• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Big Bang Theory Primer

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
This is a little thread where I will discuss the basic features of the Big Bang theory in a quantities fashion. I hope this will make discussions and debated on the Big Bang in other topic more well informed.

One of the key starting ideas in developing the theory of the universe is that on very large scales i. e. lengths spanning hundreds and thousands of Mega light years, the universe is roughly smooth in its average distribution of galaxies and other kinds of matter and Radiation. This feature has been verified by observations if galaxy distribution. What this means is that, on these large scales, any region of the universe looks the same as any other region of the universe and this is true whichever direction one looks.

The other key idea is based on observation that the universe is expanding. What is meant here is not that galaxies are moving through space away from each other... rather that space itself is blowing up (like a baking cake) taking the embedded galaxies (raisins) with it.

So let us begin with a simple model where we consider an observer in an expanding universe filled with a uniform mass density ρ. Since the universe looks the same everywhere and in every direction, we can take the location of this observer to be a center of the universe. In fact every location in this kind of uniform universe can function as a center equally well.

Now consider a small region of the universe at a distance r from the observer which contains a total mass of value m. By the theory of gravity, the gravitational force this mass m experiences as measured by the observer is only due to the total mass present in the spherical region of radius r centered around the observer. This mass M is the mass density multiplied by the volume of the sphere. So,
M = (4πr^3) /3 * ρ

Thus gravitational force on the mass m is,
F = GMm/r^2
The gravitational potential energy is,
V = - GMm/r
If the velocity of the mass m with respect to the observer is given by r', then kinetic energy of the mass is,
T = 0.5mr'^2
where r'= dr/dt

So, total energy of the mass m is
U =T + V = 0.5mr'^2 - ( 4πr^2/3)*ρGm
And this energy is conserved.


Now, this mass m is moving way from the observer because of the expansion of space. This is a bit like the zoom function when one is looking at a picture in the computer. If you zoom in, the entire picture expands so that each point is farther apart from the other. This feature of the expanding universe can be implemented in the model by implementing a coordinate system whose grids themselves expands with the space. Such a coordinate system is called a comoving coordinate system. A distance x between two points in the comoving coordinate system is related with the distance r between the same two points in the non-expanding physical coordinate frame by the relation,

r = a(t) * x

where a(t) is the scale factor that gives the rate of "zooming" or expansion rate of space with time. Since the comoving coordinate frame is also zooming with the universe, in terms of this new coordinates, the distance between observer and mass m does not change with time. Thus
x' = 0

So
r' = a'*x
where a' = da/dt


Using the new comoving coordinates, the total energy of mass m then becomes,
U = 0.5*m(a'*x) ^2 - ( 4π/3)*(a'*x)^2*ρGm

Defining the curvature of space
k= - 2U/(mc^2x^2)

the above expression can be written as,

(a'/a) ^2 = ( 8π/3)ρG - k*(c/a) ^2


This is the famous Friedmann equation that describes how our universe expands with time.

Next post will unpack important physical consequences of this equation.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The most obvious problem with your derivation is that it is non-relativistic. Kinetic energy is NOT .5mv^2 in special relativity. Also, energy density of, for example, photons, is crucial for the early expansion phases. This is neglected in your derivation.

That said, the Friedmann equation *is* correct if a correct derivation is done through general relativity.

/E: Also, dark energy isn't dealt with here.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
One of the key starting ideas in developing the theory of the universe is that on very large scales i. e. lengths spanning hundreds and thousands of Mega light years, the universe is roughly smooth in its average distribution of galaxies and other kinds of matter and Radiation.

This is also being debated. There are very large voids in the distribution of galaxies, so the large scale structure looks more like a swiss cheese. This may have some impact on our ideas concerning dark energy.

None-the-less, the uniformity assumption is a good first approximation.
 

WalterTrull

Godfella
What's also being debated is whether or not it's really there. Some say it's here. Numbers are lots of fun anyway. You can do really cool stuff with them.
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
What is causing the expansion of space?

Why isn't gravity slowing down the expansion of space?

Why is the expansion of space increasing in speed?

Where did the singularity come from?

What caused the singularity to explode?

How does a singularity of particles also create space, or, how did space form the particles?

The Friedman equation does not explain how our universe expands with time. I just says "This is the rate that it is happening at" but you have no idea how, because you don't know what is causing it to expand, nor do you know why.
 

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
What pressure kept the single singularity intact ?
What does a total void weigh, in singularities I guess.
What was the 'container' that produced the initial containment ?
Maybe that's too many outside containments, isn't it ?
And aside from that insanity, where is the Cosmos going ?
Where is the void that is swallowing it all up ?
confusing isn't it ?
Just too numbers for anyone to understand !
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The most obvious problem with your derivation is that it is non-relativistic. Kinetic energy is NOT .5mv^2 in special relativity. Also, energy density of, for example, photons, is crucial for the early expansion phases. This is neglected in your derivation.

That said, the Friedmann equation *is* correct if a correct derivation is done through general relativity.

/E: Also, dark energy isn't dealt with here.
Not using GR is deliberate so that non-physicists can understand. The derivation is not rigorous, but ease of following what's going on is a gain. I am following Andrew Liddle's book on cosmology for non-physics majors for this little derivation. :)

Yes, you will get the cosmological constant if GR is used to derive the equation in a rigorous manner. I will add it to the eqn. once I finish discussing the equation of state, hopefully in a later post if my interest lasts.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
What is causing the expansion of space?

Why isn't gravity slowing down the expansion of space?

Why is the expansion of space increasing in speed?

Where did the singularity come from?

What caused the singularity to explode?

How does a singularity of particles also create space, or, how did space form the particles?

The Friedman equation does not explain how our universe expands with time. I just says "This is the rate that it is happening at" but you have no idea how, because you don't know what is causing it to expand, nor do you know why.
Stay tuned.

By the way where is your mathematical theory of how angels created the universe?
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
Stay tuned.

By the way where is your mathematical theory of how angels created the universe?

You think everything is explained by math? Try explaining a puppy with math. Good luck with that.

And angels did not create the universe, God produces the matrix, angels just bring stable particles into this density.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You think everything is explained by math? Try explaining a puppy with math. Good luck with that.

And angels did not create the universe, God produces the matrix, angels just bring stable particles into this density.
Still need the math.
You think biology and genetics do not use math? Developmental biology of puppies require lot of math FYI.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
What pressure kept the single singularity intact ?
What does a total void weigh, in singularities I guess.
What was the 'container' that produced the initial containment ?
Maybe that's too many outside containments, isn't it ?
And aside from that insanity, where is the Cosmos going ?
Where is the void that is swallowing it all up ?
confusing isn't it ?
Just too numbers for anyone to understand !
No it's not. I would recommend a simple non-math book on the Big Bang for you first, so that you can understand the very basic concepts.
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
Still need the math.
You think biology and genetics do not use math? Developmental biology of puppies require lot of math FYI.
I assume you mean you need the math for angels? Nope. That will never happen. You don't get that, no one gets that, well, except the few beings who need the information to form the angels in the first place. Giving out that information would be revealing super secrets of the universe and if you also had access authority to the matrix you could then form your own army of angels.

I think biology and geneticists don't use math? Of course they do but they don't have math that explains a life form, not even close. They can't even explain a flea. I'm not talking about just the genetics of a flea, I'm talking about math that would explain instinct and personality.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I assume you mean you need the math for angels? Nope. That will never happen. You don't get that, no one gets that, well, except the few beings who need the information to form the angels in the first place. Giving out that information would be revealing super secrets of the universe and if you also had access authority to the matrix you could then form your own army of angels.

I think biology and geneticists don't use math? Of course they do but they don't have math that explains a life form, not even close. They can't even explain a flea. I'm not talking about just the genetics of a flea, I'm talking about math that would explain instinct and personality.
Math of how your universe was created.
You don't need to describe humans mathematically in order to write down the math of constructing a microchip.
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
Math of how your universe was created.
You don't need to describe humans mathematically in order to write down the math of constructing a microchip.

You want the math of how my universe was created? That would be math that explains God. Well, first you start with an infinity, after that it gets complicated.

What you would like would be math that would explain YOUR universe. It doesn't exist.

I don't need to describe humans mathematically in order to write down the math of a microchip? There are microchips in computers, is any computer a human?
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You want the math of how my universe was created? That would be math that explains God. Well, first you start with an infinity, after that it gets complicated.

What you would like would be math that would explain YOUR universe. It doesn't exist.

I don't need to describe humans mathematically in order to write down the math of a microchip? There are microchips in computers, is any computer a human?
So you don't have anything. You are just bluff and bluster.
I am writing the basic math of the universe in this thread if you have not noticed yet.
 

Super Universe

Defender of God
So you don't have anything. You are just bluff and bluster.
I am writing the basic math of the universe in this thread if you have not noticed yet.

So I don't have anything? If you're looking for math that explains everything then you will always be disappointed.

You are writing the basic math of the universe? You're copying what others have already written. Is any of this math of the universe new or is it all just copies of other people's work?

Also, you don't have the math that explains the six questions in my first post.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
So, total energy of the mass m is
U =T + V = 0.5mr'^2 - ( 4πr^2/3)*ρGm
And this energy is conserved.

How can you speak of "conserved energy" in connection with a Big Bang idea as a beginning of the Universe? A "conserved energy" speaks of an eternal stage where everything in the Universe changes eternally and this contradicts a Big Bang formation.
 
Top