Physics is concerned with the relationship between mass and energy. The laws of physics could not exist until physics existed.\n\nHow can the Big Bang violate the laws of physics, since physics did not exist until after there was mass and energy?
206133
well firstly the big bang does not posit that there was no mass or no energy. It simply says that the universe was much smaller, and therefore denser, with all the mass and energy being concentrated into one location.\n\nSecondly "Physics" isn't an object that exists. It's a term that describes our study of the physical properties of the universe. My lecturer told me that something is a part of physics if it is frame invariant, ie the physical phenomenon you're observing does not depend on your frame of reference. There's no reason why this always had to be the case though, and in fact our understanding of physics breaks down as you approach a singularity. The maths just stops working.\n\nIt's possible that this will be resolved when a quantum theory of gravity is formed, but until then physics as we understand it ceases to "exist" or apply at the point of a singularity.
540976
I have no physics degree but I think this might help you.  The answer will vary slightly depending on how contemporary the physics you use to answer it is but here is an inexact answer which should give you the general idea.\n\nSo the first thing you need to know is that all matter is not in existence already.  Matter is energy in a special form where it is sort of tied up in a wiggly knot.  You can see the relation between the two in einstein's\n\nm=E/c^2   (just an alternate form of E=mc^2)\n\nwhere\nm is mass(the property that quantifies matter)\nE is energy\nc is the speed of light\n\nSo from that there is an equivalence between matter and energy.  Matter can be created by knotting up energy, or destroyed by liberating the energy it was made with.\n\nSo, without going into really advanced physics, all mass is not conserved (meaning it can be created or destroyed) but energy IS conserved, there are all kinds of rules involved, but you can interchange the two of them.\n\nWhen you release energy as photons from matter you are converting some of that matter (tied up energy) into energy.  If you could weigh the matter that radiated the photons well enough you would be able to see that it weighs less!\n\nIn "pair production" a photon can create matter; an electron and positron.\n\nAnother example of energy being released from matter is nuclear fission.  Where the matter going in weighs more than the matter after the process.  The difference of mass is the energy freed from the uranium fuel.\n\nIt's like the photon is some of the stuff that the electron is made of... (this is a loose analogy) like some of the waggling rope that the electron knot was made of.  The electron knot can lose some excitement (energy) by shedding a section of the length of the rope(photon) which goes zipping away as pure electromagnetic energy.\n\nAll the abstractions like neutron, proton, electron, photon aren't really such absolute and fundamental things that are seperate and different from each other.  They are more like energy tied up in different ways.
498181
There is some controversy over that. It is difficult to account for the expansion of the universe if it doesn't. At least at the very beginnings of the big bang.
644096
The origin of the universe has always been a mysterious event in which the laws of physics appear to break down. Could it be that the big bang was caused by the collision of two parallel universes?\n\n*Riddle of the Big Bang (scroll down 3/4 of page. Running time 7:37)\nhttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html\n\n*Dr. Michio Kaku: M-Theory: The Mother of all SuperStrings\nhttp://www.mkaku.org/articles/mtheory_superstrings.shtml\n\n*Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos by M. Kaku\nhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...1988531-0244141\n\nThe strange notion of parallel universes is gaining strength in the scientific community and may solve our most basic questions about the universe, including the origins of the Big Bang itself.\n\n*Parallel Universe \nhttp://search.discovery.com/search?proxystylesheet=sciMain&site=sciContent&client=sciMain&output=xml_no_dtd&filter=p&getfields=*&q=parallel+universe
392491
According to Big-Bang-ologists, the Universe just felt like being created and burst into existence. There is absolutely no explanation why it was created from a scientific standpoint.
397353
This question arises again and again, and I personally can see why it is in the physics forum, as it draws the analogy to particles, atoms and the origin of the universe. To draw another connecting thread to physics, the Big Bang theory of the beginning of the universe is challenged by the Steady-State theory, that posits that there was no "first event" and the universe exists in a steady state for all time. There is a lot of physical evidence against the steady state, but that also assumes that the universe is homogeneous throughout, and this particular aspect cannot be proven with our limited powers of observation. The evidence points to a first event, but the possibility is still open that this is but a local illusory phenomenon based on the apparent but not actual homogeneity of space in our local area. \n\nPersonally I think the problem of "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" is insoluble and relies on an infinite regression of time as we understand it currently. I am waiting for the theory that does away with time altogether, as I think it will simplify many things. \n\nThe question you ask about who created the first something out of nothing always begs the question, "who created the creator?" And this is what I mean by the endless regression of time and "what came first?" I think it must be a sort of logical loop created by our understanding of the concept of time and our belief in the finite nature of the universe. Perhaps someone living in a different area of space, where everything is in flux and homogeneity is a fool's dream would have very different cosmological and philosophical theories.\n\nAddendum: to address the answerer a few below me who treats the search for God as a scientific problem, I think your metaphor is a little misplaced, as it posits a correlation to biology and the assumption that God is a species, rather than a singularity, which is what most people would start with as a first assumption. When one tries to detect evidence for a phenomenon that is not directly observable, one looks at effects on observable objects and beings that can be quantified, such as the supporting evidence for an expanding universe determined by red-shifted galaxies and the like. It would be interesting to see the search for God set up as a problem in science, but I think it should, if it were to be approached from a monotheistic perspective, be treated in terms of the singularity, unless you wish to determine whether the Greek and Roman Gods existed or if you wish to prove the existence of many gods, rather than just one. A good twist, though!
459850
If something is spinning around, and breaks apart, then all the parts continue to spin in the same direction.\nWhen the big bang happened, and everything in the universe came together in a tiny tiny space  so compact that the pressure was so great that it exploded. That was the big bang. Okay, the law of the conservation of angular momentum says that everything in that explosion must spin in the same direction. But, it does not. Some galaxies spin opposite from others, Some of the planets in our solar system and their moons spin in different directions. All this means is there was not a big bang. The big bang is a theory, the law of conservation of angular momentum is a "law". Big bang (theory) must yield to law.\nEvolution supposedly started with the big bang.
125244
The Big Bang was not an explosion, it's only described that way because nobody knew how else to describe it.  In a normal explosion, energy is transformed from one form to another.  The Big Bang created energy and matter, it's totally different.
112889
There is a continuum between quantum laws and classical physics, they just haven't discovered a unified theory that expresses this continuum mathematically. Quantum laws govern all particles, and since matter is comprised of particles - naturally quantum mechanics supports material reality.\n\nuh... to "goring" - quantum mechanics does not posit that light has no mass.\n\nEinstein did not challenge all particle theory - when he said "god does not play dice with the universe" he was challenging Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and quantum laws based on probability, which were subsequently validated in double-slit light experiments. So Einstein was wrong. He considered it his greatest failing as a scientist not to unify relativity with quantum laws in his lifetime.
31808
This question is completely confused. I have attached a web site about the big bang you might find useful.
419186
All the matter in the Universe was created as part of a "matter/anti-matter" pair out of the vacuum of space during the Big Bang. But there was a very slight imbalance, like 1 particle out of a billion survived and did get not annihilate with its anti-matter pair (not the huge imbalance the others have led you to believe).\n\nThis imbalance is due to a process called "Symmetry Breaking" or "CPT Symmetry Violation." This is a well understood process, not exactly a big mystery. (The mystery is why is there this asymmetry, not how this asymmetry happened.) Also, the fact that baryon numbers are not conserved in our Universe is not a big deal, because there is no reason to believe that it should be. The concept about baryon number conservation is very much outdated.\n\nGiven that all the matter came from a "matter/anti-matter" pair meant that all the matter in the Universe did not require any net energy to be created. As a matter of fact, most of the energy in the Universe is tied up in the vacuum as "Dark Energy" or "Vacuum Energy" (this makes up about 74% of the energy density in the Universe).\n\nI would say most physicists view the relationship between matter and energy as two manifestations of the same thing, somewhat like water and ice, where ice is just another phase of water.  Similarly, matter is just another "form" of energy, but more concentrated.\n\nYour mathematical interpretation of the matter-energy relationship as an integral compared to derivatives however doesn't make too much sense, because Einstein has already given us the mathematical relationship (and this has been tested and verified via nuclear bombs) E = mc^2, which tells us how much energy is locked up inside a piece of matter with mass, m.
330284
Wow, Your question is so simple, but it's answer is researched for many decades now. \n\nAnyway, Any kind of energy (and the force is the mean in which the energy can be detected) requires the carrier, which is, well, material. Material carrier contains some kind of energy, in a certain amount. When the carrier collides with a body, it gives it's energy away to the body. In case of two carriers collision, a certain reaction occurs, and as the result, there is anoter type of energy or the carriers get destroyed, and their energy goes into heat or light. \n\nThe way of calculating an amount of energy that certain carrier contains, is the aplication of Einstein's formula of equality of the mass and the energy. If You are aware of the energy inside some particle, You can foresee it's influence to another particle.\n\nThe only force that is not connected to the appropriate particle is gravity (although there are some speculations about existence of so called "gravitones", as carriers of gravital energy and representers of the gravity force itself). \n\nThat unique force, which is not understood yet, makes Your question very heavy. Scientists from all over the world have been trying for more then 70 years to make the unified force theory, which could be used for calculations of any kind of force, with equaly accurate result. This would be named "The great unified theory of forces". So, let'hope that this theory will be defined soon, and that You will understand the duality force-matter better, by using it.
556046
No energy source? What source of energy is needed? And the simple presence of mass causes gravitons. And these gravitons interact with one another. And proof, you need proof that gravity works? Dude go jump off of a building and see what happens!
83192
They believe that matter and energy were created during the Big Bang, however, that raises for a lot more questions, the most obvious one being:\n\nHow can matter and energy be created?
591850
Why is it hard for people to believe that someone bigger than us created a masterpiece? This all leads into the question, Is there a God? If the big bang theory was true, what caused the big bang? I don't see things just happening all around me for no reason. When you plant a seed it grows. But you have to plant the seed first. \nBabies don't just happen. They have to be conceived. The point I'm trying to make is that if we have to react in order to get a reaction, why would it be any different from the beginning? Someone HAD to create us or nothing would be possible.
76620
Physics\nI  INTRODUCTION \n\nPhysics, major science, dealing with the fundamental constituents of the universe, the forces they exert on one another, and the results produced by these forces. Sometimes in modern physics a more sophisticated approach is taken that incorporates elements of the three areas listed above; it relates to the laws of symmetry and conservation, such as those pertaining to energy, momentum, charge, and parity. See Atom; Energy.\n\nSee also separate articles on the different aspects of physics and the various sciences mentioned in this article.\n\nII  SCOPE OF PHYSICS \n\nPhysics is closely related to the other natural sciences and, in a sense, encompasses them. Chemistry, for example, deals with the interaction of atoms to form molecules; much of modern geology is largely a study of the physics of the earth and is known as geophysics; and astronomy deals with the physics of the stars and outer space. Even living systems are made up of fundamental particles and, as studied in biophysics and biochemistry, they follow the same types of laws as the simpler particles traditionally studied by a physicist.\n\nThe emphasis on the interaction between particles in modern physics, known as the microscopic approach, must often be supplemented by a macroscopic approach that deals with larger elements or systems of particles. This macroscopic approach is indispensable to the application of physics to much of modern technology. Thermodynamics, for example, a branch of physics developed during the 19th century, deals with the elucidation and measurement of properties of a system as a whole and remains useful in other fields of physics; it also forms the basis of much of chemical and mechanical engineering. Such properties as the temperature, pressure, and volume of a gas have no meaning for an individual atom or molecule; these thermodynamic concepts can only be applied directly to a very large system of such particles. A bridge exists, however, between the microscopic and macroscopic approach; another branch of physics, known as statistical mechanics, indicates how pressure and temperature can be related to the motion of atoms and molecules on a statistical basis (see Statistics).\n\nPhysics emerged as a separate science only in the early 19th century; until that time a physicist was often also a mathematician, philosopher, chemist, biologist, engineer, or even primarily a political leader or artist. Today the field has grown to such an extent that with few exceptions modern physicists have to limit their attention to one or two branches of the science. Once the fundamental aspects of a new field are discovered and understood, they become the domain of engineers and other applied scientists. The 19th-century discoveries in electricity and magnetism, for example, are now the province of electrical and communication engineers; the properties of matter discovered at the beginning of the 20th century have been applied in electronics; and the discoveries of nuclear physics, most of them not yet 40 years old, have passed into the hands of nuclear engineers for applications to peaceful or military uses.\n\nIII  EARLY HISTORY OF PHYSICS \n\nAlthough ideas about the physical world date from antiquity, physics did not emerge as a well-defined field of study until early in the 19th century.\n\nA  Antiquity \n\nThe Babylonians, Egyptians, and early Mesoamericans observed the motions of the planets and succeeded in predicting eclipses, but they failed to find an underlying system governing planetary motion. Little was added by the Greek civilization, partly because the uncritical acceptance of the ideas of the major philosophers Plato and Aristotle discouraged experimentation.\n\nSome progress was made, however, notably in Alexandria, the scientific center of Greek civilization. There, the Greek mathematician and inventor Archimedes designed various practical mechanical devices, such as levers and screws, and measured the density
200889
Good question. There really is no good answer except to say that the basic equations of physics have a lot of symmetry. To get that symmetry requires there to be only a handfull of truly elementary particles. The Big Bang has nothing to do with this. It wasn't an explosion in the conventional sense and didn't 'break up' matter into the fundamental particles. It's more like the fundamental particles 'condensed' out of the vacuum.