Galaxy 35 Billion Light Years Away

[AmNat]

I assume you mean The Big Bang, that is, the very beginning at time t=0. Yeah, that's beyond observation. But amazingly, scientists have a pretty good understanding of the Universe at time 1 second after the very beginning. After all, Weinberg's classic The First Three Minutes was written in 1977. (Of course, he doesn't cover the first half second. But after that, the physics is pretty solid.)

There is no scientific evidence concerning the state of the universe in the minutes after the Big Bang.

One (predominant) view holds that there was no "t=0", because the universe is boundless. So if you went backwards in time in our universe, you would never reach a boundary and would go forever.

The universe being infinitely old is not the predominant view, and hasn't been in some time. The (alleged) spatial infinity of the universe is not relevant to any of the arguments typically advanced in the matter.

 

[SMTA]

Eternal inflation with random fluctuations. Cells in a multiverse-being. Imaginary time. Universe decay.

It's amazing what people who consider themselves rational skeptics are willing to believe in. One could get the impression there's something missing in your lives.

Snort.
Because the earth is only 6,000 years old, right?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Eternal inflation with random fluctuations. Cells in a multiverse-being. Imaginary time. Universe decay.

It's amazing what people who consider themselves rational skeptics are willing to believe in. One could get the impression there's something missing in your lives.

is there a god?

 

[Gatsby]

Eternal inflation with random fluctuations.
[...]
It's amazing what people who consider themselves rational skeptics are willing to believe in.

I simply provided an overview of a few common hypotheses about the Big Bang. Accepting them as true would require evidence that we simply do not have right now...and possibly never will.

One could get the impression there's something missing in your lives.

???

Is this some lame attempt to convert me to your religion? I think you are in the wrong subforum.

 

[Gatsby]

There is no scientific evidence concerning the state of the universe in the minutes after the Big Bang.

In the minutes after the Big Bang? Science has a pretty good understanding of that. It is known, more or less, what happened as far back as the end of the Inflationary Epoch (10^-33 seconds). And we have some understanding as far back as the end of the Planck Epoch (10^-43 seconds).

The universe being infinitely old is not the predominant view, and hasn't been in some time.

Correct, scientists are divided on this question. It's unknown whether time began with the Big Bang or whether there was an earlier era. And if so, whether it was finite or infinite. Or if thinking of time in that way even makes sense. Too many unknowns.

 

[DCCougar]

There is no scientific evidence concerning the state of the universe in the minutes after the Big Bang.

Incorrect.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, followed by helium. Oxygen accounts for about 1 percent. All the other elements together only account for a bit more than one percent.

In the minutes after the Big Bang, there was nothing but hydrogen and helium nuclei (with a tiny amount of deuterium and even less of something else I forget). All the other elements -- carbon, gold, etc. (not that many in relative terms) have since come from stellar fusion and sent out into space as supernova explosions.

The hydrogen and helium in the universe are observed to be in a very precise ratio. There is a well-defined reason for this. In those first minutes that you wrongly claim there's no scientific evidence about, the universe was very hot, but expanding and cooling. It was hot enough for the hydrogen nuclei to fuse into helium, but only for a few minutes! Then the temperature went below what was needed for fusion, and all fusion stopped, leaving the precise ratio of hydrogen and helium that we observe. So we may not be able to observe the universe just 3 minutes after the Big Bang, but we do observe the result of those first 3 minutes, and we know why we see that result.

 

[DCCougar]

If your theory is true then why is this discovery unique? One galaxy out of billions?!

It's just currently the most distant galaxy ever seen. At 240 million years after the Big Bang, we're getting back close to the time when it was too hot for any stars or galaxies even to form! The hotter it is, the faster particles are moving, which works against gravity. Things had to cool down enough for gravity to bring particles together to make stars, and later small galaxies.

 

[DCCougar]

Eternal inflation with random fluctuations. Cells in a multiverse-being. Imaginary time. Universe decay..... It's amazing what people who consider themselves rational skeptics are willing to believe in.

These are investigations, not beliefs! These are conjectures, like "What if it was like this? Can I find any supporting evidence for that?"

"Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time raising money." - Leon Lederman

 

[Galactic Spin]

Eternal inflation with random fluctuations. Cells in a multiverse-being. Imaginary time. Universe decay.

It's amazing what people who consider themselves rational skeptics are willing to believe in. One could get the impression there's something missing in your lives.

Oops, you confused yourself.

People believe these things are POSSIBLE, because evidence shows that they are.

You faithy types believe extraordinary, magical claims without a shred of evidence.

Don't try to put your magical religious nonsense on the same shelf as the things you listed. It won't work.

 

[AmNat]

Is this some lame attempt to convert me to your religion? I think you are in the wrong subforum.

I’m just saying that eternally inflating multiverse cells decaying in imaginary time is . . . uh . . . not the most parsimonious explanation of how the universe got here.

In the minutes after the Big Bang? Science has a pretty good understanding of that. It is known, more or less, what happened as far back as the end of the Inflationary Epoch (10^-33 seconds). And we have some understanding as far back as the end of the Planck Epoch (10^-43 seconds).

Go ahead and provide the evidence for what happened during these time periods.

Incorrect.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, followed by helium. Oxygen accounts for about 1 percent. All the other elements together only account for a bit more than one percent.

In the minutes after the Big Bang, there was nothing but hydrogen and helium nuclei (with a tiny amount of deuterium and even less of something else I forget). All the other elements -- carbon, gold, etc. (not that many in relative terms) have since come from stellar fusion and sent out into space as supernova explosions.

The hydrogen and helium in the universe are observed to be in a very precise ratio. There is a well-defined reason for this. In those first minutes that you wrongly claim there's no scientific evidence about, the universe was very hot, but expanding and cooling. It was hot enough for the hydrogen nuclei to fuse into helium, but only for a few minutes! Then the temperature went below what was needed for fusion, and all fusion stopped, leaving the precise ratio of hydrogen and helium that we observe. So we may not be able to observe the universe just 3 minutes after the Big Bang, but we do observe the result of those first 3 minutes, and we know why we see that result.

That isn’t evidence, it’s a story. The only empirical fact you cite is the Hydrogen-Helium ratio. Yet if that ratio were some other “very precise” number (is there a different type of number?), you would tell the same story with slightly different numbers.

Oops, you confused yourself.

People believe these things are POSSIBLE, because evidence shows that they are.

You faithy types believe extraordinary, magical claims without a shred of evidence.

Don't try to put your magical religious nonsense on the same shelf as the things you listed. It won't work.

I’ve seen your posts. You are willing to believe any evidence-free magical claim so long as it doesn’t imply the existence of God.

 

[Galactic Spin]

I’ve seen your posts. You are willing to believe any evidence-free magical claim so long as it doesn’t imply the existence of God.

That's a lie you just made up. You couldn't give a single example of that if your life depended on it.

It is so odd how the faithy posters almost all, to a man, make the most dishonest and classless and shameless posts in these threads.

 

[Gatsby]

I’m just saying that eternally inflating multiverse cells decaying in imaginary time is . . . uh . . . not the most parsimonious explanation of how the universe got here.

Go ahead and provide the evidence for what happened during these time periods.

Based on your characterization of what I've already written, it's pretty clear that you aren't interested in actually engaging the topic or even trying to understand it. So I'll pass.

You are willing to believe any evidence-free magical claim so long as it doesn’t imply the existence of God.

Why are you trying to turn a science question into a religious debate? You are the one who brought up the existence of God.

 

[DCCougar]

That isn’t evidence, it’s a story. The only empirical fact you cite is the Hydrogen-Helium ratio. Yet if that ratio were some other “very precise” number (is there a different type of number?), you would tell the same story with slightly different numbers.

Wrong again. We know the exact temperature that is hot enough to fuse helium from hydrogen in the early universe (particle accelerator experiments -- 1 billion Kelvin). Below that temperature -- no more fusion. The resulting ratio of hydrogen to helium tells us when the expanding universe passed that temperature threshold. We also know the current temperature of the Universe: -270.45 degrees centigrade. You do the math!

Maybe OpenAI explains it better:

The observed ratio of helium to hydrogen in the Universe is strong evidence for the Big Bang theory. This is because the Big Bang theory [and quantum mechanics] predicts that the Universe should have started off with a high ratio of protons to neutrons, which would lead to the formation of mostly hydrogen and some helium in the early Universe. This prediction is supported by observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which shows that the Universe was once hot and dense enough for nuclear fusion to occur. The observed ratio of helium to hydrogen in the Universe is also consistent with the observed abundance of other light elements, such as deuterium and lithium, which are also produced in the Big Bang. In contrast, alternative theories such as the steady state model predict a much lower ratio of helium to hydrogen, which is not consistent with observational data.

 

[AmNat]

Based on your characterization of what I've already written, it's pretty clear that you aren't interested in actually engaging the topic or even trying to understand it. So I'll pass.

I'm an astrophysicist. Unlike you I didn't learn about this stuff from newspapers and YouTube videos.

Wrong again. We know the exact temperature that is hot enough to fuse helium from hydrogen in the early universe (particle accelerator experiments -- 1 billion Kelvin). Below that temperature -- no more fusion. The resulting ratio of hydrogen to helium tells us when the expanding universe passed that temperature threshold. We also know the current temperature of the Universe: -270.45 degrees centigrade. You do the math!

The standard claim is that Helium formed from proton-neutron fusion, not proton-proton fusion. ~760 million Kelvin is the maximum temperature at which (given all the relevant assumptions) deuterium is expected to stably exist; there is no minimum temperature for proton-neutron fusion to occur. The Hydrogen-Helium ratio tells us is how long (given the decay rate of neutrons and certain assumptions regarding the original proton-neutron ratio) the universe took to cool to that point in this model. What it doesn't say is why I should believe that model describes how the universe's Helium came into existence (vs any other speculative theory regarding its origin).

 

[Gatsby]

I'm an astrophysicist. Unlike you I didn't learn about this stuff from newspapers and YouTube videos.

The fact that this thread is seemingly the first time you've ever heard of eternal inflation...and inexplicably decided to attack *me* for mentioning it, makes me seriously doubt that.

Again, why the attempt to derail a science thread with a ham-handed attempt at religious conversion? No one was trying to convert you.

 

[AmNat]

The fact that this thread is seemingly the first time you've ever heard of eternal inflation...and inexplicably decided to attack *me* for mentioning it, makes me seriously doubt that.

Again, why the attempt to derail a science thread with a ham-handed attempt at religious conversion? No one was trying to convert you.

I didn't "attack" you. I noted that people who consider themselves rationalists (of which you and several others were examples) are willing to believe in a great deal of baseless speculation in order to avoid the conclusion that the world had a beginning. That an idea was proposed by a physicist doesn't mean it's connected to the real world.

I didn't try to "convert" you either. Someone replying to one of your posts doesn't mean they think they're going to change your mind about an issue.

 

[Gatsby]

I didn't "attack" you. I noted that people who consider themselves rationalists (of which you and several others were examples)

I haven't even mentioned my philosophical or religious views in this thread. Not that it's any of your business but I'm much closer to an empiricist than a rationalist, although not particularly hardline in either direction.

are willing to believe in a great deal of baseless speculation

As I said, I do not "believe in baseless speculation." I am *aware* of various hypotheses and will accept them as true if we ever get good evidence for them.

in order to avoid the conclusion that the world had a beginning.

Wow you are just going way out on a speculative limb here, because I never said the universe had no beginning. I said it is not known if time started at the Big Bang. In some hypotheses it did, in some hypotheses time is infinite, and neither side in the scientific debate has any evidence for their view right now.

That an idea was proposed by a physicist doesn't mean it's connected to the real world.

Indeed.

I didn't try to "convert" you either. Someone replying to one of your posts doesn't mean they think they're going to change your mind about an issue.

If I was going to change my mind about whatever religion you're trying to convert me to, it wouldn't be because assholes neg me in a thread about science. In fact that would make me want to avoid said religion.

 

[nvflash]

what i want to know is what existed before the big bang and what caused the big bang.

I think, though I doubt I can prove, water existed before the Big Bang, and sound caused it.

Water, H2O, may not have been the only thing that existed before the Big Bang. If I remember from my last physics lesson, over 40 years ago, it was gases in a hot dense state.

So when you put gas in a dense state that would normally mean it is in a liquid form.

It may have just been H2O, and that would mean all of the other elements of the universe were created from H2O after the Big Bang.



The real question is, where did the sound come from?

Could just be that the gases got so compacted that they spontaneously ignited a sound that set off the Big Bang.

Or could be the sound came from somewhere else???

Somewhere outside our physical universe and our shared reality.

Wonder what would happen if we put H2O under immense pressure?

Pressure so great that we could hardly perceive it.

 

[rhinefire]

There is no scientific evidence concerning the state of the universe in the minutes after the Big Bang.

The universe being infinitely old is not the predominant view, and hasn't been in some time. The (alleged) spatial infinity of the universe is not relevant to any of the arguments typically advanced in the matter.

How can you use "minutes" as a measuring tool if there was no time? Which brings up the question, "when did time start?"

 

[Galactic Spin]

I didn't "attack" you. I noted that people who consider themselves rationalists (of which you and several others were examples) are willing to believe in a great deal of baseless speculation in order to avoid the conclusion that the world had a beginning.

No. The universe we can observe may very well have had its own beginning. And maybe that's all there is.

But also, maybe not. This is very simple and very rational.

 

[DCCougar]

I'm an astrophysicist.

You're either an astrophysicist or a conservative. I don't think you can be both.

 

[Gatsby]

How can you use "minutes" as a measuring tool if there was no time?

When talking about time relative to the Big Bang, instead of thinking of the events at "t+1 minute" as "start at the Big Bang and fast-forward the movie 1 minute," think of it as "Start at the present, and rewind the movie until 1 minute before the known laws of physics break down." You're right, if time started at the Big Bang then it wouldn't make sense to use minutes as a measuring tool when discussing events relative to that. When people talk about "1 minute after the Big Bang" it's mostly just imprecise shorthand, since we humans have a difficult time grasping the (possible) beginning of time.

Which brings up the question, "when did time start?"

It's unknown. Some scientists conjecture that time started at the Big Bang; others think that it may be possible to talk about events prior to the Big Bang. But there really isn't any evidence either way.

 

[Exquisitor]

what i want to know is what existed before the big bang and what caused the big bang.

it's something we'll never know.

Sorry, I already told you many times. The Universe comes from a common Singularity, full to critical mass. Moreover, the singularity churn the particles of string into arrangements of gold.

Black holes really aren't that exotic. They are simple devices really. The Singularity is a thin spherical sheet, sustained by the final activities of the Holy Spirit, from when She began infinitely tiny. No-one knows that path, it is forbidden, unallowed, private. Also private is the daughter ruling for an eternity to half-space, where the Son has His tiny contests and rules to the electron. From half-space to the Singularity is a jump. Once the genie has attained the Singularity, it may retire from its tiny contests, they are no longer such to it.

Two shells surround the singularity, about equal in volume to it. Upon expansion, string at the highest point files through all the gold of the previous Universe, then the other eight expansion elements before disporting its courses after rhodium. Now, I'm sure you can tell me what they are. I'll give you a hint, three are non-metals.

If too much mass is added at the end, the string goes through the first shell, then the second, pulling the remaining mass into the first shell, with an empty Singularity and sufficient mass to condense and it collapses in upon itself nearly perpetually, until so much mass is added that adding new mass does not create enough new surface area on the event horizon to admit more mass. Whenever such a frog egg occurs, the entire Creation is upturned and dumped down the pit, to the center of the Causal planet. A certain gigantic number of these combine in a Causal Big Bang.

The Singularity expands as a thin spherical sheet, leaving the center empty. Since we're in observance of the noon, ten-million year Convergence, we can say that in 13.7 billion years there will be another Big Bang using 1/3 of our Universe, 1/2 the Universe above and all the remaining outer Universe. These Universe lie at the center of a Cosmic Manifestation.

Two critical masses are thrown into a kettle (circular barbecue grill) and dust or etheric substance from repeated expansions, people walking backwards, etc. accumulates on the sides of the kettle forming the wall of the Cosmic Manifestation. Many of thesse to arise to hover above the etheric planet situated in Universes within Universes to the Astral planets and finally Creation, which repeats in feature, Cosmic Manifestation, Compound and Creation up into infinity.

The tiny has more time, and the Singularity is so tiny that time is balanced to infinite mass.

 

[Exquisitor]

what i want to know is what existed before the big bang and what caused the big bang.

it's something we'll never know.

You may also want to know where this mass comes from, disregarding the etheric substance and its properties, since we know little, and scientists nothing. Yes, it is the same I was going to talk about.

In the beginning, God was a lone and simultaneously went from infinitely tiny and large to the electron and expanded himself in infinite reflections all doing the same thing, forming an infinite block of electrons, and God said, "Let there be Mass" so the dimensions took on mass becoming electrons. If an electron moves about in this sea, it moves a column two infinity long to the space behind you. Thus, even for God, there are consequences to every action.

Bodies were carved out of this electron block, for God and every electron, giving various scale, separation and command.

Eventually, everyone's actions built up into protons and neutrons, capturing themselves in a material world.

 

[Exquisitor]

is there a god?

Not one like you think, no.