Where did the universe come from?

[bassfishinglawyer]

Let's toss out the bible, God, and the supernatural for a minute (so no comments relating to that origin). For those who do not believe in a God that is not limited by space/time, where did the universe come from?

I know there is the theory of cosmic inflation. NASA seems to believe in that. But here is a quote from NASA's website: "Scientists aren't sure what came before inflation or what powered it."

I was just curious how anyone could explain the creation of matter scientifically. I am ignorant on that point, so educate me.

[digthemup]

Let's toss out the bible, God, and the supernatural for a minute (so no comments relating to that origin). For those who do not believe in a God that is not limited by space/time, where did the universe come from?

I know there is the theory of cosmic inflation. NASA seems to believe in that. But here is a quote from NASA's website: "Scientists aren't sure what came before inflation or what powered it."

I was just curious how anyone could explain the creation of matter scientifically. I am ignorant on that point, so educate me.

Geee, typical lawyer trying to cover up all the loopholes.

Love you brother. Let see where this goes, since eliminating the Creator it's going to be challenging to explain anything created.

[Squire]

Two part answer, first, my belief system. I "take it on Faith" that Science will continuously strive to answer
the questions of about how did the Universe "happen".
I do not subscribe to the thought that we actually must fill in the gaps and decide now. Human nature that the
unknown will be investigated. This is exactly the same problem that religion has. How was God created?

Anyway, ChatGPT 4 at your leisure:

The creation of matter in the universe is a subject of ongoing research in cosmology and physics. Below are some theories and models that attempt to explain this complex process:
The Big Bang and Primordial Soup:

1. Initial Singularity: According to the Big Bang model, the universe began as an infinitely small, hot, and dense point around 13.8 billion years ago. At this initial singularity, the laws of physics as we understand them break down.
2. Inflation and Expansion: A fraction of a second after the initial singularity, the universe underwent a rapid expansion known as cosmic inflation. This was followed by a more moderate but still rapid expansion, during which the universe cooled down.
3. Quarks and Leptons: As the universe cooled, the fundamental particles like quarks and leptons (which include electrons) formed out of the energy present in the universe.

Nucleosynthesis:

1. Formation of Atoms: Within the first three minutes after the Big Bang, the temperature and density were high enough for nuclear fusion to occur. This process created light atomic nuclei like hydrogen, helium, and small amounts of lithium and beryllium.

Creation of Heavier Elements:

1. Stellar Nucleosynthesis: Heavier elements like carbon, oxygen, and iron were later formed in the interiors of stars through nuclear fusion. When massive stars die, they explode as supernovae, scattering these heavier elements into space.
2. Cosmic Recycling: These elements serve as the building blocks for new stars, planets, and eventually, life. This cycle of star birth and death is like a cosmic recycling system that has been going on for billions of years.

Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Fluctuations:

1. Virtual Particles: According to quantum mechanics, "empty" space is not truly empty but is filled with virtual particles that pop in and out of existence. These quantum fluctuations might have played a role in the creation of the universe itself, although this is still a matter of ongoing research.
2. Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry: According to our current understanding, the Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. However, we observe an excess of matter over antimatter in the universe. Several theories, including those involving CP violation, attempt to explain this asymmetry, but it remains an open question.

Beyond Standard Models:

1. String Theory, Multiverse, and Branes: These theories go beyond the Standard Model of particle physics and the Big Bang cosmology to offer alternative explanations for the creation of matter. However, these theories are still highly speculative and lack empirical evidence.

In summary, the creation of matter in the universe is a complex process that likely involves several stages, from the initial moments of the Big Bang through to the nuclear processes in stars. Despite significant advances in our understanding, many questions remain unanswered.

[digthemup]

Squire,

Thank you for giving us all those wonderful THEORIES (a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.)

[bassfishinglawyer]

Thanks - keep them coming, hoping someone can come up with where the particles, quarks, leptons, elements, and other matter originated.

[Squire]

Thanks - keep them coming, hoping someone can come up with where the particles, quarks, leptons, elements, and other matter originated.

This is another step in the process and a actual test - https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-b...0become%20real.

[digthemup]

This is another step in the process and a actual test .

The article says that it was created from nothing.
Does this sound to you it's nothing.
Collide two particles in the abyss of empty space, and sometimes additional particle-antiparticle pairs emerge.
in early 2022, strong enough electric fields were created in a simple laboratory setup leveraging the unique properties of graphene, enabling the spontaneous creation of particle-antiparticle pairs from nothing at all.

[mram10us]

This is where the physicists play word games with "nothing". I saw a video where Krauss was explaining different types of nothing. They will do whatever they can to discount God.

[1Holeshot]

This is where the physicists play word games with "nothing". I saw a video where Krauss was explaining different types of nothing. They will do whatever they can to discount God.

Along with our resident skeptic.

[titanxt]

Bassfishinglawyer and Squire - very good question and excellent information. Upon reading the different theories, I wonder why secular science says matter cannot be created, nor destroyed, yet some of the theories include room for the creation of matter from nothing.

[digthemup]

This is where the physicists play word games with "nothing". I saw a video where Krauss was explaining different types of nothing. ......

One has to wonder if these are the same people trying to tell us that there is different types of truth, or right and wrong? Lets create confusion in hope that we can navigate away from God.

[Okie74133]

Two part answer, first, my belief system. I "take it on Faith" that Science will continuously strive to answer
the questions of about how did the Universe "happen".
I do not subscribe to the thought that we actually must fill in the gaps and decide now. Human nature that the
unknown will be investigated. This is exactly the same problem that religion has. How was God created?

Anyway, ChatGPT 4 at your leisure:

The creation of matter in the universe is a subject of ongoing research in cosmology and physics. Below are some theories and models that attempt to explain this complex process:
The Big Bang and Primordial Soup:

1. Initial Singularity: According to the Big Bang model, the universe began as an infinitely small, hot, and dense point around 13.8 billion years ago. At this initial singularity, the laws of physics as we understand them break down.
2. Inflation and Expansion: A fraction of a second after the initial singularity, the universe underwent a rapid expansion known as cosmic inflation. This was followed by a more moderate but still rapid expansion, during which the universe cooled down.
3. Quarks and Leptons: As the universe cooled, the fundamental particles like quarks and leptons (which include electrons) formed out of the energy present in the universe.

Nucleosynthesis:

1. Formation of Atoms: Within the first three minutes after the Big Bang, the temperature and density were high enough for nuclear fusion to occur. This process created light atomic nuclei like hydrogen, helium, and small amounts of lithium and beryllium.

Creation of Heavier Elements:

1. Stellar Nucleosynthesis: Heavier elements like carbon, oxygen, and iron were later formed in the interiors of stars through nuclear fusion. When massive stars die, they explode as supernovae, scattering these heavier elements into space.
2. Cosmic Recycling: These elements serve as the building blocks for new stars, planets, and eventually, life. This cycle of star birth and death is like a cosmic recycling system that has been going on for billions of years.

Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Fluctuations:

1. Virtual Particles: According to quantum mechanics, "empty" space is not truly empty but is filled with virtual particles that pop in and out of existence. These quantum fluctuations might have played a role in the creation of the universe itself, although this is still a matter of ongoing research.
2. Matter-Antimatter Asymmetry: According to our current understanding, the Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. However, we observe an excess of matter over antimatter in the universe. Several theories, including those involving CP violation, attempt to explain this asymmetry, but it remains an open question.

Beyond Standard Models:

1. String Theory, Multiverse, and Branes: These theories go beyond the Standard Model of particle physics and the Big Bang cosmology to offer alternative explanations for the creation of matter. However, these theories are still highly speculative and lack empirical evidence.

In summary, the creation of matter in the universe is a complex process that likely involves several stages, from the initial moments of the Big Bang through to the nuclear processes in stars. Despite significant advances in our understanding, many questions remain unanswered.

Would you agree that the exercise of trying to trace everything back to its origin inevitably reaches a point where the only logical answer is "poof! It just appeared"?

[Squire]

Would you agree that the exercise of trying to trace everything back to its origin inevitably reaches a point where the only logical answer is "poof! It just appeared"?

I am just very curious by nature. The amazing thought to me is that universe is infinite. Travel in space and it can never end, because then "what is on the other side"?
I actually don't have an opinion on if God exists or not. Every individual has the right to make that decision for themselves, that is what this country was founded on, that exact principle of freedom. I do strongly support the concept that the more we know, the better we can become.

[Okie74133]

I am just very curious by nature. The amazing thought to me is that universe is infinite. Travel in space and it can never end, because then "what is on the other side"?
I actually don't have an opinion on if God exists or not. Every individual has the right to make that decision for themselves, that is what this country was founded on, that exact principle of freedom. I do strongly support the concept that the more we know, the better we can become.

To be clear, I wasn't referencing God in my comment. I simply mean that from a purely scientific standpoint if we had the capability to trace the origin of the Earth> Galaxy>Universe and beyond that, all the way back to a point that we would call a "beginning", even that "beginning" would have to be comprised of elements that had an origin, correct? Otherwise it would be something coming from nothing at all, and that defies the very structure that supports everything that makes up science. Sometimes we greatly misinterpret the word "beginning" when we see the theories of origin you listed. Whether it's the big bang or quantum mechanics, everything we think of as a point of origination had to include elements that had an origin of their own. We can't just say cosmic energy started this or that and ignore the fact that energy also has an origin. Nothing "is" just because. Even those virtual particles that pop in and out of existence could only do so by persuasion from another element or energy, and that element or energy also has to have an origin. The observable universe is said to be roughly 50 billion light years in size. Even if we take away every planet and element that we have ever known or theorized so that all that's left is a huge black void of nothingness where nothing at all exists, that void is still something with an origin.

[digthemup]

Squire and Okie,

Thank you both for the wonderful contributions in your posts.

Every individual has the right to make that decision for themselves, that is what this country was founded on, that exact principle of freedom. This statement should apply to every decision we make and to be respectfully mindful of others at all times. BTW, do not forget how that freedom was paid, which is with the blood of many.

Okie, I love your entire statement, but this stand out "Sometimes we greatly misinterpret the word "beginning" when we see the theories of origin you listed.", which some confuse theories for actual facts.

[mram10us]

Along with our resident skeptic.

:)

[mram10us]

One has to wonder if these are the same people trying to tell us that there is different types of truth, or right and wrong? Lets create confusion in hope that we can navigate away from God.

Seems they are. Neil Tyson has lost all credibility lately jumping on the trans wagon.

[Okie74133]

Seems they are. Neil Tyson has lost all credibility lately jumping on the trans wagon.

He's lost ALL credibility? So you're saying the legitimacy of NDT's vast scientific knowledge is all in question based on his tolerance of transgenderism? You do realize what would happen if we extended your logic to realm of religion, right?

[mram10us]

He's lost ALL credibility? So you're saying the legitimacy of NDT's vast scientific knowledge is all in question based on his tolerance of transgenderism? You do realize what would happen if we extended your logic to realm of religion, right?

If you can show a scientist like him would support non science, it takes away his credibility. He is an atheist and has openly shunned anyone believing in God in the scientific community. That isn't science. He is openly biased thus not a true scientist

[1Holeshot]

^ I second the motion.