# Is the "Big bang theory" the chicken or the egg???



## rmarkcoe (Oct 19, 2011)

In all of the discussions of the "Big Bang Theory" no one has ever even asked the following questions:
Where did all the energy come from to create the big bang? (The chicken)
Where did the particles (the egg) come from that the energy (the chicken) turned into the big bang?
While I do believe that there was a major event 13.some odd billion years ago, I believe we have assumed the bang came from the egg. It seems we are basing all of our fundamentals of physics on an arbitrary assumption of the egg, with no regard for the chicken. I have to question if this is wise, but know we must start some where even if it is wrong.
Does anyone care to enlighten the rest of us on the subject?
Or are we all just stuck with the old conundrum of which came first the chicken or the egg?


----------



## Kim Ung-yong (Jan 30, 2010)

That's a really good question, lol. Hmm.. So, what was it like before the Big Bang.... It's hard to explain... It's kinda like dividing a number bigger than zero by zero, lol. You get infinite nothingness.


----------



## hoddesdon (Jul 28, 2011)

A fundamental law of physics is that matter can be neither created nor destroyed. Yet if the universe once did not exist, where did its matter come from if matter can not be created?


----------



## Kim Ung-yong (Jan 30, 2010)

hoddesdon said:


> A fundamental law of physics is that matter can be neither created nor destroyed. Yet if the universe once did not exist, where did its matter come from if matter can not be created?


Then... are you saying that the fundamental law of physics contradicts itself?


----------



## hoddesdon (Jul 28, 2011)

^ I am saying there is a conundrum in that the creation of the universe must have involved contradicting one of the fundamental laws of the universe.


----------



## centrino (Sep 27, 2010)

Big Bounce

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce


----------



## Cynical (Aug 23, 2011)

The chicken came first the egg is only a by product of a pre chicken animal probably as a useful mutation or evolution. I believe its the same with the universe I would assume, as it delves into quantum physics.... I don't particularly love quantum physics (or believe in it for that matter) but its there.


----------



## John316C (May 1, 2011)

the chicken and the egg are the same, they're just different forms of energy, there cannot be nothing that exists and u cant get something from nothing. nothing is so ingrained in society as real that its thought of as real infact nothing has never existed and something has always existed therefor you should not even perceive the existence of nothing since nothing is the CONCEPT and something is REALITY, and nothing has never been proven to exist nor seem to exist etc and something the opposite. it is more rational, and biased in every way that infinity exists now and forever and thats all that exists forever.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

hoddesdon said:


> A fundamental law of physics is that matter can be neither created nor destroyed. Yet if the universe once did not exist, where did its matter come from if matter can not be created?


But doesn't the big bang theory, simply trace back the universe to a singularity?



John316C said:


> the chicken and the egg are the same, they're just different forms of energy, there cannot be nothing that exists and u cant get something from nothing. nothing is so ingrained in society as real that its thought of as real infact nothing has never existed and something has always existed therefor you should not even perceive the existence of nothing since nothing is the CONCEPT and something is REALITY, and nothing has never been proven to exist nor seem to exist etc and something the opposite. it is more rational, and biased in every way that infinity exists now and forever and thats all that exists forever.


I like this.


----------



## Marlon (Jun 27, 2011)

I believe quantum theory suggests that something can be created from nothing. Correct me if I am wrong though.

But to the OP: don't you think it's redundant to ask whether there was a chicken or an egg, since the universe expanded from a singularity? The chicken was the egg and the egg was the chicken  ... all at the same time


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

The known laws of physics break down at around the Big Bang.
Einstein's theory of relativity tells us that space and time are linked in a single entity; spacetime.
Since the state before the Big Bang would be a singularity with infinite mass, time didn't exist and so many of the questions one would instinctively ask about those conditions aren't something deemed within the realm of science based on our current knowledge; there are too many 'unknowables' and no way of probing for more information.
It has been theorised though, that what we call "time" is actually just "imaginary time" and in another dimension there is "real time" which caused the events of the Big Bang in our spacetime; causing time and space to come into being.

But to specifically answer the "Chicken vs Egg" question.
The biological answer is that the egg came first. It's not an as hard question as it gets made out to be.
Mutation happens upon reproduction and not throughout the lifespan.
So an "almost-but-not-quite-chicken" laid an egg that was mutated just enough to be an actual chicken egg.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

rmarkcoe said:


> In all of the discussions of the "Big Bang Theory" no one has ever even asked the following questions:
> Where did all the energy come from to create the big bang? (The chicken)
> Where did the particles (the egg) come from that the energy (the chicken) turned into the big bang?


No one? :idea You can't have looked far.

There are many interesting theories, such as the collision of higher dimensional branes, the big bounce, the big snap and numerous multiverse/singularity based theories. I've not got time to go in to all these but if you are interested go look them up.


----------



## Chopkinsca (Jun 16, 2006)

cedward said:


> Big Bounce
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce


That describes what I was going to post


----------



## Lasair (Jan 25, 2010)

I thought this was about the show The Big Bang Theory!


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

max4225 said:


> Sometimes I wonder if it got started by aliens in another universe throwing chunks of matter and antimatter into a singularity, then our universe popped into existence on the other side. Or maybe the matter and antimatter in the other universe were lovers and knew what would happen if they mated.


Yeah maybe. On a similar edge, maybe 'we' started it?

More info on the theory here.


----------



## kev (Jan 28, 2005)

I'm no scientist but I like the big bounce theory mentioned in a previous post... it just intrigues me.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

kev said:


> I'm no scientist but I like the big bounce theory mentioned in a previous post... it just intrigues me.


A "Big Crunch"/"Big Bounce" seems the intuitive idea for the fate of the universe, but studies from the late 90s and forward have shown that, rather than the expansion of the Universe decelerating due to gravity, the expansion is actually accelerating, which would mean a "Big Crunch"/"Big Bounce" would not occur.
The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 went to 3 people for their observational studies of this effect.


----------



## kev (Jan 28, 2005)

Milco said:


> A "Big Crunch"/"Big Bounce" seems the intuitive idea for the fate of the universe, but studies from the late 90s and forward have shown that, rather than the expansion of the Universe decelerating due to gravity, the expansion is actually accelerating, which would mean a "Big Crunch"/"Big Bounce" would not occur.
> The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011 went to 3 people for their observational studies of this effect.


I have heard about the accelerating universe. I learned a tiny bit about in physics in college.

But how do we know it won't decelerate in the future? I guess that would not be the most likely possibility (?)


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

kev said:


> I have heard about the accelerating universe. I learned a tiny bit about in physics in college.
> 
> But how do we know it won't decelerate in the future? I guess that would not be the most likely possibility (?)


It is of course only a theory, which are always subject to change, and only based on our models as they currently stand.
But if there were only the Big Bang to give the mass off the universe momentum outwards, then you'd expect gravity to slowly be slowing them down.
The this slowdown process could then either be so big that it eventually overcame the velocity of the galaxies and they would be pulled back in (Big Crunch) or, if the starting velocity was significantly high, the gravitational pull would be slowing them down, but never enough for them to turn start collapsing again - cosmological escape velocity, if you will.

But these results seem to say that it's neither, but that the speed at which things move apart is forever increasing. This has lead to theories of Dark Matter with negative pressure, expanding the space between matter.
The observations are from back in 1998, so it is some time ago, but it does of course take a while before the Nobel Prize is given.

The youtube channel Sixty Symbols has a couple of interesting videos on this. Asking professors at the University of Nottingham to comment on various concepts and theories in physics:




 - On the Cosmological Constant
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HppSNAPYvN8 - On the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics


----------



## kev (Jan 28, 2005)

Milco said:


> It is of course only a theory, which are always subject to change, and only based on our models as they currently stand.
> But if there were only the Big Bang to give the mass off the universe momentum outwards, then you'd expect gravity to slowly be slowing them down.
> The this slowdown process could then either be so big that it eventually overcame the velocity of the galaxies and they would be pulled back in (Big Crunch) or, if the starting velocity was significantly high, the gravitational pull would be slowing them down, but never enough for them to turn start collapsing again - cosmological escape velocity, if you will.
> 
> ...


Thank you for this explanation. I'm a little disappointed. I just love the idea of picturing the universe collapsing and folding in on itself, only to spark the creation of a new one. There's something just very poetic about it to me, but perhaps it's just not meant to be.

Regardless, I still don't see how the OP's question is being addressed. Could it be possible that there was never "nothing" or was there always "something"? Do any scientists actually feel like they have answered this chicken and egg question?


----------



## Selbbin (Aug 10, 2010)

rmarkcoe said:


> In all of the discussions of the "Big Bang Theory" no one has ever even asked the following questions:
> Where did all the energy come from to create the big bang? (The chicken)
> Where did the particles (the egg) come from that the energy (the chicken) turned into the big bang?


Yes, they have asked that question and there are several theories.

And the Egg came first, as chickens evolved from Dinosaurs that laid eggs.


----------



## Selbbin (Aug 10, 2010)

Cynical said:


> The chicken came first the egg is only a by product of a pre chicken animal probably as a useful mutation or evolution.


That would make the egg come first. You know, being *'PRE-CHICKEN'*


----------



## jenkydora (Nov 11, 2003)

No the Big Bang is not the chicken or the egg.

It Is Sheldon, Lennard, Rajh,and Howard.


----------



## keyla965 (Jan 13, 2011)

i think its the chicken becuse in order to make the egg you have to have a chicken, is this trick question? Iv heard this before and nobody really knows at all so why think about it? youll drive yourself crazy.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

kev said:


> Regardless, I still don't see how the OP's question is being addressed. Could it be possible that there was never "nothing" or was there always "something"? Do any scientists actually feel like they have answered this chicken and egg question?


I'm not a cosmologist or theoretical physicist, so if you want the best answer, you should go to your local University :b
But from what I understand, many scientists do not believe the question even makes sense to ask.
"Being" requires time, but as it is tied to space time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so there never was a time for there not to be anything in.
In that sense, the matter and energy of the universe was always there, but that "always" is not infinite, because time isn't infinite.
I believe that's the answer for our universe and the dimensions we know of.

But specifically to the "chicken and the egg" question..
That question was formulated by Aristotle, so long, long before Darwin and the theory of evolution.
Even when restricting it to be a "chicken egg", the answer still is that the egg came first.
It gets asked as a trick question, but it really isn't.
It's a thought-provoking question and one that makes you think about life and the universe in general, but the answer to the question specifically is well known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg#Science


----------



## kev (Jan 28, 2005)

Ahh, interesting point that the question makes no sense to ask. I guess I will have to think about that a little and try to wrap my head around it.


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

rmarkcoe said:


> In all of the discussions of the "Big Bang Theory" no one has ever even asked the following questions:
> Where did all the energy come from to create the big bang? (The chicken)
> Where did the particles (the egg) come from that the energy (the chicken) turned into the big bang?
> While I do believe that there was a major event 13.some odd billion years ago, I believe we have assumed the bang came from the egg. It seems we are basing all of our fundamentals of physics on an arbitrary assumption of the egg, with no regard for the chicken. I have to question if this is wise, but know we must start some where even if it is wrong.
> ...


There is a theory that covers the creation of energy and matter from nothing. In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter, and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition. All of these particles consist of positive energy. That energy is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero. The universe consists of essentially nothing, but in positive and negative parts.


----------



## jonny neurotic (Jan 20, 2011)




----------

