It’s thought by some that the big bang started the universe.
Right?
Where did the stuff of the big bang come from?
I am not looking for a philosophical or religious discussion here.
Just scientific.
In the sense that it is normally understood, it didn’t “come” from anywhere, as there was no “where”.
Don’t you just love science?
It came from the collapse of the false vacuum.
I’ve heard a theory that there was a universe before which slowly stopped expanding, gravity began attracting all the “stuff” back together, and it all collapsed together into an tiny point, at which time the energy contained in such a small space caused it to explode again, restarting the process. Our universe may be subject to the same fate.
I dunno how accurate it is, and I’m not sure where I heard it. Just a theory.
Even more confusing, for something to “come from” somewhere, it must have been somewhere else beforehand. However, there was no “before” the Big Bang, as the origin of our universe was also the origin of time itself. Thus, the entire concept of matter “coming from” somewhere is invalid, even of there were somewhere for it to come from.
There is no information about anything that took place before the big bang. Anything anyone tells you happened prior to the big bang is speculation. Keep in mind the big bang is a THEORY and hasn’t been proven. Some physicists have alternate theories that don’t involve a big bang.
Oh yeah, to clarify, if you’re not looking for a philosophical or religious answer…there is no answer to your question.
What really happened at the big bang was that nothing came from nothing. When you get right down to it everything is some sort of manifestation of energy, and the energy of the universe is exactly zero.
All the energy contained in matter and radiation is exactly offset by a negative gravitational potential energy.
What the heck is negative energy?
Please don’t confuse the scientific use of the word “theory” with the nontechnical one. Scientific explanations are still theories long after they’re universally accepted. A theory is a big-picture explanation in science. Like the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of disease.
The big bang theory has not been universally accepted. Many big name scientists including steven hawking have questioned its validity.
Fine, but the word “theory” does not mean “not universally accepted.” It’s a nitpick, but an important one.
Mostly it’s just the details that are in dispute. The overaching construct is pretty universally accepted, and there is considerable empirical evidence to support it. The uniform cosmic microwave background is one of the strongest pieces of supporting evidence, for example, and it is explained nicely by the Big Bang.
The bottom line is we don’t understand very much about the nature of the universe. Sure if you look at the universe through newtonian eyes it appears that since all celestial bodies appear to be heading away from eachother they must have all started at one point. This is to me is like saying that because we can’t see the curvature of the earth than the earth must be flat.
We’re taking physics that we barely understand and trying to extrapolate what happened 5 billion years ago. Special relativity is a THEORY, it does not hold true in all cases. Newtonian physics doesn’t even hold true for the cases that we use it, its just a good enough approximation that it doesn’t matter.
The bottom line is there is no universally accepted explanation for the creation of the universe.
lol, sorry 5 billion years is a little off. I was excited 
You might want to look into quantum theories on this. At the time of the Big Bang, spacetime was so dense that quantum mechanics applied “universally”. There are always fluctuations in the quantum ground state, a certain amount of uncertainty. I think Hawking deals with this in his “Black Holes and Baby Universes” book. That’s not an explanation, of course – I couldn’t do justice to the explanation without going back to my books, and even then it would take more space than I should take up here, and I wouldn’t describe it as elegantly as the physicists do.
There is also the possibility that the Big Bang is a result of forces outside our universe. Consider the possibility that larger hyperdimensional fields have collided, for instance.
My favorite theory is that our universe is like a gas bubble in a bottle of soda pop. Certain flavors of this theory account for the recently discovered acceleration in the rate of expansion of the universe. In other words, a larger (more highly dimensioned) universe expands, creating lower-dimensional “bubbles” which expand and eventually burst or fizzle out.
Adherents of brane theory have proposed a sort of knocking-together of hyperdimensional membranes, creating shockwaves emanating from an epicenter, which we experience as the evolution of the universe.
Non-sequiteur.
Sorry to keep posting, I’m trying to stop. I guess the bottom line for me is this thread belongs in great debates not general questions. There is no factual answer to the OP.
Just what it sounds like. Where so-called negative energy exists, you must add energy to reach zero. Sounds weird, I know, but there it is.
And Ring, has it been proved that the energy of the universe is zero?
can you give me an example of negative energy. Gravitational potential energy to me could be more accurately described as stored energy. Can you tell I’m an engineer with a physics problem?