• 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!

Big Bang expanded into nothingness?

exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
We Never Know said:
"Matter did not exist then"

Either matter and energy always existed or these are wrong

Law of Conservation of Mass..
-mass can neither be created nor destroyed,

Law of conservation of energy..
-energy can neither be created nor destroyed
Click to expand...
The law of conservation of mass is a feature of classical physics and is not strictly followed, perhaps the most famous example being nuclear reactions, cf. mass defect and E=mc².

I think the Big Bang model allows for the possibility that matter condensed from radiation, via pair-production.
 
Heyo

Heyo

Veteran Member
Alien826 said:
There are three possibilities, zero curvature (flat), positive curvature and negative curvature. It's all to do with the average density of the universe and the amount of energy present (something like that). The way I understand it, in a positively curved universe there is not enough energy to keep the universe expanding and it will eventually start collapsing back into the singularity. Negative curvature means that there is enough energy to keep the expansion going forever. Zero curvature is where it is balanced and eventually the universe gets to a point of stasis. Positive curvature implies a finite universe and the other two an infinite one, though not everyone agrees on that.

Here's a link that says it more accurately.

Shape of the universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
:informative:
 
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
Subduction Zone said:
No, your post was about the conservation laws. You did not understand the explanation of how they were not violated.
Click to expand...

It doesn't violate them because?

-the principle of energy conservation states that energy can only change from one type to another. None is created or destroyed.

-the principle of mass conservation states that
matter can change form through physical and chemical changes, but through any of these changes matter is conserved. The same amount of matter exists before and after the change. None is created or destroyed.

Either they always existed or poofed into existence.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
We Never Know said:
It doesn't violate them because?

-the principle of energy conservation states that energy can only change from one type to another. None is created or destroyed.

-the principle of mass conservation states that
matter can change form through physical and chemical changes, but through any of these changes matter is conserved. The same amount of matter exists before and after the change. None is created or destroyed.

Either they always existed or poofed into existence.
Click to expand...
This is wrong. See for example post 61.

Furthemore, as @Subduction Zone has mentioned, gravitational potential energy is at a maximum at infinite separation of the bodies involved. At all closer distances the energy is negative relative to this value. In one version of the BB hypothesis, the positive energy in matter and radiation exactly counterbalances the negative gravitational energy at the start (zero separation). So in fact there is a possibility that total energy of the cosmos is and has always been zero, thereby elegantly maintaining energy conservation.
 
Heyo

Heyo

Veteran Member
exchemist said:
The law of conservation of mass is a feature of classical physics and is not strictly followed, perhaps the most famous example being nuclear reactions, cf. mass defect and E=mc².

I think the Big Bang model allows for the possibility that matter condensed from radiation, via pair-production.
Click to expand...
The law of conservation isn't violated even in quantum physics simply by applying E=mc². I.e. the sum of mass and energy has to be conserved.

But there seems to a violation anyways. Until the detection of Dark energy the curvature was intrinsically linked to the sum of mass and energy, the question was if gravity or inertia would win. But now that we know that the expansion is not simply linked to inertia and that Dark Energy seems to increase with space, we can think of the curvature independent of the mass/energy sum.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
We Never Know said:
It doesn't violate them because?

-the principle of energy conservation states that energy can only change from one type to another. None is created or destroyed.
Click to expand...


The total energy is zero. If the total is zero no energy was created or destroyed.
We Never Know said:
-the principle of mass conservation states that
matter can change form through physical and chemical changes, but through any of these changes matter is conserved. The same amount of matter exists before and after the change. None is created or destroyed.

Either they always existed or poofed into existence.
Click to expand...
The conservation of mass is not correct. At least as you have used it. There is a mass-energy equivalence. That is why I used the phrase "the total energy of the universe". That includes the energy tied up as mass. So one more time, there is positive and negative energy. Gravitational potential energy is in the books as negative energy in physics. By observing certain features of the Cosmic Background Radiation physicists can see if the universe is flat, that means that the energy balances. Have you ever watched the YouTube video featuring Lawrence Krauss? He is an astrophysicist that has worked on this. It is about an hour long but he goes over how they can measure this and what it means.

As I said the total energy of the universe has been measured. And as accurately as we can measure that energy it is zero. So where is the violation if everything balances?
 
Last edited:
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Heyo said:
The law of conservation isn't violated even in quantum physics simply by applying E=mc². I.e. the sum of mass and energy has to be conserved.

But there seems to a violation anyways. Until the detection of Dark energy the curvature was intrinsically linked to the sum of mass and energy, the question was if gravity or inertia would win. But now that we know that the expansion is not simply linked to inertia and that Dark Energy seems to increase with space, we can think of the curvature independent of the mass/energy sum.
Click to expand...
Here is a five minute explanation. Not nearly as detailed as Lawrence Krauss's "A universe from nothing". Here we have The Universe is a Free Lunch:

bigthink.com

A Universe Is a Free Lunch

How can you create a universe from nothing? Well if you calculate the total matter of the universe it is positive. If you calculate the total energy of the universe […]
bigthink.com bigthink.com
 
We Never Know

We Never Know

No Slack
exchemist said:
This is wrong. See for example post 61.

Furthemore, as @Subduction Zone has mentioned, gravitational potential energy is at a maximum at infinite separation of the bodies involved. At all closer distances the energy is negative relative to this value. In one version of the BB hypothesis, the positive energy in matter and radiation exactly counterbalances the negative gravitational energy at the start (zero separation). So in fact there is a possibility that total energy of the cosmos is and has always been zero, thereby elegantly maintaining energy conservation.
Click to expand...

Why is there gravity?
 
Alien826

Alien826

No religious beliefs
Subduction Zone said:
Yes, but now you are trying to follow the balloon analogy too literally. It is usually used only to explain the expansion. It does not need to apply to the curvature. Just as the shape of the universe does not mean that the universe itself is spherical, flat, or saddle shaped. What the heck would a saddle shaped universe look like anyway? The images that go with that are not the actual shape of the universe. It merely tells us what very very ancient light would look like as observed from the Earth.

View attachment 73639

Taking an analogy too far or too literally breaks them That is not their purpose.
Click to expand...

But only the first image looks like a balloon! I honestly have no idea how it is "usually used" or even who started using it.

I do understand that these images are not supposed to be exact pictures of anything. And I don't think ancient light would look like any of them either. The fact remains that each illustrates an aspect of each type of universe, for example, in the flat universe the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, which they don't on a balloon.
 
Pete in Panama

Pete in Panama

Active Member
Alien826 said:
That depends on whether you think these ideas can arise as part of the material universe or not. If thinking is a function of the brain, then there is no contradiction. Imagine you are standing on the Moon. Not hard, because there have been plenty of pictures of the lunar astronauts. Are you actually there? Now imagine something "outside the universe". Are you experiencing something real? I submit that in both cases it's all going on in your brain, which is very much part of the space-time universe.

Not to denigrate feelings and imagination of course. They both add a wonderful dimension to our lives.
Click to expand...
Let's get together on this. We can set aside imagination. I'm talking about free will. Let's say I have a choice of whether I'm going to post the word "red" or the word "blue". I have decided to post the word "red" ---

RED

and the universe you now exist in is one where I posted the word "red". My ability to make choices allowed me to either change the universe or perhaps select an alternate universe of my choice. Please bear in mind that my approach is only valid if we assume we have free will. If you believe we're all just physical machines then my conjecture becomes invalid.
 
Alien826

Alien826

No religious beliefs
Pete in Panama said:
Let's get together on this. We can set aside imagination. I'm talking about free will. Let's say I have a choice of whether I'm going to post the word "red" or the word "blue". I have decided to post the word "red" ---

RED

and the universe you now exist in is one where I posted the word "red". My ability to make choices allowed me to either change the universe or perhaps select an alternate universe of my choice. Please bear in mind that my approach is only valid if we assume we have free will. If you believe we're all just physical machines then my conjecture becomes invalid.
Click to expand...

Are we talking about free will? That's another thread, isn't it? OK then ...

You have free will to choose what you say. Agreed.

That ability enables you to "select" another universe. I don't understand what that means. Another universe has to exist before you can select it, surely? Even if I understood what "selecting" universe means. Do you mean like selecting which house to live in? You have free will to think about different universes, yes, but that doesn't make them real.

Actually, I do believe that free will can be considered to exist in a purely material universe. It's a long explanation though.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Alien826 said:
But only the first image looks like a balloon! I honestly have no idea how it is "usually used" or even who started using it.

I do understand that these images are not supposed to be exact pictures of anything. And I don't think ancient light would look like any of them either. The fact remains that each illustrates an aspect of each type of universe, for example, in the flat universe the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, which they don't on a balloon.
Click to expand...
The images have nothing to do with the analogy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top