So the universe came from a vacuum right?

[Plat]

I am not saying this is what happened but the leading idea is the universe came from a vacuum?

And a quantum fluctuation in the vacuum is what triggered the creation of the universe?

[TravisM]

No PR. Current theories say that there was nothing. Absolutely no space, no time, no anything. Absence. Nada. Zilch.
There was no room for anything to exist in, nor to fluctuate in. There were no quantum virtual pairs because there was no space for them to "appear" in. There was nothing.
Space, time, and matter came into existance all at once, about 13.7 billion years ago, +- 2.3 bill.....

[Normandy6644]

I guess a lot of the confusion stems from some of the newer multiverse type theories, i.e., the ekpyrotic scenario and things like that. Either way, i don't think vacuum fluctuations played a role.

[Psionyx]

Which of course, begs the question: How did something come from nothing? As we know, matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed, constituted or broken down into its components.

So where exactly did all that matter come from?

A question both the theologians and scientists have been trying to answer as long as cognitive thought has existed, and currently beyond our realm of (proper) understanding.

[Fram]

I don't think space, time and matter all started at the same time. There was matter, but there was no time (I'm not certain about space: you don't need time to have matter, but perhaps you need space?). This way, the problem that something came out of nothing is avoided.
The only thing to explain is how (or why) time started, but that I leave as an exercise for the class

[czeslaw]

There is not observed violation of the energy conservation law in our observable Universe.
We don’t need a mysterious vacuum energy, singularity to understand origin of our observable Universe. I believe, there was an eternal information in pure field gouge of energy in eternal space. The concentrated energy transform to the matter and sort of particle with repulsive force as dark energy. This process needs known physics and information.
In Planck distance are other processes but galaxies, stars, stones moves without accident and mystery.
I have a paper for it – http://bencieszyn.w.interia.pl/antimatter

[gzhpcu]

M-theory proposes that the BB (and lots of other BB's) occur when higher dimensional Branes collide. So this resolves the "there was nothing" before problem. In fact our universe (which is encapsulated in a brane - a higher dimensional brane), might be on a collision course with another brane, and the resulting energy from the collision results in a BB.

[Demigrog]

M-theory proposes that the BB (and lots of other BB's) occur when higher dimensional Branes collide. So this resolves the "there was nothing" before problem. In fact our universe (which is encapsulated in a brane - a higher dimensional brane), might be on a collision course with another brane, and the resulting energy from the collision results in a BB.

Of course, that just leaves us wondering how the branes came to exist... same problem, higher dimension.

[gzhpcu]

M-theory proposes that the BB (and lots of other BB's) occur when higher dimensional Branes collide. So this resolves the "there was nothing" before problem. In fact our universe (which is encapsulated in a brane - a higher dimensional brane), might be on a collision course with another brane, and the resulting energy from the collision results in a BB.

Of course, that just leaves us wondering how the branes came to exist... same problem, higher dimension.

Maybe not, maybe the branes always existed and were not themselves product of a BB.

[Plat]

I think quantum fluctuations triggered the big bang....

[Plat]

No PR. Current theories say that there was nothing. Absolutely no space, no time, no anything. Absence. Nada. Zilch.
There was no room for anything to exist in, nor to fluctuate in. There were no quantum virtual pairs because there was no space for them to "appear" in. There was nothing.

Isnt the "current" theory the inflation theory....and inflation theory states the universe sprang into existence from a vacuum

I find it hard to believe that one second there was nothing and then the next there was something....

[Cougar]

But back to the original question....

I am not saying this is what happened but the leading idea is the universe came from a vacuum?

No, I don't believe there is a "leading idea" about the origination of the universe at all. All of the leading ideas only have to do with a very short period of time after the bang. I may be wrong here, but I believe earthly experiments can duplicate (or at least enlighten us to) events and environments within one second after the bang. If I'm not mistaken, the electroweak theory has been strongly supported by experimental observation, and this symmetry was broken less than a second after the bang....

[Plat]

heres another question....accelerating expansion times eons upon eons? could that dissipate space into nothingness?

[gzhpcu]

heres another question....accelerating expansion times eons upon eons? could that dissipate space into nothingness?

Define nothingness. How can space disappear? And also, don't forget quantum foam.

[Chip]

I don't mean to be overly philosophical but if we model spacetime expansion somewhat akin to a Mandelbrot equation, and then introduce a figure describing motion over time relative to an arbitrary location (within a symbolic fractal pattern, to represent our specific location or reference frame), we then "see" a symbolic universe that appears to have a zero point of expansion from nothing.

Then if we add the perspective of viewing the Mandelbrot pattern from the dynamic of motion (a moving sum over history), rather than our one location, a curious thing happens: We see it expand into a new shape with new details that grow to resolve into the original shape which then expands to infinity while resolving inner details to become the original shape, which then expands to infinity while resolving...

Perhaps in a way this could satisfy both the Big Bang and Steady State forms. The Big Bang being defined in the set by the expansion from the earliest detected boundary, and the steady state (of sorts) being defined by the dynamic of motion itself through time, which grows to reveal the same image formed on a larger scale, or even expansion into literally the same place as before.

(Shades of T.S. Elliot's "The Four Quartets")
"We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Shall be to come to the place where we started
And know it for the first time."

[czeslaw]

Universe from nothing by accident ? – no physics law at all
Universe from vacuum energy ? – demands eternal vacuum and start pulse
Universe as membrane collision ?– needs eternal membrane energy in eternal space
Universe from singularity ?– needs extra dimensional world and infinite dense energy

Why search we so complicated theories ?
Our physic allows normal origin of the Universe. We need eternal information written within energy field in eternal space. That demands to much?– http://bencieszyn.w.interia.pl/antimatter
Chesslaw

[Plat]

In Big Rip doesnt it rip everything....even space...

also I dont think the universe came from nothing....there must be a state that wsa in existence before the big bang

"How can 'nothing' do anything at all, let alone create an entire universe?

When physicists say 'nothing' they are being playful with the English language, because we often think of the vacuum as being 'empty' or 'nothing' when in fact physicists know full well that the vacuum is far from empty.

The primordial 'state' at the Big Bang was far from being the kind of 'nothingness' you might have in mind. We don't have a full mathematical theory for describing this 'state' yet, but it was probably 'multi-dimensional', it was probably a superposition of many different 'fields', and these fields, or whatever they were, were undergoing 'quantum fluctuations'.

Space and time were not the things we know them to be today because our world is a lot colder than the way it started out.

Nothingness was not nothing, but it was not anything like the kinds of 'somethings' we know about today. We have no words to describe it, and the ones we borrow (that are listed in the Oxford English Dictionary) are based on the wrong physical insight."

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11831.html

[Cougar]

heres another question....accelerating expansion times eons upon eons? could that dissipate space into nothingness?

Not if the dark energy responsible for the accelerating expansion is accurately described by Einstein's cosmological constant, in which case the dark matter "density" of any volume of space remains constant, regardless of how much that space expands. So if one cubic meter of space expands over time to a volume of two cubic meters, now each cubic meter contains the same amount of dark energy as the original one cubic meter. As I understand it, that's how the cosmological contant works. If this violates "conservation of energy", so be it.

[Plat]

I see, so in the end....there will be no matter just an extremely large vacuum

[gzhpcu]

Homeopathic matter in a bubbling particle/antiparticle foam of space....

[czeslaw]

Expansion of the space is to observe if there are more elemental space particles. If they grows only, or there is just the space as space, we would grow with the space and no observe the expansion.
There have to be a difference – the space inside the atoms remains small and intergalaxy grows – it could be if there are antigravity particle in Cosmic Voids, or there are more and more gravitationally neutral particles (neutrinos ?) with short range repulsive force.

[Tunga]

I am a firm believer in the KISS (keep it simple stupid) principle.

If the Big Bang theory and singularity do not make sense, it is probably because the current theories don't make sense. Otherwise why would anyone waste time discussing this topic.

The reason why is because there is a paradigm that needs to be broken in order to achieve clarity on this subject.

[Plat]

Homeopathic matter in a bubbling particle/antiparticle foam of space....

i dont think there will be matter in a vacuum

[gzhpcu]

Homeopathic matter in a bubbling particle/antiparticle foam of space....

i dont think there will be matter in a vacuum

As far as I know, a real vacuum does not exist. You will always have bubbling foam at the sub-atomic level.

[czeslaw]

There are many current hypothesis, where came the Universe from :
- Singularity
- Steady State
- space membrane
- vacuum energy
- collision of Super Black Holes
Every hypothesis demands some special conditions (most of them we do not observe in our Universe). The hypothesis could be probably if there are conditions we observe.
In our hypothesis do we claim an eternal information written in pure gouge field of energy in enormous large eternal space. It is no strange singularity. We do observe it.
A problem is how to do a flat geometry Universe after the matter creation. Some people say – it makes space inflation. It is to ingenuous for me. A child can say – it makes inflation, brownie, or something else. Are we not able to find the real force as the balance to gravity ?
I suppose it will give some combinations of the neutrino-photon-particle. May be not, but let as fill the word “inflation” with concrete.

[Tunga]

The simplist explanation is that the Big Bang is part of the life cycle of a black hole. The fabric of the universe extends out into infinity. But our portion of the universe represents only a small dot on the entire fabric of the universe. Much of the mass of the rest of the universe resides as massive black holes. But even now there are Big Bangs happening in distant regions of the universe, too distant for us to detect.

[TravisM]

Ok, on that logic, there are also 12 birthday parties 4 girraffes an orangutang and a monkey too distance to see, on the edge of the visible universe. Ooh, I wish there was an automechanic. I've been needing one of those.
Seriously though. There is no space 'outside' the universe. There is no 'outside' of everything in existance (def. universe)

[Plat]

The simplist explanation is that the Big Bang is part of the life cycle of a black hole. The fabric of the universe extends out into infinity. But our portion of the universe represents only a small dot on the entire fabric of the universe. Much of the mass of the rest of the universe resides as massive black holes. But even now there are Big Bangs happening in distant regions of the universe, too distant for us to detect.

Isnt this kind of like Inflation

TravisM, didnt Tunga say our portion of the universe.....anyways semantics are a b*tch

[Tunga]

Platinum Rhymer writes

Isnt this kind of like Inflation

I am not sure what you mean by inflation? I would probably use the word steady state. A water molecule in the ocean is in a constant state of flux but it is surrounded by other water molecules. If a water molecule moves another molecule moves to fill the void. The universe could be a very large structure. Much larger than we currently have the ability to view.

When a supermassive black hole aborbs sufficient matter and energy (in general, all the known mass in our portion of the universe) it explodes into a big bang. That matter and energy move outward (inflation?) and is eventally absorbed by other very large massive black holes which in turn will eventually also explode into a big bang.

[gzhpcu]

The simplist explanation is that the Big Bang is part of the life cycle of a black hole. The fabric of the universe extends out into infinity. But our portion of the universe represents only a small dot on the entire fabric of the universe. Much of the mass of the rest of the universe resides as massive black holes. But even now there are Big Bangs happening in distant regions of the universe, too distant for us to detect.

I thought that a black hole turns into a white whole in another universe.

What theory is this statement based on? A steady state universe studded with black holes?