Universe began with only Dark Energy?

[coliver]

Ive been contemplating some ideas and I was wondering if they could have merit or if it is already known. If say before the Big Bang the Universe was entirely Dark Energy, then something put the first spark of energy into motion? Then as the Universe expands against the Dark Matter it opposes the Energy or Mass and that would be what keeps the Galaxy's apart? In other words everything is either energy or anti-energy (Dark Energy)?Any Comments?

[Ken G]

I don't think what you are saying is specific enough to be considered either right or wrong. What observations are you attempting to understand? Depending on what your words are meant to imply, you could be saying something pretty standard to the Big Bang theory, or you could be saying something very different.

[coliver]

Well? Let me see if I can explain myself a little better? Its kind of hard since I'm speaking in simple terms.Observing that everything in Space that is NOT Matter is a sea of something, I am suggesting that it is Dark Energy? And that perhaps Dark Energy is the Anti-Particle? or opposite of light. All Matter exists in our Universe only if it is Energy of some kind right? We are made of energy at the atomic level. If the pressure/density of the object of matter outweighs its Flashpoint or (point of ignition) it exists in material form. In other words everything in the Universe is either energy or Dark Energy, Dark or Light? For instance if Im correct Stars are born when the accretion of particles creates nuclear fusion. The spark of energy caused by the Helium atoms converting or whatever sets off the reaction. What I am suggesting is that the force constantly working against it would be Dark Energy? When a star collapses it is merely reverting back to Dark Energys density? I'm not sure about this one but if an objects density could vary, it would go in and out of existence so to speak, like a Neutrino? Im throwing around the term Energy I know, I probably need to say positive potential? In example: Dark Energy would be like say a sea of negative potential and when positive energy is created it would make a hole in it? It would constantly fight back to try and destroy the energy , but as long as the energy maintained enough to exist, (its atomic weight) it would do so?

[coliver]

If you look at Steven Chus experiment with Laser Beams pausing the motion of atoms, it shows that the frequencies of light have an effect on the motion of an atom. Heres a few of the questions I am pondering? If an object or atom is void of light would it continue in its orbit or would it be at rest? If photons can effect the motion of an atom then wouldnt we be able to adjust the frequencies to completely immobilize an object in space/time?

The main idea Im trying to test is that LIGHT is whats Expanding in the Universe, Not MATTER?

I retract this statement. Thats not exaclty true. Im suggesting energy creates the matter that expands the universe.

[cmsavage]

Check out cosmic inflation. Inflation is entirely equivalent to dark energy: they both correspond to some nearly constant energy density that causes the universe to expand at an accelerated rate. They are the same type of physical process, but different names are used because they occur at different points in the life of the universe and have vastly different energy scales.

The common thought is that when inflation turns off, some of its energy decays into the various particles we have today. That decay leaves the universe with a very high energy density and temperature and the Big Bang follows from that.

Then as the Universe expands against the Dark Matter it opposes the Energy or Mass and that would be what keeps the Galaxy's apart?

The universe does not expand against anything. Dark matter is just one type of matter or energy that is sitting in the universe while it expands, much like protons, neutrons, electons, photons, and neutrinos (which are a very small part of the dark matter).

In other words everything is either energy or anti-energy (Dark Energy)?

Dark energy is not anti-energy or even an energy in the way you know it. It cannot be converted back and forth to "ordinary" energy like mass or kinetic energy.

[Occams Ghost]

Well... The universe began from an infinitessimal point, called the Planck Time 5.3 x 10^-44 in a Planck Space of 1.616 x 10^-33... and it wasn't until 43 years or something had passed, until ''light energy'' came out of space and time. This is very old against the first Chronon.

Therego, the first matter was light/photons. Everything is said to have evolved from light.

[Cougar]

Well... The universe began from an infinitessimal point, called the Planck Time 5.3 x 10^-44 in a Planck Space of 1.616 x 10^-33... and it wasn't until 43 years or something had passed, until ''light energy'' came out of space and time.

I think you might want to recheck what the big bang theory actually says, Occam....

[Occams Ghost]

Without me reading the link, can you clarify what i have wrong...?

Light is the most fundamental object, according to experiments. For this reason, we scientists say that everything physical evolved from light. The best indication of this is highlighted from matter-antimatter collision, producing gamma rays.

[Occams Ghost]

Oh... is it the years involved. I meant to say 32... not 43. My mistake.


Howsoever, i've had many arguements with a string theorist about the age of the universe when matter came out of its fabric... he says its 180,000... years... a ridiculous number, when i was taught a billion chronons had passed when light first emerged.

[CodeSlinger]

Occams Ghost, maybe you should read Cougar's link. I'm having a hard time matching up what you said to what that Big Bang article says. Where did you get your numbers of "Planck Time 5.3 x 10^-44 in a Planck Space of 1.616 x 10^-33"? What units are those in? Where did you get the idea of "it wasn't until 43 (now 32) years or something had passed, until 'light energy' came out of space and time"? Where did you get the idea that the first matter was light/photons, and everything evolved from light? I could find no mention of any of these ideas in the Big Bang article.

For that matter, what do you mean when you say "light is the most fundamental object", and how did "everything physical evolve from light"?

[cmsavage]

Light is the most fundamental object, according to experiments. For this reason, we scientists say that everything physical evolved from light. The best indication of this is highlighted from matter-antimatter collision, producing gamma rays.

As a cosmologist and astroparticle physicist, I have no idea where this is coming from. Photons are not "more" fundamental than any of the other fundamental particles like quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons. In fact, Electroweak theory says photons are directly associated with the W and Z bosons.

Well... The universe began from an infinitessimal point, called the Planck Time 5.3 x 10^-44 in a Planck Space of 1.616 x 10^-33...

For a flat or open universe, the universe did not start from a single point, only the visible universe did. You will never find a point in the past where the whole universe wasn't infinite.

Therego, the first matter was light/photons. Everything is said to have evolved from light.

I think you may be confusing light with the commonly used term "radiation," which are not the same in the cosmological sense. "Radiation" is used to refer to anything with moved nearly the speed of light, such that the kinetic energy is far larger than the rest mass (obviously, light always qualifies). In the early universe, when everything was extremely hot, all the particles were moving around with such high speeds that their rest masses were negligle. Their behavior in that case is entirely equivalent to light and can be treated in the same manner; hence, the use of the term "radiation".

The best indication of this is highlighted from matter-antimatter collision, producing gamma rays.

This is a reversible process: two gamma rays that collide will produce a matter-antimatter pair. The lack of mass for the photon simply makes e+/e- -> photons more favorable than the reverse process in the current state of the universe. When the universe was hot and everything could be treated as radiation, the forward and reverse process happened at equal rates. In fact, the further back in time you go, with higher and higher temperatures, the more you will find other particles all over the place, including heavy particles that are not stable today (they decay to lighter particles). The universe was a sea of quarks, leptons, gauge bosons, and other particles we may not have detected yet. Photons were only a tiny fraction of what was there.

. . . and it wasn't until 43 years or something had passed, until ''light energy'' came out of space and time.

The 43 years may simply be when everything other than photons cooled to the point where they were no longer relativistic and could no longer be treated as radiation. Photons and other particles were around both before and after that, but their behavior diverged at this point.

[John Mendenhall]

For that matter, what do you mean when you say "light is the most fundamental object", and how did "everything physical evolve from light"?

Second the question. Q&A has read like ATM recently. Guesses and suppositions are not answers. See Ken G above for the right way to go about answering.

[Occams Ghost]

I say most fundamental... probably a wrong wording.

I was always taught that all forms of matter is just trapped light. It is therefore light that everything came from. It is the earliest known energy.

[CodeSlinger]

Please read what cmsavage said about "light" vs. "radiation".

[cmsavage]

I say most fundamental... probably a wrong wording.

I was always taught that all forms of matter is just trapped light. It is therefore light that everything came from. It is the earliest known energy.

I am not sure where you were taught this, but that is not part of any theory associated with the mainstream scientific community. In fact, every particle theory advanced by physicists (aside from those on the fringe) over at least the past half century explicitly states otherwise. Theories like the electroweak theory, quantum chromodynamics, the Big Bang, etc. are all based upon the fact that various particles (such as quarks and leptons) are distinct from the photon and are just as fundamental.

The word "fundamental" is used in particle physics to describe leptons, quarks and gauge bosons (photon, W, Z, gluons) because they do not appear to be the composite objects. That is, they do not appear to be made up of other particles. If we thought they were just trapped light, we would not call them fundamental particles.

[Cougar]

cmsavage and others have made some clarifications. I'm not sure if I have much more to add, but to specify the problems I had with your first post....

Well... The universe began from an infinitessimal point, called the Planck Time 5.3 x 10^-44....

We don't know that, and our highest power accelerators cannot simulate what conditions must have been like earlier than somewhere around 10^-19 sec, which is 25 orders of magnitude from the epoch you refer to. For all we know, the universe might have just been in a different "state" prior to the expansion event that we normally refer to as the "big bang". Maurizio Gasperini has done quite a bit of work on a Pre-Big Bang Scenario.

....it wasn't until 43 years or something had passed, until ''light energy'' came out of space and time.

I've never heard anything about 43 years or 32 years or whatever, and I've done a considerable amount of reading about current cosmology and astrophysics. The "milestones" I've most often heard about are around 3 minutes and then at recombination at 300,000 years (plus or minus 100,000 years).

I was always taught that all forms of matter is just trapped light.

Well, this might be a poetic way of saying E=mc², but.... well, cmsavage's last post is surely instructive.

[coliver]

Well lets say for the sake of proper definition everything that is either in motion via some form of radiation or energy source VS at rest with no heat or light present? If the universe were just a sea of darkness so to speak before the big bang couldnt the introduction of any energy source or radiant body have created a tremendous amount of force and started things in motion? If pretty much all matter is made of star materials or carbon based particles couldnt that have been the major event that started it all?

Scratch this, I read the link on Cosmic Inflation, that answered the question to some extent.

[coliver]

Check out cosmic inflation. Inflation is entirely equivalent to dark energy: they both correspond to some nearly constant energy density that causes the universe to expand at an accelerated rate. They are the same type of physical process, but different names are used because they occur at different points in the life of the universe and have vastly different energy scales.

The common thought is that when inflation turns off, some of its energy decays into the various particles we have today. That decay leaves the universe with a very high energy density and temperature and the Big Bang follows from that.

So it looks like scientists are looking at the possibility? Would this also support the idea say that there may be something outside of our known universe with less density? Or would it be more dense? Like an outer atmosphere? In one of my previous topics we came to the consensus that the universe may be round or spherical in shape. My thinking is that this outer atmosphere is what makes Black Holes suck matter into it? I noticed that it was thought to be related to the Higgs field. In some of my earlier research I had come across the Higgs Boson, any relationship?

[coliver]

Without me reading the link, can you clarify what i have wrong...?

Light is the most fundamental object, according to experiments. For this reason, we scientists say that everything physical evolved from light. The best indication of this is highlighted from matter-antimatter collision, producing gamma rays.

From all the research I've been doing on this idea it all points to some kind of oscillation of frequencies of light. Im not educated in Science enough to put it all together but I have noted some pretty interesting observations about it. I just cant seem to pin it down because its over my head, but in my opinion there is some kind of relationship between what we call particles that exist as matter and light frequencies?

[CodeSlinger]

Please disregard Occams Ghost's statement that "we scientists say that everything physical evolved from light", because that is simply not true; see cmsavage's posts in this thread for more details.

[coliver]

I am not sure where you were taught this, but that is not part of any theory associated with the mainstream scientific community. In fact, every particle theory advanced by physicists (aside from those on the fringe) over at least the past half century explicitly states otherwise. Theories like the electroweak theory, quantum chromodynamics, the Big Bang, etc. are all based upon the fact that various particles (such as quarks and leptons) are distinct from the photon and are just as fundamental.

Do pressure and density affect these quarks and leptons? If so, in what way?

My train of thought is that perhaps as light or energy is introduced into the vacuum of space that it changes the density of the particles? Or that some kind of interaction between the photons and the particles takes place?

This just came out in todays news. It helps to support what I have been trying to suggest in this thread. That perhaps there is an interaction between the densities of the dark matter and matter and that energy plays a role?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ification.html

This Dark Fluid theory also supports my earlier observations that the density of atmospheres is sequentially less dense moving outward from the center of the Earth to the vacuum of space. Which leads me to belive there is an even less dense atmosphere surrounding our known universe?

[cmsavage]

Do pressure and density affect these quarks and leptons? If so, in what way?

My train of thought is that perhaps as light or energy is introduced into the vacuum of space that it changes the density of the particles? Or that some kind of interaction between the photons and the particles takes place?

Matter (including quarks and leptons), radiation, and dark energy each have a density and pressure; see the cosmological equation of state. For non-relativistic matter, the pressure is essentially zero; for ultra-relativistic (moving nearly at the speed of light) matter and radiation, the pressure is 1/3 its energy density; for dark energy, the pressure is the negative of its energy density (all in units where c=1). The pressure and density of each of these components affects how the universe expands via the Friedmann equations. Those pressures and densities are in turn modified by the expansion of the universe (if you double the space and increase the distance between particles, their density must go down). Adding light does not directly affect the density of matter, but adding more radiation does change how the universe expands over time, and that affects how the matter density evolves.

The intimate connection between the expansion of the universe and the amount of radiation, matter, and dark energy is what allows us to determine how much of each we have in the universe. Part of what we know comes from observations of the CMB, where photons and particles are assumed to interact. For particle candidates of dark matter, however, those interactions are so rare that they only appeared to be important at the very high densities of the early universe, during the Big Bang.

This just came out in todays news. It helps to support what I have been trying to suggest in this thread. That perhaps there is an interaction between the densities of the dark matter and matter and that energy plays a role?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ification.html

This Dark Fluid theory also supports my earlier observations that the density of atmospheres is sequentially less dense moving outward from the center of the Earth to the vacuum of space. Which leads me to belive there is an even less dense atmosphere surrounding our known universe?

That Dark Fluid theory does not imply that the density of the universe decreases the further you go from Earth. The use of atmospheres as an example in that article had nothing to do with its changing density with respect to elevation. Since the dark fluid seems to be some sort of vacuum effect, there is actually no reason to suppose its density is any different outside of the visible universe (it is far more reasonable to believe it is nearly the same).

[John Mendenhall]

Matter (including quarks and leptons), radiation, and dark energy each have a density and pressure; see the cosmological equation of state.

Thanks, Savage, a good thought provoking link. Try it, folks.

[coliver]

Adding light does not directly affect the density of matter, but adding more radiation does change how the universe expands over time, and that affects how the matter density evolves.

So then the frequency or wavelength of the radiation could or would have a direct bearing on the density of the evolving matter?

[Ken G]

Yes-- but only in the early stages of the Big Bang (a thousand years maybe?) because light energy is adiabatically cooled while rest mass-energy is not. One would normally refer to "temperature" not "wavelength" of the radiation, for many wavelengths are present.

[Steve Limpus]

You will never find a point in the past where the whole universe wasn't infinite.

Hi,

I'd be grateful if you were able to expand on this - I struggle with the idea of an infinite universe, and whenever I try to find out 'how big is the entire universe' I come across conflicting or confusing information.

Dr. Pamela Gay over at Astronomy Cast has referred on occasion to the observable universe being 3-4% of the whole, and I think Pamela refers to the universe as being a closed 3-torus. In fact Pamela and Fraser may address just this question on this weeks show... at least, I asked them to.

One of the troubling aspects I have heard regarding an infinite universe is the inference that there would be infinite copies of me (or you, or Elvis) throughout the universe leading infinite lives, which of course just seems ridiculous, among other seeming paradoxes.

I would love to hear your veiw?

[mugaliens]

The only thing that's "keeping the galaxies apart" is inertia.

[coliver]

Im sure youve probably all seen this already but it was relevant so I wanted to post the link. The theory is pretty much exactly what I have been proposing about dark energy.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ification.html

The only thing that's "keeping the galaxies apart" is inertia.

Maybe I should have referred to "Moving Apart", rather than keeping them apart, sorry MugAliens. Or perhaps it helps to keep them apart along with inertia? My actual thinking is that perhaps Galaxies move apart in the same way that Continents do on Earth? That a kind of fluid or dark energy surrounds them and that their Mass in relationship to the density of that fluid (Dark Energy) may affect their gravitation and especially how long they exist. Once a star loses enough Mass it is consumed by the dark energy? As long as its mass is more dense than its flashpoint it remains in the visible universe. If the mass becomes less dense than its flashpoint or atomic weight it is consumed by the dark energy? Just like a star that gets consumed when its mass reaches a certain point. If you light a piece of paper with a match as it burns its density gets smaller and smaller until it is utterly consumed. If you light a much denser log or stick with the same match it may burn but it will last much longer. Im also contemplating whether the reflective properties of matter have any bearing? If you put a TV Dinner in the microwave on high for an hour you'll probably have very little left to consume right? But if you put a piece of lead in the microwave it will still be there, but your microwave might not

Is it possible or known that assuming the universe were a sea of dark energy or whatever? That visible light permeates it in concentrated beams held together or surrounded by magnetic energy? Basically what Im getting to is what I had said in earlier threads about a CRT or Cathode Ray Tube being similiar to the workings of the universe? That the universe is a sea of darkness so to speak and visible light travels through it in quanta surrounded by electrons or something to that effect?

My observation is this: Radiation changes cells in instances such as XRays, Cancer Treatment etc.. If it can change a cell then why could it not be instrumental in the creation of them? Or any form of physical matter at the atomic level?
To quote Codeslinger:

For that matter, what do you mean when you say "light is the most fundamental object", and how did "everything physical evolve from light"?

Im not suggesting that everything evolves from light, only that radiation may play a part in the formation of matter against a repeling dark energy?

[Ken G]

Dr. Pamela Gay over at Astronomy Cast has referred on occasion to the observable universe being 3-4% of the whole, and I think Pamela refers to the universe as being a closed 3-torus.

I assure you that Dr. Gay can point to no compelling evidence that the universe is a closed 3-torus, nor can she say that it is 25-33 times larger than what we can observe. What she is perhaps saying is that if the universe was smaller than that, we would expect to have seen evidence for it that we don't see-- but she would have no idea whether or not it was larger. It might even be infinite, but there's no way to get any evidence that the universe is infinite-- it is not a question that science has any business forming an opinion on unless it can be shown to have a finite size.

As for the geometry, all she could say is that it might be a 3-torus, but to my knowledge there's no reliable conclusions that the universe is anything but flat (when coordinatized with comoving coordinates, which is kind of the default choice).

[Ken G]

Im sure youve probably all seen this already but it was relevant so I wanted to post the link. The theory is pretty much exactly what I have been proposing about dark energy.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ification.html

Unfortunately the popular article gives no sense at all of what this model is. I only got that they were treating a "fluid" that is 2/3 dark energy and 1/3 dark matter, which sounds pretty much like the same model that standard cosmology uses. So those words tell me nothing.