| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/23/2008 10:52:41 AM | Well Soulmate, I'll do what I can to answer some of your questions, although the full answer to any question about the universe is, by definition, going to be much bigger than the question itself.
Essentially, the Big Bang theory has its origins in the beginning of the last century. Essentially, astronomers were fond of a "steady state" theory that said the universe always was. However, there were those annoying "spiral nebulae" which were apparently much farther away than the nearby stellar neighbourhood. In the late 1920s, Edwin Hubble discovered a: these "island universes" were actually farther away - galaxies in their own right - and were all receding. More importantly, the farther they were, the faster they were going.
Ironically, Einstein didn't like the idea of an expanding universe so came of up with the Cosmological Constant , an expansive force for the universe for this GR equations. Although he rescinded it, it actually does have an analogue in reality.
When people talk of the "multiverse," it's not an actual observed phenomenon but is a theoretical construct stemming largely from M-theory, but has been postulated before, as a source for our universe. Our universe is one that has "simply" budded off another universe. Ours is budding off universes at all points all the time.
M-theory, the unification of previous string theories, postulates that multi-dimensional "membranes" on which universes exist and expand "collide" in multi-dimensional space to create other universes. We don't and can't observe them because they are not causally related to our universe. Indeed, we never will because the flat geometry of our universe was imprinted in the big bang when the entire universe briefly expanded at a speed faster than the speed of light (not a contradition since it's not in the universe but the universe itself that expanded past c).
Again, "theory" to the layman is not the same as theory to a scientist. The layman uses theory the way a scientists would use the word hypothesis or postulate. A theory is a model that is backed up by observation, experiment and a solid mathematical background, in the case of physics. We observe the universe expanding. We see the effects in the cosmic background radiation. Run the "movie" backwards and everything crunches together. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/24/2008 3:25:05 PM | Wrap your heads around this one...
Maybe the universe is much larger, older, and complex than we've imagined it to be. Maybe our known universe is somewhere in or towards the tail end of some far far away cosmic center or vertex from which matter spews continuously.
And I ask you, "Why not?" | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/24/2008 7:06:31 PM | The term 'Big Bang' was first coined by Fred Hoyle in a derisory statement seeking to belittle the credibility of the theory that he did not believe to be true.
Maybe the universe is much larger, older, and complex than we've imagined it to be.
Well to me the universe seems pretty large, old, and complex as it is. | |
|
| |
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/24/2008 10:38:14 PM | Oh Oh I got some questions and ideas. I not formally educated in quantum physics or a mathematician so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Isn't time a human creation? Is it not possible there is simply the moment we exist in? Why would the universe need time to exist?
Now I've heard of a relatively new force that was discovered which may be strong enough to counteract the gravitational pull working to create a big crunch. I forget the exact name but it was something which made the empty areas of the universe become larger. The "void" seemed to have the opposite (not quite accurate description) effect of gravity. I wish I could remember the name it was given. This put my ideas in the air and made me think about how it all began.
Why do we assume the universe is measurable? Why not infinity? Could a supernova not be a microcosm of the big bang. What happens to black holes? Could they not accumulate over a huge amount of time and then create a big bang for a different part of the universe? Maybe there are different parts of the universe going through a flux of empty nothingness with a singularity at the center or expanding like our own. Do different black holes absorb at different rates?. The fact a black hole can change (I'm relying on the difference between a normal black hole and the supposed super black hole at the center of the galaxy) implies to me they are finite. They seem to have much longer lives then stars which makes it hard for us to measure or quantify them but what happens when they die?
I always saw our perceptible area of the universe as a guideline to what a newly formed section of the universe would look like (expanding and such). I also like the idea that we may be surrounded by even more vast areas of nothingness then the ones between galaxies. To me this explains why we don't see beyond our own area of the universe expanding as the start of everything. Why would the universe need to start at all?
Never realized how hard it was to write this down. Anyway thanks for reading my ramblings. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/24/2008 10:59:13 PM | Everything comes from nothing, eh? Quantum Physicists back that up? Maybe the theories have changed again, but the last time I checked, "comes from" is a qualifier indicative of the existence of time, which, according to relative physics, is really just an illusion created in our minds to organize the change we observe. If I remember correctly, according to these physicists, at the "beginning" of the universe, every particle of matter was supposedly concentrated in one point with no size representation and infinite density, called a singularity. It seems to me that concerning such an object (or whatever you would call it), time would be an irrelevant or simply nonsensical measurement until such an event occurred which removed any properties represented as being infinite. It helps to think of infinity as a circle rather than as a line stretching on forever- would "change" really have any meaning if you simply arrived at your origin at each "consecutive moment" (which is really a misleading phrase, but whatever)?
Therefore, contemplating where matter came from "before" such an event would be rather like asking someone what the color of round is. Time is a property of the universe in which we live. "Nothing" has no property called "time", nor could there even be an idea called nothing without there being an opposing idea called something against which to define it, in which case there would not be nothing. Light would be a meaningless word if there were no such thing as absence of light.
That being said, I don't really buy much of the big bang theory mumbo jumbo, but it makes for some good mind stretching reading if you are interested. "Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene is good for those of you who would like to check it out. I prefer to leave my understanding of origin and future these days at "I don't understand and I can't understand, therefore I will focus on what I do understand and what I can understand." | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/25/2008 2:59:26 PM |
The Big Bang is the starting point for Everything.
Actually the theory, as has been suggested, only starts at a point of infinite density. "M" theory or string theory suggest large membranes banging into one another began the big bang. Hubbles observations of expansion gave us some of the basis behind this. Observations are not the proof we need. At one time the earth itself was considered flat though observation. What when and where the universe began and what its actual state is has yet to truly be determined. There are to many problems with big bang and I believe it will one day be thrown out. The horizon problem and the problems with matter, dark matter and dark energy for example are really throwing a big screw in the works. Now we have to consider things such as variable speed of light and gravity to make this theory hold together.
We are not even close to what is really going on, in my humble opinion of course... | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/25/2008 4:26:01 PM | I believe such a thing to be a crackpot statement due to the simply irrefutable laws of logic. Logic dictates that nothing can be created out of nothing and every event needs to have a starting point.
So using this logic we can conclude that at the beginning of the universe the same amount of energy existed then as does now, just now we have more matter due to the condension of the energies. We also have finer energies beneath our highly dense physical bodies that have been captured by special cameras. These are often refered to auras and the soul. Since energy cannot simply fade out of existence and is permanent in existence we can conclude that our conciousness energy (spirit) can never die. Anything alive has a conciousness matrix which makes lifeforms live. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/25/2008 4:30:15 PM | Why do you need to use the speed of light as apart of the equation? And why are you treating gravity as it's own independant energy? They say that gravity is caused by "gravitons" which is completely stupid because if something is EVERYWHERE around it theoretically it should not be hard to find. Where is the gravity? Where is this magickal energy that keeps our feet on the ground? I personally believe we stay grounded becuase of the motion of the Earth keeps us and the air grounded.
When something moves very fast it causes a "pull" to all that's near it. The Suns revolution making the Earth move in turn creates gravity and is not an energy in itself. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/25/2008 4:44:01 PM | | No, we know gravity is some kind of force, not just spinning because we use it to get boosted around the solar system. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/25/2008 5:28:13 PM |
Why do you need to use the speed of light as apart of the equation?
The speed of light is used to measure distance and or energy. And a graviton is a hypothetical elementary partical used in quantum field thoery, not in large scale gravitational effects. The rotation of large scale bodys is caused by gravity and not the other way around. If a body or mass is not in motion it will still have gravity. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/25/2008 5:48:35 PM |
believe such a thing to be a crackpot statement due to the simply irrefutable laws of logic. Logic dictates that nothing can be created out of nothing and every event needs to have a starting point.
Are there laws of logic? I thought logic stands alone and is its own law. Either way my logic dictates that the human mind cannot comprehend infinity. We are incapable of imagining it due to our own finite existence. To state that everything has to come from something therefore (at least to me) is directly linked to our own humanity and not a law. Also! (and please correct me if I'm wrong) there is unexplained loss of energy in many processes/transformations.
Anything alive has a conciousness matrix which makes lifeforms live.
I have to disagree with that statement. The vast amount of life on earth is not conscious at all. Insects and bacteria have no definable brain, the closest thing in an ant to a brain are its eyes. Its legs will work independently if removed until they run out of nourishment. It does not take a conscious mind for lifeforms to live. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/25/2008 9:31:01 PM |
So using this logic we can conclude that at the beginning of the universe the same amount of energy existed then as does now, just now we have more matter due to the condension of the energies. We also have finer energies beneath our highly dense physical bodies that have been captured by special cameras. These are often refered to auras and the soul. Since energy cannot simply fade out of existence and is permanent in existence we can conclude that our conciousness energy (spirit) can never die. Anything alive has a conciousness matrix which makes lifeforms live.
When energy is converted to matter, the energy involved in the conversion is lost until the matter is converted back into energy...
What makes one type of energy "finer" than another type of energy?
And what exactly is "conciousness energy"? What separates it from other types of energy? Is a plant concious? Could a rock be imbued with a so-called "conciousness matrix" in order to create a new lifeform? Where are your ideas coming from?
To me, the only answer I get from asking any questions about origins is this: the idea of God is not any more ridiculous than any other idea. And we just don't know. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/26/2008 1:52:26 PM | Any real proof to back that statement? Frankly I'm skeptical of gravity as it's own energy. If the Earth stopped rotating the atmosphere and everything on Earth would simply drift off. There is alot of bogus stuff in mainstream "knowledge" such as that Israels our friend (BTW I know about the USS Liberty incident and more recently how Israel threatened to shoot down Tony Blairs plane) and the Earth is a perfect circle (it's not flat by any means but isn't a perfectly perportional object) . I'd be more then happy to post a link to a site with a great argument against gravity:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill.htm
How can gravity, which is said to be a very weak force, whole an entire galaxy togeather? A million of our suns can fit into Arcturius and a million Arcturius's can fit into Beetlegeus, and for a galaxy that's technically nothing. 200 billion stars held togeather by a weak force? | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/26/2008 1:59:26 PM | By finer I mean on a faster, less dense frequency.
A plant isn't concious (at least from what we know) and rocks aren't biologically designed to become life so a soul matrix or conciousness energy would not be compatable with the rock. Even God himself could not make a rock into a life form. Conciousness energy has it's own free will and is not at the mercy of the universe around it. That is why man needs to take control of nature away from "god" so that no more hurricanes or earthquakes kill people.
Then the desserts will turn into rainforest and farmland because conciousness got behind the weather patterns to optimize there efficiency. The weather has to stop being at the mercy of nature and forces outside of human conciousness. With weather machines more farmland = lower food prices and ending starvation, more rain forest = cleaner air and more oxygen. And cyclones can be prophylactically stopped, thus saving many lives and property.
Einstein proved that matter and energy are one and the same, you cannot destroy energy, the energy just changes form. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/26/2008 2:47:39 PM |
I believe such a thing to be a crackpot statement due to the simply irrefutable laws of logic. Logic dictates that nothing can be created out of nothing and every event needs to have a starting point.
What we have been calling "nothing" all this time isn't "nothing" at all... It is where particles come from... I've covered this already but I'll say it again... In vacuum creation lies the proof that we get energy out of what "appears" to be "nothing".
Einstein proved that matter and energy are one and the same, you cannot destroy energy, the energy just changes form.
Exactly... And what was once percieved as "nothing" is what I believe to be a type of energy in the form of "potential" or "potential energy"... We transform potential energy into a type of realized energy by making space for it via vacuum creation.
Why do you need to use the speed of light as apart of the equation?
You need a constant in the equation... The speed of light qualifies as one... Or at least it did before we started screwing with it... Now I think the constant is just energy (since energy is forever). | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/26/2008 3:34:20 PM | God himself cannot give life to a rock, eh? Hm.
Gravity is supposed to be a relatively weak force, as compared to others. It takes supermassive objects to generate enough gravity, to hold a plantery system together, therefore it is a weak force.
I don't really know that much about all this, but some of the ideas have seem to be rather... baseless? | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/26/2008 4:33:15 PM |
God himself cannot give life to a rock, eh? Hm.
I wouldn't be so sure... Rocks were here before humans and if everything started out as one thing, we are the rocks. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/26/2008 6:25:36 PM |
Any real proof to back that statement? Frankly I'm skeptical of gravity as it's own energy. If the Earth stopped rotating the atmosphere and everything on Earth would simply drift off.
Proof? I assume your talking about my statement about gravity. Just a little something I picked up in college, but if you need proof you need to look no further than the moon. If your idea about gravity being created by rotation held true than the moon would literally have no gravity at all or very very little since it only rotates on its axis once a month. You did notice right? The same side of the moon is always facing us and it takes one month for the moon to orbit earth so it takes one month for it to rotate on its axis once. Yet the moon still has gravity that is relative to its mass. It creates tidal forces and the astronauts were still able to stand on it when they arrived.
No one truly understands gravity but all of the calculations made about spaceflight and the nature of the solar system are done with Newtons laws of gravity which are based on mass, not rotation. And it seem to work pretty good for us so far.
Now, if you talk about gravity on a quantum scale or on a cosmic scale then you run into problems. Keep studying, your almost there...
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/index.php | |
|
| |
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/26/2008 8:40:31 PM |
I wouldn't be so sure... Rocks were here before humans and if everything started out as one thing, we are the rocks.Wasn't me that said it.... I'm with you
| |
|
| |
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/27/2008 7:33:14 PM |
Wasn't me that said it.... I'm with you
Sorry... Sometimes that happens when I agree with a poster who disagrees with another... I should have quoted him and not you... Oops! | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/29/2008 12:32:14 AM | | it seems to me that our brain must be hard wired to know that we don't know where the stuff of the universe came from and that this knowledge must be tied to our intelligence. It would be interesting to see what chimps, cats, and dogs think on these matters. i'm the crack pot that dosen't accept Einstein so to me the question of what happened before the Big Bang is germane and i think there are other Big Bangs sharing our own space and time and physical law in a truly infinite universe | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/29/2008 12:32:24 AM | it seems to me that our brain must be hard wired to know that we don't know where the stuff of the universe came from and that this knowledge must be tied to our intelligence. It would be interesting to see what chimps, cats, and dogs think on these matters.
i'm the crack pot that doesn't accept Einstein so to me the question of what happened before the Big Bang is germane and i think there are other Big Bangs sharing our own space and time and physical law in a truly infinite universe much as there are other galaxies. Idont think youtreat space as an object and i belive that time is an illusion of the sense rather than another kind of object. if space and time are words for things that have no existance as objects then i don't think you can stretch them or cause them to speed up or slow down. | |
|
Home
login 
