Physicist: That right there is one of the great unsolved questions. Every experiment that’s ever been done (on this subject) verifies the conservation of mass and energy. While the amount of mass or the amount of energy may change (they can be interchanged), the sum of the two is absolutely invariant.
This naturally leads to the question above. There are plenty of theories bouncing around, but without a couple more big bangs to do tests on, it’s unlikely we’ll ever know for sure. As we learn, many of the theories will be ruled out, but we’ll probably never be for sure sure. Here are some examples that almost certainly won’t pan out:
Spectacular Uncertainty: Energy and time cannot both be exactly known. Over any time scale there is always a little energy error, but the larger the time scale the smaller the energy error. Generally, this takes the form of one or two extra particles that last effectively no time. For example; gluons (the carrier of the nuclear strong force) usually don’t even exist long enough to cross an atomic nucleus at the speed of light. But maybe, just maybe, the unimaginable amount of matter in the universe is some kind of amazing quantum clerical error. You could tie in the anthropic principle (if there weren’t lots of matter there would be no one around to see it, so since we can see it…) if you want, but still. That shouldn’t explain there being any more matter than the absolute minimum amount needed to have observers.
It is what it is: Maybe mass/energy conservation only works for T>0, but doesn’t mean bupkis for T=0. In other words, there’s an unexplainable asterisk on the law.
God/Goddess/Gods/Higher Power: Sure.
All this has happened before, and all this will happen again: Maybe the big bang wasn’t the beginning, but in fact the universe just goes through expansion, collapse, and re-expansion cycles. This has the advantage of explaining the big bang, and also eliminates the question about conservation of mass/energy, but it does leave lots of other questions. Maybe worse questions. Also, the universe gives every sign of wanting to expand forever, making it less likely that a previous iteration would have collapsed.
Bubbles: It could be that our universe “bubbled” off of an even larger universe, that had plenty of mass and energy to spare. This theory don’t answer the question, but it does push it back far enough that it’s hopeless to try and answer rigorously.
Keep in mind that none of these theories are technically scientific. Scientific knowledge is nothing more than what we can learn from observation, inference, and experiment. Beyond inference, we’ve got very little to work with as far as the big bang goes.
Radio check.
What’s been bouncing around my head on this one is:
for “something from nothing” to occur, don’t you need a point in time in which nothing exists? So maybe.. that was never the case. If matter\energy was already there at the start of time, something never came from nothing.
Or am I talking nonsense here?
Go check.
That’s a big part of the thinking behind several of the theories.
There is this Jain religion which explains very clearly that there are six substances which were neither created nor can they ever be destroyed: viz:- Matter (Atomic particles),
Space,
The two mediums which assist us for motion and non-motion,
Time and
Soul (Spirit etc how ever one would like to call it).
It describes that one which has qualities (attributes) and modifications is a substance. For instance, take matter. It has qualities of taste, color, smell, texture etc while today it might be in the form of an iron, then it might turn in to some other form of matter. (as we see in carbon cycle, how the food that we eat today might one day be absorbed as nutrient by the plant from the soil).
For more info please see the following site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_cosmology#The_Concept_of_reality_.E2.80.93_the_constituents_of_the_Universe
The idea is not to promote any faith but to put the view point which sounds so true to our logic, experience and reality.
Priyul
This is what happens when philosophy attempts to explain things science and math do better. We know that space and time are part of the same whole, and uniform motion and rest are also identical. That list of 6 substances should be more like 4.5.
Religion and philosophy used to attempt to explain the natural world, it’s history, and our place in it, because there was no better way to do it. There was no objective rigor, only thinking really hard. Because science requires measurable, repeatable, observable data to confirm a hypothesis, it is far better at explaining the natural world and it’s history than philosophy or religion. Soul’s are not observable repeatably, so they still belong to philosophy and religion.
What about the fact that the gravity of a mass has negative energy associated with it…namely -mc^2?
Wait, what? That means that mass can appear out of nothing with it’s gravitational field balancing it out – the total energy is zero!
In fact physicists reckon the total energy of the universe IS zero (providing it’s flat) and therefore could easily come out of nothing.
That is a pretty cool idea. But the energy tied up in the (gravitational) curvature of space is positive. If it were negative and equal to the energy of the matter that caused it, then we wouldn’t have inertia (As opposed to the tiny extra energy-tied-up-in-the-field that gets moved around when you move any object, which ever-so-slightly increases the inertia).
Also, gravitational fields create more gravitational fields. In all but the most extreme cases (e.g., black holes) this extra field is tiny, and very ignorable.
Since the curvature of space has an associated positive energy, it in turn creates it’s own gravitational field, that adds to the field already present (much as the positive energy mass created the field in the first place). If the field had an associated negative energy, you’d expect that this correction term would subtract (do the opposite of what the positive mass does).
I hope that made more than zero sense.
Pingback: Religion - Page 165 - Music Forums - The Definitive Music Discussion Board
I have to say that I am not a scientist, astro physicist, mathmetician, or anything close to resembling any of those. I have racked my brain tho as a fairly reasonable “average Joe” to grasp the idea that time doesnt have a beginning or that energy and matter simply always were. I completely believe that you cannot ever create something from nothing and know I will never be convinced otherwise. EVERY single person trying to get famous or win that argument ALWAYS uses some external force or “thing” to arrive to the conclusion something CAN come from nothing. Whether it be energy, mass, vacuum, black holes, worm holes, gravitation, quantum mechanics, speed of light, matter/anti-matter, universe expansion or whatever! Something is ALWAYS used and I have yet to hear anyone explain “something” coming from true “nothingness”. Anyway, since my brain tries to split wide open at the question if God DID do all of this then who created Him and who created Him and so on, Im not sure where to go. My faith says that THAT is what makes God so wonderful in that He truly IS the only thing that has always been but I know thats not science. Science will NEVER prove that God doesnt exist and I cant prove He does. It really is easier for me tho to believe that God is simply the only way we could be here instead of theories that dont hold up. Idk, it seems make believe to some but no one can give me a better “theory” so I go with the one that makes most sense to me, and the benefits to that might be really great one day! Atheists laugh like Im an idiot but you know, I struggle to think Im actually writing this comment on my computer because of a vaccum or big bang or anything else, God or something/someone much bigger than me did this!
Robert Harvey, I second your entire statement. I do not second it because I am biased, I second it because it contains no logical gaps. “Science can’t explain ‘nothing from something’ with any certainty at this point.” This is essentially what you have said. Now, let me hit you with a piece of knowledge that I have found whilst racking my brain as of late… You asked, “Who created GOD, and who created him, and so on?” Consider this: To believe in a creationist GOD is to believe in a being who can operate outside the realm and constraints of science. Now, if this GOD can in fact do so, then he would not be required to have a “creator”, nor a beginning, nor an end. I have thought this through, and I really cannot think of any logical holes in it. Yes, it necessarily boils down to “God is magic”, but I mean… isn’t he?
Branching from Robert Harvey and #8′s comments, “a being who can operate outside the realm and constraints of science” must have been created, though. Science is the study of the physical world and is all we have to work with.
I recently read 0 = (1) + (-1) and this brought up an invariant idea; however the physical construct of negative and positive is debatable. What if “nothing” isn’t stable?
What law or force could tear apart nothing into two separate entities, without being composed of physical energy?
Gravity is denoted by greater mass impacting lesser mass. Gravity can be increased by rotation of greater mass.
The Big Bang Theory of a singular concentrated energy would be subject to the rules of gravity within the perimeter of said energy. The perimeter of this universe has been expanded by the pressure (anti-gravity) of positive velocity.
If the pressure outside the singularity was lesser than the pressure inside (meaning the area outside perimeter was previously created), then there could be a converse reaction that drew the energy into the singularity; however, our universe is currently expanding and could only contract by the effects of gravity and anti-gravity.
Maybe the point-of-perspective is focusing as time increases. Drawing closer to the center of singularity in time, simulating expansion within a static sphere. Maybe we can judge When our PoP is, by how far away everything else appears from us.
…Still doesn’t answer what started it all.