PDA

View Full Version : Existence of Nothing



WHITE_HOLE
2004-Nov-05, 01:25 PM
I wonder where the heck all matter as we know it comes from.
Before the "Big Bang", was there anything else in space?
If space was just empty space, then how the heck did matter appear?? :huh:
:ph34r:

Sp1ke
2004-Nov-05, 02:20 PM
Just because there was no matter at the time of the big bang doesn't mean that there was no energy. And energy can be converted into mass (E=Mc**2 or M=E/c**2). So all you need is a big load of energy and everything can come from that.

Tiny
2004-Nov-05, 04:09 PM
Question :
Even under a very cold circumstance nearly absolute zero, do heat/energy still can convert to mass? and under what condition does atom/molecule stop moving(I hope it's not abs. zero)?

Fraser
2004-Nov-05, 05:52 PM
Please don't use "ALL CAPS" when making your titles White Hole, it looks like you're yelling.

Guest
2004-Nov-05, 05:57 PM
So then, where the heck does all this "energy" comes from?
:ph34r:

Guest
2004-Nov-05, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by fraser@Nov 5 2004, 05:52 PM
Please don't use "ALL CAPS" when making your titles White Hole, it looks like you're yelling.
The black hole sucked my caps lock..

:ph34r:

Jacki
2004-Nov-05, 07:14 PM
:D I have an idea!
In A particular religion's holy book is says that with their deity there has never been a begining or end. As human beings and having those in this life, we cannot comprehend such a theory. However, we cannot see air but know its there, so why not have a lil faith?

Therefor.. to them, their deity was the BIG BANG! to them, their deity created the universe, everything that has ever existed and will ever exist.

lol there, that was simple enough. :P

darn, to them I'm Good!
---------------------

items in bold are replacement edits by a moderator

Tiny
2004-Nov-05, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by Jacki@Nov 5 2004, 07:14 PM
damn I'm Good!
:rolleyes: not really, make sure you reading this before discuss religions
http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...?showtopic=1134 (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1134)

sparks
2004-Nov-06, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by Sp1ke@Nov 5 2004, 02:20 PM
Just because there was no matter at the time of the big bang doesn't mean that there was no energy. And energy can be converted into mass (E=Mc**2 or M=E/c**2). So all you need is a big load of energy and everything can come from that.
Whoa there. You've used the word 'matter' in the first sentence and then gone on to discuss 'mass'. They're not the same thing, although you must have matter to exhibit mass. So Einstein can't help you. The simple answer is we don't have a clue what matter really is, where it came from or how it manifests the quality of mass.

But you can't be blamed for this mistake since every physics textbook I've seen slips unnoticed into the same error.

And notice that the big bang theory relies on this misuse of language.

alloydhoyt
2004-Nov-06, 01:51 AM
The BIG-Bang might have just been a small localized affair. "Nothingness" may not have actually existed. Many (even most now) theorists think that the universe is truly infinite in X, Y and Z. (I will not get into bubbles and alternates based on string harmonics and about 10 other complicated theories).

Assume that the period at the end of this sentence, for what ever the reason (random probability), became the nexus of various forces of quantum physics and this space expanded at near light speed dense with energy and matter. Its probable that the shell of this sub-universe (radically different that the older universe around it) would react distructively on the old and in a sense push both away from each other like similar fields of magnets mixed with anti-matter-like reactions. Eventually, due to expansion, this new universe would would thin enough to allow light through it from outside its borders.

Our small universe may only be 15,000,000,000 light years old. That is as far as we can see. Every year we can see 1 more light year further. So if the expansion is slower than the speed of light (which it has to be) the balance of that new visaible light year is coming from a section of the universe that was previously there. Its light is just getting to us now as our sub-universe accelerates away from it.

Or - - - the entire universe was - - - (I got to get some sleep this one will take too long).

Jacki
2004-Nov-07, 12:39 AM
hmm..everyone is welcomed to express opinions. i was just giving mine, in a "not slam your opinioins down" sorta way. wasnt meant to offend anyone on here, ill just keep my mouth shut and not post here anymore. but ill still get the newsletter!! cuz it rocks.. i luv this site.

happy posting!!

have a good one,
Jacki

rahuldandekar
2004-Nov-07, 11:55 AM
There was no matter, no energy before the big bang. In fact, no space, no time! In big bang, positive and negative matter and energy were created. So, it did come from 'nothing'.

bigsplit
2004-Nov-07, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by rahuldandekar@Nov 7 2004, 11:55 AM
There was no matter, no energy before the big bang. In fact, no space, no time! In big bang, positive and negative matter and energy were created. So, it did come from 'nothing'.
How is matter and energy created? A cop out answer so many give is that we can not know what was going on just after and prior to the Big Bang. Even if this was agreeable, which I do not concur, how could one assume that this unknowable epoch prior to the Big Bang was absent of matter/energy and space. There is no logical reason to make such an assumption. Please explain this obviously glaring contradiction.

jimbo
2004-Nov-07, 04:01 PM
in the beggining a white hole spewed out energy from a black hole in another universe,creating the start of ours...maybe?

Hanvica
2004-Nov-07, 04:06 PM
It is really interesting theory, IŽve never heard about something like this. But I think that weŽll never realise what theory is true and what wrong.

StarLab
2004-Nov-08, 05:08 AM
There was no matter, no energy before the big bang. In fact, no space, no time! In big bang, positive and negative matter and energy were created. So, it did come from 'nothing'.
I agree w/ RouseJ - that was a really screwy thing to say...no offense; just because our universe's physical laws did not exist prior to the Big Bang doesn't mean those laws that our universe follows are just a derivation of previous physical laws (please research the Ekpyrotic universe Model).

Rahuld, I hope I didn't offend you by labelling your post as 'screwy' - you're a really bright guy who I agree with almost all of the time. B)

Chris "Chaos" Stamatis
2004-Nov-08, 01:24 PM
Guys.. guys...
I have deleted the bulk of this message because it violated the forum rule against religion in postings. -Antoniseb
CHAOS

bigsplit
2004-Nov-08, 01:46 PM
Science cannot accept a definition of unknowable ...
I have removed the bulk of this post as it strongly violated the no religion in posts rule. It was a reply to the previous post -Antoniseb

WHITE_HOLE
2004-Nov-08, 04:03 PM
People speak of .
I have removed the bulk of this message because it violated the religion rule. It was a response to the two messages above. -Antoniseb

rahuldandekar
2004-Nov-10, 04:03 AM
Thanks Starlab, for pointing out my mistake. Let me rephrase my statement:

Since it is possible that the universe had equal amounts of positive and negavite matter ( normal and anti-) and energy, a creation out of nathing, such that there was no spacetime and matter-energy before the universe, is possible.

StarLab
2004-Nov-10, 05:20 AM
Well, let's examine here for a minute...

When a particle and antiparticle collide, and they start out in equivalent concentrations, what aspects of matter allowed it to survive over antimatter?

WHITE_HOLE
2004-Nov-11, 04:09 AM
I have removed the bulk of this message because it violated the religion rule. It was a response to the two messages above. -Antoniseb ??

That is very funny...religion is nothing...

:ph34r:

alfchemist
2004-Nov-11, 05:32 AM
Hey Starlab, that's a good point! But can we assume that if we have equal amount of matter and anti-matter, everything will take the path of annihalation?

gnosys
2004-Nov-11, 12:41 PM
This is going to be a very helpful and illuminating post--

I was reading recently about someone's theory why a tiny amount of matter but presumably no antimatter survived the primordial collisions obliterating almost all the original matter and antimatter... but I can't remember what he was positing. Some slight asymmetry between matter and antimatter? (See how helpful and illuminating?)

It's possible that the antimatter HASN'T all gone away. There could be entire galaxies of antimatter sharing our universe with us. I doubt it, though -- albeit for no good reason.

Back to something said earlier: IS it possible to turn energy into matter, or is that a one-way, entropic process?

If you had a telescope -- or really good eyes -- capable of seeing 13.7 billion light-years into space (the supposed age of the universe), would you see the big bang as the inner surface of a sphere completely surrounding the earth at that distance--since seeing 13.7 billion light-years into space means looking at light from 13.7 billion years ago... or was the expansion of the early universe so rapid that light from that far back will never reach us?... As I think about it, though, isn't the cosmic background radiation that's everywhere what I'm talking about when I talk about the light of the Big Bang? Because space itself has expanded, the radiation of the Big Bang is reaching everywhere at once. Is that right?

GOURDHEAD
2004-Nov-11, 01:56 PM
As I think about it, though, isn't the cosmic background radiation that's everywhere what I'm talking about when I talk about the light of the Big Bang? Because space itself has expanded, the radiation of the Big Bang is reaching everywhere at once. Is that right?

The CMB radiation originated from the end of the era of "opaqueness" which is believed to have been 380,00 years after the BB. Although I have not accepted that there were 2 parts per million more matter than antimatter, if it were so and all the antimatter were destroyed by pair annihilation, the subsequent inflation could have reduced the energy of the resulting gammas to energy thresholds below pair formation thresholds. The arithmetic suggests that 998,000 parts per million of the energy of the universe is photonic and neutrinoic (largely non-gravity generating?) and at most 2 parts per million is hadronic (gravity generating).

My guess is that at the level of quark (or sub-quark) juggling, somehow matter is favored over antimatter; or the interplay between the magnetic field existing during the first few intervals of Planck time after the BB and the magnetic properties of the individual hadrons caused them to be separated into matter and antimatter groups into volumes of space that were separated from one another during inflation at speeds greater than that of light. If such separation has been maintained until the current era, the polarized chunks of the universe would be a source of dark energy contributing to the expansion of the universe. It is not easy to see how the expansion could remain isotropic, as observation indicates it is. If the matter and antimatter portions had rejoined sufficiently before Olber's time, his paradox would not have been formulated.


Back to something said earlier: IS it possible to turn energy into matter, or is that a one-way, entropic process?
Yes as discussed above plus at BB + 10^-43 seconds pure energy (photonic I presume or something more exotic) "decayed" via symmetry breaking that released gravity from the GUT initiating the inflationary epoch and more hadrons than you could easily count had you lived from then until as long as the whole shebang (no genderism intended) lasts.

rahuldandekar
2004-Nov-11, 02:12 PM
Gnosys, after the big bang happened, during the first few seconds of the big bang, light was not able to escape, as it was scattered by high-energy electrons. So, we can't see the early universe much earlier than our sattelites already have.

Yesteerday, I read ' The origin of the universe' by John Barrow. I read a rather peculiar theory, one I have stated before on the forum.

Stephen Hawking's no-boundary condition. As the universe approaches the beginning ( going backward in time), Time becomes like spcae. The universe become four-dimensional Space, not four dimensional space-time. And due to this, time becomes subject to quantum fluctuations, and 'time' is no longer 'time'. I don't know the details of this theory, but it permits the creation of a universe out of nothing.

WHITE_HOLE
2004-Nov-11, 02:49 PM
Stephen Hawking's no-boundary condition?
Hmmm..interesting.
I love how something that does not exist magically exists..
Like..what the heck am I doing on this earth? I did not choose to be here!
And I can't auto destruct myself because I don't want to hit a singularity!
Our souls go into the black hole when we die right?
:ph34r:

Guest
2004-Nov-12, 02:49 AM
Gourdhead, if you could transform energy into matter, does that mean you also create anti-matter at the same time? Is it also possible that anti-matter was transformed into something else during the course of the BB such that it could no longer rejoin or annihalate matter?

Guest
2004-Nov-12, 02:51 AM
oops! that's me, alfchemist! I can't log in...

StarLab
2004-Nov-12, 06:10 AM
Actually, Alfie, that's a good question.

We all know that when a nuclear reaction doesn't happen (in which case most matter is turned into energy), but a kind of reaction still takes place, heat -whether how discreetly- is released. This all adds up in the Thermodynamical laws concerning entropy. Now, assume you could reverse that, that the laws of nature permitted turning energy back into matter - how would that be accomplished? There'd have to be some factor that works opposite to gravity - instead of falling down into the valley of the black hole, matter/energy falls down between "peaks" -like skiers coming down adjacent mountains and crashing. In this way, matter is conserved in energy-->matter reactions. The candidate for this "pushing" force?....Dark Energy!

I hope this addresses the issue in an understandable way. I will elaborate on a moment's notice. I hope this has helped.

In shorter words, adressing Alfie's query more directly, antimatter simply has different properties that make it recessive to matter.

astromark
2004-Nov-12, 01:09 PM
:huh: Well it might be just my over simplistic mind or the fact that I will not believe... but I do not exept this notion of mater out of energy. I can see and prove the oposite. Mater can become energy. but the mater is still there, it does still exist, its just spread out more. as in BANG. Or am a missing somthing here. You could witness the changing of form but not the creation or distruction of it.
And... that pushing force you speek of. could it be labeled anti gravity instead of pushing force,?...

GOURDHEAD
2004-Nov-12, 02:45 PM
Gourdhead, if you could transform energy into matter, does that mean you also create anti-matter at the same time? Is it also possible that anti-matter was transformed into something else during the course of the BB such that it could no longer rejoin or annihalate matter?
The conservation of charge parity requires that photons decay into matter and anti-matter particles, so the only transition from photons (energy) to matter that we have observed has resulted in both matter and anti-matter pieces. Nature may prefer matter to anti-matter and may have arranged organization at the quark (or sub-quark) level to manifest this preference. I'm not aware of observations or theories either opposing or supporting this assertion. Remember that inflation would have robbed photons of the energy, by lowering their frequency, required for pair formation within seconds of the BB. There may be quantum preferences at frequencies below that required for electron/positron pair formation that permit neutrino/anti-neutrino pair formation at energies specific to each preference. Again, I'm not aware of evidence either way.

Rewinding back to the initiation of the BB, my preferred guess, setting aside the Shmoo field, is that the configuration of energy that experienced symmetry breaking somehow produced only matter. This says it was not garden variety photons but some other manifestation of energy perhaps a hyper-compacted "quarkverse" or some configuration beyond our current comprehension. The dilemma we must solve arises from trying to excuse the violation of charge parity versus explaining away all that anti-matter that charge parity would have saddled us with. True parity would not have allowed a single particle more than the number of anti-particles, let alone the two per million that some BB advocates posit.

Black holes may be the master knitters of the universe. Note that they form the environment in which all known forms of mass and energy (not sure about the dark forms of either) become integrated to such extent that they lose specificity, Hawking's theory of information preservation notwithstanding. If nature, perhaps aided by us or like minded sentients, unravels the black holes by one or more means, the specifics of the ratios of energy and mass that come out won't necessarily match those that went in, perhaps as functional artifacts of the method of unwinding.

gnosys
2004-Nov-14, 02:37 AM
I'm fascinated by the idea of time becoming space-like in proximity to the BB... and of space becoming time-like in proximity to black holes, because the future lies inevitably in the direction of the black hole. Does mass produce time?

It seems to me that on Earth you could make an argument that one dimension of space -- up-and-down -- is SLIGHTLY time-like, in that there is a SLIGHT tendency for the future of an event to lie in a downward direction, simply because gravity is exerting its downward pull on everything. Anything above the surface of the earth possesses potential energy, so entropy tends to increase with downward movement.

What then would be the gravitational impetus drawing the universe forward in time? Perhaps the expansion of the universe, since it's working against the gravity of any individual mass, is the "engine" of time. Rather than any giant black hole at the end of time "pulling" us toward the future, it is the white hole of the BB at the beginning of time which is "pushing" us toward the future.

I know Hawking used to believe that if the universe ultimately began to contract, time would reverse itself, and all history would be repeated exactly in reverse, but he has now given up that view. I wonder, though, if it is just our point of view which makes time seem like a one-way journey. To use Vonnegut's analogy, maybe we experience time as a "forward" moving dimension because our consciousnesses are in motion that way (because life is an entropic process, perhaps). If we were on a train from New York to Baltimore, and we couldn't conceive of any alternative to being on that train, Baltimore would be equivalent to the future, New York to the past. (This would not mean that time is not a unique dimension, only that our sense it "moving" toward the future reflects our own perspective rather than any objective truth. In other words, it is senseless to talk about time reversing itself, in the same way it's senseless to talk about space reversing itself.)

If time is space-like at the moment of the BB, does that mean that the BB is not really a singularity in some profound sense, because although it is infinitely compact in the three dimensions of space, it is the opposite of compact in this fourth space-like dimension? And what about the other seven or so dimensions that string theory posits?

WHITE_HOLE
2004-Nov-17, 02:44 AM
Hmmm.. Mass becoming time and time becoming mass.. I always thought time as something in our minds that continuously records everything around us..

I loved your long comment gnosys! And everyone else..
:ph34r:

gnosys
2004-Nov-17, 05:19 AM
I HAVE been putting on weight as I get older...