Did energy exist before Big bang?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Blackstone, Mar 7, 2003.

  1. Blackstone Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    I always Wanted To know what there Was BEFORE Big bang, Did matter Come From null? or was there some sort of existence Before it? any Good Info on this ?

    my main point is, was there ANY kind of existence before the Big bang occurued, and If not...How exactly Can matter exist out of non-existence?
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2003
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    A new theory for the origin of the Universe is intriguing astronomers with the idea that a "Big Splat" preceded the Big Bang. It proposes that there may be an unseen parallel universe to ours. The idea, which is still at the development stage, may provide hints about what happened before our Universe exploded into existence some 13.7 billion years ago. The theory has been outlined in the past few days at the University of Cambridge in the UK and the Space Telescope Science Institute in the US. Paul Steinhardt and colleagues at Princeton University propose the so-called "ekpyrotic model". It explains important details about the nature of our Universe such as why the cosmos is expanding the way it is.

    M-theory
    For the uninitiated, the ideas are difficult to grasp. At their heart is string theory, the idea that the fundamental building blocks of space and time are tiny vibrating strings. String theory has excited theorists in the past few years although it has remained very much untested. Steinhardt's ideas about the origin of the Universe are based on an extension of string theory called M-theory. M-theory does not do away with the Big Bang. The evidence that everything emerged from a 'fireball' with a temperature of 10 billion degrees, expanding on a timescale of one second, is now very compelling and uncontroversial. Instead, M-theory looks at events before the Big Bang, proposing that the Universe has 11 dimensions, six of them rolled up into microscopic filaments that can, for all intents, be ignored.

    Professor Sir Martin Rees of Cambridge University :
    "Steinhardt and his colleagues offer a fascinating idea, invoking the idea of more than one universe embedded in higher-dimensional space."


    The ideas won't be firmed up until we have a proper understanding of space and time, the 'bedrock' of the physical world Professor Sir Martin Rees
    The action of the Universe takes place in five-dimensional space. Before the Big Bang occurred the Universe consisted of two perfectly flat four-dimensional surfaces. One of these sheets is our Universe; the other, a "hidden" parallel universe.

    According to the Princeton researchers, random fluctuations in this unseen companion universe caused it to distort and reach towards our Universe. The floater "splatted" into our Universe and the energy of the collision was transformed into the matter and energy of our Universe in a Big Bang. According to Professor Sir Martin Rees:
    "All these ideas about the ultra-early universe highlight the link between cosmos and micro-world - the ideas won't be firmed up until we have a proper understanding of space and time, the 'bedrock' of the physical world."
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Beercules Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    342
    It depends on the theory you're looking at. In some models of inflation, our visible universe was created from a pre-existing space-time 13 billion years ago. The universe as a whole may have existed forever without beginning or end.

    All models you will find say "something" existed prior to the big bang, if the word "prior" or "before" is to have any meaning. Alexander Vilenkin has proposed a model that has been called creation from nothing. In this scenario, energy and matter do not exist prior to the big bang, but the laws of physics certainly do. It is a quantum fluctuation allowed by those very laws of physics that brings about our space-time.

    Hard to test anything like that, though.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    Quote..."The ideas won't be firmed up until we have a proper understanding of space and time, the 'bedrock' of the physical world" says Professor Sir Martin Rees.

    I refuse to believe that a scientist could say anything so ridiculously obvious in the first part and so assumptive in the second. (Is 'assumptive' a word?)

    I'm not quite sure what science is up to on this one. Whatever we hypothesise or deduce as the fundamental 'thing' there is always going to be something before that. Even those who say it came from nothing still have to have something like quantum fluctuations in 'it'. If we cannot work out the answer from the evidence we have now then we probably never will, since no amount of further observation is going to suddenly reveal a 'beginning', the first something to arise from nothing. At least not unless we redefine 'nothing' as 'something'.
     
  8. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    HeHe, a good TRAWL of a statment...

    But i think he was saying that we DON'T have an understanding of space and time...which are the fundamental scaffolding that all the particles and forces rely on.
    The original super-string theory proposed that small loops (10^-42)and strings formed (like chain-mail) the `fabric` of space , time and all the particles & forces...An electron for example could change into an mini-black hole or a `piece` of space/time and back again...

    M-theory colliding membranes could eventually be verified experimentally/mathmatically.
    e.g.The force of gravity for example could be so weak compare with the other three forces that it may in-fact be leaking from the `other` membrane.
     
  9. shadows technocrat:Teach me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    You guys know how trig graphs work. maybe the universe is the same way in a sense. Trig graphs flow on a circle as the universe most likely does. So when we get to a certain point something will change and energy will start flowing in now out like it is now
     
  10. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    I'm sure you're right. However a complete understanding of space and time would include a complete understanding of whatever it is that underlies space and time and how they (or it if spacetime is singular) emerged from it. In other words spacetime is not truly fundamental, it is just as fundamental as we can manage at the moment. It is also fairly obvious that we won't have a properly complete understanding of anything at all until we have a complete understanding of everything.

    OK. But it seems to me that this does not solve the problem of the infinite regression of explanations all the way to complete nothing, since we do not know where these quantum fluctuations and superstrings came from.
     
  11. shadows technocrat:Teach me Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    223
    there should be a sign on these forums. Be prepared to be disected and studied at will.
     
  12. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    There is.
     
  13. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    Energy created everything and everyone...

    If there was no energy,there wouldn't be the omniverse.Energy gave the initiating process of everything and everyone.
     
  14. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    @Gravage
    Can i propose that there was no energy at the beginning or `BEFORE` the beginning?

    Given that, are you sure that there wouldn't be the omni-verse?

    Perhaps the universe is like a black-box (with a input hole and an out-put hole) that can contain many permutations and configurations.

    HEHE, If i put nothing in.....

    0----->-1+1 = -1 +(6-5) = -x + x ---------->0

    And get nothing out.

    Everything fine (and hunky dory)
     
  15. mohammadm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    50
    NOOO!!!
     
  16. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    @ mohammadm

    hehe,
    i assume you agree?
    It was a bit obvious i know ,but i`m sure that Gravage would pull me up about it,( or even correct me)!

    tnx.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    I agree with this bit of what you said. But don't forget that you put the concepts into this equation. In other words the universe that your equation describes is entirely conceptual. As our own may well be.
     
  18. Gravage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,241
    I don't think so...

    Like I said everything and everyone has to have the energy supply to start with,now questioning what created the energy?What if pure energy created other all forms of energies?What I'm trying to say in the beginning was perpetual,pure energy without beginning or end,it's something abstract and mystical that no being will ever find out(no,I don't mean on God,because I don't believe in anything or anyone supernatural,I only believe in natural things and events) .That's the mystery of the nature and there's no point to argue about since there will be no answer...
     
  19. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    ?

    quote me

    ------------------------------------------------------
    HEHE, If i put nothing in.....

    0----->-1+1 = -1 +(6-5) = -x + x ---------->0

    And get nothing out.
    ------------------------------------------------------


    HEHE, If i put nothing in.....

    zero energy----->things happen in here ---------->end of universe

    And get nothing out.


    The observed expansion of the Universe implies that it was born out of a singularity, a point of infinite density, some 13.7 billion years ago. Quantum physics tells us that it is meaningless to talk in quite such extreme terms, and that instead we should consider the expansion as having started from a region no bigger across than the so-called Planck length (10^-35m), when the density was not infinite but "only" 1094 grams per cubic centimetre. These are the absolute limits on size and density allowed by quantum physics.

    The first puzzle is how anything that dense could ever expand -- it would have an enormously strong gravitational field, turning it into a black hole and snuffing it out of existence (back into the singularity) as soon as it was born. But it turns out that inflation theory can prevent this happening, while quantum physics allows the entire Universe to appear, in this super-compact form, out of nothing at all, ( a cosmic free lunch).
    The idea that the Universe may have appeared out of nothing at all, and contains zero energy overall, was developed by Edward Tryon, New York City University, who suggested in the 1970s, that it might have appeared out of nothing as a so-called vacuum fluctuation, allowed by quantum theory.

    Quantum uncertainty allows the temporary creation of bubbles of energy, or pairs of particles (such as electron-positron pairs) out of nothing, provided that they disappear in a short time.
    The more mass created, the shorter the virtual particle can exist. The energy in a (space-time) gravitational field is negative, while the energy locked up in matter is positive.
    If the Universe is exactly flat, then as Tryon pointed out the two numbers cancel out, and the overall energy of the Universe is precisely zero.
    It is also expected that the rotation, and charge, of the Universe is also zero.

    George Gamow in a conversation with Albert Einstein casually mentioned that one of his colleagues had pointed out to him that according to Einstein's equations a star could be created out of nothing at all, because its negative gravitational energy precisely cancels out its positive mass energy.

    Unfortunately, if a quantum bubble (about as big as the Planck length) containing all the mass-energy of the Universe (or even a star) did appear out of nothing at all, its intense gravitational field would immediately crush it into a singularity.

    The development of the inflation showed how to remove this difficulty and allow such a quantum fluctuation to expand exponentially up to macroscopic size before gravity could crush it out of existence.
    Something was needed to give the Universe an outward push (acting like anti-gravity) while it was a Planck length in size.
    Such a small region of space would be too small to contain irregularities, so it would start off isotropic and homogeneous. There would have been enough time for signals (travelling at the speed of light) to have crossed the tiny volume, so there is no horizon problem.
    And the expansion flattens space-time itself, in much the same way that a balloon becomes smooth, as it is blown-up.
    If we blow-up the balloon big enough, say the size of the earth, the surface will appear flat.

    GUTs when applied to cosmology predict the existence of exactly the right kind of mechanisms to do this trick. They are called scalar fields, and they are associated with the splitting apart of the original grand unified force into the fundamental forces we know today, as the Universe began to expand and cool.

    At the Planck time, 10^-43 of a second, gravity would be created as the super-symmetry was broken (this provided the energy for inflation), and by about 10^-35 of a second the strong nuclear force.
    Within about 10^-32 of a second, the scalar fields would have doubled the size of the Universe at least once every 10^-34 of a second (some versions of inflation suggest even more rapid expansion than this).

    It would mean that in 10^32 of a second there were 100 doublings. This rapid expansion is enough to take a quantum fluctuation 10^20 times smaller than a proton and inflate it to a sphere about 10 cm across in about 15 x 10^33 seconds.
    At that point, the scalar field had crystallised leaving the Universe rapidly expanding...
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2003
  20. Beercules Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    342
    Better cite the article, so as not to be accused of plagiarism.
     
  21. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    Whoops, i forgot where i got all that information from, it`s just a small article i wrote from notes on my harddrive. So it should be ok.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page