Was energy or matter more procued during the big bang?

[R A J A]

Please read and discuss whether my theory is right and acceptable:

 

Here,

 

Singularity before the Big bang = S

 

Static Universe = sa

 

Big Crunch = bc

 

Unlimited expansion of Universe = eu

 

Matter = M

 

Expanding Energy = EE

 

Gravitational Energy = GE

 

Energy = E

 

 

 

Consider the mass of S = 1kg, then after Big Bang, if 500g becomes EE and 500g becomes M then the GE between the M will pull in 500g where as the same time 500g is pushed by EE. When GE and EE makes an equilibrium, then the universe remains as sa.

 

 

 

Consider the mass of S = 1kg, then after Big Bang, if M becomes more than 500g and EE becomes less than 500g, then the GE between the M pulls more powerful than the pushing of EE. When GE>EE, then the universe will have a bc.

 

 

 

Consider the mass of S = 1kg, then after Big Bang, if M becomes less than 500g and EE becomes more than 500g, then the EE pushes more powerful than the pulling of GE between the M. When EE>GE, then the universe will have an eu.

 

 

 

If the theory of sa and bc is correct, then it should result very before since the Big Bang occurred. But in the case of eu theory, with the help of Edwin Hubble's 'Theory of Expansion of Universe', we can say that the universe is still expanding. But according to the eu theory, universe should only expand if E>M. Therefore, we can find that E was more produced than M during the Big Bang.

[Airbrush]

Very interesting thoughts. Your post deserves an effective title. How about editing it to correct the spelling of "produced", and rearranging the words for better meaning. I propose "Was more energy or matter produced during the big bang?"

Edited August 18, 2011 by Airbrush

[Moontanman]

I think it's demonstrable that more energy was produced since matter is such a small fraction of the over all substance of the universe.

[csmyth3025]

I think it's demonstrable that more energy was produced since matter is such a small fraction of the over all substance of the universe.

I'll have to agree with Moontamann. A fairly in-depth explanation of why our observations indicate that the big bang resulted in much more energy than matter existing in the universe is contained in the Wikipedia article on dark energy, here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

 

Basically, a number of different observations point to the mass/energy content of the universe being composed of about 73% dark energy, about 22.5% dark matter, and about 4.5% baryonic matter (regular matter in stars, planets, interstellar gas and dust).

 

As far as I know, these proportions are given in equivalent units, so it doesn't make any difference whether you want to think of the energy as the equivalent amount of dark matter/baryonic matter or the amount of dark matter/baryonic matter as the equivalent amount of energy (by the conversion factor E=mc²). The relative proportions remain the same.

 

Chris

 

Edited to include Wikipedia link

Edited August 20, 2011 by csmyth3025

[Pincho Paxton]

I don't believe that energy can rise, or fall, only balance out. Distance between energy can rise, so you can have expansion. Between that expansion you could have negative mass, and positrons, also balancing out in reverse. And that is what is missing from the calculations, the reverse properties of energy, and mass.