Did the creation of the universe violate the laws of conservation?

[ding]

From what I have read mass and energy are interchangeable, and may coexist in an undefined form in otherwise empty space.

Are you talking about dark energy?

 

[abu afak]

The problem with Ding's last Two threads is that he is mixing in his eccentric Voodoo religious ideas and trying to shoehorn them into 'science.' But they have No evidence and of course are not provable.
(he posts a lot of similar nonsense in Religion too)

`

 

[mamooth]

And by some other mouth breather you mean to say pretty much every cosmologist and physicist on the planet?

Go on, cult boi. Show us which cosmologists agree with your butthurt mewling.

This is where you piss yourself and run, squealing "BUT I SAY I'M RIGHT!", same as you do every time you put forth some gibbering insanity, and then we call you on being such a pisshead.

You won't be able to stop the howls of laughter that will be directed at you, so just get it over with.

Oh, it's not debatable that the first law does not hold on the quantum scale. For example, virtual particles are always jumping in and out of reality, and they have energy. The first law does not hold with the singularity.

 

[ding]

Go on, cult boi. Show us which cosmologists agree with your butthurt mewling.

 

[ding]

This is where you piss yourself and run, squealing "BUT I SAY I'M RIGHT!", same as you do every time you put forth some gibbering insanity, and then we call you on being such a pisshead.

You won't be able to stop the howls of laughter that will be directed at you, so just get it over with.

[It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.] Vilenkin

 

[mamooth]

Poor Ding. He's not smart enough to figure out the guy disagreed with him.

 

[ding]

Oh, it's not debatable that the first law does not hold on the quantum scale. For example, virtual particles are always jumping in and out of reality, and they have energy. The first law does not hold with the singularity.

I know it frightens you that the universe literally popped into existence according to the laws of quantum mechanics and the laws of conservation. But the evidence for this is overwhelming.

 

[ding]

Poor Ding. He's not smart enough to figure out the guy disagreed with him.

You are an imbecile. You are literally arguing against the Big Bang, dummy. You aren't arguing against me.

 

[mamooth]

You are an imbecile. You are literally arguing against the Big Bang, dummy. You aren't arguing against me.

"BECAUSE I SAY SO! BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

Ding, you're regarded as a slow child here, comic relief for the grownups to laugh at.

 

[ding]

"BECAUSE I SAY SO! BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

Ding, you're regarded as a slow child here, comic relief for the grownups to laugh at.

No, because the science of the Big Bang says so, dummy; because the evidence says so.

 

[ding]

"BECAUSE I SAY SO! BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

Ding, you're regarded as a slow child here, comic relief for the grownups to laugh at.

Where's YOUR evidence?

 

[Nobody911]

The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

The law of conservation of mass states that mass can neither be created nor destroyed.

If the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago in what is known as the Big Bang, how did the Big Bang not violate the laws of conservation?

The Big Bang theory does not violate the laws of conservation because it does not suggest that matter and energy were created out of nothing.

Instead, the theory proposes that all known matter and energy in the universe were already present at the moment of the Big Bang, but in a highly compressed and energetic state.

As the universe expanded and cooled down, particles began to form and interact, leading to the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets.The conservation laws, such as the conservation of energy and mass, still hold true in the context of the Big Bang theory.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only change forms. Similarly, matter cannot be created or destroyed, but can be converted into energy and vice versa, as described by Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2.

Therefore, the Big Bang theory is consistent with the principles of conservation of mass and energy, as it describes the transformation of the existing matter and energy in the universe into the complex structures we observe today.

 

[ding]

The Big Bang theory does not violate the laws of conservation because it does not suggest that matter and energy were created out of nothing.

Instead, the theory proposes that all known matter and energy in the universe were already present at the moment of the Big Bang, but in a highly compressed and energetic state.

As the universe expanded and cooled down, particles began to form and interact, leading to the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets.The conservation laws, such as the conservation of energy and mass, still hold true in the context of the Big Bang theory.

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only change forms. Similarly, matter cannot be created or destroyed, but can be converted into energy and vice versa, as described by Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2.

Therefore, the Big Bang theory is consistent with the principles of conservation of mass and energy, as it describes the transformation of the existing matter and energy in the universe into the complex structures we observe today.

My understanding is that it was not existing matter but matter created through paired particle production.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

The law of conservation of mass states that mass can neither be created nor destroyed.

If the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago in what is known as the Big Bang, how did the Big Bang not violate the laws of conservation?

As I've explained to people many times, we cannot explain the presence of the natural world naturally.

 

[Wuwei]

It is futile to claim some specific mechanism is the beginning of the universe because you found some YouTube interview that supports what you want. There are still several viable theories of the origin from different astrophysicists. There are at least 23 different theories of dark matter alone.

Unsolved problems include the nature of dark matter, if indeed there is such a thing. There is no viable model for dark energy. The universe is assumed to be isotropic, translation invariant, homogeneous, flat and finite.

If it is flat and finite, there is a boundary. It would also be inhomogeneous.

Where is the antimatter if it were created by vacuum energy.

Does gravitational potential equal mass-energy of the stars so that the total energy of the universe is zero? That's an open question.

Sure, it can be fun arguing about which model is correct or not, but it shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[ding]

It is futile to claim some specific mechanism is the beginning of the universe because you found some YouTube interview that supports what you want. There are still several viable theories of the origin from different astrophysicists. There are at least 23 different theories of dark matter alone.

Unsolved problems include the nature of dark matter, if indeed there is such a thing. There is no viable model for dark energy. The universe is assumed to be isotropic, translation invariant, homogeneous, flat and finite.

If it is flat and finite, there is a boundary. It would also be inhomogeneous.

Where is the antimatter if it were created by vacuum energy.

Does gravitational potential equal mass-energy of the stars so that the total energy of the universe is zero? That's an open question.

Sure, it can be fun arguing about which model is correct or not, but it shouldn't be taken seriously.

How do you explain the CMB? Walk me through it. Because the only explanation I have ever heard is a quantum tunneling event of paired particle production. So no matter what argument you make, it needs to start with how it could produce the massive amount of radiation that exists. How do you explain that evidence?

 

[Wuwei]

How do you explain the CMB? Walk me through it. Because the only explanation I have ever heard is a quantum tunneling event of paired particle production. So no matter what argument you make, it needs to start with how it could produce the massive amount of radiation that exists. How do you explain that evidence?

Tunneling is the finite probability of the wave function appearing on the other side of a potential barrier. I don't know what theory you discovered that has a potential barrier, or what the barrier is.

There are alternate theories on how things started, but consistently the next stage is a very dense hot mixture of elementary particles that in a few seconds congealed to isotopes of hydrogen, helium, and a small amount of other light elements there was no more mechanism for gamma production so it abated. Further cooling allowed those light nuclei to capture electrons and become atoms.

As the density of ions abated and the temperature dropped to 3,000K the neutral atoms allowed light to freely pass through them. What we see in the CMB is simply the black body radiation of a 3,000K gas red shifted to 2.7K.

 

[Wuwei]

One way of looking at it is that the cosmic gas of 13.7 B years ago is still with us. We are still in the CMB only it has cooled down to 2.7K and the atoms further congealed to galaxies, etc.

 

[para bellum]

Further cooling allowed those light nuclei to capture electrons and become atoms.

And to elaborate just a little- when the electrons bind to the nuclei and form the atoms, they are in a high energy state. The first thing they do is move to their lowest energy state. When an electron drops to a lower shell, a photon is emitted.

The universe is now cool enough to be transparent, and the photons are free to go on their merry way. Those photons are what make up the CMB.

 

[ding]

Tunneling is the finite probability of the wave function appearing on the other side of a potential barrier. I don't know what theory you discovered that has a potential barrier, or what the barrier is.

There are alternate theories on how things started, but consistently the next stage is a very dense hot mixture of elementary particles that in a few seconds congealed to isotopes of hydrogen, helium, and a small amount of other light elements there was no more mechanism for gamma production so it abated. Further cooling allowed those light nuclei to capture electrons and become atoms.

As the density of ions abated and the temperature dropped to 3,000K the neutral atoms allowed light to freely pass through them. What we see in the CMB is simply the black body radiation of a 3,000K gas red shifted to 2.7K.

So no quantum tunneling? No paired particle production? No mutual annihilation of matter and antimatter particles? Do you have a link to these alternate theories?