Why is the universe not simply made up of a regular matrix of hydrogen atoms?

Now I'm no astrophysicist, but I was just wondering if there's any science or philosophy around that explains the following situation:

Now Imagine if you can the universe prior to the big bang. Essentially a homogenous singularity of energy, space and time. And then boom, it imploded in on itself. At that moment everything was the same, and I would assume imploding inwards evenly from all sides with the same amount of energy.

In this situation you would assume that the resultant Universe would be simply be filled with an even arrangement of regularly spaced hydrogen atoms. As everything is the same distance apart (due the assumtion I make in the paragraph above), gravity would be acting on each particle exactly the same, so they should not ever clump together in the form of planets and stars and other matter (assuming the conditions are correct for an ever expanding universe that is). The fact (i think) the universe is expanding at an even rate seems to indicate to me that my assumptions above are correct.


But, instead of seeing this orderly matrix of atoms, we see the universe that we know and love today; discrete bundles of complex matter and energy forms. This says to me that this initial big bang was not even, but that somewhere within it there was an irregularity, a perturbation to the perfect order which was in place before the big bang occured.

And what I'm wondering here is the reason this has occurred.

well as far as i know thats what the universe consisted of first was alot of hydrogen after the big bang than turned into the many other elements. so to sum up. this is a hydrogen based universe.

scientific fact:
Main Entry: scientific fact
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted
Example: The structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact.

A finny thing about "scientific facts" is that they are changed all the time as new information arrives.... that the consensus of selected scientists agree upon.

reply to post by 1littlewolf


Explanation: S&F!

The smallest 'known' scale is 1 dimension that is 1 plancks length long PLUS at least 1 extra plancks length due to UNCERTAINTY and it is this extra uncertainty that allows the cosmos to inflate [or appear to inflate as we never left the singularity and it is just folding in 10 other dimensions like a dynamic standing wave!]

We as observeres collapse our own wave function automatically and that act of collapsing carries MOMENTUM with it and that momentum [time] is generated by purely just observing since all states SELF ASSESS so as to maintain their INTEGRITY!

Personal Disclosure: I hope this helps!

reply to post by 1littlewolf


Where do you have the implosion idea from? According to Big Bang there has been an expansion of space, neither implosion nor explosion.

The non-homogeneity is explained by quantum fluctuations(some people may call it vacuum noise or zero-point fluctuations).

See: en.wikipedia.org...

Hydrogen wasn't formed until a few hundred thousand years after the big bang, when the temperature was low enough.

As for regularity, the quantum-scale uncertainty of the early universe, random areas of high and low density, hyperinflated out into the macroscopic scale, and then formed the clumps of matter that we see today.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
scientific fact:
Main Entry: scientific fact
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted
Example: The structure of a cell membrane is considered a scientific fact.

A finny thing about "scientific facts" is that they are changed all the time as new information arrives.... that the consensus of selected scientists agree upon.

Sorry mate but not really getting your point as it relates to the OP

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by 1littlewolf

 

Explanation: S&F!

The smallest 'known' scale is 1 dimension that is 1 plancks length long PLUS at least 1 extra plancks length due to UNCERTAINTY and it is this extra uncertainty that allows the cosmos to inflate [or appear to inflate as we never left the singularity and it is just folding in 10 other dimensions like a dynamic standing wave!]

We as observeres collapse our own wave function automatically and that act of collapsing carries MOMENTUM with it and that momentum [time] is generated by purely just observing since all states SELF ASSESS so as to maintain their INTEGRITY!

Personal Disclosure: I hope this helps!

Thanks for your input. I had a feeling it had something to do with quantum mechanics but this is something I'm yet to get my head around. Looks like I'm gonna have to do more reading...

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by 1littlewolf

 

Where do you have the implosion idea from? According to Big Bang there has been an expansion of space, neither implosion nor explosion.

The non-homogeneity is explained by quantum fluctuations(some people may call it vacuum noise or zero-point fluctuations).

See: en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah I did realise it is niether an explosion or implosion. Semantic error. But thanks for the quantum fluctuations explanation. Even though you've told me nothing about it at least now I know where to look

Originally posted by repressed
Hydrogen wasn't formed until a few hundred thousand years after the big bang, when the temperature was low enough.

As for regularity, the quantum-scale uncertainty of the early universe, random areas of high and low density, hyperinflated out into the macroscopic scale, and then formed the clumps of matter that we see today.

I figured as the universe expanded and cooled (and assuming the quantum-scale of uncertanty didn't apply) hydrogen would have been the densest thing that would have formed. In lieu of me reading up on quantum uncertainty feel free to let me know if I'm wrong.

reply to post by 1littlewolf


Explanation: This following EXAMPLE [used only in a metaphorical sense] may explain why it [the big bang singularity] is neither an explosion or an implosion ... as its BOTH!





Personal Disclosure: I started with Paul Davies 1984 Superforce, ISBN 0-04-539006-1 book and I recommend the chapters where he details how the universe bootstrapped it self out of NOTHING! [ ie a null set which must of course observe itself ... collapsing its own infinite wave function = inflationary illusion (see image above) ]

Paul Davies Books (by penguin books ) [penguin.com.au]

Paul Davies [wiki]

reply to post by OmegaLogos


Thanks Omega I do have an more than a passing interest in such things but the only physics I've done since highschool is geophysics which is fairly sraight forward overall. And even that was an effort as maths really isn't my forte'.

Okay, wiki says this about the Quantum Uncertainty Principle:

In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states a fundamental limit on the accuracy with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known. In other words, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be controlled, determined, or known.

moebius' link on Galaxy Formation says this:

The most accepted theory of how these structures came to be is that all the large-scale structure of the cosmos we observe today was formed as a consequence of the growth of the primordial fluctuations, which are small changes in the density of the universe in a confined region.

and repressed says this:

As for regularity, the quantum-scale uncertainty of the early universe, random areas of high and low density, hyperinflated out into the macroscopic scale, and then formed the clumps of matter that we see today.

Now for starters I don't believe in random fluctuations. There has to be some reason, whether we've discovered it yet or not.

2ndly I'm stuggling to see how the Quantum Uncertainty Principle really relates to the question in anyway except it discusses things at a quantum level - specifically why you can't measure both momentum and position at he same time. I will admit I tried to read the rest of the article and started to get a massive migraine.

I do realise the early universe operated under quantum mechanical conditions for quite a long time and is not very well understood.Is it fair enough to say that nobody really has any idea but we reckon it has something to do with uncertainty?

If someone can explain it to me it would be much appreciated. And in laymans terms if possible as I'm still recovering from that wikipedia article

Cheers

reply to post by 1littlewolf

Now for starters I don't believe in random fluctuations. There has to be some reason, whether we've discovered it yet or not.

Radioactive decay is random and happens due to quantum fluctuations. Casimir effect is another way to observe vacuum fluctuations, they manifest as a measurable macroscopic force.

I'm stuggling to see how the Quantum Uncertainty Principle really relates to the question

Uncertainty principle has an energy-time analog dE * dt >= h, means energy fluctuations are inverse proportional to their duration. From Einstein we know that energy is equivalent to mass. Thus a local vacuum energy fluctuation can create a particle pair(particle and anti-particle) with positive mass for a short time, pretty much a reverse matter-antimatter reaction. This mass will attract surrounding matter and initiate clustering.

Btw the concept of such temporary(also called virtual) particles is used in perturbative quantum field theory to describe all known forces.

reply to post by OmegaLogos



reply to post by 1littlewolf


You see thats the thing...

You can use words like "singularity", "gravity", "matrix", and "Big Bang" but its not as simple as just
coming up with ideas in your head and trying to peice them together. Astrophysicists use mathematics to come up with their theories and other things relating to the Universe.

Within their math, they've most likely stumbled across a question like this and disproved it.

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
But, instead of seeing this orderly matrix of atoms, we see the universe that we know and love today; discrete bundles of complex matter and energy forms. This says to me that this initial big bang was not even, but that somewhere within it there was an irregularity, a perturbation to the perfect order which was in place before the big bang occured.

Whether it was even or not is a relative term.

From one perspective, the distribution was in fact almost perfectly even.

From another perspective, we have actually had to invent technology to measure the differences of millionths of a degree which do indicate tiny fluctuations, but the fact that the differences are so small is still an indication it's more even than not. But we did find very tiny indications of unevenness, and it didn't take much unevenness to cause stars and galaxies to form.

If you are interested in learning more about this, I recommend watching this video by George Smoot, paying particular attention to his explanations of COBE and WMAP which were our attempts to measure the very tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe which relate to your question:

George Smoot: The design of the universe

Pay attention particularly starting at 15 minutes where you can actually see a simulation of the primordial fluctuations result in the matter clumping together.

Then at a little after 17 minutes, you can see the measurements we've made of these early quantum fluctuations in the CMB (cosmic microwave background) using COBE and WMAP. It's pretty cool stuff.

I recall seeing some documentary where scientist were asked that same question and the answer was that big bang must have created both matter and antimatter and somehow the antimatter was less than the matter and during the process of elimination the randomness was established and we are left with a universe composed of just matter.

Don't go putting too much trust in any of the answers given here. Since no one knows the structure or composition of the "singularity", if there even was one, before the Big Bang, no one can truly explain why the universe appears as it does now. You asked a very good question though. Another question is if the prime singularity did exist, just what caused it to "explode" or expand? There must be some cause for this pivotal event.

Originally posted by moebius
reply to post by 1littlewolf

 

Now for starters I don't believe in random fluctuations. There has to be some reason, whether we've discovered it yet or not.

Radioactive decay is random and happens due to quantum fluctuations. Casimir effect is another way to observe vacuum fluctuations, they manifest as a measurable macroscopic force.

I'm not sure at the moment what the Cashmir Effect is; although i'm guessing it has little to do with goat's wool shawls from northern India. But the fact that radiation decay happens at a regular measurable rate does not seem too random to me. When looked at surficially a lot of things may appear random until we understand the reasons why. And there's still a hell of a lot about this universe we don't understand

Originally posted by moebius
Uncertainty principle has an energy-time analog dE * dt >= h, means energy fluctuations are inverse proportional to their duration. From Einstein we know that energy is equivalent to mass. Thus a local vacuum energy fluctuation can create a particle pair(particle and anti-particle) with positive mass for a short time, pretty much a reverse matter-antimatter reaction. This mass will attract surrounding matter and initiate clustering.

Btw the concept of such temporary(also called virtual) particles is used in perturbative quantum field theory to describe all known forces.

Thanks moebius, I'm getting it to a point, and I'm also starting to see there's a lot of concepts I'm gonna have to get my head around before I really even understand my question, let alone your answer

Originally posted by Vandettas
You see thats the thing...

You can use words like "singularity", "gravity", "matrix", and "Big Bang" but its not as simple as just
coming up with ideas in your head and trying to peice them together. Astrophysicists use mathematics to come up with their theories and other things relating to the Universe.

Within their math, they've most likely stumbled across a question like this and disproved it.

And as mentioned above math really isn't my strong point. I do see how mere words and ideas kinda break down when trying to get one's head around the behaviour of elementary particles

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Whether it was even or not is a relative term.

From one perspective, the distribution was in fact almost perfectly even.

From another perspective, we have actually had to invent technology to measure the differences of millionths of a degree which do indicate tiny fluctuations, but the fact that the differences are so small is still an indication it's more even than not. But we did find very tiny indications of unevenness, and it didn't take much unevenness to cause stars and galaxies to form.

If you are interested in learning more about this, I recommend watching this video by George Smoot, paying particular attention to his explanations of COBE and WMAP which were our attempts to measure the very tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe which relate to your question:

Arbitrageur you've correctly assumed that a YouTube video level of understanding is indeed all I posses at the moment. And thanks for giving me an answer I actually understand. Vid looks very interesting and I'll definitely be watching.

Originally posted by Waldy
I recall seeing some documentary where scientist were asked that same question and the answer was that big bang must have created both matter and antimatter and somehow the antimatter was less than the matter and during the process of elimination the randomness was established and we are left with a universe composed of just matter.

Cheers. This is beginning to point me to where I want to be.

Originally posted by Sparky63
Don't go putting too much trust in any of the answers given here. Since no one knows the structure or composition of the "singularity", if there even was one, before the Big Bang, no one can truly explain why the universe appears as it does now. You asked a very good question though. Another question is if the prime singularity did exist, just what caused it to "explode" or expand? There must be some cause for this pivotal event.

Lol cheers and star, this is kind of what I suspected. And this question is something I had also considered, but I figured I'd work my way backwards. Also "why did the big bang expand" is something that's a lot easier to search for on my own.

Personally i suspect the two questions are probably quite intricately related

reply to post by 1littlewolf

I'm not sure at the moment what the Cashmir Effect is

Casimir effect has been predicted by Hendrik B. G. Casimir and Dirk Polder and confirmed experimentally.
Two metal plates attract because their reflective surfaces exclude virtual photons of wavelengths longer than the separation distance. You can say, there are less fluctuations in the gap between the mirrors than outside leading to an external pressure.

But the fact that radiation decay happens at a regular measurable rate does not seem too random to me.

You can measure the rate, but the decay is random. You can not predict when a nucleus will undergo it. Thus radionuclides have a characteristic half-life.

When looked at surficially a lot of things may appear random until we understand the reasons why. And there's still a hell of a lot about this universe we don't understand

Count yourself to the "hidden variable theory" fraction. You are in good company. Albert Einstein has been the most famous proponent of a deterministic universe.

Originally posted by moebius
Count yourself to the "hidden variable theory" fraction. You are in good company. Albert Einstein has been the most famous proponent of a deterministic universe.

Good company eh, that would be a first. But again thanks for all your contributions, they've definitely been most insightful, and have shown me how much more complex everything is than than even I first suspected.

I guess that's part of the beauty of the universe though. And how hard it is to try and understand something which you're only a very small part of. The fact we know as much as we do is quite amazing in its own right.

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
Arbitrageur you've correctly assumed that a YouTube video level of understanding is indeed all I posses at the moment. And thanks for giving me an answer I actually understand. Vid looks very interesting and I'll definitely be watching.

That's not just any youtube video. That's the scientist who won the Nobel Prize for essentially measuring and interpreting the tiny bits of unevenness you asked about. You can read about his Nobel Prize here:

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Anisotropies: Their Discovery and Utilization

He tries to dumb it down for the rest of us, but I can tell the guy is pretty smart. It seems like his brain is going so fast his mouth has a hard time keeping up with it!

reply to post by 1littlewolf


Explanation: Cheers! I myself didn't qualify from highschool and so I am NOT an expert at all!

Here is a picture I generated [poorly] in MSpaint to help explain a few things ...



Now please look at the single straight line ... that is an eigenstate and its minimum value [thanks to uncertainty] is ONE! ie = 1

It is IMPOSSIBLE to geta value less than 1 because uncertainty laws require at least 1 plancks length to be unkown and this means that the FABRIC of space-time IS that eigen state ...

Or simply the bit between 0 and 1 plancks length is always unknowable and we must have at least 1 planks lenght to measure [+ its own uncertainty] as you can not measure a NOTHING!

Therefor the MINIMUM value is ONE [ = 1 ].

Now look at the straight line again [deconstructive interferrence] and although it APPEARS to be flat energy wize it is actually a superposition state of 2 oppossing polar states which are present but not visible!

If you looked at the line only at that moment and afterwards it would APPEAR that 2 polar states would apear out of nowhere and nothing!

Personal Disclosure: The maths of the big bang is this simple...

0% NOT= 100%

... and its a simple logical inversion.