This must be the #1 question. But which is the leading theory of how the universe began? I'm talking about "what created the singularity which exploded (big bang). Yes the leading theory on how the universe works describes vibrating strings. But what exactly do these unstable threads or strings actually represent? To bloviate a little: It's hard to phantom the universe because of its complex surreal abstraction and phenomenology. Since something can't come from absolute nothing, and I'm will to call p-branes and super-strings as 'something' because they are acting, isn't physics in the wrong direction when it tries to understand the fundamentals? Maybe the universe is not so big if it represents absolute nothing. Every time I try to study space-time physics I consider it hogwash as the known fundamentals are only abstractions. I feel like I’m reading fiction and everyone knows most theories are nearly impossibly to prove.
Lets try to picture absolute nothingness. Even a vacuum is something while it’s defined by the stars, right? So what in hell decided cause a disruption in nothingness? Could it be because emptiness is always being attracted to itself so it keeps convoluting (if that’s any sense)? I really think there is a simple explanation to why the universe is.. There must be one simple law that can be broken down to other laws at the macroscopic level. Just think about it, this is nothingness and we shouldn’t exist. Hell even some studies I have read about discuss some sort of superposition which stresses even more that the event never happened. According to this theory an event can occur and not at the same time..
I’m only interested because I have no beliefs anymore in god and would like some basic understanding as to why the universe is, for my own content
QUOTE
This must be the #1 question. But which is the leading theory of how the universe began? I'm talking about "what created the singularity which exploded (big bang).
What Big Bang?
...that's fairytales...
Zeno Paradoxes combined with modern scientific information provide us with a radically different viewpoint:
1. "You can never catch up." (Achilles and the tortoise)
Under special relativity, even when traviling at c, a photon will pass by at c...you can never catch it...
2. "You cannot even start." (The dichotomy paradox)
There is no such thing as a beginning nor end. Physical proof of this exists in the form of a quantum computer solving a problem without executing a program.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/23/quantum_computing/
You can never start or begin anything...it is always happening (infinite).
3. "You cannot even move." (The arrow paradox)
Looking at Schrodinger's wave equation, especially the electron, shows that it is static and location is determined by energy level. Even general motion (velocity) is an expression of the energy level. Therefore, there is no need for anything to move, just change energy level and you occupy a different portion of space which provides the "illusion" of movement. Relativity is due to a multi-dimensional matrix based upon energy-levels..you cannot move.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes
That's great stuff. the dichotomy paradox was what I was thinking of, time to pull more info on this and see how unrealistic it is
QUOTE (EAX+Feb 26 2006, 04:59 PM)
This must be the #1 question. But which is the leading theory of how the universe began?
By my private Aether Wave theory the current Universe isn't very first generation of Universe, it was formed from heavily collapsed environment from the previous generation of Universe (maybe some adiabatic black hole / collapsar state, maybe the steady state universe after sufficient amount of inflations - see the animation bellow)
It means, the Aether theory supplies a rather clear idea, how the BigBang has appeared (at least for me), but the true origin of Universe remains unknown, as it requires multidimensional inhomogeneous inertial environment, to enable the subsequent evolution by the wave equation, recursively.
By my private Aether Wave theory the current Universe isn't very first generation of Universe, it was formed from heavily collapsed environment from the previous generation of Universe (maybe some adiabatic black hole / collapsar state, maybe the steady state universe after sufficient amount of inflations - see the animation bellow)
It means, the Aether theory supplies a rather clear idea, how the BigBang has appeared (at least for me), but the true origin of Universe remains unknown, as it requires multidimensional inhomogeneous inertial environment, to enable the subsequent evolution by the wave equation, recursively.
My view of the begining was the interaction of two high dimensional particles,
creating a mind-boggling decay we label "the universe"
creating a mind-boggling decay we label "the universe"
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Feb 26 2006, 07:27 PM)
My view of the beginning was the interaction of two high dimensional particles
Well, it was just the moment of the last inflation period - but it's possible, some low dimensional particle (neutrino) has appeared a well before such period as the high dimensional particles with compare of the primordial vacuum (so called "false vacuum"), interacting at long distances here, like electrons in current vacuum.
When the vacuum has become rather high dimensional too, the neutrinos has became low dimensional particles with compare the rest of vacuum ("tip of the iceberg" effect) with the rather subtle rest mass of neutrino as the result.
Well, it was just the moment of the last inflation period - but it's possible, some low dimensional particle (neutrino) has appeared a well before such period as the high dimensional particles with compare of the primordial vacuum (so called "false vacuum"), interacting at long distances here, like electrons in current vacuum.
When the vacuum has become rather high dimensional too, the neutrinos has became low dimensional particles with compare the rest of vacuum ("tip of the iceberg" effect) with the rather subtle rest mass of neutrino as the result.
The beginning of the universe requires a Beginner; an origin an Originator.
Where is the universe?
Where is the universe?
well then I guess there really was no beginning at all. I do believe in the big bang and big crunch and I think it's happend infinite of times. but what is actually causing it... i really don't belive we should exist at all.. some messed up physics. eh..
Anirudh 
Any theory of the origin of the universe obviously points to only one direction and conclusion at the end of the day:
GOD
Any theory of the origin of the universe obviously points to only one direction and conclusion at the end of the day:
GOD
universe is in a dynamic equilibrium, no start, no end, no god, no devil,
universe is perfect, a non created reality, eternal, see more my articles (A-Temporal Universe)
www.ejtp.com
universe is perfect, a non created reality, eternal, see more my articles (A-Temporal Universe)
www.ejtp.com
imagine a two-dimensional observer on a blank sheet of paper. Now move a sphere through the paper. The two-dimensional observer will see a point that will expand into a circle and then shrink back into a point before it disappears.
As long as the hypothetical two dimensional observer has no clue about a three dimensional world, it will never be able to determine the exact reason why that dot started, became a circle and disappeared again, and why and when.
As long as the hypothetical two dimensional observer has no clue about a three dimensional world, it will never be able to determine the exact reason why that dot started, became a circle and disappeared again, and why and when.
QUOTE (J. Wensveen+Mar 10 2006, 06:28 PM)
..it will never be able to determine the exact reason why that dot started, became a circle and disappeared again, and why and when....
I understand your stance, but it's relatively mechanistic model. In the real word, the hidden dimensions are connected through vacuum energy density, they're no so hidden, as the pure geometric model supposes - they're just a "quite hidden", instead. The Universe is built up on the analogue wave spreading model, not binary or digital. As the result, each effect or law has its own limits which are given by the wave resolution.
For example, the water surface is able to transfer about 250.000x higher energy density, than the bulk underwater. As the result, the underwater sound wave effects are pretty hidden for the water surface waves - but not hidden totally and both they're remains connected together via energy density. It's a reason, we can search for gravitational waves, for example.
As an another helper view can serve the analogy, i.e. the experiment with the intersection of circle by the line in two points in 2D arrangement. It's a reason, why we are able to imagine the hidden dimensions, although we cannot directly affect/observe it. We have a water surface or condensing supercritical vapor real world analogies.
I understand your stance, but it's relatively mechanistic model. In the real word, the hidden dimensions are connected through vacuum energy density, they're no so hidden, as the pure geometric model supposes - they're just a "quite hidden", instead. The Universe is built up on the analogue wave spreading model, not binary or digital. As the result, each effect or law has its own limits which are given by the wave resolution.
For example, the water surface is able to transfer about 250.000x higher energy density, than the bulk underwater. As the result, the underwater sound wave effects are pretty hidden for the water surface waves - but not hidden totally and both they're remains connected together via energy density. It's a reason, we can search for gravitational waves, for example.
As an another helper view can serve the analogy, i.e. the experiment with the intersection of circle by the line in two points in 2D arrangement. It's a reason, why we are able to imagine the hidden dimensions, although we cannot directly affect/observe it. We have a water surface or condensing supercritical vapor real world analogies.
the obsesion of the beginning is based into not understanding of what time is
I always wonder why most physicists (those whose work I've read) accept the idea as given that there was some sort of cosmic nugget that sprang into existence and then banged. I understand that quantum theory posits that there are up to 120 orders of magnitude of energy below the Planck length. Since (according to Einstein) energy and matter are equivalent (e=mc^2), then all the matter that exists may have come from that reservoir beneath the Planck length. But if that's the case, then the real question we should be asking is:
Where did all the energy beneath the Planck length come from? Is it an irriducible primary that simply must be taken as a given that it always existed?
When people talk about "existence," they usually mean observable or measurable phenomena. But any energy that exists below the Planck length certainly exists and yet is not measurable. So there really is no support for the notion that existence sprang out of non-existence, which is saying that some energy or matter sprang from not even the energy reservoir below the Planck length; it came from absolutely nothing.
I'd like to know what your thoughts are on this question of the origion of all matter/energy.
Where did all the energy beneath the Planck length come from? Is it an irriducible primary that simply must be taken as a given that it always existed?
When people talk about "existence," they usually mean observable or measurable phenomena. But any energy that exists below the Planck length certainly exists and yet is not measurable. So there really is no support for the notion that existence sprang out of non-existence, which is saying that some energy or matter sprang from not even the energy reservoir below the Planck length; it came from absolutely nothing.
I'd like to know what your thoughts are on this question of the origion of all matter/energy.
QUOTE (Jason McNeill+Mar 22 2006, 02:03 AM)
Where did all the energy beneath the Planck length come from? Is it an irreducible primary that simply must be taken as a given that it always existed?
The original energy/mass density of Universe shouldn't be supposed to be very high, if any. The mass of universe is result of stirring and waving of such thin Aether. Such energy gives the Aether inertial properties like shaken liquid full of vortex rings. As you probably know, vortex ring is formed just by the fluid, but the inner energy gives it a character of massive particle with some rest mass. As the result, such system of vortex rings (virtual particle pairs) can behave as some more dense fluid, being able to form an another vortex rings or torsion deformations of it, recursively.
You can imagine the particles forming such continuum as the tiny multidimensional gyroscopes similar to the PowerBall toy, which can obtain it's inertia and mass just by shaking (lattice formed by gyros). Interesting enough, such model can explains the gravitational forces between such particles and energy, required to realize such system at the same time: The potential energy of gravity between such massive vortexes should correspond its kinetic energy in each moment.
The original energy/mass density of Universe shouldn't be supposed to be very high, if any. The mass of universe is result of stirring and waving of such thin Aether. Such energy gives the Aether inertial properties like shaken liquid full of vortex rings. As you probably know, vortex ring is formed just by the fluid, but the inner energy gives it a character of massive particle with some rest mass. As the result, such system of vortex rings (virtual particle pairs) can behave as some more dense fluid, being able to form an another vortex rings or torsion deformations of it, recursively.
You can imagine the particles forming such continuum as the tiny multidimensional gyroscopes similar to the PowerBall toy, which can obtain it's inertia and mass just by shaking (lattice formed by gyros). Interesting enough, such model can explains the gravitational forces between such particles and energy, required to realize such system at the same time: The potential energy of gravity between such massive vortexes should correspond its kinetic energy in each moment.
QUOTE (Jason McNeill+Mar 22 2006, 02:03 AM)
there really is no support for the notion that existence sprang out of non-existence
The insintric energy density of Aether can manifest itself by a number of ways. The most obvious example is the fact, the liquid helium doesn't freeze during cooling even at the absolute zero temperature - the helium atoms are behaving in the Aether as the particles of dust in a water, being shaken by the Brownian motion. The energy of the inner motion of water molecules can be a quite high, but due the size difference between the helium nuclei size (10 E-15 m) and Aether wave size (Planck length 10 E-35 m) it manifests by a quite subtle way. You can imagine, we are creatures living on a calm surface of the molten iron (being formed by vortexes of it, in fact). We are not able to detect the energy of the iron just using by the surface waves, which are spreading in our space (i.e. the waves of the light). It's a general insight, after all - the energy of underwater waves cannot be observed directly by the surface waves, because it changes both the space, both the time for the surface wave spreading - the underwater waves are forming just some subtle density waves form the surface wave perspective, thus generalizing the meaning of the "reality".
It's obvious, the reality is everything, what can be observed using the energy waves, not just via light waves. For example, the gauge boson waves are able to interact with the vacuum intensively, thus having a low range action in our world.
The insintric energy density of Aether can manifest itself by a number of ways. The most obvious example is the fact, the liquid helium doesn't freeze during cooling even at the absolute zero temperature - the helium atoms are behaving in the Aether as the particles of dust in a water, being shaken by the Brownian motion. The energy of the inner motion of water molecules can be a quite high, but due the size difference between the helium nuclei size (10 E-15 m) and Aether wave size (Planck length 10 E-35 m) it manifests by a quite subtle way. You can imagine, we are creatures living on a calm surface of the molten iron (being formed by vortexes of it, in fact). We are not able to detect the energy of the iron just using by the surface waves, which are spreading in our space (i.e. the waves of the light). It's a general insight, after all - the energy of underwater waves cannot be observed directly by the surface waves, because it changes both the space, both the time for the surface wave spreading - the underwater waves are forming just some subtle density waves form the surface wave perspective, thus generalizing the meaning of the "reality".
It's obvious, the reality is everything, what can be observed using the energy waves, not just via light waves. For example, the gauge boson waves are able to interact with the vacuum intensively, thus having a low range action in our world.
I believe it is much simpler than that.
We need to understand exactly what 'Infinity' is (think about it for quite some time).
According to this...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm
...Space is Infinite, and comprised of in/out waves, that give us an (holographic) illusion of 'particles', which we have evolved to interpret as a 3 dimensional environment.
Simple. (Occam's razor)
That makes us representatives of this continual 'unfolding' of Space, and we are merely observing our origins, in an effort to understand who and what we are...
(Isn't that what everyone here is trying to do?)
Strongly advise all, to not only consider the physics (obviously very important!) but also the philosophical/metaphysical aspect of Human understanding, as I believe we are all trying to search for the same answers, by asking many different questions...
S.
We need to understand exactly what 'Infinity' is (think about it for quite some time).
According to this...
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm
...Space is Infinite, and comprised of in/out waves, that give us an (holographic) illusion of 'particles', which we have evolved to interpret as a 3 dimensional environment.
Simple. (Occam's razor)
That makes us representatives of this continual 'unfolding' of Space, and we are merely observing our origins, in an effort to understand who and what we are...
(Isn't that what everyone here is trying to do?)
Strongly advise all, to not only consider the physics (obviously very important!) but also the philosophical/metaphysical aspect of Human understanding, as I believe we are all trying to search for the same answers, by asking many different questions...
S.
QUOTE (Knot of this world+Mar 22 2006, 02:44 PM)
..I believe it is much simpler than that.....Space is Infinite, and comprised of in/out waves...
It's not so simple. The space cannot be infinite because it has a measure.
I believe, the base of your concept is quite OK indeed - but the understanding of it has a lot of weakness. As a joke can be considered the follwing article caption
Why our Finite Spherical Universe does not Become 'Impoverished'.
How the hell the Finite Spherical Universe can be or have(?) a infinite Space at the same time..?
Albert Einstein: "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."
It's not so simple. The space cannot be infinite because it has a measure.
I believe, the base of your concept is quite OK indeed - but the understanding of it has a lot of weakness. As a joke can be considered the follwing article caption
Why our Finite Spherical Universe does not Become 'Impoverished'.
How the hell the Finite Spherical Universe can be or have(?) a infinite Space at the same time..?
Albert Einstein: "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."
Zephyr said:
Zephyr, I was actually trying to ask a far more fundamental question. You answer the question of where the energy in the quantum vacuum came from by saying (essentially) it came from energy in the stirring of the Aether... I am really asking where did EVERYTHING (all energy, all matter, all forces, whether from the quantum vacuum, the Aether, virtual partical pairs, etc.... ALL ENERGY, everywhere, and at every time and non-time).
What gave birth to the existence of existence? What gave birth to the prime mover (whatever it was in its manifestation)? What must we assume to be the irriducible primary, the one force or influence that always existed and can simply not be broken down any further?
That was the meaning of my question.
Jason McNeill
QUOTE
The mass of universe is result of stirring and waving of such thin Aether. Such energy gives the Aether inertial properties...
Zephyr, I was actually trying to ask a far more fundamental question. You answer the question of where the energy in the quantum vacuum came from by saying (essentially) it came from energy in the stirring of the Aether... I am really asking where did EVERYTHING (all energy, all matter, all forces, whether from the quantum vacuum, the Aether, virtual partical pairs, etc.... ALL ENERGY, everywhere, and at every time and non-time).
What gave birth to the existence of existence? What gave birth to the prime mover (whatever it was in its manifestation)? What must we assume to be the irriducible primary, the one force or influence that always existed and can simply not be broken down any further?
That was the meaning of my question.
Jason McNeill
QUOTE (Jason McNeill+Mar 22 2006, 06:34 PM)
Zephyr said:
Zephyr, I was actually trying to ask a far more fundamental question. You answer the question of where the energy in the quantum vacuum came from by saying (essentially) it came from energy in the stirring of the Aether... I am really asking where did EVERYTHING (all energy, all matter, all forces, whether from the quantum vacuum, the Aether, virtual partical pairs, etc.... ALL ENERGY, everywhere, and at every time and non-time).
What gave birth to the existence of existence? What gave birth to the prime mover (whatever it was in its manifestation)? What must we assume to be the irriducible primary, the one force or influence that always existed and can simply not be broken down any further?
That was the meaning of my question.
Jason McNeill
You can't answer your question. Because the moment you answer, it opens up the same question to be asked on the prime mover. That includes a God if that's what you believe in.
I suspect the prime mover was always here. I call it imperfection. Even [nothing] is imperfect and has trace amounts of something and/or less than nothing in it.
Pure guess work.
QUOTE
The mass of universe is result of stirring and waving of such thin Aether. Such energy gives the Aether inertial properties...
Zephyr, I was actually trying to ask a far more fundamental question. You answer the question of where the energy in the quantum vacuum came from by saying (essentially) it came from energy in the stirring of the Aether... I am really asking where did EVERYTHING (all energy, all matter, all forces, whether from the quantum vacuum, the Aether, virtual partical pairs, etc.... ALL ENERGY, everywhere, and at every time and non-time).
What gave birth to the existence of existence? What gave birth to the prime mover (whatever it was in its manifestation)? What must we assume to be the irriducible primary, the one force or influence that always existed and can simply not be broken down any further?
That was the meaning of my question.
Jason McNeill
You can't answer your question. Because the moment you answer, it opens up the same question to be asked on the prime mover. That includes a God if that's what you believe in.
I suspect the prime mover was always here. I call it imperfection. Even [nothing] is imperfect and has trace amounts of something and/or less than nothing in it.
Pure guess work.
QUOTE (Zephir+Mar 22 2006, 12:00 PM)
QUOTE (Knot of this world+Mar 22 2006, 02:44 PM)
..I believe it is much simpler than that.....Space is Infinite, and comprised of in/out waves...
It's not so simple. The space cannot be infinite because it has a measure.
I believe, the base of your concept is quite OK indeed - but the understanding of it has a lot of weakness. As a joke can be considered the follwing article caption
Why our Finite Spherical Universe does not Become 'Impoverished'.
How the hell the Finite Spherical Universe can be or have(?) a infinite Space at the same time..?
Albert Einstein: "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."
Firstly, It's not MY 'concept'. It fits with my larger world view, which includes much more metaphysics, philosophy, and generally ALL Human thought. And if we're talking 'theory of everything', it should include EVERYTHING, right?
Then, the whole site is put together with Honesty and genuinely good motivation. ( No-one has to go bullying others on other forums! )
Then, you have already had your 'say', and bombarded someone elses thread with your desperate attempts at some kind of 'glory', so PLEASE, let someone else have a say! It does nothing whatsoever for your credibility, as a 'scientist', or as a Human being, for other people to see such arrogance, when they ask a simple, and genuine question. (In fact, you undermine the whole 'science V religion' debate, and leave people wondering about something more 'spiritual')
You cannot force someone to learn. They either want to, or they don't. Anyone capable of learning will always find their own right paths eventually...
In my opinion, you would do well to read further on the Wave Structure of Matter, and maybe even offer to unify some of your thoughts with the Author. After all, if it's THE TRUTH we're seeking, nobody can OWN it. It just is what it is, whoever 'finds' it!
(Expecting you to come back and destroy another innocently started thread...)
Z, I have great repect for the amount of work you have put in, but PLEASE, take it to some 'authority' for a second opinion.
Intellectual bullies still lock psychological antlers... No wonder we're all still in a rut!
Sorry to rant. Things have to be fair.
It's not so simple. The space cannot be infinite because it has a measure.
I believe, the base of your concept is quite OK indeed - but the understanding of it has a lot of weakness. As a joke can be considered the follwing article caption
Why our Finite Spherical Universe does not Become 'Impoverished'.
How the hell the Finite Spherical Universe can be or have(?) a infinite Space at the same time..?
Albert Einstein: "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."
Firstly, It's not MY 'concept'. It fits with my larger world view, which includes much more metaphysics, philosophy, and generally ALL Human thought. And if we're talking 'theory of everything', it should include EVERYTHING, right?
Then, the whole site is put together with Honesty and genuinely good motivation. ( No-one has to go bullying others on other forums!
)Then, you have already had your 'say', and bombarded someone elses thread with your desperate attempts at some kind of 'glory', so PLEASE, let someone else have a say! It does nothing whatsoever for your credibility, as a 'scientist', or as a Human being, for other people to see such arrogance, when they ask a simple, and genuine question. (In fact, you undermine the whole 'science V religion' debate, and leave people wondering about something more 'spiritual')
You cannot force someone to learn. They either want to, or they don't. Anyone capable of learning will always find their own right paths eventually...
In my opinion, you would do well to read further on the Wave Structure of Matter, and maybe even offer to unify some of your thoughts with the Author. After all, if it's THE TRUTH we're seeking, nobody can OWN it. It just is what it is, whoever 'finds' it!
(Expecting you to come back and destroy another innocently started thread...)
Z, I have great repect for the amount of work you have put in, but PLEASE, take it to some 'authority' for a second opinion.
Intellectual bullies still lock psychological antlers... No wonder we're all still in a rut!
Sorry to rant. Things have to be fair.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.