Early Universe: Heat without Mass? | Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter twistedspark
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Heat Mass
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of temperature and heat in the early universe as described by Stephen Hawking in "Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking." Participants explore the nature of heat in a context where mass and light are purportedly absent, questioning the definitions and implications of these terms in relation to the early universe's conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how the early universe could be described as "ultra hot" without the presence of mass or light, suggesting that heat is typically associated with the kinetic energy of particles.
  • Others argue that while there may not have been matter, the early universe was filled with high-energy photons, which could contribute to a state described as hot.
  • One participant notes that temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of particles, implying that without particles, there may be no temperature, only energy density.
  • Another participant suggests that energy can be transmitted through light, potentially linking radiation to heat, although they express confusion about the topic.
  • Some participants reference historical models of planetary formation and energy conversion, indicating a broader interest in the implications of energy and mass in cosmology.
  • There is a discussion about the definitions of light and radiation, with some asserting that radiation is produced by matter and questioning how heat could exist without it.
  • One participant highlights a potential misunderstanding in Hawking's statements regarding the absence of light and matter in the early universe, suggesting that this may lead to confusion in interpreting the concept of heat.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between heat, energy, and the absence of mass in the early universe. There is no consensus on how to reconcile these concepts, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in understanding the definitions of heat and temperature, as well as the implications of Hawking's statements regarding the early universe. The discussion reflects a variety of interpretations and assumptions about energy and radiation.

twistedspark
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
In "Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking," when describing the early universe prior to, and seconds after the start of TBB, Hawking says it was an ultra hot 'fog' of energy. No light yet existed, so no IR radiation, and no mass existed until the energy cooled down and formed nearly equal amounts of subatomic particles and their 'anti' counterparts.

I don't understand how it could be "hot" if there was no mass and no light. Isn't heat basically just the sum kinetic and potential kinetic energies of the mass in a system?
 
Last edited:
Science news on Phys.org
twistedspark said:
In "Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking," when describing the early universe prior to, and seconds after the start of TBB, Hawking says it was an ultra hot 'fog' of energy. No light yet existed, so no IR radiation, and no mass existed until the energy cooled down and formed nearly equal amounts of subatomic particles and their 'anti' counterparts.

I don't understand how it could be "hot" if there was no mass and no light. Isn't heat basically just the sum kinetic and potential kinetic energies of the mass in a system?

Light is only as small and relatively low-energy section of the EM spectrum. I doubt the early universe had any EM below gamma rays.

It was far too hot for matter to form. Matter did not condense out of energy until after tens of thousands of years of cooling.

But the early universe was packed wall-to-wall with high energy photons, making it very hot indeed.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Light is only as small and relatively low-energy section of the EM spectrum. I doubt the early universe had any EM below gamma rays.

It was far too hot for matter to form. Matter did not condense out of energy until after tens of thousands of years of cooling.

But the early universe was packed wall-to-wall with high energy photons, making it very hot indeed.

I think the OP's question was relating to the nature of temperature, which is defined as the average kinetic energy of particles. If there are no particles, there no temperature strictly speaking, just energy density.
 
Exactly. So no one has answered my question. How can it be "ultra hot" when it has no matter?
Is Hawking just making eroneous statements because he's trying to dumb it down to laymen terms?

On a side note;
the same program stated the "Milky Way is 6,000 billion miles wide."
6,000 billion miles = 6 trillion miles. That's approximately one lightyear. He's off by an order of 100,000. Nice editing.
 
Last edited:
well heat is energy related to the vibrations in the particles of matter, but energy can be traveled through light, to my knowledge. It has to do with radiation I think. Maybe you should refer to Neil Borh's model the the hydrogen to get a better understanding. I'm a bit confused myself on this matter. I'm just suggesting that energy can travel through light at that constant speed which creates heat on matter. I'm not sure though. I went over this type of stuff breifely, but you need to take at least a few weeks for serious study to understand this stuff I think. well, it may just take a few days, but the point is that it's not easy to understand.
 
I find this very interesting to think about. this may be a bit off topic but a guy with last name leplace suggested that the planets were formed due to gas condensing. I'd like to believe that was false, because I've thought about the beginning of the solar system in terms of the sun being something completely different that exploded and created a bunch of matter that litterally expanded and then traveled back to the sun, because of the sun's gravity and only the planets were left, because each individual gravitational force the planets exerted canceled out with one another, allowing a solar system to work.
 
I'm not clear on what you're trying to state Raybesto, but as far as I've ever seen all forms of radiation are created by matter and it's actions and decay. Which stills leaves me asking "how" can there be heat, let alone radiation, without mass.
BTW I understand subatomic particles have mass but are not "matter," so my question uses the term mass.
 
you should read about niels bohr. He explained that energies are converted through photons I think. Then Plank expanded on it, etc.
 
I'm saying that a photon of light carries energy at the speed of light and is conserved which heats matter. where heat is the energy of the vibrations of the particles and atoms.
 
  • #10
Rayquesto said:
I'm saying that a photon of light carries energy at the speed of light and is conserved which heats matter. where heat is the energy of the vibrations of the particles and atoms.

As I originally wrote, I agree with that definition of heat, and as I quoted Hawking of saying, the early U had no particles nor atoms. Only an "ultra hot fog of energy."
 
  • #11
Yea but if heat is due to the radiation of energy traveling at the speed of light, then the "ultra hot fog of energy" is radiation that can be converted into heat where "hot" might simply be a suggestion that the energy has a big potential for heat. You should ask like a physics teacher about this too. They may give other answers then you could come up with your own! :)
 
  • #12
Rayquesto said:
Yea but if heat is due to the radiation of energy traveling at the speed of light, then the "ultra hot fog of energy" is radiation that can be converted into heat where "hot" might simply be a suggestion that the energy has a big potential for heat. You should ask like a physics teacher about this too. They may give other answers then you could come up with your own! :)

It seems we're stuck on light and radiation, but as I've pointed out, Hawking stated that, "...in the early U there was no light and no matter." And radiation is created by actions of particles of matter and their decay.
 
  • #13
yea this is a stumper for me. haha
 
  • #14
im sure it all boils down to the big bang theory one way or another. lol
 
  • #15
twistedspark said:
It seems we're stuck on light and radiation, but as I've pointed out, Hawking stated that, "...in the early U there was no light and no matter." And radiation is created by actions of particles of matter and their decay.

twisted, I answered this in post 2.

"Light" is very low energy. The EM spectrum has no upper bound. There would have been forms of EM with energy levels the likes of which will never again be seen in our old, cool dark universe.

They are energy. Energy is heat.
 
  • #16
twistedspark said:
On a side note;
the same program stated the "Milky Way is 6,000 billion miles wide."
6,000 billion miles = 6 trillion miles. That's approximately one lightyear. He's off by an order of 100,000. Nice editing.

That's quite an error. It's interesting to note however that up until recently the British used one billion to denote 10^12 as opposed to Americans 10^9. So if he was talking about the thickness of the universe he may have been correct (otherwise still out by a factor of 100).
 

Similar threads

High School How does hawking radiation escape a black hole?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Undergrad Brian Cox and the end of the Universe?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
High School Question about the Entropy of a Black Hole Singularity
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
Undergrad How are different forms of energy come into existence?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Negative Mass and Hawking Radiation
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Undergrad Proton decay at the end of the Universe
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Graduate Why Stephen Hawking says universe can create itself from nothing?
  • · Replies 81 ·
3
Replies
81
Views
17K
High School The observable and non-observable parts of the Universe
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
Undergrad Q re early universe matter-antimatter annihilation
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad Galaxy MoM-z14 - furthest observed object
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K