Where did the matter and energy come from?

Hi Sasuke, "Speculative" isn;t really a very good choice of words. Hawking radiation is not just an idea the good Prof. came up with one day - it's based on mathematics derived from our observations and understanding of the Universe - much the same way we derive the existence of black holes in teh first place.Hawking radiation is the process by which virtual matter/antimatter particle pairs (which spontaneously generate and annihilate all the time) are partially captured by the gravity well of teh black hole (one particle is caught, and the other escapes) instead of annihilating. Conservation of mass means that the black hole loses mass in the transaction. It's theorized that tiny black holes (the sort that may be created in the Large Hadron Collider) will evaporate nearly instantly due to Hawking radiation while larger black holes will be around for quite some time (the mass of a single particle being much more significant for an object with the mass of a few protons than, say, something with the mass of a thousand stars).But firther, your description of black holes is way out in left field. I;m not saying this to be insulting, Sasuke, I;m simply pointing out some very basic errors. Black holes do not have a "chamber." Black holes are the result of collapsed stars, where matter has become super-dense. I know you understand that part - the thing is, a black hole is still just an ultradense collection of matter/energy. The marked difference between a black hole and other forms of ultradense matter (like a neutron star) is the event horizon - the radius beyond the actual singularity where the spacetime distortion is so great that even light is curved into the singularity and cannot escape.The way I conceptualize this is to imagine that all matter has an event horizon - except that it's such a tiny radius that the actual size of each particle is larger than the radius of the event horizon. Black holes are objects where normal matter has collapsed to such a density that the event horizon's radius is larger than the actual object. I'm sure this is an inaccurate conceptualization - it just helps me understand at the macroscale how we can talk about black holes having sizes ranging from the mass of a few protons to thousands of stellar masses.The object itself is referred to as the "singularity," but that isn't much of a term. "Singularity" is just a word that means "our math isn't working any more; standard physics models don't apply here." A singularity is not a container, or even really a "thing." This is where you leave the ballpark altogether. "White holes" have not been observed to exist. There is no boundary on the size of a black hole where they "Expand the space they're stored in." Black holes are not "stored in" anything. The event horizon of a black hole increases as it accumulates more mass, but that;s simply because additional mass causes a greater and greater distortion in spacetime. Black holes do not explode into "white holes."Take a look at the Wiki entry for black holes.

Good. The natural tendency to seek lower energy states is what we call entropy. Entropy always increases in any interaction in a closed system. All work increases overall entropy. They are not shedding electrons. They are however moving to lower energy states, which is all that is relevant for this discussion. An electron moving to a lower orbital and emitting a photon is the release of potential energy to perform work in the same way that dropping a rock releases energy and performs work. And that's all that is relevant. A rock falling from a meter or two isn't going to be a very energetic event, but it still is a demonstration of energy.Do you agree, then, that bindign energy is in fact energy? Do you understand more of the difference between matter and energy, and what mass is in relation to both?Both energy and matter have mass. Most of the mass of any object you pick up is actually just binding energy, not actual matter; that binding energy is not only in chemical bonds, but also in atomic and subatomic bonds. The energy of these different bonds is demonstrated by burning gasoline, by splitting atomic nuclei, etc.Molecules can also form lower energy states than individual atoms. A water molecule has a lower energy state than two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom alone; this is why heat is released when water forms from its components (think the Hindenburg), and why it takes energy to split water into its component atoms (electrolysis, for example).Matter is not mass. Matter has mass. Energy is not mass. Energy has mass. You could say that mass is a measure of the total excitation in the quantum field, and that mass warps spacetime; this warping is what we call gravity.Don't think about mass and gravity in terms of weight. Yes, we're essentially saying that energy can "weigh" something in a gravity well, but that's not an accurate concept of what mass is. It's based too much on human perception, and we exist at a scale where neither the subatomic nor the cosmic are intuitive.Gravity is the warping of spacetime. It literally alters the "shape" of both space and time. The closest analogy would be to represent spacetime as a blanket, and the Earth as a basketball. The mass of the Earth (which is a result of both matter and energy, the total excitation of the quantum fields in this part of the Universe) bends spacetime in a manner analogous to the way a basketball will make an indentation while resting on a blanket.We can directly see this warping of spacetime when we see through a gravitational lens - immense cosmic structures like galactic clusters bend space so that light (which always moves in a straight line in space) is "bent" like a lens, and sometimes lets us see farther with our telescopes than we could otherwise.

Electrons don't need to be "shed" to lower their energy state. They can simply fall to a lower electron shell. The energy difference is emitted as a photon. The atom in question doesn't lose a photon in the process. ...no. Matter is not energy. Energy is not bound. Energy is "contained" in the bonds that hold matter together, at the chemical, atomic, and subatomic scales.Matter is that which has mass and takes up space - it obeys the Exclusion principle.Energy has mass, but does not take up space. It does not obey the Exclusion principle. This is both completely correct and completely wrong.Mass can indeed be calculated if you know the volume and density of a given bit of matter. But that doesn't mean that mass is solely a function of volume and density.Mass is that which warps spacetime. Mass is a measurement of the total excitation of the various quantum fields in a given location.Chemistry only applies at the appropriate scale. Everything you learned in chemistry class is irrelevant when discussing quantum physics. Chemistry deals with interactions at the atomic and occasionally nuclear scale; physics includes the atomic scale, but also the scales of quarks and gluons and even galactic clusters.The Universe doesn't exist solely at the macroscopic human scale.Density isn't something we need to consider when we calculate the potential energy of an elevated rock, or an electron's orbit, or the binding energy of a Uranium nucleus. it's simply irrelevant. Mass, however, is relevant. Matter does not bend spacetime. Mass bends spacetime. Mass is one of the properties of matter, but it is also one of the properties of energy. Mass is the total excitation of the various quantum fields in a given location. That excitation of the fields is what bends spacetime.Remember also that the blanket analogy is grossly oversimplified. To be perfectly blunt, neither you nor I have a very good grasp of what we're discussing. We cannot possible do so without engaging in some pretty complicated mathematics. We're trying to convert very specific, very accurate subjects in theoretical physics and translate them into plain English, which flat-out doesn't work very well. Worse, neither of us has actually done the math - we're operating on what others who have done the math have translated into English, and then trying to communicate what each of us understands based on those inaccurate simplifications. It's like playing telephone with physics, and we're taking the easy and inaccurate path because we don't have time to take a few dozen physics and math courses.Read what cavediver and Son Goku say very carefully. They're usually pretty careful to be as accurate as they can while translating physics mathematical concepts into English we can try to understand. But the most important thing to realize is that, until you can understand the math and observations that spawned current Field Theory and quantum mechanics, you do not really understand. Arguing against them in their own field is like telling an aerospace engineer that he's wrong about how airplanes fly.

But energy is not just "charged particles." What "charged particles" carry the energy of an elevated rock?Matter is not bound energy. Matter is not simply bound charged particles. Remember, neutrons have no electrical charge, yet are still bound to the nucleus of an atom. Matter does have its own rest mass that does not involve binding energy in any way - it's simply a minuscule portion of the total mass.I'm sorry if i sound like I'm nitpicking. Well, not really - I am nitpicking. But that's because in science topics you have to be extremely accurate in what you say.To use another analogy, saying that "energy is charged particles" is like saying that mutants are the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. You might be hitting the same building that contains the wall the target is mounted on, but you're nowhere close to a bullzeye. I try to at least hit the target The price of inaccuracy is the propagation of more misunderstandings, false conceptions, and eventually strawman arguments. How many Creationists do we see here who argue against Evolution because we don't see a dog give birth to a fish? How many times do we hear "it's just a theory? Those are the result of inaccurate usage of terminology, something the mass media is unfortunately addicted to. We hear scientific terminology being thrown around in fiction like Star Trek, and people actually think that there is some level of truth to the technobabble simply because the terminology is real.Try to be accurate when discussing scientific terminology. It helps you convey what you're actually saying, and it keeps you from misunderstanding what others say as well.An alpha particle is a Helium nucleus; it's a form of radiation. When some elements decay, they emit an alpha particle. The particle is, in fact, a charged particle, and the transaction does involve the transfer of energy. But the alpha particle itself is not energy. It's still matter - it takes up space and obeys the Exclusion principle.A neutron is also a particle that can be emitted in radioactive decay. Yet it has no charge, and is not itself energy. It's still matter, it takes up space, and obeys the Exclusion principle. The atom that emits the neutron still loses energy in the process, even though the neutron itself is not energy.

It gets smaller than that. Protons and neutrons themselves are comprised of quarks.The definition of "matter" that you're using is fine for chemistry, but doesn't work accurately for physics. it's like how I can describe a nuclear reaction as an "explosion," and that's accurate enough when dealing with the effects, but isn't very accurate when looking at the details.Science is all about accuracy. We can never quite hit the bullseye, but we can get "close enough for the discussion at hand," and we can get "as close as we can get with current knowledge." Saying that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen is accurate, and good enough for some topics, but it's not as accurate as saying that water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, which itself is less accurate than a diagram that shows the structure of the molecule, etc.Atoms are not the smallest unit of matter. They're simply the smallest unit of a given element that can still be identified as a distinct element.Physicists have discovered all manner of different subatomic particles beyond the "neutron, proton, electron" trinity discussed in Chemistry. At this point, physicists are trying to garner ever more accurate models of what matter actually is, why matter and energy have mass, and generally unlock the secrets of the Universe.

This glass is "just right" for the water it contains. No other glass would be able to hold the water in exactly this shape - if the glass were rectangular instead of round, or more or less tapered, or slightly wider or smaller, the water would be in a completely different shape.The chances of this glass holding the water out of all of the possible glasses in the world, or other conceivable glasses that we haven;t observed, is phenomenally unlikely. That this one glass should hold the water out of billions or trillions or more uncounted possibilities staggers the imagination.It is inconceivable that such a thing could happen by chance - that the person who put the water in the glass just happened to grab this one glass from the shelf, just happened to have this glass clean and in the cabinet, just happened to have purchased it from the store at which this glass just happened to have been sold at, which just happened to have received it from a specific vendor who just happened to purchase it from a specific manufacturer, who at that exact time just happened to be making glasses in this precise size and shape...An overarching intelligence has to have guided the entire process. The probabilities involved are simply far too remote to consider otherwise. For this water to be held in this exact shape...it must have a purpose.Obviously, this glass of water is proof positive that there is a God, and He specifically made this glass (or inspired it to be made) for just this purpose, and guided it through all of its unlikely journeys into the home of the person who would fill it.Or, you know...liquid water holds the shape of its container, and this amount of water had the exact same chance of being put into this glass as any other glass, and it happens all the time, billions of times per day. And if the Earth's distance from the Sun was a bit different, life as we know it would just be different from how we know it today, just as well adapted to the different climate of the planet as water would fill a different glass. Or perhaps life wouldn't exist here at all, and Earth would just be another of the many barren rocks orbiting an ordinary star out toward the edge of an ordinary galaxy, and by and large the universe would not notice or care, lacking the requisite mind to do either.If you draw a hand of cards in poker, the chances of drawing that specific hand in that specific order are amazingly improbable...but the same is the case with every single hand you draw, whether it's a worthless hand or a royal flush.

Hi FandL. Your confusion is well-founded. A little clarification might help, though.Time is a dimension, just like length, or width, or height. We experience time a bit differently, but that's not a problem for physics. Every moment of time is just like a location in one of the spacial dimensions. If I draw a ray:*-------------------------->we can see that there is a beginning point, and the ray stretches on into infinity. If we call the beginning point "0," we can use distance measurements to locate specific points on the ray.Time is very similar. There is a first moment, T=0, and then time moves on in just one direction, possibly forever but at least until today.There is no moment of time before T=0, just like there is no point on the ray above further to the left than the "*". Asking "what came before the "*" on that ray" just wouldn't make sense - it would be like asking what point is further North than the North Pole. It's a question that displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept."Creation" and "destruction" are concepts that require at minimum two locations in time: a location where the object in question does exist, and a location where it does not. To "create" something, it has to not exist before it's created, right? To destroy something, it has to exist before it is destroyed.What happens, then, when there is no before?100% of the mass/energy of the Universe has existed at every single moment of time, all the way back to T=0. All of it. It has existed in different forms (in the first moments there was just as much total mass/energy as there is today, it was simply not in the form of matter; that came a little bit later, and we understand that process decently well).So...where did the mass and energy of the Universe come from? It's always been here, for the entirety of time, at every single moment. It was not created, because that would require it to have not existed, and we know that all of the total mass/energy has existed for every moment beginning with the beginning of time itself.If you look at a ball, where on the surface of the ball does the ball begin? Can you identify it? Is there a point where there is no surface, and then the surface comes into existence? Is there a point where it ends?Human beings are used to concepts of beginnings and endings, because we both begin and end. We're familiar with the concept of causality, where every event is the effect of a cause, and every cause is the effect of an earlier cause and so on. But what happens when there is no earlier time for a cause to exist in?Physics challenges us to comprehend the Universe from a different frame of reference. Our intuitive understandings of motion and gravity and time and space just don't always apply in reality. Newton's description of gravity works fine here on Earth at the scales we're used to, but astronomers noticed that Newtonian gravity was inaccurately predicting the motion of some planets; Einstein's version corrected the inaccuracy, even though Newtonian mechanics work fine in our everyday lives and are more intuitive for us.To understand the beginning of the Universe, even as a layperson, you need to accept the fact that what we'll find is not necessarily intuitive from a normal human perspective, and that the Universe is likely more fantastic, amazing, and surprising than we tend to think.

You also previously used the word "static" in describing the early, super-compressed Universe.How can a thing be in a static state when "before" doesn't mean anything? How can something be unchanging when there is no past for a different state to potentially exist in?There has never been a static state Universe. As cavediver said, there was no cosmic egg waiting for the right "moment."The singularity wasn't a bomb waiting for some divine mover to press the button and make it explode.Instead, the Universe has always been expanding, for literally every moment of time. We aren't talking here about bodies at rest remaining at rest until acted upon by an external force - we're talking about the Universe, which was always expanding.You can choose any two coordinates in the entire timeline, it doesn't matter which two, and the spacial component of the Universe will be larger at the coordinate where entropy is greater. You can pick the first two milliseconds, or the first two billion years, or the first two trillionths of a nanosecond, and you'll still see that the Universe is larger at the later coordinate.

So far as we can tell thus far, given any two real coordinates in time, the space of the Universe will be larger in the later coordinate than in the earlier coordinate. Well, that's why we call it a "singularity." It's physics-speak for "the math stops working here, we don't have enough relevant observations to predict exactly what was going on."If you follow the expansion backward in time, you eventually wind up with a Universe that existed as a single, dimensionless point at the very first moment of time. There's nothing to compare that sort of "size" to, just as you can't describe the third dimension of a 2-dimensional line.