-1

Can space be created or destroyed? Is space conserved? I am not asking for matter,energy and time. Its just a question about conservation of space

PS: I am asking for what was there before big bang. Surely Big bang would require space in the first place...

Hashir Omer
  • 123
Tom Lynd
  • 465
  • 2
    In re the last sentence, see: http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/24018/ and http://physics.stackexchange.com/q/2355/ – Kyle Kanos Mar 18 '14 at 12:28
  • $|n=1\rangle = a^{\dagger}|0 \rangle$ – Dilaton Mar 18 '14 at 15:51
  • My original question is about conservation of space(though it seems absurd). I didn't ask forwhat was there before big bang Surely Big bang would require space in the first place.. – Tom Lynd Mar 19 '14 at 05:16

3 Answers3

1

The "scientific view of creation" is the Big Bang. It's as widely accepted as gravity. Nobody doubts it exists, we're mostly discussing how it works.

As for the conservation of energy, that basically states that at two points in time the total amount of energy is equal. You need those two points, though. And there is no proof that there is a point in time before the big bang. Lacking one of those two points in time, we cannot say that energy is conserved between the pair. It would be the sound of one hand clapping.

Your last question is even worse in that respect: "What was there when space didn't exist." That presupposes both the existence of a there and a when.

MSalters
  • 5,574
  • 1
    Who is "we" and what's the range of "nobody" in the first sentence? Everybody has access to gravity, the big bang theory is much harder to defend. I couldn't do it, in any case. Like with the existence of chromosomes, I can only appeal to authorities who at this point in time are of the opinion that it's a better model than the others. If they change their mind in the next years about it, I'd give another answer. Hence it's easy to doubt it. – Nikolaj-K Mar 18 '14 at 14:14
  • @NikolajK.: A reasonable definition would be "everyone who thinks that the history of the universe is a subject of science". As for "access to gravity", most people have access only to the boring g=9.8 type, and even then cannot confirm it existed 100 years ago or will exist in 100 seconds from now. – MSalters Mar 18 '14 at 14:22
  • I don't agree that the scientific view of creation is the Big Bang. Current theories can take us back only to a fraction of a second after the singularity that GR leads to. No one can say that there actually was a singular state of infinite energy density. We do know that GR cannot be applied to times earlier than that split second. What happens before that split second, closer to whatever you might mean by creation, is unknown. – garyp Mar 18 '14 at 15:08
  • Another way to say this: what we currently know about th Big Bang is story of the universe after "creation", not the story of "creation" itself. – garyp Mar 18 '14 at 15:16
0

Since practical science creates mathematical models to describe the observable reality as good as possible, the question of creation is quite irrelevant here.

Nonetheless it might be interesting philosophical question how a "physical creationism" might look like while acknowledging what we know scientifically in physics.

The physics department of the University of Durham has regularly poster contests and there was a poster about "God as a principle of cosmological explanation".

They have stated a non-temporal god who would affect all physical laws at the same time, so that we have a consistent perception of reality and time.

While this is not relevant for actual physics, I find it refreshing to occasionally ponder the wider philosophical questions implicitly posed by modern physics like "What was 'before' the big bang?" or "Could the universe actually be a simulation and how would we know it?". This question of scientific creationism and this poster are hence a nice way to pass some idle time.

EDIT: I'm including the picture since the link seems to be broken for some people. the original caption stated: "Please note that I have removed the name of the author, in what I believe to be in his best interest. This copy was made for the sole purpose of academic discussion. The original is on public display at Durham University. The copyright remains with the author."

The original caption stated: "Please note that I have removed the name of the author, in what I believe to be in his best interest. This copy was made for the sole purpose of academic discussion. The original is on public display at Durham University. The copyright remains with the author."

Michael Große
  • 567
0

Some Richard Feynman quotes which I think clarify the scientific view on this sort of question:

  • "Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt."
  • "I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong."

Physicists have learned a lot about the history of our universe during the last two centuries. In fact, some of the most beautiful theories (where beauty means agreement between experment and theory) have come from this front. What we know is pretty well summarized in the picture below.

We know that time as we know it started with a big bang, leaving a hot soup of particles. Minor asymmetries and quantum fluctuations blown up by a period of rapid expansion gave rise to the matter dominated universe we see today.

What happened before the big bang? We don't know yet. It isn't clear if it even makes sense to talk about it. People are free to fill in whatever story they want about that time, but science has nothing to say about it at the moment.

History of the universe from palaeos.com/cosmos/images/cosmichistory.jpg

Chris Mueller
  • 7,033