Where the atoms came from?

[needimprovement]

What caused it to suddenly create a universe? What caused the singularity to change into the Big Bang?

 

Can anyone explain how ALL the mass-energy was accumulated into the "singularity"?

 

Where did the Energy in singularity come from? Could it be that human cosmologists are only stating an unproven Theory? We know that energy can be transformed into mass, and mass into energy. My ultimate question: (If the "singularity" contained all the energy and mass in the present universe, then you will have to admit that said energy and mass came from somewhere or something) Where did it come from?

 

Any ideas?

Edited August 16, 2010 by needimprovement

[throng]

Here is a great lecture ot the subject.

 

[ydoaPs]

Where did the Energy in singularity come from?

What makes you think it came from somewhere?

[needimprovement]

Here is a great lecture ot the subject.

Krauss in fun to hear lecture, even for an hour, and is one of few theoretical physicists to say out loud that string theory is going nowhere. He said that he’s written a book about Fenyman, who I also like, so I’ll look out for that.

 

I’m not a scientist but everything he said made sense from all I know of physics, except for the business at the end about all stuff coming from a quantum fluctuation. That argument was also made before the discovery of dark matter and dark energy, but it makes a big assumption. Given that space is expanding, we can run the idea backwards to come to the big bang. At that point there was no space, just an infinitely small singularity. The quantum fluctuation argument doesn’t explain where that came from. If you say it was a fluctuation then you are assuming some kind of background from which it came, and are into chicken-and-egg.

 

However, is that one tiny thing sufficient to make us believe in God? Is he right to say that faith in God should not be based in science? Of course. (And is he right to Krauss in fun to hear lecture, even for an hour, and is one of few theoretical physicists to say out loud that string theory is going nowhere. He said that he’s written a book about Fenyman, who I also like, so I’ll look out for that.

 

I’m not a scientist but everything he said made sense from all I know of physics, except for the business at the end about all stuff coming from a quantum fluctuation. That argument was also made before the discovery of dark matter and dark energy, but it makes a big assumption. Given that space is expanding, we can run the idea backwards to come to the big bang. At that point there was no space, just an infinitely small singularity. The quantum flunctuation argument doesn’t explain where that came from. If you say it was a fluctuation then you are assuming some kind of background from which it came, and are into chicken-and-egg.

 

However, is that one tiny thing sufficient to make us believe in God? Is he right to say that faith in God should not be based in science? Of course.

[Severian]

I'm not a scientist but everything he said made sense from all I know of physics, except for the business at the end about all stuff coming from a quantum fluctuation.

 

The whole notion of the universe coming out of a quantum fluctuation really doesn't make sense since the very word 'fluctuation' implies it is a change from something before. There really is no need for a "before", so why do people like Krauss keep trying to introduce one?

[needimprovement]

What makes you think it came from somewhere?

What makes me think that if there is such a thing as singularity that the energy contained within came from somewhere?

 

Philosophy 101 delt with "Cause and Effect." Does my questioner believe that an Effect doesn't have to have a cause?

 

This discussion was directed toward "singularity". It is said that before the Big Bang all of the energy and matter we find in today's universe was in a dimensionless unmeasurable point - an infinitely small point. This is a theory by the way. Astronomers can only see so far back in time - they can't see the Big Bang....so all this business about singularity is theoretical. That is my opinion.

 

Singularity exists in the center of black holes right now. The precursor of the Big Bang was singularity.

 

Think. Before the Big Bang occurred ( if it did occur) then there was no matter nor energy except in that volumless point called singularity,i.e., it is said that all the energy and matter in our universe was contained within that infinitely small point which gave rise to the potential of the Big Bang.

 

This raises a problem. Chemists will ask today, "What keeps the like charged protons so close together in a nucleus when like charges repel?" The answer is nuclear glue.

Do cosmologists also have an equivalent of the chemist's "nuclear glue".

 

What we are talking about is beyond measurement or experimental science - it is only theoretical.... conjecture. We cannot see back in time to the big bang much less back to before the big bang. So the average reader of CA will call this goble-DE gook.

 

Secretly, I was waiting for someone to admit that the precursor of the big bang was God.

 

The so-called singularity = God.

 

A step farther. Why I supposed that the energy in singularity had to come from somewhere? I ask where did singularity come from?

 

We know that energy can be transformed into matter, and visa versa. So, the question becomes "Where did the Energy come from?" Assume that here I am considering a point in time before the advent of the Big Bang and the hypothetical precursor of the Big Bang - singularity. Most rational humans will agree that if Energy was put into that squishy thing called singularity that energy had to coexist with singularity or before.

 

We get into the problem of the Beginning of the precursors of the universe. Common man says that time has no beginning nor end, it always was and will always be. That makes one think of infinity. An infinite time-line has no ends. I ask, "At what point did singularity find it's way onto the time-line.....if I may? The precursors of the components of the Big Bang obviously were not existing before time began ; if I may?

 

I could ask here, "Then assuming that God exists, did he go shopping for his angels or did He create them. Were the angels somewhere nearby to God and God thought it would be a good idea to use the angels for sending messages? I disagree with that!

 

If God was a Spirit and He is then mere man not being able to measure in a lab any Spirit is simply using conjecture when contemplating where the energy of singularity came from.

 

The bottom line is that light is measurable - it is a created thing. God could have easily created light. This light could have been transmuted into other forms of energy. This energy could have been changed into sub-atomic particles and thus, finally, into atoms, i.e., matter with all the properties of matter. So the energy came from God.

[Mr Skeptic]

What makes me think that if there is such a thing as singularity that the energy contained within came from somewhere?

 

Depending on how you do the math, the energy of the universe is zero.

[Severian]

Depending on how you do the math, the energy of the universe is zero.

 

That may be true, but there is absolutely no evidence for that statement. Why do you think the energy of the universe is zero? (Technically, since only differences in energy are significant, one could define the energy of the universe to be "zero", but I don't think that is what you mean.)

[Airbrush]

What makes me think that if there is such a thing as singularity that the energy contained within came from somewhere?

 

...It is said that before the Big Bang all of the energy and matter we find in today's universe was in a dimensionless unmeasurable point - an infinitely small point. This is a theory by the way. Astronomers can only see so far back in time - they can't see the Big Bang....so all this business about singularity is theoretical. That is my opinion.

 

I don't think the Big Bang implies a singularity of infinite density that somehow overcame its' own huge gravity to expand. I prefer to think the Big Bang was initiated by a collision of higher dimensions. Thus the expansion began from a region of indefinite size, perhaps infinite. Like two blankets hanging parallel on two clothes lines outdoors. The wind blows them so they make contact, not at a single point, but a region of relatively large size.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Airbrush

[Mr Skeptic]

That may be true, but there is absolutely no evidence for that statement. Why do you think the energy of the universe is zero? (Technically, since only differences in energy are significant, one could define the energy of the universe to be "zero", but I don't think that is what you mean.)

 

Well, I think it could be zero. I don't really understand the maths, but basically it is that gravity cancels out the positive energy. Seems a bit strange to me, but I can't really say one way or the other.

Zero-energy_Universe

[PhDwannabe]

Think. Before the Big Bang occurred ( if it did occur) then there was no matter nor energy except in that volumless point called singularity,i.e., it is said that all the energy and matter in our universe was contained within that infinitely small point which gave rise to the potential of the Big Bang.

 

The so-called singularity = God.

 

The refutations of the cosmological argument are easy enough to make their way into intro philosophy classes. In a hierarchy of Aristotle's bright ideas, it ranks somewhere between "the brain is a cooling organ" and "women have fewer teeth than men."

[needimprovement]

No matter how many fancy scientific terms you use, you simply cannot have something appear from nothing. The ONLY way anything can exist is because God has created it, and since God is infinite, He needs no beginning.

 

There can't be any other explanation. String, quantum, fluctuating mathamechanicsmattermakingmazingmealymon stosities! Non of it explains how anything can be formed from nothing. If scientists go so far back as to claim that there was something the universe evolved from that always existed, then they've basically admitted to the existence of God!

 

It isn't complicated, it's just that atheist scientists would rather spend their time proving the universe doesn't need God to exist.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No matter how many fancy scientific terms you use, you simply cannot have something appear from nothing. The ONLY way anything can exist is because God has created it, and since God is infinite, He needs no beginning.

Couldn't the universe be infinite, thus needing no beginning?

[7th]

What God are you thinking of ?

@needimprovement

[caharris]

According to this scenario [inflammatory big bang model], by means of a random quantum fluctuation the universe "tunneled" from pure vacuum ("nothing") to what is called a false vacuum, a region of space that contains no matter or radiation but is not quite "nothing." The space inside this bubble of false vacuum was curved, or warped. A small amount of energy was contained in that curvature, somewhat like the energy stored in a strung bow. This ostensible violation of energy conservation is allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for sufficiently small time intervals.

 

A little past half-way down, in a section called "In the Beginning," talking about the anthropic coincidences by Victor Stenger

[Darkpassenger]

@needimprovement

Ok in that case, what created that god? or how did that god come from nothing? How do you know that god is even a god? dose that god even have the ability to choose what it dose? whats is its purpose for coming into existence or existing at all? And what evidance do you have to support your claim?

Edited August 19, 2010 by Darkpassenger

[Airbrush]

No matter how many fancy scientific terms you use, you simply cannot have something appear from nothing. The ONLY way anything can exist is because God has created it, and since God is infinite, He needs no beginning.

 

There can't be any other explanation. String, quantum, fluctuating mathamechanicsmattermakingmazingmealymon stosities! Non of it explains how anything can be formed from nothing. If scientists go so far back as to claim that there was something the universe evolved from that always existed, then they've basically admitted to the existence of God!

 

It isn't complicated, it's just that atheist scientists would rather spend their time proving the universe doesn't need God to exist.

 

Something did NOT come from nothing. No scientists will claim that. Obviously, conditions must have pre-existed the Big Bang that allowed a Big Bang. Those conditions are something. Your use of the word "God" does nothing to explain further than if you simply replace the word "God" with "universe". So the universe is probably infinite and eternal, just like God is. So what? A Big Bang is just one of those things that happen occasionally.

 

There can be lots of other explanations, we just haven't figured everything out yet, and probably never will. If "God" for you means the aggregate of all physical laws and forces, then God exists for me as well as you. However, if you get religion-specific in defining God, you might lose my interest.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Airbrush

[Severian]

<br />Something did NOT come from nothing.  No scientists will claim that.  Obviously, conditions must have pre-existed the Big Bang that <u>allowed</u> a Big Bang.  

 

That is certainly not the cannonical scientific description.

 

A Big Bang is just one of those things that happen occasionally.

And neither is that!

[Darkpassenger]

Something did NOT come from nothing. No scientists will claim that. Obviously, conditions must have pre-existed the Big Bang that allowed a Big Bang. Those conditions are something. Your use of the word "God" does nothing to explain further than if you simply replace the word "God" with "universe". So the universe is probably infinite and eternal, just like God is. So what? A Big Bang is just one of those things that happen occasionally.

 

There can be lots of other explanations, we just haven't figured everything out yet, and probably never will. If "God" for you means the aggregate of all physical laws and forces, then God exists for me as well as you. However, if you get religion-specific in defining God, you might lose my interest.

 

I Know your assuming his definition of "god" is the "universe" but you should not encourage this idea it is a slippery slope. This probably would not have bothered me if you defined god as anything else but “the universe”, or perhaps used any other definition that wasn’t already taken. It does bother me when people hijack definitions that are already scientifically established to describe what we can see and understand as facts. When you grossly distort the meanings of words you make it impossible for us to translate your ideas into logical and meaningful sense. You can have your cake and eat it too, but you have to call it “cake” and not “god”.

[needimprovement]

Depending on how you do the math, the energy of the universe is zero.

I think you were talking about my statement regarding the origin of matter and energy we now observe in our universe. Someone introduced the unproven theory that all the energy and matter was once contained within an immeasurable "point" without dimensions. Cosmologists invented a word for that point..it is called "singularity". It has no volume to be sure. It further stated that this point was the forerunner or precursor of all the energy and matter that was expelled by the Big Bang. I hope this is understandable to the reader.

 

where that energy that was in the immeasurable "singularity" came from. Obviously that point, "singularity", had to exist at a time BEFORE the Big Bang AND Before there was any primordial universe.

That was a time at which there was nothing except possibly a spirit because there was no matter nor energy before that thing called singularity was produced.

 

I think you were trying to justify an improvable concept as are the mathematicians. The secret is that I was attempting to cause someone to offer the existence of the Spirit of God as the "Cause" for the proposed events that preceded the led up to what we call our universe. Perhaps my logic is not congruent with the logic of the proponents of "singularity".

Edited August 20, 2010 by needimprovement

[Klaynos]

A misconception, "singularity" was not thought up by cosmologists, it is a mathematical term for what happens to certain functions (in this case and most often it means f(x) = 1/x where x is 0), this in physics is taken to mean that the theory has broken down at that point as 0's and infinities are taken to be not physical.

 

needimprovement, I would suggest doing some investigations in how modern science is conducted. Someone didn't just pitch up one day and say:

 

Hey guys I think the universe started in a singularity

 

And everyone responded with:

 

That's a jolly good idea, we'll stick with that.

 

What happened was, there was some mathematical framework developed that modelled the currently observable universe, it make reliable, accurate, mathematical predictions about what we can and do observer, this model was then run backwards in time and it showed what is now known as the big bang theory of the universe. At t=0 it breaks down, we know it breaks down, discussion of the singularity will result in the response of "well we know it breaks down and we're working on it"

 

So in answer to your original question of where did it all come from, we don't know. We're working on it.

[Darkpassenger]

 

So in answer to your original question of where did it all come from, we don't know. We're working on it.

 

Golf clap to you sir.

[needimprovement]

So in answer to your original question of where did it all come from, we don't know. We're working on it.

Thank you sir. If physical reality breaks down at the singularity, then the cause of the universe cannot be physical. Unless of course you agree with hawking's version of the big bang.

[Mr Skeptic]

Physical reality doesn't "break down". In fact, that's just gibberish.

[Klaynos]

Our understanding breaks down.