Cosmology is science's bad attempt to do metaphysics. Not philosophers!
Here's a different angle on the universe for you: it's too fricking big. However it came into existence, there's just too damn much of it. Everything is too far apart. Most of it is just pointless star formation and stuff drifting around. Nearly all is either too hot or cold, inhospitable to all life.
Once you get over being awestruck by it, this reality eventually sinks in.
1. We can't be the only universe, ergo there must be an infinite number, all different with their own rules of physics.
2. All universes exist in the multiverse, which has its own rules.
3. In our universe, cause and effect rules, so nothing can come from nothing, ergo our something came from the metaverse which DOES allow something from nothing (which obviously makes no sese to us in our universe) .
There is not much to the big bang theory. We all know that the universe started as literally nothing. Then it suddenly expanded because of quantum fluctuations within it's molecules. If you think of the fluctuations like tsunami waves except they are moving at the speed of light. It is like an island. One minute the water around it is calm, and then suddenly a tsunami completely covers it. The big bang is just the reverse of this. Tsunami's are usually caused by earthquakes, so the big bang was caused by equivalent of an earthquake in space and not water
As every scientist would tell you: we don't know. The Big Bang theory is just our best guess based on the evidence available, which so far is supported by observations scientists have made of our universe.
There is not much to the big bang theory. We all know that the universe started as literally nothing. Then it suddenly expanded because of quantum fluctuations within it's molecules. If you think of the fluctuations like tsunami waves except they are moving at the speed of light. It is like an island. One minute the water around it is calm, and then suddenly a tsunami completely covers it. The big bang is just the reverse of this. Tsunami's are usually caused by earthquakes, so the big bang was caused by equivalent of an earthquake in space and not water
I usually use Banana Bread for my ham sandwitches and I am a vagitarian
100% speculation. If what you claim is true, then we just solved all energy problems. We won’t ever have to worry about depleting fossil fuels or lack of wind because “matter can spontaneously form out of nothing”. Human beings are all-knowing Gods who can understand all of the facets of the universe…because if we can understand how matter is created out of nothing, as you claim, then we can harness it.
It’s predicated on something forming out of nothing. Can someone explain that?
I think your mistake here is saying the question is about the Big Bang theory. Now everyone is just saying that the Big Bang theory doesn't say something came from nothing which isn't helpful to you.
The unintuitive thing for me is that either "something" came from nothing (and I mean no space, no time, no laws of physics or anything at all) or else "something" has always existed. Maybe a different mindset or completely new physics will explain it but until then it's a mystery (at least to me).
The BBT only exists because the human mind can only comprehend that which has a beginning and an end, thus the relative nature of time. The universe doesn't necessarily have to have a beginning or an end. Our observation of the universe may only be seeing an expansionary pulse. Down the road it may reverse.
The Big Bang Theory, more formally known as the Lambda CDM model, absolutely positively does not say that something formed from nothing. [...] The actual model simply states that the universe is migrating from a hot and extremely dense state, from a period called the planck epoch, to a cooler and less dense state. It never attempts to make a prediction on what occurred before the planck epoch because we do not yet have a quantum theory of gravity.
+1, this nails it. End of thread.
People get frustrated with science for having limits. For example if you tell people that the observable universe has a finite size, i.e. we can only see so far, they want to know what's outside of that. If you tell them that there is an earliest moment we can currently understand and model (the 'big bang'), they want to know what happened before that. Very human, but simply, we don't know!
The Big Bang Theory, more formally known as the Lambda CDM model, absolutely positively does not say that something formed from nothing. [...] The actual model simply states that the universe is migrating from a hot and extremely dense state, from a period called the planck epoch, to a cooler and less dense state. It never attempts to make a prediction on what occurred before the planck epoch because we do not yet have a quantum theory of gravity.
+1, this nails it. End of thread.
People get frustrated with science for having limits. For example if you tell people that the observable universe has a finite size, i.e. we can only see so far, they want to know what's outside of that. If you tell them that there is an earliest moment we can currently understand and model (the 'big bang'), they want to know what happened before that. Very human, but simply, we don't know!
These are good responses.
I'm not an astrophysicist. But I have questions that an astrophysicist may have an answer for. Are we static in space, or are we falling through because of lack of gravity? Sometimes you'll see an astronaut doing a space walk working on telescopes, satellites, ect. and letting loose of their tools only to have said tools float before them. On earth those tools would fall to the floor.
So I guess what I'm trying to get at is, with the known expansion of the universe, are we falling through space and just can't feel it or are we static while the universe keeps expanding.
I'm not an astrophysicist. But I have questions that an astrophysicist may have an answer for. Are we static in space, or are we falling through because of lack of gravity? Sometimes you'll see an astronaut doing a space walk working on telescopes, satellites, ect. and letting loose of their tools only to have said tools float before them. On earth those tools would fall to the floor.
So I guess what I'm trying to get at is, with the known expansion of the universe, are we falling through space and just can't feel it or are we static while the universe keeps expanding.
Disclaimer that I studied physics in grad school but it's been a while.
The tl;dr is that we're freely falling through space. Overly long version:
In low earth orbit, where the International Space Station is, gravity is about 90% as strong as on Earth's surface. So why are the astronauts and tools all apparently floating? It's because they are all falling toward the Earth together at the same rate. Like you'd float in a freely-falling elevator.
You probably know the earth is both spinning around its own axis and also going in a big circle around the sun. Why don't we notice the acceleration toward the sun? Because like with the astronauts, the Earth and everything on it is all falling together (it is also a relatively small acceleration, as it happens, but we wouldn't notice anyway).
And the whole solar system is also orbiting the center of the Milky Way galaxy.
And the Milky Way galaxy is also moving and accelerating relative to nearby galaxies. Etc.
So we're definitely not static, it would seem. But relative to what? Scientists used to think there might be some sort of fixed background that we could measure motion against, but since about 1900 that idea has been discarded, and at a fundamental level physics only talks about relative motion - i.e. how is A moving relative to B. If you want a search term to learn more, you could try 'general covariance' (or relativity more generally). One way to look at this is that we could, technically, just *define* ourselves to be stationary, with everything else whirling around us. But probably the more useful perspective is that at a deep enough level it doesn't make sense to talk about an object being static or not - only relative motion. And the way everything is flying around, it would be pretty hard to find any other object out there that we are stationary with respect to.
I'm not an astrophysicist. But I have questions that an astrophysicist may have an answer for. Are we static in space, or are we falling through because of lack of gravity? Sometimes you'll see an astronaut doing a space walk working on telescopes, satellites, ect. and letting loose of their tools only to have said tools float before them. On earth those tools would fall to the floor.
So I guess what I'm trying to get at is, with the known expansion of the universe, are we falling through space and just can't feel it or are we static while the universe keeps expanding.
Disclaimer that I studied physics in grad school but it's been a while.
The tl;dr is that we're freely falling through space. Overly long version:
In low earth orbit, where the International Space Station is, gravity is about 90% as strong as on Earth's surface. So why are the astronauts and tools all apparently floating? It's because they are all falling toward the Earth together at the same rate. Like you'd float in a freely-falling elevator.
You probably know the earth is both spinning around its own axis and also going in a big circle around the sun. Why don't we notice the acceleration toward the sun? Because like with the astronauts, the Earth and everything on it is all falling together (it is also a relatively small acceleration, as it happens, but we wouldn't notice anyway).
And the whole solar system is also orbiting the center of the Milky Way galaxy.
And the Milky Way galaxy is also moving and accelerating relative to nearby galaxies. Etc.
So we're definitely not static, it would seem. But relative to what? Scientists used to think there might be some sort of fixed background that we could measure motion against, but since about 1900 that idea has been discarded, and at a fundamental level physics only talks about relative motion - i.e. how is A moving relative to B. If you want a search term to learn more, you could try 'general covariance' (or relativity more generally). One way to look at this is that we could, technically, just *define* ourselves to be stationary, with everything else whirling around us. But probably the more useful perspective is that at a deep enough level it doesn't make sense to talk about an object being static or not - only relative motion. And the way everything is flying around, it would be pretty hard to find any other object out there that we are stationary with respect to.
I liked your answer without you acknowledging my lack of intelligence. Thank You!
Maybe I didn't phrase it correctly. With the already known expansion of the universe, is everything in the universe getting pulled along for the ride? You know, getting stretched out along with expansion, or is everything staying static while expansion is making the distances between unearthly things we can see through lenses appear growing farther apart, while we still live in this small part of space
And also, I'm really curious if our solar system is in a static place, or because of lack of gravity it's all in a free fall.
I liked your answer without you acknowledging my lack of intelligence. Thank You!
Maybe I didn't phrase it correctly. With the already known expansion of the universe, is everything in the universe getting pulled along for the ride? You know, getting stretched out along with expansion, or is everything staying static while expansion is making the distances between unearthly things we can see through lenses appear growing farther apart, while we still live in this small part of space
And also, I'm really curious if our solar system is in a static place, or because of lack of gravity it's all in a free fall.
It’s the latter. What’s even more fascinating is that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light, so in light years, the size of the universe is bigger than the age in years of the universe, and that doesn’t contradict relativity’s speed-of-light limit for everything including even propagation of gravity itself because nothing is moving faster than light, rather space itself is expanding over (relative) time, so some parts of the universe have forever been partitioned from us, ie no matter how long we wait, light from those regions can never reach us, unless the universe’s space starts to shrink again, that is.