What Came Before the Big Bang? Exploring Pre-Universe Matter and Energy

  • Thread starter Thread starter McHeathen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the idea that all matter and energy in the universe could not have emerged from a singularity without prior existence in some form. Participants argue that the laws of physics, as we understand them, were established post-Big Bang, suggesting that the universe's creation involved processes that defy current scientific understanding. Various theories are proposed, including the Hartle-Hawking model and Loop Quantum Cosmology, which attempt to explain the universe's origins without invoking a singularity. The conversation also touches on the conservation of energy and matter, highlighting that while energy is conserved, matter can be created or destroyed in certain conditions. Ultimately, the discussion reflects the ongoing quest to understand the universe's beginnings and the limitations of current cosmological theories.
  • #31
Drakkith said:
Care to elaborate? I don't know why you wouldn't use something like potential energy in this situation.
Well, since you'd usually use Newtonian gravity in this situation, you probably would. But my point is that when you work with General Relativity, there simply isn't any potential energy term there, and furthermore there is not even any good way to define one in general.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
Chalnoth said:
Well, since you'd usually use Newtonian gravity in this situation, you probably would. But my point is that when you work with General Relativity, there simply isn't any potential energy term there, and furthermore there is not even any good way to define one in general.

Alright, then is this even an issue in GR?

And is GR the only thing to look at here in regards to conservation of energy?
 
  • #33
Drakkith said:
Alright, then is this even an issue in GR?

And is GR the only thing to look at here in regards to conservation of energy?
Well, it's a conceptual issue, to be sure, as many people have a hard time understanding that conservation of energy is only an approximate, local law, one that simply does not hold globally.

The main issue here is that conservation of energy stems from invariance in time. That is, if you can take a system and examine it at two different times and the system remains the same in some specific mathematical sense for those two times, then energy is necessarily conserved between those two times.

Most of the physical laws we know and love, whether they be Newtonian physics, or electricity and magnetism, or quantum mechanics all are unchanged in time, and so they all follow energy conservation. General Relativity throws a wrench into this whole thing because it makes the time coordinate arbitrary: if you can change your very definition of what you mean by "time", then the very idea of "time invariance" ceases to have meaning, and so while you might be able to write down a specific system where energy conservation holds, in general it just won't.
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
6K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
2K