Explain it to granny like this. (from wikipedia) *We know from the*
So at least before the big bang there was likely the existence of this singularity, and we know from general relativity that the laws of physics breakdown at the event horizon, and so past the event horizon we don't know what is going on (much like we don't know what dark matter and energy are either - stay tuned). Probably this primordeal singularity was similar in that we don't know what was going on inside, or why it started to rapidly expand. I liken the event as being akin to when a thermonuclear device reaches critical mass, but this might be over simplifying things. As to what existed before, who knows? All we have is conjecture, some based on some elegant equations but no hard experimental or observational data to back them up, and some that is way out there on the fringe. But I don't thik it is accurate to say that the universe originated from nothing. It really is a meaningless statement, IMHO. Something with mass and energy is not nothing.
But remember, the universe itself, when you think about is, as vast as it is, is mostly empty space. Probably why it is so difficult to conceive all this is because our senses tell us that there are boundaries to objects, properties of matter that gives us a sense of durability and hardness. But physics tells us that all matter is composed mostly of empty space. And so the concept of durability, of our experience of coming into physical contact with the world around us is a myth of our senses. What were are likely actually experiencing are the atomic forces keeping matter apart. Just some food for thought.
Quote:Big Bang model, the universe, (was) originally in an extremely hot and dense state (probably a super massive singularity - by the way, we know from the cosmic microwave background that it had mass and energy) that expanded rapidly, has since cooled by expanding to the present diluted state, and continues to expand today. Based on the best available measurements as of 2010[update], the original state of the universe existed around 13.7 billion years ago,[1][2] which is often referred to as the time when the Big Bang occurred.
So at least before the big bang there was likely the existence of this singularity, and we know from general relativity that the laws of physics breakdown at the event horizon, and so past the event horizon we don't know what is going on (much like we don't know what dark matter and energy are either - stay tuned). Probably this primordeal singularity was similar in that we don't know what was going on inside, or why it started to rapidly expand. I liken the event as being akin to when a thermonuclear device reaches critical mass, but this might be over simplifying things. As to what existed before, who knows? All we have is conjecture, some based on some elegant equations but no hard experimental or observational data to back them up, and some that is way out there on the fringe. But I don't thik it is accurate to say that the universe originated from nothing. It really is a meaningless statement, IMHO. Something with mass and energy is not nothing.
But remember, the universe itself, when you think about is, as vast as it is, is mostly empty space. Probably why it is so difficult to conceive all this is because our senses tell us that there are boundaries to objects, properties of matter that gives us a sense of durability and hardness. But physics tells us that all matter is composed mostly of empty space. And so the concept of durability, of our experience of coming into physical contact with the world around us is a myth of our senses. What were are likely actually experiencing are the atomic forces keeping matter apart. Just some food for thought.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
