Am @ Bb?

[aguy2]

If both quantum and classical AM (Anglular Momentum) are 'conserved' properties, wouldn't it be possible that this conservation stretchs back to the BB (Big Bang)? If AM only came into existence after the BB, when (in what era?) would it have done so?

aguy2

[swansont]

Classical angular momentum is conserved because space is rotationally symmetric, i.e. there is no preferred axis. This should date back to the Big Bang.

[aguy2]

Classical angular momentum is conserved because space is rotationally symmetric, i.e. there is no preferred axis. This should date back to the Big Bang.

 

Well, I would tend to say that space's rotational symmetry only dates back to the 'inflationary era', but for now it is enough for me to know that you agree that the source of classical AM dates back to the BB.

 

I know professionals throw 'hissy fits' if anyone presumes that there is any scalar relationship between classical and quantum AM, but isn't quantum AM (spin) also a conserved property that dates back to the BB?

aguy2

[swansont]

Well, I would tend to say that space's rotational symmetry only dates back to the 'inflationary era', but for now it is enough for me to know that you agree that the source of classical AM dates back to the BB.

 

I know professionals throw 'hissy fits' if anyone presumes that there is any scalar relationship between classical and quantum AM, but isn't quantum AM (spin) also a conserved property that dates back to the BB?

aguy2

 

I don't see why the inflationary era should have a preferred rotational axis. And yes, the quantum case should hold true as well.

[aguy2]

I don't see why the inflationary era should have a preferred rotational axis.

 

Neither do I. I am contending that the pre-inflationary era would display a high degree of angular momentum, and as a consequence of this angular momentum any large scale ejection of either matter or anti-matter would most likely take the form of polar jet/pulses. These twin polar jet/pulses would not themselves display spin/rotational angular momentum, although their constituent matter and anti-matter would.

 

And yes, the quantum case should hold true as well.

 

Can I take it that you agree that there is a good possibility that although neither leptons nor classical bodies existed in the early (pre-inflationary) universe, the angular momentum they presently display, being a conserved property, did, and this angular momentum could likely have meant that the pre-inflationary universe spun in a quantum sense, rotated in a classical sense, or both?

aguy2

[swansont]

Can I take it that you agree that there is a good possibility that although neither leptons nor classical bodies existed in the early (pre-inflationary) universe, the angular momentum they presently display, being a conserved property, did, and this angular momentum could likely have meant that the pre-inflationary universe spun in a quantum sense, rotated in a classical sense, or both?

aguy2

 

Yes, you can have collections of particles moving in a macroscopic way that has angular momentum.

[aguy2]

Yes, you can have collections of particles moving in a macroscopic way that has angular momentum.

 

Yes, but first there must be particles. Apparently there is a high likelyhood that the very early pre-inflationary universe did not have particles per se. If there are no sub-atomic particles and no classical bodies to express angular momentum, but AM is a conserved property that was present at the BB, then I am contending that it is highly likely that the pre-inflationary era displayed the conserved AM in the form of a spinning/rotating BB event/body.

aguy2