How did the universe come to be?

[dcstegg228]

Probably the wrong section but i realy dont know where to put it.. so aynways,

 

How did the universe come to be? Because the big bang isnt making much sense right now... Where did the dust come from where did the space come from.. where did gravity come from where did atoms come from and electrons protons neutrons and the thjings that make those.. i realy just dont get it.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

(Moved to correct section)

 

The real answer is: Nobody knows. We can make guesses about what happened after the matter appeared, but nobody knows where it came from or how.

[dcstegg228]

(Moved to correct section)

 

The real answer is: Nobody knows. We can make guesses about what happened after the matter appeared' date=' but nobody knows where it came from or how.[/quote']

 

that sucks

[5614]

There are theories or ideas though.

 

One popular theory is that there was a singularity of some form of energy. To explain; a singularity is like a single dot, like an electron, it is the smallest possible thing which cannot be broken into any smaller parts. So there was a singularity of energy. Somehow within that singularity there was the same amount of energy as there is in the whole of the universe today.

 

Also we can question the idea of existence before the big bang. To exist something has to be there for an amount of time. Before the big bang the universe did not exist, so time did not exist. If for something to exist it has to be real for a period of time then existance before the big bang is meaningless, because there was no time.

 

At the end of the day though no one knows, it's all guessing with evidence which suggests it could be possible. And yep, "that sucks".

[bascule]

As far as I'm aware causality can only come about in one of three ways

 

1. First cause: This would be something like the singularity 5614 described, or a supernatural source like a God/Gods, or pretty much anything which transcends time and therefore provides the source from whence time itself (i.e. causality) originates

 

2. Infinite regression: The universe always was and always has been, and no matter how far back in time you go, time just keeps on going backwards ad infinitum

 

3. Cyclical causation: Time is a never-ending loop that just keeps repeating itself over and over

[RyanJ]

that sucks

 

Unfortunatly its the truth, you asked an unanswerable question.

 

There are many theories each with its own set of circumstances and each a result of a completly different idea, right now it could be any of them

 

If you believe the big bang idea is correct (Which I do) when its all to do with gravity, [math]E=mc^2[/math] and electrostatic attractions. In the bang there was a lot of energy produced, some turned into matter and some into anti-matter. There was more matter then anti-matter so there was a "little" matter left over at the end of this (still talking on quark scales).

 

As in the formation of the planets these then "clumped" together forming our elementary particles, which then attracted one and other forming atoms and so on untill we get stars and planets, galxies and everything else.

 

Another interesting theory is the one of the collision of two branes, I find this theory really interesting too

 

This is one of the biggest qustions and its probably one to which we will never have the answer but it will not stop anyone from trying to find the answer anyway!

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Severian]

The real answer is: Nobody knows. We can make guesses about what happened after the matter appeared' date=' but nobody knows where it came from or how.[/quote']

 

That's not entirely true. There are models of baryogenesis....

 

...unfortunately none of them work

 

One popular theory is that there was a singularity of some form of energy. To explain; a singularity is like a single dot' date=' like an electron, it is the smallest possible thing which cannot be broken into any smaller parts. So there was a singularity of energy. Somehow within that singularity there was the same amount of energy as there is in the whole of the universe today.

[/quote']

 

I don't understand why this is popular. We have never ever seen a singularity in physics. So why do people keep wanting to use one to describe the big bang?

 

In fact, it is even an unscientific concept! It has as much scientific merit as saying 'God did it', i.e. none.

 

There was more matter then anti-matter

 

And what causes this inequality of matter and anti-matter?

[RyanJ]

And what causes this inequality of matter and anti-matter?

 

Good question to which I do not have an answer

 

The question is intresting for one reason, probability says that because anti-matter and matter are just "reversed versions" of one and other there should have been equal numbers made and so we should have a universe full of gamma radiation, and yet here we are so something obviously caused some sort of inballance somewhere. I find this cause of asymmetry very odd actully...

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Severian]

I find this cause of asymmetry very odd actully...

 

It is good that you do. This is the Baryon Asymmetry problem:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

[RyanJ]

It is good that you do. This is the Baryon Asymmetry problem:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry

 

Very interesting, it seems like a very unusual statistical anomaly especially seeing as just about everything in the universe is seen to be on equal footing in physics so what was different here...

 

Who knows, if string theory is corret the answer we seek may be buried deep within the equations

 

Maybe it was something odd about the chaeotic nature of space at the time this occured causing some unexpected changes that created the inballance... could be anything.

 

Cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[bluesmudge]

The answer its self can only be found by listening to Jazz music or pink floyd at 1:40 somthing am, whilst smoking illigal (or nearly legallised) substances . . . thats not quite what im doing before anyone complains

 

The universe was basically put here to give humans something to think about - as soon as we work it out there will be something new to think about . . . . its like working your way through a crossword book

[bjaminwood]

I have a theory which most people are not going to like but I have been acused of dismissing the theory of evolution without even considering the possibility that it might have some truth in it. So before you rubbish it consider it as an alternative to what you have already considered.

 

I am going to quote from the Bible in Genesis Ch 1 v14 - 19

 

"And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day."

 

Bear in mind that the writing of this can be traced back several thousand years BC.

[insane_alien]

yes it can be traced back to what was effectively scientific ignorance. we had no idea how most things worked. and anyway why were you talking about evolution in a how did the universe start thread?

[sunspot]

One way to create the universe is connected to time. Everything in the known universe exists for a finite duration of time. Time that is not finite is either zero time or infinite time. In other words, there are no finite things that exist for zero or infinite time. The potential between infinite and zero time creates finite time. For example, the initial phase of the BB happened in almost zero time while the universe will last a very long time almost approaching infinite time.

[aguy2]

I am going to quote from the Bible in Genesis Ch 1: 19 And there was evening' date=' and there was morning—the fourth day."

[/quote']

Are there any ideas why it would sequence the "evening" and the the "morning", not the other way round?

aguy2

[ydoaPs]

yes it can be traced back to what was effectively scientific ignorance. we had no idea how most things worked. and anyway why were you talking about evolution in a how did the universe start thread?

he's a YEC. they can't tell the difference and they are completely uneducated about both.

[john5746]

Probably the wrong section but i realy dont know where to put it.. so aynways' date='

 

How did the universe come to be? Because the big bang isnt making much sense right now... Where did the dust come from where did the space come from.. where did gravity come from where did atoms come from and electrons protons neutrons and the thjings that make those.. i realy just dont get it.[/quote']

 

A particle collider in another universe created our "little" universe.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

he's a YEC. they can't tell the difference and they are completely uneducated about both.

There is simply no need to be nasty about it, nor any need to stereotype someone instantly.

[ydoaPs]

it wasn't an instant steroetype. it was a logical conclusion based off his posts. he just happens to fit the stereotype. i'm sorry if i was nasty about it. i didn't think i was.

[sunspot]

Are there any ideas why it would sequence the "evening" and the the "morning", not the other way round?

aguy2

 

The next day starts after midnight when it is still dark. 12:01AM is more like the night than day even though it is in the AM. God was a night owl.

[aguy2]

Very interesting' date=' it seems like a very unusual statistical anomaly especially seeing as just about everything in the universe is seen to be on equal footing in physics so what was different here...

 

Who knows, if string theory is corret the answer we seek may be buried deep within the equations

 

Maybe it was something odd about the chaeotic nature of space at the time this occured causing some unexpected changes that created the inballance... could be anything.

[/quote']

 

Like an ejection of matter in the form of a pulse/jet from one pole of a BB event/body that displayed a high degree of angular momentum, while at the same time a pulse/jet of anti-matter was ejected from the other pole? Are we interpreting the linear ejection of mass from a rotating BB event/body as 'inflation' and the gravitational effects of a still evident BB event/body as 'dark energy'? Are we interpreting the 'mushrooming' of our all-matter pulse/jet visible universe, that is due to the visible universe transiting from an earlier laminar flow to a more turbulent state, as 'true' expansion, when it is actually expanding laterally due to loss of momentum vis-a-vis the somewhat reduced but still evident BB event/body and our anti-matter sister universe?

 

This model may be amateurish, but nonetheless I think the isotropic, homogenous expansion models should be put aside. They are not answering the big questions without adding layer after layer of fudge factors.

aguy2

[bjaminwood]

A particle collider in another universe created our "little" universe.

 

That does not explain how the other universe came into being.

[bjaminwood]

Are there any ideas why it would sequence the "evening" and the the "morning"' date=' not the other way round?

aguy2[/quote']

 

Jewish writings put things in this order.

[ydoaPs]

That does not explain how the other universe came into being.

how so?

[Mach]

i dont think that human brain will be able comprehend what happened before the big bang.