PDA

View Full Version : What are the answers of Big Bang theory to these two questions?



Attiyah Zahdeh
2006-Sep-14, 04:03 PM
What are the answers of the Big Bang theory to these two questions:

Which was first: the normal matter or the dark matter?

Which was first: the normal energy or the dark energy?

01101001
2006-Sep-14, 04:37 PM
Which was first: the normal matter or the dark matter?
Wikipedia: Big Bang :: Dark Matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Dark_matter)


Which was first: the normal energy or the dark energy?
Wikipedia: Big Bang :: Dark Energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Dark_energy)

ToSeek
2006-Sep-14, 04:58 PM
Why does one have to become before the other; can't they come into existence at the same time?

Kaptain K
2006-Sep-14, 06:03 PM
What are the answers of the Big Bang theory to these two questions:

Which was first: the normal matter or the dark matter?
Yes!


Which was first: the normal energy or the dark energy?
Yes!

Attiyah Zahdeh
2006-Sep-14, 07:18 PM
Why does one have to become before the other; can't they come into existence at the same time?

Can you prove this in the terms of Big Bang theory?

astromark
2006-Sep-14, 07:42 PM
Can you prove this in the terms of Big Bang theory?[/QUOTE]


The use of the word Prove. Suggests you will not except any thing other than your preconceived notion. Tell us what you really mean,?

Astronomy is a branch of the sciences. The usual method is to consider all available information and to be flexible enough to change conclusions as information dictates. To test theory against fact.

maybe I do not understand your question?

Attiyah Zahdeh
2006-Sep-14, 07:55 PM
Can you prove this in the terms of Big Bang theory?


The use of the word Prove. Suggests you will not except any thing other than your preconceived notion. Tell us what you really mean,?

Astronomy is a branch of the sciences. The usual method is to consider all available information and to be flexible enough to change conclusions as information dictates. To test theory against fact.

maybe I do not understand your question?[/QUOTE]

All my questions are obvious.

jseefcoot
2006-Sep-14, 08:20 PM
Actually, the question is ambiguous because you do not offer all of the choices most of the people on this board would consider. (Review some of the recent polls and the posts of the people who didn't vote -- it's usually because the question was worded in a way that limits their understanding of the situation, or forces them into an unrealistic supposition due to a limitation of facts.)

I think before you can expect a serious answer, you should stipulate why the two types of matter cannot come into existence at the same time, or why one has to come before the other. This would be similar, I think, to trying to discover which type of electrical attraction appeared first -- positive or negative. There is no reason to think or believe that one came first rather than the two coming into existence at the same time.

As far as the big bang theory and dark matter are concerned, I was not aware that dark matter was a component of the big bang theory. I thought it was part of the theory of relativity. If that is true, the big bang theory might not have a distinction between normal and dark matter as a part of its definition, making your question a moot point.

Does anyone out there with more knowledge in these theories have something to add? I for one would like to know if I've got it wrong.

korjik
2006-Sep-14, 08:28 PM
why?

GOURDHEAD
2006-Sep-14, 08:34 PM
If there were a quantum fluctuation in an unspecified domain of unspecified dimensions that consisted of pure energy (let there be light [photons]) from which there precipitated untold quantities and categories of "other stuff", it may be convenient to constrain the nature of dark energy and dark matter with postulates about rates of appearance between BB + 10^-100 seconds and BB + 10^-10 seconds. The violation of charge parity, during and shortly after the inflation phase, may be explainable in terms of a function of space deformation that permitted all of the anti-matter and some of the matter to be converted into dark energy concurrent with a mediation process resulting in the forming of dark matter arising from inefficiencies in the anti-matter conversion process. Could there be an as yet unnoticed energy state, or set of states, in which the non-detectability of dark energy and dark matter arise from phase relationships unique to the Higgs field? This suggests that there are energy levels, probably quantized, with high levels of stability, created very near BB + 10^-100, or so, that are phase related properties of the Higgs field such that only the gravitational properties of the constituents of dark energy and dark matter components of the universe remain weakly interacting with the rest of the universe.

Formulating the equations and providing solutions (there will be many--this is a hyper-complex system with difficult to imagine, much less formulate, levels of chaos) and identifying falsifying predictions are excercises left for the reader.

You're welcome

jlhredshift
2006-Sep-14, 08:44 PM
.

Formulating the equations and providing solutions (there will be many--this is a hyper-complex system with difficult to imagine, much less formulate, levels of chaos) and identifying falsifying predictions are excercises left for the reader.

You're welcome

Excellent!! As a history guy, I sure would like to be kept in the loop as progress is made.

Nereid
2006-Sep-14, 09:10 PM
What are the answers of the Big Bang theory to these two questions:Answering these in much more detail than the questions are stated:
Which was first: the normal matter or the dark matter?AFAIK, there is no particularly compelling hypothesis, one way or the other, wrt which form of matter arose 'first'.

While the origin of 'normal matter' (baryosynthesis and nucleosynthesis) can be addressed, from particle physics, the lack of details about the nature of DM precludes any hypotheses re the origin of DM (other than that is almost certainly existed at the time of the surface of last scattering).
Which was first: the normal energy or the dark energy?This question is meaningless, in terms of 'the Big Bang theory' ... 'dark energy' is merely a placeholder term, used to describe one feature of the universe, in terms of GR models. After another decade or three of investigation, it may turn out to be a particularly poorly chosen term, in that it isn't 'energy' at all.

If you're interested in finding out more, please click on the links in post #2.

Eta C
2006-Sep-14, 09:28 PM
Or if you're really in the mood for real science (as opposed to wikipedia summaries) read the Particle data group articles on big bang cosmology (http://www-pdg.lbl.gov/2006/reviews/bigbangrpp.pdf) for an overview and the article on big bang nucleosynthesis (http://www-pdg.lbl.gov/2006/reviews/bigbangnucrpp.pdf) for a summary of the formation of baryonic matter. There are also articles on Cosmological paramters (http://www-pdg.lbl.gov/2006/reviews/hubblerpp.pdf) and Dark Matter (http://www-pdg.lbl.gov/2006/reviews/darkmatrpp.pdf) that go into the theory behind and the evidence for dark energy and dark matter. Happy reading.

Peter Wilson
2006-Sep-14, 10:19 PM
In order of appearance, IIRC, it was: dark matter; chicken; light energy; road; dark energy; light matter; egg.

:shifty:

Cougar
2006-Sep-14, 10:53 PM
Which was first: the normal matter or the dark matter?
Which was first: the normal energy or the dark energy?
All came at the same time.

nokton
2006-Sep-14, 11:13 PM
What are the answers of the Big Bang theory to these two questions:

Which was first: the normal matter or the dark matter?

Which was first: the normal energy or the dark energy?
In the big bang scenario there were two of a kind, positive matter,
and anti matter, the difference being the positive or negative spin
of an electron, dark matter is still just a theory, and a theory without
proof is no ones breakfast, oh my.
Nokton

Gillianren
2006-Sep-14, 11:29 PM
All my questions are obvious.

Your questions may or may not be obvious; your intended meanings seldom are.

Now, this may be a language barrier issue. That's very possible. However, you have written more than a few posts where I, for one, haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. You need to be aware that this is a very real possibility; just because you understand what you're trying to say doesn't mean that we do.

Senor Molinero
2006-Sep-14, 11:32 PM
"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Alice in Wonderland.

Alice = BABB
Queen = AZ

captain swoop
2006-Sep-15, 12:53 AM
And rounded it off at Milliways?