General Question

luigirovatti's avatar

Do you think the following quote about the rejection about the Big Bang theory is good enough to be considered?

Asked by luigirovatti (3001points) November 7th, 2020

(Just to be clear: this is not an exact quote. There might be some modification for purposes of readability that will not be signaled with ”[...]”. OK?)

“Some proponents of the Big Bang Theory believe that the Big Bang occurred over thirteen and a half billion years ago. They also believe that the matter in the universe cooled to where the hot gases started creating stars and planets in less than a million years. That would still be over thirteen and a half billion years ago.

QUESTION: If the material in the Orion Nebula came from the big bang, why are stars still being created there?

There are those that think the delayed forming of solar systems is normal, or that the new stars be created now are a form of recycling from space debris.

Now, let’s take this further. If there was a Big Bang explosion that could overcome that unbelievable gravity, mass, and density to send the mass out with unimaginable acceleration what else could we expect? I would expect that the force of that explosion would be more likely to destroy the mass instead of simply separating it. I think that we need to go down a level below that. If all of the mass of the universe was compacted down to where all of the electrons, protons, and neutrons were compressed together in one solid mass, it seems to me that we would have a problem overcoming the nuclear bonding at the atomic level. Could we expect that the correct atomic patterns of atoms would be created when everything was expanded?”

(Here’s now a kinda different quote about the Orion Nebula:

“Instead of saying that the remaining clouds of space matter are still left over from the Big Bang, the theory is that the matter is debris from stars that exploded at the end of their lives. Then the assumption is that the debris reforms and creates new stars and solar systems. The end result is that we are observing a giant recycling process where everything remains and just reforms in a cycle of stages. The version of the theory that I heard leaves out that the stars go into the super nova state when they have consumed a huge portion of their matter so that there is not enough mass left to contain the fusion reaction. With that factor thrown in, recycling would only be partial, and that should have us asking if significant amounts of matter are mysteriously appearing to keep the balance in galaxies or to supply our expanding universe?”)

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

14 Answers

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

I don’t have a deep knowledge about this, but anyway….

1)
“If the material in the Orion Nebula came from the big bang, why are stars still being created there?”

Stars were not created in the Big Bang. All stars were created afterwards. Just like there are mountains being created on Earth today, after past mountains have emerged and eroded away

2)
If all of the mass of the universe was compacted down to where all of the electrons, protons, and neutrons were compressed together in one solid mass, it seems to me that we would have a problem overcoming the nuclear bonding at the atomic level.

They were no electrons, protons and neutrons. There was no atomic force to overcome. What was there? I don’t know.

Caravanfan's avatar

I know the answer to this question, and I will give it the time of day if it is a serious question and the OP really is curious about it. It’s astronomy 101 stuff. It will be an involved answer, so I do not want to waste my time otherwise.

stanleybmanly's avatar

There were no atoms or particles of any sort at the moment of the big bang and for a considerable period following it. Your description of star formation ignores the enormous quantities of loose primordial hydrogen in the galaxy.

luigirovatti's avatar

@Caravanfan: Am I interested? Yeah, but keep in mind that I don’t have a hobby in astronomy, but I’m in no hurry to do other things now, so, I am willing to listen. Anyway, let’s see what @kritiper explains about it.

kritiper's avatar

It is possible that all of the matter in the great void did not originate in and of the Big Bang, and that the Great Void and all mater existed before this latest “Bang.”
My contention is that all of the matter already existed before the Big Bang and that the Big Bang was not the only one. There could have been billions upon billions of “Big Bangs” throughout the endless eons of time, and not all contingent upon the existence or progression towards a “Bang” of any others.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I need you to post a link back to that photon question of yours.

Caravanfan's avatar

@luigirovatti I saw it and answered.

luigirovatti's avatar

Anyway, independently of the quote (I should’ve approached the topic myself), I found an article about the “missing mass” of the universe, related to the Big Bang naturally. Here: http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/universes-missing-baryons-06916.html

zenvelo's avatar

”...force of that explosion would be more likely to destroy the mass”

But that would only be true if Einstein was wrong; the total mass + energy in the Universe does not diminish, and as the energy converted back into mass, the stars and planets are formed.

Caravanfan's avatar

Okay, here’s the short version. After the Big Bang, the universe was mostly hydrogen and helium. Those coalesced into early stars and galaxies. These ran their lives, blew up and did other kinds of nuclear chemistry, and created more elements. These went into gas. New stars formed, blew up, and had even more complicated nuclear chemistry.

This cycle of star life happens over and over again. The Orion Nebula is the result of that, and that’s why there is still star being formed.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Again, the exploding stars agitate the primordial hydrogen in the cloud reservoirs of the galaxies. The elements created in supernova explosions and neutron star collisions are but a minuscule percentage of the mix in the interiors of subsequent stars. It is the fact that the Orion nebula is one of these pockets of hydrogen clouds which makes it a stellar nursery.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther