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
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

Uncovering the Origins of Dynamics: From Lucretius to Hobbs and Beyond
Replies
2
Views
12K
B Does an infinite universe contradict a Big Bang origin?
2
Replies
65
Views
6K
Kinematics: A Complete Picture of Motion Without Causes
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Big bang occuring everywhere vs everything "compressed"
Replies
16
Views
3K
Sources for Physics Research Paper on Rotational Blade Motion on Helicopter
Replies
4
Views
80
I What atoms are we made of, how much is from the big bang?
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Describing the Big Bang
Replies
47
Views
653
I Paradox: How can we look back at the Big Bang?
Replies
31
Views
3K
I Expanding universe needs a big bang?
3
Replies
101
Views
8K
I Supermassive singularity the cause of the Big Bang?
Replies
32
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top