How something can come from nothing.

[rax]

This is a video I made from a friend. Find any holes? (aside from the shitty, 'me rambling to a camera', format)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E-iabW_Ba8

[orogenicman]

Explain it to granny like this. (from wikipedia) *We know from the*

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.

[ib.me.ub]

Umm, interesting. Well I don't think there was a big bang at all. Why did there have to be a big bang anyway?

[orogenicman]

Umm, interesting. Well I don't think there was a big bang at all. Why did there have to be a big bang anyway?

Then how do you explain the cosmic microwave background radiation?

[Anomalocaris]

Umm, interesting. Well I don't think there was a big bang at all. Why did there have to be a big bang anyway?

Are you questioning whether the universe as we know it had a definite origin at some point in time, or whether all currently known spatial dimensions were at one time tighter then it is now by an enormous factor, and have loosened continuously ever since?

Large scale, systematic relationship between distance and redshift demonstrates convincingly that known spatial dimensions have been loosening for up to 11-12 billion years. Orogen's cosmic background radiation demonstrates those dimensions were much tighter still a couple of billion years before that. This loosening of the spatial dimension of the universe from a very tight state in the past is termed big bang. It is well demonstrated.

If you are questioning whether the initial point of big bang represents the beginning of such universe as we are able to measure and quantify, that is debatable. Some version of theory argues what preceded the big bang is in fact measurable, quantifiable, and accessible. If that is the case, then big bang is not in a meaningful way the beginning of the universe.

[orogenicman]

If that is the case, then big bang is not in a meaningful way the beginning of the universe.

True, though it in no way gets rid of those pesky measurements we've been making.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Umm, interesting. Well I don't think there was a big bang at all. Why did there have to be a big bang anyway?

That's nice that you think that but as orogenicman pointed out (and there is other evidence as well, such as Hubble's constant) the evidence points very strongly to the big bang model of the universe.

[Lethe]

I've been pondering this quite heavily recently.

The problem I encountered with the "God" argument, in regards to first cause, is that even if all was created out of nothing by a god, it was still ultimately created out of nothing. And the nothingness as you've referred to in the philosophical sense, along with the idea of pure creation seems beyond absurd. Creation from nothingness necessitates the nothingness being somethingness. Infinite regress, as well as causal loops (which I've noticed many theists applying to their preferred deity) doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility. While such a premise should not be assumed, I find it would be unwise to assume just the opposite. As you've mentioned, such a statement would ultimately impede on the progression of scientific knowledge and discovery.

The topic reminded me of this:





Favorite quote: "There are an infinite number of ways in which something can exist, but there's really only one way in which nothing can exist." ~ Timmy

[theVOID]

Umm, interesting. Well I don't think there was a big bang at all. Why did there have to be a big bang anyway?

There was some cosmic event that caused a non-spatial state of affairs to become spatial. That's what the "big bang" is, the birth of space-time from what is called "the singularity", and the "singularity" is misleading, It's a result of Einstein's equations breaking down because relativity is dependent on frames of reference in space-time without that option you get a mathematical singularity.

That being said, we have very good reasons for expecting that this spacetime birth did happen in a way much like described by the "Big bang", namely extrapolating the expansion of the universe, the CMBR etc.

To say that you "don't think there was a big bang" is essentially to say "I'm not going to believe the conclusions reached by our very best understandings of cosmology to date" which in a sense is understandable (in the "absolute" sense) but tentatively it's more than reasonable to make that conclusion.

[ib.me.ub]

Umm, interesting. Well I don't think there was a big bang at all. Why did there have to be a big bang anyway?

Then how do you explain the cosmic microwave background radiation?

Where is Australia in all this?