Universe Creation Theories

[Finalshine]

After Reading a Few theory's on how our universe was created a few people have stated that there are a couple of ways our universe was created, According to the first theory our universe is the result of a Source with infinite density and mass, resulting in the big bang theory creating a 3 dimensional plane of existence that we live in, while time is supposedly a 4th dimension surrounding the 3rd dimension an expanding with our universe, they went on to say that our universe is young an will eventually evolve into a higher plane been a 4th dimensional plane of existence then so on to a 5th dimensional plane thats what they stated in the first theory..., other physicist have theorized that the big bang was the result of a hyper black hole in a 4 dimensional plane of existence higher then our own, an that that existence is made of physical matter like our own, an that the source of infinite density and mass was the result of a 4th dimensional star collapsing into a black hole creating our 3 dimensional plane of existence. sought of like a hypersphere an our space time is surrounded by a higher dimension,now i dont no if any of these theory's have any creditability but the do spark for an interesting read..

[ajb]

Any theory of the creation of the Universe will have to quickly evolve into the lambda CDM model. That is the first test. Secondly, one would hope that there is some imprint of the creation mechanism on the cosmology, some fingerprint as such. This could be in the CMBR or encoded in the gravitational waves from the early Universe or something like that.

 

Until there is some way of really pinning down which models match nature well it is all very speculative.

[Fred Champion]

I hope you realize that neither the Big Bang or God explanations actually involve "creation". I don't know what other theories you refer to, but unless one of them posits a something-from-nothing event (or events) they will actually refer to a transformation rather than a creation event.

 

I prefer a "great precipitation" process rather than a big bang transformation. Much easier. And there is always the argument that an actual infinite cannot be.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

if you wish to discuss your own alternatives to the OP/big bang, please do so in speculations.

[Fred Champion]

What theory of the "creation" of the universe is not speculation to some degree?

[Mordred]

After Reading a Few theory's on how our universe was created a few people have stated that there are a couple of ways our universe was created, According to the first theory our universe is the result of a Source with infinite density and mass, resulting in the big bang theory creating a 3 dimensional plane of existence that we live in, while time is supposedly a 4th dimension surrounding the 3rd dimension an expanding with our universe, they went on to say that our universe is young an will eventually evolve into a higher plane been a 4th dimensional plane of existence then so on to a 5th dimensional plane thats what they stated in the first theory..., other physicist have theorized that the big bang was the result of a hyper black hole in a 4 dimensional plane of existence higher then our own, an that that existence is made of physical matter like our own, an that the source of infinite density and mass was the result of a 4th dimensional star collapsing into a black hole creating our 3 dimensional plane of existence. sought of like a hypersphere an our space time is surrounded by a higher dimension,now i dont no if any of these theory's have any creditability but the do spark for an interesting read..

 

 

 

 

OK lets clarify a few aspects here, first off the hot big bang model does not describe the beginning of the universe..... It only describes that the universe was in a hot dense state near its beginning. Now this is not to mean a singularity such as that found within a black hole. The singularity of the BB model is simply a point in time prior to 10^-43 seconds, we simply do not have the physics to accurately describe conditions at this extreme temperature, and density.

 

Clearing that up, there is so many models of the beginning of the universe, I cannot possibly describe them all. However they all break down into 3 essential categories. Universe from nothing, due to quantum fluctuations (Leanard Susskind supports this model) Although there is a couple of variations. A cyclic universe, one in which our universe is one in a long line of universes that collapsed and restarted. Bounce universe, similar to the cyclic universe however the BB portion temperatures etc is the result of the bounce (from collapsing) Loop quantum Cosmology is a prime example of this model. Now there is also numerous models which describe our universe as being the result of a black hole/white hole in another universe and we are residing within the EH. There is numerous problems with this model, first it does not account for early large scale structure formation. Two any universe inside a BH would be rotating, no matter how slow a rotation is this universe would not be homogenous and isotropic. It would inherently have a preferred direction an location. Our universe is homogenous and isotropic. The universe in a BH model has numerous different purporters, however one of the more prominant ones is Poplowskii with his spin and torsion model.

 

Then there is the many worlds universe, which is based of the quantum many worlds interpretation. Essentially every decision in a wave function starts a new universe. In this there would be an infinite number of universes created every second lol. Not too practical.

 

Chaotic eternal inflation also has a process that describes bubble universes, the essential nature of this model is that small anistropies in a parent universe, will expand to form causally separate universes. Via the same inflation mechanism as the inflation in our universe.

 

The main problem is we have no direct evidence of any other universe even existing, every multiverse model is conjecture only. We can only gather data within our observable portion of the universe. Our universe could be finite or infinite, we still do not know which. Due to that limitation science cannot answer how our universe started as we simply do not know with certainty. We can only model possibilities based on our understanding and observations.. Though some of the models are more likely than others. However unless we can disprove a particular model, then it is equally valid as an other model. That is simply the scientific way. Hope this helps

 

edit forgot to mention time, lol most multiverse models depend on time continuing between the parent universe to the birth of the new universe. However this may or may not be the case. Rather than explain that I recommend reading

 

"Time before time"

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0408/0408111.pdf

Edited May 10, 2014 by Mordred

[Mitch Bass]

"Clearing that up, there is so many models of the beginning of the universe, I cannot possibly describe them all. However they all break down into 3 essentialcategories. Universe from nothing, due to quantum fluctuations (Leanard Susskind supports this model)" --Mordred, his last post.

 

THe idea of quantum fluctuation, this has to do with the perception that there has been detected in quantum mechanics material that manifests into existence where there was once nothing? Is its being suggested that the universe could have come into existence from nothingness in the same way as what is considered quantum fluctuation? Is it fact or speculation that at the quantum level things are coming into existence out of nothingness?

Edited May 21, 2014 by Mitch Bass

[Mordred]

Actually I had the wrong supporter of the model, It was supposed to be Lawrence R Krauss, Not Leanard Susskind. Not sure why I confused the two.

 

Anyways that correction aside, the universe from nothing model, uses quantum processes, more specifically Heisenburg's uncertainty principle, and virtual particle creation. (there is solid support of virtual particle production, as well as Heisenburg's uncertainty principle)

 

a minimal vacuum still has energy, QM has a slightly different view of the lowest possible vacuum state. Due the the Uncertainty principle the lowest vacuum state is

[latex]\frac{1}{2}hv[/latex]. This is part of the Casimiir effect. The Cassimiir effect led up to the development of the zero-energy universe model. In this model the total energy of the universe is zero. Gravity is positive energy, vacuum is negative energy. The zero energy universe and the Heisenburg uncertainty principle is the premise Lawrence R Krauss uses. He has a book on it "Universe from Nothing" Lawrence R Krauss. Scientifically speaking its mathematically plausible, however not proven or disproven. Coincidentally the Universe from nothing model is often referred to as the "The ultimate free lunch"

 

here is some articles on the history of the zero-energy universe, the second article discusses some mathematical problems with the model. Specifically a perfect zero energy universe would lead to a perfect flat model. The model is limited to cartesian coordinates and must use pseudo tensors to describe curvature. However still feasible

 

"Preludes to dark energy:Zero-point energy and vacuum speculations." http://arxiv.org/ftp...1/1111.4623.pdf.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063.pdf

 

I should note there is numerous ongoing tests of vacuum energy. The fact that energy is present in what would seemingly be a total vacuum is gaining support. However you also have to watch out for all the crackpottery in articles related to such. There is a huge number of articles of gadgets and patents of people trying to get free energy and devices that purport to such.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Mordred

[Mordred]

found some older articles, showing the Universe from nothing tunneling process.

 

http://mukto-mona.net/science/physics/a_vilinkin/universe_from_nothing.pdf

 

in this paper the tunneling is done via the instanton tunneling from nothing.

 

now as Sydney Coleman was mentioned, who also showed it was possible to have a universe start from nothing, using false vacuum by Allen Guth.

 

Here is one of Sydney Coleman's earlier works

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/ph564/Coleman.pdf

here is his biography

http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/Coleman_Sidney.pdf

 

Unfortunately I never could find his Fate of the false vacuum II.

 

Here is a copy of one of Allen Guth's 1980 papers

https://www.astro.rug.nl/~weygaert/tim1publication/cosmo2007/literature/inflationary.universe.guth.physrevd-1981.pdf

 

This paper discusses the Hartle Hawking mechanism as well as the Wheeler Dewitt relations.

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/scccweb/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/CH-3-Documents/ch3-Stengler-on-Origin-math-model.pdf

 

 

As you can see Lawrence R Krauss in not the only one to consider a universe from nothing nor even the first scientist. There are numerous forms and equations that can be used to show a universe from Nothing.