Root event that created the Universe...

[TWOLF]

Originally posted by BNM
Kinda doubt it SOB but...

Don't have to twolf, you'll find out soon enough. I only hope you are prepared.

I am very prepared.  Are you?  Without carring a very fun debate into a debate about religion.  I will say that I am not an atheist.  I do have a set of beliefs.  But I choose not to impose my beliefs on others.  Religion is a personal quest.  I have completed mine and I am content.

[Wlfgng]

the Big Bang ???  
just one of the most recent attempts to explain something beyond our comprehension.

the 'Big Bang' theory (and I stress theory) is being pushed aside by a lot of scientists in favor of a different theory of multi-verses..
bottom line:
another new theroy to explain something we can't comprehend.

we'll never know in this lifetime and who cares?
does it affect how we live now?

[jmccaul]

Sorry haven't read quite all the posts but.....

Re Matter being created out of nothing :

  If you look in a vacuum "virtual particles" particles  are always popping in annd out of exsistance. This is due to the uncertainty principle. These particles can "borrow" energy (=mass) but the more energy you borrow the quicker you have to pay it back. So a large loan will have to be paid back quickly. If the particle does not pay this loan back it will disappear however if some external energy is given to this virtual particle it can become real and exsist like any other particle.
  This loan can be seen in a way in quantum tunneling (like alpha radiation) a very familiar phenomen now. Yet this is not an idea some wacko has pulled out the air. Just by constructing the schrodingers wave a equation for a particle in a potential well and using simple physics which apply to waves at a boundary (normal  waves e.g. sound waves). We can see by looking at the transmission of the wave that there is a finite probability of the particle  appearing at the other side of the potential  barrier.


RE origin of our universe
  I read an interesting theory to do with "false vacuums". If you think of an electron in an atom in it's ground state,  that is the position of lowest energy, this elctron can get excited into higher states of energy. There is thought to be an analogue of this with a vacuum i.e. it can get excited. This is thought to  be a process by which inflation occured in the early universe where the universe expanded enormously. It has been proposed if there is a small bubble of false vacuum surrounded by true vacuum it would expand rapidly (like our universe in the early stages). However it would not expand in our space it would in effect create a baby universe. It is possible that we are one of these baby universes. Amazing! (i know nothing of the maths of all this so i could  not really defend it though). But where  did the mother universe come from:)

  There is also a possibility that our universe is still in a false vacuum in a metastable state (ie in a local energy minmum). If a small region of space was to achieve enough energy to  get out of this minimum back to the vacuum ground state this small bubble of true vacuum would expand rapidly in our universe destroying everything  in it's path. As higher enrgies are achieved in particle accelerators there is a small worry that if this atte of affaris is the case then we could inadvertantly provide enough energy for this decay and destroy the universe as we know it. Ho-hum.        

As far as knowing how the universe was created it must be remembered that time and space itself was created at the big bang so any concept of before is almost meaningless. To give an answer which makes sense in words is unlikley as most of these concepts go beyond our 3 dimensional, mid-scale, slow speed enviroment in which we experience things we understand.

[Wlfgng]

it must be remembered that time and space itself was created at the big bang

one of many theories about how the universe was created...
and it's falling into disfavor lately.

all of it is theory including 'quark' theory and the theory of 'borrowed energy'.  nothing is proven.

[paulieb]

Originally posted by whgates3
If you do cosmological physics backwards, including special & general relativity....

Unfortunately, Hawking debunked special relativity some years ago. Matter CAN be created, but not destroyed. Rather, it is converted into an energy form which may or may not at some future point transition back into matter.

 Modern theoretical physics suggests that matter and energy can be used interchangeably in many ways. However, this does nothing whatsoever to support any creationist or Big Bang supporter. The only reasonable explanation at this point is that in one form or another (ie matter vs energy) the universe has ALWAYS existed, therefore its creation is a moot point.

I am not suggesting that the universe as we know it has always existed in this form. Rather that the building blocks it is constructed from were a remnant of what came before, which was itself constructed of the remnants of what came before.  

 As far as the theological implications of creation, as in where did God come from, there is some considerable material available on the subject. One school of thought maintains that God does not know where He came from, only that He is. His creation of man was/is an attempt to see if he could create beings who would someoday evolve into beings like Himself. But I digress.

I am neither a theologist nor a physicist... I've simply always been interested in this particular subject.

[paulieb]

Oh, I almost forgot something...a little pet peeve of mine. The Third Law of Thermodynamics: The absolute entropy of a perfect crystalline substance at absolute zero is zero. Besides giving you a handy baseline by which to measure entropy, what possible purpose could this serve? IS there any such thing as a PERFECT crystalline substance?

[whgates3]

Originally posted by paulieb
Unfortunately, Hawking debunked special relativity some years ago....

relative to others in his field, Steven Hawkings is a nincompoop.
you'd have never heard of him if he wasn't in a wheelchair.  special relativity is accepected as fact by just about everyone in the field & is not much more than the doppler effect with a fancy name

[senna]

To answer paul, no.