Worlds Biggest Contradiction

[KillerbYo]

Maybe because the universe is eternal, it has always existed and will always exist, therefore it was never created, and it will never be destroyed. Its nothing and everything.

 

[Rιver]

You're referring to the law of conservation of energy. Thanks to Albert Einstein's work on the equivalence of energy and matter, this law now incorporates the old conservation of matter. If the energy is not converted to matter, it is converted to another form of energy. That new form is monotonically less "useful" than the old one. That's the essence of entropy, a measure of "disorder". The field that studies this is thermodynamics. When you ask about energy created from 'nothing', a scientist may talk about a quantum singularity. When you ask about matter being created from energy, a scientist may talk about a photon 'decaying' into an electron and a positron. They may also talk about the zero-point field. They may hypothesize the formation of the universe from the intersection of M-branes. They may acknowledge that big bang cosmology is based upon such extreme extrapolation that they can't say this is what happened. All they can say is, we have worked out all the equations and done the math for all the physical laws we know about, and we can't prove it could not have happened this way. Sometimes the even hypothesize new physical laws. They may acknowledge that extrapolation isn't even valid to the point of singularity, and definitely not valid beyond that point. They should say they can't prove the universe was 'created' by some intelligent entity. But they should also say they can't disprove it, either. See Dr. Alan Guth's later chapters in his book, The Inflationary Universe. That's where he talks about the possibility that the total energy of the universe is zero, due to the reasoning that gravitational potential energy is negative. That's how the idea of "the universe out of nothing" is plausible. Perhaps the creation event was the sudden removal by God of a huge amount of entropy. See thermodynamics.​

 

[trick master]

your question cannot be answered due to the fact that matter can be both created and destroyed.

 

[Bronze]

I don't believe in the Big Bang, not solely because I am religious person; but because the Big Bang theory itself makes no sense. Before time, an explosion occurred and expanded from nothing. First of all, nothing contains no energy, therefore, there would be no result which equals = 0. Its impossible for a matter to happen if there is nothing caused it. Currently, there is no evidence to support the results of the Big Bang theory, so the theory is moot.​

 

[BlacLord™]

It's simple; matter cannot be created per se but it can be the result of a transformation from energy and vice-versa, in accordance with mass-energy equivalence.

 

[Multiply]

I don't believe in the Big Bang, not solely because I am religious person; but because the Big Bang theory itself makes no sense. Before time, an explosion occurred and expanded from nothing. First of all, nothing contains no energy, therefore, there would be no result which equals = 0. Its impossible for a matter to happen if there is nothing caused it. Currently, there is no evidence to support the results of the Big Bang theory, so the theory is moot.​

Oh Dimitri... Read these responses.

You're referring to the law of conservation of energy. Thanks to Albert Einstein's work on the equivalence of energy and matter, this law now incorporates the old conservation of matter. If the energy is not converted to matter, it is converted to another form of energy. That new form is monotonically less "useful" than the old one. That's the essence of entropy, a measure of "disorder". The field that studies this is thermodynamics. When you ask about energy created from 'nothing', a scientist may talk about a quantum singularity. When you ask about matter being created from energy, a scientist may talk about a photon 'decaying' into an electron and a positron. They may also talk about the zero-point field. They may hypothesize the formation of the universe from the intersection of M-branes. They may acknowledge that big bang cosmology is based upon such extreme extrapolation that they can't say this is what happened. All they can say is, we have worked out all the equations and done the math for all the physical laws we know about, and we can't prove it could not have happened this way. Sometimes the even hypothesize new physical laws. They may acknowledge that extrapolation isn't even valid to the point of singularity, and definitely not valid beyond that point. They should say they can't prove the universe was 'created' by some intelligent entity. But they should also say they can't disprove it, either. See Dr. Alan Guth's later chapters in his book, The Inflationary Universe. That's where he talks about the possibility that the total energy of the universe is zero, due to the reasoning that gravitational potential energy is negative. That's how the idea of "the universe out of nothing" is plausible. Perhaps the creation event was the sudden removal by God of a huge amount of entropy. See thermodynamics.​

That's not a contradiction, that's a paradox.

As for your question. The Big Bang answers it quite well.

Rapid inflation nano-seconds after the happening of the big bang caused massive expansion which created the universe (which has been expanding for billions of years itself). The energy itself was "created" and or exerted from the big bang itself because the core of the big bang was originally extremely condensed and very hot; heat produces energy in the form of heat energy which is transferred in a process called "enthalpy" (heat exchange). This is further proven by the post above by Trap Lord. Stars themselves are radiated with heat energy and are extremely hot. Once the star dies out, it collapses on the gravity that held it up and the gravitational force (measured in g or better known as "gravitons") is EXTREME. Like on Earth, it is roughly 1 g, which is relative to our normal weight we have on Earth but we'd be lighter/heavier on a planet that has higher or lower gravitational pull; the force of gravity at the center of a black hole (which is just the star collapsing) is something like 40 Million gravitons, which is immense beyond comprehension. Following the Big Bang Theory, that's where energy came from. There's also evidence from the spontaneous appearance and disappearance of random particles observed in a laboratory over time.​

 

[Bronze]

Oh Dimitri... Read these responses.

Read them and none of them explains previous events before the Big Bang. But even then, I wouldn't bother reading them, since its common sense you don't get results from 0. Basic and simple.​

 

[Ψ Veritas Ψ]

I can answer that Question.

PM Me if you want to hear Veritas' Answer.

 

[BlacLord™]

Read them and none of them explains previous events before the Big Bang. But even then, I wouldn't bother reading them, since its common sense you don't get results from 0. Basic and simple.​

Everything we have... what we are and how we are; it's all essentially, the result of chance.

The Big Bang would have been a transformation, as is everything that comes from nothing.

 

[Bronze]

Everything we have... what we are and how we are; it's all essentially, the result of chance.

The Big Bang would have been a transformation, as is everything that comes from nothing.

Same can be said about God as well, that he always he existed and created everything, but atheists will deny it, since its too fictional. Right now, you're using fallacy that something as massive and mysterious as the universe could have came out of nothing and by chance.​

 

[Oksus]

You're an idiot.
E=mc squared.
Matter is just energy transformed into an observable shape and form.
Matter can be destroyed (by destroying matter, huge amounts of Energy is released, Hence the formula), what do you think Nuclear bombs do ?
It's energy that cannot be destroyed.

 

[Faraday]

the fact that our universe is expanding means that there must have been a point at wich it was all contained in what we call "the singularity".
It WAS NOT an explosion, as the name itself suggests, but a rapid inflation of space-time (which expanded at a rate many times faster than the speed of light), and the name for it should be "the rapid expansion", instead of "the big bang". So the mass/energy of our hole universe has always been there, but in different ways.


We do have proof for the "big bang", not only should you check the recent discovery of gravitational waves (and what they may imply) but what the cosmic background radiation is, and from where it comes from, before claiming there is no evidence for such a thing as the big bang.
those two are just some examples I can think of right now, but there are tons more, and very interesting.

However, a scientific theory isn´t something you can choose to believe in or not, is just an explanation which is backed with lots of evidence, all pointing in the same direction: it requires no faith. But it´s also a fact that the big bang, as a theory, could be proven wrong, that is, whenever we get enough evidence to make us think about an other explanation which could indeed be possible, giving place to a new theory. (reality=/=theory, but it is the closest you can get to reality).
The point is, no matter what we choose to believe or not to believe in, the universe will have been created in a way we will never ever be able to be 100% sure about. (Or maybe the universe is infinite, which by the way doesn´t go against the principle of an expanding universe...or maybe you are all a product of my imagination *_* )

 

[Ldude]

Energy can be converted to matter and anti-matter, and vice versa. Check yo physics.