What is the difference between the Big Bang and the exact same energy mass

[cdux]

What is the difference between the Big Bang and the exact same energy mass of the universe being released right now in our current universe in a tiny packet that resembles that initial mass/energy?
I guess I'm trying to figure out what is meant with the notion 'it created time/space' when such a dense mass could in theory be released in a 'ready made' universe.
Or I guess there is no problem with that and it was only a matter of being meaningless in that 'initially mass-less' universe.

edit: I realize it would be distorted by current gravitation fields but beyond that.

 

[Drakkith]

There was never a "mass-less" universe. Current thoughts are that the universe has ALWAYS contained the same mass that it has now, only it hadn't expanded before the big bang, or that the universe itself, and everything in it was created at the same instant it and expanded outwards from there.

 

[cdux]

There was never a "mass-less" universe. Current thoughts are that the universe has ALWAYS contained the same mass that it has now, only it hadn't expanded before the big bang, or that the universe itself, and everything in it was created at the same instant it and expanded outwards from there.

Don't you mean it contained a high concentration of energy?

 

[Drakkith]

Don't you mean it contained a high concentration of energy?

No, I mean mass.

 

[Chalnoth]

There was never a "mass-less" universe. Current thoughts are that the universe has ALWAYS contained the same mass that it has now, only it hadn't expanded before the big bang, or that the universe itself, and everything in it was created at the same instant it and expanded outwards from there.

This is false. Neither mass nor energy are conserved in an expanding universe. During the inflationary epoch, there was no mass at all, just a very high energy density. Later, when inflation ended, that energy density was converted to an extremely hot thermal bath of particles. After this happened, the total mass energy in the volume of that thermal bath that became our observable universe was vastly, vastly higher than the total mass energy in our current observable universe, more than a billion times higher.

This is because at that time, the universe consisted of an exceedingly hot plasma made out of nearly equal quantities of matter and anti-matter. The matter that is left over today comes from the tiny imbalance of matter over anti-matter, at around one part in a billion, from the early universe.

 

[Chalnoth]

What is the difference between the Big Bang and the exact same energy mass of the universe being released right now in our current universe in a tiny packet that resembles that initial mass/energy?
I guess I'm trying to figure out what is meant with the notion 'it created time/space' when such a dense mass could in theory be released in a 'ready made' universe.
Or I guess there is no problem with that and it was only a matter of being meaningless in that 'initially mass-less' universe.

edit: I realize it would be distorted by current gravitation fields but beyond that.

Essentially, if a new region of inflation were produced within our universe, it would look like a microscopic black hole that rapidly evaporated. The new universe would be connected to ours while this microscopic black hole existed (a minuscule fraction of a second), and from then on would evolve in its own way, disconnected from our universe.

 

[Drakkith]

This is false. Neither mass nor energy are conserved in an expanding universe.

Of course, what a silly mistake for me to make.

During the inflationary epoch, there was no mass at all, just a very high energy density.

Doesn't that energy have mass? Or am I misunderstanding what mass-energy means. I hate talking mass and energy, they are interchangeable sometimes, and not at other times!

Later, when inflation ended, that energy density was converted to an extremely hot thermal bath of particles. After this happened, the total mass energy in the volume of that thermal bath that became our observable universe was vastly, vastly higher than the total mass energy in our current observable universe, more than a billion times higher.

Where did this energy go to if it's gone now? Is it just less because of expansion? That would make sense if most of the particles annihilated into radiation, taking most of the energy away and then being reduced because of expansion.

 

[Chalnoth]

Doesn't that energy have mass? Or am I misunderstanding what mass-energy means. I hate talking mass and energy, they are interchangeable sometimes, and not at other times!

Mass-energy is the amount of energy of an object that is made up by its mass. This is the energy in the internal degrees of freedom of the object. When I'm talking about the mass-energy of the universe, I'm talking about summing up the individual mass energies of the various particles in the universe. This is the same as summing up the masses of the particles, except just using different units.

Where did this energy go to if it's gone now? Is it just less because of expansion?

At the time, the universe was dominated by radiation. Radiation drops in energy as the universe expands, because radiation redshifts as well as simply diluting across a larger volume. So yes, it is less because of the expansion.

 

[cdux]

this microscopic black hole existed (a minuscule fraction of a second), and from then on would evolve in its own way, disconnected from our universe.

Interesting. How can I learn more about the specifics of what makes the Big Bang connected to the creation of a new Universe?

 

[Drakkith]

Mass-energy is the amount of energy of an object that is made up by its mass. This is the energy in the internal degrees of freedom of the object. When I'm talking about the mass-energy of the universe, I'm talking about summing up the individual mass energies of the various particles in the universe. This is the same as summing up the masses of the particles, except just using different units.

Oh, literally "mass-energy". I thought you meant mass AND energy.

 

[atlasman84]

i believe in big bang but in totally not in human evolution theory.. ha2

 

[julcab12]

i believe in big bang but in totally not in human evolution theory.. ha2

Off topic.. OT

...For all i know "evolution" is a perfect description of science (2nd place: Quantum P IMO)to date. BBT's are model brought about by cosmological data's focused on observational science.

Although we have sufficient framework on human evolution. It is still incomplete. Here is a link of HGP.


http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/hgp.pdf

It's not a matter of belief but scientifically sensible. :shy:

 

[Drakkith]

i believe in big bang but in totally not in human evolution theory.. ha2

Then you should both rethink your view on evolution and not get off topic in the thread. The biology subforum has a very very good explanation of what evolution is and I suggest you read it and go to the many links it provides.