Creation of the universe

[RichIsnang]

What I'm thinking is that the universe was created in a quantum fluctuation, like photon/anti-photon being created below the energies of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (I think that's right not sure), but could the universe be created in a similar way? Like I think the sum of the energies of the universe is 0, so could the universe just be created by a quantum fluctuation? I feel like some1 has done the maths and it's wrong, but I don't know the details, just wondering if any 1 could let me know

Thanks

[ACG52]

It's entirely possible.

 

This idea was first published by a physicist named Edward Tryon, in 1973.

[juanrga]

What I'm thinking is that the universe was created in a quantum fluctuation, like photon/anti-photon being created below the energies of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (I think that's right not sure), but could the universe be created in a similar way? Like I think the sum of the energies of the universe is 0, so could the universe just be created by a quantum fluctuation? I feel like some1 has done the maths and it's wrong, but I don't know the details, just wondering if any 1 could let me know

Thanks

 

This idea is named the free lunch cosmology. It is a plausible speculation.

 

This idea was first published by a physicist named Edward Tryon, in 1973.

 

Yes, although it seems that the original idea was by Pascual Jordan.

[RichIsnang]

Oh ok, cool

[robheus]

What I'm thinking is that the universe was created in a quantum fluctuation, like photon/anti-photon being created below the energies of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (I think that's right not sure), but could the universe be created in a similar way? Like I think the sum of the energies of the universe is 0, so could the universe just be created by a quantum fluctuation? I feel like some1 has done the maths and it's wrong, but I don't know the details, just wondering if any 1 could let me know

Thanks

 

I am asking myself why so many people talk about 'creation of the universe' as if that would be some unique moment in the history of the universe in which the universe somehow 'began' to exist. But such a beginning (a begin from literally nothing) is an impossibility, and the best guesses we can make is to built it on known quantum mechanics theories and pre-existing space time. And probably, instead of 'universe' we should say 'observable universe' since we can make no prior assumptions about how large the universe in total really is. We just assume that space time has no boundary or edges.

[RichIsnang]

I am asking myself why so many people talk about 'creation of the universe' as if that would be some unique moment in the history of the universe in which the universe somehow 'began' to exist. But such a beginning (a begin from literally nothing) is an impossibility, and the best guesses we can make is to built it on known quantum mechanics theories and pre-existing space time. And probably, instead of 'universe' we should say 'observable universe' since we can make no prior assumptions about how large the universe in total really is. We just assume that space time has no boundary or edges.

 

i dont really understand your confusion about people talking about the creation of the universe. what we know at the moment is that there is some stuff here, why would you not want to ask where it came from.

how do you know a beginning from literally nothing is impossible?

and when we say the universe, we dont mean the observable universe, we mean the whole thing, regardless of what it is and how big it is, they are two different things, you cant just say we should refer to one as the other.

[juanrga]

I am asking myself why so many people talk about 'creation of the universe' as if that would be some unique moment in the history of the universe in which the universe somehow 'began' to exist. But such a beginning (a begin from literally nothing) is an impossibility

 

The free lunch cosmology does not say that our universe was born from nothing, but it was born from a quantum vacuum with zero energy.

 

Yes, a known cosmologist confounds a physical vacuum with the philosophical concept of nothing and he wrote a book about how universe was born out from nothing (but his book has received strong criticism by both physicists and philosophers).

Edited July 5, 2012 by juanrga

[robheus]

i dont really understand your confusion about people talking about the creation of the universe. what we know at the moment is that there is some stuff here, why would you not want to ask where it came from.

how do you know a beginning from literally nothing is impossible?

and when we say the universe, we dont mean the observable universe, we mean the whole thing, regardless of what it is and how big it is, they are two different things, you cant just say we should refer to one as the other.

 

But all we can ever test for is to see how matter interacts and transforms. Nothing, literarlly nothing, does not contain any being, it is not equal to empty space or zero energy, and it is neither equal to quantum fuctuations, which btw. presuppose space time.

 

The truth of this is independend of how the real world, the universe behaves, as it is just a matter of defining terms. We can not make up terms and use it in inapplicable contexts.

Edited July 5, 2012 by robheus

[Pymander]

But all we can ever test for is to see how matter interacts and transforms. Nothing, literarlly nothing, does not contain any being, it is not equal to empty space or zero energy, and it is neither equal to quantum fuctuations, which btw. presuppose space time.

 

The truth of this is independend of how the real world, the universe behaves, as it is just a matter of defining terms. We can not make up terms and use it in inapplicable contexts.

 

 

Words. The universe began and its cause is timeless, and today that cause is the least understood concept we have - consciousness, the I AM THAT I AM, and would not "be" if it were a process requiring time. How long is the wait to arrive at the present, if time always was. Can we wait an eternity and then say "At last!" What is consciousness? Does such a concept belong in Physics? Psychology? Philosophy? Religion? All of the above or none? We deal in the productions of the senses, and assemble the manifold in the mind, and are conscious of our physical and our mental states. That within you which sees and hears and understands is consciousness, separate finite consciousness. A googleplex of transistors is not enough to create it, because only infinity times zero has some finite, though indeterminate, value which may be non zero. A mosquito has consciousness in a limited sense, and do you think we can create one using silicon? At the temperatures of Neptune maybe, steeling ideas from carbon DNA.

 

You can use consciousness to create. Forgetting aliens from light years away, whom I don't believe can cross that distance, what else creates? The source of all consciousness. That source has supplied alternatives to science, but desire is otherwise, and will never be resisted, but must eventually change. For having separated himself through desire, a man seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom. Sadly sources do exist for such information, but are forgotten, ignored or held in disrepute because they have been abused, and few are worthy. "Ideas and Opinions" by Albert Einstein is a good start, at least to begin to undermine that disrepute from a reputable source. He gave us that source on a platter, and what did we do with it? Just so, more was once known long ago, and submerged, leaving many mysteries - too many to be the work of aliens.

 

Consider this, how was six million tons of rock assembled to produce an assending passage perfectly aligned with the axis of the planet, peering out at Polaris? How rough was the translation to Khufu? Where in the Book of the Dead (properly The Book of Manifestations in the Light badly rendered The Book of Coming Forth by Day) is there any mention? It isn't explained but the universe is? Okay.

[robheus]

Words. The universe began and its cause is timeless, and today that cause is the least understood concept we have - consciousness, the I AM THAT I AM, and would not "be" if it were a process requiring time. How long is the wait to arrive at the present, if time always was. Can we wait an eternity and then say "At last!" What is consciousness? Does such a concept belong in Physics? Psychology? Philosophy? Religion? All of the above or none? We deal in the productions of the senses, and assemble the manifold in the mind, and are conscious of our physical and our mental states. That within you which sees and hears and understands is consciousness, separate finite consciousness. A googleplex of transistors is not enough to create it, because only infinity times zero has some finite, though indeterminate, value which may be non zero. A mosquito has consciousness in a limited sense, and do you think we can create one using silicon? At the temperatures of Neptune maybe, steeling ideas from carbon DNA.

 

You can use consciousness to create. Forgetting aliens from light years away, whom I don't believe can cross that distance, what else creates? The source of all consciousness. That source has supplied alternatives to science, but desire is otherwise, and will never be resisted, but must eventually change. For having separated himself through desire, a man seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom. Sadly sources do exist for such information, but are forgotten, ignored or held in disrepute because they have been abused, and few are worthy. "Ideas and Opinions" by Albert Einstein is a good start, at least to begin to undermine that disrepute from a reputable source. He gave us that source on a platter, and what did we do with it? Just so, more was once known long ago, and submerged, leaving many mysteries - too many to be the work of aliens.

 

Consider this, how was six million tons of rock assembled to produce an assending passage perfectly aligned with the axis of the planet, peering out at Polaris? How rough was the translation to Khufu? Where in the Book of the Dead (properly The Book of Manifestations in the Light badly rendered The Book of Coming Forth by Day) is there any mention? It isn't explained but the universe is? Okay.

 

This doesn't contain anything sensible to react on.

[IM Egdall]

This idea is named the free lunch cosmology. It is a plausible speculation.

 

 

 

Yes, although it seems that the original idea was by Pascual Jordan.

 

 

Do you know of a link to Jordan's idea?

[juanrga]

Do you know of a link to Jordan's idea?

 

I did read in "The End of Certainty" (by Prigogine) but he gives no further info/references. I found this link to a book with some more info:

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=SoZhv5feNQ4C&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=zero+energy+cosmology+Pascual+Jordan&source=bl&ots=-aKjH1GlQd&sig=9j6EqG3C02uwTnHJMQjG0J7w9rM&hl=es&sa=X&ei=FVT9T6HVN4jS0QWq9emEBw&ved=0CFkQ6AEwAw

[Slavomir]

Best scientists in world cant really explain what is gravity....they cant explain it because gravity as it doesn't exist. spirit with low consciousness producing low energy matrix where gravity its incapacity of liberating its self from all preconceptions and illusions created by original impulse. becoming highly spiritual and conscious of it could liberate us all from the physical law that doesn't really exist. ......i bet u would like to know how to fly

Understanding how universe have being created its actually more simple then that, we just need to understand couples notions correctly so we can build up precise idea of how this happened.

 

I would start with one first misuse and misunderstanding of value 0, or with concept of nothing.

 

Well if i ask you what is inside of a empty glass most of peoples would answer " there is nothing" because the glass its empty of substance that most of people think of or know about but in reality there is always something inside of glass its just that we don't apprehend it.

 

 

Universe its a little bit same with one universal truth that nothing doesn't exist.

 

From that point of view we have to really consider the parallel extra dimensional layers that universe form and creating every second in his own expansion since ever.

 

As we are 3dimensional beings we perceiving only information of 3d matrix which hold only certain quantum of information that is far from being complete.

 

So lets imagine beginning of everything, from point 0 where zero represent first universal state with 0 energy and 0 expression.

 

Its representing as well free unstructured consciousness that have 0 limits and 0 restraint.

 

We have to keep in mind that every expression its preceded by conscious choices of universal consciousness.

 

First representation and expression of consciousness is a 1 dimensional vibration that is a mother of all physical and energetic structures that remain in every expression as the expression is a will and body of consciousness and representing directly state of it.

 

As consciousness its something that always evolve therefor is natural that more complex vibration will be created trough evolution.

 

Second 2dimensional vibration is the state of universe with will of separation where 1D vibration give birth to another two vibrations interacting together under supervision of main neutral vibration creating and manifesting material and energetic structures=positive negative and neutral...base of all physical emotional and geometrical creations.

 

All matter functioning as well as a living memories for consciousness where universe recording and replicating every changes in form of parallel dimensions and universes lunched in they own directions depending of will of present fragmented consciousness. Later on those parallel dimensions-universes-consciousness fusing back together with main stream where quantum of experiences-released information are more then phenomenal making incredible jump towards more awake consciousness.

 

Consciousness its a mechanism that give to spirit perception of it self and therefor it can exist only in conjunction with spirit. Spirit its a universal primary energy quantum that have will and capacity to express all that is.

 

 

Off course this is just my point of view and therefor full of mistakes but i believe that main idea can drive others towards better more complex understandings.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Slavomir

[Severian]

It's entirely possible.

 

As I have said before, I don't find it plausible at all. It is a baseless speculation with no scientific grounding nor any evidence to support it.

[IM Egdall]

I did read in "The End of Certainty" (by Prigogine) but he gives no further info/references. I found this link to a book with some more info:

 

http://books.google....ved=0CFkQ6AEwAw

 

 

Thaks for the link. Really cool discussion. I'd never considered that a star could have overall zero energy.

[Moontanman]

Words. The universe began and its cause is timeless, and today that cause is the least understood concept we have - consciousness, the I AM THAT I AM, and would not "be" if it were a process requiring time. How long is the wait to arrive at the present, if time always was. Can we wait an eternity and then say "At last!" What is consciousness? Does such a concept belong in Physics? Psychology? Philosophy? Religion? All of the above or none? We deal in the productions of the senses, and assemble the manifold in the mind, and are conscious of our physical and our mental states. That within you which sees and hears and understands is consciousness, separate finite consciousness. A googleplex of transistors is not enough to create it, because only infinity times zero has some finite, though indeterminate, value which may be non zero. A mosquito has consciousness in a limited sense, and do you think we can create one using silicon? At the temperatures of Neptune maybe, steeling ideas from carbon DNA.

 

Actually we can create an analog to something as simple as mosquito, in fact we have robots that whose behaviors is at least as complex.

 

You can use consciousness to create. Forgetting aliens from light years away, whom I don't believe can cross that distance, what else creates? The source of all consciousness. That source has supplied alternatives to science, but desire is otherwise, and will never be resisted, but must eventually change. For having separated himself through desire, a man seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom. Sadly sources do exist for such information, but are forgotten, ignored or held in disrepute because they have been abused, and few are worthy. "Ideas and Opinions" by Albert Einstein is a good start, at least to begin to undermine that disrepute from a reputable source. He gave us that source on a platter, and what did we do with it? Just so, more was once known long ago, and submerged, leaving many mysteries - too many to be the work of aliens.

 

This makes no real sense.

 

Consider this, how was six million tons of rock assembled to produce an assending passage perfectly aligned with the axis of the planet, peering out at Polaris? How rough was the translation to Khufu? Where in the Book of the Dead (properly The Book of Manifestations in the Light badly rendered The Book of Coming Forth by Day) is there any mention? It isn't explained but the universe is? Okay.

 

I don't see how you can say that the pyramids cannot be explained, that is nonsense...

[PaulS1950]

The pyramids were built a layer of rock at a time. The passages were "vacancies" in the layers as they were built. That is why they could be built without the aid of artificial light. The Egyptians did not build a huge pile of rocks and then hollow out the passages.

 

Paul

[Silver007A]

Strangely Rhboeus is maybe correct in his comments on the pyramids, but with only a few references in his post on a subject that took years of research it isn't enough information for people who may not be privy to that research to appreciate his comments.

 

Traditionally the small passages were thought to be "air vents", but with the help of an astrophysicist friend, an amateur Egyptologist proved that the passages aligned exactly in the direction of the stars that the ancient Egyptians revered. It is a feat of engineering that we couldn't even achieve today to replicate with such accuracy. What’s more is the astrophysicist used modern technology to recreate the position of the stars that would have aligned with the passages in the pyramids and discovered that based on that alignment the pyramids were built many thousands of years before what is commonly believed to be the case by leading authorities on the subject and what is written in any book on the subject that you read today.

 

He also had great evidence, based on what was found in the pyramids, to prove that they had the ability to create light without the use of fire in the pyramids, which explains how they were able to work and not leave soot all over the place ;-)

 

His comments on Albert Einstein are based on Einstein believing and stating many a time that you create your universe with your mind. Napoleon Hills work were based on the same principle and in his famous works The 16 Laws of Success there is a wonderful account by Thomas Edison where he states the exact same theory.

 

Too much to explain in a forum post I am sorry to say, but I do know where Rhboeus is coming from with those comments and hope that at least points you in the direction to be able to research his views a little further as they are based on some good facts.

 

The rest of his comments are probably based on his believing that man isn’t capable of understanding the Universe, but it doesn’t really go a long way for a debate on a science forum, does it.

 

 

<br style="mso-special-character:line-break"> <br style="mso-special-character:line-break">

 

 

[burhan hafiz]

It seems to be possible...... as proposed by EDWARD TRYON.