Unraveling the Big Bang Question: Escaping the Gravitational Pull of Black Holes

[Bill Minerick]

By definition, the gravitational force associated with a black hole precludes anything, even energy, from escaping once inside the event horizon, hence the name. If all of the matter and energy which exist in the Universe today were supposedly once contained within a space no bigger than a proton wouldn't that equate to a single enormous black hole? How did the Universe escape from it?

 

[Alex48674]

I think that has something to do with the theory that once matter is at a certain density (80% Plank) it has the ability to repel, which would then allow the universe to expand. I'm not sure though, and I'm very new to this stuff so I'd wait for someone else to reply, but there's my 2 cents. I'm not sure if those definitions and statements are exactly right that you said, but I'll wait for someone else to say so.

 

[marcus]

By definition, the gravitational force associated with a black hole precludes anything, even energy, from escaping once inside the event horizon, hence the name. If all of thewouldn't that equate to a single enormous black hole?

No, because the universe was expanding.

I don't accept that modern cosmology says "all matter and energy which exist in the Universe today were supposedly once contained within a space no bigger than a proton ".

Expansion may have started with a considerably larger, or even an infinite, volume. What you say sounds like a popularization or a misconception to me. But this doesn't matter. Density was in any case extremely high at start of expansion, according to pretty much any model.

How did the Universe escape from it?

A very high density region that is not expanding will collapse, and the formula for the Schwarzschild radius which you may know about does apply in that case.

But if the region is expanding it is a whole other ball game.

So there is no problem about the Universe "escaping" from its initial high density state.

Expansion was roaring along at an almost inconceivable rate at that point.
=============================

what I am telling you is just what you get when you take a model based on our best law of gravity (Gen Rel) and fitting the observational data, and run it back in time.

The classical model only goes back to right after expansion began and doesn't explain how it started. Some recent quantum models go back to before expansion began and explain how it could have gotten started.

We don't know yet what the right model is of the very early universe and the start of expansion. Some do a pretty good job of explaining but they need to be tested. I'm in a kind of wait and see mode, myself.

But certainly what you are worried about is a non-problem. Any model we use says the Hubble parameter was huge enough at early times to completely overwhelm any tendency to make a black hole

 

[Golfer]

Thermodynamics, gravity, etc

By definition, the gravitational force associated with a black hole precludes anything, even energy, from escaping once inside the event horizon, hence the name. If all of the matter and energy which exist in the Universe today were supposedly once contained within a space no bigger than a proton wouldn't that equate to a single enormous black hole? How did the Universe escape from it?

The definition is correct BUT the situation for the Big Bang is different than the normal formation of a black hole. Consider the possibility that the universe could collapse. The black hole created in this collapse do not collapse to an infinitely small diameter. The second law of thermodynamics requires that as more matter is added to a black hole it gets BIGGER not smaller. Thus the situation at the Big Bang cannot be obtained.

However, the Big Bang expansion implies that the initial entropy was larger than that required for a black hole of the same diamter. Thus expansion would take place to reach this thermodynamic equilibrium. Also at Big Bang starting dimensions Einstein's theory of gravity has a replusive part related to the energy. This would force an expansion. Third, inflation theory would cause expansion due to the negative pressure involved.

The question is: Are these effects enough to drive the expanding universe past the corresponding black hole diameter. As far as I know, this is not known.

 

[marcus]

...

The question is: Are these effects enough to drive the expanding universe past the corresponding black hole diameter. As far as I know, this is not known.

I don't understand what you are asking, Golfer.
What do you think "the corresponding black hole diameter" is?

What universe distance do you think should be compared to that? Do you have an estimate of the diameter of the universe?

 

[Eric DMC]

By definition, the gravitational force associated with a black hole precludes anything, even energy, from escaping once inside the event horizon, hence the name. If all of the matter and energy which exist in the Universe today were supposedly once contained within a space no bigger than a proton wouldn't that equate to a single enormous black hole? How did the Universe escape from it?

That is a great question, it got me to ponder!
From what I understand that is the problem with the Big Bang Theory, its called the Singularity. Our universe laws did not exist; therefore we cannot explain why it happened.

Although I seam to remember reading about M theory having to do with the Singularity but I don’t remember much of the details.

 

[marcus]

If all of the matter and energy which exist in the Universe today were supposedly once contained within a space no bigger than a proton wouldn't that equate to a single enormous black hole? ...

Just to be clear I'll repeat. No.
It would not "equate to a single enormous black hole".

There are a bunch of different solutions to the equation of GR which involve very high density. The black hole solution is just one, and it can't accommodate rapid expansion.

You can think of it intuitively like this (Wallace correct me if I'm wrong here) expansion at the rate that must have prevailed initially would *tear apart* any black hole that tried to form, before it could even start collapsing.

According to standard expansion cosmology (the Big Bang, in pop-talk) it doesn't make sense to equate the initial conditions at the start of expansion with a black hole.
(However in quantum cosmology, the possibility does tentatively arise that the expansion of our spacetime was preceded by gravitational collapse in a prior region---quantum gravity allows for gravity to reverse at very high density and cause a "bounce". I am not talking about quantum cosmology here, just the standard picture.)

 

[MeJennifer]

A very high density region that is not expanding will collapse, and the formula for the Schwarzschild radius which you may know about does apply in that case.

One cannot simply stitch Schwarzschild-deSitter solutions for high density regions inside a FRW model.

 

[marcus]

One cannot simply stitch Schwarzschild-deSitter solutions for high density regions inside a FRW model.

Thanks Jennifer, that is certainly correct! And it supplies further justification for what I was trying to get across. We have been thru this several times already. simply because the "big bang" early universe contains very dense regions does not mean it contains black holes or is contained in a black hole.

However to be fair to the original poster, in the non-expanding case, a region with sufficiently high density WILL collapse. He's got that part right .
It is just that you can't insert that into the FRW picture of the early universe.

 

[wolram]

We lack the single most important fact to have any idea if any model of cosmology works, a physical measurement, in my opinion cosmology is just hand waving without one.

 

[Chronos]

Early universe models do not behave 'classically'. Inflation has no observational parallels in our current universe. The laws of physics may not have been fully emergent in the 'beginning' allowing events not currently permitted.

 

[wolram]

Early universe models do not behave 'classically'. Inflation has no observational parallels in our current universe. The laws of physics may not have been fully emergent in the 'beginning' allowing events not currently permitted.

And the lady with the bulging shopping trolley beats you to the single item isle, quantity is no substitute for quality.

 

[jal]

me no notin.
smart people rite paper … I find … I read … I put here for you …
https://www.physicsforums.com/blogs/jal-58039/can-the-universe-fit-into-the-cmb-1215/
you smart …read … think … find anser … go scool … rite paper …
I find your paper … put with oders

 

[Chronos]

Your point escaped me, wolram.

 

[Wallace]

And me. I'm not sure if you missed the last 80 years of physical measurements in cosmology!

 

[Golfer]

Not the early universe

It is obvious that the gist of my question was not clear. I am talking about the expansion of the universe reversing and compacting. This compaction should result in the 'mother of all black holes' which is probably much larger than original volume of the early universe. Once all matter is collected in this black hole, will there be a rebound?

 

[Eric DMC]

It is obvious that the gist of my question was not clear. I am talking about the expansion of the universe reversing and compacting. This compaction should result in the 'mother of all black holes' which is probably much larger than original volume of the early universe. Once all matter is collected in this black hole, will there be a rebound?

Sorry for the confusion, So far there is no evidence "I know of" for the Big Crunch. The universe is expanding at a increasing rate! If there is enough matter in the Universe eventually gravitaional forces will stop its expansion. When this happens gravity will cause the universe to reverse its direction and begin to collapse under its own weight. This phase of the Universe's life is known as the Big Crunch.
Eventually all of the matter in the Universe will collapse into a super dense state and possibly even collapse into an unimaginably massive black hole. Some theorize that the Universe could collapse into the same state that it began as and then blow up in another Big Bang. In this way the Universe would last forever but would continually go through these phases of expansion and contraction, Big Bang and Big Crunch and so on...

 

[Blueprint]

Yup, that's how I see the universe, on a continual cycle of Bangs and Crunches.

Maybe each time it happened more matter was converted from energy to get to what it is today, a lonnggg expansion that only just gets to contract?

 

[Golfer]

new physics

Both of the above comments imply that the black hole would [suddenly] expand and disappear. What is the physics for such an occurance?

 

[Blueprint]

I read there's no point one can consider the centre of the universe. The Big Bang started from a singularity of infinite density, right?

Maybe once it reaches a critical mass, i.e. all the matter in the universe, gravity (or another force) becomes repulsive. Feel free to enlighten me :)

One thing I'd like to know, is how the maths cope with zero mass particles and infinite properties.

 

[Blueprint]

Golfer - apparently its the time-reversed argument of Penrose's theorum on gravitational collapse leading to a singularity... thing is.. the universe was so small at this point its very quantum physics related as opposed to general theory of relativity.

 

[Golfer]

Any paper on the subject

Blueprint

Do you know of any papers on this subject?

 

[Eric DMC]

No one knows or can explain in anyway how the Big Bang occurred. We can explain up to 1,000,000 of a second after the Big Bang "some crazy number like that" but what caused the Big Bang is completely unknown because the universes fundamental laws break down, this is called the Singularity. This is way I don’t believe that universe was a black hole, if our laws brake down, then gravity would not be a governing force, not saying its impossible, just not my personal opinion. If this kind of stuff interest you, then you should get the book Hyperspace by Michio Kaku. It is really a great read!

 

[MeJennifer]

the universes fundamental laws break down, this is called the Singularity

There is not such thing as the breaking down of the fundamental laws of the universe.

Scientists make theories and come up with what they call laws. Those man-made laws can indeed break down but that is due to the theory not due to nature.

By the way the term "law" is a misnomer IMHO, nature does not follow or break laws.

 

[Chronos]

Perhaps 'nature' has its own way of setting the plate, jennifer. I like the way you think, but not your conclusions.

 

[wolram]

And me. I'm not sure if you missed the last 80 years of physical measurements in cosmology!

There is no physical measurement, all you do measure is light travel with some other near distant calculations thrown in, AFAIK the only real measurement is to the moon.

 

[terminal_man]

By definition, the gravitational force associated with a black hole precludes anything, even energy, from escaping once inside the event horizon,

The problem you face is that this "definition' is correct only for things within this Universe.
We cannot measure what is possible outside the Universe because we cannot go there.

The Big Bang occurred, and is continuing to occur, 'out there' beyond the known Universe and may not, almost certainly is not, constrained by the same rules. If at some point the Universal expansion is reversed, the shrinking Universe will carry with it the rules that we know, and what happens next (illogical construct really, because 'next' refers to time and time only exists within the Universe) is beyond our ability to understand.

 

[terminal_man]

If all of the matter and energy which exist in the Universe today were supposedly once contained within a space no bigger than a proton

Actually, thinking more deeply on the problem it gets more weird.

For, as i understand the physics, Matter as we know it (like time) is also a product of this Universe and therefore did not exist prior to the Big Bang. indeed i understand it didn't start to exist until some time after the Big Bang, being built from Energy.

Also all the Energy we measure and refer to is based upon physical concepts of the Universe, and therefore can have no meaningful concept of existence without a Physical Universe against which to measure it.

So the idea that all the matter and energy were contained in anything is probably spurious. what existed, if that is the right word to use in regard to a non-space/non-time environment, was the potential for matter and energy.

Some event then triggered a change which resulted in the development of that potential into first energy and then matter.

From this let me postulate:

• The one Universal constant of time is change, for without change you cannot measure time;
• Conversely any change must include a measure of time, for without time there cannot be a 'before the change' or an 'after the change';
• So if prior to the Big Bang all was static and unchanging, because there was no time;
• Is the nature of the Big Bang Time Itself?

Of course, I'm probably the 10,000 person in the world to postulate this and the others probably did it better with lots of supporting formulas, but at least i know i didn't read it in a book.

 

[Blueprint]

... If at some point the Universal expansion is reversed, the shrinking Universe will carry with it the rules that we know...

Mankind can only exist in an expanding universe to ask the question, why is the universe expanding? In a shrinking universe, time runs backwards, i.e. you would die, live your life, then be born, so life cannot exist as I understand it. There is no life during the crunch phase of Friedmann's model.

Or maybe its just like matter and antimatter, opposites but essentially the same, time running the opposite way is just time, so life would still live its life in the right order.

I don't think time is born from energy Terminal, the way i saw it was the universe expanded into a canvas of pre-existing spacetime, a universe that is both finite but has no boundary.

 

[terminal_man]

...time is born from energy ...the universe expanded into a canvas of pre-existing spacetime, a universe that is both finite but has no boundary.

Actually (Dyni) i was arguing the Universe was created by time, and energy came into existence with the creation of the Universe, however minor point.

As for the pre-existence of spacetime, no that is quite contrary to the physics. Both time and space are the measure of the Universe, neither can exist outside of A Universe. It was the fact that time did not exist before the Big Bang that lead Hawking to call his ubiquitous book about Universal Physics "A Brief History of Time".

I'll look up the section in it where he explains that and send you the quote.

As for the concept of if we could exist in a Crunch, we really don't know that we aren't. Fundamentally, our perception of time is limited by our inability to get outside it and look in. So we 'think' the Universe is expanding because that's the way we see it, but another observer may have the opposite opinion.

(Strangely one of the Arthurian myths, had this concept in it, as at one point it was purported that Merlin 'lived his life backwards' having been born toward the end of time and growing older as the world got younger, hence his ability to predict the future.)

Marts.

 

[LongOne]

There is not such thing as the breaking down of the fundamental laws of the universe.

Scientists make theories and come up with what they call laws. Those man-made laws can indeed break down but that is due to the theory not due to nature.

By the way the term "law" is a misnomer IMHO, nature does not follow or break laws.

Someone correct me if I've misunderstood, but when someone uses the phrase "laws break down", it's not that the existing laws don't work, but rather that the existing laws of physics do not apply. In this situation, the singularity (infinite mass in an infinitely small space) cannot be described correctly either by the theory of quantum mechanics or the theory of relativity. And right now, we're not smart enough to know how to combine these two fundamental "laws" of physics to handle the situation of a singularity (or just at the Big Bang -- if that was also a singularity).

 

[LongOne]

On the matter of time

Up until the last few years, it seems to me that most discussions of the Big Bang included the notion that the beginning of time happened as part of the Big Bang, i.e., time did not exist before the Big Bang.

Recently, there have been discussions of the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, along with other notions of multiverses, etc.. Many of these theories and discussions have provided for the creation of the universe(s) and, further, implied or stated that time DID exist before the Big Bang, as we know it, happened.

I can't describe time any better than anyone else .. probably less well, but the definition I use is one I read once that goes something like "time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once".

So, using this definition (Is there a better one?), how can time have a beginning concurrent with the Big Bang? How can anything exist BEFORE time exists? Can the membranes of M-Theory exist before time exists?

An ancillary question: Can time stop? Would this be the same as not having time? Can time be suspended (stopped and restarted)?

If someone could spend a paragraph or two on this matter, it would certainly be appreciated. Or if you could point me to some rather definitive documentation on the web or in a book.

 

[Chronos]

Time is not clearly more fundamental than space or matter. These three measurable aspects of the universe are the holy trinity of science. It's an eerie thing with obvious religious overtones. An infinitely old universe is untenable [olber's paradox]. And a cyclical universe merely dodges the question. It is hard to imagine such a universe devoid of fragments from an infinite number of prior incarnations.

 

[terminal_man]

when someone uses the phrase "laws break down", it's not that the existing laws don't work, but rather that the existing laws of physics do not apply.

The answer would be at once Yes and No, with a Maybe and an Irrelevant included.

The traditional use of "Breaking Down" is based on the understanding that all such 'Laws' are theories based upon mathematical models derived from observation and extrapolation, with a little bit of intuition included. What 'Breaks Down' is the mathematical model. Observations and predictions no longer match, so the validity of the model is broken - in that situation.

Sometime it becomes apparent that the model is fundamentally flawed, and cannot be used in relation to the situation. In which case, YES you're right.

However, if the model still works in all other situations and is fundamental to the understanding of the Universe, as a whole, it is not necessarily true that it no longer applies, only that we don't know how it applies. So in that case, NO you're wrong.

Then again it's not always easy to tell if if does or does not apply, or if there is something else in the way we are interpreting the data which is affecting the result.
For example, if you concur with Stephen Hawking's concept of an Unbounded Universe, wherein a singularity only exists as a theoretical construct which exists only in a particular theoretical timeframe the model may be both applicable and not applicable at the same time. So it's MAYBE.

However, if singularities do exist and your specifically referring to the twin Big Bang & Big Crunch singularities, then neither of them actually exist within this Universe, so it becomes IRRELEVANT.

Oh, why can't we go back to just blaming God for everything and let the priests deal with it. then we can all go off and have a lovely war.

 

[terminal_man]

I can't describe time any better than anyone else .. probably less well, but the definition I use is one I read once that goes something like "time is nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once".

So, using this definition (Is there a better one?), how can time have a beginning concurrent with the Big Bang? How can anything exist BEFORE time exists? Can the membranes of M-Theory exist before time exists?

Einstein's works showed that time and space are not separate, but conjoined. Spacetime as he called it. So time could not exist before the Big Bang or after any Big Crunch.

How can this be, well yes it can, but only if you remember that this applies only to 'our' spacetime. The Multiverse concept identifies tha fact that there can be any number of spacetimes, each uniquely different or vastly similar but separate.

What separates them? no idea. using the fish analogy (if Chronos will permit me) each one exists within it's own little fishbowl. Because the analogy is incomplete, fish can't have a complete concept of water, not just because they are immersed within it, but because being trapped within it they can never understand the concept of the bowl and what's outside it.

Oh yes, time or more correctly 'our' or any other universes spacetime can stop. Any one of the fishbowls can fall on the flaw and shatter, but the floor, the room the air even the bowl itself go on. if our spacetime ends the rest of the multiverse could still continue on in some other kind of spacetime, but we will probably never understand what that is, sadly.

 

[LongOne]

How can this be, well yes it can, but only if you remember that this applies only to 'our' spacetime. The Multiverse concept identifies tha fact that there can be any number of spacetimes, each uniquely different or vastly similar but separate.
QUOTE]

The notion of separate time for the "super"-thing (whatever it is/was) and the universe instantiated by the Big Bang, and that the Big Bang Universe's time could not exist prior to the Big Bang, was so obvious to me that I had failed to make a distinction between the two. Your answer cleared up something that has bothered me for some time now. Thank you very much!

 

[Eric DMC]

There is not such thing as the breaking down of the fundamental laws of the universe.

Scientists make theories and come up with what they call laws. Those man-made laws can indeed break down but that is due to the theory not due to nature.

By the way the term "law" is a misnomer IMHO, nature does not follow or break laws.

In M-theory before the big bang our universe is non-existent. But in the 11th dimension there is a "sea of membranes" witch cannot possibly be governed by our laws we have today, it would be like comparing laws the govern plaints to laws that govern atoms. Then in the 11th dimension two membranes touched witch set off the Big Bang, and our universe was born. I am talking about 100,000,000th of a second after the Big Bang our laws had not taken control of the chaos.

Also the laws of the universe are not theories, and yes nature "atlease our universe" follows laws.

 

[Fluxman]

How do you measure empty space?

 

[Blueprint]

With a ruler and protractor...

Seriously tho, how are the rules of science, like the mass of an electron or proton, chosen?

Alot of theories, and I think this includes classical relativity, don't suggest or predict these masses, they have to be inputted.

Ive been reading and thinking about it, and I think our universe is pretty much weak anthropic principle related. The extra dimensions from 5 onwards are like the pitted skin of an orange if viewed close up, from distance all u will notice are a smooth 3 and time curvature. The very small dimensions mean time travel loops like wormholes are too small for spaceships or even astronauts, well living life anyway, if matter reconstruction could be figured out.

I see our universe as a bubble in the complete universe. There are lots of other bubbles... self-contained universes that don't allow life... conditions are wrong... this is ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE (we are here and questioning why it is so, because if it were any different, it would not be possible). It explains a lot without really explaining anything but you can't fault its logic.

I don't like the clashing of branes concept for big bang conception either, just... no.

 

[Eric DMC]

I don't like the clashing of branes concept for big bang conception either, just... no.

I am neither for nor against the big bang. I simply do not know!

Sometimes I even question if there was ever a beginning, as humans everything we know, see, touch, and experience has a begging and end.

First there was the question of how the universe was born, answered by the big bang.
Then what caused the big bang, answered by the 11th dimension and its sea of membranes.
But where did the membranes come from? There is no end to this line of thought.
As a human I want to say where the beginning is, but perhaps in ways that out 3 dimensional brains can not comprehend there is no begging or end in the grand scheme of things, maybe our universe had a begging but perhaps the multi-verse is eternal!

 

[LongOne]

Like many others, I stand convinced of the "Big Bang", but am unconvinced that anyone has any meaningful grasp on what happened before the Big Bang or even what caused the Big Bang. Someday, M-theory might prove to be right, but it seems just too speculative, without solid underpinnings, to be a viable explanation yet.

Although we don't know what physics existed in the "time" just before and in the first few seconds after the Big Bang, I don't believe that this situation necessarily negates any knowledge of how physics worked during more "normal" times before the Big Bang (assuming the Big Bang was a relatively unusual event). By "normal", I mean the ongoing existence of the conditions prior to the clash of Branes (or whatever) that actually initiated the Big Bang. We seem to be very intent on saying that those conditions are not the physics of today, but since we don't know what the conditions were, how can we say that? (I realize that the Big Bang encompasses conditions where quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity can't be reconciled, but that particular time was one of Big Bang, not the "normal" time before the Big Bang, whatever that means)

I am of the opinion that at some time in the future, hopefully sooner rather than later, we'll have another Einsten (or Newton) who can develop a notion of what really happened and how. It will be simple, too. And we'll all probably call him/her looney for a period of time until the theory begins to be proven. It seems to me that today too much of the revolutionary science that needs to be developed to explain our origins is being negated by brain trusts that focus current efforts into pre-defined paths of thinking. These brain trusts are necessary as they fill in all the details and extend our thinking, but to me, it seems they seldom provide the truly revolutionary ideas necessary to see the bigger picture. Where are the "wild ducks"?

 

[russ_watters]

Seriously tho, how are the rules of science, like the mass of an electron or proton, chosen?

Alot of theories, and I think this includes classical relativity, don't suggest or predict these masses, they have to be inputted.

You are correct, those are inputs: The masses of objects are not theories/rules, they are measured properties from which theories are derived.

 

[wolram]

Your point escaped me, wolram.

There is no physical measurement, apart from (local) bodies, all the theories in academia can be shoe horned into some theory or other, the fact is you guys do not have a clue what the universe is about.

 

[Fluxman]

You are correct, those are inputs: The masses of objects are not theories/rules, they are measured properties from which theories are derived.

Speaking of matter, what do theories say?...Is the amount of matter in the universe now exactly or closely equal to that at the beginning of the universe or not?

 

[LongOne]

Realize that at the instant of the Big Bang, there was no matter, if by matter, you mean atoms. It was only much later, in a process called "recombination" that matter, as we know it, came to be.

One big question about the amount of matter present after recombination relates to the matter/anti-matter question. As far as I know, we don't have a good theory for why there is only matter currently in the universe. Baryogenesis theories don't seem right because of the horrendous mismatch in quantities of matter/anti-matter and leptogenesis theories don't seem much better, but they're less well understand, from what I know.

I recently read an excellent book on this subject by Helen Quinn and Yossi Nir titled "The Mystery of the Missing AntiMatter". This book is eminently readable and presents the entire subject without the use of virtually any math references. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in quantum mechanics, the Big Bang vis-a-vis matter creation, and particularly about the matter/anti-matter imbalance.

 

[Fluxman]

Realize that at the instant of the Big Bang, there was no matter, if by matter, you mean atoms. It was only much later, in a process called "recombination" that matter, as we know it, came to be.

One big question about the amount of matter present after recombination relates to the matter/anti-matter question. As far as I know, we don't have a good theory for why there is only matter currently in the universe. Baryogenesis theories don't seem right because of the horrendous mismatch in quantities of matter/anti-matter and leptogenesis theories don't seem much better, but they're less well understand, from what I know.

I recently read an excellent book on this subject by Helen Quinn and Yossi Nir titled "The Mystery of the Missing AntiMatter". This book is eminently readable and presents the entire subject without the use of virtually any math references. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in quantum mechanics, the Big Bang vis-a-vis matter creation, and particularly about the matter/anti-matter imbalance.

Ok, here goes:

1. By matter I don't mean atoms, I mean anything - protons, neutrons, electrons, mesons, quarks or anything else that would not qualify as or be considered "energy".

2. I'm only asking about matter, not anti-matter.

Is the quantity of matter that exists in the universe now the same, or virtually the same, as existed in the universe at its beginning?

If theories say that there was nothing but "energy" at the beginning, then say so.

 

[Blueprint]

Theres an addage in quantum mechanics that states "Anything which is not forbidden is compulsory."

This means that even in a vacuum with zero energy, particle-antiparticle pairs can pop into existence out of nothing at all, provided they almost immediately annihilate each other (in a sense before the universe notices), and give back the energy they borrowed from the vaccuum.

The quantity of matter is not the same... many many particle-antiparticle pairs have annihilated each other since conception, while many particles have avoided their antiparticle to exist as well.

You got to think of the big bang as a mass of energy... not matter, then the answer to your question is obviously no. Later the energy formed matter (quantum fluctuations during inflation gave rise to galaxies). During this inflation, the antiparticles were lost.. or perhaps pushed outside the bubble, so that matter could exist, that's what I read.

 

[LongOne]

Ok, here goes:

1. By matter I don't mean atoms, I mean anything - protons, neutrons, electrons, mesons, quarks or anything else that would not qualify as or be considered "energy".

2. I'm only asking about matter, not anti-matter.

Is the quantity of matter that exists in the universe now the same, or virtually the same, as existed in the universe at its beginning?

If theories say that there was nothing but "energy" at the beginning, then say so.

OK, to the best of my understanding, there was nothing but pure, unadultered, raw energy of immense proportions (read "hot - hot - hot", say 10 million degrees or something of that nature) immediately after the Big Bang.

 

[Blueprint]

I read immediately after the Big Bang VERY HEAVY particles (X-particles) were made with masses billions that of a proton (which is pretty heavy for a particle), which then decayed very quickly, fragmenting into showers of other particles and antiparticles.

From this mass annihilation, there would have been no particles, only light, and due to the tiny unevenness in the laws of physics, these X-particles decayed into a billion and 1 particles for every billion antiparticles.

This not only explains why there is more matter than antimatter, but the microwave background, as well as why there are a billion photons in the universe for every particle we estimate to exist in the stars and galaxies.

 

[LongOne]

I read immediately after the Big Bang VERY HEAVY particles (X-particles) were made with masses billions that of a proton (which is pretty heavy for a particle), which then decayed very quickly, fragmenting into showers of other particles and antiparticles.

From this mass annihilation, there would have been no particles, only light, and due to the tiny unevenness in the laws of physics, these X-particles decayed into a billion and 1 particles for every billion antiparticles.

I'm relatively familiar with the Big Bang/Inflation model as well as a couple of others, such as Hoyle's "Steady State", but I've never run across the "X Particle". Being curious about it, I attempted to "google" it, only to find one mention of it from the National Chinese University in a hypothesis from 2007, but it had to do with "sigma decay" and the particle was light, only 214.3MeV, I believe. Wikipedia also turned up nothing.

Can you provide me with a link to something that talks about the X particle and it's Big Bang involvement? Thanks.