<p>I think it'd be helpful to explain what you mean by "have gone into the evolution of the Universe". Also, please stay assured that a lot of attention is going towards the shortcomings of big bang theory and other cosmological theories already :) </p>

<p>If by evolution of the universe you mean its expansion and accelerated expansion, then it does not require the energy equivalent of the galaxies. The reason is that it is already happening, without using their energy equivalent. </p>

<p>Where the energy came from: Probably one of the biggest physics and philosophy open questions, if not the biggest one. So, no answer can be given right now. </p>

<p>Last but not least, the energy equivalent of the galaxies is currently considered to be only a fraction of the total mass/energy in the universe. The rest being the unknown factor named dark matter and mainly the unknown factor called dark energy. The latter is actually related to the evolution of the universe (<em>after</em> the big bang of course). Its nature not known yet, but it clearly is not in the form of matter, unlike galaxies. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-04-01T05:46:57.453Z
2017-04-01T05:46:57.453Z
Helen
<p>If we convert the mass of all the stars and all the planets which must be weighing trillions and trillions of tonnes by the equation E = m.c^2 it gets converted into an unimaginable amount of energy. Would so much of energy not have gone into the evolution of the Universe? I am at a great suspense whether the Big Bang theory or any other theory at all answers from where so much of energy would have come that would have got converted into so many trillions and trillions of tonnes of the mass of all the galaxies put together. How we can believe in the big-bang-theory unless we know from where so much of energy would have arrived?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-31T15:08:32.603Z
Sounds like a duplicate (effectively) of this question on Physics SE about [Energy Conservation in the Big Bang]http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10309/conservation-law-of-energy-and-big-bang) which links to another related question.  But this is almost impossible to definitively answer as we lack a complete theory that deals with matter at such extremes ("a grand unified theory" I suppose).
StephenG - Help Ukraine
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-31T22:16:49.853Z
Through my question, I only want to draw attention toward the snag (If we may call it a snag) in the Big Bang theory. We have to explore what is amiss in the theory of evolution of matter or in the Einstein's equation.
S C Sawhney
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-31T16:39:25.377Z
In response to this answer, I have edited my query on March 31, 2018 suitably.
S C Sawhney
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-31T17:00:13.630Z
Please delete everything from "According to me".  We don't need to know about your theory. [Edit] the first part to make a clear question. It appears to be "Would the energy of the big bang gone into the evolution of the universe". It is currently unclear what you mean.
James K
<big-bang-theory>
From where so much of energy would have arrived as was required for such a giant universe to have come into existence?
S C Sawhney
# From where so much of energy would have arrived as was required for such a giant universe to have come into existence?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-03-31)

If we convert the mass of all the stars and all the planets which must be weighing trillions and trillions of tonnes by the equation E = m.c^2 it gets converted into an unimaginable amount of energy. Would so much of energy not have gone into the evolution of the Universe? I am at a great suspense whether the Big Bang theory or any other theory at all answers from where so much of energy would have come that would have got converted into so many trillions and trillions of tonnes of the mass of all the galaxies put together. How we can believe in the big-bang-theory unless we know from where so much of energy would have arrived?

**Tags:** big-bang-theory
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Sounds like a duplicate (effectively) of this question on Physics SE about [Energy Conservation in the Big Bang]http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/10309/conservation-law-of-energy-and-big-bang) which links to another related question.  But this is almost impossible to definitively answer as we lack a complete theory that deals with matter at such extremes ("a grand unified theory" I suppose).  
> **username_0**: Through my question, I only want to draw attention toward the snag (If we may call it a snag) in the Big Bang theory. We have to explore what is amiss in the theory of evolution of matter or in the Einstein's equation.  
> **username_0**: In response to this answer, I have edited my query on March 31, 2018 suitably.  
> **username_2**: Please delete everything from "According to me".  We don't need to know about your theory. [Edit] the first part to make a clear question. It appears to be "Would the energy of the big bang gone into the evolution of the universe". It is currently unclear what you mean.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-04-01. Score: 4

I think it'd be helpful to explain what you mean by "have gone into the evolution of the Universe". Also, please stay assured that a lot of attention is going towards the shortcomings of big bang theory and other cosmological theories already :)

If by evolution of the universe you mean its expansion and accelerated expansion, then it does not require the energy equivalent of the galaxies. The reason is that it is already happening, without using their energy equivalent.

Where the energy came from: Probably one of the biggest physics and philosophy open questions, if not the biggest one. So, no answer can be given right now.

Last but not least, the energy equivalent of the galaxies is currently considered to be only a fraction of the total mass/energy in the universe. The rest being the unknown factor named dark matter and mainly the unknown factor called dark energy. The latter is actually related to the evolution of the universe (*after* the big bang of course). Its nature not known yet, but it clearly is not in the form of matter, unlike galaxies.


---

