This is a complete unknown. The limit of physics may not be able to go all the way to time = 0, though physics can get incredibly close.How did that singular particle get its energy to initiate big bang??
One place to look, and there are several others, in books and on the web:As I read somewhere "there is no net positive energy in the universe". The positive energy of the matter is exactly balanced by the negative potential energy of the expansion. I don't understand it so I can't answer any challenges, I just read it somewhere.
As I read somewhere "there is no net positive energy in the universe". The positive energy of the matter is exactly balanced by the negative potential energy of the expansion. I don't understand it so I can't answer any challenges, I just read it somewhere.
Two points to clarify.
1) Big Bang Theory does not address anything before 10^-43 seconds, therefore BB Theory does not include a singularity.
2) From the beginning there was no "creation of energy from nothing". The books were balanced at "net zero energy" from the start. The energy in the universe has always been exactly balanced by the negative energy due to the expansion.
The use of "singularity" adds "sizzle" to any article. It is ad hoc. We have no evidence infinite density can form with finite mass. Twisted math might do it, but I'm not convinded.Please explain. Every article and science show (including Nova) I have come into contact with all talk of this mysterious singularity that has no explanation. Now you say there is no singularity. Then what was it that expanded?
I would be shocked if there is any objective evidence that some sort of negative labeled energy could be combined with positively labeled energy to zap them out of the universe without any effects. This seems to be more about side-stepping a religious point of view for an initial creation, or whatever one wants to call it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but show me the tests, not the, seemingly ad hoc, math.Now as for this balance of energy- I just went through a month of researching energy in science (which as a terrible definition, btw) and was under the impression that there is no way to actually measure energy itself. So how do they know positive and negative energy is actually balanced? And where did this energy come from in the first place to be balanced ? Something had to have originally come from nothing, didn't it?
The use of "singularity" adds "sizzle" to any article. It is ad hoc. We have no evidence infinite density can form with finite mass. Twisted math might do it, but I'm not convinded.
Oddly enough, I just finished typing how the founder of the Big Bang never mentions a point beginning (see the Lemaitre thread). BBT came from Lematire applying the known, but limited, redshift data from Slipher (not Hubble) and the distance measurements from Hubble, and crunching his GR equations to reveal and expanding universe.
Given today's expanding universe, he and others, take BBT to be a theory that addresses the conditions for space as we shrink it by reversing the clock. How far can we go is what Bill mentioned? This trillionith of a second is as far as the best lab can take us, and this too isn't robust with answers. The laws of physics, according to physicists, is that their equations have their wheels flying off the wagon before they reach the first Planck unit of time (10^-43 sec.). Thus, stuffing the singularity into the BBT is like adding a jalapeno to the center of a jumbo shrimp -- the shrimp should be seen as independent of the spicy jalapeno, IMO.
I would be shocked if there is any objective evidence some sort of negative labeled energy could be combined with positively labeled energy to zap them out of the universe without any effects. This seems to be more about side-stepping a religious point of view for an initial creation, or whatever one wants to call it. Perhaps I'm wrong, but show me the tests, not the, seemingly ad hoc, math.
Nothing comes close. The abundance of evidence that matches the predictions has given great strength favoring BBT.Are there any theories out there that you think are better than the BBT?
Yes. The CMBR discovery, as predicted by BBT, is stated to have been the final nail in the coffin of the only true competitor to BBT — the Steady State theory.Pre-eminent among the observations any theory must explain is the Cosmic Background Radiation. It is a red-shifted fireball. We are literally looking at a fireball. We can literally see the Big Bang at age 378,000 years.
Yes, that's the one. I rather like it because it makes more sense. But maybe those black holes didn't evaporate but instead became one massive white protuberance ( science calls them white holes, but a hole isn't the opposite of a hole) and that is the "singularity" of the Bang.His work is pretty much over my head. I understand he says the end of the universe occurs when all matter ends up being sucked into black holes and the black holes eventually evaporate, the universe becomes nothing but photons. Photons do not experience time or space. Their clock is at zero, they see the universe foreshortened into a point. Time stops. Entropy resets to zero. This is then equivalent to a new start to the universe, a new Big Bang. It just cycles over and over.
I don't know that black holes do anything but evaporate. It takes some time though. A solar mass black hole (2e30 kg) containing 1e54 atoms, would emit one photon of Hawking radiation every 1e10 years and would last for 1e64 years. A supermassive black hole (1e14 solar masses) would take 2e106 years to evaporate.
Source: Wiki article on Hawking radiation
You may have fallen prey to an overzealous headline copy editor. "Steven Hawking was Right, Black Holes Can Evaporate, Weird New Study Shows". Read a bit further and you find out they did not look at a black hole, they simulated one in a laboratory with sound waves. The experiment lends credence to his theory but does not prove it. If you read the Wiki article on Hawking Radiation, it is termed "theoretical" in the lead sentence.
Stephen Hawking Was Right: Black Holes Can Evaporate, Weird New Study Shows | Live Science
You are correct, a black hole will decrease in size only when the amount of mass and radiation it takes in is less than what it gives off. This is part of the theorized process. Currently only a black hole with a mass less than our Moon will evaporate. Any larger than that and its temperature is less than the CMBR and it will gain mass. CMBR will have to red shift to a very low temperature in order for large black holes to dissipate.