• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What was energy of universe at big bang?

Unes

Active Member
Premium Member
I have couple questions regarding the following YouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA&t=14s


1. When Universe was at size of one billionth of a proton, what was the energy of the universe at that point?

2. It says during the inflation expansion of universe, the space mass density of universe stayed constant. If this was the case, as the universe got bigger, then where this extra energy was coming from?


Thanks for your response.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I have couple questions regarding the following YouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA&t=14s


1. When Universe was at size of one billionth of a proton, what was the energy of the universe at that point?


Theoretically if this version of the theory is correct; matter.

2. It says during the inflation expansion of universe, the space mass density of universe stayed constant. If this was the case, as the universe got bigger, then where this extra energy was coming from?

No extra energy, matter converted to energy upon expansion.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I have couple questions regarding the following YouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA&t=14s


1. When Universe was at size of one billionth of a proton, what was the energy of the universe at that point?

2. It says during the inflation expansion of universe, the space mass density of universe stayed constant. If this was the case, as the universe got bigger, then where this extra energy was coming from?


Thanks for your response.


This somewhat depends on which version of inflation is correct. There are several possibilities and we can't distinguish (yet) which one is correct.

So, if the Higgs particle is the inflaton that drives inflation, the energy of inflation is driven by the fact that the 'false vacuum' that has no Higgs particles has a higher energy density than the 'usual vacuum' that has such Higgs particles. @sayak83 has a very good set of posts on this topic.

Singularities and beginning of the universe
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
1. When Universe was at size of one billionth of a proton, what was the energy of the universe at that point?
Undefined. To estimate the energy you'd need to know the size of the universe and the energy in it. You must not assume that Guth is correct merely because he is clever.

2. It says during the inflation expansion of universe, the space mass density of universe stayed constant. If this was the case, as the universe got bigger, then where this extra energy was coming from?
Its part of the theory, so models using that theory will attempt to test it and to propose possible answers to your question. Its not reasonable to ask us on a religious forum to propose information that is not available.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I have couple questions regarding the following YouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA&t=14s


1. When Universe was at size of one billionth of a proton, what was the energy of the universe at that point?

2. It says during the inflation expansion of universe, the space mass density of universe stayed constant. If this was the case, as the universe got bigger, then where this extra energy was coming from?


Thanks for your response.
Here is what the standard theory of inflation says according to Alan Guth

The increase in mass probably seems strange at first, because it sounds like a gross violation of the principle of energy conservation. Mass and energy are equivalent, so we are claiming that the energy of the matter within the patch increased by a colossal factor. The reason this is possible is that the conservation of energy has a sort of a loophole, which physicists have known at least since the 1930s, but haven't talked about very much. Energy is always conserved; there are no loopholes to that basic statement. However, we normally think of energies as always being positive. If that were true, then the large amount of energy that we see in the universe could not possibly have gotten here unless the universe started with a lot of energy. However, this is the loophole: energies are not always positive. In particular, the energy of a gravitational field is negative. This statement, that the energy of a gravitational field is negative, is true both in the context of the Newtonian theory of gravity and also in the more sophisticated context of general relativity.

So, during inflation, total energy is conserved. As more and more positive energy (or mass) appears as the patch expands at constant density, more and more negative energy is simultaneously appearing in the gravitational field that fills the region. The total energy is constant, and it remains incredibly small because the negative contribution of gravity cancels the enormous positive energy of the matter. The total energy, in fact, could very plausibly be zero. It is quite possible that there is a perfect cancellation between the negative energy of gravity and the positive energy of everything else.

Cosmic Questions - Guth: How Does Inflation Work?
 

Unes

Active Member
Premium Member
So, during inflation, total energy is conserved. As more and more positive energy (or mass) appears as the patch expands at constant density, more and more negative energy is simultaneously appearing in the gravitational field that fills the region. The total energy is constant, and it remains incredibly small because the negative contribution of gravity cancels the enormous positive energy of the matter. The total energy, in fact, could very plausibly be zero. It is quite possible that there is a perfect cancellation between the negative energy of gravity and the positive energy of everything else.

Thank you sayak83.
According to this passage the energy of universe at the end of inflation was almost zero.
Did the positive energy and the negative energy somehow get separated from each other?
Or, they are jointly forming our universe at present condition? then, in this case all our experiences is merely founded on nothing!
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
I have couple questions regarding the following YouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA&t=14s


1. When Universe was at size of one billionth of a proton, what was the energy of the universe at that point?

150px-A_battery_%28Eveready_-742%29.jpg

2. It says during the inflation expansion of universe, the space mass density of universe stayed constant. If this was the case, as the universe got bigger, then where this extra energy was coming from?

2007_Western_Power_Sports_Jumper_Cable.jpg


Thanks for your response.

No problem. Glad to help.

.
 

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
I have couple questions regarding the following YouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA&t=14s


1. When Universe was at size of one billionth of a proton, what was the energy of the universe at that point?

2. It says during the inflation expansion of universe, the space mass density of universe stayed constant. If this was the case, as the universe got bigger, then where this extra energy was coming from?


Thanks for your response.

This doesn't account for two recent discoveries: 1) Inflation is accelerating, and 2) the universe at the visible horizon is not an edge, but the point at which the expansion goes superluminal and disappears--so we don't know how much mass is in the universe or what is driving the acceleration of inflation.
In case anyone is wondering, the fabric of the universe is not limited to Einstein's speed of light speed limit, so it doesn't violate Relativity.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Thank you sayak83.
According to this passage the energy of universe at the end of inflation was almost zero.
Did the positive energy and the negative energy somehow get separated from each other?
Or, they are jointly forming our universe at present condition? then, in this case all our experiences is merely founded on nothing!

No, they did not. The negative energy is in the gravitational fields and the positive energy is in the particles. Since the gravitational field is produced by particles.....
 

Unes

Active Member
Premium Member
No, they did not. The negative energy is in the gravitational fields and the positive energy is in the particles. Since the gravitational field is produced by particles.....

Thank you Polymath257.

So, according to this model the energy of a particle combined with its gravity field is zero. Am I correct on this? Then, what about energy of photons, do they also have gravity field? But photons do not have any mass, so I assume they do not have any gravity. This is so confusing, could you please explain more.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Thank you Polymath257.

So, according to this model the energy of a particle combined with its gravity field is zero. Am I correct on this? Then, what about energy of photons, do they also have gravity field? But photons do not have any mass, so I assume they do not have any gravity. This is so confusing, could you please explain more.

Actually, mass, energy, and momentum all have gravitational effects. The dominant one is usually from mass, but the others can be relevant in extreme circumstances.

Edit: In fact, in the early universe (first few hundred thousand years), the gravitational effects of photons were dominant over those of 'matter'.
 
Last edited:

Unes

Active Member
Premium Member
Actually, mass, energy, and momentum all have gravitational effects. The dominant one is usually from mass, but the others can be relevant in extreme circumstances.

Edit: In fact, in the early universe (first few hundred thousand years), the gravitational effects of photons were dominant over those of 'matter'.

Thank you Polymath257.
So, can we conclude that according to this model the total energy of this universe is very close to zero? And, this universe is built merely by separation of positive and negative energy?
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I have couple questions regarding the following YouTube video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTUsOWtxKKA&t=14s


1. When Universe was at size of one billionth of a proton, what was the energy of the universe at that point?

2. It says during the inflation expansion of universe, the space mass density of universe stayed constant. If this was the case, as the universe got bigger, then where this extra energy was coming from?


Thanks for your response.

Zero (electronvolts).

Ciao

- viole
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Thank you sayak83.
According to this passage the energy of universe at the end of inflation was almost zero.
Did the positive energy and the negative energy somehow get separated from each other?
Or, they are jointly forming our universe at present condition? then, in this case all our experiences is merely founded on nothing!
Why would net zero energy imply nothingness?
It is entirely true that our kind of matter does require positive energy, but it is also clear that space-time and quantum fields are certain types of "thing" and they exist (apparently) with zero, positive or negative energy.

I would also caution against over indulgence in philosophical or religious speculations based on physics that is on the edge of our current understanding of reality. I do understand that all of us desire to know and understand the true reality of the world and ourselves before we die. But consider how many myths, stories, religions and philosophies have been created for this purpose over the last 10,000 years and how many have turned out to be true in any sense of the term as our knowledge has advanced. Even models of science as successful (and still successful) as Newtonian physics have turned out to be mere approximations to deeper realities overturning centuries of metaphysical speculations based on it. Science is very good at what it does, creating empirical models that explain the phenomenon we observe in the world and predict them in advance so that we have manipulative power over them to develop our civilization and technology. But this reality we see is extremely extremely deep and layered and how deep this rabbit hole goes nobody can foretell. If Newton was merely dipping his toes on the beach, we are still on the shallows, there is a lot that is left yet before we plumb the true depths of this ocean of phenomena surrounding us, and is us.

So, I will tell you what insights have been gathered by cosmology as of now. But I will advice caution about building metaphysics out of it.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Actually, mass, energy, and momentum all have gravitational effects. The dominant one is usually from mass, but the others can be relevant in extreme circumstances.

Edit: In fact, in the early universe (first few hundred thousand years), the gravitational effects of photons were dominant over those of 'matter'.
Also pressure and tension have gravitational effects. Normally negligible but it dominates the false vacuum of inflation fields (if they exist).
 

Unes

Active Member
Premium Member
Why would net zero energy imply nothingness?
It is entirely true that our kind of matter does require positive energy, but it is also clear that space-time and quantum fields are certain types of "thing" and they exist (apparently) with zero, positive or negative energy.

I would also caution against over indulgence in philosophical or religious speculations based on physics that is on the edge of our current understanding of reality. I do understand that all of us desire to know and understand the true reality of the world and ourselves before we die. But consider how many myths, stories, religions and philosophies have been created for this purpose over the last 10,000 years and how many have turned out to be true in any sense of the term as our knowledge has advanced. Even models of science as successful (and still successful) as Newtonian physics have turned out to be mere approximations to deeper realities overturning centuries of metaphysical speculations based on it. Science is very good at what it does, creating empirical models that explain the phenomenon we observe in the world and predict them in advance so that we have manipulative power over them to develop our civilization and technology. But this reality we see is extremely extremely deep and layered and how deep this rabbit hole goes nobody can foretell. If Newton was merely dipping his toes on the beach, we are still on the shallows, there is a lot that is left yet before we plumb the true depths of this ocean of phenomena surrounding us, and is us.

So, I will tell you what insights have been gathered by cosmology as of now. But I will advice caution about building metaphysics out of it.

Thank you sayak83.
Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin shocked our religious beliefs to its core. We do form our beliefs and our opinions based on the information that we get from various sources, and that includes science.

Anyway, can we conclude that according to this inflation model the total energy of this universe is very close to zero? Then, this universe is built merely by separation of positive and negative energy.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Thank you sayak83.
Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin shocked our religious beliefs to its core. We do form our beliefs and our opinions based on the information that we get from various sources, and that includes science.

Anyway, can we conclude that according to this inflation model the total energy of this universe is very close to zero? Then, this universe is built merely by separation of positive and negative energy.
As far as I understand it, yes.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Thank you Polymath257.
So, can we conclude that according to this model the total energy of this universe is very close to zero? And, this universe is built merely by separation of positive and negative energy?

The word 'merely' sounds like an understatement, but that is our current understanding of what happens.
 
Top