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

How& where did the point of energy come into existance frm for the big bang to occour

  1. Dec 29, 2007 #1
    in one documentary i saw that; at the very begining the universe was just a concentrated point of energy with only 1 fundamental force which was made of combination of all 4 fundamental forces; gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong....Universe started by a big bang which was initiated when gravity, i.e. one of the fundamental force splitup from the other 3 forces.
    ok thats how is started but how was the energy there in the first place...could it have been; 1)that there was once another universe that ended up with everything crunching up in a single dot and the cycle of creation started all over again?
    2)may be our universe was created when extreamly high amount of energy(mass) in some other dimention crunched up in a point then vahished from that dimention when it exploded and created our universe and dimention. this reason would mean that blackholes lead to new dimentions and start of new universes.
    well those 2 are the only 2 possible possibities that i could think of 4 now....BUT what do u think?
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 29, 2007 #2
    Excuse my punctuations, spellings and grammar. I didn’t bother correcting them... I’m sorry.
  4. Dec 29, 2007 #3
  5. Dec 29, 2007 #4
    hhhmmm I am trying to move on ...dont want to respond but its not an option ...good luck
  6. Dec 29, 2007 #5
    Well It seems that String Theory(ST) can provide an answer. ST predicts that the smallest composition of matter are tiny vibrating strands of energy called strings. The way these string wiggle and depending upon whether they are closed or open ended they make up the fundamental particle that we see. The messenger particle responsible for the transmission of gravity is the gravition. Its is presumed that all the open ended strings are tied to a 3-D surfaces called Branes that floats in a higher dimensional space. There can be many branes that carry parallel universes. It is believed that two Branes, floating parallely may collide. The energy produced in that collision must have to go somewhere. Where does it go? It goes into the Big Bang. It creates the rapid expansion that we see.

    ST also provides an answer to why gravity is much weaker than all other fundamental forces of the universe. The Strings that make up the graviton are open ended. So they may not be confined to the brane that contains our universe. They can seep off in a higher dimensional space.

    However String Theory is presently untested. The Strings are too small to be dected by the present day accelerators. The Large Hadron Collider which is much powerful than all previous accelerators will primarily search for Something called 'sparticles'- the superpartner of every fundamental particle. You can learn more about it http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_12/33_1.shtml" [Broken].
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  7. Dec 30, 2007 #6
    when you said that the big bang started when 2 branes floating parallel to each other collided.....can that happen in any dimensional space, cause doesn’t parallel path in any dimensional space mean travelling in a path such that that the two particles can never touch each other ever even after infinite amount of time. And if that is possible does that mean that 2 similar branes (that collided to form our universe) travelling in a similar path can collide with each other or could have already collided with each other and another big bang will or could have already, came into existence into our own universe. Btw I m not contradicting you I am just queries.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  8. Dec 30, 2007 #7
    oh ya btw will the two branes have enough energy to create explosion such as bigbang taking into account that in the universe there are around 100 billion and more galixies; only the amount of energy those are visible mass counts for a very small amount of energy, as there is more of dark matter and even more of dark energy.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 3, 2017
  9. Dec 30, 2007 #8
    When I said that 'two Branes, floating parallely may collide', I meant that They were floating side-by-side until they started drifting towards each other when they collided.

    Yes. There could be many branes and there could be as many collisions each leading to the creation of a parallel universe. Our universe may be the product of one such collision.

    That's not an easy question to answer even for a String Theorist. The technical problem is that they dont completely know what happens when two branes collide. After all string theory, at present, cannot be studied at the laboratory. Its only on papers.

    However still if the predictions of String Theory are correct then it may create new horizons for advanced research in Cosmology and the String theory itself may prove to be a THEORY OF EVERYTHING.

  10. Jan 2, 2008 #9
    Even if our universe was the result of a collapse of some other type of matter in another dimension or the "Big Crunch" of a mother universe in the past, this only pushes the problem further back in time. It's the equivalent of asking, "Where did life come from?" and answering with, "Aliens deposited it here." If the collapse model of another universe is true, this other universe would need a beginning, also, giving you a never-ending regress of universes giving birth to other universes.

    Of course, if you only care about this particular universe that we know exists, then this is irrelevant.
  11. Jan 2, 2008 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    that sounds pretty reasonable. I'd be happy if scientific evidence was found indicating that the bigbang was preceded by a collapse of some prior region (a black hole or a crunch).

    It wouldn't solve the ultimate question of where it all came from, but it would be extremely interesting to get a handle on pre-big-bang conditions.

    knowledge increases by small steps, you don't get it all at once.

    it would be neat also if we found evidence that the bang was NOT preceded by a collapse but by something (your guess?) completely different. I think the idea of a prior contraction is looking increasingly likely, but it's far from proven.
  12. Jan 2, 2008 #11
    Agreed. Apparently science has "fashions" too. It's not so long ago that a cosmologist would answer this sort of question with some comment equivalent to "If it isn't in this universe then we cannot know about it or confirm it so it's a daft question". Probably with an addition that time began at the BB so "before" has no meaning. Conjecture re Branes however provided some respectability to such pondering. Further, that gravity theoretically extends beyond any universe boundary also injects credibility.
  13. Jan 2, 2008 #12


    User Avatar

    Philosophy of the beginning and posable questions

    One possible way of reasoning on the philosophical part is to consider that any question that can be asked, is supported by something to which the question relates, typically a sort of history or state of a memory structure.

    So one question is, if we imagine things way back, as we think, before there was atoms and planets, what possible questions could be posed then?

    Today, far later, a human asks a questions and tries to project it back to the beginning? To what extent is such a projection valid? I am doubtful, and I think that is also a possible resolution.

    To understand the "beginning" the way I like to think of it, one can imagine that not only does order and structure dissolve, but so does the possible questions - and the possible things that are measurable. Because I don't think todays measurements of supposed remnants quite compare to the measurements that took place back then.

    If we imagine that the world is composed of mutual relations, then relating structures are in fact questioning each others. And to try to understand why the universe possibly behaved like we think it did way back, perhaps we should see that questions that we pose today, might not necessarily be applied without transformation to and old state.

    Last edited: Jan 2, 2008
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook