What was energy of universe at big bang?

[Polymath257]

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.

More specifically, interaction with the Higg's field gives a *rest* mass. Particles with zero rest mass can still have energy, which will still produce a gravitational curvature. For particles with no momentum (p=0), we have E=mc^2, but this formula is incomplete for particles in motion.

Gravity (curvature of spacetime) is technically produced by energy, momentum, and 'stress' (via the stress-energy tensor). The energy that appears for the production of gravity is NOT just the energy from the mass, but the full energy of the particle including the kinetic energy.

 

[Polymath257]

Start with basics people

This only works in a non-relativistic context. The kinetic energy for relativistic particles is given by
KE=mc^2 [1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) -1].

 

[Polymath257]

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?

If the energy of the particles involved are the same, then there would not be a difference. This is because at high energies, the Higg's field is not broken.

In some ways it is similar to how you can de-magnetize a magnet by heating it. it will re-magnetize when cooled again.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

For ultra-relativistic particles, the mass is a very small component to the interaction. So, for current high energy accelerators, we can use the approximation for electrons that m=0. For very high energies we can even do this for muons.

The energy of any particle is given by E^2 =m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2. For p close to 0, the first term dominates and we get E=mc^2. However, if p is very large, the second term dominates and we get E=pc. Since electrons have such a small rest mass, the second term will dominate for even fairly modest, but relativistic, velocities.

As the energy goes up, the Higg's contribution goes down.

 

[Unes]

Fortuitously, here is something interesting
https://phys.org/news/2017-01-source-asymmetry-antimatter.html

Thank You sayak83,
Yes, this is an interesting link.

 

[Unes]

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.

Thank you Polymath257,
In the picture provided by NSF for the early universe, the CMB radiation is from the photons when universe was about 380,000 years old. And stars were formed 200 million years after that, so, regardless of the Doppler shift, still the magnitude of the hydrogen spectrum shift from these very early stars, due to the expansion of space, should be comparable to CMB shift. Compare to CMB shift, what is the magnitude of the hydrogen spectrum shift that the observations reveal?

Also, in the NSF picture of the early universe, it says: at 0.01 “Nuclear Fusion Begins” and at 3 min “Nuclear Fusion Ends”. What is the nature of this fusion?

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you Polymath257,
In the picture provided by NSF for the early universe, the CMB radiation is from the photons when universe was about 380,000 years old. And stars were formed 200 million years after that, so, regardless of the Doppler shift, still the magnitude of the hydrogen spectrum shift from these very early stars, due to the expansion of space, should be comparable to CMB shift. Compare to CMB shift, what is the magnitude of the hydrogen spectrum shift that the observations reveal?

The background radiation has a 'red-shift' of about 1100. At this point, the most distant object with a measured red-shift has about 12.

Also, in the NSF picture of the early universe, it says: at 0.01 “Nuclear Fusion Begins” and at 3 min “Nuclear Fusion Ends”. What is the nature of this fusion?

Prior to the period of fusion, the universe consisted mostly of neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons. But it was still too hot to form even atomic nuclei. As it cooled, however, those nuclei became stable and you get the formation of the light elements (deuterium, tritium, helium-3, helium-4, lithium-7) from nuclear fusion. There are several basic reactions like H+n->D, T+T->He-4 + n+n, etc.

One thing that is interesting is that these reactions did not proceed all the way to equilibrium. They were cut short because the expansion cooled things to the point that the reactions stopped. This lack of equilibrium was one piece of evidence for the Big Bang before the CBR was discovered.

 

[Unes]

More specifically, interaction with the Higg's field gives a *rest* mass. Particles with zero rest mass can still have energy, which will still produce a gravitational curvature. For particles with no momentum (p=0), we have E=mc^2, but this formula is incomplete for particles in motion.

Gravity (curvature of spacetime) is technically produced by energy, momentum, and 'stress' (via the stress-energy tensor). The energy that appears for the production of gravity is NOT just the energy from the mass, but the full energy of the particle including the kinetic energy.

Thank you Polymath257,

Please see whether I understand this correctly; in early hot universe, the generation of proton had nothing to do with Higgs field, proton with its Positive energy and its counterpart Negative energy of gravity, they both were generated without any relation to Higgs field. Now, in our current universe proton’s interaction with Higgs field is defined by its property m (its rest mass). This m (rest mass) is also gives us proton’s Positive energy (mc^2). Now, the question is, is this just a pure coincident, that these two presumably independent properties, they both have the same value? Or, there are other inner connections between these processes, that they need to be explained, or to be discovered?

 

[Unes]

The background radiation has a 'red-shift' of about 1100. At this point, the most distant object with a measured red-shift has about 12.

Thank you Polymath257,
Is this 12 the entire hydrogen spectrum shift? Or, the Doppler’s shift is also needed to be added to this 12?

 

[Jake1001]

I have become intrigued that the universe is nearly a 2D hologram. If this is the case...what is the thickness of the hologram ?

 

[Unes]

Prior to the period of fusion, the universe consisted mostly of neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons. But it was still too hot to form even atomic nuclei.

Thank you Polymath257,
So, at 0.01 second of the hot universe, the entire Positive energy of universe had been generated? Was this Positive energy conserved? Or, the interactions between this Positive energy and gravity’s Negative energy altered the conservation of this Positive energy?

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you Polymath257,

Please see whether I understand this correctly; in early hot universe, the generation of proton had nothing to do with Higgs field, proton with its Positive energy and its counterpart Negative energy of gravity, they both were generated without any relation to Higgs field. Now, in our current universe proton’s interaction with Higgs field is defined by its property m (its rest mass). This m (rest mass) is also gives us proton’s Positive energy (mc^2). Now, the question is, is this just a pure coincident, that these two presumably independent properties, they both have the same value? Or, there are other inner connections between these processes, that they need to be explained?

OK, a few subtle points.

1. By the time of fusion, the inflationary stage dominated by the Higg's (or whatever the inflaton is) was past.
2. The negative energy is purely gravitational and always balances the positive energy. The total energy is zero.
3. The positive energy is always a combination of that from rest mass and from kinetic energy.
4. Physicists tend to not make a distinction between the rest mass and the rest energy. They tend to work in units where c=1.
5. The Higg's mechanism isn't the only way to produce a rest mass/rest energy. In fact, it is a rather small contributor to the mass of a proton, which gets its mass mainly from the energy of the quarks and gluons it is made from (and NOT their masses!).
6. Those particles that do get their mass from the Higg's mechanism have their mass defined by that interaction, NOT the other way around. The interaction determines that component of the mass.

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you Polymath257,
So, at 0.01 second of the hot universe, the entire Positive energy of universe had been generated? Was this Positive energy conserved? Or, the interactions between this Positive energy and gravity’s Negative energy altered the conservation of this Positive energy?

There is a piece of 'positive energy' associated with dark energy that is increasing as the universe expands. The energy associated with ordinary matter (and, also for dark matter) is conserved if you include kinetic and potential energy terms.

 

[Polymath257]

I have become intrigued that the universe is nearly a 2D hologram. If this is the case...what is the thickness of the hologram ?

In the holographic descriptions, the hologram is on the event horizons of black holes (and other such horizons).

 

[Jake1001]

So in this case...is the current belief that our universe is riding the event horizon of a black hole ?

I have also become intrigued with the computer simulation hypothesis of the universe. Could this hologram be a computer simulation ?

In the holographic descriptions, the hologram is on the event horizons of black holes (and other such horizons).

 

[Unes]

OK, a few subtle points.

1. By the time of fusion, the inflationary stage dominated by the Higg's (or whatever the inflaton is) was past.
2. The negative energy is purely gravitational and always balances the positive energy. The total energy is zero.
3. The positive energy is always a combination of that from rest mass and from kinetic energy.
4. Physicists tend to not make a distinction between the rest mass and the rest energy. They tend to work in units where c=1.
5. The Higg's mechanism isn't the only way to produce a rest mass/rest energy. In fact, it is a rather small contributor to the mass of a proton, which gets its mass mainly from the energy of the quarks and gluons it is made from (and NOT their masses!).
6. Those particles that do get their mass from the Higg's mechanism have their mass defined by that interaction, NOT the other way around. The interaction determines that component of the mass.

Thank you Polymath257,

I think I understand all these points fairly good, and yet I feel my question remain unanswered! For point #5, if instead of proton, we talk about electron, then that scenario is answered by #6. Now, on #6 you say: “NOT the other way around”, what do you mean by that?

Now, please let me explain again, for electron, the property m is electron’s interaction with Higgs field, and this m is also defines its Positive energy, I think this is #4 in your explanations. Now, my question is, is this just a pure coincident, that these two presumably independent properties, they both have the same value? Or, there are other inner connections between these processes, that they need to be explained, or to be discovered?

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you Polymath257,

I think I understand all these points fairly good, and yet I feel my question remain unanswered! For point #5, if instead of proton, we talk about electron, then that scenario is answered by #6. Now, on #6 you say: “NOT the other way around”, what do you mean by that?

Now, please let me explain again, for electron, the property m is electron’s interaction with Higgs field, and this m is also defines its Positive energy, I think this is #4 in your explanations. Now, my question is, is this just a pure coincident, that these two presumably independent properties, they both have the same value? Or, there are other inner connections between these processes, that they need to be explained, or to be discovered?

Even an electron mostly gets its mass/energy from non-Higgs mechanisms.

Let's go a particle like the W-meson which *does* get most of its mass from the Higgs mechanism. What happens is that the Higgs interaction defines the rest energy of the particle. That rest energy also acts as inertia when interacting with the other particles, so it gives the 'mass'.

 

[Unes]

Even an electron mostly gets its mass/energy from non-Higgs mechanisms.

Let's go a particle like the W-meson which *does* get most of its mass from the Higgs mechanism. What happens is that the Higgs interaction defines the rest energy of the particle. That rest energy also acts as inertia when interacting with the other particles, so it gives the 'mass'.

Thank you Polymath257,

Now I see the flaws in my question. I needed to see that! I apologize if my question annoyed you.

So, the statement that Higgs field is giving the mass of a particle, is not 100% accurate. And, the mass contribution from Higgs mechanism varies a great deal from one particle to the next. In the case of electron, what percent of its rest mass is contributed by Higgs mechanism?

Also, the statement: “without Higgs field the particles would have moved at the speed of light”? Let us say, for the electron, what percent of this statement is accurate?

 

[sayak83]

Thank you Polymath257,

Now I see the flaws in my question. I needed to see that! I apologize if my question annoyed you.

So, the statement that Higgs field is giving the mass of a particle, is not 100% accurate. And, the mass contribution from Higgs mechanism varies a great deal from one particle to the next. In the case of electron, what percent of its rest mass is contributed by Higgs mechanism?

Also, the statement: “without Higgs field the particles would have moved at the speed of light”? Let us say, for the electron, what percent of this statement is accurate?

Actually it would be entirely accurate. Mass of a particle is like an avalanche, and the small "seed" mass given to the particles by the Higgs field is the first snowball that gets the avalanche going, or the match that starts the fire. All other interactions builds up on it to make the particle's mass many times that of the original Higgs given mass, but that one is necessary to begin this chain.

Here is a brief look at how Higgs field works, without the confusion

Where does mass come from?


What would happen if Higgs field was zero

The Known Particles — If The Higgs Field Were Zero

It's not just mass, everything will change.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, I went back to some of my notes. The electron mass *is* primarily from the Higg's mechanism. My Bad.

It is the up and down quarks (the most common ones) that get a substantial part of their mass from another mechanism: the breaking of color symmetry. Neutrinos are another particle that do not get mass from Higgs.

In all cases, as far as I know, this aspect of the rest mass is based on *some* mechanism of symmetry breaking because a fully symmetric theory necessarily has massless particles (which was a real problem before the Higg's mechanism was found).

There are other issues involved here. For example, even the 'rest mass' can change dependent on energy scale. The point is that all particles have a swarm of virtual particles surrounding them and that the mass that is 'seen' in an experiment depends on these particles also. Essentially, every observed particle is a composite particle with the 'bare' particle more of a theoretical entity than anything else.