Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Big Bang pattern?

  1. Mar 12, 2004 #1
    Hi all, i have a question about the big bang, it might be dumb i dont know much about science. Anyway here is my train of thought.

    1. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed and therefore everything that exists today has existed for an infinate amount of time in the past and will for an infinate amount of time in the future.

    2. The Universe, the big bang supposedly has an age in the billions of years.

    3. If the big bang has an age and is a once off thing then what is the chance of the big bang happening at any point in the last 20 billion years if all the matter making up the universe has been around for ever? If this is the case the chance is infinatley small.

    4. Therefore it seems to a layman(me) that the universe is in some sort of pattern and maybe a big bang pattern. Maybe our universe is imploding then exploding then imploding, exploding and so on. Maybe it has done this forever in the past and will do forever in the future. Something like this seems more likely to me than the big bang being a once of thing that happened at some point in the last 20 billion years out of an infinate past with the chance of that being infinatley small.

    Could this be the case and is any of this valid?
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 12, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    The problem with this is your first point, from which the rest of your argument sprouts. Matter CAN be created and destroyed. Destroyed by a particle meeting its antiparticle and annihilating, producing just massless photons as an outcome. And matter can be created by the inverse process, pair production where a photon interacts with something and annihilates itself, producing a particle and its antiparticle.

    So physics has a consistent theory of how sufficiently high energies can produce matter. Thus it wasn't necessary for matter to be around at the big bang, just energy. And maybe not even that...
  4. Mar 12, 2004 #3
    Oh ok, yeh it is energy that cannot be created nor destroyed then. It doesnt change my theory actually. When i said "everything that exists today has existed for an infinate amount of time in the past" i meant in some form. If there is energy there though, energy is something so time will still be passing right?
  5. Mar 12, 2004 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    ... And then energy might not have been present at the big bang either. Potential energy is negative, kinetic energy positive, The sum of the two of them in the universe could be zero. In which the big bang could literally have started from nothing.

    Whatever the details of the big bang, nobody in physics imagines that energy, or anything else, "has been around forever".
  6. Mar 12, 2004 #5
    I have great diffculty with the concept of something being created from nothing. To me, with little knowledge of physics it seems more likely that the ingredients of our universe and matter have always been rather than being created from nothing though.I guess id probably have to do uni physics to understand the theories on the origins of our universe, something im not going to do, ill just stop thinking about what i do not have the knowledge to speculate on i guess.
  7. Mar 13, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    And well you should. Causality is, arguably, the most basic principle of physical science. All physical events have a cause and nothing can be its own cause. This results in the quandry you have expressed ni your original post. The truth is, this riddle has yet to be solved and maindeed prove unsolvable by physical science.

    It is the same problem expsressed ages ago by St. Thomas Acquinus, often referred to as Aquinas's "prime mover" problem, or the problem of primary cause. One of the really sticky points of this line of reasoning is that every "cause" theorized or even fantasized is a physical event itself and must therefore have its own cause. Throughout much of the history of cosmology to the response to this puzzle has been the statement that the big bang is as far back as science can take us. By this statement, the pre-existing conditions that led to the big bang (its "cause") are not only beyond our knowledge, but actually beyond what is knowable. Nevertheless, it is taken (somewhat on faith) that these conditions existed.

    In more recent years, new fields of physical theory including several string theories and loop quantum gravity have shown the potential of someday possibly explaining conditions in the universe much earlier than any current physical theory could explain. Some permutations of these various models include conditions prior to the big bang. However, these models do nothing to explain primary cause, they merely eliminate the big bang as being the true "beginning".
  8. Mar 13, 2004 #7
    You are thinking in terms of conservation laws that only apply to a universe that does exist. Conservation laws do not apply to what does not exist. They apply only from the very first instant of existence, not before (actually there is no "before").

    Where do such conservation laws come from? Information (Shannon information in bits) is a measure of entropy which can also be described in terms of energy and temperature. The amount of information in a signal or event is a measure of how probable an event or signal is. The less probable an event the more information is contained in its occurance. A probablity of 100% has zero information associated with it.

    Now, there is no alternative to at least that some universe should exist. The only alternative to something is nothing, and we know we dont have nothing. So that a universe exist is 100% certain, and there is no information in that. At any time this is true. There is always no alternative to our universe existing as a whole, so that there is always zero total information content to the universe as a whole. So whatever process works to increase entropy must be balanced by some process that decrease entropy as well somewhere else.
  9. Mar 14, 2004 #8
    Ok how about this. If you keep looking for the origin of the universe when will that origin be absolute nothing? never right? therefore there is always something, therefore there is always time. Therefore my original train of thought would be correct? If you say that something can come out of absolute nothing with no prompt then you have a diffrent kind of idea of what nothingness is than me. This matter and anti matter business i dont really get but if the sum of the universe is equal to nothing then the prompt that created the diffrence that allows us to exist is equal to something. Everything has an origin that is not equal to nothing right?

    To sum it up. I think, therefore i am.I am therefore there was. There was therefore there always was as theres no such origin traceable back to absolute nothing.
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2004
  10. Mar 14, 2004 #9
    Another thing i thought of today. Our universe has many stars and planets all travelling at their diffrent, relative speeds. Some objects will meet due to gravity but some will escape the gravity of everything else because they are going too fast. An idea that seems plausible to me to explain why in infinate time(my theory) it is infinatley unlikely for the big bang to occur withing 20 billion years ago as a once off factor is that their is an infinate amount of universes. Although our universe wont come together again(as in merge due to gravity) in the same combination as some objects will escape. Objects from our universe that are going too fast to meet up again could merge with objects from other expanding universes. This could go for all universes. This could mean that objects from our universe could meet with others and have a big bang. This could happen forever.

    Maybe not though, im no physicist, just a thought anyway.
  11. Mar 14, 2004 #10
    If you postulate that there always existed some physical entity, then you are just begging the question as to where it came from, and you will never have an answer that explains the origin. You are arguing on the basis of a contingency. You seem to be saying that everything is contingent on something else, so that there must have existed something so that the universe can proceed from that contengency. However, we are looking for the most general of principles on which reality is founded. And the most general of principles are abstract in essences. They are tautologies, true for every interpretation that physical situations can provide. The laws of physics must be derivable from the principles of abstract logic alone. Or the universe is founded on a contingency that will never be explained.
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2004
  12. Mar 14, 2004 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    There are different views on how far 'back' make sense, or one is comfortable with. For example, for me the fact that the two leading theories in physics - quantum mechanics and general relativity - are in conflict for times in our universe shorter than the Planck time (there are also other ways of saying this), means that you, marcus, Brian Greene, Ed Witten, Lee Smolin, lethe, Tom, GRQC, ... anyone can speculate as much as you like, and a Nereid with all the details of QM and GR at her fingertips (a situation far, far from reality, I might add) cannot gainsay you.

    However, whether you're a physicist or not, if you propose *something* for the universe at t <~ 10-43 .. anything ... I will ask you to please make predictions which I can, in principle, test through observation or experiment. If you cannot make such predictions, then I will put your ideas into the same class of 'unverifiable speculation' as all the others.

  13. Mar 15, 2004 #12
    Can you prove that you cannot get something from nothing??

    I propose that their was something @ t <~10-43 because their was something after that and you cant pull something out of nothing. This seems natuaral to me that you cant get something out of nothing. If it were the case something came from nothing then i would argue that this nothing was actually something. Lets look at the definition of nothing - something that has no existence, no potential..nothing.

    Let me propose that their is a hypothetical clock 10 minutes before the big that has no affect on anything other than the concept of time. Before nothing becomes something in the big bang, what is happening? how is nothing becoming something??? Nothing with the potential to become something is not nothing at all.

    My theory is entirely based on that their has always been something. This creates the concept of infinate time. Their has always been something because if their was ever nothing, their could not have been something. The rest of my theory leads on from this. Anyway here is a better written overview of my whole theory that i wrote.

    Energy cannot be created or destroyed, there is energy around today so their must have been energy for an infinate amount of time in the past.

    For those who argue that the sum of the universe is equal to nothing then the prompt that created the diffrence in matter and anti matter must equal to something.

    If you keep looking for the origin of the universe when will that origin be absolute nothing? never right? therefore there is always something, therefore there is always time.

    Time has an infinite history. The Universe, the big bang supposedly has an age in the billions of years

    If the big bang has an age and is a once off thing then what is the chance of the big bang happening at any point in the last 20 billion years out of infinite time? The answer is infinitley small.

    Therefore it seems likely or i originally thought it seemed likely that the universe was in a repeating pattern, has been for an infinite amount of time in the past because this gets rid of the unlikeliness of the big bang being a once of factor in the billions of years ago in an timescale that is infinite.

    By pattern i mean imploding and then repeating the big bang every so often.

    However because some objects in our universe are travelling at a too great a speed to be sucked back by gravity to a point to meet all other objects in the universe of which were pulled together by gravity another explanation seems more plausible.

    If there is an infinate amount of other universes then stars and planets that escape gravity from our current universe could drift off and meet up with other universes.

    Objects, stars, planets from other universes could meet up with our universe.

    Eventually causing another big bang when their is enough matter in the one spot. For this to be the case their would have to be an infinite amount of universes.

    If at any point in there was not universes stretching to infinity then by now objects would have escaped a universe travelling at too great a speed to be sucked back and reached the point infinity as time has an infinate past.

    Why wont someone agree with me damnit!!:smile:
  14. Mar 15, 2004 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    In science, you can't 'prove' anything (it's not maths). The best you can do is something like 'all observations and experiments are consistent with {theory A}'
    Interesting, but it's not science. Why not? Because there's no experiment or observation that you could do - even in principle - that would test your idea. Well, maybe that's a bit hasty - what experiment or observation can you propose to test these ideas?
    Seems like you've just re-defined 'time', making it something inconsistent with GR.
    How would you test this?
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: Big Bang pattern?
  1. Before the Big Bang (Replies: 12)

  2. Pre-Big Bang Scenario (Replies: 3)

  3. Holographic big bang (Replies: 1)