Seeing as it is inconceivable that something can be created from nothing, is it logical to assume that something must have existed forever?
If so, what do scientists believe is this ‘thing’?
Seeing as it is inconceivable that something can be created from nothing, is it logical to assume that something must have existed forever?
If so, what do scientists believe is this ‘thing’?
I think we must precede this question with “does ‘forever’ mean what we think it does?” - if time itself has an origin, then there would be no such thing as ‘before’ time and the length of now-elapsed time would be finite (although this would still be ‘forever’ in the sense that it is all of time)
Entropy.
Really depends on what you mean by “exist”. The energy of the Big Bang still exists today, in all the matter an energy you see around you today, the form has just changed a little. It also exists in its original (if slightly stretched) form as the 3K microwave background radiation.
That’s probably the closest you could get to something existing “forever”
I imagine that the thing that’s been around the longest (i.e. as close to forever as possible) is hydrogen.
So, would that mean that it’s possible that some hydrogen atom out there in the dark of space has potentially been floating around since just after the big bang?
I think photons that form the cosmic background radiation may have been around longer.
Dick Clark?
More impressive than that, nearly all hydrogen atoms out there in the dark of space have been floating around since just after the big bang.
-b
Apparently something does come from nothing – the universe must have popped out of some sort of quantum fluctuation. Whatever physical properties that allow that to happen might be considered to have existed before the big B.
Protons are effectively stable (some theories maintain protons have a half-life of 10[sup]31[/sup] years, while the age of the universe is more like 1.6[sup]10[/sup]) and a proton created in the first million billion zillionth of a second after the Big Bang should still be around. It may have “gotten married” to numerous electrons over its life (i.e. formed a hydrogen atom) but it’s had more divorces then Liz Taylor and Mickey Rooney combined, as the fickle electrons keep getting yanked away by chemical reactions. A small number of these protons have been pulled into stars and fused together to form the nuclei of elements more massive then hydrogen, but lone free protons still roam the cosmos. Yippie-ki-yea.
Ignorance.
The existence of this board and The Straight Dope proves it’s still around in large quantities.
Can’t matter only come in to existence if there are laws in place to define it?
Actually, it’s not inconceivable at all. Virtual particles are created and destroyed all the time. As long as they don’t violate the uncertainty principle there’s no problem with conservation of mass/energy. They are responsible for the bubbling “quantum foam”, and they are, in fact, essential for the calculations associated with Feynman diagrams.
Of course, they don’t last very long at all. I think scr4 has it right – there are probably photons left over from the Big Bang that haven’t run into anything yet.
Isn’t this concept incorrect to begin with? At least on the quantum level there are indications that particles are spontaneously being created and destroyed all the time.
From this website :
And even more interesting:
The other thing about the big bang is that supposedly there was no space-time before the big bang. In other words, the big bang did not happen at any location – location itself arose with the big bang.
In a way this makes sense. The big bang was the origin of the universe as we know it. Concepts we use to measure the universe, such as time and location, would have no meaning before the origin.
Think of the big bang as similar to the north pole. Say you travel from your current location towards the north pole. This is similar to traveling back in time towards the big bang. You can continue to travel north until you reach the north pole, but at that point it no longer makes sense to try to travel north. There is no more northerly point, and all directions are south at the north pole. Similarly, it makes no sense to ask what happened before the big bang. There is no more historical point, and all directions from the big bang are the future.
But whatever created the big bang, did not have to obey the laws of thermodynamics. Is it therefore safe to assume that if we trace back far enough, we would find an initial, infinite force that is not subject to any laws? And would also therefore be immaterial?
How do you trace “back” when time itself was created at the Big Bang?
There certainly are photons left over from the Big Bang, but they’re not old at all. Due to that pesky relativity business, they’re currently, and will always be, 0 second old.
Besides, most protons date back even earlier, so they’re not a contender anyway.
You don’t trace back on a time scale, you just examine the cause-and-effect scenarios.