Origin of the universe

P

pluto2

Banned
Banned
Last edited:
There is a lot of speculation about what happened before the big bang and the big bang itself. Science starts after the big bang.
 
There's been speculation and theories about the origins of the universe and one that I remember was the multi verse theory.

M-theory

See also: Introduction to M-theory, M-theory, Brane cosmology, and String theory landscape

A multiverse of a somewhat different kind has been envisaged within the multi-dimensional extension of string theory known as M-theory, also known as Membrane Theory. In M-theory our universe and others are created by collisions between p-branes in a space with 11 and 26 dimensions (the number of dimensions depends on the chirality of the observer); each universe takes the form of a D-brane. Objects in each universe are essentially confined to the D-brane of their universe, but may be able to interact with other universes via gravity, a force which is not restricted to D-branes.This is unlike the universes in the "quantum multiverse", but both concepts can operate at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#M-theory
 
Emphatically – NO! Why? I have just watched, recorded, a prog by Stephen Hawkings, supreme cosmologist and physicist on the Universe and its origins, and it proves beyond any doubt that it would have been impossible for a god to have created the Universe. To sum it all up in a few sentences.

The Universe came literally from nothing. In the Universe negative matter exactly equates to positive matter eg: -10 + +10 = 0 (zero). This matter exists, fact.

Religious people argue that nothing can come from nothing – true – to a point. The analogy used was a cup of coffee; you can create a cup of coffee but only from other matter. But if you look at this other matter sub atomically, protons come into existence – from nothing – and just as easily vanish again, and this happens daily, everywhere. Something, from nothing!

Time is also a creation of the big bang – before the big bang, there was no universe, no time. A god could not have created a universe because before the Universe there really was nothing -no time, nothing.

If you throw a clock at a black hole, and assuming the clock can withstand the tremendous forces of gravity, then at a given point, the clock would stop because there is no time in a black hole.

Stephen Hawking apologised to viewers for stamping on their beliefs, and agreed that people should believe what they wanted BUT I do not agree as we should all be allowed to speak our minds freely otherwise knowledge and belief actually die.

Around 300BC Aristarchus, a Greek philosopher, was looking at the heavens and made a monumental decision – the moon was going around the Earth. From this he deduced that the lunar eclipse was the shadow of the Earth on the moon; ergo – the Earth goes around the SUN! He came then to the logical conclusion that the Earth went around the Sun. And then, to give birth to astronomy, he deduced that the stars were not pin pricks in the heavens but each one was an individual Sun but ‘a long long way away’. The man was right all along. But of course, as we all know later on in history, the Church cruelly suppressed all talk of science.

Interestingly Pope John XXI was so worried about the explanations coming out of certain quarters about the irrevocable Laws of Nature that he declared them heracy. Later that year, the laws of nature got their revenge – the ceiling of the palace fell on him!!
 
Red Devil said:
Interestingly Pope John XXI was so worried about the explanations coming out of certain quarters about the irrevocable Laws of Nature that he declared them heracy. Later that year, the laws of nature got their revenge – the ceiling of the palace fell on him!!
Click to expand...
Who is the superstitious one now Red Devil?:rolleyes:
 
The Universe comes from nothing, but the word nothing has two meanings in English. It can mean zero, and it can mean nothing at all. Zero however can be made from something. In fact zero can be made in lots of ways, but you have to start the Universe from the simplest form of zero. The simplest form of zero that you can start the Universe from is +1 + -1.

You have to remember that zero was not considered as a credible value for hundreds of years. Most scientists would not allow zero in the past. But when you have +1 + -1 you have basically two ingredients creating zero. If two ingredients make zero then matter, and anti-matter are easy to allow. The mechanism for allowing something from nothing is actually a mechanism that explains nothing in a new light. That nothing doesn't exist, and that zero only exists from two opposing forces.

There are a few more rules to apply to this scenario, but the rest of the rules were not discussed by Stephen Hawking who's theory was actually posted by me many years ago. I probably am not allowed therefore to discuss the rules that Stephen Hawking didn't discuss.
 
pluto2 said:
Did the universe really come from nothing, aka ex nihilo or was the Buddha right when he said that the universe has no begining and no end?

What are the modern scientific views about the origin of the universe and what really happened before the big bang?
Click to expand...

Both are correct.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
The Universe comes from nothing, but the word nothing has two meanings in English. It can mean zero, and it can mean nothing at all. Zero however can be made from something. In fact zero can be made in lots of ways, but you have to start the Universe from the simplest form of zero. The simplest form of zero that you can start the Universe from is +1 + -1.

You have to remember that zero was not considered as a credible value for hundreds of years. Most scientists would not allow zero in the past. But when you have +1 + -1 you have basically two ingredients creating zero. If two ingredients make zero then matter, and anti-matter are easy to allow. The mechanism for allowing something from nothing is actually a mechanism that explains nothing in a new light. That nothing doesn't exist, and that zero only exists from two opposing forces.

There are a few more rules to apply to this scenario, but the rest of the rules were not discussed by Stephen Hawking who's theory was actually posted by me many years ago. I probably am not allowed therefore to discuss the rules that Stephen Hawking didn't discuss.
Click to expand...
But as I said yesterday I don't believe it is just sufficient to say 1 + -1 are the two parts of the universe even if you are right. For it is a matter as I did when I typed them or what ever form you make the thing plus the anti-thing, to show their reality you have to conscientiously have to separate them.
Make an igloo, cut the ice but don't stack the blocks you have nothing.
Dig a hole but allow the stuff to fall back in you won't get far.
And if you just thought of 1 + -1 and put them together you would have nothing.
The secret is keeping them apart. The Antimatter and the matter are in the stuff we call matter (I used to call the stuff we see Splatter) but cunningly held apart. Rearrange the bits and you get so called Antimatter
but it is more like anti-splatter.
So can you do maths where 1 and -1 are never simplified.
Where does science say the Antimatter disappeared to at the beginning of the Big Bang. I don't hear much about it any more.:)
 
Robittybob1 said:
But as I said yesterday I don't believe it is just sufficient to say 1 + -1 are the two parts of the universe even if you are right. For it is a matter as I did when I typed them or what ever form you make the thing plus the anti-thing, to show their reality you have to conscientiously have to separate them.
Make an igloo, cut the ice but don't stack the blocks you have nothing.
Dig a hole but allow the stuff to fall back in you won't get far.
And if you just thought of 1 + -1 and put them together you would have nothing.
The secret is keeping them apart. The Antimatter and the matter are in the stuff we call matter (I used to call the stuff we see Splatter) but cunningly held apart. Rearrange the bits and you get so called Antimatter
but it is more like anti-splatter.
So can you do maths where 1 and -1 are never simplified.
Where does science say the Antimatter disappeared to at the beginning of the Big Bang. I don't hear much about it any more.:)
Click to expand...

How you create +1 + -1 depends on your model. I scale them like bubbles being blown through a hole. I mean, the full theory depends on the model. I don't have a Big Bang in my model, so I don't have the anti-matter problem.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
How you create +1 + -1 depends on your model. I scale them like bubbles being blown through a hole. I mean, the full theory depends on the model. I don't have a Big Bang in my model, so I don't have the anti-matter problem.
Click to expand...
Where does the whole come from? Is there a movement of stuff through the hole? How does that move, when there is nothing to move it?
I like what you say but I am looking for the answer as well.:confused:
 
Robittybob1 said:
Where does the whole come from? Is there a movement of stuff through the hole? How does that move, when there is nothing to move it?
I like what you say but I am looking for the answer as well.:confused:
Click to expand...

It doesn't move it scales. Size is relative. A tennis ball is bigger than an egg, but you are comparing two things. If the Universe just contained a tennis ball how big would it be? The first particles can be any size, because there is nothing to compare them to. So scaling them up doesn't actually mean anything. If they add up to zero, you are scaling up zero, and that doesn't really require energy.
 
pluto2 said:
Did the universe really come from nothing, aka ex nihilo or was the Buddha right when he said that the universe has no begining and no end?

What are the modern scientific views about the origin of the universe and what really happened before the big bang?

http://www.buddhanet.net/ans75.htm
http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswers/origin_of_the_world.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_beliefs_of_the_origins_of_the_universe_in_Taoism
Click to expand...


Always people talk about unreachable things , Why not first solve the Earth then lets understand Galaxy , in the mean time we are Bsed with dark matter and dark energy around galaxy.
 
arauca said:
Always people talk about unreachable things , Why not first solve the Earth then lets understand Galaxy , in the mean time we are Bsed with dark matter and dark energy around galaxy.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is because science started with the Earth that we are Bsed with dark matter and dark energy around galaxy. If you start at the beginning you can figure out what dark matter and dark energy really are.
 
pluto2 said:
Did the universe really come from nothing, aka ex nihilo or was the Buddha right when he said that the universe has no begining and no end?
Click to expand...

Both statements appear to me to be equivalent and true.

Assuming a Big Bang Singularity there is only a horizon at which spacetime converges, which is nothing.

To converge, whether doing so in the positive or negative sense, is to never arrive, over infinity, so this appears to mean there is neither a beginning nor an end.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
Actually, it is because science started with the Earth that we are Bsed with dark matter and dark energy around galaxy. If you start at the beginning you can figure out what dark matter and dark energy really are.
Click to expand...


Don't you think we selected the beginning and call it time zero
 
Aqueous Id said:
Both statements appear to me to be equivalent and true.

Assuming a Big Bang Singularity there is only a horizon at which spacetime converges, which is nothing.

To converge, whether doing so in the positive or negative sense, is to never arrive, over infinity, so this appears to mean there is neither a beginning nor an end.
Click to expand...
Would you really be able to say this with conviction. If the Universe started as a virtual particle of some scale it had to be a rather large scaled one compared to the virtual particle seen in the labs. Even if you say there was nothing to scale it against, well that is so, just for the minutest second, for immediately after every virtual particle was just insignificant compared to Energy level the first one.:)
 
Robittybob1 said:
Would you really be able to say this with conviction. If the Universe started as a virtual particle of some scale it had to be a rather large scaled one compared to the virtual particle seen in the labs. Even if you say there was nothing to scale it against, well that is so, just for the minutest second, for immediately after every virtual particle was just insignificant compared to Energy level the first one.:)
Click to expand...

Wrong quote you used Aqueous Id's quote, but anyway...

I need to be careful not to move into my personal theory which is slightly different to the reply that I am allowed to use. I am allowed to use some of my own theory because Hawking's used some of it.

So the simple version is that..

The first particle equals zero but has no fixed relative scale.
An infinite number of zero is still zero.

Then science has the singularity, and the big bang, and my theory diverges.
 
Last edited:
Pincho Paxton said:
Wrong quote you used Aqueous Id's quote, but anyway...

I need to be careful not to move into my personal theory which is slightly different to the reply that I am allowed to use. I am allowed to use some of my own theory because Hawking's used some of it.

So the simple version is that..

The first particle equals zero but has no fixed relative scale.
An infinite number of zero is still zero.

Then science has the singularity, and the big bang, and my theory diverges.
Click to expand...
So have you discussed your personal theory on any thread previously? I know that the Physforum is basically unmoderated so anything can be said there. You just got to accept the abuse, but you don't get threads pulled or locked etc.
The whole topic is so theoretical I really can't see how one idea dominates.
Last week on I watch a video on Multiverse and the Stephen hawking on on the origin of the Universe. Is that two ideas? Completely at odds with each other for in the multiverse concept the start of each separate Universe was independent of others, but all popping off independently, so there didn't seem to any time you could say there was nothing before as there had been whole Universes come and go before our own.
The whole thing has left me feeling no one really knows. And then you are too afraid to offer your idea! It can't be as odd as the Multiverse Concept surely!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top