Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Why didn't the universe collapse after the Big Bang? Gravity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why didn't the universe collapse after the Big Bang? Gravity

    Source: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/20469/20141119/we-can-thank-gravity-for-why-the-universe-didnt-collapse-after-the-big-bang.htm



    According to physics, the Universe shouldn't be here. Theories dictate that because the Universe was so unstable after the Big Bang, it should have quickly collapsed. However, it didn't. And now we know why: gravity.

    In 2012, CERN discovered the mysterious Higgs particle, which is an elementary particle in the standard model of particle physics. After studying the Higgs, physicists determined that the Big Bang, which resulted in the Universe expanding at an unprecedented rate, should have made it so unstable that it collapsed.

    Of course, fortunately, for us, it didn't. But how do we explain why?

    Some physicists think that the answer requires an entirely new area of physics that hasn't yet been discovered. However, physicists at the Imperial College London, as well as at the University of Copenhagen and the University of Helsinki, think the answer is much simpler. Gravity held the Universe together when it was unstable.

    In modern physics, gravity is part of Einstein's general theory of relativity and is the result of the curvature of space-time. These physicists believe that it was this effect that held the Universe together when it was expanding so rapidly, shortly after the Big Bang.


    Read more: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/20...#ixzz3KHLYvDC9

    © Copyright Original Source

    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  • #2
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Source: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/20469/20141119/we-can-thank-gravity-for-why-the-universe-didnt-collapse-after-the-big-bang.htm



    According to physics, the Universe shouldn't be here. Theories dictate that because the Universe was so unstable after the Big Bang, it should have quickly collapsed. However, it didn't. And now we know why: gravity.

    In 2012, CERN discovered the mysterious Higgs particle, which is an elementary particle in the standard model of particle physics. After studying the Higgs, physicists determined that the Big Bang, which resulted in the Universe expanding at an unprecedented rate, should have made it so unstable that it collapsed.

    Of course, fortunately, for us, it didn't. But how do we explain why?

    Some physicists think that the answer requires an entirely new area of physics that hasn't yet been discovered. However, physicists at the Imperial College London, as well as at the University of Copenhagen and the University of Helsinki, think the answer is much simpler. Gravity held the Universe together when it was unstable.

    In modern physics, gravity is part of Einstein's general theory of relativity and is the result of the curvature of space-time. These physicists believe that it was this effect that held the Universe together when it was expanding so rapidly, shortly after the Big Bang.


    Read more: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/20...#ixzz3KHLYvDC9

    © Copyright Original Source


    First as I posted here, the Higgs particle may not have been found at all. The next question - where does gravity come from? What causes it?

    This is what I basically thought: http://www.universetoday.com/74015/what-causes-gravity/

    Newton gave us the foundations of Physics, Classical Kinematics. Isaac Newton used the universal law of gravitation to describe how gravity works. Thanks to him we now any two objects in the universe that have mass exert a gravitational pull on each other. The greater the mass and the closer the two objects are, the stronger the force of gravity. However this only described the phenomenon in party. It basically was a more detailed description than just something makes any object that is unsupported to fall to the ground. Newton took the next step in describing it with his Theory of Relativity.

    Einstein hypothesized that space and time were one and the same and served as the fabric of the universe. He stated that gravity was simply a curvature in space-time created by a mass object pretty much in the same way a piece of cloth would be curved if it was stretched out and a heft object was placed on it. This curvature in space created by an object with greater mass than the objects surrounding it would cause these objects of lesser mass to fall toward the more massive object.
    So we need objects with great mass to cause gravity. But there were no such mass objects early in the creation of the universe - correct?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      First as I posted here, the Higgs particle may not have been found at all. The next question - where does gravity come from? What causes it?

      This is what I basically thought: http://www.universetoday.com/74015/what-causes-gravity/
      The question as to what the Higgs particle is and what was found is an open question. Higgs by the way is just a name assigned to a predicted particle, and the evidence fit. It is an ongoing issue in the current research at the cyclotron in France. Let's wait and see as to what has been found. Maybe more then one particle will be discovered.

      So we need objects with great mass to cause gravity. But there were no such mass objects early in the creation of the universe - correct?
      There is Quantum Gravity.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        There is Quantum Gravity.
        That is the stuff about gravitons - for which there isn't any evidence -correct? And that would kind undermine Einstein's and Newton's theories. Large masses would then not be necessary for gravity to exist.
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          That is the stuff about gravitons - for which there isn't any evidence -correct? And that would kind undermine Einstein's and Newton's theories. Large masses would then not be necessary for gravity to exist.
          The problem is both my reference the Higgs research are in the cutting edge of Physics Research and are research in progress, and they are open questions of current research progress.

          No, Gravitons represent one of the predicted results to explain Quantum Gravity a property of the Quantum World. Yes, the discovery of Gravitons would give more support for Quantum Gravity. I am not sure what you purpose is here trying to play pokeman with highly theoretical concepts and hypothesis in Physics that represents work in progress.

          Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-gravity/

          Quantum Gravity, broadly construed, is a physical theory (still ‘under construction’) incorporating both the principles of general relativity and quantum theory. Such a theory is expected to be able to provide a satisfactory description of the microstructure of spacetime at the so-called Planck scale, at which all fundamental constants of the ingredient theories, c (the velocity of light in vacuo), ℏ (Planck's constant), and G (Newton's constant), come together to form units of mass, length, and time. This scale is so remote from current experimental capabilities that the empirical testing of quantum gravity proposals along standard lines is rendered near-impossible.

          In most, though not all, theories of quantum gravity, the gravitational field itself is also quantized. Since the contemporary theory of gravity, general relativity, describes gravitation as the curvature of spacetime by matter and energy, a quantization of gravity seemingly implies some sort of quantization of space-time geometry. Insofar as all extant physical theories rely on a classical spacetime background, this presents not only extreme technical difficulties, but also profound methodological and ontological challenges for the philosopher and the physicist. Though quantum gravity has been the subject of investigation by physicists for over eighty years, philosophers have only just begun to investigate its philosophical implications.

          © Copyright Original Source

          Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-28-2014, 06:54 PM.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            The problem is both my reference the Higgs research are in the cutting edge of Physics Research and are research in progress, and they are open questions of current research progress.

            No, Gravitons represent one of the predicted results to explain Quantum Gravity a property of the Quantum World. Yes, the discovery of Gravitons would give more support for Quantum Gravity. I am not sure what you purpose is here trying to play pokeman with highly theoretical concepts and hypothesis in Physics that represents work in progress.
            The point is that we don't really have a clue where gravity came from. Or why it exists. If Einstein is right and we need large mass objects to cause gravity then it could not have been present at the beginning of the universe. Of course Einstein could have been completely wrong.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              The point is that we don't really have a clue where gravity came from. Or why it exists. If Einstein is right and we need large mass objects to cause gravity then it could not have been present at the beginning of the universe. Of course Einstein could have been completely wrong.
              Fallacy Arguing from ignorance. The lack of evidence is not the evidence of lack, and has never been an effective argument for anything. If that was the case you could easily prove God does not exist..

              No, that is not what Einstein says about gravity, except on a large scale. Your playing your usual game of pokeman and it is not worthy of a dialogue.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-28-2014, 11:02 PM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                Fallacy Arguing from ignorance. The lack of evidence is not the evidence of lack, and has never been an effective argument for anything. If that was the case you could easily prove God does not exist..

                No, that is not what Einstein says about gravity, except on a large scale. Your playing your usual game of pokeman and it is not worthy of a dialogue.
                Nonsense shuny it is not an argument from ignorance, we don't have a clue. That is a fact - period.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Fallacy Arguing from ignorance. The lack of evidence is not the evidence of lack, and has never been an effective argument for anything. If that was the case you could easily prove God does not exist..

                  No, that is not what Einstein says about gravity, except on a large scale. Your playing your usual game of pokeman and it is not worthy of a dialogue.
                  HERETIC.


                  It's PokemOn
                  O Gladsome Light of the Holy Glory of the Immortal Father, Heavenly, Holy, Blessed Jesus Christ! Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and behold the light of evening, we praise God Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For meet it is at all times to worship Thee with voices of praise. O Son of God and Giver of Life, therefore all the world doth glorify Thee.

                  A neat video of dead languages!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    i'm afraid both you seer and you Shunya make some errors worth pointing out.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    So we need objects with great mass to cause gravity. But there were no such mass objects early in the creation of the universe - correct?
                    There's an ambiguity of language here. Rest mass if what physicists would normally call particles that you'd say have 'mass'. In Einstein's theory of relativity energy-momentum density, of any kind, can bend space time.

                    Originally posted by shunyadragon
                    There is Quantum Gravity.
                    Invoke the Quantum!

                    Not sure if this is early enough during the Big Bang for quantum gravity effects to become noticable.

                    Originally posted by seer
                    That is the stuff about gravitons - for which there isn't any evidence -correct?
                    Correct.

                    Originally posted by seer
                    And that would kind undermine Einstein's and Newton's theories.
                    Newton's theories have already been superseded by Einstein's. If gravitons are massless, then Einstein's theories will go virtually unchanged except for a completely negligible (in your everyday non-Big Bangish garden variety vacuum) perturbation. If gravitons do have rest mass, then this will affect the velocity of gravity waves, which will be less than the speed of light. Incidentally, finding out that gravity waves have velocity lower than c would be very strong evidence for gravitons (which is the motivation for building the big LIGO interferometry fascilities).

                    Originally posted by seer
                    Large masses would then not be necessary for gravity to exist.
                    The kind of gravity talked about in the article could not be explained by appealing to the Great and Powerful Quantum Vacuum. However there's no mystery as to where the gravity would come from, the whole universe back then was loaded with a lot of energy.
                    Last edited by Leonhard; 11-29-2014, 09:58 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                      The kind of gravity talked about in the article could not be explained by appealing to the Great and Powerful Quantum Vacuum. However there's no mystery as to where the gravity would come from, the whole universe back then was loaded with a lot of energy.

                      So how does a lot of energy explain how the law of gravity came about? Is it not conceivable to have energy without gravity?
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        So how does a lot of energy explain how the law of gravity came about? Is it not conceivable to have energy without gravity?
                        That's a different question from what you said originally. You said that without "mass" there couldn't be gravity, and I pointed out that you misunderstood the General Theory of Relativity, where energy-momentum density is what curves spacetime. So I explained that.

                        Now you're asking a different question which I did not attempt to address, and I'm not sure what has got to do with the OP. Nobody is saying that 'the law of gravity comes from energy', to be frank I'm not even sure that sentence is coherent as what we typically mean by a law is the way something behaves, and by energy simple the ability to do work.

                        As for whether its conceivable to have energy without gravity, yes. I'm not sure what's the point to that observation though. According to the General Theory of Relativity, whenever we have any amount of energy in a physical location we also have a local curving of spacetime. If we don't have that, sure then this theory is false, however we have no good reason to assume that is.

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by shunyadragon, 10-17-2020, 05:11 PM
                        7 responses
                        37 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post rogue06
                        by rogue06
                         
                        Started by shunyadragon, 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM
                        0 responses
                        22 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post shunyadragon  
                        Started by rogue06, 10-09-2020, 03:29 PM
                        6 responses
                        52 views
                        1 like
                        Last Post shunyadragon  
                        Started by shunyadragon, 10-07-2020, 12:11 PM
                        0 responses
                        10 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post shunyadragon  
                        Started by Sherman, 10-06-2020, 03:31 PM
                        40 responses
                        256 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post rogue06
                        by rogue06
                         
                        Working...
                        X