Thread: If matter cant be created or destroyed, where did all this stuff come from?

The big bang doesn't say that matter came out of nowhere. It just says the the universe as we recognize it began as a singularity. The conventional wisdom is that quantum fluctuation was responsible for the event but quantum mechanics doesn't include gravity and the scales we are talking about small so that quantum effects have to be taken into account. General Relativity (which predicts gravity) only goes to just after the big bang before it breaks down.

We need a theory of Quantum Gravity to answer your question. "singularity's" will probably not exists in Quantum Gravity. Singularity is a mathematical term for when some otherwise well behaved function goes to infinity or does something else that's nasty and difficult to work with. All of it's partial derivatives going to zero is an example of this. In this case, it's the gravitational attraction going to infinity and the width of the object going to zero. This is probably more indicative of a misunderstanding of gravity at very small distances on our part than of an actual physical occurrence.

Even if you could create matter out of nothing, that wouldn't explain how matter could spontaneously appear out of no where.

The simple answer, is that every thing has always existed. Though possibly not in the form it is now.

I never understand why people say "this can't have happened out of nothing ... but something far more powerful could have!"

or the alternative

"this can't have always existed ... but something far more powerful could have!"

It makes absolutely no sense, since it's basically saying the more complex something is, the more likely it had no cause.


Oh and I love the "if you can't explain it I AM AUTOMATICALLY RIGHT!!!!!111" bit as well.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I never understand why people say "this can't have happened out of nothing ... but something far more powerful could have!"

or the alternative

"this can't have always existed ... but something far more powerful could have!"

It makes absolutely no sense, since it's basically saying the more complex something is, the more likely it had no cause.


Oh and I love the "if you can't explain it I AM AUTOMATICALLY RIGHT!!!!!111" bit as well.

You just summed up creationism. That is their entire argument in a nutshell.

It's almost ironic that the creationist stance,
"The universe can't come out of nothing."
appears to more or less indicate that a creator's existence should be just as
unlikely (or unprecedented), while the typical anti-God stance,
"The universe CAN come out of nothing, therefor no creator."
would indicate that the same 'coming out of nothing' should be just as likely
to occur for the same being we label God.

[I'm equating God with creator, no other personal attributes or characteristics.]

Invader, noöne said that the universe came out of nothing. As far as our knowledge of physics goes, in the beginning, there was a singularity in which space-time and all of the energy in the universe was condensed almost infinity small. The big bang theory deals with what happens just afterward; the sudden expansion of space-time. You see, the big bang is not an explosion into a preëxisting space, it is the expansion of that space out of a singularity. The entire universe was the singularity. There was nothing else in which anything could be said to have existed.

@ A Roxxor

Hypothetical situation:
1) You do not believe the universe was created by any thing or event.
2) You do not believe the universe existed forever.

Out of what did the universe come from?

Spoiler for Answer:

Nothing.

It's a popular belief.


That's not the point of the irony, anyways. >_>
I hope you can at least find some humor in what it was about, unless the
meaning is lost on you.

Also, your explanation of the big bang.. Are you implying my ignorance of the
phenomenon? I only ask because of the lack of relevance it has to 'what' the
universe came from, and because my irony did not warrant it's explanation.



@ PhilosopherStoned

My confusion stems mostly from:
"So it could have found itself where the mass-energy was diffuse enough for some effect to cause further expansion."I'm still bugged out about how anything can be 'diffuse' or even really exist 'inside'
a dimensionless point at all. Or, perhaps my confusion is about the nature of
singularities. That they're dimensionless is only what I've been taught. Everything
that happened immediately after the big bang (within the fraction of a second) is
merely imagined via thought experiments, right? Or have we proved anything about
the nature of a singularity?

I am however familiar with the seamingly random appearance of virtual particles in
empty space, though I do not equate a total vacuum with 'nothing'. When you said
that quantum fluctuations happen in nothing, I was assuming you meant that they
happened independantly of 3dimensional space and time (before the existence of
space came about). I'm not really sure it does make sense to talk about a 'before
the big bang', unless time extended before that, but there's no way to know right
now. A bullet for my mind.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

I never understand why people say "this can't have happened out of nothing ... but something far more powerful could have!"

or the alternative

"this can't have always existed ... but something far more powerful could have!"

It makes absolutely no sense, since it's basically saying the more complex something is, the more likely it had no cause.


Oh and I love the "if you can't explain it I AM AUTOMATICALLY RIGHT!!!!!111" bit as well.

I love how people say "there must be a creator" just because they don't understand something. It's as ignorant as we used to be seeing something in the sky and saying it's one of the gods in the sky (like Zeus or whatever). Looking back at our history, we were SO GOD DAMN IGNORANT! not that it was really our fault...but we still were. Hell, even today so many people are absolutly ignorant, even science people if you can believe that. The past has not showed so many people that some things at this time of age can't be fully explained yet.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

I love how people say "there must be a creator" just because they don't understand something. It's as ignorant as we used to be seeing something in the sky and saying it's one of the gods in the sky (like Zeus or whatever). Looking back at our history, we were SO GOD DAMN IGNORANT! not that it was really our fault...but we still were. Hell, even today so many people are absolutly ignorant, even science people if you can believe that. The past has not showed so many people that some things at this time of age can't be fully explained yet.

Ok first of all, thanks for the insult, jerk. Second of all, I never said that I am automatically right, that guy is putting words in my mouth. I confess, my knowledge of physics and the universe is proportionate to the size of a handful of mud in the gulf of Thailand. But I do know that something cannot be made out of nothing. It is impossible. I don't fully deny and reject the theory that the universe is possibly expanding from a single point. It could be true, it could not be true, but i have not seen enough evidence to justify that theory.

I am not going to accept the notion that humans are just a sole little quirk, or stain upon the face of the earth that just happened to develop intelligence, and that there is nothing more out there that is more wise or capable than us. I think humans, so far, have proven that we can not possibly understand the mathematics and complexity that comprises even a single atom, much less of the entire known universe. I refuse to believe that we are a product of chance; here today, gone tomorrow, with no purpose.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

Ok first of all, thanks for the insult, jerk. Second of all, I never said that I am automatically right, that guy is putting words in my mouth. I confess, my knowledge of physics and the universe is proportionate to the size of a handful of mud in the gulf of Thailand. But I do know that something cannot be made out of nothing. It is impossible. I don't fully deny and reject the theory that the universe is possibly expanding from a single point. It could be true, it could not be true, but i have not seen enough evidence to justify that theory.

I am not going to accept the notion that humans are just a sole little quirk, or stain upon the face of the earth that just happened to develop intelligence, and that there is nothing more out there that is more wise or capable than us. I think humans, so far, have proven that we can not possibly understand the mathematics and complexity that comprises even a single atom, much less of the entire known universe. I refuse to believe that we are a product of chance; here today, gone tomorrow, with no purpose.

Why is it impossible for something to have to be created and not come from nothing? stop thinking in those terms, people think something has to come from something because we as humans make something from something. The universe is far beyond our understanding, we are just scratching the surface pretty much. The universe is not something a human can make, the universe just is. You have to think outside the box, even if it is alittle out there.

Oh, and np.

Originally Posted by Hercuflea

But I do know that something cannot be made out of nothing. It is impossible.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you're wrong. Particles CAN be made out of nothing (in Pairs of Matter & Antimatter Particles so the total Energy is 0). Even though in our universe the amount of Matter and Antimatter isn't equal, the total energy of our universe is still 0.0000000... . Why? Because: Gravity.

Gravity is essentially negative energy (if you convert the matter surplus into energy (E=mc²) it would be equal to the gravitational field energy * -1).

I'll largely stay away from this argument, seeing as how I know very little of quantum physics and all that bullshit. I will say this, though: The thought that something has "always existed" is simply unacceptable to me. Everything happens in a cyclical manner; things begin, end, then start over. Why, then, would the universe not do the same, if everything within the universe does it?

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Oh and I love the "if you can't explain it I AM AUTOMATICALLY RIGHT!!!!!111" bit as well.

Oh, right...kind of like the atheist argument "if you can't prove it I AM AUTOMATICALLY RIGHT!!!!!111...1". The similarities are striking, aren't they?

It's true that just because someone can't refute the existence of something doesn't mean it must exist.

But on the other side of the spectrum, just because someone can't prove the existence of something doesn't mean it cannot exist.

Therefore, there is no harm in faith. Nor is there harm in a lack of faith.

Anyone who's too stupid to see this deserves to be anally raped by a muscle man with a cock the width of a tree branch. I'm dead fucking serious, too. What's so hard to understand about "just because you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there"? I thought it was pretty damn simple, but apparently not. ...And isn't that sort of thing a principle scientists have been operating on for a long time? To me, it sounds pretty counter-intuitive for any scientist to say "durr wel i cant c it so it not exzist durr hurr hurr". What the fuck, Chuck?

So kudos to those in here who are actually trying to come up with hypotheses as to how the universe came into being, instead of relentlessly attacking people's beliefs out of mere pettiness. Those who are doing the latter...well, just three words: Tree branch cock.

EDIT: Then there's always the possibility that human beings are simply not intelligent enough to comprehend whatever it is that brought the universe into existence. Which seems like a very likely scenario to me, considering the fact that human stupidities such as war still exist. Yeah. A species that kills its own kind on a daily basis, understand the operating principles of the universe? Not in this eternity.