Universe, with Brian Cox

[Dod101]

Glad I read this thread. I watched Brian Cox last evening because I thought I ought. I enjoyed the great landscapes but sadly learned little from the shots of the Milky Way. I too found his delivery soporific and probably learned more in the last five minutes or so before the programme ended from other experts who delivered their message in a clear and straightforward manner.

Dod

[SteMiS]

Take episode one. Before the universe was formed, there was nothing but threads of dark matter holding space together like a web. And, slowly, the hydrogen atoms got their acts together, and .......

Has he just made that up because I've never literally heard that before...?

Warning, I'm well out of my depth here. But apparently there's a consensus that there might have been something before Big Bang and the origins of the universe (13.787 billion years ago).

Yes, I've heard that, but never the idea about 'threads of dark matter' (dark matter being pretty much a fudge factor to make the calculations of gravitational lensing and other astrophysical observations work). Personally I think that many of these things; dark matter, quantum entanglement, wave/particle duality are just consequences of there being a deeper understanding that we've yet to discover. One day, like when quantum mechanics was first proposed, there'll be an "ah..." moment. Maybe it'll take the first self aware computer to do it.

Then again, what do I know...

[XFool]

Take episode one. Before the universe was formed, there was nothing but threads of dark matter holding space together like a web. And, slowly, the hydrogen atoms got their acts together, and .......

Has he just made that up because I've never literally heard that before...?

Warning, I'm well out of my depth here. But apparently there's a consensus that there might have been something before Big Bang and the origins of the universe (13.787 billion years ago). The so-called Methuselah star was reckoned until recently to be 16 billion years old, although that's now being called into question. So I did a bit more reading up on t'interweb.

Methuselah has been called a "low-metallicity" star, because it consists of nothing much except for hydrogen and helium. Most stars, by comparison, have a sizeable proportion of other metals in their composition - but that difference seems to make sense if we reflect that they were created during/after Big Bang, when the lights had been switched on and the more complex elements were being forged.

No... surely something going a bit wrong here? AFAIK no stars were "created" in The Big Bang - only space, time, radiation and fundamental particles (leaving out 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'). These then condensed out to hydrogen and some helium atoms, which went on in time to further gather by gravity into the first stars. The heavier elements were then created by fusion in stars.

[XFool]

Where did I learn that? Not from Brian Cox! Do I know whether it's true? Nope, I have absolutely no idea. But try this website: https://www.space.com/how-can-a-star-be ... verse.html . Or this one: https://www.digit.in/features/sci/digit ... 53766.html

Interesting reads. Though the second one, as with more than a few US articles, suffers from distracting outbreaks of 'comma abuse'!

[mc2fool]

Warning, I'm well out of my depth here. But apparently there's a consensus that there might have been something before Big Bang ...

That's a non sequitur, at least unless the current consensus about Big Bang is totally overthrown.

There isn't any "before" Big Bang 'cos you can only have a "before" if time exists, but time was created by Big Bang (as well as space). Or, if you prefer, spacetime came into existence with Big Bang. Before that ... there is no time so there is no before that!

i know, thinking about that will give you a headache almost as bad as having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick*.

* https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Pan_Galactic_Gargle_Blaster

[bungeejumper]

Most stars, by comparison, have a sizeable proportion of other metals in their composition - but that difference seems to make sense if we reflect that they were created during/after Big Bang, when the lights had been switched on and the more complex elements were being forged.

No... surely something going a bit wrong here? AFAIK no stars were "created" in The Big Bang - only space, time, radiation and fundamental particles (leaving out 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'). These then condensed out to hydrogen and some helium atoms, which went on in time to further gather by gravity into the first stars. The heavier elements were then created by fusion in stars.

I'm at a severe risk of spouting beyond my limited knowledge here, but yes, I've always understood that no stars (or other bodies) were created during Big Bang, because it was after all mainly a big bang, not a construction process. But that the next few billion years were a cumulative process of atoms reshaping into new elements, agglomeration, collisions, gravitational events and all sorts of other fun things. (Our own sun didn't form for another ten billion years after BB!)

Hence my saying that the stars and so forth were created during/after Big Bang. Hedging my bets? Moi?

BJ

[SteMiS]

Most stars, by comparison, have a sizeable proportion of other metals in their composition - but that difference seems to make sense if we reflect that they were created during/after Big Bang, when the lights had been switched on and the more complex elements were being forged.

No... surely something going a bit wrong here? AFAIK no stars were "created" in The Big Bang - only space, time, radiation and fundamental particles (leaving out 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'). These then condensed out to hydrogen and some helium atoms, which went on in time to further gather by gravity into the first stars. The heavier elements were then created by fusion in stars.

I'm at a severe risk of spouting beyond my limited knowledge here, but yes, I've always understood that no stars (or other bodies) were created during Big Bang, because it was after all mainly a big bang, not a construction process. But that the next few billion years were a cumulative process of atoms reshaping into new elements, agglomeration, collisions, gravitational events and all sorts of other fun things. (Our own sun didn't form for another ten billion years after BB!)

All elements, other than hydrogen and helium, were created within stars or as a result of the death of stars (supernova). We are literally made of star dust...

[SteMiS]

Warning, I'm well out of my depth here. But apparently there's a consensus that there might have been something before Big Bang ...

That's a non sequitur, at least unless the current consensus about Big Bang is totally overthrown.

There isn't any "before" Big Bang 'cos you can only have a "before" if time exists, but time was created by Big Bang (as well as space). Or, if you prefer, spacetime came into existence with Big Bang. Before that ... there is no time so there is no before that!

This is getting a bit off topic for Music, Theatre, TV and Film lol and I'm far from an expert in this field (which was Chemistry with a bit of quantum mechanics thrown in) but isn't the problem with the 'there was nothing before the Big Bang' thermodynamics (energy can neither be created nor destroyed) and entropy (which can never reduce). How come we have energy in the universe and how come the universe 'started' with a very low level of entropy? Here's a short video on the subject which deals with the two....by proposing a pre Big Bang (really only the first two minutes are relevant to this issue, although the remaining three are still quite interesting)

Did the Big Bang Break the Laws of Thermodynamics?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGs4C60FR68

[bluedonkey]

Sounds like this thread might be more educational than the programme. Anyway, I've deleted it from "My Programmes", so thanks for the heads up.

[CliffEdge]

Warning, I'm well out of my depth here. But apparently there's a consensus that there might have been something before Big Bang ...

That's a non sequitur, at least unless the current consensus about Big Bang is totally overthrown.

There isn't any "before" Big Bang 'cos you can only have a "before" if time exists, but time was created by Big Bang (as well as space). Or, if you prefer, spacetime came into existence with Big Bang. Before that ... there is no time so there is no before that!

i know, thinking about that will give you a headache almost as bad as having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick*.

* https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Pan_Galactic_Gargle_Blaster

Rubbish

[mc2fool]

Warning, I'm well out of my depth here. But apparently there's a consensus that there might have been something before Big Bang ...

That's a non sequitur, at least unless the current consensus about Big Bang is totally overthrown.

There isn't any "before" Big Bang 'cos you can only have a "before" if time exists, but time was created by Big Bang (as well as space). Or, if you prefer, spacetime came into existence with Big Bang. Before that ... there is no time so there is no before that!

i know, thinking about that will give you a headache almost as bad as having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped round a large gold brick*.

* https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/Pan_Galactic_Gargle_Blaster

Rubbish

Ah, a reasoned argument, from a Big Bang sceptic I presume.

A chap named Hawking, Stephen I believe, said "Asking what came before the Big Bang is meaningless…. It would be like asking what lies south of the South Pole."

According to the theory of general relativity, upon which Hawking built his work on the origin of the universe, there is no such thing as “time” before the Big Bang: time was created along with the Big Bang. The question of what comes before it is meaningless from a physicist’s point of view.
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/south-south-pole

"The general view of physicists is that time started at a specific point about 13.8 billion years ago with the Big Bang, when the entire universe suddenly expanded out of an infinitely hot, infinitely dense singularity, a point where the laws of physics as we understand them simply break down. This can be considered the “birth” of the universe, and the beginning of time as we know it. Before the Big Bang, there just was no space or time, and you cannot go further back in time than the Big Bang, in much the same way as you cannot go any further north than the North Pole."
http://www.exactlywhatistime.com/physics-of-time/time-and-the-big-bang/

Other creation of the universe theories are available.

[Dod101]

I am still trying to get my head around Carlo Rovelli's latest book, Helgoland, and I think he might argue whether time actually exists except in our collective heads but although I love his writing and the translation, I find it difficult to get a grasp of what he is saying. He bases his current book on that chap Heisenberg.

Dod

[gvonge]

... and the strange wailing noises like a cat caught in a mangle.
BJ

The cat's probably Schrodinger's.

[CliffEdge]

Of course you can go south of the south pole.

Are you claiming time is a vector?

Simplistic nonsense to say there was nothing before the big bang and conflate that with the nature of time in its properties in the current universe. If 'time' didn't exist before the big bang when did the big bang start?

[scrumpyjack]

Of course you can go south of the south pole.

Are you claiming time is a vector?

Simplistic nonsense to say there was nothing before the big bang and conflate that with the nature of time in its properties in the current universe. If 'time' didn't exist before the big bang when did the big bang start?

And of course there may have been many other big bangs and universes outside of our universe. Why do we arrogantly think ours is the only one?
Of course their watches won't agree

[vrdiver]

Of course you can go south of the south pole.

Are you claiming time is a vector?

Simplistic nonsense to say there was nothing before the big bang and conflate that with the nature of time in its properties in the current universe. If 'time' didn't exist before the big bang when did the big bang start?

And of course there may have been many other big bangs and universes outside of our universe. Why do we arrogantly think ours is the only one?
Of course their watches won't agree

There is a difference between "nothing" and "we don't know".

Physics seems to fall into the "we don't know what was before the big bang". If anybody could enlighten Physics, preferably with evidence, or at least some half-decent maths, I'm sure Physics would be very grateful... It might even be able to synchronise its watch.

[mc2fool]

Of course you can go south of the south pole.

And where does that take you to?

Are you claiming time is a vector?

Simplistic nonsense to say there was nothing before the big bang and conflate that with the nature of time in its properties in the current universe. If 'time' didn't exist before the big bang when did the big bang start?

I'm not "claiming" anything, just repeating what people an awful lot cleverer than both of us have said. See previous links. I must say I've never thought of Stephen Hawking and chums saying anything simplistic! let alone nonsense...

As for when did the big bang start?. I understand the answer is around 13.7 billion years ago.

[NotSure]

And of course there may have been many other big bangs and universes outside of our universe. Why do we arrogantly think ours is the only one?
Of course their watches won't agree

After consuming something I probably shouldn't (many years ago) it occured to me that our universe is likley just a quantum fluctuation in the next universe up (which of course must be much [much much] larger and longer lived than ours). In turn, quantum fluctuations in our universe.....

[servodude]

I am still trying to get my head around Carlo Rovelli's latest book, Helgoland, and I think he might argue whether time actually exists except in our collective heads but although I love his writing and the translation, I find it difficult to get a grasp of what he is saying. He bases his current book on that chap Heisenberg.

Dod

Sounds like a good read - I've just added it to my kindle

[Dod101]

I am still trying to get my head around Carlo Rovelli's latest book, Helgoland, and I think he might argue whether time actually exists except in our collective heads but although I love his writing and the translation, I find it difficult to get a grasp of what he is saying. He bases his current book on that chap Heisenberg.

Dod

Sounds like a good read - I've just added it to my kindle

Helgoland is of course our Heligoland. Rovelli tells us that he has written the book primarily for those unfamiliar with quantum physics and are interested in trying to understand. That is me but I must say that although I love his language and the general style I find the subject hard going. It is a very readable book though. Hope you enjoy it.

Dod