Where are the one billion universes?

[Profpat]

Hello everyone;

 

My name is Pat and I'm new to this forum. I am a professor, but its in accounting, not science. I am glad to have found your site because I have some questions and ideas I would like to bounce off you members of this forum.

 

My first question is what happened to the one billion universes that were annihilated during the big bang?

The last theory I heard that for every one particle that didn't get annihilated that one billion particles were destroyed in particle antiparticle annilihation.

So what happened to all that energy?

[bascule]

We don't know what happened in a pre-big bang context. That would require a theory which unites relativity with quantum mechanics. Right now we reach a classical singularity.

 

There are various theories of quantum gravity. Some of them do propose parallel universes, for example Lee Smolin's fecund universes theory. However these theories are mathematical constructs. They are not yet testable.

[Martin]

bascule, I think he may be talking about something else----this really refers to a brief epoch shortly after singulatity and even after inflation (if inflation happened) when the universe was so hot that matter particles and light were in an inseparable mess

If light is very hot or energetic, then two photons can interact to make an electronpositron pair, and a particleantipartilce pair can annihilate to make two photons again

 

you can think of everything being so hot that it was polymorphic, everything was changing into everything else-----everyparticle, I mean.

 

but in all the usual reactions the number of particles and antiparticles are the same, so this leaves the puzzle of why, in the end, were we left with a surplus of regular particles----where did this slight asymmetry come from.

 

I think this is what the orig. poster is asking about.

===============

 

Profpat, what you are proposing as a problem is actually no problem because the energy is RECYLCED. as long as the light is so hot that it can engender particles you can have it happen over and over again

 

the light can make particles---and they can annihilate making light

then that light can make more particles---and they annihilate again making light

 

finally after a million tries, the light makes an IMBALANCE of particles and antiparticles, with a few of our kind that are left over and they DONT annihilate!

 

but the rest annilate and make more light, which then keeps on making parti cles which then annihilate etc etc.

 

and gradually by these one in a million rare events a little surplus of ordinary matter (not matched by antimatter, and so unable to annihilate) builds up!

 

and as it goes along, the universe is expanding and cooling.

 

finally we are left with the surplus ordinary matter that has built up and the light which has cooled off so much it can no longer engender particles

 

THE EXTRA ENERGY YOU ASKED ABOUT HAS BEEN RECYCLED REPEATEDLY IN THE PROCESS and it is not left over.

 

So in this story there is no other million or billion other universes, all that happened in our one universe. It is a story about many many particles, the first accumulation of stable matter---that later condensed to hydrogen gas and other stuff----and eventually stars etc.

 

Is that what you were asking about?

[Realitycheck]

In other words, that would violate the Law of Conservation of Mass an Energy. In order for a hypothesis to be valid, it must adhere to all known laws. Otherwise, it is just a guess or opinion.

[Luminal]

In other words, that would violate the Law of Conservation of Mass an Energy. In order for a hypothesis to be valid, it must adhere to all known laws. Otherwise, it is just a guess or opinion.

 

You assume that the Law of Conservation came before the other events described in this thread. Even our physical laws had to have a point of origin. At some point at some place (there is no way to be more specific, or I would be acting like I knew what I most certainly could not possibly know), energy may well have been born spontaneously.

 

In a "Pre-Big Bang" reality beyond modern science's capability to study, and perhaps beyond human comprehension altogether, there must have been a mechanism for the birth of energy (and space and time for that matter).

 

One idea in regards to this concept is that when space and/or time "were created" (I use the word created very, very loosely) then physical laws, forces, and energy came with the package.

 

And 'whatever' gave rise to these apparently existed outside of causality itself. If this is the case, then the Pre-Big Bang circumstances are omnipresent, having neither a beginning nor an end, and one would open the door to the line of reasoning that our Universe may not necessarily be unique.

[foodchain]

You assume that the Law of Conservation came before the other events described in this thread. Even our physical laws had to have a point of origin. At some point at some place (there is no way to be more specific, or I would be acting like I knew what I most certainly could not possibly know), energy may well have been born spontaneously.

 

In a "Pre-Big Bang" reality beyond modern science's capability to study, and perhaps beyond human comprehension altogether, there must have been a mechanism for the birth of energy (and space and time for that matter).

 

One idea in regards to this concept is that when space and/or time "were created" (I use the word created very, very loosely) then physical laws, forces, and energy came with the package.

 

And 'whatever' gave rise to these apparently existed outside of causality itself. If this is the case, then the Pre-Big Bang circumstances are omnipresent, having neither a beginning nor an end, and one would open the door to the line of reasoning that our Universe may not necessarily be unique.

 

See, this is where I get lost. As a matter of perception, why put labels on it.

 

Going from conservation laws, we cant destroy or create energy, or at least have found no way to do such as I understand, but if the big bang as some would have it did? Then you get into ideas of big bang/big crunch cycles, but what about the acceleration, though in space who knows ultimately the permeability of forces. Its like this though, if you had one end of the know universe compare to the other, or two points as far away as possible, could two atoms or particles find each other, but on that note due to acceleration would not the space eventually equal that for galaxies?

 

After about ten minutes of thought on this personally I feel like I am just asking questions from my own ignorance to an existing ignorance in general, and that’s the allure of physics to me, simply put the massive who knows that still exist.

[Severian]

finally after a million tries, the light makes an IMBALANCE of particles and antiparticles, with a few of our kind that are left over and they DONT annihilate!

 

Unfortunately it doesn't work, since the Standard Model doesn't have enough CP violation to do this. Ho hum!

 

Let's be honest, no-one has the foggiest what is going on.

 

So in this story there is no other million or billion other universes, all that happened in our one universe. It is a story about many many particles, the first accumulation of stable matter---that later condensed to hydrogen gas and other stuff----and eventually stars etc.

 

Is that what you were asking about?

 

He may have been asking about what happened to all the 'universes' with different vacua, a la Linde and Susskind. If that were the case, then in their fantasy model, the other 'universes' are still there - they are just so far away that we don't see them (there is a tendancy for the local area to copy the same vacuum, so one would expect our local area to look the same).

 

But it is not a billion different 'universes', it is 10¹⁵⁰⁰⁰!

[Profpat]

Thank you everyone for your responses.

Yes Martin that is what I was asking about. Thank you for your clarification.

Without a science background, sometimes my wording is a bit vague.

[Martin]

..

Yes Martin that is what I was asking about. Thank you for your clarification.

..

 

Hi Pat, I was mainly concerned, in my response, with understanding better what your question is.

I just sketched a possible answer, to see if that was your question.

We should try to do better now we know what you are asking about.

 

I would say the key word is baryogenesis meaning BARYON GENESIS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis

 

If someone has a better online introduction to this topic please tell us. For now we can make do with Wikipedia.

 

the first point to make is that there are different ideas about how it came about but that it qualifies as an UNSOLVED PROBLEM IN PHYSICS

 

there is a kind of symmetry or unbiased fairness in observed physical processes, so you would expect equal numbers of Normals and Antis to be created and equal numbers to be destroyed-----In any given set of conditions you would expect equal numbers to be be created and destroyed by whatever reactions so that the overall statistics wouldnt change.

 

So the predominance of Normal stuff over Anti stuff calls for an explanation.

 

Here is a related Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptogenesis_%28physics%29

 

the LEPTONS---like the electron---also come in two kinds, Regular and Anti. So one can ask the same question. Why do Normal electrons predominate?

The article indicates that might not be as severe a puzzle