How small was the universe when the Big Bang started?

Poll: what do you hope to gain by your participation on this site? Thanks --Ram ram

Question: do the equinox positions precess around the ecliptic over time? If so, then presumably they would only align with the CMBR axis at certain points in cosmological history. If that is the case, then half the argument for the "axis of evil" is a mere coincidence, unless you also align it with the existence in time of creatures able to ascertain and characterize the CMBR. Fasteddious

In the time it takes for you to read this sentence, the temperature of the universe dropped by a factor of more than a trillion trillion, and more than 99.9999999% of all the particles in the universe were destroyed.

A quote from The Great Courses first lecture on the Big Bang. Some more quotes

The big bang is not a moment when the universe had zero size or infinite density. Rather, the big bang is a moment of an incredibly high but finite density that we call Planck density ELECTROWEAK PHASE TRANSITION 10^-11 sec. 10^15°C The electroweak force splits into two forces: electromagnetic and weak. QUARKS COMBINE 10^-5 sec. 10^12°C Quarks combine into larger particles, all of which quickly decay, except protons and neutrons. NEUTRINO DECOUPLING 1 sec. 10^10°C Neutrinos “freeze out,” meaning the universe becomes transparent to them and they start streaming through other matter without interacting. ANTIMATTER ANNIHILATION 1–3 sec. 10^10°C The last antimatter annihilates, leaving a fixed number of protons, neutrons, and electrons that has remained virtually unchanged since. BIG BANG NUCLEOSYNTHESIS 1–3 min. 10^9°C Some protons fuse with all of the neutrons to produce atomic nuclei, ending with (by mass) approximately 75% hydrogen and 25% helium and trace amounts of other elements. MATTER-RADIATION EQUALITY 50,000 yrs. 10,000°C Matter overtakes radiation as the dominant form of energy in the universe. RECOMBINATION 370,000 yrs. 4,000°C Nuclei and electrons combine into neutral atoms, and the universe becomes transparent to radiation. The cosmic microwave background is produced THE FIRST STARS 30–200 M yrs. When a clump of gas condenses, it heats up. When the temperature in the core reaches 15 million degrees, fusion begins.

jerry

As to; "Any smaller than that, and we’d see fluctuations in the Big Bang’s leftover glow that simply aren’t there." On top of that, it is (very) interesting to note what the 'fluctuations' in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) do reveal to us. One of the most fascinating, even exciting, lines of evidence that we now have, (that overturns the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity), are the anomalies that are now found in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). Specifically, anomalies in the CMBR, (anomalies that were recently discovered by both the WMAP and Planck telescopes), ‘strangely’ line up with the earth and solar system, Here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR, that ‘unexpectedly and surprisingly’ line up with the earth and solar system, in an easy to understand manner.

Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw

Moreover, as the following paper highlights, we also find that Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe, “implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which the standard cosmological model is based upon”,,,

A large anisotropy in the sky distribution of 3CRR quasars and other radio galaxies – Ashok K. Singal Astrophysics and Space Science volume 357, Article number: 152 (2015) Abstract We report the presence of large anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars as well as some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR survey, the most reliable and most intensively studied complete sample of strong steep-spectrum radio sources. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the equinoxes and the north celestial pole. Out of a total of 48 quasars in the sample, 33 of them lie in one half of the observed sky and the remaining 15 in the other half. The probability that in a random distribution of 3CRR quasars in the sky, statistical fluctuations could give rise to an asymmetry in observed numbers up to this level is only ?1 %. Also only about 1/4th of Fanaroff-Riley 1 (FR1) type of radio galaxies lie in the first half of the observed sky and the remainder in the second half. If we include all the observed asymmetries in the sky distributions of quasars and radio galaxies in the 3CRR sample, the probability of their occurrence by a chance combination reduces to ?2×10?5. Two pertinent but disturbing questions that could be raised here are—firstly why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the strongest and most distant discrete sources, implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? Secondly why should such anisotropies lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It seems yet more curious when we consider the other anisotropies, e.g., an alignment of the four normals to the quadrupole and octopole planes in the CMBR with the cosmological dipole and the equinoxes. Then there is the other recently reported large dipole anisotropy in the NVSS radio source distribution differing in magnitude from the CMBR dipole by a factor of four, and therefore not explained as due to the peculiar motion of the Solar system, yet aligned with the CMBR dipole which itself lies close to the line joining the equinoxes. Are these alignments a mere coincidence or do they imply that these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which the standard cosmological model is based upon? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-015-2388-2

And it is these large scale structures of the universe, combined on top of the CMBR anomalies, (via supplying us with proper x, y, and z coordinates), which overturn the Copernican principle and support the antiquated, and quaint, ‘medieval’ Theistic belief that the earth should be considered ‘central’ in the universe. As the following article, (with a illustration) explains,

“Of course to have an exact position, (or what we would call an ‘exact center’ in the universe), we would need an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis, since that will give us three dimensions in Euclidean space. The CMB dipole and quadrupole gives us the X axis and Y axis but not a Z axis. Hence, the X and Y axis of the CMB provide a direction, but only an approximate position. That is why we have continually said that the CMB puts Earth “at or near the center of the universe.” For the Z-axis we depend on other information, such as quasars and galaxy alignment that the CMB cannot provide. For example, it has been discovered that the anisotropies of extended quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North celestial pole (NCP)4.,,, Ashok K. Singal describes his shocking discovery in those terms: “What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.” – Ashok K. Singal4 “Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky,” Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2103,.. Signal states: “We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations.” – illustration https://i.postimg.cc/L8G3CbXN/DOUBLE-AXIS.png – article http://www.robertsungenis.com/.....20Wars.pdf

Thus, directly contrary to what atheists, and others, have erroneously presupposed with the Copernican principle, the observational evidence that we now have in hand from cosmology, (and even from our best scientific theories of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), now reveals teleology, i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, that specifically included the earth from the beginning of the universe. The earth and the solar system, from what our best science can now tell us, is not the result of some random quantum fluctuation at the beginning of the universe as atheists have erroneously presupposed within their (ad hoc) ‘inflation’ model(s) (that were proposed to 'explain away' why the universe is as flat and uniform as it is). Verses:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Isaiah 45:18-19 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.” Job 38:4-5? “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it? Proverbs 8:26-27 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, Job 26:10 He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

bornagain77

The age of the universe, Earth, early life forms, etc., have all been SWAGed. SWAG is a scientific wild a** guess. With the limited information we have, it is all guess work when it comes to ages of anything. BobRyan

Red shift was observed by Hubble in 1929 so we have about 100 years of relevant observations. From that astronomers extrapolate 14 billion years. Any possibility of error? aarceng

So intelligent design is correct, right?

It definitely may be, but I don’t see how you get this out of that? Joe Schooner