Your Theory of How the Universe Began

Linguo

I'm only getting into a degree so don't proclaim to know too much!

I myself thought that the universe could have started from a massive blackhole, just checked on the net there and obviously it isn't the first time it has been suggested but want to know other people's theories, that's mine!!

A7X

I just find tht all the suggestions imply that there was stuff before hand. you know what i mean? Like how could the universe begin with a massive black whole? surely to make that black hole there would of had to be matter present and activity before hand you know?

Linguo

Yeah it would have to have kept happening, expanding and contracting into a black hole, then shooting out the universe again, except looks like we're going to keep expanding so not sure what will happen then!

I just can't accept that there is nothing outside the universe, that we're all that there is. I do believe God has a place, and that doesn't conflict with my interest in science at all.

Helix

A7X wrote: »

I just find tht all the suggestions imply that there was stuff before hand. you know what i mean? Like how could the universe begin with a massive black whole? surely to make that black hole there would of had to be matter present and activity before hand you know?

is it possible there was nothing in our universe at all, but another one punched through into the nothing via a point of infinite density somehow and started the big bang?

A7X

Helix wrote: »

is it possible there was nothing in our universe at all, but another one punched through into the nothing via a point of infinite density somehow and started the big bang?

I havent a clue lol But if another universe can "punch" through the nothing and another universe is formed, then what is our universe expanding into? If you get me. lol

ronbyrne2005

I like the theory it has always existed but gone through constant expansions ,contractions etc. Penroses theory I think.

mukki

god made it

pity there is no smiley with eyes pointing different directions

Linguo

Well i believe in God too!:)

Science and God don't conflict at all for me!

A7X

Linguo wrote: »

Well i believe in God too!:)

Science and God don't conflict at all for me!

hmmmm..

Linguo

hmmm?

You don't think the two can co-exist happily for people?:D

Linguo

Linguo wrote: »

hmmm?

You don't think the two can co-exist happily for people?:D

No, not at all.

keane2097

I believe that the Universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure. I live in perpetual fear of the time I call "The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief". The theory of the Great Green Arkleseizure is not widely accepted outside of my brain.

Linguo

Well I find learning about science has made me more convinced there is a God!

keane2097

Linguo wrote: »

Well I find learning about science has made me more convinced there is a God!

Then I think you might be learning it wrong...

Linguo

nope...even Einstein said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Overblood

Linguo wrote: »

Well i believe in God too!:)

Science and God don't conflict at all for me!

Then why the hell are you asking about the origins of the universe? Didn't God create it in 7 days?

Linguo

Most people nowadays know that the bible doesn't need to be interpreted literally and that you shouldn't close your eyes to science.

I can believe in God and not follow word for word what the bible says ya know! And i didn't say what religion or explain my beliefs.

If you want to only believe in one or the other that's fine! No need to get peeved!

Overblood

How can you pick & choose from the bible? It's the word of God isn't it?

"Ok that bit is literal, don't mind that other bit, oh we used to believe in that bit but I'd say it's actually a fable or something. Yeah I like that bit. Ignore the bit over here where god kills everybody."

Linguo

I don't pick and choose from the bible I actually make up my own mind about God not follow other peoples.

You have no idea what my beliefs are I only mentioned the bible because you brought it up not me!

I can believe there is something greater and still not want to follow mainstream religion.

ronbyrne2005

Einstein was wrong on many things. His religon is only due to the environment/culture he was brough up in. If he lived in an atheist environment he would probably espouse a non religous view.

Linguo

Linguo wrote: »

Well I find learning about science has made me more convinced there is a God!

Well then you're not learning about it very well. You may be learning about science, but, if you believe that science and religion are absolutely compatible, then you know very little about the foundations of science and the scientific method.

Linguo wrote: »

nope...even Einstein said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

I can't believe how often this comes up.

Einstein was talking about a pantheistic type of religion. He was an atheist.

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Einstein was wrong on many things. His religon is only due to the environment/culture he was brough up in. If he lived in an atheist environment he would probably espouse a non religous view.

Einstein was an atheist:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I have never talked to a Jesuit prest in my life. I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one."

Linguo

Listen I don't understand why you have a problem about this.

I believe there is a God and I have a huge interest in science, I work in science and the other people around me have varied views and we all respect eachothers views.

I'm leaving this thread now because this is getting stupid!

Pollythene Pam

The universe is contantly expanding at a rate of 4,000,000,000,000,000 mph.
But there's a 2 for 1 on in Boot's so I guess everthing cancels out.

keane2097

Linguo wrote: »

Listen I don't understand why you have a problem about this.

I believe there is a God and I have a huge interest in science, I work in science and the other people around me have varied views and we all respect eachothers views.

I'm leaving this thread now because this is getting stupid!

Stop misquoting Einstein imo.

Redshift

Moved from Astronomy.

Mod please bounce it back if you dont want it here.

Húrin

My hypothesis of how the universe began was that God decided to create it, and did so.

Linguo wrote: »

hmmm?

You don't think the two can co-exist happily for people?:D

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

No, not at all.

As far as I can tell atheists aren't allowed to think that they can co-exist happily. I don't know what authority mandates this. Richard Dawkins' ideological influence, perhaps?

Húrin

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Well then you're not learning about it very well. You may be learning about science, but, if you believe that science and religion are absolutely compatible, then you know very little about the foundations of science and the scientific method.

The foundations of the scientific method were laid by Christians.

I can't believe how often this comes up.

Einstein was talking about a pantheistic type of religion.

Source? Religion is religion. It's an ethical worldview based on supernatural beliefs.

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Einstein was wrong on many things. His religon is only due to the environment/culture he was brough up in. If he lived in an atheist environment he would probably espouse a non religous view.

Yes, because Einstein was a guy who didn't think about things much. :rolleyes:

In fact he was an atheist and a pantheist at different points in his life. AFAIK he never adhered to his ancestral Judaism.

Overblood wrote: »

How can you pick & choose from the bible? It's the word of God isn't it?

"Ok that bit is literal, don't mind that other bit, oh we used to believe in that bit but I'd say it's actually a fable or something. Yeah I like that bit. Ignore the bit over here where god kills everybody."

Contrary to popular belief, the creation story was not universally taken as literal before modern advances in geology and biology. Even 1600 years ago St. Augustine was arguing against those who took it literally.

The poster you are replying to didn't say that he believed the Bible to be the word of God anyway.

Offalycool

Our world is a computer simulation running in the real world. Our world started when the 'earth' program was run, and the calculation (which is probably the answer to the meaning of life) will be complete when the 'earth' program stops.

I think this was Douglas Adams idea.

Queen-Mise

I think the sentence 'How do you think the universe began' shows the fundamental limitation of human thinking.

It is because there is a beginning and an ending to human existence that we presume there is one to the universe also.

For me, i believe the universe always was, there was no beginning for it - and for humans we can't accept that.


Finito

sink

The universe didn't begin for time is a property of our universe and outside of our universe time has no relation. Einstein revealed that space and time are one and the same with four dimensions (height, width, depth and time) he called it spacetime. Spacetime is the fabric of our universe.

To better understand what spacetime is it's best to use an analogy. Consider energy (including matter as matter is just highly concentrated energy) as ink on a piece of paper and spacetime as the surface of the paper. This paper floats in an infinite vacuum. The universe would be the entire sheet including both paper and ink. You can place ink anywhere on the surface of the paper representing energies position in both space and time or 'spacetime' but it is impossible to place ink anywhere off of the sheet of paper. Similarly you can't mark or measure time outside of our universe because just as there is no surface to place the ink outside of the sheet of paper there is no spacetime to mark the position of time outside of our universe. So in essence the universe never began as time does not exist outside of our universe.

What is really freaky is that when scientists talk about the expanding universe they are not talking about the energy of the universe spreading out across an infinite amount of space. What they are talking about is space itself expanding. It's as if new space is created in between the galaxies pushing the galaxies further apart. It's best to use another analogy when trying to understand. Think of the universe as a balloon and space as the surface of the balloon and the galaxies as dots placed by a marker on the surface of the balloon. The balloon starts deflated and the dots are very close together. We can measure the total surface of the balloon, lets say it's 10cm². As the balloon inflates the surface of it expands. The dot's spread farther and farther apart without themselves getting a whole lot bigger and without them moving from their position on the surface. Now if we measure the surface again we get 100cm², where did it come from?. It is as if a new surface of the balloon was created in between the dot's. Similarly when the universe expands it's as if new space is created in between the galaxies and the galaxies themselves do not move.

Just like the surface of the balloon has no edge neither does space. You can never travel to the edge of the universe because the universe is expanding faster than light and nothing can travel faster than light. When you try to travel the distance between your current position and the hypothetical 'edge' of the universe more space is created between you and the edge faster than you can travel it. The universe has been worked out to be roughly 93 billion light years across and yet it is only 13.7 billion years old and started from a single point. If the galaxies were themselves travelling apart the universe could only possible be 27.4 billion years across. Expanding space rather than moving galaxies is how a diameter of 93 billion light years is possible without breaking the speed of light.

My own postulation is that just as space is expanding so is time and we perceive this as the forward passage of time.

This begs the question if the universe was never created, how is it here? Unfortunately I have no answer.

Overblood

Húrin wrote: »

Contrary to popular belief, the creation story was not universally taken as literal before modern advances in geology and biology.

Do you think it was taken as literal at the time of writing?

destroyer

Einstein was(is) God

ChocolateSauce

Hopefully as you get into the degree, you'll realise you can't just go "this is what I think". You need a mathematical model backed up by empirical evidence before you have a theory of the universe.

localhothead

The universe was created by energy life forms ( what can be called spirit or soul ) - specifically for physical life in 3 dimensions to exist .
The existence of this universe is for said life forms to experience a physical presence to interact and evolve on an emotional and spiritual level .

it is not a fully natural universe - it was specifically designed and created for this purpose.

The natural state of life is the energy / spirit form - this physical existence you have in this universe is a manufactured container / vehicle to allow the energy form to exist here- like a man in a space suit if you will .

a physical life form exists as an energy life form long before dna is used to create a physical container for it .
it is the structure that physical material molds itself around to create a physical form.

and after physical death the energy form leaves this universe to its own energy verse - until it returns in a new physical form if it is required to .

this includes us .

localhothead

localhothead wrote: »

The universe was created by energy life forms ( what can be called spirit or soul ) - specifically for physical life in 3 dimensions to exist .
The existence of this universe is for said life forms to experience a physical presence to interact and evolve on an emotional and spiritual level .

it is not a fully natural universe - it was specifically designed and created for this purpose.

The natural state of life is the energy / spirit form - this physical existence you have in this universe is a manufactured container / vehicle to allow the energy form to exist here- like a man in a space suit if you will .

a physical life form exists as an energy life form long before dna is used to create a physical container for it .
it is the structure that physical material molds itself around to create a physical form.

and after physical death the energy form leaves this universe to its own energy verse - until it returns in a new physical form if it is required to .

this includes us .

Why, that isn't a vain or egotistical view of the universe at all, is it?

Yes, it was all set up just so we could develop emotionally and spirtually. Indeed.

ChocolateSauce

localhothead wrote: »

The universe was created by energy life forms ( what can be called spirit or soul ) - specifically for physical life in 3 dimensions to exist .
The existence of this universe is for said life forms to experience a physical presence to interact and evolve on an emotional and spiritual level .

it is not a fully natural universe - it was specifically designed and created for this purpose.

The natural state of life is the energy / spirit form - this physical existence you have in this universe is a manufactured container / vehicle to allow the energy form to exist here- like a man in a space suit if you will .

a physical life form exists as an energy life form long before dna is used to create a physical container for it .
it is the structure that physical material molds itself around to create a physical form.

and after physical death the energy form leaves this universe to its own energy verse - until it returns in a new physical form if it is required to .

this includes us .

Got any evidence to support that hypothesis?

Evilsbane

You know how 'the universe hates a vaccuum'? If not, the basic concept is that the absence of, well, anything is incredibly unstable and possesses a large amount of energy (even though there's nothing there) which attempts to suck in matter in order to fill it.

I read a recent scientific theory which explains that even in the vaccuum of space, there's still radiation passing through it which means that it's not entirely empty. However, a vaccuum without even radiation is so unstable that matter will actually crystalise out of nowhere in the form of a quark-antiquark pair. This is a pair of oppositely-charged particles.

Applying this concept to the big bang, it's entirely plausible that the absence of absolutely anything was so unstable that it couldn't last, producing an explosion of new matter to fill the void.

So the Equation of Everything is 0=+1-1; nothing can be broken into two parts in order to make something.

Evilsbane

Evilsbane wrote: »

You know how 'the universe hates a vaccuum'? If not, the basic concept is that the absence of, well, anything is incredibly unstable and possesses a large amount of energy (even though there's nothing there) which attempts to suck in matter in order to fill it.

I read a recent scientific theory which explains that even in the vaccuum of space, there's still radiation passing through it which means that it's not entirely empty. However, a vaccuum without even radiation is so unstable that matter will actually crystalise out of nowhere in the form of a quark-antiquark pair. This is a pair of oppositely-charged particles.

Applying this concept to the big bang, it's entirely plausible that the absence of absolutely anything was so unstable that it couldn't last, producing an explosion of new matter to fill the void.

So the Equation of Everything is 0=+1-1; nothing can be broken into two parts in order to make something.

It's not quite as simple as that, though. A vacuum is still something. The fabric of space-time is still present in a vacuum - you can't call a vacuum nothing, simply, because it is something. What was "before" the universe (there was no before, but, just for simplicity let the sentence stand) was nothing - it was less than a vacuum: because it didn't contain the fabric of space-time.

Evilsbane

Exactly so, but what I said was a simplification anyway. The absence of spacetime would logically be even more unstable and untenable as a vaccuum. I was merely using the example of a perfect vaccuum since there's already scientific studies into the appearance of quark-antiquark pairs in that situation, and it's comparable.

The only logical thing that can follow non-existence is existence (or the continuance of non-existence, but it would only take one lapse of that continuance for the universe to exist, and the instability of inexistence makes such a lapse likely).

Evilsbane

Evilsbane wrote: »

Exactly so, but what I said was a simplification anyway. The absence of spacetime would logically be even more unstable and untenable as a vaccuum. I was merely using the example of a perfect vaccuum since there's already scientific studies into the appearance of quark-antiquark pairs in that situation, and it's comparable.

I'd have to disagree: I don't think it's comparable. Nothing contains exactly that, nothing. Quark-antiquark pairs cannot spontaneously come into existance in nothing. Nothing isn't any less stable than a vacuum, because, it's nothing. There is nothing to be unstable. If you imagine quark-antiquark pairs coming into existance in this environment, then, what are they coming into existance into? There is no space for them to exist in; and, there is no time for them to have came into existance.

The only logical thing that can follow non-existence is existence (or the continuance of non-existence, but it would only take one lapse of that continuance for the universe to exist, and the instability of inexistence makes such a lapse likely).

Logic doesn't always work when working with such issues.

Evilsbane

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I'd have to disagree: I don't think it's comparable. Nothing contains exactly that, nothing. Quark-antiquark pairs cannot spontaneously come into existance in nothing. Nothing isn't any less stable than a vacuum, because, it's nothing. There is nothing to be unstable. If you imagine quark-antiquark pairs coming into existance in this environment, then, what are they coming into existance into? There is no space for them to exist in; and, there is no time for them to have came into existance.

For examples of how space and time can simultaneously and spontaneously come into existence, see the Big Bang theory.

Logic doesn't always work when working with such issues.

Logic always works. If it doesn't, then it's not logic.

In any case, neither of us can prove our arguments... yet.

Evilsbane

Evilsbane wrote: »

For examples of how space and time can simultaneously and spontaneously come into existence, see the Big Bang theory.

I'm not sure what relevance this has to your point? Yes, they came into existance simultaneously, and perhaps, spontaneously. But, they didn't come from nothing. The Big Bang theory doesn't postulate that the universe came from nothing. Infact, I don't know of any credible and widely accepted scientific theory or hypothesis that proposes that the universe came from nothing.

Logic always works. If it doesn't, then it's not logic.

A bit of circular reasoning there I see. Logic always works, yes; but, conventional logic doesn't. Conventional logic has no place in the realms of quantum physics.

My own belief of how the universe came into existence stems for the fact that I heard that it may be possible for humans to create a universe in the future. Who knows maybe this is what let to our universe been created. I think that because of this it may be possible that universes are like living evolving things which reproduce themselves by the intelligent lifeforms living within them. I wouldn't believe for a second that there is a god which is like anything religions believe in today. Or a god that actually knows that we are here because if an intelligence created our universe then they are no different from us. Still though my explanation doesn't explain the very beginning but maybe there was no beginning.

Evilsbane

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I'm not sure what relevance this has to your point? Yes, they came into existance simultaneously, and perhaps, spontaneously. But, they didn't come from nothing. The Big Bang theory doesn't postulate that the universe came from nothing. Infact, I don't know of any credible and widely accepted scientific theory or hypothesis that proposes that the universe came from nothing.



A bit of circular reasoning there I see. Logic always works, yes; but, conventional logic doesn't. Conventional logic has no place in the realms of quantum physics.

Interestingly, in the first paragraph you point out that I'm not conforming to any conventional theories but in your second paragraph you tell me not to bother using conventional logic. I propose that something came from nothing by virtue of the fact that nothingness is subdivisible as positive and negative consituent parts.

By the way, it's not circular reasoning if part of the definition of logic is that you do not jump to a conclusion until you have already proven that it is right. If you question whether my proposition is logical, then that's one thing, saying that logic itself is wrong is another: me failing to be logical enough is not the same as logic failing to be logical enough.

Evilsbane

Evilsbane wrote: »

Interestingly, in the first paragraph you point out that I'm not conforming to any conventional theories but in your second paragraph you tell me not to bother using conventional logic.

You're conflating two different points that I made.

You used the Big Bang Theory as an example of something coming from nothing - which isn't correct, as that's not what the theory states. You're not conforming to any conventional theory, but, you attempted to use a current theory incorrectly, and propose that it postulates something that it doesn't.

I said that conventional logic doesn't apply to ideas in quantum physics, including pair production. You claim that it's logical to conclude that since pair production is present in a vacuum, it should be present in nothing - since nothing is less than a vacuum. I said that using logic, as we know it, to conclude such things is erroneous.

I propose that something came from nothing by virtue of the fact that nothingness is subdivisible as positive and negative consituent parts.

But a vacuum isn't nothingness. A vacuum has dimensions, therefore, it isn't nothing. But, nothing in its conventional sense is just that: nothing. It's void of any dimensional structure. Thus, you're reasoning is wrong.

Tell me, if pair production can occur in nothing, where do the pair exist after their production? In something? No, they can't - because, there isn't something to exist in. You say that they can spontaneously come into existance in nothing, that implies that they came into existance - how can something come into existance without time? Spontaneity has no meaning when you're dealing with nothing.

By the way, it's not circular reasoning if part of the definition of logic is that you do not jump to a conclusion until you have already proven that it is right. If you question whether my proposition is logical, then that's one thing, saying that logic itself is wrong is another: me failing to be logical enough is not the same as logic failing to be logical enough.

Well, it's impossible for logic not to be logical. You said:

"Logic always works. If it doesn't, then it's not logic."

That sentence doesn't make sense. For a certain logic not to work, it must have been logic for you to say that; but, you then conclude that since it didn't work, it's not logic. That's circular.

Evilsbane

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

You're conflating two different points that I made.

You used the Big Bang Theory as an example of something coming from nothing - which isn't correct, as that's not what the theory states. You're not conforming to any conventional theory, but, you attempted to use a current theory incorrectly, and propose that it postulates something that it doesn't.

I said that conventional logic doesn't apply to ideas in quantum physics, including pair production. You claim that it's logical to conclude that since pair production is present in a vacuum, it should be present in nothing - since nothing is less than a vacuum. I said that using logic, as we know it, to conclude such things is erroneous.

I used the Big Bang Theory as an example of spacetime being created. The universe has been expanding since the time of the Big Bang, but it's space itself that's actually stretching - the matter within is maintaining the same relative postion, like dots on a balloon. At the beginning of the Big Bang, all matter was a singularity so space didn't exist at the time. And since space and time form a continuum, time didn't exist either.

But a vacuum isn't nothingness. A vacuum has dimensions, therefore, it isn't nothing. But, nothing in its conventional sense is just that: nothing. It's void of any dimensional structure. Thus, you're reasoning is wrong.

Tell me, if pair production can occur in nothing, where do the pair exist after their production? In something? No, they can't - because, there isn't something to exist in. You say that they can spontaneously come into existance in nothing, that implies that they came into existance - how can something come into existance without time? Spontaneity has no meaning when you're dealing with nothing.

Yes, they do exist in something. The existence of matter creates spacetime. Nothing before, spacetime after. That's my theory.

Well, it's impossible for logic not to be logical. You said:

"Logic always works. If it doesn't, then it's not logic."

That sentence doesn't make sense. For a certain logic not to work, it must have been logic for you to say that; but, you then conclude that since it didn't work, it's not logic. That's circular.

You're really arguing semantics here. When I refer to 'it', I mean something one believes to be logic. However by not working, it fails to meet the definition, and so is discovered not to be logic. It's not like I'm using the No True Scotsman fallacy, since being sound, reasonable and therefore correct is the very definition of perfect logic.

But we're getting off on the wrong foot here. Hi!:D

Evilsbane

Evilsbane wrote: »

I used the Big Bang Theory as an example of spacetime being created.

Yes. But, you've been arguing that something can come from a vacuum (pair production), thus, it should come from nothing. And it appears from your posts that you attempted to use the Big Bang model for the beginning of the universe as an example of something coming from nothing. But, that isn't the case. The Big Bang Theory doesn't state that the universe came from nothing. And if I'm wrong about you using this as an example of something coming from nothing, I wonder why you brought it up? Because you were talking about something coming from nothing, explicitly pair production in a vacuum.

The universe has been expanding since the time of the Big Bang, but it's space itself that's actually stretching - the matter within is maintaining the same relative postion, like dots on a balloon. At the beginning of the Big Bang, all matter was a singularity so space didn't exist at the time. And since space and time form a continuum, time didn't exist either.

Yes, I understand the Big Bang Theory model.

Yes, they do exist in something. The existence of matter creates spacetime. Nothing before, spacetime after. That's my theory.

But there's a slight problem with your reasoning. You imply that something can come into existance, and it in doing so, creates space-time. For something to come into existance, there must be time. And since you claim that there was no time (i.e. the creation of the matter "created" space-time), the logic of your reasoning breaks down.

You're really arguing semantics here. When I refer to 'it', I mean something one believes to be logic. However by not working, it fails to meet the definition, and so is discovered not to be logic. It's not like I'm using the No True Scotsman fallacy, since being sound, reasonable and therefore correct is the very definition of perfect logic.

Yes, I know. I was being a bit too pedantic.

But we're getting off on the wrong foot here. Hi!:D

Fair enough! Still, a good debate is always a good foot to get off on:p

Evilsbane

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Yes. But, you've been arguing that something can come from a vacuum (pair production), thus, it should come from nothing. And it appears from your posts that you attempted to use the Big Bang model for the beginning of the universe as an example of something coming from nothing. But, that isn't the case. The Big Bang Theory doesn't state that the universe came from nothing. And if I'm wrong about you using this as an example of something coming from nothing, I wonder why you brought it up? Because you were talking about something coming from nothing, explicitly pair production in a vacuum.

Reading back over the posts, I recall that you said that matter couldn't come into existence without spacetime to accomodate it, and so I brought the Big Bang up as an example of how spacetime can be created. I suppose I failed to explain that my theory requires that the explosion of matter suddenly coming into existence simultaneously created spacetime which is a field produced by matter.

But there's a slight problem with your reasoning. You imply that something can come into existance, and it in doing so, creates space-time. For something to come into existance, there must be time. And since you claim that there was no time (i.e. the creation of the matter "created" space-time), the logic of your reasoning breaks down.

The idea is that time came into existence at the moment anything happened. There was no time beforehand, and so as soon as it started, things started happening.

It's kind of difficult to put the exact way I visualise it into words, but basically existence was created as a natural progression from inexistence. The theory is that inexistence (or whatever you want to call the state of things before the Big Bang) necessarily progresses into existence as a result of some unknown property of The Big Nothing (as good name as any) that made it inevitable. Somehow, inexistence (even though it doesn't exist) contains a near-infinite amount of energy, basically.

Whether or not it's correct, it's just the way I think of it and at least it doesn't involve energy life-forms or Flying Spaghetti Monsters.

Yes, I know. I was being a bit too pedantic.

Think nothing of it, I do it all the time.

Fair enough! Still, a good debate is always a good foot to get off on:p

Fair enough! En garde!

p to the e

I think an earlier point was made about time being non existent outside our universe hence in a way of speaking the universe always was and always will be. This can be hard to grasp due to our fixed ideals in Thermodynamics of everything heading towards entropy (basically destruction).

As for the Big Bang I think it could link up with this immortal universe in that, not only is it expanding but i think eventually it will slow down and reverse heading back in on itself. I think all matter located within our universe will strive to become a single point until the matter is so compact that it overcomes the strong nuclear force located within the atoms of all the matter. This will cause the combined nuclear forces in the atoms to repel each other with an unimaginable force and the universe will start anew.

And i believe this will continue forever more shaping either different universes every time or the exact same model every time.

Evilsbane

p to the e wrote: »

I think an earlier point was made about time being non existent outside our universe hence in a way of speaking the universe always was and always will be. This can be hard to grasp due to our fixed ideals in Thermodynamics of everything heading towards entropy (basically destruction).

As for the Big Bang I think it could link up with this immortal universe in that, not only is it expanding but i think eventually it will slow down and reverse heading back in on itself. I think all matter located within our universe will strive to become a single point until the matter is so compact that it overcomes the strong nuclear force located within the atoms of all the matter. This will cause the combined nuclear forces in the atoms to repel each other with an unimaginable force and the universe will start anew.

And i believe this will continue forever more shaping either different universes every time or the exact same model every time.

Ah, the Big Crunch theory. My own theory notwithstanding, this is the one I put the most stock in. One question: would the 'critical mass' for another big bang require that every single particle from the previous big bang be sucked back into the singularity before the explosion happened? Could particles be in this universe that are 'survivors' from a previous universe?

p to the e

Evilsbane wrote: »

Ah, the Big Crunch theory. My own theory notwithstanding, this is the one I put the most stock in. One question: would the 'critical mass' for another big bang require that every single particle from the previous big bang be sucked back into the singularity before the explosion happened? Could particles be in this universe that are 'survivors' from a previous universe?

Probably doesn't need every particle to become one. it may just need enough of a "mega force" to push two atoms together so that they have to repel one another. i think if this ideal was true then in past big bangs different multiples of atoms may have repelled one another causing a whole array of different universes in different formations with different ratios of elements (I said different a lot). and if so, are we the first cycle of a universe to have life? hmmm interesting! a lot of questions for an unknown source.

Plus yeah i'd say that the amount of particles within the universe is fixed no matter in what formation they present themselves and no matter how many times it could expand and contract. Again, all just opinions!