Big Bang Cosmology And Law Of Conservation Of Energy- Is There A Contradiction?

[Philip2018]

If the assumption that the universe is considered as a closed system, by applying the law of conservation of energy which means that energy can't be created nor destroyed and said to be conserved over time, how can this be comprehended by the big bang cosmological model which considers a very high-density and high-temperature state of singularity? Does this means that during the state of singularity the same value of energy with that very high-density and high-temperature state but still the total value of energy is still conserved? Or the law of conservation of energy was not applicable during this state and accordingly how can it be comprehended that energy was created while through the classical thermodynamic law of conservation of energy it is said to consider that energy can'r be created nor destroyed in a closed system and should be considered as an eternal over time.

 

Appreciate sharing any logical arguments that can provide assertions on how the 2 models (big bang, law of conservation of energy) can be comprehensible and non-contradictory.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Philip2018

[Shustaire]

A couple of points to add, the BB doesn't describe how the universe started, the model starts at [math]10^{-43}[/math] seconds forward. Also much like GR it is controversial if energy conservation applies or not.  There isn't at agreement on his on global scales when one considers the cosmological constant. Observer affects etc.

 

No that being said the universe does follow an adiabatic expansion with no net inflow or outflow of energy.

[Super Polymath]

A pre-meditated hoax, that's all the big bang was in the 1920s

[Vmedvil2]

The Truth is that the universe is not a closed systems we see evidence of temperature loss in the CMB,This spot is called the Cold Spot in the CMB which says that it had to have gone somewhere were possibly another universe brane which also is the answer to where the energy of the BB is from another universe. The Universe is not a closed system entirely most of the time it is but not always as it can interact with other universe branes which the interaction is currently unknown just that in the past it seems as if it had to have lost or gained energy in small amounts and possibly in large amounts if the Big Bang was caused from the collision of type universe branes. It could be possibly the Universe to which all the matter is Anti-matter, the "Other Half" of our universe as it would have caused a BB in that universe too. If there was temperature exchange another brane must have been touched in order to exchange the temperature away from our universe or gain it, there was something that our universe collided with which makes it not a closed system always the universe the Big Bang could be one of those times when it was not closed, it is true that energy cannot be created or destroyed thus this is a logical explaination to where the energy of the BB singularity came from another universe brane or a Brane on Brane collision, which energy exchange between branes is what caused the Cold spot. So, no the Laws of Energy conversation and the BB don't contradict in this case either.

 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[GAHD]

If the assumption that the universe is considered as a closed system, by applying the law of conservation of energy which means that energy can't be created nor destroyed and said to be conserved over time, how can this be comprehended by the big bang cosmological model which considers a very high-density and high-temperature state of singularity? Does this means that during the state of singularity the same value of energy with that very high-density and high-temperature state but still the total value of energy is still conserved? Or the law of conservation of energy was not applicable during this state and accordingly how can it be comprehended that energy was created while through the classical thermodynamic law of conservation of energy it is said to consider that energy can'r be created nor destroyed in a closed system and should be considered as an eternal over time.

 

Appreciate sharing any logical arguments that can provide assertions on how the 2 models (big bang, law of conservation of energy) can be comprehensible and non-contradictory.

VM's got one of the possible ideas there. N-d Brane interation could very well be the "reason" for the quantum-foam virtual-particle instances we've got evidence for, and a possible cause of either/both cold spot and great attractor. It's worth looking at.

 

I've personally become quite a fan of this guy and the view he pushes on origins.

On "how can it be comprehended that energy was created while through the classical thermodynamic law of conservation of energy it is said to consider that energy can'r be created nor destroyed in a closed system and should be considered as an eternal over time." specifically; I'm currently entertaining the exact same conclusion. There is no issue with "creating energy" when the net-sum of the energy is Zero. Of course, that's based on the idea that Gravity is negative while kinetics/mass are positive.

 

[Vmedvil2]

VM's got one of the possible ideas there. N-d Brane interation could very well be the "reason" for the quantum-foam virtual-particle instances we've got evidence for, and a possible cause of either/both cold spot and great attractor. It's worth looking at.

 

I've personally become quite a fan of this guy and the view he pushes on origins.

On "how can it be comprehended that energy was created while through the classical thermodynamic law of conservation of energy it is said to consider that energy can'r be created nor destroyed in a closed system and should be considered as an eternal over time." specifically; I'm currently entertaining the exact same conclusion. There is no issue with "creating energy" when the net-sum of the energy is Zero. Of course, that's based on the idea that Gravity is negative while kinetics/mass are positive.

 

 

 

Ya, it could be that Dark Energy along with Dark Matter (Gravity) + Energy-mass (Gravity) = 0 the sum of the universe's energy being zero but the question in that still remains what caused the reaction that made the BB. There would need to be a cause to the reaction as Newtonian physics says, This sort of reasoning would still require a cause to the BB.

[Shustaire]

oh man no Vmdvil. There is over 3000 causally disconnected regions in the CMB. However all thee regions were causally connected in the past during inflation. Lets not reply to mainstream questions with personal theories. You never know if the poster is a student.

 

Those extremely miniscule temperature anistrophies are regions of slightly lower density due to infalling matter into early stage structure formation. The observable universe is adiabatic no net inflow or outflow of energy. We can only ever view the observable portion however the entire universe could very well be infinite. Everyone of those anistrophies follow the Baryon acoustic oscillations via Jeans instabliltiy.

[Shustaire]

Ya, it could be that Dark Energy along with Dark Matter (Gravity) + Energy-mass (Gravity) = 0 the sum of the universe's energy being zero but the question in that still remains what caused the reaction that made the BB. There would need to be a cause to the reaction as Newtonian physics says, This sort of reasoning would still require a cause to the BB.

 

[math] T^{\mu\nu}=0[/math] is the energy momentum term for conservation of energy in this application.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Shustaire

[Vmedvil2]

oh man no Vmdvil. There is over 3000 causally disconnected regions in the CMB. However all thee regions were causally connected in the past during inflation. Lets not reply to mainstream questions with personal theories. You never know if the poster is a student.

 

Those extremely miniscule temperature anistrophies are regions of slightly lower density due to infalling matter into early stage structure formation. The observable universe is adiabatic no net inflow or outflow of energy. We can only ever view the observable portion however the entire universe could very well be infinite. Everyone of those anistrophies follow the Baryon acoustic oscillations via Jeans instabliltiy.

 

That is not my opinion that is String Theory's on the reasoning behind the BB and Cold spots, that collisions with other universe branes happens causing a flow of energy in or out of the system based on the temperature of that brane that was collided with.

 

 

Two Papers on Brane Collision

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239

 

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0207140

Edited July 27, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Shustaire]

ekpyrotic universe was shown inadequate by the Planck 2012 dataset, the terms of the ekpyrotic universe didn't match well to the observational data. That also doesn't address the temperature anistrophies itself nor the conservation of energy question. It was one possible conjecture to the cause of BB.

 

The main agreement on the conservation of energy question is that there is no agreement at this time.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Shustaire

[Vmedvil2]

ekpyrotic universe was shown inadequate by the Planck 2012 dataset, the terms of the ekpyrotic universe didn't match well to the observational data.

 

Well, I didn't see those datasets this is the framework I use for BB questions about cause because String Theory has generally been besides its anomalies been correct on particle formation and other things of this nature, plus remember I think that BH contain Wormholes when quantum entangled take it or leave it, which allow energy transfer between universe branes.

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Shustaire]

Yes I know and that is precisely my point, you based your reply to a mainstream question with a personal model bias. |Your model has yet to be tested in accordance to observational data it is still in its development stage even if you are not continuing working on it. It still requires work to ever reach the same level of predictability as LCDM

Edited July 27, 2018 by Shustaire

[GAHD]

Ya, it could be that Dark Energy along with Dark Matter (Gravity) + Energy-mass (Gravity) = 0 the sum of the universe's energy being zero but the question in that still remains what caused the reaction that made the BB. There would need to be a cause to the reaction as Newtonian physics says, This sort of reasoning would still require a cause to the BB.

...Newton's physics are kinda dated when it comes to Macro-time and quantum-scale fluctuations. We can't really determine a causal link to the foam. It just...is.

 

All that is needed for the BB to happen was a particularly large flux that happens to, from our perspective, "last".

[Shustaire]

Yet the path integrals under QFT all can apply SR under Euclid frame for the Newtonian correspondence in the Newton limit of GR.

 

I really have to wonder what everyone thinks a brane or string is under string theory. You may be surprised at the answer

 

The most common mistake is thinking of strings as anything other than the vibrational modes of a particle. A brane is fibre bundle of strings. (fibre bundle is not some fibre or material as per se but merely a descriptive of a collection of spinor representations under tensoral form. Anyways off topic to the OP's thread. It would take forever to cover orbifolds in the paper linked by Vmedvil for example.

 

orbifold: a space obtained by identifications that have fixed points, idetifications of a space is for example

 

plane (x,y) with identification [math](x,y)=(x+2\pi R,y+2\pi R) [/math] there is a specific meaning to identity as two points are identical (declared to be the same point) when the coordinates differ by [math]2\pi R[/math]

Edited July 27, 2018 by Shustaire

[Shustaire]

Personally I like Sean Caroll's article on the OP's question, it does highlight some of the issues but opinions as mentioned differ even among PH.D's

 

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/comment-page-2/

 

 

For purpose of LCDM its treated as conserved for the particle number count.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Shustaire

[Vmedvil2]

Personally I like Sean Caroll's article on the OP's question, it does highlight some of the issues but opinions as mentioned differ even among PH.D's

 

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/comment-page-2/

 

 

For purpose of LCDM its treated as conserved for the particle number count.

 

The LCDM takes them directly from the energy-mass forms of the particles as a fluid like EFE but are conserve because of the energy-mass are equal, which does not take in account external sources of energy which is a closed system but LCDM does have its flaws, it misses alot of the finer Quantum Details of the system, I would never use it on the BB singularity, there are so many models of the early universe which are better suited than LCDM for Singularities which the BB was. Secondly, LCDM model assumes a constant amount of energy equally distributed throughout the universe which is wrong, it does not properly explain the universe in all its depth it is missing small scale changes as previously explained, you have to remember it is a solution to GR being it does not take anything of the Quantum world like Entanglement or virtual particles correctly.

Edited July 27, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[Shustaire]

I believe I stated in regards to total particle count. the total energy of such is conserved when you factor in redshift of said particle count under LCDM. I've studied enough QFT under loop quantum cosmology to know that it can indeed account for quantum effects. The FLRW is an approximation of the macro aspects however is true but it still does a good job of approximation even when accounting for quantum effects.

 

 The LCDM metric does after all employ the fluid equations with the ideal gas laws and does treat those laws as an adiabatic fluid. It is also the recognized concordance model best fit though one can say much the same for LQC as it incorporates LCDM. Regardless of your perceived lacks. It is also the one described in any textbook on cosmology.

 

An example of the above though is inflation employs QM or QFT so obviously can account for quantum effects upon the metric.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Shustaire