Question about the big bang

[Dominus Fidelis]

According to this site :

"At the instant of the Big Bang, the universe was infinitely dense and unimaginably hot. Cosmologists believe that all forms of matter and energy, as well as space and time itself, were formed at this instant."

Does this mean that everything came from nothing?

 

[Bushido216]

Reasonably certain, yes. Of course, I have no education in the relevant fields whatsoever so don't take my word for it.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

According to this site :

"At the instant of the Big Bang, the universe was infinitely dense and unimaginably hot. Cosmologists believe that all forms of matter and energy, as well as space and time itself, were formed at this instant."



Does this mean that everything came from nothing?

I see this a lot around here. You are pondering first cause. As things stand now, science can not address this issue.

[url="http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/031001a.html"]http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/031001a.html[/url]

If the universe started like the big bang theory describes, any information before the event is thought to be lost. This means that any first cause hypothesis is just a guess until we can reproduce the conditions of the big bang (if we ever can). Anyone trying to exalt one hypothesis over another is senseless in my opinion. The moment you hazard a guess about first cause you’ve locked yourself into maintaining one guess out of an endless number of possible guesses. Although nobody can tell you your guess is wrong, choosing just one decreases your chances of being right by an almost infinite amount. As the article mentions, maybe we are but one universe in an endless sea of universes. Although nobody has the answer, I don’t feel compelled to personify the first cause. I’d rather reserve judgment and state honestly, “I don’t know”

 

[Freodin]

Not quite. It rather means that everything came from something, but that this something was rather wierd compared to our "normal" universe.

 

[maha]

I have my own, as of yet unfounded, personal hypothesis on the Big Bang. I think that there was a finite amount of matter, albeit enormous in its own right, in that compressed ball of light and energy. The reason I believe that the amount of matter is finite and not infinite is because the universe is only 13 billion light years wide (the age of the universe is also its size considering it could only expand at the speed of light). Therefore, my conclusion is that only within a 13 billion lightyear diameter is all the matter in our universe, or at least from this big bang (there may be others much farther away). I believe that there has always been this matter...it just...was. It's as hard to comprehend the existence of ageless matter as it is the distance of infinity, but they are not meant to be understood by human minds.This does get into first cause--chicken or the egg. But some existential questions are difficult to comprehend, no matter the explanation.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Some theoires suggest that the universe was born out of some type of vacuum. A vacuum is not "nothing", however. A vacuum is a physical state with definitive properties (and there are several types of vacuums).

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I think that there was a finite amount of matter, albeit enormous in its own right, in that compressed ball of light and energy. The reason I believe that the amount of matter is finite and not infinite is because the universe is only 13 billion light years wide (the age of the universe is also its size considering it could only expand at the speed of light).

A couple issues… firstly, matter and energy are related (E=MC2), You can convert matter into energy and energy into matter. Secondly, the universe is mostly empty space and not matter at all. So the size of the universe really doesn’t correlate with matter.

Therefore, my conclusion is that only within a 13 billion lightyear diameter is all the matter in our universe, or at least from this big bang (there may be others much farther away).

There is no farther away. The universe is “all inclusive”. And the universe is still expanding.

I believe that there has always been this matter...it just...was. It's as hard to comprehend the existence of ageless matter as it is the distance of infinity, but they are not meant to be understood by human minds.

I think it would be more accurate to start talking about matter and energy together in lines of thought like this. Matter can be created and destroyed (i.e. an atomic bomb)

This does get into first cause--chicken or the egg. But some existential questions are difficult to comprehend, no matter the explanation.

Indeed, but sometimes it’s fun to try (as long as we don’t take ourselves too seriously)

 

[maha]

matter and energy are related (E=MC2), You can convert matter into energy and energy into matter. Secondly, the universe is mostly empty space and not matter at all. So the size of the universe really doesn’t correlate with matter.

Maybe I worded it incorrectly. The Big Bang theory suggests that all matter and energy erupted from a single point in space. It wasn't just energy and light, it was matter too. Basically, it all came from the same place.

There is no farther away. The universe is “all inclusive”. And the universe is still expanding.

I've developed a term to help clarify this. The "matter bearing universe." Since only the 13 billion l/y wide section of it contains matter, then we tend to only address it as "the universe." But the actual universe is infinite in size, so anything beyond that 13 billion l/y diameter is essentially empty and expands into infinity. However, at some distance past that, there may have been another Big Bang which is completely beyond all possible spectrums of analysis, if by its sheer distance alone. I agree, the matter bearing universe is expanding, but only the matter within it is expanding. The actual universe (the vacuum of space) is fixed in size, which is infinite. This should be intuitive, aside from my personal speculation about alternate Big Bangs.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

But the actual universe is infinite in size, so anything beyond that 13 billion l/y diameter is essentially empty and expands into infinity.

Not really, although the universe has a finite size,

[url="http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970328b.html"]http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970328b.html[/url]

science can not define what is “outside” the universe.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/011021a.html

However, at some distance past that, there may have been another Big Bang which is completely beyond all possible spectrums of analysis, if by its sheer distance alone.

There is no distance farther than infinity. But as I’ve said before, guessing what is “outside” the universe is just a guess. It may be fun, but it shouldn’t be taken too seriously.

I agree, the matter bearing universe is expanding, but only the matter within it is expanding. The actual universe (the vacuum of space) is fixed in size, which is infinite. This should be intuitive, aside from my personal speculation about alternate Big Bangs.

I think you still have some basic misunderstandings. Check this site out:

[url="http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/cosmology.html"]http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/cosmology.html[/url]

This is one of my favorite sites in existence.

 

[maha]

I didn't get to check out those links yet, AnEmpiricalAgnostic. They were taking to long to load, but I will check them out later.

Not really, although the universe has a finite size,

You say "not really"...as in the universe does not have finite matter, but that it does have finite size. This is a contradiction. How can infinity exist within boundaries. It can't. Matter is finite, and so is the distance of the universe we know of.

There is no distance farther than infinity. But as I’ve said before, guessing what is “outside” the universe is just a guess. It may be fun, but it shouldn’t be taken too seriously.

I never said there was. I said that beyond 13 billion lightyears, where matter is no longer present, there is an empty space. This "space" is the rest of the "non-matter bearing" universe.

 

[Sinai]

According to this site :

"At the instant of the Big Bang, the universe was infinitely dense and unimaginably hot. Cosmologists believe that all forms of matter and energy, as well as space and time itself, were formed at this instant."

Does this mean that everything came from nothing?

AnEmpiricalAgnostic has done a very good job of addressing this issue--but let me add a few comments to what he said. The Big Bang theory postulates that the universe began at a point in space having infinitely high density and infinitely small dimensions. In physics, such a point is called a singularity.

But singularities cannot be handled mathematically in the dimensions that measure our universe (the first four dimensions being the length, width, and height of things, and the passage of time), and it is unlikely that our other scientific disciplines will be able to verify precisely what happened prior to the inflationary process described in the Big Bang theory's Standard Model.

In other words, although science appears to have confirmed that there was indeed a beginning (of our universe, of the matter comprising that universe, and of time as we know it), science is unable to say precisely what happened in the beginning or prior to that beginning.....

 

[Lucretius]

Just a note,

There wouldn't be matter present at that singularity. The energy value of the Higgs Field would be too high, the field would have blended in with the other forces, and thus no mass could be present — aka no matter.

 

[Loudmouth]

According to this site :

"At the instant of the Big Bang, the universe was infinitely dense and unimaginably hot. Cosmologists believe that all forms of matter and energy, as well as space and time itself, were formed at this instant."

Does this mean that everything came from nothing?

It could just be a readjustment of quantum mechanics. For instance, 0+0=0, but 1-1 also equals zero, as does 1 million - 1 million. Some hypothesize that gravity is negative energy, therefore the amount of positive energy is equal to negative energy thus adding up to zero. Energy can condense into matter, so the real question is where did the energy come from.

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Thanks...

So some believe everything came from nothing, and some believe that everything came from a vacuum, and some believe everything came from a dense ball of matter/energy...right?

 

[random_guy]

Or some believe we don't know yet. That's the beautiful part of science is if we don't know, it means there's just so much more to research. Going, "Aha! You don't know where the energy/matter came from means Goddidit" won't get us anywhere.

 

[Jet Black]

According to this site :

"At the instant of the Big Bang, the universe was infinitely dense and unimaginably hot. Cosmologists believe that all forms of matter and energy, as well as space and time itself, were formed at this instant."

Does this mean that everything came from nothing?

no. I fail to see where you extracted your conclusion from the text.

 

[Jet Black]

Thanks...

So some believe everything came from nothing, and some believe that everything came from a vacuum, and some believe everything came from a dense ball of matter/energy...right?

honest people would just admit that scientifically, we don't know. What people believe is up to them.

 

[nvxplorer]

Thanks...

So some believe everything came from nothing, and some believe that everything came from a vacuum, and some believe everything came from a dense ball of matter/energy...right?

I'm not sure what your thought process is, but the scientific theories attempt to explain what happened, not whether "something came from nothing," or "where" it came from.

 

[Rochir]

Does this mean that everything came from nothing?

I think that is the point where even scientists will have to admit that maybe there is more about how the Universe came to be than mere physical probabilities.

And yet, such ignorance about what came before the Big Bang doesn't invalidate the assumption made by scientists about what went on after the BB!

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I think that is the point where even scientists will have to admit that maybe there is more about how the Universe came to be than mere physical probabilities.

Not at all. That is the point where scientists admit that they don’t know. Jumping to a conclusion that the universe needed something supernatural to exist would be venturing a guess. As of now any such guess would not be scientifically testable. Therefore it will remain in the domain of philosophy and not science for when/if that day comes.

And yet, such ignorance about what came before the Big Bang doesn't invalidate the assumption made by scientists about what went on after the BB!

True. Although ignorance usually carries a derogatory connotation I feel it is the only fair thing to claim when you really don’t know something. I won’t claim to know how the universe was created until there is empirical evidence to support my assertion. Until then I will admit I am ignorant of the facts. I just wish others could be so reasonable.