Did you know space is really^really big?

[darkknightkryta]

Yeah string theory/m theory is great. Not a lot of real world support for it at this time, but the math is just too perfect for it to not at least be on the correct ballpark.

Well we don't know if our universe's big bang's singularity had infinite energy. Really it's possible that there never even was a singularity. The few hundred thousand years after the bang are just guesswork at this stage.

My astrophysics teacher explained it to us that way.  It'd have to be close to infinite to have the amount of hyrdrogen in our current universe.  Guess work yes, but there's very good models explaining how the energy was converted into subatomic particles and furthermore into atoms. 


I believe String Theory is right.  Since my astrophysics teacher thinks it's right and I honestly believe she understands how the universe works (She's the female version of Sheldon Cooper, minus comics I guess).  Plus it'd explain why our math for quantum mechanics are a guess at best.  My hunch is that there's a lot of things affecting sub atomic particles in other dimensions.  Plus matter that's the basis of atoms are sure to be far more complex than we can comprehend (Not mathematically of course, equations work just fine with n amount of axis). 

[Legend]

My astrophysics teacher explained it to us that way.  It'd have to be close to infinite to have the amount of hyrdrogen in our current universe.  Guess work yes, but there's very good models explaining how the energy was converted into subatomic particles and furthermore into atoms. 

Is there any such thing as close to infinite? That's just stupidly large

Yeah there are very good models. It's just the probability of them being correct is a lot lot lower than the big bang itself being correct.

Kinda like dark matter. It works great to explain a lot of things, but its existence is not something I'd want to bet my life on.

[darkknightkryta]

Is there any such thing as close to infinite? That's just stupidly large

Yeah there are very good models. It's just the probability of them being correct is a lot lot lower than the big bang itself being correct.

Kinda like dark matter. It works great to explain a lot of things, but its existence is not something I'd want to bet my life on.

I'm sure the models are right, I mean, it's no secret on how sub atomic particles are formed.  The stupidly large plasma pool would have started forming stars/etc.  The question is more or less the "before" which we have no real solution.  Which also begs the "first" since even the String Theory of our universe relies on two previous existing universes.  I'm more inclined to believe in the Big Crunch, but with the universe accelerating, we'll likely never know what phase of universe we live in.  Dark Matter makes perfect sense.  Hell there's probably tons of ginormous amounts of diamonds out there we'll never be able to harness .  Dark Energy on the other hand, that's the enigma.  It explains things, but we can't prove it.

[Legend]

I'm sure the models are right, I mean, it's no secret on how sub atomic particles are formed.  The stupidly large plasma pool would have started forming stars/etc.  The question is more or less the "before" which we have no real solution.  Which also begs the "first" since even the String Theory of our universe relies on two previous existing universes.  I'm more inclined to believe in the Big Crunch, but with the universe accelerating, we'll likely never know what phase of universe we live in.  Dark Matter makes perfect sense.  heck there's probably tons of ginormous amounts of diamonds out there we'll never be able to harness .  Dark Energy on the other hand, that's the enigma.  It explains things, but we can't prove it.

Yeah I meant dark energy. Typo.

I'm sure the models could be correct. There just aren't enough ways to check the models to "prove" they're the correct ones.

[darkknightkryta]

Yeah I meant dark energy. Typo.

I'm sure the models could be correct. There just aren't enough ways to check the models to "prove" they're the correct ones.

You can't prove it 100%, but if they can prove the conversion of energy into matter (I'll assume they have), then you can make relatively safe assumptions about near infinite plasma energy from the Big Bang into what they'd form next.  All these reactions take place in a vacuum anyways

[Legend]

You can't prove it 100%, but if they can prove the conversion of energy into matter (I'll assume they have), then you can make relatively safe assumptions about near infinite plasma energy from the Big Bang into what they'd form next.  All these reactions take place in a vacuum anyways

Yeah I put prove in quotations because of that.

Also again near infinite isn't a thing. If you're just meaning stupidly big, then a fully agree.

As far as conversion of energy into matter, I can only think of the opposite being done in a lab. In nature though, that's how black holes die.

Out of the randomness of quantum particles, matter occasional forms itself on "borrowed" energy. A particle and an anti particle spontanoisly form out of nothing. Normaly this particles rapidly combine again and return the energey, so we can't really detect them. However on the event horizons of black holes, it's ever so possible for the black hole to suck in one particle while the opposite escapes. Thus the black hole slowly emmits radiation, only possible from energy converting to matter.

[darkknightkryta]

Yeah I put prove in quotations because of that.

Also again near infinite isn't a thing. If you're just meaning stupidly big, then a fully agree.

As far as conversion of energy into matter, I can only think of the opposite being done in a lab. In nature though, that's how black holes die.

Out of the randomness of quantum particles, matter occasional forms itself on "borrowed" energy. A particle and an anti particle spontanoisly form out of nothing. Normaly this particles rapidly combine again and return the energey, so we can't really detect them. However on the event horizons of black holes, it's ever so possible for the black hole to suck in one particle while the opposite escapes. Thus the black hole slowly emmits radiation, only possible from energy converting to matter.

Actually, if Hawkings is right, black holes just spew out energy at the end.  Matter isn't created.  This is actually an possible end of our universe.  All hydrogen is exhausted and everything gets sucked into black holes.  Then after trillions of years, the black holed start giving out "Hawkings" radiation.  After that the energy dissipates and no more universe.
I doubt they managed to convert energy into mass.  But it might have been proven in a particle accelerator.

[darkknightkryta]

Though thinking about it, why wouldn't the singularity that spit out the plasma for our universe not be made of infinite energy?  Like I don't know what the equation for it would be but if the singularity of a black hole has infinite mass, why can't the big bang singularity have infinite energy?

[the-pi-guy]

Who said a black hole has infinite mass?

[Legend]

Though thinking about it, why wouldn't the singularity that spit out the plasma for our universe not be made of infinite energy?  Like I don't know what the equation for it would be but if the singularity of a black hole has infinite mass, why can't the big bang singularity have infinite energy?

The black hole only has infinite mass locally. From an outside perspective, it's finite.

[darkknightkryta]

The black hole only has infinite mass locally. From an outside perspective, it's finite.

Not according to math ;o

[the-pi-guy]

Not according to math ;o

Mass is finite.  Imagine crushing the sun into a space the size of the head of a pin. 
Mass is still finite. 
Gravity would be approaching infinite up close  Fg = Gm1m2/r^2
Not because the mass would be infinite, but because r would become an increasingly small number. 
g=Gm1m2/r^2
lim F(g) = infinite as r -> 0.
What would happen if the mass was infinite?
g = Gm1m2/r^2
lim F(g) = infinite for all r. 
This means everything would get sucked in, regardless of distance.  It would mean that we must be heading towards all black holes.  Which goes against what we know. 
Another thing that would be pretty large is density. 
Density -> infinity as Volume -> 0

[Legend]

Actually, if Hawkings is right, black holes just spew out energy at the end.  Matter isn't created.  This is actually an possible end of our universe.  All hydrogen is exhausted and everything gets sucked into black holes.  Then after trillions of years, the black holed start giving out "Hawkings" radiation.  After that the energy dissipates and no more universe.
I doubt they managed to convert energy into mass.  But it might have been proven in a particle accelerator.

No Hawking radiation occurs during the life of a black hole. It's just that up until the very end, much more matter is being sucked in than hawking radiation is destroying.



The eventual heat death of the universe is interesting. It'll be very interesting if we can predict farther than that, similar to predicting before the big bang.

[darkknightkryta]

Mass is finite.  Imagine crushing the sun into a space the size of the head of a pin. 
Mass is still finite. 
Gravity would be approaching infinite up close  Fg = Gm1m2/r^2
Not because the mass would be infinite, but because r would become an increasingly small number. 
g=Gm1m2/r^2
lim F(g) = infinite as r -> 0.
What would happen if the mass was infinite?
g = Gm1m2/r^2
lim F(g) = infinite for all r. 
This means everything would get sucked in, regardless of distance.  It would mean that we must be heading towards all black holes.  Which goes against what we know. 
Another thing that would be pretty large is density. 
Density -> infinity as Volume -> 0

Except radius is 0 for the singularity.  It never approaches it, it is 0.  Thus infinite mass.  Though, there's more to black holes that we know nothing of.  Which goes back to our understanding of quantum mechanics and the possibility of the equations to fluid mechanics technically being wrong.

[darkknightkryta]

No Hawking radiation occurs during the life of a black hole. It's just that up until the very end, much more matter is being sucked in than hawking radiation is destroying.

Spoiler for Image:

<img src="http://hendrix2.uoregon.edu/~imamura/123cs/images/Hawking-Radiation_02.jpg" alt="" class="bbc_img" loading="lazy">

The eventual heat death of the universe is interesting. It'll be very interesting if we can predict farther than that, similar to predicting before the big bang.

Yeah, though, it's all dependent on the constantly changing cosmological constant.