But if the history of the Universe hadn’t happened in pretty much just that way, you wouldn’t be around to be blown away by the fact that it is possible for you to exist in this form… So that’s really a circular tautology, isn’t it?
Or as Terry Pratchett summarizes in a lengthy footnote in his book Hogfather:
And think about this: all those Universes where no sentient life capable of pondering existential matters ever evolves, never get wondered about. And you know what some people say about trees that fall in unpopulated woods…
That’s assuming there were infinite universes (or thereabouts) with different laws, matter and energy that evolved and somehow ended before arriving at this one, which so happened to have the right “mix”. Who’s to say this wasn’t the first universe?
I couldn’t agree more. Who’s to say we are but a bubble universe in a vast froth of universes. Perhaps all the universes allow for sentient life. Doesn’t make it any less spectacular that we’re here to witness it. Or, we could be the first and last universe, ever. No way to know really. Although deep down, we pine for that knowledge. We want answers dammit!
OK, let me see if I understand this. Please help me if I am way oversimplifying things or if I am totally off my rocker.
The “known universe” came into existence as a result of the Big Bang ™. Prior to BB everything is compressed into a single point of energy that had a potentiality to develop into everything: stars, planets, slugs and used car salesmen.
We have one theory that our BB starting point (BBprime) had always been there because time as we understand it cannot exist outside of it. Another theory says that BBprime resulted after a prior “universe” (BBprime-1) underwent a Big Crunch ™ that made our singularity and so on in and endless cycle. Still another says that BBprime came from another “universe” pinching off a portion of itself (Big Dump ™) which eventually yada, yada, yada…And, of course, there is the whole, “God said, ‘Let there be light!’” routine.
That still doesn’t explain a few things:
No matter where the singularity came from, it still had to come from somewhere, right? I mean, it can’t just suddenly pop into existence out of nowhere with the built in coding that would allow it to follow a program that flows from ultimate chaos to Scarlett Johansson, can it? That would be like a bunch of building material just dropping from the sky and then forming into a mansion. This includes the “god” theories, too. God/Yahweh/Allah/FSM had to come from somewhere.
When BBprime happened, everything went flying out helter-skelter. There were items (quarks, muons, etc.) on the leading edge, accelerating outward. What was in front of them?
The idea that all these things exist within our known universe means that there is a boundary point, albeit an expanding one, and the universe is closed. If it is closed, then what is beyond the boundary?
How can chaotic expansion lead to ordered cohesion? If everything is zipping out from BBprime in countless random directions, what brought them back together in such a structured manner? Sure, we have gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces. But everything is moving away from each other. What made them clump together to eventually make kiwis?
I know. These are cosmological/philosophical/theological/illogical questions. Nobody has all the answers and the answers we have lead to more questions. But can anybody help me understand this?
I think you have a pretty decent grip on it actually. Points 1-3 are what I would consider metaphysical. Probably outside the reach of science, which is a bummer. So your guess is as good as mine.
Point 4 however, can probably be better answered by someone here like Chronos or Stranger on a Train. Guys?
Yes, it can. That’s what a quantum fluctuation of zero-point energy is.
Nothing. Space formed as space expanded. Yes, this is probably the single hardest concept to grasp.
Nothing. See #2.
Gravity can explain all of this, and does so extremely well in computer models. Not every detail is understood, of course, and many questions remain. But nothing more than the simple application of gravity to moving mass is required to build galaxies.
Thanks. :o
I remember reading an article (it was either in Discover or Scientific American) about the concept of a multiverse. A parent universe has a region of space that, for some reason, gets separated from the remainder of it’s cosmos (I think they described a massive gravitational collapse) and it would drop out of its known universe, budding outward and eventually separating completely. The graphics accompanying the article made it look like a great big bubble was pinching a loaf, thus shitting a new universe.
Considering the kind of crap we see every day, I think it is the most reasonable explanation.
Exapno Mapcase your answers to 2 and 3 seem circular.
might as well be “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” What is the space forming from? What is it expanding into? Expanding into nothing is meaningless. A zero is a placeholder denoting the lack of a certain quantifiable item (zero apples, zero airplanes, zero stars) but nothing doesn’t make sense in a cosmic situation. I can understand if it was expanding to fill a vacuum, which would be a region lacking in substance, including energy. But that presupposes that the region existed.
Your statement that
makes it sound like this is a fact. I’ve read articles about ZPE and, although they are fascinating and thought-provoking, they are theories and usually devolve into discussion about energy “free lunches” like perpetual motion devices. A “quantum fluctuation of zero-point energy” is theoretical, along with dark energy, dark matter, quantum strings and invisible pink unicorns.
Look, I don’t mean to sound snarky here but all we have are theories and questions. Every discovery, every high energy experiment gets us a step closer to understanding T0. But even if we get to the point that we know the exact structure of that primal point and know just what happened when it popped like a vast Cosmic pimple, spewing its primitive pus everywhere, we will never know what created the Zero Point Zit. Many people have said that our current physics falls apart at certain events, including the BB. How can we possibly guess as to what happened before there was a universe?
Before the big bang time didn’t exist. Time is woven into the space time continuum. If you go fast enough,theoretically time slows and will reverse. With no veolcity there was no time.
As I understand it, this is not impossible, just indescribably unlikely. It would involve huge numbers of quarks suddenly haring off in opposite directions, and the resulting new hadrons assembling purely by chance into cement, lumber, sheetrock, and so forth. It doesn’t really speak to your point, however, because the vast amounts of energy required to form that mass would have to come from somewhere. (Bear in mind that my grasp of particle physics is somewhat shaky, and I may have misinterpreted what I’ve read about confinement.)
It might help to think of this in a slightly different way. Rather than thinking of all those particles flying outward, try to think of the place where they were continuously becoming someplace new. Or that might just be more confusing…
While it’s undoubtedly true that the popular profile of zero-point fluctuations is overwhelmingly tied up with free energy hucksterism, that shouldn’t obscure the fact that quantum fluctuations of the vacuum are a fundamental and entirely standard aspect of mainstream quantum field theory. Their incorporation in theories like chaotic inflation to explain how our universe could arise from “nothing” is entirely uncontroversial amongst the professionals, regardless of whether those same cosmologists individually do or do not find these theories convincing as an explanation for the origin of the universe.
They are no more or less theoretical than, say, quarks or gluons.
It may be meaningless to you, and probably is. That’s probably true for most people. As I said it’s a difficult concept to grasp.
However, just because it’s a difficult concept does not make it untrue. You cannot dismiss everything that you don’t understand. People who have studied the subject in enormous depth and detail have modeled this mathematically in a way that is agreed upon by practically everybody. The math does not translate well into ordinary English everyday “common sense” language, true. That’s not the physicists’ faults. If you or I don’t get it without a complete understanding of the math, it’s our problem to overcome. Saying that it’s meaningless is a confession of failure on our parts, and not a, ahem, meaningful critique of physics.
bonzer has already responded to your other objection. Again, it’s a matter of your not understanding the physics rather than a fault in the physics itself.
I recommend books in these threads because understanding in English of what these concepts mean is essentially impossible to come by in these paragraph-long posts. Even the first steps toward comprehension require entire books to build the edifice brick by brick, so to speak, to lift oneself from the basic elements of the theories to their deepest implications. (Can one lift oneself to the depths? We’re already in trouble with the English. ) I’m partial to Brian Greene’s excellent books, but other physicists including Michio Kaku, Kip Thorne and Lawrence Krauss have also written fine popular science for the layman. You need an actual working physicist to write the book. I haven’t found any popular science writers who are capable of translating the math into English.
And that’s the be-all and end-all of the problem. We’re talking about the implications, effects, and manifestations of mathematical concepts that do not exist in our lives, have no physical analogs we can relate to, and make little sense without an extensive background in more basic, classical, physics just to begin to grasp. For the vast majority of people this will not look at all meaningful, because there is no good way to look at it with familiar eyes. Only with the help of a good guide can you glimpse what the current thinking suggests. Read a good book; in fact, read several to get a variety of perspectives, a variety of analogies, a variety of backgrounds, and a variety of emphases. It is work, to be sure. I find it rewarding but it’s not to everybody’s tastes.
Agreed. But the problem isn’t with the “nothing”, it’s with the “into”. Space isn’t expanding into, it’s just expanding.
One quickly reaches a point in these discussions where, if one isn’t careful, one is asking meaningless questions. “What is space expanding into?” is no more meaningful a question than “popular And no people thinking work, But?”. All of the words individually make sense, but when you put them together in that particular way, they don’t.
) I’m partial to Brian Greene’s excellent books, but other physicists including Michio Kaku, Kip Thorne and Lawrence Krauss have also written fine popular science for the layman. You need an actual working physicist to write the book. I haven’t found any popular science writers who are capable of translating the math into English.