Is my reasoning correct? Energy "before" the big bang?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter toothpaste666
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang Energy
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of conservation of energy in relation to the concept of "nothingness" before the Big Bang. Participants argue that if total energy (E) is constant, then the existence of nothingness (E1 = 0) before the Big Bang contradicts the current understanding where E2 (the energy now) is greater than zero. They highlight that general relativity does not support global energy conservation, and the notion of time before the Big Bang is problematic. The conversation also touches on the role of dark energy and the cosmological constant in this context.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of conservation of energy principles
  • Familiarity with general relativity and its implications
  • Knowledge of Noether's theorem and time translation symmetry
  • Basic concepts of cosmology, including the Big Bang theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the implications of Noether's theorem in physics
  • Research the concept of a "zero-energy universe"
  • Study the role of dark energy and the cosmological constant in cosmology
  • Investigate the differences between energy conservation in special relativity and general relativity
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, cosmologists, and students of theoretical physics seeking to deepen their understanding of energy conservation laws and their implications in the context of the universe's origins.

toothpaste666
Messages
516
Reaction score
20
It seems as though that according to conservation of energy, there could never have been a point in the timeline of the universe where nothingness existed. It seems to me that the claim that there was nothingness before the big bang would violate these laws. For example if E is the total energy of the universe then the law states that E = constant. If E1 is the total energy of the universe at an arbitrary time t1 and E2 is the total energy of the universe at arbitrary time t2 , then E1 = E2. let's say t1 is before the big bang and t2 is right now. If there was nothingness before the big bang, then E1 = 0. Since right now it is obvious that E2 > 0 , or , E2 != 0, then E1 != E2 which would violate conservation of energy. Is this line of reasoning correct? if not, why?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Without a universe, there is no conservation law a big bang could violate. "Before the big bang" is meaningless if the universe started with it, and you cannot assign an energy to something that does not exist.

By the way: general relativity does not have global energy conservation.
 
Conservation of energy arises due to the time translation symmetry of the laws of physics (see Noether's theorem).

Our current theories say that there is effectively no time before the Big Bang (in the geometric sense that one cannot go further north than the North Pole). If that's true, then one simply cannot translate from the Big Bang further into the past and say the laws of physics remain invariant.

If there is no time translation symmetry at the point of the Big Bang, there is likely no conservation of energy (as we know it) either.

At least currently, we can only speculate about what the laws of physics were like before the big bang (if there even was a "before").
 
mfb said:
By the way: general relativity does not have global energy conservation.
Is that not what "dark energy" and the "cosmological constant" is for?

Time translation symmetry is certainly a tricky thing in general relativity, but is there really no workaround?
 
jfizzix said:
Is that not what "dark energy" and the "cosmological constant" is for?
No. There is no unique meaningful way to define "the energy of the universe at a specific point in time", and as far as I know no matter how you define it there is a process that could change it.
 
toothpaste666 said:
It seems as though that according to conservation of energy, there could never have been a point in the timeline of the universe where nothingness existed. It seems to me that the claim that there was nothingness before the big bang would violate these laws. For example if E is the total energy of the universe then the law states that E = constant. If E1 is the total energy of the universe at an arbitrary time t1 and E2 is the total energy of the universe at arbitrary time t2 , then E1 = E2. let's say t1 is before the big bang and t2 is right now. If there was nothingness before the big bang, then E1 = 0. Since right now it is obvious that E2 > 0 , or , E2 != 0, then E1 != E2 which would violate conservation of energy. Is this line of reasoning correct? if not, why?
Why do you think it's obvious? It is not.
There is a possibility that E2=0. See Lawrence Krauss' book "A Universe from nothing", for example.
 
How do we know that the big bang is the origin of time and not just an event that happened in time? Is there a mathematical/scientific reason or is it an axiom we have adopted?

If total universal energy is not conserved in GR , is it still conserved in isolated systems? Is it also true that universal E conservation does not apply to SR?

As for the current total E being 0... How is this possible? Wouldn't that mean nothing can happen?
 
toothpaste666 said:
How do we know that the big bang is the origin of time and not just an event that happened in time? Is there a mathematical/scientific reason or is it an axiom we have adopted?
We don't know, we just have a model that represents reality incredibly well and as has already been stated, it is unable to handle what happened at or before the big bang singularity (aka t=0) or if there even IS a "before".

If total universal energy is not conserved in GR , is it still conserved in isolated systems? Is it also true that universal E conservation does not apply to SR?
Just today I made a post claiming that energy is conserved in closed systems and was told that that is wrong. See here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/universe-already-existed.795055/#post-4993340
 
  • #10
Ok thanks i have some stuff to read now. Btw sorry i didnt realize such a similar question had been posted. In fact i just realized how often you guys probably get this exact question. Sorry :( in school i am still studying classical physics so i have so far only been taught that total E is always conserved and have even done several experiments myself that demonstrated this, so the idea that the energy laws do not always hold is new to me
 
  • #11
Energy is conserved in special relativity, and there is still local energy conservation in general relativity (which means your lab experiment won't find a deviation).
 

Similar threads

High School Big Bang and Infinite Universe
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
Undergrad Questions on the consequence of an evolving dark energy parameter
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
High School Is Entropy the Key to Understanding the Big Bang and the Fate of the Universe?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
6K
High School Big Crunch, Big Bang and information loss
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
8K
Undergrad What atoms are we made of, how much is from the big bang?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Does zero exist in the energy term?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
High School Does Roger Penrose's Big Bang cyclic-universe thing make sense?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Graduate Dressed states for a 3 level system
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Graduate The Inflationary and The Big Bang Theory
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Where Has All the Energy Gone? The Mystery of Big Bang and Dark Energy
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K