Size of the universe

Hi CS and NN. Love your work! Yeah a convoluted path for sure!But look let me retract — I’ m learning so much from these threads, reckon I should hold any questions ‘till I’ve lurked quite a bit longer. Have to say though, you guys are all so clear and patient with it. I’m stoked I came here to try and learn some physics.With thanks,Lurkey

Its whatever. Ask away if you want to. If we don't want to reply then we won't

There must have been was a lot of conversion back and forth between matter and energy in the very, very early universe, if that's what you're referring to, but I think much of the hydrogen, helium and lithium are unchanged since first condensed out of the cooling universe. Most of heavier elements formed by stellar processes and by nova and supernova are probably also unchanged since first formed.--Percy

That was indeed what I was referring to. The question was about tracing atoms back to the origin of the universe. After the cooling of quarks, the cooling of hadrons, and the matter-anti-matter annihilation, yes. At some point in there we can trace most hydrogen atoms to currently existing hydrogen atoms. Most of the helium too except that some of that is made in stars and through nuclear decay.Lithium is produced in some stars and consumed in others. Most lithium atoms were produced together with the hydrogen and helium as you describe. Yes. So we cannot trace the identity of these atoms back to the origins of the universe or to any other early part of the origin of the universe.

I’m getting the feeling this will be my answer: But doesn’t all matter ultimately date back to the big bang? It doesn’t have to be an atomi’d settle for the thing that makes the things that make the atoms.Hay and was just a side-line question too. I now totally retract my original (what does the universe look like from the inside when it was the size of a tennis ball). Seems now I might as well have been asking for a photograph of the inflation field!So look, I won’t follow it up, but I will confess to what was in my mind at the time. I wanted to hear that the universe would look infinitely big (not wrapped up back on itself, but stretching out forever). And this was part of my ‘master vision’ = the size of the universe is like the comparison between natural and even number infinities.In my mind, I had drawn those 2 infinities as a venn diagram..little circle inside big circle. Voila. Today’s universe (natural numbers) and tennis ball universe (even numbers). Both exactly the same size, both infinitely big AND one smaller than the other. Kinda. Smaller is the wrong word, but ffs don't start picking at it.Ok so its a fantasy. Just some ideas are so hardeg I HATE the universe-wrapping-back-on-itself kind of infinity, but somehow the universe-stretching-out-forever kind is ok. Similarly, infinitely small and infinitely big is ok, but I can only deal with the transition if there is no middle ground. A tennis ball size universe really freaks me out!!Hey and why is it a little hard to NOT imagine the tennis ball universe from a spectator’s viewand, it is impossible TO go to that view when imagining today’s universe?!Reckon I got me some internal problems.So, I’ve taken a few deep breaths. Think I need to put the whole concept away until I learn some maths. I’m hearing from you all that calculus is a good starting spot.Still very much enjoying this forum btw.Take care,Lurkey

No, there was "some time" after the Big Bang before matter even existed: click to enlargeIt was "really fucking short" but it was there nonetheless. In order to concepualize it, you're gonna have to be able to reduce dimensions in your mind. So, take a cube, it's 3-dimensions, and reduce it to 2 dimensions: It becomes a plane. That is, the plane is the "shadow" of a cube. Think about how your shadow on the sidewalk is a 2-D representation of yourself. Now, reduce that 2-d plane to one dimension: it becomes a line. If you take a sheet of paper (2D) and look at it just from its edge, it makes a line. Again, you can reduce a 1D line into a point in the same way: Take a pencil and look at it down the shaft and it becomes a "point" (0D). That's reducing dimensions in a nutshell.So, on to the analogy. Imagine the globe, the Earth. But just the surface of the Earth. Nothing on the inside just the surface, like a balloon. Let that 2 dimensional surface represent all three spatial dimensions, they're just reduced as per the above. Now, imagine that the lines of latitude represent the timeline. The closer you get to the North Pole, the farther back you are going in time. As you approach the North Pole, as you go back in time, the size of the Universe, the radius of the Earth, keeps getting smaller and smaller. That's the Universe getting smaller and smaller as we go back in time. So what happens when you get to the North Pole? You can't go farther north than that, i.e. you can't go back further in time than that. The surface "wraps back upon itself". That is, it is an asymptote <--. clicky. Asking what's before the Big Bang is like asking what's north of the North Pole. Your immediate reaction might be "upwards" from the surface, but due to the dimension reduction, there is no such thing as that. For, when you're at the North Pole, all directions are south. If you're confined to the surface, there is no upwards to point towards.That point, the North Pole, represents the singularity that the Big Band describes. All directions are "forward" in time and there is no such thing as "before". Time, itself, is an integrated part of the dimensions of spacetime, that is there are 3 spatial dimensions and one temporal one. So we're really talking about a 4 dimensions manifold <--. again, clicky. That manifold has a finite "shape" and that shape suggests a finite past, but that past "folds back onto itself" and exists at all points that time exists. Its like the Eath exists at all points of latitude even though there is only so far northwards that you can go.So that's the best analogy I've come across, let me know if you have any questions.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : Type. 2D --> 1D for a line. Added (0D) to point

what a great post!!thanks CS

I've nothing to add to Catholic Scientist's informative post. I just wish to explain the term manifold, in case the Wikipedia page is not sufficient.Essentially a manifold is an shape where you can label the points using a set of real numbers. The number of real numbers needed is called the dimension of a manifold.For example the Earth's surface would be a two-dimensional manifold as any point on its surface can be labelled using two real numbers (longitude and latitude).The space of all states of a classical particle is also a manifold, any state can be described using six real numbers (six-dimensional manifold), three for the position of the particle and another three for the value of its momenta in each direction.Some shapes (or spaces, which is the technical term) are too bizarre to be described using real numbers, although the use of these spaces is limited in physics.If the manifold has a notion of distance between its points, then it is called a Riemannian manifold or a Pseudo-Riemannian manifold if one of the dimensions is time. The surface of the Earth is a Riemannian manifold, since there is a distance between points on the Earth's surface. The space of states is not, as you can't really say how far states are from each other.How the distances work on a particular manifold is given by an object called the metric. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity basically says that the energy density of matter determines the metric of spacetime.That is, the energy density of matter at a point affects how the rules of distance work near that point.

Thanks, Son Goku. That was a perfect sidebar to CS's post.And this... ...turned on a little light bulb in my mind that had somehow never managed to fire.

The main point is that all matter, all the heavens and the earth and everything in it appeared in a single event just as Genesis says so clearly, right?It is clear that the Bible was right long before Science was sure that Universe DID have a beginning, 13.9 billion years ago. Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (the Formative/Cosmology Era), God, (the Uncaused First Cause, or the Dark Energy which pre-existed the material Universe, perhaps), created... (all that which has followed the Big Bang from the singularity of Planck Time which consisted ofSeven Stages:
1) The Inflation Era
2) The Quark Era
3) Hadron Era
4) Lepton Era
5) Nucleosynthesis Era
6) Opaque Era
7) Matter Era,...
in an enormous Einsteinian energy transformation, E = mC^2),...
... the (matter composing the) heaven (beyond the Solar System) and the (accretion disk which congealed into the planet) earth.(Gen 1:1)
Create a Website | Tripod Web Hosting (The seven stages of the Big Bang underline the favorite number of God) Here the whole cosmic evolution is expressed as seven stages of unfolding.Edited by kofh2u, : typo

1) You're just choosing arbitrary divisions for your mythical "days." You could just as easily divide the evolution of the Universe into 2, 3, or 10 different "days" by choosing different arbitrary divisions. In this respect, your Bible is no more or less correct than any random guess.2) The Bible presents Creation as occurring in six days, not seven. On the 7th, "he rested," remember? You should cut down your arbitrary divisions by a day.3) The Biblical Genesis myth compresses the origin of at minimum the solar system into the first day. The rest is used to create various forms of life, which obviously precludes using the 7th day for the "formation of galaxies."

Tremble before me mortals, I am God the almighty, creator of all. I am beyond, space, time and matter! I am eternal and omnipotent!Also I'm a virgo, my favourite number is 7 and I just LOVE the smell of burnt goat.I know, off topic - but seriously...

I'd give you more cheers if I could...Do you come here often?

Not me, I'm jusr quoting the scientists who explain the stages of the ig Bang by favoring this division into seven steps.As you say, they coiuld predominantly have choosen to think out the relationship between events and decided to break it down differently.But what seems true is that science tends to select seven quite often, and here, the seven steps have been posted by others on other threads.1) But if you list another scientist for us, let's examine if it is really beneficial.2) And, since seven supports the Bible, why choose to make artifical waves???

No... the bible is right about seven:1. Formative/Cosmologic Era-Hadean Era/ = First Day2. Hadean Era-Archaean Era/ = Second Day3. Archaean Era-Proterozoic Era/ = Third Day4. Proterozoic Era-Paleozoic Era/ = Fourth Day5. Paleozoic Era-Mesozoic Era/ = Fifth Day6. Mesozoic Era-Cenozoic Era/ = Six Day7. Cenozoic Era-Common Era/ = Seventh Day