Search 74,330 tutors
FIND TUTORS
Ask a question
1 2

In regards to the big bang heory, where did the matter come from to have the big bang?

Tutors, please sign in to answer this question.

4 Answers

The Big Bang theory posits that matter (and anti-matter) were both created as part of the Big Bang.  In other words, matter didn't cause the big bang, matter was produced BY the big bang.  This is a result of the equivalence of matter and energy (Albert Einstein's E=mc2).

However, you also seem to be asking about Darwinism, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang theory.  Darwinism is an explanation for life on planet Earth, and Big Bang is an explanation for the existence of the universe as a whole - two very fundamentally different questions.  

Comments

Duh, I know what Darwinism is, the opposite of Intelligent Design, I was just juxtaposing for clarity purposes...I thought the Big Bang Theory was the explosion of matter creating the planets...How do you get an explosion if there's no matter to explode?...

It is a common misconception that the Big Bang theory suggests an "explosion" of the sort you are referring to.  The explosion you are referring to is a chemical reaction, which is exactly NOT the type suggested by the Big Bang Theory.  Instead, the Big Bang Theory suggests an "explosion" (for lack of any better word) of space itself.  That is, space is what is exploding, not the matter in it, and in this case "exploding" does NOT mean "blowing up into tiny bits" it means a "massive expansion".  

Think of it like a bubble growing in a pot of boiling water...   There was no bubble there to start with, but the bubble expands nonetheless.  This is obviously a very weak metaphor that doesn't truly correlate to Big Bang spatial expansion, but it might give you the basic concept.

The bubble example, was I know an over simplification, but effective to a laymen to a degree...You sound like you are a Darwinist, and you are dissuading me from my Creationist belief, because I thought as I stated, that matter was a part of the Big Bang theory...Big Bang is an misleading an ambiguous name for what occurred...Thanks for your clarification...

You aren't the only one to think that "Big Bang" is a misleading and ambiguous name...   some very top-tier physicists think the same.  Unfortunately, it is the name it was given when first proposed, and the public has latched on to it.  To change it now would probably cause a lot of confusion.

Also, although I do believe in Darwinism, as there is overwhelming evidence supporting this theory, I'm certainly not trying to dissuade anyone from their own beliefs; I'm simply answering the question.  :)

As my understanding of the Big Bang goes, it is sort of a yo-yo effect.  The universe goes out, after the Big Bang, slows down, then comes back to the singularity, then we have another Big Bang, all taking billions, if not trillions of years to complete one cycle.  This just happens over and over again.

Unforutunately due to our short lifespans, and lack of knowledge, this cannot be proven, as of yet.  For all we know, this may not be the case, there may be mulitple universes in which this is happening simultaneously, or even this may be happening at distant parts of our own universe..  

Chase - you are referring to the "cyclical universe model".  That certainly is one of the theories that has been proposed, but there are MANY theories.  The "standard big bang theory" does not include this concept, however.

Nobody knows for certain what could cause the big bang. However, there are two theories that scientists developed in the late 20th to beginning of the 21st century. They are String Theory and M theory. The M stands for Membrane.

String Theory posits that what we call particles/antiparticles are just vibrating strings in extra dimensions other than the familiar space-time. M-theory posits that our universe is sitting in a 3-D membrane (one of many parallel membranes) embedded in a higher dimentional space. Particles are still strings but have endpoints that must be on the membrane. Adjacent membranes are are a microscopic distance apart and all membranes constantly warp ever so slightly. If two membranes collide, a Big Bang occurs giving birth to two universes, one in each membrane.

Just imagine if the two formed universes differ by only there being an antiparticle in one universe for each corresponding particle in the other and vice versa, but with no difference with the relative motion/interaction of the contents. Then it would mean we have a twin universe where there is an anti-earth with an anti-you and an anti-me on it living the same lives as we do here.

Referring to michael s answer of yesterday - Where did the matter did not explode come from??

Comments

Dave,

Not being a physicist, I'm not sure I can give an accurate answer, but I can tell you about some of the things that I have read in the past.

I believe that the most common answer is that there wasn't matter, but there WAS a LOT of energy.  Because of Einstein's E=mc2 equation, we know that matter and energy are really just two forms of the same thing (in much the same way that ice and steam are both two forms of water).  A portion of that initial energy ("the steam") condensed into a more compact form ("the ice") that we call matter.

So the next logical question is...    where did all of the energy come from?  I don't think there is an accepted answer to this yet, but there are several theories.  One theory called derives from "M-theory" which is an extension on top of string theory.  This theory says that our universe "lives in" or "lives on" or "is" (I'm not sure which is more accurate) a "brane" which itself exists within a larger "existence" of branes, and they are "floating around" in some sense.  The theory I'm thinking of says that somehow, two of these branes collided.  Think what happens when two things collide in our universe - lot's of energy, right?  Well just imagine these two "bigger than the universe" things colliding - this could produce an "extreme" amount of energy which, this theory says, was the seed for all of the energy that we have in our universe today.

If this seems like too much energy to be possible, then step outside your little box and look at the bigger picture...   We don't know how big the universe is.  It only takes a little bit of imagination to realize that there could be a "universe of universes" and we would have very little way of knowing about it.  Our "tiny" universe is all we know.  We are like little tiny algae in a very big ocean - do you think the algae, if they could think, would ever know anything about us?

so where did those things that collided come from???

Dave,

Answer 1: I don't know, and I don't think anyone currently has any good theories about it, but I could be and likely am wrong.

Answer 2: It sounds like you are trying to drag me into a theological argument about the existence of God.  (Your line of questioning is the same one everyone uses when doing this...  Q: where did X come from?  A: Well, it came from Y.  Q: Oh yeah - then where did Y come from?...  ad nauseam.)  Please don't.  I'm not arguing religion here, simply providing the scientific view, and probably not even a very accurate one of those.

 

Michael my question as to where did the original matter come from has nothing to do with religion.. If we don t know where the matter originated how do we know it existed?? But it does raise the question regarding the existence of  a creator.

We DON'T know that it existed.  At this time, it is a very speculative theory.

Sounds like you are saying we just don t know where the matter came from that exploded and became the universe or universes

That's about right, Dave - we don't know exactly where the energy came from. We really don't know much about what existed (or didn't exist) before the big bang, other than speculative theories.

There are some things that current physics just can not explain, like what goes on inside the event horizon of a black hole, or events prior to the big bang.

The conditions, parts and whatevers that led to what is understood as the Big Bang is, for some people insurmountable;(ie Someone, however intellectually vast, did this. They believe there are planes of reality far beyond what we will EVER perceive from OUR plane of existence...a 2-dimensional dude will NEVER know me.
 
For some, the complexities of the Universe give rise to a Super-Intelligent Personage(I for myself hold this to be self-evident; others might question my sanity based on it)
 

Woodbridge Science tutors