Is Nothingness the Cause of the Big Bang?

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of whether nothingness could be the cause of the Big Bang, exploring theoretical implications and interpretations of "nothingness" in relation to the origins of the universe. The scope includes theoretical physics and cosmology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Debate/contested, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that nothingness may be unstable, suggesting a potential link to the origin of the Big Bang.
  • Others argue that the definition of nothingness is crucial, with some interpretations allowing for energy conversion to matter in a pre-universe context.
  • A participant notes the absence of true nothingness in the universe, pointing out that even the most empty regions contain minimal matter and radiation.
  • Another participant highlights that the origin of the Big Bang remains an open question, with various theories such as cyclic universes and brane collisions being considered.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of nothingness and its implications for the Big Bang, indicating that multiple competing theories and interpretations exist without a consensus.

Contextual Notes

The discussion is limited by varying definitions of nothingness and the speculative nature of the theories presented, which depend on assumptions about the early universe and quantum mechanics.

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
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
9K