Infinite Energy and the Big Bang: Understanding Heat as Energy in Physics

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the relationship between heat and energy in the context of the Big Bang theory, referencing Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time." Participants clarify that while heat is indeed a form of energy, the concept of infinite energy at the singularity is problematic due to the breakdown of general relativity at that point. The conversation also touches on the Hawking-Hartle-Turok instanton models, which have been largely dismissed in favor of more empirically supported pre-Big Bang scenarios. The discussion emphasizes the limitations of current theoretical frameworks when addressing singularities and infinite conditions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity and its implications on singularities
  • Familiarity with thermodynamics and the concept of heat as energy
  • Knowledge of the Big Bang theory and its historical context
  • Awareness of quantum mechanics and its role in modern physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of general relativity breakdown at singularities
  • Research the Hawking-Hartle-Turok instanton models and their criticisms
  • Study pre-Big Bang scenarios and their testable predictions
  • Learn about quantum field theory and its relevance to particle interactions
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, cosmologists, and students of theoretical physics seeking to deepen their understanding of the Big Bang theory, energy concepts, and the limitations of current models in explaining singularities.

elloyd
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello there.

This is my post.

I've recently taken up an interest again in physics, well more reading about it out of interest.

I was just reading Stephens Hawkings' 'A brief history of time' and there is something which I don't understand about it. I was wondering if someone could help explain to me.

Ok so, on page 129 "At the big bang itself, the universe is thought to have had zero, size, and so thave been infinitely hot". Am I right in thinking that heat is a form of energy? If so, then there would be an infinite amount of energy in the universe?

Thanks
 
Space news on Phys.org
I actually haven't read A Brief History of Time, and know hardly anything about big bang theory, so I can't answer your second question. However, I do know that heat, technically, can only be transferred, not contained (in the same way that something can not contain a force; it can only have a force applied to it). When something is hot, it contains internal energy.
 
I also know nothing...

But if you had a finite amount of energy, and condensed it into an infinitely small space, it would be infinitely hot. Even if the energy you have is very small... or large.

Just like if you have some finite amount of matter and condense it into an infinitely small point, then your point would be infinitely dense (even though the matter is finite). Density is mass/volume. Two ways to make that infinity is the limit as mass approaches infinity -or- volume approaches zero.

Just what I thought upon reading this, I have no clue what I am talking about.
 
Last edited:
elloyd said:
Hello there.

This is my post.

I've recently taken up an interest again in physics, well more reading about it out of interest.

I was just reading Stephens Hawkings' 'A brief history of time' and there is something which I don't understand about it. I was wondering if someone could help explain to me.

Ok so, on page 129 "At the big bang itself, the universe is thought to have had zero, size, and so thave been infinitely hot". Am I right in thinking that heat is a form of energy? If so, then there would be an infinite amount of energy in the universe?

Thanks

Well this is perhaps not entirely true, since it deals with the universe at the singularity, a point at which as we know general relativity (which is the very theory from which we conclude there is a singularity) breaks down and so does predictability.

Besides infinity density, temperature and so on make no sense physically and a time scale smaller as the Planck time neither makes sense (there is no way to differentiate between 'before' and 'after' at or below this scale).

I guess this vision of the Big Bang now has been ruled out more or less in favour of more realistic pre-big bang scenario's which make testable predictions.

I think the Hawking-Hartle-Turok instanton models (with a 'soft' singularity near the begin) have been ruled out because they predict a different universe, and not the universe we actualy see.

But I'm not completely sure about this. Is a universe starting with a singularity ruled out on theoretical grounds, or on empirical grounds?
 
Last edited:
heusdens said:
Well this is perhaps not entirely true, since it deals with the universe at the singularity, a point at which as we know general relativity (which is the very theory from which we conclude there is a singularity) breaks down and so does predictability
I might be going off on a bit of a tangent here, but... how does that work?:confused: Is there an example in logic that can illustrate this (seeming) paradox?

heusdens said:
I think the Hawking-Hartle-Turok instanton models (with a 'soft' singularity near the begin) have been ruled out because they predict a different universe, and not the universe we actualy see.
What kind of universe does it predict?
 
Izzhov said:
I might be going off on a bit of a tangent here, but... how does that work?:confused: Is there an example in logic that can illustrate this (seeming) paradox?

Yes, well or instance, this would also occur in a model of electric field which has point particles. The attracting force between oppositely charged point particles would go to infinity when they would collide.
But as we know, point particles are just an approximation, and moreover, we need a Quantum theory to describe the interaction.

What kind of universe does it predict?

Not really sure, but I guess it was claimed a universe that would have already collapsed or so. But in fact there are several similar models, with different predictions.

I don't know if they are still regarded as "realistic" models, since inflationary models have more predictive power as these singularity models.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K