe was exactly balanced by the total negative potential energy of gravitational attraction. This is not my area of physics but I have cosmologist friends who tell me such strange things, and I have tried to read some of the technical papers. Weird stuff.

 

[Jerry]

News to me: The Big Bang happened but isn’t quite the very first thing that happened. Cosmic Inflation is. I will check but recall reading that the Big Bang happened around one second after the singularity.

This guy is a terrific writer. Very clear with no wasted phrases. Clear as a bell, bravo.

Surprise: the Big Bang isn't the beginning of the universe anymore

We used to think the Big Bang meant the universe began from a singularity. Nearly 100 years later, we're not so sure.

bigthink.com

From the article: And yet, instead, what we’re observing is that the universe’s initial expansion rate and the total amount of matter and energy within it balance as perfectly as we can measure. Why?

When you follow the science back as far as it can go, your answer to that question, as the piece makes clear, must be that we don't know; all we can do is theorize. Every theory involves a leap of faith. Which direction you leap is ultimately not a function of science at all.

 

[LionJim]

From the article: And yet, instead, what we’re observing is that the universe’s initial expansion rate and the total amount of matter and energy within it balance as perfectly as we can measure. Why?

When you follow the science back as far as it can go, your answer to that question, as the piece makes clear, must be that we don't know; all we can do is theorize. Every theory involves a leap of faith. Which direction you leap is ultimately not a function of science at all.

Scientific theories are developed and revised in order to explain observed phenomena. For example, Rutherford postulated the existence of the atomic nucleus because he, with Marsden and Geiger, came up with experimental data that the prevailing Plum Pudding model, which had the protons spread out throughout the atom, could not incorporate. While it’s true that every theory involves a leap of faith, the direction in which you leap is always based on what the science tells you to expect. If you don’t have a scientific reason to challenge the prevailing theory, you don’t make the leap of faith. This is an oversimplification, but once Friedmann and Lemaitre established that the universe was expanding, you had two distinct prevailing theories, the Big Bang Theory and the Steady State Theory (basically Fred Hoyle). The existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background was postulated in 1948 but was kind of ignored until it was discovered in 1964. Since the Steady State Theory couldn’t incorporate CMB it died off, leaving only the Big Bang Theory. There was a question as to whether the BBT could incorporate the forming of galaxies, and it was shown that it could. The theory we’re reading about in the OP was devised because, as @Leo Ridens indicated, there is a need to incorporate the theory of magnetic monopoles, which the BBT doesn’t do. It doesn’t mean that the BBT is wrong, it just means that there’s something that needs to be revised. The direction you leap is always based on what science needs to be explained. The sort of open questions and unknowns you refer to are absolutely being attacked by very competent, very ambitious scientists who wake up in the morning asking themselves what they need to do to win the Nobel Prize.

 

[BobPSU92]

All you really need to know about The Big Bang Theory:

She is not made-up.

 

[Nit Nolte]

There was a Lowe’s during the Big Bang?

It's my Schrödinger's home improvement center theory

 

[Woodpecker]

It's my Schrödinger's home improvement center theory

Most of my DIY projects are simultaneously dead and alive

 

[Jerry]

Scientific theories are developed and revised in order to explain observed phenomena. For example, Rutherford postulated the existence of the atomic nucleus because he, with Marsden and Geiger, came up with experimental data that the prevailing Plum Pudding model, which had the protons spread out throughout the atom, could not incorporate. While it’s true that every theory involves a leap of faith, the direction in which you leap is always based on what the science tells you to expect. If you don’t have a scientific reason to challenge the prevailing theory, you don’t make the leap of faith. This is an oversimplification, but once Friedmann and Lemaitre established that the universe was expanding, you had two distinct prevailing theories, the Big Bang Theory and the Steady State Theory (basically Fred Hoyle). The existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background was postulated in 1948 but was kind of ignored until it was discovered in 1964. Since the Steady State Theory couldn’t incorporate CMB it died off, leaving only the Big Bang Theory. There was a question as to whether the BBT could incorporate the forming of galaxies, and it was shown that it could. The theory we’re reading about in the OP was devised because, as @Leo Ridens indicated, there is a need to incorporate the theory of magnetic monopoles, which the BBT doesn’t do. It doesn’t mean that the BBT is wrong, it just means that there’s something that needs to be revised. The direction you leap is always based on what science needs to be explained. The sort of open questions and unknowns you refer to are absolutely being attacked by very competent, very ambitious scientists who wake up in the morning asking themselves what they need to do to win the Nobel Prize.

Thanks, Jim.

I found the article fascinating though I don't have the background or knowledge to competently assess these various theories. But cosmology in general blows my mind. No pun intended.

My understanding, perhaps off-base, is that the BBT is still the consensus view regarding the origin of the universe.

To clarify my point regarding leaps of faith: when the science is taken as far as it can go in whatever direction or by whatever theory, the questions of how did it happen, why did it happen, why did it happen the way it happened are still left unanswered.

To answer them, one must either: A) posit the existence of a Power beyond the reach of science; or B) hold to the view that everything can be explained by science or eventually will be. Either way, a leap of faith.

Then again, at this point the discussion has been steered to a place you may not have intended to go when you posted that piece. Sorry, can't help myself...

 

[LionJim]

Thanks, Jim.

I found the article fascinating though I don't have the background or knowledge to competently assess these various theories. But cosmology in general blows my mind. No pun intended.

My understanding, perhaps off-base, is that the BBT is still the consensus view regarding the origin of the universe.

To clarify my point regarding leaps of faith: when the science is taken as far as it can go in whatever direction or by whatever theory, the questions of how did it happen, why did it happen, why did it happen the way it happened are still left unanswered.

To answer them, one must either: A) posit the existence of a Power beyond the reach of science; or B) hold to the view that everything can be explained by science or eventually will be. Either way, a leap of faith.

Then again, at this point the discussion has been steered to a place you may not have intended to go when you posted that piece. Sorry, can't help myself...

I was wondering if you were trying to go there. Yes, there is nothing to prevent us from postulating the existence of a supreme being responsible for the creation of the universe through the Big Bang. In fact, I sometimes consider the fact that life exists on Earth as it does to be such a farfetched happenstance that I think there must have been some power that originally flipped the switch with some grand plan in mind. What with my Jesuit background (my dad’s brother was a Jesuit priest), I find all this to be very comforting.

 

[GTACSA]

Thanks, Jim.

I found the article fascinating though I don't have the background or knowledge to competently assess these various theories. But cosmology in general blows my mind. No pun intended.

My understanding, perhaps off-base, is that the BBT is still the consensus view regarding the origin of the universe.

To clarify my point regarding leaps of faith: when the science is taken as far as it can go in whatever direction or by whatever theory, the questions of how did it happen, why did it happen, why did it happen the way it happened are still left unanswered.

To answer them, one must either: A) posit the existence of a Power beyond the reach of science; or B) hold to the view that everything can be explained by science or eventually will be. Either way, a leap of faith.

Then again, at this point the discussion has been steered to a place you may not have intended to go when you posted that piece. Sorry, can't help myself...

To answer them, one must either: A) posit the existence of a Power beyond the reach of science; or B) hold to the view that everything can be explained by science or eventually will be. Either way, a leap of faith.

It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.

Consider that everything can and will be explained by science, which may result in proof of the existence of the higher Power.

 

[Jerry]

I was wondering if you were trying to go there. Yes, there is nothing to prevent us from postulating the existence of a supreme being responsible for the creation of the universe through the Big Bang. In fact, I sometimes consider the fact that life exists on Earth as it does to be such a farfetched happenstance that I think there must have been some power that originally flipped the switch with some grand plan in mind. What with my Jesuit background (my dad’s brother was a Jesuit priest), I find all this to be very comforting.

Yup, to adapt that line from Hamlet: There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your science.

As a person who makes the leap in the direction of option (A) from my post above, I have no problem with those leaping in a different direction...(though it would be nice for them to recognize that it is in fact a leap).

I also have no problem with those withholding judgment or preferring to focus the discussion exclusively on science. My problem is with those who take an aggressively hostile position toward (A) and pretend it's rooted in science when it's rather a function of their own psychology or ideology.

Cool thing, your Jesuit uncle. I received a university education from the Jebs way back in a day when they were still (vaguely) Catholic.

 

[TiredOldLion]

I find it very assuring that scientists can consider something totally different that something other than their core belief and often livelihood could actually be correct. I was taught that was a good thing.
Seems many in the scientific professions today have lost that skill and are now dogmatic in their views. Yes their information can be impressive and perhaps overwhelming in their view but they could be incorrect but fail to allow other views to be discussed. Just my two cents.
I could propose that the section of the universe we occupy could be the result of a super calamity that happened in a part of the bigger bigger universe that was already existing, like a new branch growing out of an already old tree that we can’t see anymore because it’s so far away as we’ve grown. Then many people would dump on me with their facts showing how they believe I am mistaken but their facts only point to their conclusion and don’t disprove my proposal. Probably not we’ll stated but I’m not so smart.

 

[Jerry]

To answer them, one must either: A) posit the existence of a Power beyond the reach of science; or B) hold to the view that everything can be explained by science or eventually will be. Either way, a leap of faith.

It doesn't have to be an either/or proposition.

Consider that everything can and will be explained by science, which may result in proof of the existence of the higher Power.

Point taken and agree that the options are not limited to the two that I presented.

That said, at the moment not everything can be explained by science...nor by the nature of things will it ever be, in my view.

Beyond that, because of its limitations, the human mind will never comprehend nor will science ever prove (or disprove) a Power existing outside dimensionality, outside time and space, and outside the physical laws of the universe.

 

[GTACSA]

Point taken and agree that the options are not limited to the two that I presented.

That said, at the moment not everything can be explained by science...nor by the nature of things will it ever be, in my view.

Beyond that, because of its limitations, the human mind will never comprehend nor will science ever prove (or disprove) a Power existing outside dimensionality, outside time and space, and outside the physical laws of the universe.

Question; what if the higher Power wanted to reveal Itself to man, would you still say never?

 

[LionJim]

Question; what if the higher Power wanted to reveal Itself to man, would you still say never?

From my own point of view, He already has. I know this isn’t quite what you’re describing but I do feel the presence of God every day. In every little kindness, however it is presented, I see the hand of God. I was a lonely kid and my Jesuit uncle took me under his wing and asked me to try to look at the world in a certain way. I was quite oblivious back then, but eventually came to understand what it was all about. I’m older and wiser now, and it really works for me. I’m a happy, optimistic guy.

 

[LionJim]

Question; what if the higher Power wanted to reveal Itself to man, would you still say never?

But to answer your question, no. There will be no grand revealing. We will always need to rely on faith.

 

[PrtLng Lion]

There's no center of the universe that we know of. All measurements of space appear to show that it is flat (curvature = 1). But if the entire universe is MUCH larger than the observable universe, then it's possible that the entire universe does have curvature and thus might have a center. It's just that, in our "small" section (the observable) it looks flat. Kind of like how earth appears flat to a human standing on its surface.

 

[GTACSA]

But to answer your question, no. There will be no grand revealing. We will always need to rely on faith.

Are you really saying that you know the "mind" of God; which is interesting since He previously at least partially revealed Himself.

 

[Jerry]

Question; what if the higher Power wanted to reveal Itself to man, would you still say never?

I think such revelations are all around us...in the natural world...in our own hearts and lives...in our relationships...in our religions.

As a Christian, I believe God's most perfect and complete revelation occurred in the person of Jesus Christ.

Yet all these revelations are only signs pointing to the Source, which remains beyond our capacity to comprehend or discern except as a "dim reflection in a mirror," in the words of St. Paul.

 

[GTACSA]

I think such revelations are all around us...in the natural world...in our own hearts and lives...in our relationships...in our religions.

As a Christian, I believe God's most perfect and complete revelation occurred in the person of Jesus Christ.

Yet all these revelations are only signs pointing to the Source, which remains beyond our capacity to comprehend or discern except as a "dim reflection in a mirror," in the words of St. Paul.

But as to a revelation in the future........................

 

[LionJim]

Are you really saying that you know the "mind" of God; which is interesting since He previously at least partially revealed Himself.

I feel it, let’s say.

 

[LionJim]

I just checked my copy of Simon Singh’s The Big Bang, and there is no mention of magnetic monopoles. That’s another reason I appreciate mathematics: a book never goes out of date. As an example, the standard reference on complex variables was written, by Ahlfors, in 1953.

 

[step.eng69]

There was a Lowe’s during the Big Bang?

Paging isle 10, paging isle 10.......
singularity has formed .....please leave now, I repeat, please leave now

 

[LionJim]

Paging isle 10, paging isle 10.......
singularity has formed .....please leave now, I repeat, please leave now

That was awesome, Step.