Is Big Bang Theory Explained By E=MC2?
I can't comprehend how a spot tinier then an atom explodes to create all the celestial bodies that we have in the universe. Is it safe to assume that this infinitely small spot had infinite energy (E) which when it exploded created mass (M). Is that kind of how Einstein's formula comes into play with the Big Bang?
What was before the big bang? Was existance in some strange quantum state? Where would all this pressure to have kick started the big bang have come from? From the current view, consciousness never ceases so where was it before the big bang?
I believe this question totally misunderstands the nature of reality.There likely is no “before the Big Bang”. As far as we know the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. Asking what is before the Big Bang is like asking what scene is before the first scene of a movie. A movie consists of bits which when looked at in a certain way has a beginning and tells a story. Our universe consists of bits which when looked at in a certain way has a beginning and tells a story. I don’t believe we see reality as it actually is. We see very very little of it and because we see so little of it we tend to draw false conclusions.The Big Bang is not an explosion but an expansion of all of space.Consciousness consists of algorithms which run on brains, and in the future perhaps other computing machines ( artificial brains). Without brains you won’t have consciousness. It may be possible ( extremely likely) those algorithms may be duplicated on brains which exist elsewhere but in regions without brains you will not have consciousness. I think another false assumption we tend to make is that we are brains when in fact we are algorithms running on brains. This leads to false conclusions, (assuming we only have one brain for example).
How E=mc2 is related to the big bang theory?
Very loosely. The "big bang" isn't really as solid as many think. But relativity is. So, astrophysicists try to graft all kinds of jerry-rigged ideas to the big bang to make it fit with relativistic observations. Like "inflation", "dark matter", "dark energy", and so on. The only REAL relation of E=MC^2 to the big bang is the red shift.
If the Big Bang created space, then what created the things that created the big bang?
Neil Gaiman once neatly addressed this, writing, “First there was nothing, which exploded.”The deal is, nobody knows the answer to your question, so any answer will be speculation; some grounded in a bit of science and math, some pseudo science, and some just guesswork.One notion is that the universe is cyclic; that it bounces from bang expansion to crunch contraction. Two problems with this are immediate: 1. It just puts off the idea of absolute creation to some never-never distant past where your question would still apply; and, 2. There is zero evidence that the universe is doing anything but accelerating its expansion with little to no argument for gravitational collapse.All other ideas currently take us only (!) back to a few fractions of a second after the Big Bang, describing an unimaginable primordial plasma stew wherein the basic stuff of the universe is thought to have emerged as things settled down.Your question gets us to that old but charming question about what holds up the Earth. “The Earth rests on the back of a turtle,” was the reply. “Well, what holds up THAT turtle?” “Another turtle!” “And below that one?” “Look, it’s just turtles… all the way down!”By this, I mean to say that no matter what we might end up with; no matter how simple, how elemental the ultimate bits we determine lay at the source of the Big Bang, we will still be stuck with the question of where any such thing came from.I have suggested elsewhere (The Structure of Space - Amazon) the the origin of things may not be things at all, but in the nature of space, specifically the Planck-Einstein vacuum energy. Max Planck and Einstein calculated a tiny minimum of energy resident in a Planck volume. Given that energy is expressed as a frequency, that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle would suggest that such frequencies will vary over the the vast expanse of space, and that mass (stuff) is expressable as a energy/frequency (E equals MC squared) — given those three propositions, I imagine that space itself would of a certainty create matter and all that comes with it.Of course, that leads us once more to a narrower, but equally pesky question: Where did space come from?
Big Bang Theory?
Time is just another coordinate of spacetime, so it has to unfold together with the other dimensions. Time is created with the rest of space; there was simply no "before". There was no "instant" of creation and there was no "location" for the primordial explosion either. The center was everywhere. It still is. A geometrical analogy might help: Think of the surface of a sphere and imagine latitude is "time". There's nothing north of the North Pole, is there? This analogy with a sphere has other nice features. In particular, the North Pole is not very different from nearby points; it's just an artifact created from the way we measure things. So too, the "instant" of creation is not well defined; it depends on the speed and location of the vantage point from which the (theoretical) mesurement is made. All of this is without even considering the quantum aspects which nobody really understands (yet?). Does this blow you mind? Well, it should. It blows everybody's mind. Concerning, the "stuff" the Universe was made from, the answer is also weird... The key remark is that gravitation has more negative energy when everything is packed tight. Think about everyday experience: energy is released when an object is dropped, so there's less energy (more "negative energy") when the Earth and the object are closer together. At the scale of the entire Universe, the numbers are mind-boggling: The positive energy in the Universe today (the energy of radiation and matter according to E=mc^2) seems to balance exactly the negative energy of gravitation. Therefore, it looks like the Universe could have been created from zero energy, from absolutely nothing! Come to think of it, it MUST have been so, or else how would you explain the "manufacture" of the original stuff itself? This framework makes the Universe explainable (in principle, at least) without violating physical laws. Ultimately, we can hope to be left with only one question: "Why?" or "What caused it?" That last question, however, is not a scientific one (no matter how interesting it might be).
What are your opinions on the big bang theory?
The big bang is the expansion of the universe and is still visibly in progress. Since the universe is seen to be expanding today, theoretical cosmologists can make detailed predictions of the universe's denser and hotter past. The results of Big Bang predictions have been found to conform accurately and precisely to a variety of astronomical observations. (The expansion may or may not be related to origin of the universe; there is no evidence either way. I don't know of any scientific requirement for or against an infinitely long past.) .