:
|
I don't entirely understand your wording (ironic really), but I'll explain what I meant. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, is this not true? The same is true for energy, no? So, when the Big Band occurred (not that I believe that it did, I'm just saying this for arguments sake) matter and energy must have already existed. But how did that matter and energy come into existence? Did it always exist, just in a different form, or it did it come into being at one point at time? That is what I was referring to.
Why and how are arguably related.
|
Don't expect any of this to make sense: we evolved in a middle world between the very large and the very small, and cosmology deals with both, and neither behave anything like we expect in middle world.
The Big Bang was simply an expansion of space from a sort of singularity, which is the ultimate compression of matter and energy into a point. It was able to expand because one of its dimensions became one of time. "Before" does not exist in any meaningful sense because that was
the beginning of time. You can't rewind a tape past the start, can you? There's no tape to rewind
to.
It has been hypothesised that that singularity may have been the collapsed remnants of a "previous" universe, or budded off of a black hole in another universe, but it is tricky to imagine this because it implies something occurring before our universe, but since our observation of multiple universes from an external perspective is a vantage point without time, you cannot use the words "before" or "after" with any meaning. You must stop thinking in terms of linear time, indeed in terms of time at all, because time was created in the Big Bang, just as spacial dimension were. So you can say that the energy and metter were never actually created.
We can also throw various string theories into the mix, but I'm not even going to attempt to explain them, unless you think you can wrap your head around 26 spacial dimensions, branes, compactification, force-matter duality and particles collapsed from vibrating one-dimensional superstrings. I know I can't.
As if that were not enough:
:
|
There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.
|
physics and cosmology is too weird to be able to discuss meaningfully without already understanding the science behind it, and to be able to do the math. And the math involved is horrendous, but it works. But in my experience, the only reason people do not accept science like this is because they do not comprehend it. So we get the duality of scientists studying and understanding the universe, and lay people coming up with their own ideas.
You mean how it happened but not why? Not what caused it? I've never observed "why" as being a useful question, not making any contextual sense at all and at best implying purpose, making it a loaded question.
I mean that a negative argument is very weak in this sense.
