What was energy of universe at big bang?

[Unes]

No no. Gravity is curvature of space-time. Not mass. The curvature has a magnitude and a direction, so it's a vector field.

Thank you sayak83, you are absolutely right, my statement was totally wrong.

Higgs field theory says that mass property of quarks and some leptons are the values that define their interactions with Higgs field, and in the early hot universe these interactions were broken, and their mass were zero. Now, since Higgs field and gravity field are two different fields, do we have a new property for these particles that define the value of their gravity field? Because, with mass = 0, there is no gravity field.

Also, in this new definition for mass, does mass still relates to the energy of the particle (E = mc^2)? Because, in the early hot universe the energy of quarks and some leptons become zero, and I think this cannot be right either.

Also, with Higgs field we are interjecting that in the early hot universe quarks and some of leptons had zero mass, and these particles were moving like photons. In thermodynamic heat is defined by motion of particles, but at this extreme density, is any motion feasible?

 

[sayak83]

Thank you sayak83, you are absolutely right, my statement was totally wrong.

Higgs field theory says that mass property of quarks and some leptons are the values that define their interactions with Higgs field, and in the early hot universe these interactions were broken, and their mass were zero. Now, since Higgs field and gravity field are two different fields, do we have a new property for these particles that define the value of their gravity field? Because, with mass = 0, there is no gravity field.

Also, in this new definition for mass, does mass still relates to the energy of the particle (E = mc^2)? Because, in the early hot universe the energy of quarks and some leptons become zero, and I think this cannot be right either.

Also, with Higgs field we are interjecting that in the early hot universe quarks and some of leptons had zero mass, and these particles were moving like photons. In thermodynamic heat is defined by motion of particles, but at this extreme density, is any motion feasible?

All and any kind of energy creates gravity fields. The energy of a particle is not only tied to its mass. For example a photon has no mass, but has energy. Thus even when a particle had no mass it still had energy E =h*frequency, where frequency is the frequency of the quantum wave associated with the particle. So the quantum fields and particles had lots of energy and hence associated Gravity effects even before they had mass.

Things that have gravity effects
Energy of any kind
Mass (which is a form of energy)
Pressure
Tension

 

[Unes]

All and any kind of energy creates gravity fields. The energy of a particle is not only tied to its mass. For example a photon has no mass, but has energy. Thus even when a particle had no mass it still had energy E =h*frequency, where frequency is the frequency of the quantum wave associated with the particle. So the quantum fields and particles had lots of energy and hence associated Gravity effects even before they had mass.

Thank you sayak83, you had mentioned this point earlier in this thread, but with all due respect my question was not about whether a particle has gravity or not!

I reached to the following conclusion, please let me know whether my conclusion is correct or not.

We have discovered that energy of a particle (E = mc^2), and gravity of the particle, which are two independent properties of a particle, they both are presented just with its mass property. And now, Higgs theory says: that mass is also presents particle’s interaction with Higgs field.

If my understanding is correct then, this is amazing, that one property manifest two dependent and one independent phenomena.

 

[sayak83]

Thank you sayak83, you had mentioned this point earlier in this thread, but with all due respect my question was not about whether a particle has gravity or not!

I reached to the following conclusion, please let me know whether my conclusion is correct or not.

We have discovered that energy of a particle (E = mc^2), and gravity of the particle, which are two independent properties of a particle, they both are presented just with its mass property. And now, Higgs theory says: that mass is also presents particle’s interaction with Higgs field.

If my understanding is correct then, this is amazing, that one property manifest three independent phenomena.

It's more of a cause effect, like sun's light making the moon shine.
The subatomic particle interacts with the Higgs field in such a way that it acquires mass. This mass then impacts space time causing it to curve so that gravity is generated. And mass is a form of energy. But yes it's all connected to each other very intimately.

 

[Unes]

It's more of a cause effect, like sun's light making the moon shine.
The subatomic particle interacts with the Higgs field in such a way that it acquires mass. This mass then impacts space time causing it to curve so that gravity is generated. And mass is a form of energy. But yes it's all connected to each other very intimately.

If we say that mass which is created by Higgs field is generating the gravity, then when such mass vanishes in the early hot universe, then the gravity should also vanish, but that is not the case.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Start with basics people

 

[sayak83]

If we say that mass which is created by Higgs field is generating the gravity, then when such mass vanishes in the early hot universe, then the gravity should also vanish, but that is not the case.

The energy that is not associated with mass continues to generate gravity. Basically part of the positive energy that the high energy Higgs field had is being converted into the mass of the particles. But since this is an instance of one form of energy (present in the Higgs or scalar field of inflation) converting into another form of energy (as mass of particles), the total amount of energy remains the same and hence gravity remains the same.

 

[sayak83]

Start with basics people

What are you referring to here?

 

[Sha'irullah]

What are you referring to here?

I am referring to the concept of energy as used in physics. I was giving the formula

Only a math nerd would get it perhaps.

edit: the object calculated is suppose to be a god.

 

[sayak83]

I am referring to the concept of energy as used in physics. I was giving the formula

Only a math nerd would get it perhaps.

edit: the object calculated is suppose to be a god.

Yes, it's kinetic energy.

 

[Unes]

The energy that is not associated with mass continues to generate gravity. Basically part of the positive energy that the high energy Higgs field had is being converted into the mass of the particles. But since this is an instance of one form of energy (present in the Higgs or scalar field of inflation) converting into another form of energy (as mass of particles), the total amount of energy remains the same and hence gravity remains the same.

Thank you sayak83,
Let us in our lab observe annihilation of an electron with a positron and their conversions to photon, and compare it to a similar annihilation in the early hot universe when these particles had no mass, and their interactions with Higgs field were broken, and Higgs field energy was not involved in that annihilation. Is there any difference between these two cases of annihilation?

 

[sayak83]

Thank you sayak83,
Let us in our lab observe annihilation of an electron with a positron and their conversions into photon, and compare it to a similar annihilation in the early hot universe when these particles had no mass, and their interactions with Higgs field were broken, and Higgs field energy was not involved in that annihilation. Is there any difference between these two cases of annihilation?

I am not a particle physicist and do not know the details. My best intuition is in both cases the photons will have the total energy that the electron positron pair had. In the high energy case when Higgs field is excited enough that they are massless, that energy will not include the contribution from their masses. I do not know if an experiment has actually done this or not.

 

[Unes]

I do not know if an experiment has actually done this or not.

Thank you sayak83, in studying Higgs field theory the theorists were far ahead of the experiments, so without doing the experiment they should know the difference between these two annihilations according to the Higgs boson theory.

 

[sayak83]

Thank you sayak83, in studying Higgs field theory the theorists were far ahead of the experiments, so without doing the experiment they should know the difference between these two annihilations according to the Higgs boson theory.

Yes they would. If I find anything, I will let you know.

 

[Unes]

The expansion of universe moved the early photons toward the microwave frequency (CMB). After the inflation the universe has expanded 10^28 times. Has this space expansion moved the spectrum of hydrogen atom in the early stars toward the red-shift? This red-shift should be beside of the Doppler shift due to the speed of galaxies from each other.

 

[Jake1001]

1. Same as today - energy brought in from other universes.

2. Other universes.

If Viole agrees....this is correct...if not...I'll make up another answer .

Good thread...Unes..

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.

 

[Polymath257]

Transforming photons to electron or proton coincides with creation of positron or anti-proton. Does creation of Positive energy particles in Inflation theory also REQUIRE the production of anti-particles at the same time?

As far as we know, yes. The reason matter dominates instead of anti-matter is not known, but is suspected to result from some asymmetries that are known to exist between matter and anti-matter. A difference in decay rates of 1 part in a billion is enough to explain the observed matter dominance.

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you sayak83,
When you say: “for every 1 billion anti-particles, 1 billion and one particles were produced”, are the produced particle & anti-particle keep annihilating each other with fast rate, that we end up with the universe that it is filled only with the regular particles? Or, both particle and anti-particle continue to exist, in that 10^94 gm/cc energy density that you mentioned before?

We have not seen any large anti-matter structures in the universe, so it appears that it annihilated with matter and the matter we see is what is left over.

 

[Polymath257]

The expansion of universe moved the early photons toward the microwave frequency (CMB). After the inflation the universe has expanded 10^28 times. Has this space expansion moved the spectrum of hydrogen atom in the early stars toward the red-shift? This red-shift should be beside of the Doppler shift due to the speed of galaxies from each other.

Technically speaking, the observed red-shift is due to the spatial expansion. For relatively close galaxies, it approximates a Doppler shift, but there are differences that arise for distant galaxies. Essentially, the Doppler shift is an approximation and the spatial expansion is the correct description.

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you sayak83, you are absolutely right, my statement was totally wrong.

Higgs field theory says that mass property of quarks and some leptons are the values that define their interactions with Higgs field, and in the early hot universe these interactions were broken, and their mass were zero. Now, since Higgs field and gravity field are two different fields, do we have a new property for these particles that define the value of their gravity field? Because, with mass = 0, there is no gravity field.

Also, in this new definition for mass, does mass still relates to the energy of the particle (E = mc^2)? Because, in the early hot universe the energy of quarks and some leptons become zero, and I think this cannot be right either.

Also, with Higgs field we are interjecting that in the early hot universe quarks and some of leptons had zero mass, and these particles were moving like photons. In thermodynamic heat is defined by motion of particles, but at this extreme density, is any motion feasible?

In the early universe most particles were of very high energy and hence were relativistic. So the correct description for the energy is actually E^2 =m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2. Here, p is the momentum of the particle. So, even if m=0, we can have E non-zero. In fact, this happens today fro photons.

Yes, thermodynamics still applies at these energies, but you need to use relativistic descriptions rather than classical.