Big Bang Theory: Is Everything Energy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JeremyL
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy
AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores the concept that everything in the universe may ultimately be a form of expanding and evolving energy, stemming from the Big Bang. It raises questions about whether this energy could have transformed into matter, leading to the formation of planets, stars, and eventually life. The idea posits that the evolution of energy could explain the existence of self-aware humans on Earth. Additionally, it questions the nature of energy in the universe, pondering whether it is infinite or if its total can be quantified similarly to mass. The conversation highlights the complexity of energy's role in the universe's evolution and existence.
JeremyL
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
I have no idea what I'm talking about and I should really probably research more before I post here. Anyways, I have been thinking about the universe/life a lot lately and I was wondering if it is possible that everything we know to exist is simply expanding/evolving energy?

Could our present physical universe be the result of the big bang sending energy out in all directions which was left alone, untouched, over billions of years to only expand/evolve? Could that energy have evolved into matter, which evolved into planets and stars? Could this energy randomly form into life, which has evolved into our present self-aware human forms on Earth? Could everything that exists be explained by the unguided evolution of energy that was all originally found in the big bang?
 
Space news on Phys.org
The conversion of energy into matter took place immediately after the big bang. It was not a random process, but the result of extremely high energy photons interacting.
 
Is energy infinite or can the total energy of the universe be calculated in the same way that mass can?
 
Lost in Space said:
Is energy infinite or can the total energy of the universe be calculated in the same way that mass can?

I once read that the total energy of the universe, including mass energy and gravitational potential energy, is on the order of zero, but I'm not in a position to find a source for that, so don't quote me on that.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
3K
Back
Top