Re: Questions about Big Bang.
From: Zdenek Jizba (jizba_at_verizon.net)
Date: 02/26/05
- Next message: Brad Guth: "Re: Moon Landing a Hoax??!! Real Evidence here>>>"
- Previous message: baalke_at_earthlink.net: "Cassini Captures First-Ever Photographs of Saturn's Radiation Belts"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Questions about Big Bang."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 00:28:10 GMT
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
> Zdenek Jizba wrote:
>
>> I would like to state my questions in plain english,
>> but I am more comfortable adding simple (high school)
>> equations. A function of time can be expressed as f(t).
>> Here t is considered on a logarithmic scale so that t=1
>> corresponds to a microsecond and t=7 corresponds to a second.
>> The total energy E of present day universe can be written
>> as the sum of the energy e of mass particles (e=mC*2) plus
>> the energy e' not attributable to mass particles.
>> In equation form, E=e(T)+e'(T) where T is the present day
>> (logarithmic time).
>
>
> O.k.
>
>> My first question:
>> The function e(t) according to my understanding of the
>> literature of BB is a step function where E(t=0)=0 and
>> E(t=1)=E because of the physical law of conservation of energy.
>
>
> Err, a step function actually would contradict the conservation
> of energy.
>
> If you look at the question from a Newtonian point of view, the
> total energy of the universe is (and always was!) zero (or at least
> very close to that). The energy in "mass particles" etc. is positive
> - but you forgot that there is also gravitational potential energy,
> which is *negative* and hence cancels out the positive energy.
>
> OTOH, if you want to address the problem using General Relativity,
> it is not even clear if the concept "energy of the universe" is even
> definable in a sensible way. And it is not clear if energy is conserved
> or not.
>
>
>> Is this wrong in the sense that E(t) is instead a continuous
>> (increasing?) function of time?
>
>
> Yes, E should be continuous (neglecting quantum effects). And it
> should be increasing (the density of dark energy remains the same,
> the volume increases...)
>
>
>> My second question.
>> If the BB was followed by an inflationary period, then
>> e(t=1) should be negligible, otherwise the force of gravity
>> would cause the BB to immediately form a huge black hole.
>
>
> No, that's a non sequitur. Not everything which contains a large
> amount of energy (or mass) forms automatically a black hole.
>
>
>> How has e(t) changed over time?
>
>
> Increased continuously, see above.
>
>
> Bye,
> Bjoern
thanks
ZVJ
- Next message: Brad Guth: "Re: Moon Landing a Hoax??!! Real Evidence here>>>"
- Previous message: baalke_at_earthlink.net: "Cassini Captures First-Ever Photographs of Saturn's Radiation Belts"
- In reply to: Bjoern Feuerbacher: "Re: Questions about Big Bang."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
