Where did all the energy in the universe come from?

[wisp]

In order to understand the origin of the universe, we have to find answers to many questions, but the most important one is:

Where did all the energy in the universe come from?

We know that our universe came into existence in the big bang event. I believe this resulted from the explosion of a spinning ultra-supermassive black hole, which reached critical mass, became unstable and exploded.

Did a process take place that created the energy needed for the big bang?

It is most likely that at one time in the past the universe did not have enough energy to create the big bang event. A process of energy creation might have taken place, and this might involve a spinning black hole.

So in answer to our question “Where did all the energy in the universe come from?”

The answer could involve the following:

A spinning black hole
Rotation of ether about the black hole (this causes the dark matter gravitational effect)

And in this rotating ether, we apply:
The law of conservation of angular momentum
The law of conservation of momentum
The equation of relativistic kinetic energy
And the equation E=mc^2

A method for creating the energy needed to drive the big bang event might exist.

I am not a professional cosmologist, but do hold a degree in physics and I am author of wisp theory.

[AdamF]

Maybe this is one arm of many from an omniverse. Hence wormholes etc... very broad I know....

[force5]

wisp, We are thinging along the same lines in relation to a universal blackhole. But since I think of the cosmos as explansion/contraction, the blackhole would reclaim the energy given up through propagation during the expansion cycle.
I have not been able to open the door to a place where energy could have existed prior to cosmos existence. Besides, I've have my hands full just dealing with things as they now stand.

[TimLong]

It would seem that all the energy in the universe has always existed but in a different form of organization. Scale should be considered and smaller-to-larger structures seems more logically consistent. The BB theories are rapidly coming into disfavor so, from a "continuous creation" perspective it might be something like this: spatial charge distribution in an "empty" universe could cause extremely low energy charges (+, -) to pair up into photons of extremely long wavelength. These could (anomolously) interfere constructively to form shorter wavelength (greater energy) photons which would eventually acquire pair formation threshold energy (1.0216 MeV) and thus matter, in the form of electrons and positrons. These could then organize into protons, neutrons and atoms. Too simple?
Also, the rotation and linear translation of the "original" photons would establish relations that create "Time" as a referential system for positions and interactions of the various particles.

[Rybo]

In order to understand the origin of the universe, we have to find answers to many questions, but the most important one is:
Where did all the energy in the universe come from?
.

I dont know the details ohter than to say tha tis is possiblke that physical Unvierse has alwasy existed in some shape, manner or form. Energy cannot be cvreated nor destroyed.
See my link for details.http://home.usit.net/~rybo6/rybo/

Rybo

[Stephen Mooney]

The Universe has always existed and its structure is formed from the emission called space. See my article at http://blogontheweb.com/revolution

This morning I made a particularly important development in the understanding of my paradigm. The right side of the paradigm specifies the formation of the elements, while the left specifies the formation of a star.

Stephen Mooney

[Rybo]

The Universe has always existed and its structure is formed from the emission called space. See my article at http://blogontheweb.com/revolution

This morning I made a particularly important development in the understanding of my paradigm. The right side of the paradigm specifies the formation of the elements, while the left specifies the formation of a star.

Stephen Mooney

Stephen, Your name looks familiar. Are we in same groups other than here somewhere?

I read most all of you stuff at link above, however, I think you have more detail drawings or explantion somewhere. How do we view it? Web site is easiest but many yahoo, MSN etc..have places in th group lists to place a file, photo, gracphic etc....

I like a lot of what I read. Very orgional sounding to me. But I have questions and want better view cause I dont see the parradigm to relate your statement above to it. Thanks Rybo

P.S. Did you visti my site?

[cristian]

Since the first mention of the Big Bang all TOEs, no matter how different, seem to regard it as the beginning of the Universe. I mean, it's still possible that the BB was just a really big hypernova, and was by no means the beginning of the universe, but merely a local phenomenon. That is to say that there might be other BigBalls out there which collect matter until they collapse onto themselves and pop. We're just inside one of them.

Looking from this perspective the Universe seems a lot bigger. And older, by the way.

[mlangleyRN]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...mber=1&catID=2

Good Article! I thought you'd like.

Michelle

[salazar18]

It is becoming almost obvious in physics that we are almost certainly not on the right track when it comes to thinking of the BB as the beginning of the Universe. In my perspective the Universe is merely the product of a force that escaped from another universe. Even as the Universe expands into infinity it will begin to wrap unto itself because energy will not be sufficient to create more space-time, so even without the current force acting against the expansion of our Universe, expansion will not last forever. As space-time stops being created our Universe will become a giant black hole which will follow the same process that we know smaller blackholes follow from observation. After the explosion of the blackhole, smaller universes will be born out of ours. Just like our universe was born of a larger one.