Ok, I have a question regarding 'nothing'. I watched Lawrence Krauss' lecture on youtube where he talks about a universe from nothing. He explains 'nothing' as empty space, and then says this empty space actually weighs something. He argues that the universe did have a begining (I assume the big bang). He also says that the universe is expanding (both claims are consistent with other scientists in this field). My questions are as follows.
1 Was there empty space around before the big bang, or did the universe start from a different type of nothing?
2 what is the universe expanding in to? is it expanding into empty space, or is it expanding into a different type of nothing which is presumably infinite nothingness.
Any answer given, I would appreciate it very much if they could be given in laymans terms please. You can see my knowledge on this subject is pretty poor, but I am genuinely interested whether the answer to the question is something that I can understand or not
For whatever poor and unlearned reasons, I still insist that someone show me nothing. Nothing is as much an absolute as an infinity. I have problems with so called absolutes. They are fine markers or place holders, But you generally have to ignore them for actually doing anything in this world. I guess this makes me an anihilist. I don't believe in nothing. I also question our concept of beginnings. It is a part of a basic problem, It goes something like this, In the beginning, There was supposed to be a god and nothing. (ignoring of course "the waters" ) Now god is supposed to make stuff, things, things so there would be something rather than nothing+god. Now there would be if we go by this mess, God(arguably something, in this context) + Nothing (Ok, that is weird, but wait...) + someThing (Way out weird, I mean to weird for Sunday school weird.) So under this construction We have nothing AND something AND God. But if the go back to that "first" moment, There was God AND Nothing. What are we to make of god then? All these paths lead to SOMETHING being prior in and of existence. Where is Nothing? Ever?
Our description of Nothing is as incomplete as the Vacuums we create. We can never quite get rid of substance. Our linguistic intuition may be correct in that, Nothing, is impossible.
The universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, faster then the speed of light. This is due to dark energy, which supposedly makes up around 70% of the universe, and I would presume that number is increasing.
The universe coming from "nothing" likely is directly related to String Theory and Quantum Mechanics. Basically random quantum fluctuations causing the universe to appear, and is basically a complicated form of nothing lol. Maybe astrochuck can explain this more. I replied to his comment so let's see if he will reply back.
Btw, I watched a number of youtube videos in regards to the universe, learning about what I disclosed above, as well as the 10 dimensions, the Many Worlds Interpretation, Schrodinger's cat, the Boltzmann Brain, the Simulation Argument, Vacuum Decay, The Big Bounce, Heat Death, The Big Rip, The Fermi Paradox (very interesting), Iron Stars, Black holes, the Dark Era, and other topics related to the universe. It is very intriguing and weird. I like it.
@astrochuck -- Aye, lad, tis true.
@astrochuck I'll confess to not completely understanding this, but, as I understand it, parts of the universe are expanding at faster than the speed of light.
At an NSTA (National Science Teachers Association) conference several years ago I attended a special training sponsored by NASA on cosmology. Anyway, long story short, we were asked to estimate the size of the universe. As a physics Ph.D. my estimation (in terms of some other distance like maybe the size of the solar system.) was confidently much higher (by a factor of 100) than anyone else's in the room. Still when the answer was explained, I was 100 times too small!
The universe is about 90 billion light years in diameter or maybe for this comparison it is better to say 45 billion light years is the distance to the "Big Bang" shell. Obviously, I had thought that this radius would be roughly 13.9 billion light years because of the finite velocity of light. I believe that I asked the question and the answer was simple and based on GR. The space is expanding between the galaxies. Thus the edges of the universe are expanding faster than the speed of the light! The part we can see is now much farther away than where we would calculate it to be based naively on light speed only.
@astrochuck Astrochuck - have you seen this graphic. I really like it for explaining the structure of the universe to my students. It's a logorithmic graphic of the universe:
@astrochuck No it's not a time dilation problem. It is a GR problem. The space between the galaxies itself is expanding! GR changes the simple SR result that nothing can go faster than light.
You can easily go faster than light if you can bend space. This is what fictional "warp" drive does.
@astrochuck If the acceleration we are currently observing in the expansion continues because of, say a non-zero cosmological constant, then eventually everything will become part of that region. That is called "The Big Rip" I suppose eventually the atoms in the molecules that make us up will be torn apart.
@astrochuck We don't know that. Sorry, I'm not trying to be a smarter than thou but if the cosmological constant is non-zero and nothing else stops the acceleration a big rip like the one I described might actually take place. This would be in the far far far far distant future like 10*100 years or more. But if space is really stretching and that stretching is accelerating and nothing else happens, this eventually affects even the electrons orbiting the nucleus.
I only know this because my Ph.D. father causally mentioned it in a conversation when we were discussing the accelerating expansion problem.
No experiment has ever measured a proton decay. Theory predicts it but it has never been verified. An experiment in the 80's and 90's attempted to, They built it in a salt mine in Cleveland Ohio. They did some great science. For example, they saw the neutrino flux from 1987A a supernova relatively near the Milkyway. But they never saw a proton decay.
@astrochuck When I say iron stars, I am referring to after the dark era of the universe, when all objects of mass turn into subatomic particulars (e.g., stars, black holes). Iron stars are predicted to form. Of course, this is very far into the future, more then we can really fathom.
No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning [phy.so] via @physorg_com
This theory solves some of the anomalies of the older Big Bang model, eliminates "dark matter" and other unsolved problems. It also seems consistent with energy not being destroyed or created.
OK, I am not a physicist, I am a gardener. I believe the universe came from nothing.
Lightning comes from nothing. Simplified, a cloud starts as electrically neutral. It polarises, if it gets blown in 1/2, you have 1 positively charged cloud and one positively charged cloud. OK, a cloud is something, but my thoughts run along the lines that if something similar happened in the void. There is nothing, then it splits into energy and anti- energy. The instantly cancel each other out and nothing remains. Occasionally they don't cancel each other out, separate and merge with other energy or anti energy. Then if there were some attraction, so energy attracted energy and anti energy attracted anti energy this formation could accelerate. The potential would be infinite as nothing is infinite and you get this growing amount of energy basically it could be infinite as well. Reverse e=mc2 and you could form some matter. Is the size of the new energy/matter is constantly growing there would always be more on the edge than in the centre and the gravitational force would cause constant expansion, drawn to the edge of the new universe rather than being pushed out from the centre. Occasionally some pockets of anti energy/anti matter interact with energy/matter and cancel each other out, wow, black hole. Look how ice crystals grow, once started they continue to form, catalysts can accelerate formation. Totally loose random thoughts that I can't substantiate. Back to my gardens.
As this is outside my areas, I would just add tepidly that I read Krauss's book, as a layman, and I've watched his videos a lot. I don't think theoretical physicists refer to so called empty space as "nothing". l don't think "nothing" exists in physics. Space is never empty. Krauss said in a video that even if you take empty space and take out light particles and such then there are still virtual participles coming in and out of existence. Those with expertise please clarify, but I understood that Krauss's point was that the universe didn't come from nothing because nothing doesn't exist. I wish he were here to confirm or clarify.
yes, I have seen this lecture as well. The world of quantum physics is so interesting to me, unfortunately, despite what I have learned about this subject, it is still beyond my grasp of understanding in relation to the way the universe (or he outside of our universe) works
I believe space is part of the package. Think of a two dimensional model, the surface of the balloon being blown up and expanding. the surface of the balloon is getting bigger and that two dimensional space is increasing with the expansion. I think that scientists generally (mostly) believe that in the simplest version of the big bang theory space and time originated with the big bang. So time and space both started at the same time.
However there is still lots of controversy about whether there was anything before the big bang, multiverse etc etc.
I am not a physics cosmology expert so maybe someone can clarify better than me
I did this in philosophy class 20 years ago. I freaked out. How can there be an end to space and how can there not be an end to space. If there was an end what would be on the other side of that wall where it ends, nothing or more space?
We percieve and there is always that which we do do not percieve. We are swimming a sea of perceptions. What is it, that which I do not know? A lot lol
That's lovely I love it.
First answer, we don't really know. Second answer, equilibrium.
I am a physicist. I am not a theorist like Lawrence Krauss, my specialty is experimental physics. Nevertheless, I am extremely interested in cosmology and fundamental questions. I teach both physics and astronomy at the high school and college level. The simple answers to your questions are:
No, the Big Bang created what we know of as space and time. We don't know what happened before what is called the Planck time. 10*-44 seconds. What happened before then we can only speculate until we understand quantum gravity which we don't right now.
There was no space nor time at the Big Bang. I sometimes encourage my students of thinking of the Big Bang as expanding into time not space. Space itself expanded and made the "universe".
One question for you which is aimed at helping your recognize how it works. Where was the big bang? Could we pin down where it started or is there some other answer to that question?
trick question, there was now where nor when, as neither existed prior
Kind of a build from what others are saying (and not pretending to be a physicist here). There are two types of expansion. Physical expansion and expansion of the known universe. The latter is the part ive learned more about and describes the universe as several billion lightyears across, however the big bang only occurred 14bil(ish) years ago so light hasn't had time to reach us from the furthest points(thus we can't see them or know what they contain). Pre big bang is undetermined, however. We can calculate very close to it but beyond that, physics as we understand it breaks down. This isn't to say it's wrong just incomplete. "Nothing" is hard to know from what we have to test so, it's all up in the air before big bang.
The answer to your first question is, we don't know. Our physics holds up reasonably well until we get within a small fraction of a second before the 'bang'.
Folks who support the notion of the Big Bang (an unfortunate name) suggest that some 10 billion to 20 billion years ago, a massive blast allowed all the universe's known matter and energy—even space and time themselves—to spring from some ancient and unknown type of energy. A glorified name for this thing that caused the 'singularity' to start its inflation period is a quantum fluctuation. Don't worry about it -- no one knows anything about it beyond hypothetical speculation.
So why did I say it was an unfortunate name? Because explosion is an inaccurate description of what we think happened. We call that initial burst of energy inflation. Don't worry about that either. It gets complicated.
Anyway, the theory says that, in the instant -- a trillion-trillionth of a second -- after inflation began, the universe expanded with incredible speed from its tiny original size to astronomical scope. Expansion has apparently continued, but much more slowly than in that minuscule brief initiation, over the ensuing billions of years. However, it appears that the rate of expansion is actually accelerating and we have some neat and confusing bullshit to cover that too. Don't worry about this either. Just know that the Universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate.
Getting back to that initial inflation, our physics no longer holds for the period of early inflation. That's why I said we don't know what really happened. Hell, we can't even be certain how the universe evolved after the big bang. Fortunately, we have some pretty good ideas that hold up under scrutiny for that. During that initial inflation, there was no light. The event was opaque. Things began to cool and as they did matter appeared. Just hydrogen at first. Space didn't exist before the event. The event generated space and time ahead of the cooling. Obviously if there was no space or time, no matter could exist, right? This could go on for a few hundred thousand words, so I'll stop it right here.
The answer to question number two is the same. We don't know. I won't expound on this part because anything I have to say would be pure speculation with no supporting information, no evidence.
I am also a proponent of the Inflationary model. I was lucky enough to see Alan Guth present his model in a lecture soon after he first proposed it. I was a graduate student in physics at the time.
NOTHING by definition, does not exist,therefore all that's left is existence i.e.matter,energy,etc.
Our universe is a spontaneous event ,amidst an infinite number of universes with different physical properties. The events that caused our universe to explode into existence,are unknown, but make no mistake, it was from something,be it a black hole from a completely separate universe or different dimensions rubbing against each other,or who knows what.
Just out of curiosity ... you state " ... amidst an infinite number of universes with different physical properties."
How do you know that there are different physical properties in the different universes? Inquiring minds want to know.
@AtheistInNC strictly theoretical physics, I don't know,but I strongly suspect these theories are correct, due to the observations made in our own universe.
@Nemosson What I hear you saying then is that theoretical physicist have postulated that other universes have different physical properties? Do you have a reference that I could read? I haven't heard that.
@AtheistInNC no reference I can give you to read.everything I've learned,comes from watching the science channel,nova on pbs,and other educational channels. If you've never heard anything about multi-verses and how each one might have different physical properties, that surprises me.
@Nemosson I've heard of the multi-verse theory, but not that there might be different physical properties in them. I mean, why would they have different properties? And if you have no evidence to show that they might, why even postulate it? It's like saying there is a god with no evidence. Claiming different physical properties with no evidence is bad science, IMHO.
1 - As I understand him and many other physicists, space was created at the big bang. It didn't expand into something. The expansion (bang) was the creation.
2 - It's not expanding into anything. It's expanding/enlarging it's own existence (and it's currently about 93 billion light years across - "known" ). Although, a lot of people aren't content with this and think there's a multiverse... it's comprised of an infinite number of universes, with each one being its own "bubble".
I too have these questions. Constantly. If there's no god, we had to come from something, and I really want to know what. Did the universe come into being and then transform itself into something that could understand itself via humans and other (maybe) self aware life forms? Are we like neurons in the mind of the universe?? Mind blowing. But I want to know.
The was no beginning of the Universe, the matter that is here has always been here, and always changing.
The Universe is not expanding, when you here that it is - they are referring to the "known universe" - which is essentially everything we can see from Earth. aka the remnants of the big bang.
what a great question,! if you or I could answer that then we would win the noble prize, my understanding is that the universe will end when it becomes too "cold" for anything else too happen. i.e. atoms freeze and no motion is possible. this is the opposite of the so called "big bang" where the confined universe is indeed empty, but still contains energy including "time" which has yet not begun, but in a single point. Any geniuses out there ? I would also like to know why the great scientists can not answer this question, are you the one?
First off, I love your user name. I hope it's a reference to the blind watchmaker argument.
Second, we can't answer the question because we lack a working theory of unification. String theory stops working at higher dimensions. If that could be rectified we may have a viable means to discovery. Resolving string theory may also raise further questions though. You'll notice I used a lot of hypotheticals there. I'm no where close to being good enough at math to reconcile relativity and quantum physics.
@jayneonacobb you got that blindingly correct, unfortunately not kept up to date with Superstring theory, it starts to get really weird, like Alice in Wonderland !
@magicwatch I know what you mean, its quite the rabbit hole. There's always the question of 10, 11 or 26 dimensions to consider as well, if any are even correct.
@jayneonacobb well done on those numbers,
I might not beable to prove string theory, but I do study it. It sounds like I'm not the only one.
Hi RobH 86,I was led to believe there was pure energy before the big bang,which was a residue from a former universe that collapsed,but like you I am a layman and know next to nothing about science or physics.