[thedoc (OP)]

Anton Lukas  asked the Naked Scientists:
   
13.8 billion years ago the big bang created the universe. There was no space, matter. Time started then.

I do have a lot of questions. Can you answer some of them?

When was matter created?
Is the amount of matter still increasing?
Is the amount of dark energy increasing?
How can something be created from nothing?

What do you think?

[Bill S]

Hi Anton.

As a non-scientist I will not attempt the first three questions, but I believe the answer to the last one is: "It can't be!". 
In all the things I have read on this subject (those I could understand, anyway) the nothing from which the Universe is supposed to have come, turns out to be something. 

[flr]

 

the nothing from which the Universe is supposed to have come, turns out to be something.

I think this has to do with a misunderstanding  of the concept of nothing.
I use to thing at the concept of "nothing" as a logical negation of all that it is.

In my opinion something cannot be created from nothing and there is no such thing like "ex-nihilis" creation.
Big-bang is (in my opinion) a remodeling of a previously existing reality.
According to the conservation of energy (or 1st principle of thermodynamics) all that exists existed forever and will exist forever.

If the total energy of universe is zero (negative energy due to gravity compensate exactly the mc^2 energy in things), then zero total energy does not define a state of nothing.

[yor_on]

I think it has to do with presumptions. Those change with new findings, creating new definitions. But we all have them, and we all define a universe from it. The hope of science is that it at some stage will be able to give us a coherent answer to it all. That's what science strive for, testing, defining hypothesis's, testing again, defining new ones. In the end we might find a way to describe it that will make sense, but we will probably need new words for it.  With words come new ways to think.

[David Cooper]

In science, anything that can't be detected is officially regarded as "nothing". That doesn't mean it's a literal nothing, but just that it's beyond the boundaries of what can currently be explored.

[Pmb]

In science, anything that can't be detected is officially regarded as "nothing".

That's not quite true. If somethings existance can be inferred from something else then it's called something other than "nothing." For example: quarks are said to exist even thought its impossible to observe a single quark when its not bound to others. Virtual particles are said to exist too but they can't be observed directly.

[Anton Lukas]

Thank you a lot for your suggestions to my last question regarding "the something from nothing"
But what about the following:

Is the amount of matter still increasing?
Or was all the matter created in the big bang?
Or was part of the engergy converted into matter afterward?
Is the amount of dark energy increasing?

[insideyourmind]

Is the amount of matter still increasing?
Or was all the matter created in the big bang?
Or was part of the energy converted into matter afterward?

When theres so great amount of pure energy and gravity, its impossible for anything to form at that point. When universe gains size and conditions is no longer so extreme, particles begins to form. Amount of matter can be increasing and decreasing but the overall amount of energy in our universe is not increasing or decreasing.

[yor_on]

I think you can define a universe several ways. As being 'closed' but closed how? Closed by our limitations of observation and definitions, or 'closed' as in following a geodesic finding it to lead back to where you started? Maybe both are valid descriptions, it all depends on where you stand looking at it.

[niebieskieucho]

Anton Lukas  asked the Naked Scientists:
   
13.8 billion years ago the big bang created the universe.

Wrong. The universe has no time of occurrence in contrast to its materialized part. It existed before the alleged big boom which belongs to number of scientific myths.

There was no space, matter.

Nope. Space is the essence of the universe. It existed before matter, however was not empty. It had to contain something that we can call primordial pre-matter (ether or dark matter).

Time started then.

Time belongs to synonyms of motion; change... Time autonomously does not exist. As soon as matter was formed (which is another story), time automatically started to accompany it. Because matter is in a constant motion; change.

I do have a lot of questions. Can you answer some of them?

When was matter created?

Some 14 billion years ago.

Is the amount of matter still increasing?

No way.

Is the amount of dark energy increasing?

No. However I would call it ether or dark matter, as energy must have its owner - spontaneously does not exist.

How can something be created from nothing?

There is no such feasibility.

[flr]

Nope. Space is the essence of the universe. It existed before matter, however was not empty. It had to contain something that we can call primordial pre-matter (ether or dark matter).
..............
Time belongs to synonyms of motion; change... Time autonomously does not exist. As soon as matter was formed (which is another story), time automatically started to accompany it. Because matter is in a constant motion; change.

If time is an emerging concept (from motion) rather than a reality in itself, then why not space would be a concept emerging from the order of the things (matter) in universe rather than an 'autonomous' reality?

Is the amount of matter still increasing?

No way.

The amount of the matter increased suddenly at some point in the past, but it might be that now it is slowly decreasing because protons may be decomposing (half-time of order 10^33 years according to some theories). Free neutrons can quickly decompose (half-time of order few weeks). The end product is photon, which is though to have zero invariant mass. If so, the universe is slowly loosing mass and in 10^100 years the universe may not have protons to support chemistry.

Note that the total energy should stays the same (I have a strong belief in the conservation of energy, not sure why...), what changes is how energy is carried: by non-zero rest mass objects or by photons.

If the final state of universe will be just a soup of photons, how will time and space be 'defined' in that kind of universe?

[yor_on]

You know, I'm not sure how matter would break down in that final thermodynamical equilibrium?

How?

[Bill S]

As soon as matter was formed (which is another story), time automatically started to accompany it. Because matter is in a constant motion; change.

Surely (whatever the story), the formation of matter must have constituted a change.  How can you have change without time?

[dlorde]

Is the start of time itself a change (going from no time to time in no time at all) ? 

[Bill S]

Surely, going from no time to time is a very big change. Suggesting that this could happen "in no time at all" raises some interesting possibilities/questions and would undoubtedly involve QM, which would then have to be a preexisting factor.

[yor_on]

Reminds me of those deep eastern wisdoms dlorde
Should be possible to remake into a koan of sorts

[niebieskieucho]

If time is an emerging concept (from motion) rather than a reality in itself, then why not space would be a concept emerging from the order of the things (matter) in universe rather than an 'autonomous' reality?

Time (of what?) is not emerging concept from motion. They are synonyms, feature of matter. I do not see any factor to be responsible for emergence of space. It must be primordial.

The amount of the matter increased suddenly at some point in the past, but it might be that now it is slowly decreasing because protons may be decomposing (half-time of order 10^33 years according to some theories). Free neutrons can quickly decompose (half-time of order few weeks). The end product is photon, which is though to have zero invariant mass. If so, the universe is slowly loosing mass and in 10^100 years the universe may not have protons to support chemistry.

I don't think so. Some part of ether was converted into matter (ca 14 billion years ago) and the latter is only evolving. The universe is a closed system and nothing can "evaporte" from it.

Note that the total energy should stays the same (I have a strong belief in the conservation of energy, not sure why...), what changes is how energy is carried: by non-zero rest mass objects or by photons.

I've read (and share this view) that the principle of conservation of energy does not exist.

If the final state of universe will be just a soup of photons, how will time and space be 'defined' in that kind of universe?

I don't think it could happen. But when you ask about time, you should indicate "time of what?". Space should be understood as the universal "container" of all physical entities.

[niebieskieucho]

As soon as matter was formed (which is another story), time automatically started to accompany it. Because matter is in a constant motion; change.

Surely (whatever the story), the formation of matter must have constituted a change.  How can you have change without time?

Well, I assume that the mother of matter was primordial ether. The emergence of matter was preceded by its accidental disturbance (= motion) in its density in some point of the universe. Thus turning ether into matter (initially led to formation of the simplest element, i.e. hydrogen) can be treated as the beginning of material part of the universe, approximated time of which we obviously know.   

[niebieskieucho]

Is the start of time itself a change (going from no time to time in no time at all) ?

Question about birth of time is as logical as questions about start of motion, start of change. You need to be more specific - motion of what?; change of what?

On the other hand, before emergence of materialized part of the universe notion of "time" loses its sense. No motion (of something), no changes (of something) means no time (of something).

[lean bean]

As soon as matter was formed (which is another story), time automatically started to accompany it.

If your saying time only started when matter formed, then when did your space exist if there was no time?

Space is the essence of the universe. It existed before matter,

How do you explain the concept of existence without using the concept of time?