Tag Archives: Big Bang Science Theory

end of the universe

What Made the Big Bang Go Bang?

Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, , , ,

This is a little play on words. The Big Bang theory holds that the evolution of the universe started with an infinitesimal packet of near infinite energy (termed a “singularity”) that suddenly expanded and continues to expand. If this is true, was it big? No, it was infinitesimally small. Did it go bang? No, it expanded. Space is a vacuum, and it is unable to transmit sound waves. Therefore, there were no sound waves to make a bang noise. Granted, I was not there since it took place 13.8 billion years ago, and you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. I am only jesting, but the description above of the Big Bang theory is what the scientific community holds to be responsible for the evolution of the universe.

What initiated the Big Bang’s expansion?

Throughout the theories of science, there appears to be a common thread based on well-observed physical phenomena regarding the behavior of energy. That common thread states that differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential always seek equilibrium if they are in an isolated physical system. For example, with time, a hot cup of coffee will cool to room temperature. This means it reaches equilibrium (balance, stability and sameness) with the temperature of the room, which is the isolated physical system in this example. Readers familiar with thermodynamics will instantly attribute this behavior of energy as following the second law of thermodynamics. However, the same law, worded differently, exists in numerous scientific contexts. In the interest of clarity, I am going to restate this law, describing the behavior of energy, in a way that makes it independent of scientific contexts. In a sense, it abstracts the essence of the contextual statements, and views applications of the law in various scientific contexts as specific cases. I am not the first physicist to undertake generalizing the second law of thermodynamics to make it independent of scientific contexts. However, I believe my proposed restatement provides a simple and comprehensive description of the laws that energy follows. For the sake of reference, I have termed my restatement the Minimum Energy Principle.

Energy in any form seeks stability at the lowest energy state possible, and will not transition to a new state unless acted on by another energy source.

Consider these two examples to illustrate the Minimum Energy Principle.

1)   Radioactive substances. Radioactive substances emit radiation until they are no longer radioactive (they become stable). However, by introducing other radioactive substances under the right conditions, they can transition to a new state. Indeed, if the proper radioactive elements combine under the right circumstances, the result can be an atomic explosion.

2)   A thermodynamic example. Consider a branding iron fresh from the fire. It emits thermal radiation until it reaches equilibrium with its surroundings. In other words, once a branding iron leaves the fire, it will start to cool by transferring energy to its surrounding. Eventually, it will be at the same temperature as its surroundings. (This illustrates the first part of the Minimum Energy Principle: Energy in any form seeks stability at the lowest energy state possible.) However, if we increase the temperature of the branding iron by placing it back in the fire, the branding iron will absorb energy until it again reaches equilibrium with the temperature of the fire. (This illustrates the second part of the Minimum Energy Principle: It transitions to this new state by being acted on by the fire. The fire acts as an energy source.)

The Minimum Energy Principle is consistent with the law of entropy. To understand this, we will need to discuss entropy. In classical thermodynamics, entropy is the energy unavailable for work in a thermodynamic process. For example, no machine is one hundred percent efficient in converting energy to work. A portion of the energy is always lost in the form of waste heat. An example is the miles per gallon achievable via your car engine, ignoring other factors such as the weight of the vehicle, its aerodynamic design, and other similar factors. Several car manufacturers are able to build highly efficient engines. However, no car manufacturer can build an engine that is one hundred percent efficient. As a result, a fraction of total energy is always lost, typically in the form of waste heat.

Entropy proceeds in one direction, and is a measure of the system’s disorder. Any increase in entropy implies an increase in disorder and an increase in stability. For example, the heat lost in a car engine is lost to the atmosphere, and is no longer usable to do work. The heat lost is adding to the disorder of the universe, and is a measure of entropy. Oddly, though, the lost heat is completely stable.

In a given system, entropy is either constant or increasing, depending on the flow of energy. If the system is isolated, and has no energy flow, the entropy remains constant. If the system is undergoing an energy change, such as ice melting in a glass of water, the entropy is increasing. When the ice completely melts, and the system reaches equilibrium with its surrounding, it is stable. This has a significant implication. Entropy is constantly increasing in the universe since everything in the universe is undergoing energy change. In theory, the entropy of the universe will eventually maximize, and all reality will be lost to heat. The universe will be completely stable and static. I have termed this the “entropy apocalypse.” (Some physicists term this “heat death.”) I know I am being a little dramatic here, but most of the scientific community believes the entropy (disorder) of the universe is increasing. Eventually, all energy in the universe will be stable and unusable, all change will cease to occur, and the universe will have reached the entropy apocalypse.

Based on the above discussion of entropy, we can argue that entropy seeks to maximize and, therefore, reduce energy to the lowest state possible. This is why I stated that the Minimum Energy Principle, which asserts that energy seeks the lowest state possible, is consistent with law of entropy.

How does this help us understand what made the Big Bang go bang? The Minimum Energy Principle, along with our understanding of the behavior of entropy, makes answering this question relatively easy. The scientific community agrees that the Big Bang started with a point of infinite energy, at the instant prior to the expansion. From the Minimum Energy Principle, we know “Energy in any form seeks stability at the lowest energy state possible and will not transition to a new state unless acted on by another energy source.” Since we know it went “bang,” we can make three deductions regarding the infinitely dense-energy point. First, it was not stable. Second, it was not in the lowest energy state possible. Third, the entropy of the infinitely dense-energy point was at its lowest state possible, which science terms the “ground-state entropy.” These three conditions set the stage for the Minimum Energy Principle and the laws of entropy to initiate the Big Bang.

By the very nature of “playing the tape” of the expanding universe back to discover its origin, namely the Big Bang, we can conclude a highly dense energy state. It will be a highly dense energy state because we are going to take all the energy that expanded from the Big Bang, and cause it to contract. As it contracts, the universe grows smaller and more energy-dense. At the end of this process, we have a highly dense energy state. I think of it as a point, potentially without dimensions, but with near-infinite energy. This view is widely held by the scientific community. If it is true, all logic causes us to conclude it was an infinitely excited energy state, and we would have every reason to question its stability—and to believe it was at the “ground-state” entropy (the lowest entropy state possible).

Our observations of unstable energy systems in the laboratory suggest that as soon as the point of infinite energy came to exist, it had to seek stability at a lower energy level. The Big Bang was a form of energy dilution. In the process of lowering the energy, it increased the entropy of the universe. Once again, we see the Minimum Energy Principle and the law of entropy acting in concert.

How long did the infinitely dense-energy point exist? No one really knows. However, we can approach an answer by understanding more about time.

Discussing the Big Bang in terms of time, as we typically understand time, is difficult. It will not do any good to look at your watch or think in small fractions of a second. Stop-motion photography will not work this time. Those times are infinitely large compared to Planck time (~ 10-43 seconds, which is a one divided by a one with forty-three zero after it). Theoretically, Planck time is the smallest time-frame we will ever be able to measure. So far, we have not even come close to measuring Planck time. The best measurement of time to date is of the order 10-18 seconds.

What is so significant about Planck time? The fundamental constants of the universe formulate Planck time, not arbitrary units. According to the laws of physics, we would be unable to measure “change” if the time interval were shorter that Planck time. In other words, Planck time is the shortest interval we humans are able to measure, or even comprehend change to occur. Scientifically, it can be argued that no time interval is shorter that Planck time. Thus, the most rapid change can only occur in concert with Planck time, and no faster. Therefore, when we discuss the initiation of the Big Bang, the smallest time interval we can consider is Planck time.

The whole notion of Planck time, and its relationship to the Big Bang, begs another question. Did time always exist? Most physicists say NO. Time requires energy changes, and that did not occur until the instant of the Big Bang. Stephen Hawking, one of the world’s most prominent physicists and cosmologists, is on record that he believes time started with the Big Bang. Dr. Hawking asserts that if there was a time before the Big Bang, we have no way to access the information. From this standpoint, it is reasonable to believe time for our universe started with the Big Bang. This is our reality. This is consistent with Occam’s razor, which states the simplest explanation is the most plausible one (until new data to the contrary is available). For our universe, the Big Bang started the clock ticking, with the smallest tick being Planck time.

We are finally in a position to answer the crucial question: What made the big bang go bang?

The Big Bang followed the Minimum Energy Principle, “Energy in any form seeks stability at the lowest energy state possible, and will not transition to a new state unless acted on by another energy source.” The infinitely dense energy point, which science terms a “singularity,” sought stability at the lowest energy state possible. Being infinitely energy-dense, implies instability and minimum entropy (ground-state entropy). Thus, it required dilution to become stable, which caused entropy to increase. The dilution came in the form of the “Big Bang.” Since we were dealing with an unstable infinitely energy-dense point, it is reasonable to assert the Big Bang went bang at the instant of existence. The instant of existence would correlate to the smallest time interval science can conceive, the Planck time. This process is continuing today as space continues its accelerated expansion. 

Source: Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), Louis A. Del Monte, available on Amazon.com

Universe's Accelerated Expansion

The Birth of the Universe – The Origin of the Big Bang

Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Universe Mysteries, , , ,

This post is based on material from my book,  Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, 2012, Louis A. Del Monte (available at Amazon https://amzn.to/Zo1TGn)

At the turn of the Twentieth Century, science held that the universe was eternal and static. This meant it had no beginning. Nor would it ever end. In other words, the universe was in “steady state.” At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, as I mentioned above, telescopes were crude and unable to focus on other galaxies. In addition, no theories of the universe were causing science to doubt the current dogma of a steady-state universe. All of that was about to change.

In 1916, Albert Einstein developed his general theory of relativity. It was termed “general” because it applied to all frames of reference, not only frames at rest or moving at a constant velocity (inertial frames). The general theory of relativity predicted that the universe was either expanding or contracting. This should have been a pivotal clue that the current scientific view of the universe as eternal and static might be wrong. However, Einstein’s paradigm of an eternal and static universe was so strong, he disregarded his own results. He quickly reformulated the equations incorporating a “cosmological constant.” With this new mathematical expression plugged into the equations, the equations of general relativity yielded the answer Einstein believed was right. The universe was in a steady-state. This means it was neither expanding nor contracting. The world of science accepted this, and continued entrenched in its belief of a steady-state universe. However, as telescopes began to improve, this scientific theory was destined to be shattered.

In 1929, Edwin Hubble, using the new Mt. Wilson 100-inch telescope, discovered the universe was expanding. In time, other astronomers confirmed Hubble’s discovery. This forced Einstein to call the cosmological constant his “greatest blunder.” This completely shattered the steady-state theory of the universe. In fact, this discovery was going to pave the way to an even greater discovery, the Big Bang theory.

The Big Bang theory holds that the universe started 13.8 billion years ago as an infinitely dense energy point that expanded suddenly to create the universe. This is an excellent example of why the Big Bang theory belongs to the class of theories referred to as “cosmogonies” (theories that suggest the universe had a beginning). The Big Bang is widely documented in numerous scientific works, and is widely held as scientific fact by the majority of the scientific community.

However, what gave birth to the Big Bang? Where did the initial energy come from?

To unravel this mystery, we will start with an unusual phenomenon observed in the laboratory, namely spontaneous particle production or “virtual particles,” which are particles that form in a laboratory vacuum, apparently coming from nothing. This is a scientific fact, and there is a laundry list that documents virtual particles are real. Some physicists call this spontaneous particle production.

The best-known proponent of the idea that a quantum fluctuation gave birth to the energy of the Big Bang is Canadian-American theoretical physicist, Lawrence Maxwell Krauss. In the simplest terms, Dr. Krauss ascribes the creation of the universe to a quantum fluctuation (i.e., a quantum fluctuation results when a point in space experiences a temporary change in energy), similar to how virtual particles gain existence.

I found Dr. Krauss’ hypothesis convincing, especially in light of what we observe regarding virtual particles. However, one intriguing aspect about virtual particles is that we sometimes observe their occurrence in matter-antimatter pairs. This raised a question. Why would the Big Bang “particle” be a singularity? In this context, we can define a “singularity” as an infinitely energy-dense particle. Numerous observations about virtual particles suggest a “duality.” A “duality,” in this context, would refer to an infinitely dense energy particle pair (one matter particle, and the other an antimatter particle). How would all this play out?

First, we need to postulate a super-universe, one capable of quantum fluctuations. Cosmologists call the super-universe the “Bulk.” The Bulk is “empty” space, which gives existence to infinitely energy-dense matter-antimatter virtual particles. These collide and initiate the Big Bang. If this view of reality is true, it makes the multiverse concept more plausible. Other infinitely energy-dense matter-antimatter particles continually pop in and out of existence in the Bulk, similar to the way that virtual matter-antimatter particles do in the laboratory. When this occurs in the Bulk, a collision between the particles initiates a Big Bang. Therefore, considering the billions of galaxies in the universe, there may be billions of universes in the Bulk.

I have termed this theory the Big Bang Duality, and I discuss it fully in my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), available on Amazon (https://amzn.to/Zo1TGn).

Close-up view of translucent blue spherical cells or microscopic organisms against a dark background.

Virtual Particles – Something from Nothing – Part 1/3

Categories, Universe Mysteries, , , , , ,

This three part post is the first chapter of my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries. Here is part 1. Enjoy!

How did the universe begin? Did it even have a beginning, or is it eternal? Scientists and philosophers have been asking these questions for thousands of years. Theologians have been providing supernatural explanations that require a supreme being and, in several religions, numerous supreme beings. For example, Christians believe in one God, and in accordance with their belief, their God created the universe. The Egyptians, on the other hand, believed in many gods, and attributed the creation of the universe to them. However, in the early part of the Twentieth Century, a scientific answer began to emerge.

The entire question of the “birth” of the universe was brought into scientific focus when, in 1929, Edwin Hubble determined that the universe was expanding. The expanding-universe discovery led to what most scientists ascribe to as the Big Bang theory of the universe.

The Big Bang theory holds that the universe started 13.7 billion years ago as an infinitely dense energy point that expanded suddenly to create the universe. This is an excellent example of why the Big Bang theory belongs to the class of theories referred to as “cosmogonies” (theories that suggest the universe had a beginning). The Big Bang is widely documented in numerous scientific works, and is widely held as scientific fact by the majority of the scientific community.

The Big Bang theory provides an excellent framework of how the universe evolved, but it does not give us insight into what predated the Big Bang itself, or what caused it suddenly to go “bang.” Indeed, these are two serious issues of the Big Bang theory, which are widely acknowledged by the scientific community.

Although the Big Bang has won the hearts and minds of most of the scientific community, other theories compete with the Big Bang. Of all the new theories, none has captured more attention than the multiverse theory. The multiverse theory is speculative, which means that it lacks direct experimental confirmation.

The multiverse theory holds that this universe is but one of a set of disconnected universes. There are numerous theories about the multiverse itself, which we will discuss in later chapters. None of the theories under serious consideration by the scientific community explains the origin of energy to create a Big Bang or a multiverse. The crucial question is deceptively simple. Where did the initial energy come from to fuel a Big Bang or create a multiverse? This is the largest mystery in science.

To unravel this mystery, we will start with an unusual phenomenon observed in the laboratory, namely spontaneous particle production or “virtual particles.” The explanations below may become intimidatingly technical at times. Please do not be put off by the technical terms. Providing the scientific basis for virtual particles is crucial to understanding the next chapter. As you read on, most of your questions regarding the technical terms and the science will likely be resolved. You may consult the Glossary at the end of this book for further information on the technical terms and theories used throughout. You are not alone if you become confused. We are on the edge of science, where even scientists argue over the interpretation of observations and theories. With this in mind, we will continue with understanding spontaneous particle creation.

Spontaneous particle creation is the phenomenon of particles appearing from apparently nothing, hence their name “virtual particles.” However, they appear real, and cause real changes to their environment. What is a virtual particle? It is a particle that only exists for a limited time. The virtual particle obeys some of the laws of real particles, but it violates other laws. What laws do virtual particles obey? They obey two of the most critical laws of physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (it is not possible to know both the position and velocity of a particle simultaneously), and the conservation energy (energy cannot be created or destroyed). What laws do they violate? Their kinetic energy, which is the energy related to their motion, may be negative. A real particle’s kinetic energy is always positive. Do virtual particles come from nothing? Apparently, but to a physicist, empty space is not nothing. Said more positively, physicists consider empty space something.

Before we proceed, it is essential to understand a little more about the physical laws mentioned in the above paragraph.

First, we will discuss the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Most physics professors teach it in the context of attempting to simultaneously measure a particle’s velocity and position. It goes something like this:

  • When we attempt to measure a particle’s velocity, the measurement interferes with the particle’s position.
  • If we attempt to measure the particle’s position, the measurement interferes with the particles velocity.
  • Thus, we can be certain of either the particle’s velocity or the particle’s position, but not both simultaneously.

This makes sense to most people. However, it is an over simplification. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle has greater implications. It embodies the statistical nature of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is a set of laws and principles that describes the behavior and energy of atoms and subatomic particles. This is often termed the “micro level” or “quantum level.” Therefore, you can conclude that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle embodies the statistical behavior of matter and energy at the quantum level. In our everyday world, which science terms the macro level, it is possible to know both the velocity and position of larger objects. We generally do not talk in terms of probabilities. For example, we can predict the exact location and orbital velocity of a planet. Unfortunately, we are not able to make similar predictions about an electron as it obits the nucleus of an atom. We can only talk in probabilities regarding the electron’s position and energy. Thus, most scientists will say that macro-level phenomena are deterministic, which means that a unique solution describes their state of being, including position, velocity, size, and other physical attributes. On the other hand, most physics will argue that micro level (quantum level) phenomena are probabilistic, which means that their state of being is described via probabilities, and we cannot simultaneously determine, for example, the position and velocity of a subatomic particle.

The second fundamental law to understand is the conservation of energy law that states we cannot create or destroy energy. However, we can transform energy. For example, when we light a match, the mass and chemicals in the match transform into heat. The total energy of the match still exists, but it now exists as heat.

Lastly, the kinetic energy of an object is a measure of its energy due to its motion. For example, when a baseball traveling at high velocity hits a thin glass window, it is likely to break the glass. This is due to the kinetic energy of the baseball. When the window starts to absorb the ball’s kinetic energy, the glass breaks. Obviously, the thin glass is unable to absorb all of the ball’s kinetic energy, and the ball continues its flight after breaking the glass. However, the ball will be going slower, since it has used some of its kinetic energy to break the glass.

With the above understandings, we can again address the question: where do these virtual particles come from? The answer we discussed above makes no sense. It is counter intuitive. However, to the best of science’s knowledge, virtual particles come from empty space. How can this be true?

 Stay tuned for part 2.

Fine points (pt1) of Big Bang Duality theory

Part 1 – The Big Bang Duality Theory

Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Universe Mysteries, , , ,


Physicist Louis Del Monte discusses some of the fine points the Big Bang Duality theory, including the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the Minimum Energy Principle, inflation of the early universe, and the Del Monte Paradox. Del Monte suggests the Big Bang Duality theory implies a multiverse. The major strength of the Big Bang Duality theory is its basis, namely experimentally verified observations or extensions of experimentally verified observations. Del Monte points out that even the Big Bang Duality theory stills leaves profound mysteries to be solved. Del Monte explains this is what he terms the Del Monte Paradox: Each significant scientific discovery results in at least one profound scientific mystery. For more information and Del Monte’s book, “Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries,” check out https://louisdelmonte.com.

Universe's Accelerated Expansion

Big Bang Duality Theory: The Big Bang’s Origin

Big Bang Science Theory, Categories, Universe Mysteries, , ,

Physicist Louis Del Monte introduces the Big Bang Duality theory to explain the origin of the Big Bang. This theory of the origin of the Big Bang addresses three mysteries, including the origin of the Big Bang, the initial inflation of the early universe, and the near absence of antimatter in the universe. Del Monte’s new book, “Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries,” available at Amazon.com https://amzn.to/STe9fW.  For more information about Louis A. Del Monte visit https://louisdelmonte.com.