Your Theory of How the Universe Began

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!

Húrin

Overblood wrote: »

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

I don't know. I hope not, but I'm not and expert so I don't know.

mountainyman

keane2097 wrote: »

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

If our universe is one of those things that happen from time to time than why shouldn't God be one of those things that happen from time to time?

Evilsbane

Evilsbane wrote: »

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.

I've no problem with that, but, the thing is, matter and spacetime didn't come into existance from nothing with the Big Bang. You've been proposing that since pair production is evident in a vacuum, it should be evident in nothing. I then argued that matter cannot come into existance from nothing, because there would be no spacetime to accommodate it; to whice you cited the Big Bang - i.e. that the matter came into existance simultaneously with, or it "created" spacetime. Now, that's all well and good, but, there wasn't nothing before the Big Bang, at least no theory postulates that there was nothing. So, your using the Big Bang as an example to back up your own theory is invalid.

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.

But for something to have happened there must have been time. It's false logic to assume that something coming into existance can "create" time simultaneously - because you say that the matter came into existance. It couldn't have, because for something to come into existance, there must have already been time.

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.

I understand what you're saying, but, it doesn't make scientific sense, to me anyway. There's false logic in it somewhere - i.e. that something can come from nothing. That's not logical.

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.

That's true, but, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real.:eek:

mountainyman wrote: »

If our universe is one of those things that happen from time to time than why shouldn't God be one of those things that happen from time to time?

That doesn't make sense? Can you explain your point more.

Naz_st

mountainyman wrote: »

If our universe is one of those things that happen from time to time than why shouldn't God be one of those things that happen from time to time?

Surely a more logical way of phrasing this?

Naz_st

p to the e wrote: »

... causing a whole array of different universes in different formations with different ratios of elements (I said different a lot)...

Since it's Stellar nucleosynthesis, post big bang, that accounts for the abundance of all of the higher elements in our universe (above helium), I don't think this idea holds...

Naz_st

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

...
But for something to have happened there must have been time. It's false logic to assume that something coming into existance can "create" time simultaneously - because you say that the matter came into existance. It couldn't have, because for something to come into existance, there must have already been time
...

Are you arguing for an eternal universe model? (Because if not, then obviously at some point "Time" was created along with everything else)

Do you think Time is a concept outside of existence? Because even if you're arguing for an eternal universe with ever-repeating big bang and big crunch, the big crunch must be sucking all of space and time down to an infinite point (or else "Space" would still exist outside of the new infinitely dense "point", as a result of the previous big bang).

gondorff

Evilsbane wrote: »

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

A preponderence of one or the other is my understanding. Pairs annihilate leaving a residue. It is this residue...

nyarlothothep

I don't believe there was any cause for the universe, insofar as cause is related to space time.

dlofnep

I don't think it ever "began". I think it has always been here.

I do think however that there is a cycle that goes something like this.

Big bang --> Universe Expands --> Black hole created --> Black hole expands over time --> Black hole eventually swallows universe --> Black hole becomes condensed universe --> Big bang part deux.

mysterious

dlofnep wrote: »

I don't think it ever "began". I think it has always been here.

I do think however that there is a cycle that goes something like this.

Big bang --> Universe Expands --> Black hole created --> Black hole expands over time --> Black hole eventually swallows universe --> Black hole becomes condensed universe --> Big bang part deux.

This theory does hold truth, if you look at nature and the smaller aspects of matter such as ourselves.

Its birth, death and rebirth. But every reality is just different to the next. Somethings like deja vous happen as there are so many universes, and this universe has came and went since forever. That one reality now conjoined another universe in that snap shot.

Thats what i think deja vous is.

The death of a universe is pretty much the same as a planet, star, blackhole or a galaxy. Just on a bigger scale.