Established Member
In the Big Bang was created matter and energy out of nothing.
It is assumed that currently the amount of energy+matter is constant, and that expands isotropically...only by the spacing of matter between them?
Then... at what moment after the Big-Bang was stabilized the amount of matter and energy in the universe?
Order of Kilopi
The big bang theory doesn't say that. There are all sorts of speculations about how the universe began: created from nothing or from an earlier universe, etc. But we don't know.Originally Posted by dapifo
As far as we can trace the history of the universe back, it has always contained the same amount of matter/energy.
Order of Kilopi
The theory says that the universe was in an extremely hot and dense state at the earliest time to which we can extrapolate, and has been expanding and cooling since then. If I am not mistaken it says nothing about creation from nothing. That idea, as far as I can tell, has been perpetuated by bad popular media writing on the topic.
If we ever succeed in unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics, we might be able to extrapolate farther back and extend the theory.
Order of Kilopi
By some accounts, 10-32 seconds after the beginning.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Established Member
Just Stephen Hawking says that: That from nothing born the matter/antimatter but finally matter won...
Order of Kilopi
My hunch is to avoid taking that too literally. For all his stupendous brilliance, he appears to have gotten some hard knocks for some of his popular writing. Perhaps others here can expand on that, or set me straight if I am mistaken.
Order of Kilopi
One of the areas that is not clear is why the universe consists mainly of matter and not antimatter. It is thought that when inflation ended, the universe "cooled" enough for matter and antimatter to form. The puzzle is, why was there not an equal amount of both that then annihilated each other.
There is a small observed asymmetry between matter and antimatter but this does not seem to be enough to account for the amount of matter left over from this initial phase.
On the other hand, the "from nothing" bit is pure speculation, as far as I know.
Established Member
Clearly, I don´t like the explanation of Stephen Hawking but I see it in a doccumental I have.
He says that is the only way of doing something from nothig ...by creating an equal amount of both , but finally some small matter won and..here it is Our Universe with the small rest of matter (!??)
Not at all convincing !!!...but is Stephen Hawking ...
But the question was since when the quantity of matter+energy stabilized and it is constant ?... "10-32 seconds after the beginning"... Planck Time?
Order of Kilopi
That doesn't sound right because you would need an equivalent amount of energy to start with. So it is not something out of nothing; it is just matter out of energy.
10-32 seconds is the end of the (hypothesized) inflation period when matter started to form.But the question was since when the quantity of matter+energy stabilized and it is constant ?... "10-32 seconds after the beginning"... Planck Time?
It is much bigger than the Planck time (about 1012 times bigger, I think).
Established Member
No...Energy <= >Matter...then from nothing only can appear matter ans antimatter in the same amount...But ithis is the problem..Why matter finally won antimatter and there was more matter than antimatter (Our Universe)?
That is not clear for me.
Plack dimensios is 10 exp -35 meters
And Planck time you say is 10 exp -32 x 10 exp -12 = 10 exp -42 seconds?
Order of Kilopi
It is (largely) unknown. There is an effect known as charge-parity symmetry (CP) violation which means that, in certain very limited cases, particles and their antiparticles do not behave identically. However, this asymmetry is too small to fully account for the amount of matter in the universe.
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/28092/
Roughly 5x10-44 s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time)And Planck time you say is 10 exp -32 x 10 exp -12 = 10 exp -42 seconds?
Established Member
It depends what do you understand for amount of matter .. it could be much for you...but possible few for the Universe scale itself.
.Ok...that´s true...thanks for your answers, really. Shame you do not want to go beyond what others say. I think you have skills and knowledge to exploit developing new ideas ... only needs to be creative and imaginative ... you think your are? ... This would be compatible with what you do: study what others say and explain it to others.
Order of Kilopi
Ha ha. Join the crowd. This is an unsolved question. Judging from estimates of the amount of matter in the universe and the amount of background radiation from the CMB, 500,000,001 particles must have been created along with 500,000,000 antiparticles*. A slight asymmetry. When each particle ran into an antiparticle, releasing a pair of gamma ray photons, this left just one particle and a billion photons. Fortunately, there were a lot more than a half million particle pairs undergoing this annihilation, resulting in the asymmetry in the amount of matter that we see in the universe today. We also observe about a billion photons for every particle - observational support for this scenario.
This asymmetry has been studied intensely. We owe our existence to it. Without it, the universe would have no particles or antiparticles, just radiation.
A great book on this topic by an experimentalist close to the action is The Mystery of the Missing Antimatter [2007] by Helen Quinn & Yossi Nir.
_______________________
* I've always heard this as a billion-and-one particles annihilated with a billion antiparticles, resulting in a photon-to-particle ratio of a billion to 1. But two gamma ray photons are released in an electron-positron annihilation, so I modified the numbers to make the math come out right! This could be wrong, but it's not off by more than 2 times!
Last edited by Cougar; 2012-Jul-24 at 12:19 PM. Reason: add link
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Established Member
OK...now seams to be mor reasonable...but still not clear.
Are mainstream sure that the matter+energy of Our Universe is constant since 10^-32 sec after Big-Bang?
Is it not possible that some matter+energy comes in or goes out (enter or leave) of Our Universe?
Or matter+energy will be created new (as in the Big-Bang), or destroyed due to the same effect than matter-antimatter?... Does it goes against the Laws of Termodinamic?
Last edited by dapifo; 2012-Jul-24 at 01:45 PM.
Established Member
Quantum effects allow for the emergence of energy on small time-frames. Thus one really can borrow E energy for a time of roughlyfor nothing. On average this cancels out, with the energy returning to nothing.
The Casimire Effect is one example where energy may not be conserved due to an inexact cancelling. In this sense, the amount of matter-energy in the universe is still not fixed, but the variance is negligible relative to the magnitude of existing mass-energy.
The 10^-32 time frame above is when the variance in energy was of the same magnitude as the current energy of the universe. A few orders of magnitude closer to 0 and the universe would have appeared essentially empty, with the quantum variations energy significantly larger than the residual energy of the universe.
As the universe expanded and cooled the variance reduced to a point where the variance in energy was of the same magnitude as the residual energy from the previous quantum effects. This happened roughly 10^-32 seconds after the Big Bang. A few orders of magnitude latter the variance would be significantly smaller than the residual energy, essentially locking the universe near its present mass-energy levels.
Order of Kilopi
Conservation laws are pretty fundamental (see Noether's theorem, for example).
You are a bit of a monomaniac, aren't you? I suppose it is possible. It is equally possible that new matter is formed as the excreta of invisible unicorns. But this is a science forum; we deal with things for which there is evidence.Is it not possible that some matter+energy comes in or goes out (enter or leave) of Our Universe?
Established Member
But doesn't Dark Energy violate conservation? If the expansion of the universe is accelerating, then kinetic energy is being added. Prior to the discovery of acceleration, the expansion was assumed to be slowing, as the kinetic energy is converted to gravitational potential. It appeared that the universe had exactly the right amount of energy of expansion versus gravitating matter that the expansion velocity would approach 0. I think this perfect balance was explained by inflation some how.
Administrator
Let's not confuse this acceleration with some kind of motion in a rest frame. This is not Newtonian physics.
Forming opinions as we speak
Order of Kilopi
Globally, apparently yes. It's conserved locally, from all indications.
Yes, this was one of the "bonus" solutions of cosmic inflation: the Flatness Problem. It's unlikely to be perfectly zero, and technology isn't accurate enough to pinpoint it. It's good enough to see that it's very close to flat, though.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Established Member
Which % (respct matter) of antimater there is now in the Universe?...Is it also constant?
Order of Kilopi
That's one of the great unanswered questions at this time.
STARGAZING: All I see are the lights of a billion places I'll never go. --Howard Tayler, Schlock Mercenary
Order of Kilopi
From observation the percentage appears to be very low, but astronomers are still looking. If there were, for example, antimatter stars or antimatter galaxies, there should be some pretty dramatic evidence, yet nothing like that has been seen. But, a small amount of antimatter is always being produced in various ways. It's even used in medicine (PET scans). As for whether it is constant, I would think not, as it would depend on production rates which would change over the long term future of the universe.
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Member
In the ekpyrotic theory its however long it took for the two parallel branes to bounce off each other.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic)
Member
For the antihelium/helium flux ratio
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_M...c_Spectrometer
"AMS-02 will search with a sensitivity of 10−9, an improvement of three orders of magnitude over AMS-01, sufficient to reach the edge of the expanding Universe and resolve the issue definitively"
Order of Kilopi
Hardly. That assumes that cosmic rays reach us from galaxies
at that distance, and further assumes that cosmic rays from
antimatter sources would reach us from that distance. Neither
is known to be the case. There is no way to tell where any
particular cosmic ray originated, and the theory is not clear
that ordinary matter cosmic rays ever reach us from the "edge
of the expanding Universe", even if they mean the edge of the
visible part of the Universe. Whether antimatter cosmic rays
could reach here from so far away is, as far as I can tell,
completely unknown.
AMS-02 will only definitively say what is going on with cosmic
rays inside our galaxy or the local cluster of galaxies, where
there is no reason to think much antimatter exists.
-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/
"I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"
"The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves
Established Member
Hannes Alfvén suggested that matter and anti-matter could coexist in separate pockets of the Universe. Whether we would detect the antimatter may depend of the size of these pockets. See Alfvén-Klein cosmology which emphasizes the importance of EM fields and plasma physics.
Jim Peebles criticized the cosmology's failure to explain Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements and the CMB. While the Alfvén-Klein cosmology may be wrong, some of the ideas could be useful, for instance it is now appreciated that star formation cannot be understood without reference to role of magnetic fields.
Order of Kilopi
Called, IIRC, the ambi-plasma. AFAIK, there's no evidence of any such pockets, anywhere in the so-far-observed universe (as Van Rijn already mentioned).
Not, as far as I know, even remotely viable, as a cosmological theory. For starters, it does not incorporate GR, and doesn't account for the Hubble distance-redshift relationship, the primordial abundance of light nuclides, the CMB, large-scale structure, ...See Alfvén-Klein cosmology which emphasizes the importance of EM fields and plasma physics.
That seems rather uncharacteristic of him; may I ask your source?Jim Peebles criticized the cosmology's failure to explain Hubble's law, the abundance of light elements and the CMB.
Plasma astrophysics is alive and well, with hundreds of folk working on this, and other, problems pretty much full time. The rather oddly-named WOPA (Workshop on Opportunities in Plasma Astrophysics) 2010 gives a taste of the depth and breadth of that research.While the Alfvén-Klein cosmology may be wrong, some of the ideas could be useful, for instance it is now appreciated that star formation cannot be understood without reference to role of magnetic fields.
Administrator
Note that if the size of these pockets is significantly smaller than the observable universe, we should see cosmic rays of anti-iron... which we don't.
Forming opinions as we speak
Moderator
No mainstream scientist will disagree that magnetic fields and plasmas etc play an important role in the universe.
However, this is scratching the electric universe surface, do not go any deeper.
All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!
Bi-weekly space physics research "blog" at tusenfem.blogspot.co.at
Order of Kilopi
antoniseb. Yep, and to the best of my knowledge, there have been no particle physics papers that have ever claimed an excess of matter over antimatter (associated pairs ) in collisions detected via photographic emulsions in ballooon experiments, cloud chambers, hydrogen bubble chambers, spark gap wire detectors, linacs, synchrotrons,cosmic ray studies....or any sort of detectors at any level, let alone 5 sigma. Not one.
What they have seen, consistently, is the upholding of the Hierarchy of Conservation Laws, and they may have some cause to reconsider the fall of parity.
The question is this. When a gamma ray of energy ~ 1.022 Mev strikes a target, we sometimes get an electron positron pair....never a single electron. When it's energy is ~1876.544 Mev, we can get a proton/antiproton pair....never a single proton. How is it that the putative Big Bang somehow managed not only to violate associated pair production in the leptons (e+ and e-)......but simultaneously managed to violate associated pair production in the baryons (p+ and p-)....such that for every left over electron there was simultaneously a left over proton to make atomic hydrogen, the ingredient with which we make a universe? To the best of our knowledge they match to ~ one part in 1082.
Last edited by trinitree88; 2012-Jul-27 at 01:51 PM. Reason: typo
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote