And this happened for no reason.
This kind of scenario is exactly what quantum cosmologists like James Hartle, Stephen Hawking, Alex Vilenkin, Andrei Linde and universe others have in mind when they are closed talking about the closed creation of the universe from nothing.
If we ask why did the chicken cross the road?, we understand that universe there are things origin called roads with certain properties, and things called chickens with various goals and motivations, and things that might be on the other side of the road, or other beneficial.Nothing about modern physics explains why we have these laws rather than some totally different laws, although physicists sometimes universe talk that way a mistake they might be able to closed avoid if they took philosophers more seriously.This all-sky image of the cosmic microwave background, created by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite, shows echoes of the Big Bang left over from the dawn of the universe.I do work on the origin of the universe, after all, and both Lawrence and David are friends of the blog (and of me Lawrence was robert our first guest-blogger, and David and I did Bloggingheads dialogues here and here. I dont see how they could.
But some conceptions of the universe's birth can propose possible answers.
Until the 1990s, most cosmologists assumed that the cosmological constant was zero.
In that case, there would be no such thing as "before Carroll said.And what if he did know of some productive work in that regard?They helped undo much of what recombination had accomplished.Well, a hunter bit of contemplation should reveal that this kind of reasoning might, if we grant you a certain definition of nothing, explain how the case universe case could arise from nothing.A collision between two branes could have jolted the universe from contraction to interesante expansion, spurring the Big Bang we see evidence of today.Those would be very simple.The universe is not interesante opaque today, as it was before recombination, because it has expanded so much.Thats okay; the point of philosophy is not to be useful to science, any more than the point of mycology is to be useful to fungi.According to relativistic quantum field theories, particles are to be understood, rather, as specific arrangements of the fields.Various lines of evidence point toward inflation being a reality, said theoretical physicist Andy Albrecht of the University of California, Davis.Their approach is to consider a spherical bubble that is entirely described by its radius.Within this framework, specifying the laws of physics is just a matter of picking a Hilbert space (which is just a matter of specifying how big it is) and junior picking a Hamiltonian.In the first half revistas of the 20th century, cosmologists struggled to combine the two pillars of modern physics quantum mechanics and general relativityin a way that reasonably described the universe.Science can never explain the origin of the universe.Some of you may have been following a tiny brouhaha (kerfuffle is so overused, dont you think?) that has sprung up around the question of why the universe exists. Is there some point at which context the possibility of asking any further such questions somehow definitively comes to an end?
Just after inflation, the universe was likely filled with a hot, dense plasma.