Do you believe the universe came from nothing

dlofnep

phutyle wrote: »

This may be your belief, but the observations don't necessarily support your hypothesis. It's looking more likely that the universe is "open" and will therefore continue to expand, rather than contract at some point.

It is currently expanding, there is nothing concrete to suggest that it will infinitely expand.

phutyle wrote: »

Also, the idea that this universe is just the result of the "last universe" contracting and so ad infinitum raises the exact same issue as believing that a god who always existed caused it. You're falling back on saying that an infinite process caused the universe. But what caused the process?

It does if you believe that the Universe cycle had a start point, if it infinitely exists - then there is no start point. I guess it raises a chick versus the egg argument.

I'm not suggesting that my theory is correct - It is just my opinion on the topic of an extremely complex question that nobody can really answer.

If you suggest that the universe began with the big bang, then one asks where the matter came from to create it.

If you suggest that God created the universe, then you must ask - where is the proof of God's existence, and why would he create such a chaotic universe.

It's impossible to answer. Nobody's answer will be without flaws.

Little Mickey

Zillah wrote: »

I don't know what you mean. Not even a little bit.

I'm trying to understand your definition of time.
If time travel backwards could be possible what would happen when we get to "start" (start of time as we know it)?
If it's not, then why?

Phutyle: Not my post

cathysworld

Ok --I confess, it was me, I created the universe

Zillah

dlofnep wrote: »

It is currently expanding, there is nothing concrete to suggest that it will infinitely expand.

Er, according to more recent measurements, Dark Energy is causing the universe to accelerate it's expansion, which would imply that it is never going to stop.

phutyle wrote: »

On what grounds are you supposing this?

I said that, not him, and it was purely a hypothetical drawn from the Big Bang/Big Crunch model.

Little Mickey wrote: »

I'm trying to understand your definition of time.
If time travel backwards could be possible what would happen when we get to "start" (start of time as we know it)?
If it's not, then why?

Phutyle: Not my post

You should seriously read some physics books before you start investing so much thought in such issues.

I am defining time in the sense that physics has. Space-Time is a fundamental aspect of the universe as understood by general relativity.

As for time travel, some models suggest it is possible, but that it requires extraordinary amounts of energy. I suspect that to travel back in time to the point of the Big Bang you would need more energy than exists in the universe. But we'll need to roll out Professor Hawking for a detailed response. But basically we don't know until we have a so-called theory of everything, one grand model that incorporates General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Little Mickey

dlofnep wrote: »

It does if you believe that the Universe cycle had a start point, if it infinitely exists - then there is no start point. I guess it raises a chick versus the egg argument.

I'm not suggesting that my theory is correct - It is just my opinion on the topic of an extremely complex question that nobody can really answer.

If you suggest that the universe began with the big bang, then one asks where the matter came from to create it.

If you suggest that God created the universe, then you must ask - where is the proof of God's existence, and why would he create such a chaotic universe.

It's impossible to answer. Nobody's answer will be without flaws.

That's my opinion also, what i've been trying to get accross.
I think something always existed, whether in our "time" or not, we just know what or even it was different to what we already know.

dlofnep

Zillah wrote: »

Er, according to more recent measurements, Dark Energy is causing the universe to accelerate it's expansion, which would imply that it is never going to stop.

While the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, it is not concrete evidence of an infinite expansion. It also doesn't account for irregularities such as super black holes which could cause a halt to the acceleration and contract the universe again.

Little Mickey

cathysworld wrote: »

Ok --I confess, it was me, I created the universe

Can you make another one or is there no space to put one?

Little Mickey

Sorry, wrote my response to dlofnep's post incorrectly.

That's my opinion also, what i've been trying to get accross.
I think something always existed, whether in our "time" or not, we just don't know what or even if it was different to what we already know.

Zillah

dlofnep wrote: »

While the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, it is not concrete evidence of an infinite expansion. It also doesn't account for irregularities such as super black holes which could cause a halt to the acceleration and contract the universe again.

The expansion of the universe is a function of two things: Forces going out and forces going in.

Forces going out are greater than forces going in.

So yes, if X, X being some purely hypothetical thing that completely alters the entire energy/gravity balance of our universe, arrives, then it might stop. Right now there is no reason to assume it will stop.

As for black holes, are you getting this from anywhere or just making it up?

Because blackholes have the same gravity of the mass that they consume, and hence the total gravity of the universe does not increase. As the universe expands matter will get further and further spread out making the impact of blackholes even less relevant.

Little Mickey

Zillah wrote: »

Er, according to more recent measurements, Dark Energy is causing the universe to accelerate it's expansion, which would imply that it is never going to stop.



I said that, not him, and it was purely a hypothetical drawn from the Big Bang/Big Crunch model.



You should seriously read some physics books before you start investing so much thought in such issues.

I am defining time in the sense that physics has. Space-Time is a fundamental aspect of the universe as understood by general relativity.

As for time travel, some models suggest it is possible, but that it requires extraordinary amounts of energy. I suspect that to travel back in time to the point of the Big Bang you would need more energy than exists in the universe. But we'll need to roll out Professor Hawking for a detailed response. But basically we don't know until we have a so-called theory of everything, one grand model that incorporates General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

To travel back in time to the "start" would require more energy than is available in the universe - that makes some sense because then you would likely destroy the universe to do that and something would have to exist to do it all again.
To get more energy though - not even renewable energy, if it was could be of use, wouldn't be

cathysworld

Little Mickey wrote: »

Can you make another one or is there no space to put one?

Of course there's space, there's infinite space... or is there??? dot dot dot dot

Little Mickey

cathysworld wrote: »

Of course there's space, there's infinite space... or is there??? dot dot dot dot

But that space is used by the universe(s), so can you put one where there is already one (fill a glass again while it's already full). You need something to do that - what was the something you used the first time, I wan't some of it!!! :mad:
If it was just you then i'm not hitting on you

cathysworld

Little Mickey wrote: »

But that space is used by the universe(s), so can you put one where there is already one (fill a glass again while it's already full). You need something to do that - what was the something you used the first time, I wan't some of it!!! :mad:
If it was just you then i'm not hitting on you

I used a Milky Way bar

bakkiesbotha

Either something has always existed, and will always exist, or it is possible to create something out of nothing.

One of the above has to be true.

So, either our idea of creation is faulty because some things have always existed and will always exist, or our concepts of being and nothingness are faulty because it is possible to create something from nothing.

If we accept that we are here and the universe exists, then we have to accept that a fundamental aspect of the nature of existence is impossible for our minds to grasp.

And if we accept this, then we have to question the validity of human reason and logic, since it all amounts to no more than satisfying the conditions set by an insufficiently sophisticated instrument.

Little Mickey

cathysworld wrote: »

I used a Milky Way bar

Where did you get it? From Mars?

cathysworld

Yeah they also make these

Dades

Get a room you two, or get on topic*.

* unintended pun

Tea_Bag

i dont think we can ever know what happened before time because time itself is limiting us into this universe, and nowhere beyond. man will never be intellegent enough to understand what was happening before the big bang, but at least we try, very hard, and improve all the time, forwarding our knowlege, unlike your 2000 year old theory of god, which has no bearing and place in this world anymore. we are simply too smart to be held back by religion, and the sooner people understand that, the sooner we can get the brains of this planet to really search for a reason why were here.

Gregor Samsa

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

If we accept that we are here and the universe exists, then we have to accept that a fundamental aspect of the nature of existence is impossible for our minds to grasp.

That's quite a non sequitur. Our acceptance of our existence in no way places limits on the fundamentals of nature, or indeed on our mental capacity to comprehend them. Other things might, but not the fact that we accept that we exist.

And anyway, just because we don't understand now, doesn't mean we'll never understand.

And on what basis do you postulate that existence out of nothing or eternal existence are the only two options? If you believe that our reason and logic are so invalid, couldn't there be another option (or options) we're missing?

Gregor Samsa

Tea_Bag wrote: »

i dont think we can ever know what happened before time because time itself is limiting us into this universe, and nowhere beyond. man will never be intellegent enough to understand what was happening before the big bang, but at least we try, very hard, and improve all the time, forwarding our knowlege, unlike your 2000 year old theory of god, which has no bearing and place in this world anymore. we are simply too smart to be held back by religion, and the sooner people understand that, the sooner we can get the brains of this planet to really search for a reason why were here.

I don't think it's down to intelligence or the lack of it. It's more down to lack of data - I don't just mean due to the limitations of observation or our equipment, but a lack of data that could be a fundamental part of the universe, a bit like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

That said, you're right that such potential limits shouldn't stop us from trying.

Tea_Bag

far from stop trying, we should be trying harder.
though the minute we stop looking for a reason we exist, is the minute we may as well not live anymore. and for that reason i wonder if its a good thing that we ever find out. what will actually happen if/when we do find an answer?

bakkiesbotha

phutyle wrote: »

That's quite a non sequitur. Our acceptance of our existence in no way places limits on the fundamentals of nature, or indeed on our mental capacity to comprehend them. Other things might, but not the fact that we accept that we exist.?

It follows quite logically on from the earlier part of my post. Either something has always existed, and will always exist, or it is possible to create something out of nothing. If we accept that we exist, then we accept that one of the above must have taken place.

However my point was that pure logic leads to this position, and maybe logic is not to be trusted.

phutyle wrote: »

And on what basis do you postulate that existence out of nothing or eternal existence are the only two options? ?
If you believe that our reason and logic are so invalid, couldn't there be another option (or options) we're missing?

Yes. Another option is that we do not exist at all, and neither does the universe. Or that existence and non-existence are in some way not mutually exclusive. Or all sorts of other concepts that it is possible to represent using words and other symbols, but which the human mind (or mine at least) is unable to grasp.

Zillah

phutyle wrote: »

I don't think it's down to intelligence or the lack of it. It's more down to lack of data - I don't just mean due to the limitations of observation or our equipment, but a lack of data that could be a fundamental part of the universe, a bit like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

I wouldn't rule out the intelligence thing to be honest. It takes the entire lifetime of the greatest minds on this planet to even scratch the surface of what is currently unknown, and they're standing on the backs of giants.

Think of it this way: You and I are both perfectly capable of intuitively understanding the arc of a tennis ball through the air. Our brain are essentially performing mathematics using an evolutionarily derived model of physics. But this intuitive ability has limits. Very near limits. Luckily we can get around this by deliberately constructing mathematical models to predict stuff that we can't understand intuitively. For example, General Relativity is massively unintuitive, and it took one of the greatest minds in history to to do it, but we've now got models by which to understand it. Same thing with quantum mechanics.

But the problem is that these deliberately created models are very very hard to understand, and even harder to successfully update or interpret. We're at the point now where only a tiny percentage of the human race are smart enough to even begin to approach the issues facing us. It may simply be that we are not smart enough to accurately create a model by which to integrate Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity.

And now the cherry on the top of my argument: Imagine an entity, be it an artificial intelligence, an alien or whatever, that could intuitively understand Quantum Mechanics the same way that you and I can effortlessly predict the path of a tennis ball through three dimensional space. And now imagine what such an entity could do if it were actually trying.

Kipperhell

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

Yes. Another option is that we do not exist at all, and neither does the universe. Or that existence and non-existence are in some way not mutually exclusive. Or all sorts of other concepts that it is possible to represent using words and other symbols, but which the human mind (or mine at least) is unable to grasp.

What you are saying there is until you grasp the idea it doesn't exist which is a bit egotistical.:p There is just currently no proof of whether existence is infinite or not. You understand the concept of the phoenix and it is equally plausible that existence never ends and the birth of the universe is nothing more than a cycle of destruction like a phoenix.

You are suggesting that a more person from a limited culture such a rain forest tribe could not grasp the concept of cloud formation. It maybe a foreign concept to them but they can grasp the idea and there human minds can handle it. I am sure there are places in the world where their religious beliefs can be currently explained by science.

Gregor Samsa

Well, certainly I was a bit rash to come across as if i was ruling out limitations of intelligence as a factor entirely. That wasn't my intention.

But I think you'll agree that we're really in the very early stages of the game. General Relativity isn't even 100 years old yet, and Quantum Mechanics hasn't been around that long either. So it might be a bit early to seriously consider that we've reached the end of our intelligence, or to even consider what kinds of limits it might have. Give my daughter a chance, she's only 7 months old, and has only chewed the half the cover of Cosmos

Zillah

Well of course I am not capable of making definitive statements as to the limits of our intelligence, all of this must be taken as conjecture.

I wouldn't rule out our solving the Unified Theory of Everything within the next hundred years. I think it is unlikely, but I won't rule it out. I suspect that if we don't, we never will without increasing our intellectual capacity, or at least increasing our life spans. Right now we're at the point where someone has to spend half of their life just getting up to speed before they can even think about adding to our understanding. Not to mention that most of them spend their whole lives failing to get up to speed :pac: There's a reason men like Einstein and Hawking are famous.

And of course, the so called Theory of Everything may not be the universal explanation we're hoping for, there may be entire aspects to creation that we've barely touched. The multiverse, singularities, dark energy/matter and things as of yet inconceivable.

I think it's great that there's people out there doing this stuff, I think we should fund them, I have great respect for them and the fact that they're smarter than even I! But I strongly suspect that their simian brains have been pushed about as far as they can go, and that we'll need to design better ones with genetics, or integrate them with electronics before they have a real chance at digging much deeper. Really, our ability to get this far at all is largely a complete accident of our ability to learn language and perform abstract thought.

Kipperhell

phutyle wrote: »

But I think you'll agree that we're really in the very early stages of the game.

Not really to have the concept, there have been quite a few theories that have been proven later on. The problem with religion is a theory became fact without any proof and some people don't want to know about any new theories whether proven or not.

JC 2K3

Little Mickey wrote: »

Again well said and because we understand so little then we tend make assumptions for everything else - hence this is what make its so complicated. The very simple answer the original question is that nothing comes from nothing.

But where did the first something that created something else come from!!!???

Flamed Diving

JC 2K3 wrote: »

But where did the first something that created something else come from!!!???

Nothing!

c0rk3r

Its beyond our understanding and to even try and answer the question is foolish. We'll just have to wait until we are accepted into the galactic federations of planets, then the truth can be revealed. No doubt it was jesus and the phorgo nines of the ninth planet just ****ing around with use for laughs. Those guys... I mean if you;ve lived since infinity and will continue to live until inifinity you have to do something to kill the boredom