Why can’t you see at the start of the Big Bang?What did recombination look like?Why was the universe in an extraordinarily low-entropy state right after the big bang?What is actually universe? only matter or both matter and space?How could mass exist before Big Bang?What did recombination look like?Age of the universeIf temperature is dependent on mass, how did the early universe have a temperature?Qualitative picture or reference for a Lemaître's Cold Big Bang theoryWhy is it said that photon-wavelengths have increased by a factor of 1000 since our universe became transparent to light?How is the CMB used to determine the age of the universe?What if humans doubled size… and everything else… could we notice?

Is crescere the correct word meaning to to grow or cultivate?

What does the coin flipping before dying mean?

How to say something covers all the view up to the horizon line?

My large rocket is still flipping over

A 2-connected graph contains a path passing through all the odd degree vertices

TIP120 Transistor + Solenoid Failing Randomly

Dual frame in Riemannian metrics.

Why can’t you see at the start of the Big Bang?

How to preserve a rare version of a book?

How can I finally understand the confusing modal verb "мочь"?

What is the meaning of 「隣のおじいさんは言いました」

Installing Debian 10, upgrade to stable later?

Emergency stop in plain TeX, pdfTeX, XeTeX and LuaTeX?

Python 3 - simple temperature program version 1.3

Playing Doublets with the Primes

Was there a dinosaur-counter in the original Jurassic Park movie?

How is trade in services conducted under the WTO in the absence of the Doha conclusion?

How do I, as a DM, handle a party that decides to set up an ambush in a dungeon?

Two denim hijabs

Given four points how can I find an equation for any pattern?

What happens if I accidentally leave an app running and click "Install Now" in Software Updater?

Can anyone identify this unknown 1988 PC card from The Palantir Corporation?

Copper as an adjective to refer to something made of copper

How to speed up large double sums in a table?



Why can’t you see at the start of the Big Bang?


What did recombination look like?Why was the universe in an extraordinarily low-entropy state right after the big bang?What is actually universe? only matter or both matter and space?How could mass exist before Big Bang?What did recombination look like?Age of the universeIf temperature is dependent on mass, how did the early universe have a temperature?Qualitative picture or reference for a Lemaître's Cold Big Bang theoryWhy is it said that photon-wavelengths have increased by a factor of 1000 since our universe became transparent to light?How is the CMB used to determine the age of the universe?What if humans doubled size… and everything else… could we notice?













2












$begingroup$


I’m quite confused with regards to photon emission throughout the creation of the universe.



From what I’ve heard, there was no light (of any frequency) in the universe until 300,000 years after the Big Bang. This because then the universe cooled down enough to allow for atoms. However, it seems that electrons were created at ~3 minutes after the Big Bang. In this big electron soup, where they are constantly being thrusted around, aren’t they being accelerated and hence would release radiation? Then there should be light due to the accelerated electrons (just like how accelerated electrons produce radio waves right?)










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Electrons were not created 3 minutes after the big bang. You can't see photons from times earlier than about 300,000 years after the big bang simply because the universe was not transparent back then.
    $endgroup$
    – marmot
    3 hours ago















2












$begingroup$


I’m quite confused with regards to photon emission throughout the creation of the universe.



From what I’ve heard, there was no light (of any frequency) in the universe until 300,000 years after the Big Bang. This because then the universe cooled down enough to allow for atoms. However, it seems that electrons were created at ~3 minutes after the Big Bang. In this big electron soup, where they are constantly being thrusted around, aren’t they being accelerated and hence would release radiation? Then there should be light due to the accelerated electrons (just like how accelerated electrons produce radio waves right?)










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Electrons were not created 3 minutes after the big bang. You can't see photons from times earlier than about 300,000 years after the big bang simply because the universe was not transparent back then.
    $endgroup$
    – marmot
    3 hours ago













2












2








2





$begingroup$


I’m quite confused with regards to photon emission throughout the creation of the universe.



From what I’ve heard, there was no light (of any frequency) in the universe until 300,000 years after the Big Bang. This because then the universe cooled down enough to allow for atoms. However, it seems that electrons were created at ~3 minutes after the Big Bang. In this big electron soup, where they are constantly being thrusted around, aren’t they being accelerated and hence would release radiation? Then there should be light due to the accelerated electrons (just like how accelerated electrons produce radio waves right?)










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I’m quite confused with regards to photon emission throughout the creation of the universe.



From what I’ve heard, there was no light (of any frequency) in the universe until 300,000 years after the Big Bang. This because then the universe cooled down enough to allow for atoms. However, it seems that electrons were created at ~3 minutes after the Big Bang. In this big electron soup, where they are constantly being thrusted around, aren’t they being accelerated and hence would release radiation? Then there should be light due to the accelerated electrons (just like how accelerated electrons produce radio waves right?)







cosmology electromagnetic-radiation big-bang plasma-physics cosmic-microwave-background






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 19 mins ago









Qmechanic

108k122041256




108k122041256










asked 3 hours ago









John HonJohn Hon

528412




528412











  • $begingroup$
    Electrons were not created 3 minutes after the big bang. You can't see photons from times earlier than about 300,000 years after the big bang simply because the universe was not transparent back then.
    $endgroup$
    – marmot
    3 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Electrons were not created 3 minutes after the big bang. You can't see photons from times earlier than about 300,000 years after the big bang simply because the universe was not transparent back then.
    $endgroup$
    – marmot
    3 hours ago















$begingroup$
Electrons were not created 3 minutes after the big bang. You can't see photons from times earlier than about 300,000 years after the big bang simply because the universe was not transparent back then.
$endgroup$
– marmot
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Electrons were not created 3 minutes after the big bang. You can't see photons from times earlier than about 300,000 years after the big bang simply because the universe was not transparent back then.
$endgroup$
– marmot
3 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

You heard wrong. There were photons, electrons, protons, and neutrons before 300,000 years. (And very early, before there were protons and neutrons, there were quarks.)



Before 300,000 years, the photons could not propagate freely; they were being constantly scattered by the charged plasma of protons and electrons. The universe was effectively opaque.



Around 300,000 years, the universe had cooled enough that protons and electrons could form hydrogen atoms. A few other light elements also formed, because protons and neutrons had earlier formed helium nuclei, etc.



Atoms are overall electrically neutral and do not scatter photons nearly as much as a charged plasma does. So, after 300,000 years, the photons could move right through the neutral hydrogen gas. The universe became transparent. Cosmic photons created in the Big Bang have been moving without scattering for billions of years since “recombination”, the formation of neutral atoms.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I understand that if photons are being scattered, you could not see what’s infront of you, however, if photons did exist, your “eyes” would get stimulated right (if they didn’t melt)
    $endgroup$
    – John Hon
    33 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    @John It'd be like being inside a giant neon sign. You can't see very far in a universe of bright orange fog. But that's ok, since there's virtually no structure to see anyway, just minute deviations in the fog density. You can see an approximation of the colour of the universe when it was starting to become transparent at the end of this answer: physics.stackexchange.com/a/133943/123208
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    26 mins ago












Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f478191%2fwhy-can-t-you-see-at-the-start-of-the-big-bang%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









6












$begingroup$

You heard wrong. There were photons, electrons, protons, and neutrons before 300,000 years. (And very early, before there were protons and neutrons, there were quarks.)



Before 300,000 years, the photons could not propagate freely; they were being constantly scattered by the charged plasma of protons and electrons. The universe was effectively opaque.



Around 300,000 years, the universe had cooled enough that protons and electrons could form hydrogen atoms. A few other light elements also formed, because protons and neutrons had earlier formed helium nuclei, etc.



Atoms are overall electrically neutral and do not scatter photons nearly as much as a charged plasma does. So, after 300,000 years, the photons could move right through the neutral hydrogen gas. The universe became transparent. Cosmic photons created in the Big Bang have been moving without scattering for billions of years since “recombination”, the formation of neutral atoms.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I understand that if photons are being scattered, you could not see what’s infront of you, however, if photons did exist, your “eyes” would get stimulated right (if they didn’t melt)
    $endgroup$
    – John Hon
    33 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    @John It'd be like being inside a giant neon sign. You can't see very far in a universe of bright orange fog. But that's ok, since there's virtually no structure to see anyway, just minute deviations in the fog density. You can see an approximation of the colour of the universe when it was starting to become transparent at the end of this answer: physics.stackexchange.com/a/133943/123208
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    26 mins ago
















6












$begingroup$

You heard wrong. There were photons, electrons, protons, and neutrons before 300,000 years. (And very early, before there were protons and neutrons, there were quarks.)



Before 300,000 years, the photons could not propagate freely; they were being constantly scattered by the charged plasma of protons and electrons. The universe was effectively opaque.



Around 300,000 years, the universe had cooled enough that protons and electrons could form hydrogen atoms. A few other light elements also formed, because protons and neutrons had earlier formed helium nuclei, etc.



Atoms are overall electrically neutral and do not scatter photons nearly as much as a charged plasma does. So, after 300,000 years, the photons could move right through the neutral hydrogen gas. The universe became transparent. Cosmic photons created in the Big Bang have been moving without scattering for billions of years since “recombination”, the formation of neutral atoms.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I understand that if photons are being scattered, you could not see what’s infront of you, however, if photons did exist, your “eyes” would get stimulated right (if they didn’t melt)
    $endgroup$
    – John Hon
    33 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    @John It'd be like being inside a giant neon sign. You can't see very far in a universe of bright orange fog. But that's ok, since there's virtually no structure to see anyway, just minute deviations in the fog density. You can see an approximation of the colour of the universe when it was starting to become transparent at the end of this answer: physics.stackexchange.com/a/133943/123208
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    26 mins ago














6












6








6





$begingroup$

You heard wrong. There were photons, electrons, protons, and neutrons before 300,000 years. (And very early, before there were protons and neutrons, there were quarks.)



Before 300,000 years, the photons could not propagate freely; they were being constantly scattered by the charged plasma of protons and electrons. The universe was effectively opaque.



Around 300,000 years, the universe had cooled enough that protons and electrons could form hydrogen atoms. A few other light elements also formed, because protons and neutrons had earlier formed helium nuclei, etc.



Atoms are overall electrically neutral and do not scatter photons nearly as much as a charged plasma does. So, after 300,000 years, the photons could move right through the neutral hydrogen gas. The universe became transparent. Cosmic photons created in the Big Bang have been moving without scattering for billions of years since “recombination”, the formation of neutral atoms.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



You heard wrong. There were photons, electrons, protons, and neutrons before 300,000 years. (And very early, before there were protons and neutrons, there were quarks.)



Before 300,000 years, the photons could not propagate freely; they were being constantly scattered by the charged plasma of protons and electrons. The universe was effectively opaque.



Around 300,000 years, the universe had cooled enough that protons and electrons could form hydrogen atoms. A few other light elements also formed, because protons and neutrons had earlier formed helium nuclei, etc.



Atoms are overall electrically neutral and do not scatter photons nearly as much as a charged plasma does. So, after 300,000 years, the photons could move right through the neutral hydrogen gas. The universe became transparent. Cosmic photons created in the Big Bang have been moving without scattering for billions of years since “recombination”, the formation of neutral atoms.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 2 hours ago

























answered 3 hours ago









G. SmithG. Smith

11.9k11838




11.9k11838











  • $begingroup$
    I understand that if photons are being scattered, you could not see what’s infront of you, however, if photons did exist, your “eyes” would get stimulated right (if they didn’t melt)
    $endgroup$
    – John Hon
    33 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    @John It'd be like being inside a giant neon sign. You can't see very far in a universe of bright orange fog. But that's ok, since there's virtually no structure to see anyway, just minute deviations in the fog density. You can see an approximation of the colour of the universe when it was starting to become transparent at the end of this answer: physics.stackexchange.com/a/133943/123208
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    26 mins ago

















  • $begingroup$
    I understand that if photons are being scattered, you could not see what’s infront of you, however, if photons did exist, your “eyes” would get stimulated right (if they didn’t melt)
    $endgroup$
    – John Hon
    33 mins ago










  • $begingroup$
    @John It'd be like being inside a giant neon sign. You can't see very far in a universe of bright orange fog. But that's ok, since there's virtually no structure to see anyway, just minute deviations in the fog density. You can see an approximation of the colour of the universe when it was starting to become transparent at the end of this answer: physics.stackexchange.com/a/133943/123208
    $endgroup$
    – PM 2Ring
    26 mins ago
















$begingroup$
I understand that if photons are being scattered, you could not see what’s infront of you, however, if photons did exist, your “eyes” would get stimulated right (if they didn’t melt)
$endgroup$
– John Hon
33 mins ago




$begingroup$
I understand that if photons are being scattered, you could not see what’s infront of you, however, if photons did exist, your “eyes” would get stimulated right (if they didn’t melt)
$endgroup$
– John Hon
33 mins ago












$begingroup$
@John It'd be like being inside a giant neon sign. You can't see very far in a universe of bright orange fog. But that's ok, since there's virtually no structure to see anyway, just minute deviations in the fog density. You can see an approximation of the colour of the universe when it was starting to become transparent at the end of this answer: physics.stackexchange.com/a/133943/123208
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
26 mins ago





$begingroup$
@John It'd be like being inside a giant neon sign. You can't see very far in a universe of bright orange fog. But that's ok, since there's virtually no structure to see anyway, just minute deviations in the fog density. You can see an approximation of the colour of the universe when it was starting to become transparent at the end of this answer: physics.stackexchange.com/a/133943/123208
$endgroup$
– PM 2Ring
26 mins ago


















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f478191%2fwhy-can-t-you-see-at-the-start-of-the-big-bang%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

Tom Holland Mục lục Đầu đời và giáo dục | Sự nghiệp | Cuộc sống cá nhân | Phim tham gia | Giải thưởng và đề cử | Chú thích | Liên kết ngoài | Trình đơn chuyển hướngProfile“Person Details for Thomas Stanley Holland, "England and Wales Birth Registration Index, 1837-2008" — FamilySearch.org”"Meet Tom Holland... the 16-year-old star of The Impossible""Schoolboy actor Tom Holland finds himself in Oscar contention for role in tsunami drama"“Naomi Watts on the Prince William and Harry's reaction to her film about the late Princess Diana”lưu trữ"Holland and Pflueger Are West End's Two New 'Billy Elliots'""I'm so envious of my son, the movie star! British writer Dominic Holland's spent 20 years trying to crack Hollywood - but he's been beaten to it by a very unlikely rival"“Richard and Margaret Povey of Jersey, Channel Islands, UK: Information about Thomas Stanley Holland”"Tom Holland to play Billy Elliot""New Billy Elliot leaving the garage"Billy Elliot the Musical - Tom Holland - Billy"A Tale of four Billys: Tom Holland""The Feel Good Factor""Thames Christian College schoolboys join Myleene Klass for The Feelgood Factor""Government launches £600,000 arts bursaries pilot""BILLY's Chapman, Holland, Gardner & Jackson-Keen Visit Prime Minister""Elton John 'blown away' by Billy Elliot fifth birthday" (video with John's interview and fragments of Holland's performance)"First News interviews Arrietty's Tom Holland"“33rd Critics' Circle Film Awards winners”“National Board of Review Current Awards”Bản gốc"Ron Howard Whaling Tale 'In The Heart Of The Sea' Casts Tom Holland"“'Spider-Man' Finds Tom Holland to Star as New Web-Slinger”lưu trữ“Captain America: Civil War (2016)”“Film Review: ‘Captain America: Civil War’”lưu trữ“‘Captain America: Civil War’ review: Choose your own avenger”lưu trữ“The Lost City of Z reviews”“Sony Pictures and Marvel Studios Find Their 'Spider-Man' Star and Director”“‘Mary Magdalene’, ‘Current War’ & ‘Wind River’ Get 2017 Release Dates From Weinstein”“Lionsgate Unleashing Daisy Ridley & Tom Holland Starrer ‘Chaos Walking’ In Cannes”“PTA's 'Master' Leads Chicago Film Critics Nominations, UPDATED: Houston and Indiana Critics Nominations”“Nominaciones Goya 2013 Telecinco Cinema – ENG”“Jameson Empire Film Awards: Martin Freeman wins best actor for performance in The Hobbit”“34th Annual Young Artist Awards”Bản gốc“Teen Choice Awards 2016—Captain America: Civil War Leads Second Wave of Nominations”“BAFTA Film Award Nominations: ‘La La Land’ Leads Race”“Saturn Awards Nominations 2017: 'Rogue One,' 'Walking Dead' Lead”Tom HollandTom HollandTom HollandTom Hollandmedia.gettyimages.comWorldCat Identities300279794no20130442900000 0004 0355 42791085670554170004732cb16706349t(data)XX5557367