Where Did Big Bang Energy Come From?

Actually, no. In this case, the one who went for the walk would have aged more slowly, from both perspectives.The fact that you turned around and came back means that you were not in an inertial frame over the journey, and so you can't just multiply by a dilation factor. The problem is still solvable, using special relativity (which can handle accelerated frames, contrary to popular belief!) or general relativity (which is overkill in this case, but it works). Either case gives the same answer, from all perspectives. The one who went to the shop aged less that the one who waited by the corner. The effect is measurable and has been confirmed with experiments (using aircraft; not walking pace!). Not really. The notion of "relativistic mass" tends not to be used all that much these days. You can calculate an equivalent mass for a lot of energy, but it is a bit misleading as it does not have all the same properties as "rest mass", especially with respect to gravity. Modern texts and courses tend to reserve the word "mass" for "rest mass", and just use a total energy term for an object in motion, combining rest energy due to mass with kinetic energy due to motion.It turns out to be really hard to give a sensible meaning to "total energy" for the universe or the big bang. Energy is a property of something in a particular inertial frame, and there is no inertial frame for the whole universe. Similarly, the universe is not a thing that moves, so it does not have a velocity in the usual sense of the word. The expansion "speed" is actually given not as a distance per unit time, but scale factor per unit time. Even at the current rate of expansion (a leisurely 72 km/sec/Mparsec), most of the universe is receding from us faster than light. Sounds confusing; but once you get your head around space-expansion as opposed to movement in space, it all fits together very neatly. Many of the galaxies we can see right now (with the Hubble telescope that is!) are receding faster than light. We've had some threads that explain why we can still see things even if they recede faster than light.Bottom line: the expansion of the universe does not involve movement of things through space, and so you can't really speak of objects moving at high velocity or having a high relativistic mass. We rather say that the space between objects was expanding very rapidly; this does not have a well defined energy equivalent. This is a good question, and the short answer is that we don't know. But the early universe may have been extremely "chaotic"; and a major model (which cannot be easily confirmed or rejected with observations at present) is called chaotic inflation (proposed by Andrei Linde, at Standford Uni). One consequence of inflation is that the effects of chaos get smoothed out over large scales, giving the homogenous universe we see now. Also, one of the strange problems in modern physics is that the predicted scales of energy for the vacuum are enormous; around 10^120 times larger than what seems to be observed. That is a 1 followed by 120 zeros! Roughly speaking, there may be an enormous reservoir of energy bound up in space itself, which is continually cancelling itself out with enormous precision. But honestly, we just don't know. Particle physics is not yet able to unify all the relevant forces. Gravitational space-time curvature has been directly observed now in many contexts. The curvature around the Sun's gravitational field has a measurable effect on light; the time dilation of the Earth's puny gravitational field is measurable; and so on. Recently, there is been a lot of work with gravitational lenses, where curvature of space around distant galaxies can focus light and magnify objects further in the background. Additionally, one very curious consequence of the expansion of space is that extremely distant objects are seen as they were when the scale of the universe was much smaller, and so they take up proportionally more room. This means, in total conflict with normal expectation, that beyond a certain point (the point with redshift is about z = 1.2), things that are further away actually appear larger in the sky. This is hard to test, since we need to observe things with a known size to measure it accurately, and we can't easily tell absolute sizes at that range. But the effect is so dramatic that the consequences can be observed.None of this is sufficient to tell whether the universe is finite or infinite. That depends on the curvature parameter. This is very very close to zero. If zero or positive, then the universe is infinite. If negative, then the universe is finite. (Assuming homogeneity continues to hold beyond the visible horizons.) But recent measurements are indicating a slight preference for negative curvature, and hence a finite universe. The age of the universe seems to be pretty close to 13.7 billion years; but this is not a consequence of thermodynamics. Elements last far longer than this in principle, and thermodynamics is likewise consistent with much older ages. The real constraint is simply the expansion rate and how it develops over time. My view is no, these are unrelated questions. God's goodness and redemption and creative power is consistent with His being able to develop a universe in any way He chooses. The various alternative models for physical cosmology don't stand as evidence for, or against, God; since God is capable of creating and sustaining the universe as He chooses.There are definitely many unanswered questions in science; but God is not really a useful solution to those questions, since God is equally an answer to any question. Christians believe God is Lord of All, whether we understand how its physical workings or not. Scientists, both believers and unbelievers, will continue to explore the physical processes and history of the universe, and continue to find and agree upon the answers to scientific questions, even while they continue to disagree on theological matters.The unanswered issues of cosmological parameters (inflation, curvature, dark energy, etc, etc) will not be found in a theological text; and as answers continue to be found those answers are not generally in conflict with a theological text... unless one has a theology already inconsistent with what we know right now.Cheers -- Sylas

Yes. Objects with a non-zero rest mass cannot move at C. However, as their velocity approaches C, the energy increases without bound. I don't tend to use relativistic mass, but you can define a relativistic mass using E = mCC; and relativistic mass also increases without bound for a particle that approaches velocity C.Massless particles like photons travel at C with no problem. A photon with wavelength L has energy hC/L, where h is Planck's constant, and this is the same energy as a particle at rest with mass h/LC. But we don't speak of a photon having mass. I do not. I use the conventional Big Bang cosmology, in which space is homogenous with no central core, but is expanding from a state of divergent energy density which in the limit is a singularity. This singularity is not a "center", and the expansion of space in the Big Bang model has no defined "center". Yes. Empirical support for finiteness of the universe is so far not all that strong; so it's still an open question in science. I prefer it for meta-physical reasons, but that is just me; not science. On the other hand, there is definitely no inertial frame for the universe. This is a simple consequence of the definition of inertial frame in the theory of general relativity. Depends what you mean by "thing". As far as we can tell, no particle travels faster than C. However, you can get a wave front moving faster than C in some cases.Imagine moving a laser beam across the face of the moon in about a millisecond. The dot from the laser moves over the surface faster than C; but it is not really a travelling particle.There are some materials with a negative refractive index, in which the wave front of a coherent electromagnetic wave moves faster than C; but when analysed as particles, the photons are lagging the wave front. It's a distinction between "group" velocity and "phase" velocity; and even in this case information (modulations of the wave) or particles (photons) move more slowly than C. In my view, the above questions are more on-topic than what follows, because they relate to energy and to the Big Bang. The problem is that you don't yet understand the particular models used in mainstream cosmology and the Big Bang. That's not unusual; it is a subtle model that takes quite a while to grasp. Until those issues are resolved, the question of where Big Bang energy came from cannot even be meaningfully addressed.There is no intent to be insulting with this; I'm simply trying to help answer honest questions about the cosmological model in question.It is also not possible to explain all details of the model in a short post. Questions and answers like these are best used as a supplement to your own study. There are a number of good books published on cosmology which explain the models in varying levels of detail. I did not refute beneficence or redemption. My view is that these are independent of physical cosmology. That is, whether the universe is infinite or not, and where the energy came from, are questions which are not properly addressed in terms of beneficence or redemption.

• There are cosmologists who believe in God, and who see in the singularity a moment of creation. One of the early developers of Big Bang cosmology, Georges LeMaitre, was a catholic priest who spoke in such terms. He was also an excellent mathematician and scientist, and early on he developed some of the solutions to the relativistic equations upon which Big Bang cosmology is based.
  ​
• There are cosmologists who are Christians, and see the creation as an continuous engagement of God with the created world. A good example would be the scientist/theologian/priest John Polkinghorne, who accepts conventional Big Bang cosmology, but does not consider the singularity to have a special standing in his theology of creation.
  ​
• There are cosmologists who are atheist/agnostic, and see no role whatsoever for a divine creator, whether beneficent or otherwise. Andrei Linde is an example.
  ​
• There are cosmologists who are agnostic with respect to the Gods of conventional religion, but see in the development of the natural world some indication of a deeper meaning or design to the natural world. Paul Davies, for example.

All of these are scientists who have been directly involved in the development of modern cosmology. They all use the same fundamental physics to understand the physical details of the universe, and to address questions relating to energy or spacetime. They are all also intested in metaphysical questions as well, and have dramatically different theological perspectives.I think you should cut me a bit of slack, and allow that I can express my perspective of the matter with having to put up with personal insults about being proud or cold or insulting or evasive. I don't mind if mind if you disagree with me, but the aggressive personal tone in your closing remarks was out of line.Cheers -- SylasThis message has been edited by Sylas, 06-01-2005 12:56 AM

A short answer is that inflation is indeed a hypothesis; not a fully validated theory.However, the aside you place in parentheses is not a description of inflation theory. If you don't really want more detail, skip over the following block, down to the horizontal line. On other matters...

---

Philip's suggestion in Message 67 that I "deny redemptive phenomena" is stupid, and flatly in contradiction to what I have actually been saying in the thread. I've been correcting some fundamental misunderstandings on the specifics of physical cosmology; and on redemption I have been expressing the view that physical cosmology DOES NOT conflict with redemption at all.Philip's insults and his gratitude are equally ill-founded. I'm very unimpressed. While he continues to make ridiculous misrepresentations of my position, his compliments are meaningless, and his behaviour disreputable. Stick to questions, Philip; or to straight expressions of your own view.Philip's comments on the Big Bang and on Inflation show almost no understanding of the subject; which is perfectly normal and no cause for embarrassment or shame. But if he is going to get all huffy about details been clarified or corrected, he'd be better not to make statements about the physical details of scientific models.My mother often speaks with affection of one of her lecturers from when she studied theology at Melbourne Uni, for a BD. He said: "They can split the atom, and split the atom, but they won't find God." Quite so. This wise old theologian was not rejecting the notions of science or atomic structure; but pointing out that whether atoms are made of waves, or particles, or quarks, or baryons, or whatever else, is not telling is anything much about God Himself. Quarks, or inflation, or spacetime curvature, are neither proofs nor disproofs of God's existence or goodness.A Christian celebrates all things as made by God and gives thanks accordingly. But the Christian who sees basic details of scientific models for physical phenomena as some kind of denial ends up denying God's own creation, rather than sharing in the wonders of discovery of the world they believe He made.That is what you should tell your children, in my opinion. Give them the freedom to grow and explore and learn about the world with confidence; because they will surely go on to explore details that neither you nor I have yet been able to plumb.Cheers -- Sylas

We are not yet at a point of good communication; but I am impressed and humbled by this response. I am busy at present, and will say something more substantive in time. But I want to acknowledge this in good time.I am not a believer; so it goes too far to say that I am thankful for redemptive phenomena in the universe. My point has been simply that modern models for physical cosmology are not a denial of redemptive phenomena. People using and developing the models used in cosmology can have all kinds of diverse phislophical and religious perspectives, just as chemists can have diverse perspectives while they all use the same periodic table.My next post will be more on topic for the thread. Apologies to lurking admins for this diversion.Cheers -- Sylas