Origin of Existence

[BearDin]

if whatever was before this universe was destroyed, well, where did that stuff come from? Where did the matter from the big bang come from? Just POOF and it's there? Energy? Where'd the energy come from? Would it not be easier for there to be nothing than for there to be something. Where then does this initial cause come from? Is not God what we call this? Or else, what? How can matter just form? If from energy, how can energy just form? out of nothing? Not buying that. The whole of the Big bang theory depends upon the idea that everything that was there, all the matter that was infinitely packed into the infinitesimally small area was simply there to begin with. That sounds absurd to me though. What was before the universe? It MUST matter. Can we know it definitely through our methods of science? I doubt it, because our science is incomplete and is limited by our imprisonment in this 3 dimensional realm. But clearly there was SOMETHING before this universe, or else, if there was nothing, then how could something come from nothing?! And if there was something to put that something there that we call the universe, where did the former something come from? Really, how is there anything at all? It just was and is? I guess, I don't know.. thoughts anyone?

[houserichichi]

That's the million dollar question right now - nobody knows. There are a lot of independent ideas floating around, though nothing has been deemed "the answer" yet, and IMO we won't know the answer for a very long time. One suggestions is that the big bang is the result of a curved spacetime unkinking itself and expanding out. Another is the two-brane model from string theory where the energy transferred between branes results in a rippling effect causing a so-called big bang. There is, of course, the theological interpretation that some god created the universe...and I guess the big bang seemed exciting enough for him to watch. You'll even come across people who believe the universe has always been, that is - there was no big bang - what a bunch of crazies, that lot :wink:

So there are a couple ideas - there are a myriad of other ones and I suggest you do a little research and find one that suits your own taste. That's the satisfaction in cosmology right there - prove everyone else wrong.

[Keiji]

There's a theory I have about how things were created (and also about whether God exists) over on http://www.combatgold1.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1508 .

[Malaktix]

Why must there always be a beginning?
Surely that is just relying on the concept of time, to think there is a beginning, middle and an end.

Of course we will never be able to comprehend it, but I believe it just has always existed as it is beyond time.
I think that is a far more logical explaination than trying to explain how SOMETHING came from NOTHING, even if we can't actually understand it.

[Jordan14]

Hi again BearDin, (It's Quantum)!!

Like I said in the other thread I still think of the universe following the ekpyrotic model it doesn't get rid of all the questions but it seems much more structured and more organised than the Big Bang Theory.

The ekpyrotic model, which is really the Big Bang Theory of String Theory, states that we exist on hugh streached out brane, and next to our branes are others. Then one day to of the branes collided forming a huge amount of energy and caused a Big Bang which was the start of our universe it gets rid of the question all all matter being squashed up, or where did the energy come from

BUT, we will have to wait a long time before ANYTHING STRING THEORY is proved, hopefully in 2007 at CERN some evidence of branes will be produced

[BearDin]

even so, where'd the branes come from?

[houserichichi]

The theory requires them to have always been. Oh those crazy string theorists :wink:

[Jordan14]

The theory requires them to have always been. Oh those crazy string theorists

Thank You

[BearDin]

Bob went to your page about God...And yes, bad things do happen in the world, but I dont think that that means he's dead or unloving. A lot of bad things that happen and bad thigns that people do are the result of people not allowing God into their souls. Thats part of the freedom of choice we have. God's still there, it's whether we allow him into us that counts. God didn't cause the holocaust. Evil Hitler with his idea of racial cleansing did. God doesn't cause pollution and global warming. God doesn't cause people to live in poverty, greedy ass people do who have no light in their souls..God's beyond science; God contains all of science, and science is just the uncovering of all that God is. Will science ever complete the task? I doubt it, cuz again, people aren't letting God into their souls. But do souls exist? That's another thing, which I am certain they do. Can i measure it with an instrument? No. doesn't mean it's not real. All the we learn has already been known and is simply being uncovered to our minds.. The intelligence behind all things, all the processes in the universe, was all there from the foundation, not since we started studying about and learning about it.. We just uncover the truth, and God is that truth, and so science is chasing after God, fruitlessly, in my opinion if it won't even acknowledge that God is the source of all knowledge

[Jordan14]

Hi again BearDin !

Your previous reply was very well written, and I respect your beleifs. I myself don't beleive in God as I have said in the other post ubt I understand where you are coming from.

I understand that everyone has their own opinion surrounding this aspect of life. Where did everything come from?

Also this is such a sidenote but I beleive that with the birth of the universe was the birth of time, time did not exist before the making of the universe SO the universe has always been there.

[RQ]

Why must there always be a beginning?

Because without a beginning there is no now.

Edit: Also scientific evidence such as the microwave background shows that the universe must have been extremely hot and small sometime about 15-20 billion years ago.

[PWrong]

There is another theory about the big bang and how it started. Apparently there is a field called the "Higgs field" that is always present, even in a vacuum. More accurately, the field varies according to the energy in its environment, but it's strength equals zero only when the energy is a nonzero value. So if you create a vacuum, there's still the higgs field, but if you get rid of the Higg's field, you don't have a vacuum anymore. This means space can never be truly empty, even before the big bang.
Supposedly, the quantum foam of spacetime can potentially exploit the Higgs field to start the big bang. I'm just remembering what I understood from Fabric of the Cosmos.

Before the big bang, the universe had 100% entropy, meaning the distribution of the Higgs field was completely disordered and random(Despite being infinitely small. Black holes also have 100% entropy).

Now, because energy and matter bounces around madly at the quantum scale, it's possible that a large amount of energy could just end up in the same small space, completely at random. And results from string theory predict that this event would cause the rapid inflation that started the big bang.

So science isn't completely lacking an explanation. Of course, this doesn't mean God doesn't exist. On the contrary, I believe that God could have made the universe any way He liked, but He chose to create it in a logically consistent way, so we would be driven to understand it and appreciate it fully. Otherwise, if we can't appreciate it, why bother?

[wendy]

it is quite possible that there was no beginning, but it does not make sense.

Legend has it that since the time of the sun and before the time of the moon, the world has gone down and rose seven times.

it pretty much depends on what you mean by beginning?

Are we not built on the wreckage of the past?

[Rkyeun]

My belief is that the duration of a universe is a ray. It has a defined start and no terminating point.

A black hole has a finite lifespan. It is formed, consumes everything in its local area, begins to vaporate, and then explodes. Most of the energy is released back into its universe by the blast.

A black hole warps space and time at right angles to our reality, creating a new universe from which energy cannot escape back into ours. The time of this new universe is perpendicular to our time. This means that all of the energy absorbed by the black hole during its entire duration is included in the 'big bang' of this new universe at time0, which projects outwards at a right angle from the moment in our time when the black hole evaporates and explodes. Because the ray is perpendicular, the entire infinite lifespan of that new universe occurs in that instant.

The new universe is defined by the energy that fell in. Thus there is no sense of scale with the old universe. Even the tiniest amount of unspent energy is sufficient to form an entirely new universe.

At least, that's my perception. This seems to solve the information paradox and the energy paradox that black holes exhibit. The lost information and energy is being shunted into another universe, which then grows its own black holes...

[houserichichi]

A question: if this alternate universe within the blackhole (or at the other end) is not ours then whatever energy "falls into" the hole would be lost and thus we'd have have the failure of the conservation of energy, would we not (since the "amount" of energy we measure HAS to be in our universe, by definition).

[PWrong]

A black hole warps space and time at right angles to our reality, creating a new universe from which energy cannot escape back into ours. The time of this new universe is perpendicular to our time. This means that all of the energy absorbed by the black hole during its entire duration is included in the 'big bang' of this new universe at time0, which projects outwards at a right angle from the moment in our time when the black hole evaporates and explodes. Because the ray is perpendicular, the entire infinite lifespan of that new universe occurs in that instant.

If this new universe is 3D, and perpendicular to ours so it only intersects at a point, then you need 6 dimensions to hold both universes. Not that's a problem.

Try it this way. The other universe is parallel to ours. Because the black hole is at right angles to us, it must also be at right angles with the other universe. This sort of thing is possible, but not really necessary except for science fiction.

At least, that's my perception. This seems to solve the information paradox and the energy paradox that black holes exhibit. The lost information and energy is being shunted into another universe, which then grows its own black holes...

But that IS the paradox. We don't want to lose any energy. Unfortunately, these theories aren't neccessary anymore. There's nothing preventing a wormhole like this, but they don't solve anything in particular. Stephen Hawking finally discovered that black holes can release information as well as energy, just last year. I don't know how this happens, although I do vaguely understand Hawking radiation.

[Rkyeun]

The new universe's time intersects the old universe's time at a point which in the new universe represents the origin, and in the old universe represents the time of the black hole's detonation.
The new universe's space intersects the old universe's space in a realm which in the new universe represents everywhere and in the old universe represents the inside of the event horizon.

I was not aware that information could be retrieved from a black hole by evaporating it. I thought it compressed below the quantum level and scrambled by the distorted physics. Are you certain that all the energy comes back out? Do we even need any energy to be left over for this alternate universe generation to take place?

[RQ]

it is quite possible that there was no beginning, but it does not make sense.

How may I ask? If the universe was infinitely old, then why isn't civilization more advanced, and why isn't the night sky as bright as the day?

[RQ]

My belief is that the duration of a universe is a ray. It has a defined start and no terminating point.

A black hole has a finite lifespan. It is formed, consumes everything in its local area, begins to vaporate, and then explodes. Most of the energy is released back into its universe by the blast.

A black hole warps space and time at right angles to our reality, creating a new universe from which energy cannot escape back into ours. The time of this new universe is perpendicular to our time. This means that all of the energy absorbed by the black hole during its entire duration is included in the 'big bang' of this new universe at time0, which projects outwards at a right angle from the moment in our time when the black hole evaporates and explodes. Because the ray is perpendicular, the entire infinite lifespan of that new universe occurs in that instant.

The new universe is defined by the energy that fell in. Thus there is no sense of scale with the old universe. Even the tiniest amount of unspent energy is sufficient to form an entirely new universe.

At least, that's my perception. This seems to solve the information paradox and the energy paradox that black holes exhibit. The lost information and energy is being shunted into another universe, which then grows its own black holes...

Unfortunately this is the Strong Anthropic principle which breaks down to the weak one which states that the universe has the same laws throughout all regions. Thus aside from destroying matter and energy with your alternate universe, your universe wouldn't exist. Black holes are basically either smooth or with hair or imperfect, and energy can be spewed back from them.

[wendy]

wendy wrote:

it is quite possible that there was no beginning, but it does not make sense.

How may I ask? If the universe was infinitely old, then why isn't civilization more advanced, and why isn't the night sky as bright as the day?

Somehow, we leap from the non-existance of a beginning to the notion of infinitely old. Maybe i'm amazed!

Legend has it that before this world, there were six earlier worlds that went down, this is the seventh. Some talk of the big crunch as the harbringer of a new big bang. We see only from the last bang, not from the beginning of all time.

W

[PWrong]

Unfortunately this is the Strong Anthropic principle which breaks down to the weak one which states that the universe has the same laws throughout all regions.

The anthropic principle? That's about why physics appears to be so fine-tuned in order to allow life. Nothing to do with black holes.

Somehow, we leap from the non-existance of a beginning to the notion of infinitely o;d. Maybe i'm amazed!

How can there be a universe of finite age, but without a beginning? In any case, it did have a beginning, and a finite age. There's plenty of direct evidence, most physicists believe it, and even the Church accepts it, so why argue anything different?

As for Hawking radiation, unfortunately the black hole will never completely evaporate. Even background radiation will feed a black hole faster than it can release energy. However, all the energy does get recycled, and somehow information can escape without being scrambled.

If for some reason the background radiation disappeared, the black hole would eventually evaporate.

[wendy]

In the case of the anthromorphic principle, it is worth noting that the arguments are valid, not so much that the universe was made for us, but that we exist.

The alternate is that there are many universes, with different constants, some with, and some without life. But the only one that evolves life evidently suspect that the universe is created for them.

In the case of a forever young universe, if the thing is created many times, then there is no beginning, but it makes no sense to look before the current creation.

W

[Gilles]

Rkyeun,

I see exactly what you try to say, and in fact, I beleive, or actualy know something alike aswell (see other topics)
Only I think it had no beginning, that would suggest there is a black hole that contains no black holes, and I don't think that's true.

Quote:
wendy wrote:
Quote:
it is quite possible that there was no beginning, but it does not make sense.


How may I ask? If the universe was infinitely old, then why isn't civilization more advanced, and why isn't the night sky as bright as the day?


Somehow, we leap from the non-existance of a beginning to the notion of infinitely old. Maybe i'm amazed!

Legend has it that before this world, there were six earlier worlds that went down, this is the seventh. Some talk of the big crunch as the harbringer of a new big bang. We see only from the last bang, not from the beginning of all time.

W

Wendy, you wonder why civilisation hasen't come further then this.
Well, at first, the earth, our home, isn't as old as the universe is it? Secondly, who says everything that's happening, hasen't already happended before? In exactly the same way, and every slight difference that you might think of? Same (or different) location, different (or same) time. We've seen old civilisations come to an end aswell, that might happen with ours too, for everything to start over again. Cyclic movements aren't very uncommon in our universe, are they?

[houserichichi]

For something to happen again exactly as it already has, every individual particle in the universe would have to be in the exact state as it was the first time around. There is no such thing as true repetition (on a universal scale, of course) - what is in the past has already happened and will not happen exactly the same ever again.

[wendy]

A gramophone plays record after record. Every while it comes to an end, and we put a new one on.

Even if we replay the same record, we do not demand the same molecules to be in place, and that there never be any new pips and pops developing.

But the gramaphone and its records existed long before any playing, and will continue for long after the event.

We see the history of the world: the history of the "age of man", world = wer + old (wer = man [person] as in werwolf [man-wolf]) Accordingly, this exists only since the last time the world went down. We hear distant echos of the deep past, but we can't understand them.

We hear distant echos of the future, and we won't understand them.

[3l3ctr0]

there might have been a start to the univers but will there realy be an end? cuz when the "crunch" happends won the univers srink till its infanetly small and then it would expload throwing the galixys or star clusters or nebulas or what ever u want it to throw, out wards untill the univers gets too big and reapeats the proses?
or am i just way off and totaly wrong...

[jinydu]

Gilles, you still haven't answered my objection to your idea of infinite time, nor have you given any evidence to support your claims that the universe is a black hole.

I will repeat my objection again: If the universe is infinitely old, how can you explain why useful energy still exists? Why hasn't entropy already reached its maximum, given that the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy can never decrease?

[Gilles]

Jinydu, forget the talk about the evidence, I don't have any.

What you call background radiation, is light of the universe that surrounds us to me.
So the light sucked up by black holes, is just background radiation to the ones who live inside.

I will repeat my objection again: If the universe is infinitely old, how can you explain why useful energy still exists? Why hasn't entropy already reached its maximum, given that the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy can never decrease?

Well, if that law is true, and I beleive it is, there will be no big crunch. And if there will no big crunch, because of that law, there has never been one either.

Thus, universe has always been smaller then it is now, hasn't it?

Useful energy still exists, because of interaction, and because of infiniteness. Energy can allways come from higher levels, as it can come from lower levels, and from levels that don't even have a direction to us, simply because we would call them everywhere. They're in between now and an infinite fraction of a second after now.

The energy back holes give us, is not clear to me, it might be just the reversal of time, but I think black holes give us energy by keeping some points of the universe in balance. Or maybe by showing their existence, and giving us information about what's going on in here.

As for the maximum, what if there's not only chaos, but also structure at the same time? I think that for example heat itself has a form that we can't see.

Assume you are a molecule, and you can be aware of what happens around you. You're part of the process of a hartbeat for example. You'd see a constant movement of other molecules around him, wich would seem quite chaotic to him, but, toghter, they have a structurised movement.

So to a molecule, maximum entropy lies just a few levels above him. As for us, i don't think there is a difference.

What may seem like a total lack of order to us (maximum entropy), is just a higher kind of order, and thus, everything is both order and chaos, depending from the point where you look at it.

Higher order feeds lower order aswell as lower order feeds higher order.
Do we agree on the fact that we are a bit more structurised than animals for example? Take plants for my part. We give plants carbon dioxide, they give us oxigen, sugar, and vitamins. We observe them as green sturcturised energy-suppliers, but they observe us as the carbon dioxide we give them. Because their senses are a lot different then ours, and because they have no nerval integration centers, they arent aware of us the way we are aware of them, but still there is interaction. And that interaction makes us alive, but I think i'm wandering off the topic.

I hope you still understand it...

[jinydu]

Well, if that law is true, and I beleive it is, there will be no big crunch. And if there will no big crunch, because of that law, there has never been one either.

Just because there will be no big crunch doesn't imply that there never was one. The Second Law is not symmetric with respect to time.

Thus, universe has always been smaller then it is now, hasn't it?

Sure, why not?

Useful energy still exists, because of interaction, and because of infiniteness. Energy can allways come from higher levels, as it can come from lower levels, and from levels that don't even have a direction to us, simply because we would call them everywhere. They're in between now and an infinite fraction of a second after now.

The problem with that explanation is that it violates Occam's Razor: Take the simplest possible explanation for any given phenomenon. Do not assume the existence of anything if it is possible to develop an equally plausible explanation without that assumption.

For instance, every time I open the refrigerator door, the light turns on. I could hypothesize that this phenomenon is caused by little green men living inside the fridge, who turn the light on everytime I open the door. But such a hypothesis assumes the existence of little green men, and such an assumption is not necessary for an explanation of why the light turns on. Thus, by Occam's Razor, I should prefer an explanation that does not involve little green men.

While your idea does explain why useful energy can still exist, it has no basis in experimental evidence and it involves assuming the existence of black holes outside the universe. Since such an assumption is not necessary to explain why useful energy is still around, and in fact there is a much simpler explanation, Occam's Razor recommends rejection.

So to a molecule, maximum entropy lies just a few levels above him. As for us, i don't think there is a difference.

What may seem like a total lack of order to us (maximum entropy), is just a higher kind of order, and thus, everything is both order and chaos, depending from the point where you look at it.

In fact, the definition of entropy is much more precise than just "amount of disorder":http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Entropy.html

Yes, if a molecule could look at the molecules around it, things would seem disorderly. But if a molecule was capable of measuring the number of possible states of the other molecules, the observing molecule would come up with the same value for entropy as human observers would.

[Gilles]

For instance, every time I open the refrigerator door, the light turns on. I could hypothesize that this phenomenon is caused by little green men living inside the fridge, who turn the light on everytime I open the door. But such a hypothesis assumes the existence of little green men, and such an assumption is not necessary for an explanation of why the light turns on. Thus, by Occam's Razor, I should prefer an explanation that does not involve little green men.

Then again, you could explain it i a bit more realistic way, and say there is a mechanism built in the fridge that gets triggered once you open the door, and that turns the light on.
Wouldn't explain why it's on though, cos that's because electrons get sent through a thin cable, wich causes it to light up. Light is then of course just a vibration caused by the movement of the electrons.
Still you wouldn't have explained where the electrons come from, just that a triiger let them pass.
You could then start talking about a cable network and an energy central, wich uses nuclear power for example, but you would still not have defined where the energy you used came from.
You could then go on till the moment of the big bang, where you would suggest all the energy just came out of nothing, and you'd have explained your light in the fridge.

But stating it came out of the nothing is not an explanation to me, that's why I went further, and Occam's Razor doesn't count here