The Universe, its consist, and its origin

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

It seemed to warrant its own thread, having gotten a lot of discussion in the aforementioned creation vs. evolution thread.

According to Einstein, the shape of the universe is not a circle, but is instead a hyperbolic parabaloid (think Pringle's potato chip):

This (theoretically) affects how far light actually travels from extremely distant sources, as it follows the curvature of the universe instead of a direct straight line.

The origin question is perenially unsolved, naturally. One recent theory is that it was formed via dimensional collision. According to this theory, there are at least 10 dimensions. They exist in parallel sheets, like a newspaper. When two 'sheets' touched, it caused a cosmic explosion, which somehow created the physical universe. Don't ask me how, I'm not a theoretical physicist.

If you or someone you love is a theoretical physicist, or even plays one on TV, please weigh in!

I would hope this subject doesn't breed any hard feelings or rude posts.

[Duke87 1,070]

Our universe, along with many others, began due to a childish contest of sorts between various gods all looking to be able to say "my bang is bigger than yours".

[psander5 195]

For more on the above, read: Parallel Worlds, by Michio Kaku

Also recommended; A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking

I'm not a theoretical physicist either, but I do have a passing interest in these things. One thing about the theory you've mentioned above is that, if correct it means that another collision close to our universe's proximity would mean our total, unwarned annihilation at any moment! (or something along those lines - it's all in the above book).

The theory above (I forget it's name), allows for all the current theories of our physical universe, including the big bang (which I don't think can be realistically disputed any more), but it kind of stretches the plausability of an omnipotent creator. I suppose you could use that analogy of the newspaper to ask; who's turning the pages? For me though, if the above theory is correct I can't see how there could be a creator who is particularly interested in our lives. (is this off-topic? I haven't read much of the other thread, but if it should be in there please forgive me)

I'm perhaps more interested in where the universe is going to end up. We know as fact that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, but what does that mean for the fate of the universe? It all depends on how massive (weight) the universe is apparently. If there's too much mass in the universe, the expansion will slow, and the universe will eventually begin to contract and head towards a big, fiery crunch where everything might start again (read; Tau Zero by Paol Anderson (Fiction)).

If there is not enough mass in the universe, the expansion will continue forever, meaning space will cool towards absolute zero. All energy, all galaxies stars and black holes will eventually die and there will be no habitable regions of space left. Scary eh? This is called "The Big Freeze" scenario, and is currently the forerunner for the true fate of the universe.

A third, happier option is that there is just the right ammount of mass in the universe (and I mean pretty much spot on exact). In this scenario the expansion will eventually slow to a halt, and we can go around happily hoovering up all the energy and resources then recycling them forever. Nice, but quite unlikely, and would probably require a God.

It might be possible for us (or whomever we become or are supplanted by) to escape the first two possible fates by travelling to another universe, or even by creating our own, shiny new universe on the other side of a wormhole or singularity (or some such thingymabob). That opens up the possibility that maybe our universe was created by the actions of beings from another universe, and they just haven't seen us yet. Maybe they couldn't get through the gate after all, and just went around creating random universes that they couldn't get to. (that last part wasn't based on any scientific theories... I just made it up myself based on what I've read in Michio Kaku's book)

This is an incredibly interesting subject that I can't get enough of at the moment. I look forward to reading some more informed insights than my own, lengthy waffle above

If anybody has books to add to my reading list, please suggest! Complex maths must be kept to a minimum though

[blade2k5 1,523]

Originally posted by: Duke87 Our universe, along with many others, began due to a childish contest of sorts between various gods all looking to be able to say "my bang is bigger than yours".quote>

You know what?  I think you're right

[Jezus53 18]

Originally posted by: Duke87 Our universe, along with many others, began due to a childish contest of sorts between various gods all looking to be able to say "my bang is bigger than yours".quote>

I like this one as well. Who can really argue this point is wrong? It' is the only possible explanation.

[pagenotfound 53]

(I deleted this. Your welcome Janype)

Honestly how can we prove how the universe came to be? Its not like we can go back in time to watch the Big Bang. Its unexplainable. For the entirety of mankind all things unexplainable by human understanding have been labled "This God did this"

There is no way we can ever be sure and thats where imagination comes from. From that comes thinking. From thinking comes arts and Science and from science comes innovation which sparks progress. So in a way God IS responsible for everything, tangible or not.

[Blazerhawk 162]

Duke, actually that's almost how a number of mythologies explain it.

psander--I look at it like this. If someone were to go to all the length to create a universe and then within that universe create life would he not be interested in what happened as a result of those actions. It's kind of like in SimCity where you create the region, lay down the roads, civics and such. Are you interested in what develops or do you just let the simulator run until your computer crashes.

---

As far as I'm concerned, God created the universe and everthing in it in six literal 24 hour days.

[Joetropian1 1]

From what I've heard, the universe may have been created from the collision between two different universes, which was what is referred to as the Big Bang. The resulting explosion obviously destroyed everything in either universe, recycling it into our own universe.

I don't know for sure, though. I heard this theory in an interesting Science Channel Doc., starring our physicist friend Michio Kaku.

Of course, theres more to it. According to that doc. and a couple others, the multiverse is made up of an infinite number of universes moving in infinity. Our universe is one of these universes moving around in the multiverse. From what I've heard, there is a new universe created for every chance there is for difference. Creating a new universe is as simple as flipping a coin.In another universe, that coin landed on TAILS, not heads. Or maybe you brushed your hair and ONE hair fell out. In another universe, theres two that fell out. Or three. Or all of it . Because for every chance theres virtually an infinite number of chances minutely or massively different, and each of those new universes had the ability to produce a near infinite number of universes, the multiverse literally cannot end. Our univere could end today, but still, theres an infinite number of ways to interpret this end (perhaps a couple of us teleported away just in time , or maybe the end took one second longer, or perhaps took one second less time...). In fact, we can go on to assume that perhaps the multiverse began with one universe, and those chance occurrences produced other universes, and it continued until tow of them collided and produced our ative universe a couple billion years ago.

And btw, there are actually eleven dimensions. After a big problem with String Theory (they had five different versions of the Theory flying around), they found the universe had not ten dimensions, but eleven. The five Theories were five different versions of the same theory, which was basically proved. The only dimensions I can think of right now are length, width, heighth (x,y,z), time, molecular (I think), atomic (I think), and the multiverse dimension (the dimension in which all the other universes are in).

Of course, you cant trust that everything I say is right. I dont know for sure, Im simply interpreting what I have heard and read, and twisting it till it makes sense to me. So, if you find a descrepency within this post, its my fault .

JT1

[hamsterTK 93]

No, everyone is wrong.

The entire universe is a giant computer simulation, in fact is not just any simulation...its Simcity 98,000: Virtual Sentience Edition!!

Which begs the question, which of you guys are real, and who here is simply a emotionless NPC (Non-Playable Character) generated by the computer to flesh out the simulation while preserving memory?

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

I had expected more from this discussion than God farts and 'childish contests'. Using Seth McFarlane as an authority for anything other than musical theater is well beneath the subject matter, IMO.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: manticorefan I had expected more from this discussion than God farts and 'childish contests'. Using Seth McFarlane as an authority for anything other than musical theater is well beneath the subject matter, IMO.quote>

I couldn´t agree more. Quoting Seth McFarlane on this subject makes about as much sense as quoting scripture on this subject.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Joetropian1 {text}

quote>

That was the idea behind the TV show Sliders, where infinite parallel universes all occur; but each of them have the same temporal and spatial reference points. I believe the Twilight Zone revival from the '80s dealt with it as well.

Originally posted by: psander5

A third, happier option is that there is just the right amount of mass in the universe (and I mean pretty much spot on exact). In this scenario the expansion will eventually slow to a halt, and we can go around happily hoovering up all the energy and resources then recycling them forever. Nice, but quite unlikely, and would probably require a God.quote>

My understanding is that dark matter and antimatter provide just such a balance.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Originally posted by: manticorefan I had expected more from this discussion than God farts and 'childish contests'. Using Seth McFarlane as an authority for anything other than musical theater is well beneath the subject matter, IMO.quote>

Yeah, I hate the whole "God farts and poop and peepee" and etc.

According to the original version of the Big Bang theory (which was proposed by Georges Lemaitre), the "big bang" was a creation-like event that essentially marked the beginning of time; or "the Day without Yesterday"

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Joetropian1 

From what I've heard, there is a new universe created for every chance there is for difference. Creating a new universe is as simple as flipping a coin.In another universe, that coin landed on TAILS, not heads. Or maybe you brushed your hair and ONE hair fell out. In another universe, theres two that fell out. Or three. Or all of it . Because for every chance theres virtually an infinite number of chances minutely or massively different, and each of those new universes had the ability to produce a near infinite number of universes, the multiverse literally cannot end.

JT1quote>

 

Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Firstly, I'm glad this topic spun off from the Evolution thread. Creationism, Intelligent Design, Abiogenesis, and Evolution are enough to discuss in one thread as it is.

Secondly, I confess I am not a theoretical physicist, but I am interested in the subject.

The concept was mentioned that our Universe was, to put it simply, created by a Big Bang which was the result of the collision of two other Universes. The overarching idea is that our Universe coexists with infinite others in a higher-dimensional space, which can create some of the effects observed in our Universe today, and can explain why gravity is the weakest of the known forces.

The idea that there are many other Universes besides our own fits in with a quantum theory, in which every single event produces every possible outcome, and every outcome has its own Universe. I can't imagine how many just the people on Earth would create in a single day.

While it is certainly not validated, and may never be, these two concepts may give clues about how the Big Bang came into existence.

The basic premise of the Big Bang theory fits the observation of the expansion of the Universe. In fact, it came into being for that very reason. Logically, if the Universe is expanding at a certain rate, then at some time in the past all matter must have been at a single point. "Rolling back" the expansion gives a Big Bang date of approximately 14 billion years ago.

An additional piece of evidence that fits in is the earlier state of galaxies at the roughly 13 billion LY mark (due to the "look-back" effect), and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, as well as the neutrino background. Therefore, I can deduce based on the evidence, that the Big Bang theory is correct.

What caused it is currently unknown, and there are three major speculations on the origin:

1. Nothing existed before the Big Bang. The Big Bang was the start of time.

2. A deity initiated the Big Bang. I concede that this is possible, but, if a deity started the Big Bang, he must have left it to operate on its own, since there is no evidence in favor of a god. This is consistent with a deistic god, but rules out the Christian god.

3. The collision concept, which I mentioned earlier.

I'm more inclined to believe in number 3, since every other phonomenon is completely natural, it is logical to conclude that currently unknown phonomena are as well.

The quantum theory that a Universe exists for every outcome of every event in a parent Universe, which I find particularly fascinating.

Millions, perhaps billions of universes were probably created from the act of me typing this post. Millions more will be created when you, the viewer, read this post. Billions more will follow when more people read it. Even more will be created as this thread drags on.

In one Universe I didn't post anything at all here. In one universe I did not register at ST. In another ST does not exist. In yet another Simcity did not exist. And, more positively, probably in one universe our counterparts are playing Simcity 5.

Intriuging.

- Patricius Maximus

(one of my counterparts in another universe did not sign his name at the end)

[Danlikebooks 6]

Just thinking about the universe's size and age gives me headaches.  I think about going back 15 billion years and I compare that to the average human lifespan... and then my brain acts like my computer at home.  It dies and then restarts without warning me.  Big stuff.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

I couldn´t agree more. Quoting Seth McFarlane on this subject makes about as much sense as quoting scripture on this subject.

quote>

This.

/thread

[your_adress_here 11]

Originally posted by: JanYpe

Originally posted by: manticorefan I had expected more from this discussion than God farts and 'childish contests'. Using Seth McFarlane as an authority for anything other than musical theater is well beneath the subject matter, IMO.quote>

I couldn´t agree more. Quoting Seth McFarlane on this subject makes about as much sense as quoting scripture on this subject.

quote>

[Bumdark 3]

... What is this about 'Seth McFarlane' and 'God farts' and whatever? Were those posts deleted or did I just miss a few again?

I'm far from being any sort of scientist, much less a Hypothetical Astrophysicist, but I do have my own opinions/thoughts on how our Universe began ...

Usually I elaborate for decades and go into all sorts of metaphors, but my show's about to start so I'll cut the crap. Personally (and I dunno if there's any 'name' for this particular hypothesis), I do not believe in 'God' as the Bible and scriptures and religions and all that stuff will tell you He is like. I do believe there is *something* out there, but that whatever it is, 1 - it is so vastly 'out there' and strange to us that we couldn't even wrap our minds around the concept of It even if we were presented with a HD picture with explanations, and 2 - I don't think It gives the slightest crap about us (Humans, life, Earth, etc.). See how often praying has helped people in need.

Now, this being/intelligence/creator/whatever pretty much wrote the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, all that sort of stuff, and basically 'threw it all out there' in the form of the Big Bang, along with the basic bits of matter necessary for the creation of the Universe as we'll eventually know it. This 'throwing out there' is the Big Bang to me.

Imagine it as like a programmer who inputs a few basic lines of instructions into an infinitely powerful machine, then he lays back and hits 'Execute' on his keyboard. The machine starts equating and equating, performing calculations, adding and multiplying this and that, etc. and all the matter and stuff start to interact, build on itself, grow more advanced and complex, until eventually we have stars, planets ... life.

Of course this is about as good a guess as any at the rate of knowledge we have (ie. very little) on this matter, but it seems to make sense from how I see it. Without a Designer, and if nothing is truly 'eternal' and everything has a beginning, then how could it have all began if there wasn't something to create it? (I'll stop now before this turns into a tangeng on Intelligent Design or whatever.)

Just my 1.85c.

[Deathtoall 28]

Your wrong, all of you, the answer is simple, 42

[iPyramid 0]

Okay, time for some actual knowledge to come in. The whole news paper theory accurately describes the gist of it. However, it is very difficult to prove and an upcoming experiment at CERN will put it to the test soon. Plus, it is a valid question. Who is turning the pages, or what mechanism?

What I wanted to add to this discussion was the current situation in theoretical physics. The theory described here is low risk. If you study a branch of it, you will have a long career. However, if you go against it, no one will hire you. So despite being hyper intelligent, theoretical physicists have a big incentive to tow the party line here. Take the theory with a grain of salt until CERN has run its experiments.

[hummer0328 6]

Originally posted by: Deathtoall Your wrong, all of you, the answer is simple, 42 quote>

  I knew it!   lol

I have been interested in theoretical physics since I was a little kid.  That type of stuff has always fascinated me.  Now I'm not saying that the big bang isn't a good theory, and probably the best theory scientists have put forth to date, but it still is just a theory.  That's the only thing that bothers me about the modern scientific establishment: they think they know everything (and I'm speaking from a purely scientific standpoint, not a religious one).  It seems like scientists came up with a good theory, then continued to build onto that theory with more and more theories.  If something comes to light that could contradict the original theory then they come up with more theories to explain the anomaly.  If some scientist comes up with a contridictory theory, it's maybe looked at with a bit of curiosity, and then quickly thrown to the side.  So, what if scientists are wrong about the big bang?  How much does that change our perceived picture of the Universe?  Interesting to ponder huh!

If one thing has remained consistent through history, it is that mankind always believed beyond the shadow of a doubt they knew everything.  Has that ever been true in the past?  No.  So why are we so assured that we have finally found an answer to explain the creation of the universe now?

It just seems scientists are really good at coming up with theories and theories to support those theories, and manipulating math until it support those theories.  We have come to the point where it is too late to seriously take a look back and really wonder if we got it right.

[duack 14]

I saw a documentary by Steven Hawking recently, it was fairly new stuff and very confusing. I cant remember everything perfectly but I have a general idea of what Hawking's theory was.

Once again, I agree with Patricius Maximus. For everyone who's saying that there has to be a "creator", I dont think that there necassarily has to be a creator. There are several forces in the universe, such as electromagnetism, gravity, molecular substances and such. These forces control everything. Now, as soon as they became imbalanced, the universe was created. This is why in certain areas radiation, tempurature and gravity are all at different concentrations which led to the creation of everything. If they were balanced, they would just be a sea of balanced material and nothing would exist. Chances are, they were never balanced, and from the moment they began to exist, they became unbalanced and this is the big bang. So that part is explained.

The question is, were did these forces come from in the first place. Hawking believes that black holes are actually creators, rather than destroyers, of matter. He stated that because black holes create such and imbalance in the forces, they create matter. But they would always create one atom of matter and one atom of anti-matter which would part then come together and anhialate each other. But soimetimes, as the two molecules parted, one would get sucked into the black hole while the other would just manage to escape its force. Thus, a new molecule is created. Now this is happening all the time in the universe, and Hawking believes that almost every galaxy has a black hole in the center which actually created that galaxy. Remember, galaxies are only formed becuase matter is more concentrated there. 

This is sort of where the quantam theory comes into play, but I doubt how optimistic patricius became saying "Im creating millions of universes just writing this". Simply moving your arms does not create enough of an imbalance to start a new universe. The Hadron collider for example, is powerful enough to create a new universe but even that one was microscopic and lasts only a fraction of a second before it is destroyed. So you may be creating tiny tiny unvierses, smaller than atoms, that last only a fraction of a second, but they can't be classed as a universe. There just isnt yet a formal classing system of what a universe is. saying any imbalance creates a universe would be like saying any comet is a planet, or any fire is a star. But I c an definantly see what you mean, it does create imbalances, only tiny ones. 

By the end of his documentary, Hawking never came to a complete conculsion because he isnt yet certain how the universe was created and if Hawking doesn't know it then no-one does . But a few things are certain - there is no creator, just an imbalance of forces (in the 1600's galileo was persecuted for saying that the earth revolves around the sun. Hawking mentioned this in his documentary to show how his theory of no creator isnt rudicolous). And also, there can be any number of universes, from just one, to infinite, but one universe is EXTREMELY unlikely. Also, as an extra point, dont think of a parallel universe to be a place where you flipped a coin and it turned heads instead of tails. Thats nothing like how it is. The universe is not centered around human existence, all forms of life are just a result of the correct inbalance of forces that led to a creation. Think of every universe as a random assortment of the different forces. But dont try to visualie it, because all sight is just a way your eyes tell your brain what electromagnetic wavelength they can see. The electromagnetic wavelengths in other universes may not be the same as what we can see so other universes can be invisible, and untouchable, but certainly there. Think of it as a radiowave, you cant see, hear, touch, smell or taste it, but it certainly exists, and you need a piece of equipment, like a radio, to notice it.

This is one reason why the universe is difficult to explain, because everything we know and see is just one tiny fragment of what exists. 

In relation to what psander said about the three possible outcomes of the universe, I'll add a fourth. Hawking added on  side note that the universe only expands if something is making it expand, like mass as you said. But without the creation of molecular structures is what is making the mass increase. If this were to cease, then massd would not increase and the universe would stop expanding. But because black holes are creating molecules, and insanely high concentrations of molecules creates black holes, then there is just a cycle of creation, and this creation leads to the expansion of the universe, and this expansion isnt a perfect circle but just a stretching of the univere's ends wherever the creation occurs. Therefore, the universe can expand forever, but the ratio of molecules to universe size would remain stable. Not quite sure about the other forces, but gravity is created as a result of mass, and electromagnetism is just the movement of electrons and nuetrons (correct me if Im wrong) which are molecules that are also created by black holes, so theoretically, the universe can expand forever without having a "big freeze" scenario. It'll remain the same but just get bigger. Tempuratue wont fall because its just the result of friction between molecules and because time is stable, this gives further credibility to this theory. This was kind of "implied" by Hawking on a side note in his documantary but like I said, I dont remember everything perfectly.

OMG Ive been typing for 45 minutes I am going to die . Oh well I just want to sit down .

Id be happy to argue anything because almost nothing about these theories is proven. Thats a very difficult thing to do seeing as theres no way to tell if most of this stuff exists which makes it a tricky topic. Bye bye!

[Dizastrow 4]

I love this stuff!  Hawking is a genious.  I definately suggest reading  A Brief history of Time. 

[fukuda 351]

I sometimes think that some physicists need to take a short break and seriously listen to what they are hypothetizing...

[duack 14]

Originally posted by: fukuda I sometimes think that some physicists need to take a short break and seriously listen to what they are hypothetizing...quote>

 

Well i dont see what's wrong with the theory. Steven Hawking was the one who suggested it so it has credibility. Also, in the past there have been many theories that were put forward which originally sounded absurd. For example, years ago everyone thought the earth was flat. Of course it had to be flat, otherwise when you travel to other continents, you risk being upside down. It made no sense that the Earth was round because then surely in the southern hemisphere you would get pulled towards the sky. But the Earth is round. So maybe the theories aren't absurd, just new.

Its human nature to find them absurd, because they contradict with what you know. The theory suggested by Hawking makes everything seem so insignificant because the entire solar system is just a spec and the universe came from an imbalance in forces. But personally, I find this theory easier to understand than any other that would suggest an actual creator was involved.

[fukuda 351]

I'm not talking especially about Hawking.

I've no problems with quantum physics and particles, which sounded quite absurd when they were first announced (ask Bohr ). But these two are proven theories, not mere hypothesis like most of actual physics are.

Hawking is not the only one with hypothesis here, there are lots of contradicting hypothesis, most based in mathematics instead of reality. Actually, Hawking is one of the most sane physicists right now.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: fukuda I sometimes think that some physicists need to take a short break and seriously listen to what they are hypothetizing...quote>

 

I believe that was Sokal's point in declaring gravity a 'capitalist construct', [link] pointing out how people will believe almost anything if it comes from someone viewed as an authority on something.

He later said something like that if you believe that, try jumping off a 20 story building.