The Big Bang (split from What exactly is energy)

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Except Energy can be manifest in that potential being actioned. A massive/charged particle can have potential energy - then gain Kinetic Energy as it loses its Potential Energy (eg a falling rock) ie when moving from an area of higher to lower potential. Potenial is not the same as Potential Energy; the Potential at a certain point is the work per unit mass (or charge etc) required to move an object from zero potential to that certain point. Objects etc have potential energy - but the potential is a description of certain point in space.,

Presumably , the input of vast quantities of joules of energy at the big bang ,had the effect of making Potential energy at an extremely high level in various forms (Mass and Charge) to collapse as kinetic energy toward a ground state of potential energy , in the form of heat held yet diminishing in temperature as the expansion occurred.?

 

mike.

Edited June 19, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Presumably , the input of vast quantities of joules of energy at the big bang ,had the effect of making Potential energy at an extremely high level in various forms (Mass and Charge) to collapse as kinetic energy toward a ground state of potential energy , in the form of heat held yet diminishing in temperature as the expansion occurred.?

 

mike.

 

So was the Big bang . a State of immense potential , compared to some ground state which sped ahead of the universes expansion, Be this represented, both in charge and gravitational potential ?

 

Has the evolving or emerging of the universe been one of releasing energy through all the different chains of energy conversion.

Be they Heat, Light, Sound, Movement, Chemical, Electrical, Strain ,whatever, from and away from this starting potential energy, bound up in that initial ( BANG, Plasma Ball, Quantum Soup/fluctuation or whatever it was ) ?

 

Mike

Edited June 20, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

I'm not sure we know how much energy is represented in the big bang. Gravitational potential energy is negative (and our choice of zero is somewhat arbitrary, since we are usually interested in differences in values)

[Mordred]

The question isn't really definable in the terms of energy released, the term big bang is somewhat a misnomer. First off its not an explosion, its a rapid expansion of the universe.

If you take the total energy of the universe today and remove expansion and inflation, then this would represent the total energy at 10^-43 seconds. Prior to this time our physics breaks down, so we term this period of time a singularity. However there is also two schools of thought on this aspect. In this school of thought the energy at 10^-43 sec is roughly 10^-69 joules.

 

In the other school of thought often referred to as the zero point energy universe, there is positive energy and negative energy, matter and gravity being positive and the vacuum being negative. So in this school the energy density would be zero+the Heisenburg's uncertainty principle. In this model the total energy balance is always zero with the quantum fluctuations of the Uncertainty principle. (however this model fell out of disfavor as its results lead to an error of the order of 120 magnitudes) So either this model is invalid or there is an unknown mechanism to dampen the amount of vacuum energy produced.

 

then of course the problem comes into play does the universe obey the conservation laws of energy.

 

[latex]e=\frac{hv}{2}[/latex]

 

there is still some open ended questions involved, so much of what we feel we know prior to inflation is due to our knowledge of particle physics, the ideal gas laws, and which cosmological model best describes observations. As we cannot observe anything prior to the dark ages to directly see the big bang itself, our knowledge is speculative, with our current physics knowledge as supportive evidence.

 

here is a decent article discussing what I just described

"Does the universe obey the energy conservation law by a constant mass or an increasing mass with radius during its evolution?"

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.1629.pdf

 

Loop quantum gravity where the universe is the result of a bounce from another universe, would have roughly the same value I posted above (its not mentioned in the article) 10⁶⁹ joules.

 

even though the zero energy universe is of disfavor I'll add a related article as nothing is certain with regards to BB

"Preludes to dark energy:Zero-point energy and vacuum speculations"

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.4623.pdf

 

On the zero energy universe

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063.pdf

 

the last paper discusses several problems with the zero energy universe, one of them being that the metrics only work reliably in the flat universe case without special localized treatments to describe curvature (limited to cartesian coordinates, the use of pseudo tensors is a workaround)

 

so the only accurate answer is we don't know with certainty, the answer would depend on which model

Edited June 21, 2014 by Mordred

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The question isn't really definable in the terms of energy released, the term big bang is somewhat a misnomer. First off its not an explosion, its a .............h model

Thanks! There is a lot to read, a lot to think about. I will get back when I have managed to read digest and think

 

 

Afterthought . What we do know is , what we can observe now , by way of what came later, even now currently to us .

 

For instance if you could catch a lightning strike , in theory the last .0.00001 mm worth of the strike should be measurable as say one volt of a 3,000,000,000 volt strike at some vast current . So by looking at the cosmic background radiation we can look at 6000degrees k ( then, at the recombination event, some 300,000 years out from BB ) as 2.7 degrees k locally to us. I imagine this represents a massive thermal energy content, if we were to calculate this across a sphere surface of the whole current expanded universe? . I appreciate there are great dark or hidden areas. Where what was going on is hidden . But none the less the "stuff" still came out of the primeval whatever. Perhaps the "stuff" can give us the clues. Like looking at a crashed aircraft .(bits) ?

 

Mike

 

Ps I suppose your first paragraph is a typing error ( should be 10 to the +69 joules not 10 to the - 69joules as typed )? ( I have to be sure where everything is so darn big or small or massive or zero , as the case may be ) ?

Mike

Edited June 22, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

so the only accurate answer is we don't know with certainty, the answer would depend on which model

I have read through quite a lot of your quoted papers and other refs to the Big Bang including wikepedia.

 

Many many time the expression comes " we really do not know " " we do not know the answer to that "

Where did all that energy come from ? " we really do not know ! "

 

So . I go back to a comment I made earlier , it all came out of ' that time ' , so we should be able to get clues from what we have now, even if it has changed state, or temperature , or distribution , or many many things .

 

Firstly, there is the matter of ENERGY . How or where did it come from ? Nothing .......then

1,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Joules ( some diet ! )

 

Mike

[Strange]

Firstly, there is the matter of ENERGY . How or where did it come from ? Nothing .......then

1,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Joules ( some diet ! )

 

Mike

 

We don't know it came from nothing. I suppose it may have done, but it seems implausible.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

We don't know it came from nothing. I suppose it may have done, but it seems implausible.

I was quite surprised that some of the explanations mooted in ( Wikipedia and some of the arxiv,etc quotes) invoked philosophy as an ingredient. Much as I am more than happy to think in this way , I was none the less surprised.

 

To quote " wikipedia Big Bang ( note 'Big Bang ' not ' The Big Bang ' ,which is a TV show )

 

Main article Wikipedia Big Bang ' section : Religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory

 

 

As a theory relevant to the origin of the universe, the Big Bang has significant bearing on religion and philosophy.[101][102] As a result, it has become one of the liveliest areas in the discourse between science and religion.[103] Some believe the Big Bang implies a creator,[104] while others argue that Big Bang cosmology makes the notion of a creator superfluous.[102][105]

So as not to invoke ,that debate here . I am more than happy to leave the INPUT requirement for going from nothing to vast quantities of energy to a black box output. Namely accepting that some form of ingredient was required. What was required that would enable the " singularity, or whatever it was , " to have in its store house ( 10 to the 69 joules of useable energy) remains the question / statement . " we do not (yet ) know " often quoted when discussing the Big Bang.

 

Mike

 

Appendix . Black boxes, Each have an input ,and an output, and a transfer characteristic . Where the internal mechanism remains unspecified.

 

 

Each of these ingredient Black Boxes 'could ' contribute one aspect of the requirements for the singularity( or whatever ) to furnish the Big Bang.

 

As a Start . Taking First one important requirement Energy.

 

Say Energy being one requirement. If i were designing it ( the source of Energy ) in view of my own individual experience .

( In Business and Electrical/Electronic engineering ) . I would create Great Positive and Negative Potentials. That is , great Wealth in the Plus countered by Great Debt of equal quantity.in the negative. ( whatever wealth is when one is making a Universe). Similarly with electrical potentials ( massive voltage + and -). Thus (Vast Substance with attractive and repulsive forces )

 

This would require a Net Balance of Zero .In other words I could afford it . Whatever it cost . Substance and Charge.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mordred]

seeing as how were on the subject of a universe from nothing and where the energy comes from. This paper covers those questions, its a bit technical so I'll just post a key lines. The process involves false vacuum (higher vacuum energy state, and true vacuum-lowest energy state) and the Heisenburg's uncertainty principle +( virtual particle production and rapid expansion)

 

"One may ask the question when and how space, time and matter appear in the early universe from nothing. With the exponential expansion of the bubble, it is doubtless that space and time will emerge. Due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, there should be virtual particle pairs created by quantum fluctuations. Generally speaking, a virtual particle pair will annihilate soon after its birth. But, two virtual particles from a pair can be separated immediately before annihilation due to the exponential expansion of the bubble. Therefore, there would be a large amount of real particles created as vacuum bubble expands exponentially"

 

"Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing"

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207v1.pdf

 

the idea has been around for some time here is an older paper by Coleman

"Fate of the false vacuum"

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/ph564/Coleman.pdf

 

Leonard Parker (Parker radiation) was also an older work that showed particle creation due to inflation (unfortunately I could never get his original works but here is a later article) by the same author in which he refers to his earlier work (thesis paper)

"Particle creation and particle number in an expanding universe"

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.5616v1.pdf

Edited June 24, 2014 by Mordred

[Strange]

And (apparently - it is way over my head) Poplawski's "universe from a black hole" theory is able to create the energy needed to create a new universe when a black hole forms.