Big Bang & Motion: Origin of Atomic & Subatomic Motion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Naveen345
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Motion Source
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on whether all motion, including atomic and subatomic motion, originates from the Big Bang. Participants argue that if one views the Big Bang as the universe's creation point, it could be seen as the source of all motion. However, the question is deemed ill-posed, likening it to asking if the Sun is the source of all flavor. The conversation also explores the idea that the four fundamental forces, which govern motion, were once unified and later separated, but the reasons for their separation and existence remain unclear. Ultimately, all forces can be explained through interactions at the molecular level, driven by these fundamental forces.
Naveen345
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Is all motion basically the result of big bang, including atomic and sub-atomic motion?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That depends on what your view on the Big Bang is. If you think it is the creation of everything in the universe, then I guess you could say that the big bang is the "source" of all motion. However your question is ill-posed. It's like asking if the Sun is the source of all flavor since it is the source of energy for all life on Earth, and subsequently the food we eat is the result of life.
 
Drakkith said:
That depends on what your view on the Big Bang is. If you think it is the creation of everything in the universe, then I guess you could say that the big bang is the "source" of all motion. However your question is ill-posed. It's like asking if the Sun is the source of all flavor since it is the source of energy for all life on Earth, and subsequently the food we eat is the result of life.

I meant that all the four fundamental forces were united previously and then they separated. These basic forces move bodies, sub atomic particles, photons etc. (I am skeptical as to when inertia came into existence, though)
We are also a product of there basic forces. So when we move a thing can we attribute it to the ‘forces’ that made us? I asked the question from this view point.
 
All forces can be explained in terms of the four fundamental ones. If you looked closely enough at the surface of our palms when we are pushing an object you'll find that all the motion of the object can be attributed to interactions (of the electromagnetic/nuclear sort) occurring between our hand and the object in question.

In that sense, then yes, every 'force' in the universe can be explained by the summation of millions of interactions occurring at the molecular level, all of which are caused by one of the four fundamental forces. That's why we call them fundamental.
 
Vorde said:
All forces can be explained in terms of the four fundamental ones. If you looked closely enough at the surface of our palms when we are pushing an object you'll find that all the motion of the object can be attributed to interactions (of the electromagnetic/nuclear sort) occurring between our hand and the object in question.

In that sense, then yes, every 'force' in the universe can be explained by the summation of millions of interactions occurring at the molecular level, all of which are caused by one of the four fundamental forces. That's why we call them fundamental.

any explanation as to why these four fundamental forces took birth? and why only four and why did they get separated, when they were one initially?
 
There are some theories that claim the four forces were once all "Unified" into one force. This just means that at very high energy and density levels the forces and their force carriers are the same. We don't know of any underlying "why" or how they came into existence. I suspect it has something to do with the creation of the universe in its current state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory
 
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top