Big bang and conservation of energy

I was taught the universe was created and delegated by the laws of Mathematical equivalence I don't know about you or how old the information you received is. One side matter the other antimatter. In the beginning there was nothing. Then both opposites sprang from this black body equally and continue to grow to this day. This is of corse paraphrasing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can't even write coherent, correct English and you want us to believe that you are a grad student?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Liberal arts major trying to sound educated. And failing.

 

Party Boy,

When the universe was created, it should have created matter and antimatter in equal amounts, but that turned out to be wrong. A theory called spontaneous symmetry breaking attempts to answer why there is an unbalance of this symmetry. It is true that in such a process, antimatter was much short lived in certain forms than other more stable types of ordinary matter but this doesn't mean anything to do with the universe violating the conservation of energy. One of the basic principles one might learn in undergraduate classical Newtonian physics, is that matter cannot be destroyed, only change forms.

Now, the universe on a global scale doesn't seem to conserve energy. But this has nothing to do with the asymmetry of matter and antimatter. It could however mean a few other things... such as energy leaking from this universe to another, or the universe rapidly using up the energy in a different way which might lead to the universe quantum leaping. It could also mean something completely different.

 

I hear ya. Spontaneous and possibly simultaneous which would be a precursor to the BB. Say on one side (of a black body) matter collides with accumulated antimatter and the othe antimatter collides with matter generating a huge amount of energy in the same relative space. (please don't take every word for exactness). Energy would still be conserved as adding 1000 to both sides is still an equivalent equation. Thus an infinitely dense body of matter can exist for the BB to occur.

Which the BB in my opinion only states how elements formed not how the energy accumulated to form them.

 

You mean don't take any of the for exactness, or sense.

This is just a little word salad.

 

The reason why they thought the universe was flat was because that would be the only way energy could be conserved. If the universe was flat it would lead to a static universe. More recent findings have found that the universe will continue to expand, but it shouldn't be able to if it is flat. If they found that the universe wasn't going to keep expanding then we would have proven that energy is conserved mathematically, but that is not what they found so mathematically they cannot prove that energy is conserved because it will not create a static universe in bubble theory. It would be a physicist's job to mathematically explain how it is conserved with these findings. If your a physicist reading this you should then get back to work! Pseudo-skepticism is not an acceptable scientific theory!

 

Not exactly. Spontaneous symmetry breaking is what allows you to describe particle masses within the Standard Model without violating the math principles on which it's based. The broken symmetry referred to in this case is not a matter-antimatter symmetry, it's an SU(2) isospin symmetry combined with a U(1) hypercharge symmetry. A consequence of symmetry breaking is that matter and antimatter don't need to decay at the same rate, there's some flexibility here, but the known imbalances resulting from the Standard Model are orders of magnitude too small to account for the degree of matter dominance in today's universe.

"Energy of the universe" isn't a well-defined concept in General Relativity, but there are still conserved quantities which can in a sense be interpreted as the sum total of gravitational + all other forms of energy within a system. That being said, energy isn't leaking anywhere out of this universe as far as we know. If the expansion of the universe eventually reverses, whatever energy seemed to disappear during the expansion will once again manifest itself during the contraction.

It's because prior to General Relativity there was no reason to think curved spacetime would be relevant in describing anything physical, and then when GR was first introduced, Einstein postulated a negative gravitational pressure (i.e. anti-gravity) to counter its attractiveness at long ranges in order to model a static universe that isn't expanding or contracting. Einstein's attempt to model a static universe failed because the slightest motions of the stars and galaxies within would either lead to total collapse or an uncontrollable, permanently accelerating expansion. Since then as you mention, the uncontrollable expansion scenario has been found to match the astronomical data and the idea of negative pressure/dark energy has found new life, but that's still not a flat universe scenario. Energy conservation has nothing to do with it, as the traditional concept doesn't even apply the same way in curved spacetime.

 

I have to hand it too you that is the best explanation I have heard of it from anyone on these forums. You seem to be the only one that really knows what they are talking about. But, even though they say that inflation is increasing and will continue to expand, they still say it is flat because of experiments that measure the CMB and if the spots are the right size to show that the light has traveled in straight lines. I just think that leaves us without a correct model of the universe as a whole. Once again the model the universe doesn't fit the data. It just seems to create a situation where no theory could actually work as an accurate description of the universe as a whole. In order for the universe to be flat gravity or dark energy could not win. If dark energy is winning then the universe could not be flat by some scientist current models. There are some that have made this claim. It just seems wrong to then have a flat universe that is dominated by dark energy. I just don't think it could fit with any of our current mathematical models. It would mean that they are all wrong.

 

Spacetime curvature in this case doesn't involve curving light paths. Yeah there are effects like gravitational lensing and such where distant starlight does get curved a bit when it passes near other stars, but on a universal scale these kinds of effects don't factor in much. In general, you can observe the spacetime curvature of the universe by observing cosmological redshifts. Spacetime curvature doesn't always lead to curved paths in 3D space, or it would make no sense why a suspended weight falls straight down to the Earth upon release.

 

Energy is not conserved on cosmological scales. In GR, energy is not conserved globally, it is conserved only locally. You can stop posting BS for a while.

 

That is art what you just said. Consonance, assonance, recognizance. Truly beautiful and deserves recognition. Rhyme, rhythm, and reason.