How many Universes do we have?

[YT2095]

that`s acceptable too, but one had to be there 1`st, and so there was once a time of only One element, be it Helium Or Hydrogen

[Royston]

Surely it would of been the lightest first ? And not an inert gas first either...so I'm guessing hydrogen to start with.

[Klaynos]

well when the helium was forming it probably went through a hydrogen stage.... although I am speculating here..

[YT2095]

I was always taught that Hydrogen came 1`st, but since I`ve not payed too close attention over the years, I can`t be certain if newer evidence has been found to the contrary.

in addition (and for what it`s worth) I was also taught that when a Star starts kiching out Iron (Fe) it`s about this time that it dies also.

[Nacelunk]

So, even now there are reactions happen in stars that create new elements? (what type of reactions?)

[YT2095]

Fusion And Fission types.

[insane_alien]

i would think that hydrogen formed first but helium would follow soon after. i mean it just takes 4 high energy hydrogen-1 atoms to interact in the right way and you get some helium. since the whole universe was hydrogen i imagine this happened pretty quickly.

[Moonquake]

But how come our Universe actually exist?

No matter how many explainations you have for everything, stuff will still have to just exist.

[gcol]

No matter how many explainations you have for everything, stuff will still have to just exist.

 

Now there speaks a practical man. He may be right, unless, as the all-American hero captain Kirk sang:

 

"Merrily, merrily row your boat,

For life is just a dream"

 

That might be universe zero, and after that you can find find someone to support any number from 1 to infinity. Just roll the dice, fellas.

[Moonquake]

That might be universe zero' date=' and after that you can find find someone to support any number from 1 to infinity. Just roll the dice, fellas.[/quote']

 

What?

[bluesmudge]

one suspects someone is trying to get their homework done for them

 

All very interesting stuff - of course, but i think the best way to understand this stuff is to get your self a bath and you fill it with sand - then you pull the plug out, and you film it draining away . . . and then watch it, but feed the film in backwards . . . and that should explain everything you need to know

[Nacelunk]

No matter how many explainations you have for everything, stuff will still have to just exist.

That's what I said at the beginning

If our Universe appeared from nothing (and without a purpose/reason), then I can say that there are infinite number of "Universes" (in our perspective) appear every "moment"

[Nacelunk]

To bluesmudge

I think It's even good that we can't understand that difficult things (we think using only 5-10% of our brain). There are many people (mostly not very smart) who lose their minds after they tried to understand hard physical theories and phylosophical thoughts. I think humans are not yet prepared to process incredibly hard info such as appearing of Universe. Also we can't really think about "nothing" or imagine the length of Universe. I think ancient people were using their brains even at 1 or 2% but as we move forward, perhaps we will be using it at full force (if we survive til that time)

[JustStuit]

Iron have the smallest and least massive protons (and neutrons?) so fusion and fission stop there because energy couldn't be created anymore. So when a star makes too much iron it can't fuse or fish anymore. Atleast that's what I've heard.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Iron have the smallest and least massive protons (and neutrons?) so fusion and fission stop there because energy couldn't be created anymore. So when a star makes too much iron it can't fuse or fish anymore. Atleast that's what I've heard.

I believe protons and neutrons are all identical. You can't have less massive neutrons.

[JustStuit]

I believe protons and neutrons are all identical. You can't have less massive neutrons.

I'm not sure but I was looking it up and it might be the binding energies of the nucleus that provide the energy. Is this correct?

[Moonquake]

That's what I said at the beginning

Don't pretend we're talking along the same lines.

 

To bluesmudge

I think It's even good that we can't understand that difficult things (we think using only 5-10% of our brain). There are many people (mostly not very smart) who lose their minds after they tried to understand hard physical theories and phylosophical thoughts. I think humans are not yet prepared to process incredibly hard info such as appearing of Universe. Also we can't really think about "nothing" or imagine the length of Universe. I think ancient people were using their brains even at 1 or 2% but as we move forward' date=' perhaps we will be using it at full force (if we survive til that time)[/quote']

You really aught to stick to physics mate.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There's no need to be nasty about it, Moonquake.

[Nacelunk]

Don't pretend we're talking along the same lines.

Where is the difference between what I said

If our Universe appeared from nothing (and without a purpose/reason), then I can say that there are infinite number of "Universes" (in our perspective) appear every "moment" with totally different laws of nature, logic, constants etc which we are never gonna understand, because we weren't born there and having different brain. Very probably that all the universes aren't interconnected so technically we can say they all don't exist (in our perspective) therefore we don't exist for some other civilization in another "universe".

What do you think about it?

and you did

The universe need not appear from anything as the concept of 'before' and 'after' is irrelevant if you take into account that time is merely a component of the universe itself.

Basically I suppose.

No matter how many explainations you have for everything, stuff will still have to just exist.

?

You really aught to stick to physics mate.

Sorry, I did not find an off topic button

[dkv]

You have only one Universe for the practical purposes of realizing it.

However if you look closely multiple Universes are already existencing as reference frame can not be translated to every particle Big or small without loosing information.Universe is nothing but information space consisting of closed laws. The law is fuzzy with respect to outside Observer.

[bluesmudge]

To bluesmudge

I think It's even good that we can't understand that difficult things (we think using only 5-10% of our brain). There are many people (mostly not very smart) who lose their minds after they tried to understand hard physical theories and phylosophical thoughts. I think humans are not yet prepared to process incredibly hard info such as appearing of Universe. Also we can't really think about "nothing" or imagine the length of Universe. I think ancient people were using their brains even at 1 or 2% but as we move forward' date=' perhaps we will be using it at full force (if we survive til that time)[/quote']

 

Nice but why is that for me?

[THoR]

Here is the question - How/why/when has Universe appeared? The only thing i can think about is that It has appeared from The Nothing You will say that was all about the singularity but from what' date=' then, the singularity appeared? If our Universe appeared from nothing (and without a purpose/reason), then I can say that there are infinite number of "Universes" (in our perspective) appear every "moment" with totally different laws of nature, logic, constants etc which we are never gonna understand, because we weren't born there and having different brain. Very probably that all the universes aren't interconnected so technically we can say they all don't exist (in our perspective) therefore [b']we[/b] don't exist for some other civilization in another "universe".

What do you think about it?

 

PS Sorry for my english - I am only 1.5 years in Canada

Conventional wisdom has concluded the Universe must have come from somewhere, and the idea that it was ushered into being by some primordial nascent event appeals seductively to human intuition. The very process of thought is governed by the rules cause and effect, so it is presumed by default that the physical presence of the cosmos began with an instance of 'creation'.

 

But is the phenomenon of being the result of a process. Is it the product of cause and effect?

 

The existence of nothing ostensibly requires no justification, so most popular theories of Universal origin begin with a primal void. At the beginning of time a transformation must have occurred which brought forth the material manifestation of the cosmos. Contemporary astronomers espouse a Theory of Singularity - or Big Bang - which envisions a Universe cast from the bowels of some spontaneous cosmic eruption. Theologists would have us believe an omnipotent deity gave birth to the heavens and the earth. But either version of creation would require the pre-existence of a spawning force - the very presence of which would violate the original contention that nothing existed. And if all which exists was created, then whatever sired the Universe must, too, have been created by some predecessor which, in turn, must have been predated by a limitless procession of ancestry. The endless cycle of chicken-and-the-egg redundancy which results from any cause and effect approach to the enigma of existence implies no logical beginning.

 

Supernatural versions of creation sidestep the issue of redundancy by declaring that whatever created the Universe was not subject to the laws of nature. Of course when the rules of reality are suspended anything is possible, even the absurd. And if one such exemption can be conceded, so can others - without limit.

 

The process of change is always explained in terms of cause and effect - action and reaction. Conditions or states of being change during the process of cause and effect. But existence is not a condition or a state of being, it is the phenomenon of being, itself. Before something can change, before something can act or be acted upon it must first exist. And if being is required in order for change to occur then cause and effect is a function of existence. This is, of course, the antithesis of the premise that existence is a function of cause and effect - the product of creation.

 

Whether portrayed in a theological or secular context, to attribute the presence of the Universe to an event of 'creation' is simply and conclusively contrary to logic.

Theory of Reciprocity

[Nacelunk]

To bluesmudge

You were talking that we can't understand existing of universe and I just tryed to explain why

[Nacelunk]

To THoR

Question about existance - suppose we have a super computer that processes almost infinite number of operations per second. We create a program with totally same laws of nature, properties etc with our Universe. Then we create singular point (or any other thing that actually created our Universe) in the program. Basically we are making an absolutely exact copy of our Universe. Then we watch how galaxies, planets appear. Finally we can see scientists who are trying to explain existance of Universe... Can we count this "Universe" real? Do those people have intellegence? and what if we are too created by some "other-dimension computer"? And everything in our Universe is predetermined? But if we are exact copy of the other universe which created us then eventually we will create a copy of our world too!

Perhaps what I said is philosophic thing but we can't answer this question only by science yet. Philosophers can only make hypotheses which will be later proved or denyed by scientists.

To administrator

Can we move this topic to the philosophy section?

[bluesmudge]

To bluesmudge

You were talking that we can't understand existing of universe and I just tryed to explain why

 

Nope, was looking for an excuse to throw out some hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy never mind