How do scientists intelligently explain where matter and energy came from?

Question

No Homework. No Religion. Many Thanks!

Answer 1

The leading explanation is called the "inflationary theory". Basically, in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang event (from about 10^-60s until about 10^-30s, so REALLY soon afterward) the energy level of the Universe was dropping precipitously. As it dropped various aspects of 'reality' were dropping into place: spacetime started, electromagnetic waves began to move when space became transparent, and so on.

About 10^-60s after the Event, the Higgs particle, which accounts for gravity, snapped into existence. In the rapidly expanding Universe it got pulled tight into a *negative* energy configuration. Thus, it made an immense NEGATIVE gravity field which caused space to expand much, much faster than the speed of light for a fraction of a second. But this negative-energy Higgs field was unstable and it collapsed, ending the inflationary period and causing almost every bit of the matter and energy that made up the Universe to condense out of the released energy.

Answer 2

If I wanted to be overly concise, I could say "no one knows". But that doesn't really tell the story.

To tell the story, we need to start with the big bang. In a nutshell, the idea of the big bang goes like this:

The galaxies are moving away from each other, so the universe is expanding, so the universe most likely started out as something much, much smaller and then expanded.

The expansion is called Hubble Expansion, if you want to find out more, you can look here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

At one point in time when the universe very much smaller than it is today, when the universe changed from a hot dense plasma (which bounces light around) to a hot dense gas (which allows light to travel), and so light was first able to travel long distances. This light (now in the microwave part of the spectrum) has been observed and carefully verified.

This light is called the cosmic microwave background radiation. If you want to find out more about it, you can look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation


Now back to the original question.

Roughly speaking, in order for there to be matter you need two things, energy and asymmetry. From energy you can produce equal amounts of matter and antimatter, but you are then stuck with equal amounts.

To date, there is no known process that prefers matter over antimatter or vice versa in such a way that there is a production of matter without antimatter, or a destruction of antimatter without an equal amount of matter.

Astronomical surveys show no evidence of large amounts of antimatter anywhere in the universe. Particle accelerators have found no evidence of any processes that end up with a net matter production.

A solid theory that explained where the energy in the universe came should be able to explain and predict how much energy the universe should have. A theory that explained where matter came from in the universe would have to explain and predict how much there was and generally how it was arranged.

But, to the best of my knowledge, such a theory doesn't exist.

So, in short, no one really knows.

Answer 3

This is still an open question, but the weight of opinion leans toward the "big bang" idea. Use your search engine for "big bang". You can then spend the rest of your life looking into these sources. Alternative: The brilliant astrophysicist, Stephen Hawking,
has a book "A Brief History of Time" (get the new, updated version), which is a good place to start. The book is non-technical, written for the intelligent layman.

Answer 4

Hi,
Now that depends on what you may consider intelligent. The fact is, they can't really explain where they (it) are derived from, but they can assume, and they are exceptional assumers, assuming their assumptions are correct, but in fact are only theories. They (some) can not accept the possibility that there might just in fact be a God with knowledge so superior to ours that could exist outside the space time continuum, and in fact be the originator of time and space. If you factor in God (heaven forbid) you arrive at the possibility that it did have a beginning, and marvel at the complexity and structure that the only logical conclusion is that it is a creation of immense grandeur, and it could not have possibly just happened.

Answer 5

I agree with the above answer. Right now, there is no way of knowing how and where energy, mass, or anything else originally came into existence. So any explanation is simply a guess that is just as valid as saying that the union of Gaia and Uranus created all things.

Answer 6

They use ambiguous fancy concepts and apparently though arguably complex theories.. They then narrate a seemingly logically flawless argument based partially on fact and partially on conjecture, with the often undisclosed caveat that the term "fact" in and of itself may contain inherent ambiguity and can rightfully be the subject of a rigorous and exhaustive intellectual, philosophical debate... To disguise these "problems" , they resort to fancy terminology which people are enamored with b/c it makes them feel smart - though these terms may lack meaningful substance if only because the basic constituent elements which define these terms are inherently flawed to begin with. For instance, mathematicians and most scientists thrive and live on fancy "proofs" and rigorous calculations involving partial derivatives, matrix calculus, et al.. They immerse themselves in these terms but rarely, if ever, do they question what it "really" means to say that X "equals" Y (they forget about the basics).

That's how you "intelligently" explain a seemingly difficult concept.

Answer 7

They don't.

They say that matter and energy always existed... but that is flawed logic.

To assume it always existed implies that creation works because God claims to be eternal with no cause of His existence needed.

For the scientific "Big Bang" to work... matter and energy had to be created from nothing. (which is essentially what God claims to have done in His history of the world as revealed to Moses and written in Genesis)

This is all circular logic... but both the Creationist view and the "scientific" view end up in a circular argument.

Science depends on proof... and if it depends on a circular argument, the scientific theory is always proven wrong in the end..

Answer 8

google string theory.

one of the most promising theories of today is that all matter is made of energy in the form of tiny strings which are attached to a membrane ( or multidimensional plane) that cuts through about 10 or so dimensions. That theory can offer a explanation of where energy in the 4 dimensions that we observe, came from in the first place. that is one of the other dimensions.

here's a link to get started if you wish..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Randall

Answer 9

Ultimately, most scientists will talk about a
singularity even in time referred to as the
big bang - all matter and energy in this
universe comes from that event.

Matter can be converted to energy and
energy can be converted to matter by
e=mc^2 (thank you Einstein).

Theoretically, the amount of energy and
matter together remains constant.

Answer 10

Effectivly it has always been here with no start, so it dosent come from anywhere.
That is the common held answer by most scientists.

P.S. To those who are saying that scientists claim matter comes from the big bang - that is wrong. The big bang is an event that repeats itself over and over for eternity with trillion year intervals between each bang. The matter never gets created or destroyed,
Since so little is still known, more research needs to be done in the area.