What Does Hawking Mean by Negative Energy at the Big Bang?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Stephen Hawking's concept of negative energy at the Big Bang posits that there was an equal amount of positive and negative energy, with negative energy residing within the fabric of space-time. This idea, while intriguing, is challenging to comprehend without mathematical frameworks, as Hawking himself acknowledges. The discussion emphasizes the limitations of popular science literature in conveying complex theories and suggests that a deeper understanding requires studying formal texts on general relativity and energy conservation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity principles
  • Familiarity with energy conservation concepts in physics
  • Basic knowledge of mathematical frameworks used in theoretical physics
  • Exposure to popular science literature and its limitations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study general relativity textbooks for a comprehensive understanding of energy in space-time
  • Explore mathematical formulations of energy conservation in physics
  • Research scholarly articles on Hawking's theories and their implications
  • Examine resources on the relationship between positive and negative energy in cosmology
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, astrophysicists, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of cosmology and theoretical physics will benefit from this discussion.

Physics Slayer
Messages
26
Reaction score
8
IMG-20220529-WA0000.jpg

I was reading "Brief answers to big questions" By Hawking, the above pic is from a page of the book, it says that at the time of the big bang there was an equal amount of positive and negative energy, and that the negative energy never went anywhere, the space-time itself is a store of negative energy! I don't really understand what he means by this. In all fairness he does go on to admit that without mathematics this idea is hard to grasp.
can someone try to explain the above in the best way they can (with or without math) or lead me to resources to further dwell into.

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hawking did here the best that he could to express without mathematics something that cannot be properly expressed without mathematics. What you are looking at, even though it was written by a respected scientist is a popularization. It is an attempt to give you a taste. Popularizations, generally, are not usable as a basis upon which to reason one's way to a proper understanding of the subject matter. Better to work from a textbook.

The idea of energy conservation that is being relied upon here is on shaky ground to begin with.

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71 and Physics Slayer

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 56 ·
2
Replies
56
Views
8K