And that was 13.8 billion years ago. I am NOT trolling, I am just curious if any of us has any idea as to why or how this happened. Certain ingredients had to come together to cause the Big Bang.
It was Stewie and Brian. LOL.
But is that something we are not meant to know?
I am also fine with dying and ceasing to exist, I would just like to understand how and why?
Anyone have any ideas?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Might find this interesting: youtube: The Universe and Three Examples, Alan Guth
@Nyarlathotep
I find him very interesting, I am going to watch the whole thing one day.
I have no idea, but I'm happy with that and leave it to experts who have evidenced everything else that we know and understand.
What I would be willing to hedge my bets on though, is whatever 'caused' or proceeded the big bang(or rapid expansion) will follow natural causal paths.
Perhaps the laws of physics may break down at a point, or our understanding of them may differ, but the basic fundamentals I would wager, will have absolutely no supernatural tomfoolery taking place!
There has never been one single shred of evidence to support a claim that requires the suspension of the laws of nature.
@Randomhero1982
"Perhaps the laws of physics may break down at a point, or our understanding of them may differ, but the basic fundamentals I would wager, will have absolutely no supernatural tomfoolery taking place!"
I doubt that too, I don't believe in anything supernatural.
“ Perhaps the laws of physics may break down at a point”
They do inside black holes because of extreme intensity of gravity.
@Humemystic
“ Perhaps the laws of physics may break down at a point”
"They do inside black holes because of extreme intensity of gravity."
That's my understanding too. However, I'm not a physicist . It occurs to me that different physical laws may exist inside a black hole. . That we just haven't discovered them yet. I remain agnostic on this matter.
@cranky,
"It occurs to me that different physical laws may exist inside a black hole".
Most of the laws break down. Inside black hole we reach at point of singularity. It is a point where a huge mass is packed in an infinitely small space. When we say "infinite" we mean at point where a certain parameter reaches zero resulting in infinite number. But speaking as a layperson we can say that huge mass packed into a very small space, e.g. whole solar system packed into a space equal to millionth of the eye of the needle (just a random example to illustrate, not actual numbers).
The mass is packed into such small space due to extremely high gravitational force. Everything gets pulls down under extreme pressure. Even light cannot escape because light travels in geometrical lines and spacetime gets so contorted due to gravitational pull that light is trapped. Under these conditions, most laws of physics which usually deal with, say, motion or tension or pressure etc break down and you can't apply the relevant equation to accurately calculate outputs.
However, second law of thermodynamics, is theorized not to break down. Stephen Hawkins came up with his famous Hawkins radiation theory which postulates that black holes radiate energy (which is what happens under second law of thermodynamics) and eventually evaporate.
As far as having different laws of physics is concerned, the only scenario In know in which that's possibility is in case of multiverse where we have many other universes (which is a different hypothesis). Laws of physics are born when symmetry breaks into its resulting constituents of energy and matter as represented by many different types of elements (atoms) and their sub-particles (quarks, photon, boson, etc) at the birth of the universe. We can hypothesize that different universes may have different laws of physics because symmetry breaking may happen differently.
Symmetry is basically what you can exemplify by throwing a tea cup on the ground. Before you throw it, it was a one single "thing". After you threw it, it became many pieces. They are still part of the same "material" but have different shapes, characteristics, and uses etc. At the time of big bang we only had energy but as time passed the energy manifested into various other things that we now see making up our universe. In Large Hydron Collider (LHC) that's what they try to do: create conditions similar to shortly after big bang and see what falls out when symmetry breaks (as particles collide with each other). So far we have higgs-boson falling out showing us it exists.
@Hume
Thank you for your post, lucid and easy to understand.
My questions and ideas here are not to argue, but in order to learn.
I understand that accepted laws of physics seem to cease to work under certain conditions .
I also understand the idea a multiverse, even though I am incapable of visualising such a thing . (beloved in science fiction for decades.)
I was thinking along the untidy line that if physical laws break down the result must be chaos. I think that perhaps there is no 'must' . Instead, new ideas are posited. As an ignorant layman, I'm fine with that.
After all it's my understanding that parts of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity have only recently been shown to apparently be correct.
The idea of a multiverse is even more mind boggling than a universe---. I've never been able to grasp the size and distances.
I read somewhere that from the singularity, the universe will expand only so far, then begin to contract ,to another singularity- that this process is infinite. I find that idea quite 'tidy' , but unsatisfying. (not that my satisfaction is really relevant )
Once again, thank you for your post
@cranky,
"My questions and ideas here are not to argue, but in order to learn.".
Absolutely. Likewise. I am a layman myself and learning on ongoing basis. Didn't mean to come across as condescending. Writing it out is a way for me to get my thoughts straight in terms of what I understand so far and I always appreciate someone pointing gaps in my understanding.
There are currently three different types of multiverse hypotheses popular among physicists - although there are more than three out there. Different physicists favor different ones.
1- Multiverse out of quantum fluctuations in the vacuum. This is the Lawrence Krauss' "Universe out of nothing" version where many universes come into existence due to quantum virtual particle fluctuations. In simple terms, there can never be 'nothing'. There is always 'something' in true vacuum. That 'something' is vacuum energy which causes matter/anti-matter to come into existence and annihilate each other. In some random case if there is an imbalance due to failure of this annihilation, you'll end up with a new universe - our universe is one such universe.
2- String theory based multiverse - This theory hypothesizes that there are many universes out there and they are like strings with 10 dimensions - at symmetry breaking those dimensions break into three dimensions (that's the case with our universe).
3- Many-worlds multiverse - This is based on Hugh Everett postulation who was a grad student when he came up with this idea based on Quantum mechanics. This idea at present has been adopted and favored by Sean Carroll (He has a very good podcast, Mindscape that I'd recommend). Under this hypothesis, using electron as the example particle, as per quantum mechanics wave function, the location of the electron is probabilistic at any given point, meaning it inhibits position in many different places.
Those places are different universes. When it interacts with another particle (in human terms we can say when any human action occurs) then it collapses to take a definitive position with respect to that particle but all other position in all other probabilistic location continue to exist and when another interaction happen with some other particle in that other space then it again collapses in that space. These two different interactions in two difference 'spaces' are basically two different worlds or universes.
It's a bit whacky concept to wrap one's head around mainly because we don't experience world at sub-particle level but yet have to describe and understand quantum physics at that level which creates a disconnect between our reality and the world of quantum physics but rest assure, our findings so far in terms of sub-particle behavior and quantum wave function are iron clad.
What quantum mechanics has done is, it has given us quantum field theory, which is in an other words is called Standard model. All particles that we know are basically quantum fields. We may find more particles or forces in the nature but whatever we have found so far pretty much represent reality and is not going to change. It may evolve to include MORE particles and fields but what we have got on hand right now is set in stone. That's it. That's reality that we know so far. Even million years from now if people would look back us, they would be able to say we got Standard model right.
So. Standard model got our back. We can confidently say at this point that ghosts and souls and god, as various myths describe them, don't exist, and cannot exist. If they do exist, it has to be via the atomic particle we are familiar with and that would mean they themselves have to obey the same laws of physics that you and I do. There. I said it.
"After all it's my understanding that parts of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity have only recently been shown to apparently be correct."
Einstein's theory of general relativity has been proven in many parts during various periods. Mainly due to lack of experimental equipment and data available at the time. One immediate proof it had was Sir Arthur Eddington's expedition to verify bending of the light as it passes by a massive star. Einstein's theory also proposed black holes and gravitation waves but there was no way to verify their existence at that time. In 2015 LIGO detected gravitation waves for the first time providing proof for that part of the theory. In 2019 we saw a rendered picture of a black hole providing another visual proof of another part of his theory.
What physicists have been struggling with however, and is an ongoing work of research is achieve what they call "Theory of everything" which is basically how to unify theory of special relativity (that deals with gravity) and quantum mechanics.
The problem here is that there are basically 4 forces we have identified in the nature so far. Three out of these four forces deal with atom and its sub-particles itself. Strong nuclear force (that keeps nucleus of atom together), weak nuclear force (which changes the quarks, building blocks of neutrons and protons, basically turning one quark into different type of quark through decay. This turns a neutron into proton, for example - This in itself changes the atom itself. Carbon 14 which is used for carbon dating is one such example), and electromagnetic force (produced through electrons ). The fourth force is gravitational force expressed through gravity.
All these forces have their respective particles that carry the force from one place to another. e.g. Photon is the carrier of electromagnetic force, gluon for strong force, and bosons for weak force. In the same vein, we have a theoretical particle called graviton that supposedly carries gravitational force although we have not been able to detect it.
Under unification theory or Theory of everything, all these four forces are supposed to have come from same one place (symmetry). We have unification theory for first three forces and have detected their respective carriers but we don't have unification with the gravitational force to the rest.
@Hume
Thank you again for taking the time to respond in detail to my post. Have not been able to quite digest it all yet
.Nah, I didn't think you were /are being patronising. Rather, the tone has been didactic, which is appropriate. :-]
Ideas? Yes, I will paste in the counterargument to the big bang theory. It's very much like people trying to use the fossil record to prove the earth is only 10,000 years old. I blame the overpowering influence of the Christian religion, and need to validate the Genesis story and prove that the universe was created. To its adherents, the big bang theory proves the existence of God. But the evidence shows that the observable universe is in a steady-state and is not expanding.
The first problem is that the red shifts of galaxies, measured by Hubble, and more recently of supernovas, are all isotropic. This would only be consistent with the big bang theory if the big bang occurred at the position of the observer. Otherwise, one could determine the location of the starting point of the big bang from the relative motion of the galaxies. Galaxies on the opposite side would be moving away from us, while galaxies on the same side would be moving in the same direction as us. It has never been possible to determine the location of "ground zero," though, because the observed red shifts are isotropic. It doesn't make sense that they could be caused by the Doppler effect. Whatever is causing them, they tend to disprove, not prove, the big bang theory. Only recently have creationists stopped claiming that the red shifts are caused by the Doppler effect. This was the main evidence cited by them, until the red shifts were shown to be isotropic.
Now, they argue an abstraction of the big bang theory, that "space itself" is expanding uniformly like the surface of a balloon. There was, in fact, no great explosion, or ground zero where the big bang occurred. This abstract version was disproven by the Michaelson-Morley experiment, and is the same as arguing the medieval concept of the aether. "Space itself" cannot expand, because there is nothing there to expand. Electromagnetic waves don't interact with empty space, which doesn't act as a medium for light the way water does for ocean waves. The Michaelson-Morley experiment was one of the most important in the history of physics, and can't be ignored. It has been repeated and validated all across the EM spectrum.
Moreover, Einstein's theory of special relativity means that the frame of reference is relative between the observer and observed. It would be hard to reconcile with the concept of an aether; ie., an "expanding universe" or universal frame of reference. This is a hidden flaw in any theory of an expanding universe, which implies a universal frame of reference that exists independently of the observer. To say nothing of how odd it is to choose a frame of reference that is changing over time. According to relativity, no frame of reference is preferred over any other.
The other data used to argue the big bang theory, the presence of a nearly isotropic background of microwave radiation, suffers from the same problems. One wonders why the microwaves aren't all heading away from ground zero, the starting point for the big bang. Our own galaxy is racing away from ground zero at lightspeed - isn't this the basic idea of the big bang theory? The fact that the CMB is more or less isotropic tends to disprove that it originated in a big bang, just as the red shift data does.
There is also something called the matter-antimatter asymmetry problem. In the laboratory, matter and antimatter particles are always produced in pairs. If they come into contact, they annihilate each other, leaving only energy. The observed universe is made almost entirely of matter. If all matter was created from energy in a big bang, by what mechanism was it created, that did not result in the creation of an equal amount of antimatter? There is no explanation, and no known mechanism.
That's because the big bang theory is a creationist myth. It has already been disproven a dozen different ways. Yet nothing will convince the zealots, whose religious beliefs are always in need of support.
Paul Wolf: Just a quick Google Search will tell you that you are WRONG!
"While the steady-state model enjoyed some minority support in the scientific mainstream until the mid-20th century, it is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the steady-state model does not predict.[1][2]
1. "Steady State theory". BBC. Retrieved January 11, 2015. [T]he Steady State theorists' ideas are largely discredited today...
2. Kragh, Helge (1999). Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-02623-7.
This is old stuff. Inflationary model explains most of this. Our observable universe, which is merely the universe from the point first photons were created and onwards, is merely a speck on a bigger universe that we have no way of seeing since light didn't appear yet.
No, that is a pretty serious misconception.
Because the cosmic microwave background we see today was emitted from the surface of last scattering.
As far as the matter-antimatter asymmetry; while a better theoretical framework is needed: CP violations were empirically discovered 50 or so years ago.
This is actually correct! You are so close to getting it, but then took a crazy left turn at Albuquerque.
What are you calling "The Big Bang" How does that have anything at all to do with the rest of your post?
Certain ingredients did not have to come together to cause the Big Bang. Causality breaks down at Planck Time.
"Something we are not meant to know?" Meant to know? What in the fuck does that mean? Who gets to decide what we are meant to know? WTF are you on about now?
And what in the fuck does this next bit have to do with the big bang????
"I am also fine with dying and ceasing to exist, I would just like to understand how and why?"
You want answers, go ask a theologian. They have all the answers you could ever use. The rest of us are waiting for the facts to come in.
You don't get to know "how" you die, unless you choose your own method of death. That should cover the "why" as well.
Ideas about what? How and why you die is up to you, unless you ignore it and let someone or something else make the decision for you.
@Cognostic
"Ideas about what? How and why you die is up to you, unless you ignore it and let someone or something else make the decision for you."
Whenever my body quits that's when I die. I hope I get to live a long one though, what ever it means, if anything.
Just wanted to discuss opinions, and no I don't believe anything supernatural happened either.
We know the universe started, we don't know the exact details.
Mouse: "Whenever my body quits that's when I die. I hope I get to live a long one though, what ever it means, if anything." THEN THAT'S YOUR CHOICE.
IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY "STARTED." You keep making assertion about which you have no facts. PROVE THE UNIVERSE DID NOT ALWAYS EXIST IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER.
We don't know any such thing!
@Cognostic
The fact we can not know for sure just makes the subject more interesting. We know at some point that The Big Bang happened, I guess how and why remain more of a mystery.
But what I am pretty sure about is that I don't believe a god was necessary for its beginning.
MOUSE: "The fact we can not know for sure just makes the subject more interesting."
Look at the shit you are saying. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ABOVE.
WE DO NOT YET KNOW FOR SURE. STOP THERE!!!!!!!
WHAT YOU HAVE SAID IS.....
1. "Certain ingredients had to come together to cause the Big Bang."
2. "We know the universe started, we don't know the exact details."
You make knowledge statements and then assert that you do not know. This is "cognitive dissonance." Probably from posting while you are stoned.
@Cognostic
(Walks Out Of A Cloud Of Smoke.)
We all can grasp The Big Bang theory, I just wondered why it happened.
We all know it happened, and that was 13.8 billion years ago.
Heck the universe didn't even get to us for like 9 billion years.
Earth wasn't even habitable for a few million years after its creation. Or how ever long it was, I learned it on The Weather Channel. We got many lucky breaks just to exist in this world.
Oh sorry, going off in a different direction.
Yeah and do we know if this is the first time it happened?
Rambling, I do that when I am high.
@ Fievel Mousekewitz
"Yeah and do we know if this is the first time it happened?"
That is a mind-fuck of a question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDaV6DdRDww&t=20s
The thing is, we examine what we observe, and attempt to fit in the most rational and plausible explanation. And that explains what is going on around us. But when we begin to ask those far-reaching questions, we must be careful not to insert a bigger mystery.
What came before this known universe? Currently we do not know but are investigating. To insert "god" just messes everything up and makes everything a lot more confused and clouded.
@David Killens
"What came before this known universe? Currently we do not know but are investigating. To insert "god" just messes everything up and makes everything a lot more confused and clouded."
Again I mention Morgan Freeman. "The universe didn't need a god to create it."
And I agree, that just complicates things Yes there's no god.
3200 plus vs 1... non belief in anything.
Just feels more comfortable for some reason.
Besides it would take me millions of years just to learn all and every detail of every religion.
No thank you, and I do not want an eternity to learn them all either.
80s 90s? 100? I hope I can make it there, and to me that's all the longer life needs to be.
@David Killens
PS
I like the clip.
I am watching it now.
@Fievel Mousekewitz: And then you gotta insert..... "We got many lucky breaks just to exist in this world."
Please edmonstrate "Luck" exists. Please demonstrate it wasn't all predetermined.
WHAT? "Yeah and do we know if this is the first time it happened?" How in the hell would you possibly know that?
Obviously High Again. You just don't pick up on stuff very quickly. The best thing to do may be to ignore your posts and just let you ramble in stoned ignorance.
@Cognostic
I am not the one who came up with the whole (Lucky Breaks Thing.)
I got that from the Weather Channel.
If you don't call them lucky breaks, what do you call them? Guided by the hand of some god?
We know things slammed into earth many times in the past, and there's even craters from some of these. These are as far as I know facts not theories. Including the piece of rock which wiped out the dinosaurs other-wise we wouldn't be here.
Call them natural occurrences if that's better, but we're pretty sure that our atmosphere was partly thanks to a possible collision years in earth's past.
Watch for it on the Weather Channel I am sure they will have it on at some point again.
Edit; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql8UyYT-zzk&list=PLki90Aw2GjddE7j9gsNyZ2...
@Fievel: If you don't call them lucky breaks, what do you call them? Guided by the hand of some god?
Standard "Black and White" fallacious thinking. Are you really that dense? Really? Out of all the amazing possibilities your mind is so small it can only come up with two? And then you have to latch onto one of them as if you have an answer? Pathetic!
"The Weather Channel?" Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ........ Dude, have another joint and ease back into your foggy existence. You don't deserve anything resembling truth.
@Cognostic
"You don't deserve anything resembling truth."
Why not?
All I want is the truth, but I don't believe a god is needed for that.
Actually a god is never the answer.
Pages