# Question about big bang theory

#### Suhana

How did that singular particle get its energy to initiate big bang??

#### Helio

How did that singular particle get its energy to initiate big bang??
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.

BBT begins not at t=0, but a short time before that. This keeps the theory testable and avoids metaphysics and religion, for that matter.

#### billslugg

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.

#### Atlan0001

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.
One place to look, and there are several others, in books and on the web:

Negative energy - Wikipedia

I remember a long time ago reading that when many of his physicist colleagues finally realized this total of energy and worried over it as the totality of energy in the universe (what it might mean), Stephen Hawking told them to quit being bothered with it . . . it was nothing to bother with since the universe was already there (zero balanced between positive and negative energy).

My picture:
I make it that the Cosmological Constant is Base2 binary base, '0' and/or '1' . . . the Universe (U), the Big Mirror. Infinity = '1' (constant!).

The Universe (U) mirrors itself to infinities ('1') and/or ('0' ('-1')) | mirrors itself to infinities ('-1') and/or ('0' ('1')).

Multiverse = (Planck) Big Crunch (M) | Big Vacuum (C = C , , , squaring (C^2)) | (Planck) Big Bang (E) | Simultaneous Equivalents (M) (E).

Is it particle or wave? | Is it point or plane?

It's a multi-dimensional Multiverse Universe.
---------------------------

Try to imagine it if you can: In an infinity of universes (u), how many black holes? In an infinity of space (spaces), how many black holes? In an infinity of time (times), how many black holes? The 'Black Hole' simultaneously everywhere and nowhere.

And then, simultaneously, there is the other, also simultaneously everywhere and nowhere.
----------------------------

I repeat: It's a multi-dimensional Multiverse Universe.

Last edited:

#### voidpotentialenergy

No real answer to how the universe came into being from a particle.
Seems like an unlikely scenario for it to happen then expand into nothing from nothing.
Easier solution is that (nothing) was unstable or carried a potential energy.
Fluctuation was the result of that and energy balance of fluctuations particle creation did the rest.
A BB might be some very long time scale away from nothing=fluctuation=particles= mergers=to much E=BB.

Smoother line of natural processes than a mystery particle just happened.
JMO

#### iconoclastmax

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.

This is very close to the current understanding. Space containing a gravitational field has a negative energy density due to the gravitational field (read Alan Guth's book). Mass with positive energy creates a gravitational field with a negative energy; creation of the negative energy also releases the positive energy that shows up as the mass-energy. A chicken-and-egg situation but since quantum mechanics is fuzzy we have:

initial vacuum with zero energy as an initial state -> final state with total energy zero, positive energy in real mass-energy and negative energy contained in the gravitational field created by that mass-energy.

#### Wind Angel

This question is one of the reasons I signed up here. That magical singularity makes no sense. Why would a singularity with infinite density and no mass form spontaneously in an infinite vacuum that contains zero energy? I can see energy forming spontaneously all over the place in a vacuum but I can't imagine it forming a singularity that could expand and become such a massive universe. My logical mind just can't accept the Big Bang model as the absolute beginning of everything, I think eating cement would be easier.

The only way I can make this make any sense, without adding a creator deity into the equation (and I couldn't imagine why one would create it that way), is to imagine that singularity came from a collapsed ancient universe that got sucked down black holes which absorbed one another until it could go no further and re expanded to become this one.

This makes that pesky Methuselah star and those galaxies that are almost as old as this universe fit smoothly into the big picture (and I predict they're going to find one that is just too old to fit in). I think that our little known universe sits in a void like the little cluster of galaxies in the Bootes Void, and we simply haven't come into contact with the outer universe yet.

I know I sound crazy. And I admit I am eccentric. But there are other theories out there that back up what I think might be true. If only I were better at math and could work one of those amazing equations, maybe I could "prove" my hypothesis mathematically.

#### billslugg

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.

#### Wind Angel

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.

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?

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?

I not trying to be argumentative. I am just tired of arguing with my computer screen and getting no response. Googling my questions hasn't worked either!

Helio

#### Helio

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?
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.

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?
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.

Wind Angel

#### Wind Angel

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.

Are there any theories out there that you think are better than the BBT? CERN has discovered how particles form spontaneously in a vacuum (or at least claim they have, and I believe them) and I am wondering how this might effect cosmology theories. I've read arguments for and against the Bang and what sits best for me is that it's part of the equation, but isn't the entire equation itself. But then again I want to go beyond a belief that makes me comfortable- I want to know. I want evidence.

Helio

#### billslugg

BB Theory does not address the beginning. There is no singularity in BB Theory. The Big Bang theory only goes as far back as it can given our physics. Our physics stops at 10 to the minus 43 of a second. At that point, in order to go any further back, we would have to exceed the highest possible temperature that there can be. This is called the Planck temperature and is 10^32 K. At this point the wavelength of the particles is smaller than the mean free path between them such that they cannot communicate. Another way of looking at it is they are tiny black holes. Black holes cannot communicate with each other. Communication between them is needed to exchange heat. Can't exchange heat thus can't get any hotter.

There are many theories as to what might have happened at the beginning but those theories are separate from the Big Bang. The Big Bang is nothing more than an extrapolation backwards from the currently observed expansion of the universe.

One theory is there was a "fluctuation in the vacuum" that resulted in space being torn apart and mass and negative energy being created at the same time and flying apart. The energy of the mass and the negative energy always balance such that conservation of mass/energy was never violated.

Another theory is that the universe contracted and bounced.

#### Helio

Are there any theories out there that you think are better than the BBT?
Nothing comes close. The abundance of evidence that matches the predictions has given great strength favoring BBT.

Any new theory must be able to explain, and unify, all the hard observations found in our universe. The following thread lists most of the important ones: Big Bang Bullets

billslugg

#### billslugg

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.

Helio

#### Helio

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. 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.

billslugg

#### Wind Angel

What do you guys think of Penrose's theory of a universe before this one? His evidence involves hotspots in the CBR, but other scientists say they don't see them there.

#### billslugg

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.

Wind Angel

#### Wind Angel

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.
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.

Of course until there is actual evidence it's all conjecture. It makes me feel more comfortable, though.

#### billslugg

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

#### Wind Angel

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

The problem is we don't know if they do eventually evaporate entirely from Hawking radiation, only that they emit it. That slow of a death almost seems meaningless for us. This will be an interesting subject to keep an eye on. It's a shame none of us will live long enough to observe it.

#### billslugg

We have never measured Hawking Radiation, it is only theoretical. However if it is emitted then the Black Hole must eventually disappear. This would be due to conservation of mass.

#### Wind Angel

Why have I read about Hawking radiation as if it is proven? This sort of thing gets so confusing! This isn't the first subject this has happened with . This is starting to irritate me.

If the amount of energy emitted is far less than what the black hole takes in, it wouldn't disappear, though. The energy has to go somewhere, it's not going to magically cease to exist.

#### billslugg

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.

Wind Angel

#### Wind Angel

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.

Yes, it was definitely articles like this that got me thinking it was fact over theory. I read too many like that and I respect Hawking's work so much I just took it for granted.

I tend to think that like stars, black holes will probably die in many different ways. I am particularly drawn to white hole theory, which if true might have led to that 'singularity' that became our known universe. This is really what I was getting at in the first place. If that is possible the Bang starts to make sense.

I hate feeling crazy when what was pounded into my head in school doesn't make any sense when scrutinized. Finding other theories similar to what I envision makes me feel better. I don't know why it's so important to me to know how we got here, it just is.

Helio and billslugg

#### Unclear Engineer

The problem with the BBT "not explaining the univese before "10^-43 seconds" is that it then needs to explain why the theory doesn't go to times before that.

Yes, doing so would get us into dimensions so tiny that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle tells us we cannot know the full set of parameters for things of such small dimension.

But, considering that the whole BBT is an extrapolation backwards in time from the astronomy observations we make today, that seems more like a cop-out than an actual reason to not have to explain how "something" can possibly come from "nothing". At best, that cop-out leaves room for some sort of pre-existing form of the universe, perhaps the inflection point after a "Big Crunch". But, the same theorists who argue for the BBT argue against the BC. To me, they have no basis for doing that if they can't get the BBT back to a singularity.

But, I have other problems with the BBT, and so do others who point out "tensions" and "paradoxes" like problems with "missing" anti-matter and magnetic monopoles.

My main problem with the BBT is where it needs to transition from things we observe in our macro world to where we can only try to imagine things in the tiny quantum world that the BBT theoretically compresses everything into as it extrapolated backwards in time. The main actor in the BBT at that point is called "inflation", and it seems to just do whatever makes the BBT work, without regard to how that could happen. In particular, trying to get theorists to address what actually happens to something like a photon as it is inflated from the quantum world into a macro world microwave seems to be beyond their capability to conceive adequately, or at least attempt to explain adequately.

And, failing to do that, I have no faith in the various arguments about the total net energy balance of the universe through the "inflation" period.

I think the problem is that quantum theorists are far too comfortable with thinking about things in inconsistent ways, such as particles being waves and vice versa, and fields being independent things that make particles, rather than particles make fields of effects in space. When we try to bring those concepts through "inflation" from quantum level to macro level, the theory does not seem to hold together when I look at the details. Maybe some day, there will be a theory that can unite what we think we understand about gravity and the other forces, and that will make sense of the full effects of "inflation". But, that is not where we are at, today. So, I am not to the poinit of "believing" that the BBT has everything right, at this point in its development.

I get really dubious about the BBT about at the point where the cosmic microwave background radiation is fitted into the theory. I am hoping to see some better analyses of the CMBR and some better observations of the universe between the time of the farthest gallaxies we can see, today, and the hypothesized time of the origin of the CMBR being received now on Earth.

Wind Angel

Replies
2
Views
599
Replies
39
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
26
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
2K