The Big Bang and Absolute Zero

I was wondering... I find it hard to believe that all matter in the universe was compressed into a little dot that exploded. That is, until I thought of something else. Absolute zero is an unreachable temperature because of, by laws of pressure, the volume of the gas itself would reach zero which is impossible because matter cannot be destroyed or simply 'disappear'. That part was hard for me to take in because I thought "can't the atoms stop moving and just be touching each other without vanishing into nothing?" That, unfortunately, was answered by a 'no'. He said that people have tried, and still do, to reach that temperature of no movement, and can get close, but never actually reach it.Now, taking in my thought that I haven't thrown away because of utter defiance, if all the matter was compressed at absolute zero, that would allow it to be held in such a dot AND give reason for the giant explosion (all that pressure instantly released).Any thoughts on this? Anything like "your entirely wrong, quit now" or "maybe... just maybe"?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

And as far as we know, that did not happen.Nothing exploded. It is the nature of space that it either expands or contracts. That is a conclusion that comes right out of General Relativity.- The problem is that in the past, the universe was smaller, hence denser. According to thermodynamics, it must have been hotter. As we go back in the past the universe must get hotter, so it couldn't have been absolute zero.

---

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

A couple of corrections.By "laws of pressure", if you mean PV = nRT, think about it. Volume would not be zero. P would be zero and would give an undefined answer for V.But more importantly, conditions of the universe at this stage cannot be described by the universal gas law because there was no gas to speak of.Lyston, one of the things about physics is you have to know when and where to apply what laws and what equations. You can't just pick and choose whatever you want to support your preconceived notions. This is called sloppy physics and would fail you right out of general college physics.But to be fair, if you think I have misinterpreted you, please share with us the math and explanation behind the math.

---

Thou shalt accept Prometheus as thy savior for HE is the true light of Humanity and the World.

As has already been stated, that's not what happened.We've gone over this a few times recently, so you could try looking through our recent Big Bang threads. But I'll give you the easily-digested form again here.It's perfectly natural to hear a simplified version of the Big Bang model and think that it says that something "exploded." That's the intuitive response - but the actual event is completely counterintuitive.The Big Bang is not like a chemical, or even nuclear explosion. It's not even a "bang" - the phrase "Big Bang" was coined by a scientist poking fun because the new model competed with the one he had proposed earlier. The name, unfortunately, stuck.According to the Big Bang model, as you move forward in time, space itself expands. It's not just that matter is moving apart - the very space the matter exists in is actually growing. It's like an inflating balloon - if you draw dots on the balloon and then blow it up, the distance between the dots will increase, even though they aren't really moving on the surface of the balloon. Further, the farther apart the dots are from each other, the more rapidly the distance between them will increase. It will appear that two dots an inch apart will be moving apart more slowly than two dots three inches apart, becasue every square inch of the ballon is expanding uniformly.This is what we see in the Universe. There is a redshift effect when viewing very distant galaxies that basically is the visible version of the doppler effect (the effect that makes a car sound different as it passes you). The frequency of the light is slowed down (not the speed, but the frequency) becasue the galaxies are moving away, and this lower frequency shifts the light emitted by those galaxies a bit towards the red end of the spectrum. The curious thing is, all of the distant galaxies seem to be moving farther away from us, and the farther away a galaxy is, the more rapidly it seems to be moving away - exactly the same as in our balloon example, as if space itself were expanding.If we want to look backwards in time, we just reverse this expansion, and we can make some logical inferences and test their results. As we go back, the Universe should be smaller, which means the net density of the matter and energy in the Universe would increase (as there is less volume to fit the same amount of matter and energy, since neither can be created or destroyed). If you go way back, the Universe was so hot, small, and dense that normal matter the way we recognize it didn't exist - matter took the form of a quark-gluon plasma, basically an incredibly dense soup of particles so hot that they can't even form into neutrons, protons, or electrons. If you go back a little farther, our normal laws of physics stop working - the mathematical models stop making any sense. This is the period between T=0 and T=10^-43, a tiny fraction of a second, and we call it a singularity: a point where the normal rules no longer apply, and we really don't know much at all. Matter doesn't have to "disappear" or be destroyed to reach absolute zero, as I understand it. Neither does the volume need to approach zero - in fact, for any set quantity of mass, as you decrease volume, temperature will increase, not decrease. It doesn't work that way. As density increases, heat increases. Remember, we're talking about all of the matter and energy in the Universe being compressed into a crazy-small volume. Its was hotter than you can possibly imagine, so hot that the vibration of the particles approached relativistic velocities, so hot that the particles couldn't even form into protons or neutrons let alone atoms. Besides that, the Cosmic Microwave Background shows that the Universe was indeed incredibly hot in the past, as predicted by the Big Bang model.There also isn't necessarily a "cause" for the expansion of space. Causality is an artifact of our perception of time: we are moving in time in a single direction. But time is just another dimension like length, or width, or height. Our experience of time is just a side effect - the chemical reactions in our bodies, including those in our brains that comprise our thoughts, require entropy to increase. So, we experience time solely in the direction of increasing entropy, and we call this "moving forward in time."The best way to understand is that the Universe has a certain shape. Let's say that, if you could look at our Universe from the outside, it would look like the top half of a globe. Time is represented by the north-south axis, with "forward" corresponding to moving south. The spacial dimensions length, width, and height are represented by the circumference of the globe. The North Pole is T=0. Matter can be represented by the longitudinal lines. At T=0, everything is in a single point. There is nothing "before" T=0 any more than there is anything farther north than the north pole. As you follow the longitudinal lines south, the distance between them increases, even though they aren't actually moving at all - the space between them expands. There isn't a "cause" for any of this - there's no "cosmic dynamite" setting off an explosion, or whatever. We are just experiencing the shape of the Universe as we move through the dimension of time.We have no idea how the Universe "got here." It's a difficult question to even ask rationally, becasue time is a cokponent of the Universe - you can't ask what came "before" the diemsion that defines what "before" and "after" mean. The Big Bang isn't a theory of origins, but rather a model of the conditions in the Universe as it continues to expand. All we really know is that it does exist, and we know with reasonable certainty what it was like from T=10^-43 on until now, and we have some educated guesses about the period between T=0 until T=10^-43. "You're entirely wrong" would be the best answer. But don't feel bad - like I said, the whole Big Bang model is counterintuitive. It's best understood using mathematics, but that's best left to the physicists. Feel free to ask whatever questions you have - we actually have a few physicists on this board.How's THAT for a long reply?

I'd like to mention that one stumbling block to many people is the term "space" when speaking of expansion. I has been for me. "space" is usually thought of as a defined virtual area or a defined empty area. When speaking of the great expansion the "space" that is referred to is not empty space that has things in it. There is no such thing as "empty" space. In this way "space" to me is a misleading term and perhaps should be represented differently. "Space" then becomes a frame of reference tool like a ruler. Space is a dimension used to measure our 3d experience. We do not say the actual miles between to objects are expanding.
So now one has to discuss what actually is expanding as "space" is not a sufficient term to use.
Am I making sense?

Well, if you want to be pedantic, here is a more accurate way of describing the phenomenon.As we all travel through space-time (which we are forced to do, since we are all moving in the time-direction of our own frames of reference), we notice two things: absent of forces that hold objects together, the distance between any pair of objects increases; if the universe has a finite volume, this volume is increasing. This gives the illusion that space is expanding; an illusion, since at different times we are observing different spaces.Sort of like the 1-dimensional people on a 2-sphere moving down lines of longitude; at different times they are on different lines of latitude, but to them it will appear as if the line of latitude on which they sit is expanding.

---

Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand; it is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy. -- Wendell Berry

Space is represented differently when a serious study of it is done. It is expressed entirely mathematically and time is inseparable. Few want to or can understand it in such a fashion. However, your solution, to use space as a reference tool like a ruler to measure our 3d experience, only adds another layer of misinterpretation. Space is our 3d experience that we measure with clocks and photons.And we don’t say the actual miles between two objects are expanding because they are contracting. That is why we can fit more of them between the two objects.Space is a sufficient term. It is space that is expanding.I'd also like to add, for the sake of the OP, that T=0K has nothing to do with T=0s.

---

Mournfully

I have never heard that. Explain this in relation to expansion please. I am not seeing that. Within a volume there is a quantity of space.
I place a box defining space between two objects. They move apart. The volume of the box does not change.
For space to expand the space within the box must also expand and therefore the box must expand. My issue is what is meant by "space" There is no such thing as empty
"space" It has physical properties and is therefore a physical thing. There must be a physical process of expansion. "Space" must have mass.
but
Mass is full of "space", Theoretically. That space must also expand. The rate of expansion is slowed because time is slowed by gravity? Because we are relative to it we cannot detect this minute expansion easily?
Gravity retards time. Gravity then defines time. Time is a property of mass? With decreasing mass/gravity, time accelerates?In reading explanations I find conflicting views on concepts.
The are schools of thought within the accepted framework.
Bear with my attempt at comprehension.

It just depends on which object one wishes to hold as their constant. If I measure space with my yard stick space is expanding. If I measure my yard stick with space my yard stick is contracting. But in no case is the yard stick expanding. So no one would say the miles are expanding.It could be that I misinterpreted what you meant. If what you meant was that, “We do not say there are an increasing number of miles between the two objects,” then yes, we do.However, your view seems to be that the box contains space, while it is space that contains your box. Your box is merely a demarcation of a set measure³ and space expanded without regard to the boxes set limits. The two points of space that you had originally used to set the measure of your box have, indeed, moved on. If you reset your box to the new position of the original two points of space the volume of the box would be greater.Try this: Find eight galaxies, sufficiently distant*, that could form the eight vertices of a cube. Wait 46 million years and the cube will have increased its volume by 1%. Your boxes volume will have expanded as space has expanded because its volume is tied to objects that move in concert with the space they are within.Space is the name given to that which we experience as up-down, left-right and back-fore. They being three of the four dimensions of space/time. Space is a tripartite axiom as it were. With what other word would one use to explain it that wouldn’t suffer the same problem of comprehension?Given a large enough chunk of space the mass within it can be considered, for our purposes^”, homogeneous, tenuous and immaterial. Space is physically expanding, but it does not have mass. Mass is a property of matter.The space within an object, say a grandfather clock, is expanding right along with the rest of space. If the clock had no tensile strength or self gravity it would be torn apart by the expansion. That is if you could get the clock to resist the cold draft coming down the stair which applies a force umpteen trillion times greater than the force of expansion.Space/time is warped by the mass contained within it, but time is not a property of mass. A bowling ball warps a trampoline but trampoline is not a property of bowling balls, nor does the bowling ball define the trampoline . And any mass significantly large and dense enough to noticeably interrupt our personal spatial experience has done so by killing us.The conflict of explanations you experience may be simply that different folks using different methods emphasizing different aspects of a very difficult, multifaceted subject.I’ll bear with your attempt at comprehension if you’ll bare with mine.They have threads for this. AbE: A day later and I've just read YOUR thread for this. What, no takers?*Sufficiently distant would require that they be so far apart that their random motions are dwarfed by the motion caused by the expansion of space.^”The Universe is warped on the large scale by the mass contained within it but it’s a detail that we can concern ourselves with after we’ve a general idea of what’s going on.AbE: I intended "temporal" not "spatial". After all, the Earth interrupts me daily.Edited by lyx2no, : New evidence falsified one of my cherished positions: I'm not dead.

---

Kindly******Ever eat a pine tree? What are you, stupid?

That "if" is not the reality of the situation."Space/time is warped by the mass contained within it, but time is not a property of mass. A bowling ball warps a trampoline but trampoline is not a property of bowling balls, nor does the bowling ball define the trampoline"
When you speak of space/time I see it as an inchpound. there is no actual inchpound.
What illustrates that time is an independent physical thing to be warped? So it is not "time" that is slowed but physical interaction of mass. Time just represents that physical happening. Without mass time would not exist or pass infinitely fast? Without reference time would be meaningless. More mass, slower time. less mass faster time.
You can change the speed of physical interaction with a change in mass. You cannot change mass by changing time. That requires acceleration.Space has no mass? Definitively? I don't buy that. Time and again massless "particles" have been found to have mass. "Space" is an ocean of photons and neutrinos and what else we do not know yet. It also has physical properties. Physical properties represent physical things.

What you "buy" is irrelevant. You're wrong.Space is not composed of anything possessing mass. Not neutrinos, not photons. You're wrong. Period.Neutrinos and photons, like other particles, occupy space.Your comparison to the bowling ball/trampoline analogy is irrelevant - you're taking the analogy too far. Mass warps space, and the easiest way to visualize it is to picture a bowling ball on a trampoline. But the analogy stops there - space is not an "object."Space is any given quantity of the dimensions length, width and height. The measurements of those dimensions by an observer in an outside frame of reference are altered by the presence of mass. Space is also intimately tied to time, as per the relationship described by Relativity. Space itself has no mass and is not composed of particles. Strictly speaking, you could say that mass is the warping of space, and that which we say "has" mass is simply that which warps space. Cavediver/Son Goku could clarify how space itself is related to quantum fields, but relevant to your statements, you're simply completely wrong.

Yeah, I caught that. The “if” was a contingency. Maybe if you had tried it you'd’ve realized that your POV was entirely erroneous. It wasn’t the Universe that got your experiment wrong.Maybe I’m misinterpreting something again, -· --- -. You established the volume of your box using the distance between “two objects” as your standard. This became your constant by which you compared the Universe. And when it stayed constant you interpreted that as the space it measured staying constant even though your “two objects”, the original standard, “moved apart". Does their moving apart not indicate that the original space would no longer fit into your box? If you don’t allow your box to stretch with the space why should anyone expect it’s volume to increase? It wouldn’t. It was the constant. It did exactly what was required of it: Nothing.I noticed that you had more words in the post; do they mean anything?Edited by lyx2no, : Punc.

---

Kindly******Ever eat a pine tree? What are you, stupid?

"Space is not composed of anything possessing mass. Not neutrinos, not photons. You're wrong. Period."There currently is no proof that is the case.
When we speak of the distance between two objects, the distance is figurative. It is not a thing.
The nature of what is expanding is not yet clear.
Space has properties of energy. Then it has mass.
We simply do not have the ability to detect it yet.
I hear time and again that nothing is actually composed of energy
Son Goku and others chant that mantra. It is as figurative as treating
space as an expanding thing with no substance.
We used to thing air was "empty"
For space to exist and have no mass it cannot be physical. That does not follow. Nothing is "not physical" Everything is made of something.
If black holes can be infinitely dense then "space" can be infinitely
lacking density and still be physical.There is no reason to believe the space between the nucleus of an atom and it's electrons is any different than that between galaxy clusters.
Mass retards the speed of time. Mass is then an island of "slowed experience".

If by "no proof" you actually mean "no scientific evidence", then you're wrong. The difference between your position and the scientific consensus is objective evidence. You can always refuse to accept the implications of the evidence, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist. I don't think that "everything is made of something" has yet been established as one of the physical laws of our universe. I think that what Son Goku and Cavediver would say about space/time is that it has properties that that we've objectively measured, such as curvature, and these properties are included in our theoretical models.But I don't think mass has ever been measured as a property of space/time, and so lacking objective evidence of this property we do not include it in our theoretical models.I guess you could argue that one day we'll detect the mass of space/time, but until that day arrives you're arguing a position that is without evidence.But aren't we drifting a bit far from the original topic? Does this tie back in somehow?--Percy