Is Nothingness the Cause of the Big Bang?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Holocene
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the hypothesis that the Big Bang may have originated from a state of complete nothingness, characterized as "unstable." Participants clarify that this concept of nothingness refers to the absence of physical matter, while still allowing for energy conversion to matter at quantum levels. The conversation highlights the complexities of quantum mechanics and the theoretical nature of pre-universe conditions, emphasizing that current laws of physics may not apply. The origin of the Big Bang remains an open question, with various theories including cyclic universe and brane collision.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics and its implications on matter and energy.
  • Familiarity with cosmological theories regarding the Big Bang.
  • Knowledge of the concept of nothingness in a physical context.
  • Awareness of the WMAP cold spot and its significance in cosmology.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of quantum fluctuations in the early universe.
  • Study the cyclic universe theory and its arguments.
  • Explore the concept of brane collisions in string theory.
  • Investigate the significance of the WMAP cold spot in cosmological studies.
USEFUL FOR

Cosmologists, physicists, and anyone interested in the origins of the universe and theoretical physics will benefit from this discussion.

Holocene
Messages
237
Reaction score
0
I know this isn't really a scientific statement, but I have read that one reason the big-bang may have originated from a state of complete nothingness, is because nothingness is terribly "unstable".

Any grain of possible truth to this?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Holocene said:
I know this isn't really a scientific statement, but I have read that one reason the big-bang may have originated from a state of complete nothingness, is because nothingness is terribly "unstable".

Any grain of possible truth to this?

Yes, well sort of. It depends on your definition of nothing. I think the theory you are talking about refers to nothingness as no physical matter, however refers to the theoretical ability for energy to be converted to matter in an pre or early universe environment on the quantum and possibly sub quantum level.

Everything tend to get rather funky when you get that small, things that are there aren't really there, there's just a chance they will be there at a specific point in time. Its all a bit mid boggling really, quantum mech is random enough, let alone in a pre-universe environment where a lot of people theorize that the current laws of physics would be different to now!
 
It is interesting that in our ever expanding universe, we can find no place that contains "nothingness". Even in the most distant intergalactic regions there is still something like one hydrogen atom per cubic meter and a constant barrage of photons (radiation) passing through. I'm not sure about the WMAP cold spot, though.
 
Last edited:
The origin of the big bang, in contrast to what happened after, is very much an open question. Starting from nothing? Cyclic universe? Brane collision?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
High School The M paradox
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
564
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K