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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of heat as a form of energy in the context of the Big Bang theory, particularly focusing on the implications of a singularity where the universe is thought to have been infinitely hot and small. Participants explore theoretical interpretations, the breakdown of general relativity, and the implications of different cosmological models.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether heat is a form of energy, suggesting that if it is, then the universe would contain an infinite amount of energy at the Big Bang.
  • Another participant notes that heat can only be transferred and not contained, indicating that internal energy is what is present in hot objects.
  • A different viewpoint suggests that condensing a finite amount of energy into an infinitely small space would result in infinite temperature, drawing a parallel to density and mass.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the implications of singularities, noting that general relativity breaks down at these points, making predictions unreliable.
  • There is mention of the Hawking-Hartle-Turok instanton models, with one participant suggesting these models have been ruled out in favor of pre-Big Bang scenarios that make testable predictions.
  • Questions arise about the nature of the universe predicted by certain models, with one participant speculating it might be a universe that has already collapsed.
  • Another participant raises the need for a quantum theory to describe interactions at singularities, using the example of electric fields and point particles to illustrate the breakdown of classical models.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the implications of singularities and the validity of different cosmological models. There is no consensus on whether a universe starting with a singularity is ruled out, nor on the nature of the universe predicted by various models.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in understanding the implications of singularities, the breakdown of general relativity, and the need for quantum theories in these contexts. There are unresolved questions regarding the predictive power of different cosmological models.

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
3K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
9K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
7K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K