How did everything really begin?

[Ophiolite]

I think we need the insight of J.B.S.Haldane. (Not the one about god being inordinately fond of beetles, since we've been asked to avoid talking evolution.)

 

My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

J.B.S.H.

[zapatos]

My theory for the beginning of everything is this; it never happened.

So does that make you gullible, or small minded?

[Alan McDougall]

this is why I don't believe in the "god" theory:

I(dmaiski) created the universe.

 

Ok? Get it? You believe me? No!? Why? how is this possible I am just saying the truth...

if you believed what I said is true, you are gullible.

if you think its impossible, you are small minded.

if you think it could be true, you are agnostic.

 

 

My theory for the beginning of everything is this; it never happened.

 

simply put if there is nothing, nothing cannot produce anything

so what we exist in is simply a wrinkle in nothingness

 

 

 

What!

[ElasticCollision]

I think I remember once reading or being told that according to where everything is in the universe at the moment, and where/how long ago the big bang occurred, everything must have at one point been traveling at above the speed of light to be where it currently is. Of course matter can't travel at the speed of light, let alone above it, so according to this, for a while after the big bang, the universe was something entirely different and was composed of something other than matter.

Am I right about this, or am I simply misremembering?

[zapatos]

I think I remember once reading or being told that according to where everything is in the universe at the moment, and where/how long ago the big bang occurred, everything must have at one point been traveling at above the speed of light to be where it currently is. Of course matter can't travel at the speed of light, let alone above it, so according to this, for a while after the big bang, the universe was something entirely different and was composed of something other than matter.

Am I right about this, or am I simply misremembering?

You are remembering cosmic inflation. My understanding is that the mechanism for inflation is not well understood. Someone else may be able to supply details.

 

In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation or just inflation is the theorized extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 1078 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density.[1] The inflationary epoch comprises the first part of the electroweak epoch following the grand unification epoch. It lasted from 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds. Following the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand, but at a slower rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

[EquisDeXD]

For another explanation

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69463-why-the-universe-is-here/

which no one commented so I don't know if there's any logical fallacies in it can work.

[PeterJ]

My theory for the beginning of everything is this; it never happened.

 

simply put if there is nothing, nothing cannot produce anything

so what we exist in is simply a wrinkle in nothingness

 

 

Obviously we are not nothing, and we cannot be said to exist even 'as a wrinkle' if there is only nothing.

 

But otherwise I share your theory. That is, things would not exist as we usually think they do., and that would be why we cannot explain their existence.

[ElasticCollision]

You are remembering cosmic inflation.

 

http://en.wikipedia....tion_(cosmology)

 

According to this link, "While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster with respect to one another than the speed of light, there is no such constraint in general relativity."

 

Does this mean matter CAN travel faster than the speed of light? (I know that it can't, as this would mean it's mass and energy would become infinite, so what is the quote getting at?)

[Moontanman]

I shouldn't have said that... Lets just say someone I know is going to attempt prove something to me on sept 11th 2012. If it works then in 2013 I can prove it to the world. Anyway please don't further question the proof and september aspect of all this... Its not me, its him and I wouldn't be allowed to explain it anyway.

 

Wait! We have to wait a year to even know if he proved it to you? I hate cliff hangers...

Edited October 5, 2012 by Moontanman

[Alan McDougall]

According to this link, "While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster with respect to one another than the speed of light, there is no such constraint in general relativity."

 

Does this mean matter CAN travel faster than the speed of light? (I know that it can't, as this would mean it's mass and energy would become infinite, so what is the quote getting at?)

 

 

Matter cant move through space faster than the speed of light, but matter can move faster than light if it is embedded in space that is expanding at greater than light speed, such as extremely distant galaxies that are receding at more than light speed from us

[finster]

And God said "Let there be light and there was Light"

 

 

You really think my hypotheses reduces down to that? Okay, that hurt, Alan.

 

I'd admit my hypotheses is a little out there but to equate it with pseudo-science. That's not fair. Alan. I think it deserves a little more examination, if only to ultimately refute it.

 

 

 

 

[EquisDeXD]

According to this link, "While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster with respect to one another than the speed of light, there is no such constraint in general relativity."

 

Does this mean matter CAN travel faster than the speed of light? (I know that it can't, as this would mean it's mass and energy would become infinite, so what is the quote getting at?)

 

It means theoretically, even if matter can't travel faster than light, it can get from point A to point B faster than light because there's no limit on how fast the fabric of space itself can stretch.

[ElasticCollision]

It means theoretically, even if matter can't travel faster than light, it can get from point A to point B faster than light because there's no limit on how fast the fabric of space itself can stretch.

 

I see. This must have all kinds of implications regarding possible time travel.

[EquisDeXD]

I see. This must have all kinds of implications regarding possible time travel.

 

It does, but they seem to break the laws of thermodynamics like Stephen Hawking said, but on the other hand scientists are saying that dark energy made space expand faster than light when it first started, it's implications are still being worked on I'd imagine, but it would be cool if yet another thing was invented from a sci-fi tv show. Though, I don't think the fabric of space itself expanding would cause it to go backwards in time or anything like that, it doesn't have mass or energy and doesn't have the same properties as matter, but for things like wormholes and the fabric of space stretching to past time coordinates, it causes problems.

Edited October 6, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Alan McDougall]

You really think my hypotheses reduces down to that? Okay, that hurt, Alan.

 

I'd admit my hypotheses is a little out there but to equate it with pseudo-science. That's not fair. Alan. I think it deserves a little more examination, if only to ultimately refute it.

 

 

 

 

 

Hi finster, I really like your type of out of the box thinking, I find it profound and will study your diagrams and come back to you later. Science by the way says there is no such thing as totally empty void or space you propose. But that might be wrong , at the moment of the BB time did not exist so your point of it both happening and not happening is interesting. The singularity was supposed to be infinite in size and mass, thus did it occupy any space as your suggested, after all does three dimensional space have any meaning at the creation moment of the BB? Sorry!! for not responding sooner at first I thought you diagrams and thinking were beyond my understanding.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Alan McDougall

[EquisDeXD]

Science by the way says there is no such thing as totally empty void or space you propose.

It doesn't exactly say that, it just says with our current data we can model things as if there was a fabric of space-time, and besides, if the universe contains every thing, isn't it only proper that outside of the universe there is no thing?

Edited October 10, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[PD7]

I think god started everything. He could have created something like a double infinity and since there was nothing, and when I say nothing I am talking about absolute nothing no time no space, no matter no energy (which I represent with a sideways eight with a minus symbol in front of it.) Which really is just the opposite of infinity. Now where did god come from? I think that since he exists across all time and space and even alternate realities within the space, There is a good chance that he may of created everything at some unknown point in the future. Created a double infinity and took it way back in the past when there was nothing. This is why I think their could be a number higher than infinity, one thing about absolute nothing, even if something touches it that is infinite it can be canceled out to nothing. One scientist either said or proved that everything added up to zero. Now if something doubley infinite touches absolute nothing one of the infinities it is comprised of is destroyed in a violent explosion of infinite energy. Since there is still one infinity left after the explosion that would be where the universe gets its true size. Now I have an equation for this but my research still needs to be evaluated. This is also how you can have an infinite amount of realities occupying the same space. Message me if you want more information on this subject.

[PeterJ]

It seems very obvious that there cannot have been a beginning, and so this is not something we need to explain. A better question is why there is something rather than nothing. One answer to this is given in the book I mentioned earlier, Unfortunately it;s one of those books that nobody bothers to read.

 

Alan - You say there are two possibilties.

 

1) There was never a beginning and the Big Bang did not create everything, only our universe? OR Existence is both infinite and eternal.

2) God created everything?

This seems a bit muddled. It boils down to 1) the universe is eternal, 2), God created everything.

 

There is no need to suppose that if 1) is true then there is no cause. This is an addtional hypothesis. And even if it is not eternal we are not forced to posit God as a cause. You appear to be stuck on the horns of a false dilemma. There are other possibilities.

[DarkStar8]

Our concept of nothing is in error. There was never a one beginning event. Creation is occurring continually out of the nothing. Nothing contains the whole. That which is created is made of nothing and the nothing contains the whole and that which is created returns to nothing.

There is duality within nothing like light and dark that are complimentary opposites.

Ok so we can't think of nothing.. But we can think of nearly nothing. We have that that is collapsing towards the infinitely small, and at the same time that that is expanding towards the infinitely large. See the duality like the ying yang or the duality of light. There is is a limit like the speed of c within the rate of collapse by which the roles of the large and small reverse. This is not to say that the universe will collapse, but that all masses will continue to grow until our location will be devoured into a blackhole, to start a new cycle of existence.

Death is not the end of existence. There is no sense of Time between death and new consciousness in the new cycle. Nothing is all and all is nothing, one can not exist in isolation of the other.

To show the energy in the nothing, think of nearly nothing a tiny point of infinitesimal small size. The point still has size. If we magnified it it would have more size. So an infinitesimal small point must be dynamic and be collapsing at an ever increasing rate so we never have a chance of measuring the size.. But look we have momentum within a direction of the small. In other words nothing is potentially full of an infinite amount of energy!!

 

 

 

 

[LaurieAG]

Time goes on both ways forever,

despite all mortal human endeavour,

infinity will be reached, never ever.

 

Chaos is purely nature in action,

first find that correct butterfly,

and you can make anything happen.

 

Anti chaos is also quite easy to do,

first find that correct butterfly,

and then say boo!

[kristalris]

I voted other.

 

I could just as well have given a don't know, or time is in a loop, depending on the way of interpreting the question.

 

I.e. we know one thing for certain we don't know, and we'll never have absolute proof of any given position. So my answer provides an educated guess that is testable BTW.

 

Logic dictates that time and space are either infinite or not. To answer the question thus requires an inherent assumption either way.

 

Going through both assumptions and seeing which fits all known observations best I have concluded that the assumption of an infinite space and time is by far most probable.This BTW doesn't a priori require mathematics.

 

Assuming a beginning or an end leaves believing in absolutely nothing followed by something i.e. say nothing followed by a big bang followed by nothing.

 

That is less probable than believing in a God. Believing in a God BTW isn't in contradiction with anything that we observe. There is no need to assume a God so I'd give it an estimated less than a one in a trillion of being correct. On a reasonable standard of proof I don't feel that God exists on basis of evidence so I'm convinced God doesn't exist. When I die and if I stand before Peters gate I will reconsider my position on the new evidence then presented. Religion being however about absolute belief / conviction. Ergo being religious is not irrational.

 

Believing in contradictions euphemistically stated to be paradoxes such as something coming from nothing like Krauss is believing in magic and is thus even less probable say an estimated less than one in a trillion to the trillionth. That is irrational. Showing off mathematical dexterity that we can mathematically travel back in time, as Steven Hawking does only shows lack of understanding the basics of mathematics. You have probably got a garbage in problem annex a confirmation bias concerning that a priori garbage. This due to taking up a position without a priori looking at all evidence and addressing all problems. I call that the Escher Institute of mathematics. It works looking at the length of the towers but fails when concluding that water streams upwards.

 

So I'd say the scientifically most probably best held position is assuming a cyclic event in which all scenario's are being played out all the time. Ergo no beginning no end, the poll is in part asking the wrong question.

 

And indeed if done that way as a speculation I can reach proof of concept; granted on a low standard of proof for not having the mathematics (yet). Yet I do have relatively easily testable position in principle. In science that dictates: do the test.

Edited December 31, 2012 by kristalris

[PeterJ]

Math is more of the language of science than a science itself. Mathematical proofs can actually be thought of as true, where science deals in theory which, by the nature of the scientific method, can't be thought of in such absolute, certain terms. Theories need to be tested and added to constantly, and using them to make predictions that lead to more understanding, so it thwarts the whole concept to think, "Oh, we've got this one 100%, time to move on!"

 

Certainly, a theory is the best you can get in science, and shouldn't be thought of as "only a theory" (as so many people do these days). A scientific theory represents the most supported explanation available, one that can be trusted because those "doing science" in this way are following the best methodology the human species has ever come up with to seek explanations for how our universe works.

On the one hand we have the claim that physics is no more than 'a likely story', as someone else, (was it Socrates?) once pointed out, and on the other we have the claim that this is the best method our species has developed for explaining the universe. I think you should have added 'in my opinion'.to such a pessimistic view. Not all of us hold it.

[ZVBXRPL]

I believe the universe is infinite and I think the big bang theory is religious hogwash.

 

It is really pathetic that human beings are so arrogant that they think they can explain EVERYTHING and that EVERYTHING must have a beginning, middle and end and that EVERYTHING can be explained by us.

 

There was no beginning to the universe and there will be no end to the universe. The universe is not expanding or shrinking or dancing, it is just existing, just as it has done for eternity.

 

We are just insignificant bundles of energy

 

God, heaven, hell, angels, demons and ghosts = caveman talk

Edited January 1, 2013 by ZVBXRPL

[Moontanman]

I believe the universe is infinite and I think the big bang theory is religious hogwash.

 

Since this is a science forum your belief is meaningless...

 

It is really pathetic that human beings are so arrogant that they think they can explain EVERYTHING and that EVERYTHING must have a beginning, middle and end and that EVERYTHING can be explained by us.

 

So far so good on the explanation part, our entire first world civilization is based on our explanations of everything so far.

 

There was no beginning to the universe and there will be no end to the universe. The universe is not expanding or shrinking or dancing, it is just existing, just as it has done for eternity.

 

Citation needed for this...

 

We are just insignificant bundles of energy

 

God, heaven, hell, angels, demons and ghosts = caveman talk

 

 

I tend to agree with this but it's not part of the thread...

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

ZVBXRPL,

 

As with this mod note issued to you by swansont, please do not hijack other threads with your own pet ideas. Stick to the topic and keep your speculations in your own thread.