How did the Big Bang create galaxies

[Pluto]

Hi!

 

I have one problem with the Big Bang.

 

How did it form millions of galaxies in just 13.7Gyrs and super monster black holes 10 billion that of our sun's mass?

[CraigD]

How did it form millions of galaxies in just 13.7Gyrs and super monster black holes 10 billion that of our sun's mass?

AFAIK, this is question with which few of either proponents or opponents of the Big Bang model have much of a problem.

 

According to the BB model, The early universe was essentially just hydrogen, from which the first generation of stars was formed. Many of these stars were very massive.

 

The lifetime of stars (the period of time in which it emits about as much light and heat as during most of its lifetime) vary greatly, from less than 1 My (10[math]^6[/math] years) in the case of large stars to more than the current age of the universe for small ones. As a general rule, the more massive a star, the shorter its lifetime.

 

Short-lived, massive stars are thought to have created and scattered most of the heavy elements found in the present-day universe, ending as black holes.

 

Supermassive black holes are not thought to be the end state of stars more massive than they (stars more than about 120 solar masses are theoretically impossible, though vagaries in distinguishing giant stars from their protostellar nebulae allow this maximum to be perhaps as large as 250 solar masses), but to have formed from many star-mass black holes combining, as well as matter from stars and the interstellar medium. Current theory holds that every galaxy similar to our own has a supermassive black hole at its center, and that the presence of these objects is of great importance to the formation of the structure of the galaxies and clusters of galaxies presently observed.

[Pluto]

Hello CarigD

 

You said

 

AFAIK, this is question with which few of either proponents or opponents of the Big Bang model have much of a problem.

 

According to the BB model, The early universe was essentially just hydrogen, from which the first generation of stars was formed. Many of these stars were very massive.

 

The lifetime of stars (the period of time in which it emits about as much light and heat as during most of its lifetime) vary greatly, from less than 1 My (10 years) in the case of large stars to more than the current age of the universe for small ones. As a general rule, the more massive a star, the shorter its lifetime.

 

Short-lived, massive stars are thought to have created and scattered most of the heavy elements found in the present-day universe, ending as black holes.

 

Foget abot other prponents, please support it by some form of evidence.

 

According to the BBT the early universe was degenerated matter than hydrogen than other atoms, reagardless of this.

 

I understand the life and phases of stars and their life periods. Even to this day we have short lived and long lived stars not related to the BBT,but as part of the process that stars go through.

 

Short lived stars are stars with low density inner cores, such as hydrogen.

 

Long lived stars have a compacted core, close to that if not similar to a neutron core.

 

The size of the star does not actually mean its the biggest in mass.

 

Our sun one day will expand past the earth, allowing its size to be over 200 suns if not more.

[jackson33]

this a little hard for me to explain an interpretation, since i also question...my opinions and the way i understand it.

 

its said the early stars formed as very large objects 100's of time our suns mass and burned very rapidly because of contents. they in turned burned out imploded and evaporated into space to later form smaller ones.

 

my problem with this is two fold. in the formation of a star as we see going on today in space today, the process is very time consuming and the actual matter used in the formation is little of whats available. what ever ignites the star seems to limited in how much has piled up in the core. the other problem is in the time taken for large quantities to mass, if i accept the possible delay in the trigger. if it takes X time to form our star, it should take X times 100 to form one 100 times larger, if not substantially longer.

 

i understand that content, what elements in a star can give or take different actions or emissions this large size star is rarely seen today. what is seen in the few lager massed stars, could just as easily be dying stars in there demise.

 

to determine an age for the universe i have trouble with the figures given as a stars life span, the total of stars well into the thousands of trillions in the trillion or so galaxy of every imaginable size and makeup. there must have been a very long period of total chaos in the universe for all this to form in what would be under impossible odds. likewise we can know observe with good clarity much of space with in say a billion light years. there is no such sign of chaos or new stars popping up in any regular pattern. i like to referance this, this way...if a new star formed in the universe, each earth years, the and there are in deed trillions of stars, then the so called age of the universe needs to be well into the trillions of earth years old.

[CraigD]

Foget abot other prponents, please support it by some form of evidence.

Please understand I’m not attempting to support the entire Big Bang theory in my brief post (nor, I suspect, could I, with my present understanding, convincingly support it with a much longer one), only address Pluto’s question

How did it [the universe] form millions of galaxies in just 13.7Gyrs and super monster black holes 10 billion that of our sun's mass?

Although I’ve not attempted to present such a model, having read of many such models, I’m confident that, given the conditions predicted by the BB theory to have existed about 13.7 Billion years ago, about 380,000 years after they hypothesized “bang” (a fairly homogenous, transparent molecular cloud of about 75% hydrogen, 25% helium, and trace amounts of heavier elements, none more massive than beryllium, atomic mass about 9), that ordinary mechanical and nuclear processes can reasonably account for the current observed structure of local and distant space, including millions of galaxies and supermassive black holes. The details of such models are, I think, far from certain and well understood, leaving room for a divergent array of tentative theories, including ones featuring such exotic objects as cosmic string.

 

In other words, I’m not claiming that these givens – the age and initial composition of the universe given by the BBT – prove the BB theory, only that they do not exclude it.

 

Unfortunately, the only demonstrations of this claim of which I’m aware require either complicated analysis or intense simulation, neither of which am I able to present. All I can do is suggest a review of the extensive physics literature documenting such analysis and simulation. I know of no “shortcut” to a detailed and labor-intense review of this literature using fundamental physical principles, a task constituting a full scientific career.

According to the BBT the early universe was degenerated matter than hydrogen than other atoms, reagardless of this.

Although the BBT does predict a composition of the entire universe similar to that of a single neutron (a “quark-gluon plasma”), this “quark epoch” is theorized to have existed only for about 10[math]^{-6}[/math] seconds, about 10[math]^{-12}[/math] seconds ABB.

According to the BBT, conditions necessary for ordinary atomic matter to exist and star formation to be possible would not exist for about another 380,000 years, when the nuclii of hydrogen, helium, and traces of other elements capture electrons, and the universe becomes mostly transparent.

Short lived stars are stars with low density inner cores, such as hydrogen.

 

Long lived stars have a compacted core, close to that if not similar to a neutron core.

I don’t believe this agrees with conventional theories of stellar evolution. For example, the Sun, a fairly long lived (about 10 billion years from first fusion until leaving the main sequence into white dwarfhood) star is believed to have a maximum density at its core of about 1.5 [math]\times[/math] 10[math]^6[/math] kg/m[math]^3[/math]. Although a very high density – over 10 times that of the Earth’s core, and over 100 times the Sun’s average density – it’s many orders of magnitude less than the roughly 10[math]^{14}[/math] kg/m[math]^3[/math] predicted for the degenerate “neutron core” of a neutron star.

 

The simplest, and a roughly accurate predictor of its life expectancy, is the ration of its mass to its total luminosity. So, roughtly, a type O giant star like Zeta Puppis, which has a mass of about 60 times the sun, and a luminosity of about 800,000, can be expected to have a lifetime on the main sequence of about 1/10,000 that of the Sun, or only about 1 million years. This rough prediction is actually off by about a factor or 10 – more accurate models place Zeta Puppis lifetime as about 10 million years.

The size of the star does not actually mean its the biggest in mass.

 

Our sun one day will expand past the earth, allowing its size to be over 200 suns if not more.

Very true, and an excellent example. The Sun’s mass as a red giant is predicted to be substantially less than its present mass as a main sequence star. Note that its red giant phase is predicted to be brief compared to its 10 billion year lifespan on the main sequence – only about 0.1 billion years – giant stars, whether on of off the main sequence, are usually short lived. Also note that, due to the mass loss now believed to occur during a M class star’s transition from main sequence to red dwarf, Earth will no longer be in its present orbit during the Sun’s red dwarf phase, so, unlike Mercury and Venus, will likely survive – though in nothing like its present, hospitable form.

 

Although factors other than mass determine the radius of a star, generally, the more massive a star, the larger its radius. Most tables of the ”OBAFGKM” Harvard Spectral Classification – the best known stellar classification scheme, I think – give a good summary of this relationship.

 

PS: Though an interesting discussion, since post #231, we’ve strayed from durgatosh’s original “split from zero” subject. Perhaps we should it into a new thread?

[truth_united]

Craig D

PS: Though an interesting discussion, since post #231, we’ve strayed from durgatosh’s original “split from zero” subject. Perhaps we should it into a new thread?

 

Big-bang indeed is an interesting discussion but was not the topic of this thread. Durgatosh has attempted to describe the nature of universe as infinite and yet zero in sum total. He has used the concepts of equivalence of zero and infinity, infinite instability of zero, etc to explain this. There are certain issues to be explained. I hope we have not lost Durgatosh from this forum. Eclogite tried to put down the concept in an unfair manner and his behaviour must have upset him.

 

I have a few questions for Durgatosh:

1. If the sum total of the universe is zero, and this zero is the manifestation of positive and negative infinities, where are the negatives?

2. Why is it that all our physical universe can be explained in terms of space, time, mass/energy? You say that these entities may be related in a way that their sum total is zero. Can you please elaborate?

 

truth_united.

[Tormod]

Perhaps we should move it into a new thread?

 

Done.

[freeztar]

I read the first 8 pages of this thread, and this last page here, and must say I'm most astounded. It seems very few people understood his ideas.

 

While I do not think durgatosh started his "paper" in a proper way, I do see his reasoning in leading with the blind men/elephant example. I believe he used this as a prequel to a theory he knew would not be well received. Quite a cleaver approach, but not well received as well.

 

His "split zero" idea is great imo. Most people seemed to be getting hung up on "How do you split nothing or zero?" and "You can't make matter decay into nothing at a certain level".

What I believe durga is trying to say, or somewhat demonstrate, is that everything is "bipolar" and these "polarities" equal zero, if theoretically added together. For example, it's not that I could meet my "anti-me" and suddenly we would cancel each other out, but rather, we exist in parallel through necessity.

The implications of this inherently suggest that there could be no beginning or end, because the net result is x+x-=0. We could return to the turtle problem, but it might be a cop out in this case, as we struggle to expand our imagination to infinity from our causally attached minds.

Which came first, the proton or the electron?

 

durgatosh, first of all, keep at it! Don't become discouraged or angered by others. Try to find some examples to support your idea from research that has already happened.

[Pluto]

Hello CraigD

 

You said that our sun has an inner core density of 10^6 or so.

 

How did you get this density?

 

----------------------------------------------------

I have a problem in understanding,

 

What holds the sun together?

 

What controls over heating?

 

and thus what controls the chain reaction that eventually blows a star apart?

 

-------------------------------------------------------

 

Many papers that I have read, write that the origin of our solar system was from a supernova that resultated in a neutron core that eventually buily up a solar envelope.

 

and that the main energy release is from the inner core and not from fusion as per the standard model.

 

If this is true, one would have to go on a limb and spend years proving such a theory.

[durgatosh]

freeztar

His "split zero" idea is great imo. Most people seemed to be getting hung up on "How do you split nothing or zero?" and "You can't make matter decay into nothing at a certain level".

What I believe durga is trying to say, or somewhat demonstrate, is that everything is "bipolar" and these "polarities" equal zero, if theoretically added together. For example, it's not that I could meet my "anti-me" and suddenly we would cancel each other out, but rather, we exist in parallel through necessity.

The implications of this inherently suggest that there could be no beginning or end, because the net result is x+x-=0.

 

Thanks freeztar for your comments. My "split-zero" is followed by "infinite instability of zero", which I believe, explains the eternity of universe. Me and anti-me existing in parallel is one possibility; but there is a completely different and novel possibility which I believe in more: that the fundamental entities (time, space, matter/energy) are inter-related in a way that their sum total is zero.

 

There are a few questions from truth_united as well which I would be answering in the thread I started. This thread has been separated from my thread and is focussing on origin of galaxies in the context of big bang.

 

I would be happy if we could discuss in my original thread.

 

DP

[Tormod]

Hello CraigD

 

You said that our sun has an inner core density of 10^6 or so.

 

How did you get this density?

 

I'll let Craig answer that one but here are a couple of good links to information about the sun:

 

SOHO

Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Sun

 

What holds the sun together?

 

Gravity.

 

What controls over heating?

 

The mechanisms are natural - the sun pumps out energy at incredible rates and thus loses mass over time. The fusion of hydrogen into helium in the core means that the ratio of hydrogen to helium slowly changes over billions of years, until the sun has to burn helium - at which point the sun will grow into a red giant and that is the beginning of the end (although it will die a slow death).

 

Red Giant

 

and thus what controls the chain reaction that eventually blows a star apart?

 

It does depend on what kind of star we're talking about.

 

Here is some info:

X-ray Astronomy: Supernovae and their remnants - Introduction

 

Many papers that I have read, write that the origin of our solar system was from a supernova that resultated in a neutron core that eventually buily up a solar envelope.

 

and that the main energy release is from the inner core and not from fusion as per the standard model.

 

Which papers? I have never even heard of such a theory.

 

If this is true, one would have to go on a limb and spend years proving such a theory.

 

If it were true, it would be surprising that a neutron core has not been discovered by SOHO or other solar observatories.

[Michaelangelica]

Hi!

 

I have one problem with the Big Bang.

 

How did it form millions of galaxies in just 13.7Gyrs and super monster black holes 10 billion that of our sun's mass?

 

Very quickly?

[addicted-]

The first stars which were probably formed only 200 million years after the big bang were made up of most entirely of hydrogen and helium -- virtually no other chemicals were present. They would have been extremely large and hot. Pretty much 100 to 1,000 times the mass of the sun, they only lasted a few million years. Ultraviolet light from these stars may have triggerd a movement in the evolution of the universe. The Reionization of its hydrogen, turning it from neutral gas back into the ionized (electronically charged) form seen today. Alternatively, radiation from quasars may have reionized the universe. :)