# Thread: Was energy or matter more produced during big bang?

1. Please read and discuss whether my theory is right and acceptable:

Here,

Singularity before the Big bang = S

Static Universe = sa

Big Crunch = bc

Unlimited expansion of Universe = eu

Matter = M

Expanding Energy = EE

Gravitational Energy = GE

Energy = E

Consider the mass of S = 1kg, then after Big Bang, if 500g becomes EE and 500g becomes M then the GE between the M will pull in 500g where as the same time 500g is pushed by EE. When GE and EE makes an equilibrium, then the universe remains as sa.

Consider the mass of S = 1kg, then after Big Bang, if M becomes more than 500g and EEbecomes less than 500g, then the GE between the M pulls more powerful than the pushing of EE. When GE>EE, then the universe will have a bc.

Consider the mass of S = 1kg, then after Big Bang, if M becomes less than 500g and EEbecomes more than 500g, then the EE pushes more powerful than the pulling of GEbetween the M. When EE>GE, then the universe will have an eu.

If the theory of sa and bc is correct, then it should result very before since the Big Bang occurred. But in the case of eu theory, with the help of Edwin Hubble's 'Theory of Expansion of Universe', we can say that the universe is still expanding. But according to the eu theory, universe should only expand if E>M. Therefore, we can find that E was more produced than M during the Big Bang.

2.

3. According to theory, all the matter and energy currently in the universe was produced by the big bang.

Of course if you accept that matter and anti-matter were produced in almost equal quantities and that they annihilated each other releasing huge amounts of energy, then that changes from a universe "heavy" in matter to a universe "heavy" in energy.

Question: Did the singularity exist before the BB?

If it did, why did it not stay as it was and instead inflate and expand?

Was it a "temporary" form? (some like to say caused by branes bashing together "elsewhere")

Or was there a second something which caused it to undergo change?

Questions, questions.

4. Are you sure you have all terms of the equation? You also seem to imply that the energy that comes from the annihilation of matter (and antimatter) is the agent that is responsible for the expansion. It's not. It seems that there is something more than matter that we call Dark Energy. We don't know what it is, but this thing apparently drives the expansion. At the earliest epoch of the universe there was an equilibrium in the generation and annihilation of matter and photons. This does not mean that at that time both were produced and that was it then. Matter was transformed into energy (i.e. photons) and vice versa in a constant process. The universe also had to be very hot to sustain such a process. Now, it is much colder, because matter has condensed into atoms and molecules instead of ions. So, what was responsible for the cooling? Expansion and thermodynamics.

Cyberia, will you please finally acknowledge that the idea of a singularity is most probably a mathematical artefact that did not exist for real? What would be a singularity anyway? For someone who constantly argues against math, you are clinging to its implications quite strongly.

5. Dishmaster. Most still cling to the singularity (of some size) idea for the big bang but if you take that out, what is the alternative?

6. Originally Posted by Cyberia
Dishmaster. Most still cling to the singularity (of some size) idea for the big bang but if you take that out, what is the alternative?
A singularity is not "of some size". If most still cling to the singularity (which is of no size) idea for the Big Bang, it is simply because the maths leads us there. We understand the implications of this - the singularity indicates our theory fails at that point.

So the alternative is... we don't know. This is what most still cling to.

7. SpeedFreek. There has been a movement away from the point source of infinite density, though to me, that is what a singularity is supposed to be.

The maths?

Suppose we lived on a super-heated world and the best our technology could do was to condense super-heated steam into water and get the temperature of this water down to 20.C?

Mathematicians would draw a graph from 100.C passing through 20.C and "prove" that somewhere below 0.C water continues to shrink in size till it presumably disappears or reaches a minimum possible size.

This is because they didn't know that it all changes at 4.C and about ice forming.

The mathematicians here are using similar speculation as to how things started, with the belief that everything is moving away from everything else so surely it must have all started at the smallest possible point of infinite density.

8. Originally Posted by Cyberia
SpeedFreek. There has been a movement away from the point source of infinite density, though to me, that is what a singularity is supposed to be.
Right. As soon as we are considering something that is not a point source, we are not considering a singularity any more. It makes no sense to speak of a singularity having a size.

We either have a singular point, or something with size. If it has size, it is not singular.

Originally Posted by Cyberia

The mathematicians here are using similar speculation as to how things started, with the belief that everything is moving away from everything else so surely it must have all started at the smallest possible point of infinite density.

I doubt anyone actually believes it all started at the smallest point of infinite density - a singularity. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the BB singularity means the theory stops working there. Hence my previous comment - "we don't know".

9. When I have posted on forums lately about a singularity, some have said they are not a point source. To me they should be, but I am just quoting them as there seems to be some movement away from "infinites".

How about we do away with the singularity and inflation and start with a universe of maybe light years across that starts expanding? it would solve a lot of problems, though still give no clue as to it's origin.

10. How about we do away with the singularity and inflation and start with a universe of maybe light years across that starts expanding? it would solve a lot of problems, though still give no clue as to it's origin.
That is what the current theory examines, the big bang from just after the bang. As said many times, we can't investigate what happened before a certain time after the bang. Our current understanding does not stretch that far.

11. Originally Posted by Cyberia
When I have posted on forums lately about a singularity, some have said they are not a point source. To me they should be, but I am just quoting them as there seems to be some movement away from "infinites".
This confusion can easily arise, either when the writer describes the situation too loosely, or the reader misunderstands what has been said.

The movement away from infinities is a movement in emphasis, rather than a movement in the mathematics. GR still predicts a singularity at t=0, which basically means we cannot look there - it is undefined. As soon as we can define the universe, it has size, but we are not talking about the singularity, all we are doing is working back towards it as far as the theory can take us whilst still giving us meaningful results.

We need a theory of quantum gravity in order to look further in that direction.

But another issue is, when we look back as far as we can, the volume we are describing can only be described in terms of our observable universe, rather than the whole universe. So even when our observable universe would have been the size of a grapefruit, the universe as a whole could have been any size larger.

Originally Posted by Cyberia
How about we do away with the singularity and inflation and start with a universe of maybe light years across that starts expanding? it would solve a lot of problems, though still give no clue as to it's origin.
We have done that, working backwards, but after inflation the observable universe is the size of a grapefruit and the pre-inflationary volume (what would have ended up as our observable universe, were there no inflation) is many, many magnitudes larger, and we still don't know how much larger the whole universe was.

12. People forget that "VOID" is also part of Energy. Energy of nothingness. You should put them in equation as well.

13. Originally Posted by Kiwisoft
People forget that "VOID" is also part of Energy. Energy of nothingness. You should put them in equation as well.
Can you please explain, what you are referring to? What do you call the "VOID"? What is your definition of nothingness? There is the lambda coefficient which is part of the Einstein equation.

As an aside to your signature: The guy is called Einstein, not Enstein. And imagination without knowledge is pure fantasy.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement