-
Osayidan wrote on 2010-10-13 02:47
This was a pretty interesting theory. I like how it goes beyond "oh there was a big bang and then the universe was there". I'd still like more elaboration on it though.
Don't let dawkins scare you off, he just introduces the speaker.
[video=youtube;7ImvlS8PLIo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo[/video]
I don't believe that "the big bang" or "god" theories explain the true origin of the universe. There very well may have been a big bang at some point which is why the universe is expanding, but even if we some day conclude 100% that that's correct ten what caused it to happen? This guy somewhat explains that aspect of it, but it still leads to the question of how his explanation came to be. Why was there 'something' in the so called nothingness of the pre-big bang universe (quantum mechanic stuff) to begin with? It can very well make sense but I'd like to know how those particles that come in and out of existence end up coming in and out of existence.
Anyways watch it and discuss. I don't study physics or even mathematics because they bore me to death but I still like to listen to the theories and hope that some day one of them makes actual sense and doesn't leave any unanswered questions.
-
Cucurbita wrote on 2010-10-13 03:59
The big bang theory makes sense, if you think of it as exactly what it is.
The universe has been, and always will be, infinitely undergoing the big bang.
The big bang isn't nothing, but a dense state of everything in the universe, and one day it exploded and everything went everywhere. Eventually it would stop spreading, and pull itself back in, which is the big crunch. Thus restarting the process.
Its been doing it, infinitely, forever.
-
Kaeporo wrote on 2010-10-13 09:32
Quote from Cucurbita;183040:
The big bang theory makes sense, if you think of it as exactly what it is.
The universe has been, and always will be, infinitely undergoing the big bang.
The big bang isn't nothing, but a dense state of everything in the universe, and one day it exploded and everything went everywhere. Eventually it would stop spreading, and pull itself back in, which is the big crunch. Thus restarting the process.
Its been doing it, infinitely, forever.
This.
Matter cannot be destroyed. The Universe has always existed, constantly expanding and retracting.
-
Osayidan wrote on 2010-10-13 11:12
Things that make sense aren't always correct, especially on the scale of the universe. Just a few hundred years ago it made sense that the earth was flat or that the earth was the center of the universe.
Let's assume that the big bang theory is right since we have nothing better to go on, and that we live in the type of universe that allows for a big crunch (in the video he talks of infinite expansion which would ultimately lead to galaxies being all alone with billions of light years between each other and future civilizations thinking the universe consists of one galaxy). The big bag and then crunch may have cycled a trillion times by now but it has to have started for some reason. There has to have been a first big bang which was brought on by some event. The lecturer talks about some quantum mechanic particles that pop in and out of existence and that triggered the start of the big bang. What I'm curious about is how those particles came to be.
To me saying it's been there forever is no better than a priest saying god has been there forever, or that god is self creating. Even if there is a god, he had to come from somewhere. If the existence of a god explains the origin of the universe I'd be happy to accept that as fact if there was also an explanation as to the origin of god. "It just is" doesn't cut it for me and this is why I'm starting to have as much respect for scientists who stop at the big bang than I do for religious leaders, if you really think about it accepting the big bang as "it just happened" (rather than try to explain it's origins) and accepting god as "he just is" has no difference, both are beliefs and neither is more solid than the other.
-
Cucurbita wrote on 2010-10-13 11:29
Osayidan, the big bang and big crunch loop is infinitely backwards in time as it is infinitely forever to the future.
Its not really a "trillion times", its been going on forever. Literally.
Of course, I'm no scientist so I can't back this up, but if a large number of people who dedicated their entire lives to studying the universe decided this, I won't try to argue too much against it. Its not that I'm a follower or anything, but its hard to mistrust their judgments at that point.
-
Osayidan wrote on 2010-10-13 11:40
This video does a pretty good job explaining something that doesn't involve a big crunch. I can't verify the physics but if someone here who studies this stuff understands it more than I do I'd like to hear from them.
I'm not gonna argue that there's no such thing as a big crunch in an infinite loop with big bangs, because no one can at this point (it's theory more than anything), but I will say even if this is an ongoing infinite loop, something has to have triggered that loop. An event can repeat forever but it has to have been started in order to do so.
I honestly don't care what the origin of the universe is, be it an infinite loop of big bangs, god, or any other number of theories, but what I want to know is the origin of whatever event triggered the existence of the events that led to the creation of the universe. It's probably well beyond human comprehension but we may as well try.
-
Cucurbita wrote on 2010-10-13 11:43
I'm sure once we find out how the world and its laws were created we could start distorting it and making warp drives and nonsense what nots.
-
Zid wrote on 2010-10-13 14:40
Erhm, even with the idea of infinite past and future, it has to start and end somewhere. If matter and energy can't be destroyed or created, then why is it there in the first place? It *has* to start from somewhere. I'm not sure if there's an end, but there's a starting point at some point in time (which I think is the only true infinite in this case anyway).
Even if it's infinite, the universe is there, it's existing. Thus, something in nothing. A something isn't a part of nothing. It has to be created somehow.
-
Chillax wrote on 2010-10-13 14:46
Quote from Zid;183281:
A something isn't a part of nothing. It has to be created somehow.
That's the traditional human mindset, but we are talking about the nonsensical here. It could have just existed from the beginning.
-
psyal wrote on 2010-10-13 15:05
Well, I have tried thinking of answers before, and this is all I came up with.
#1: It questioned itself into existence
#2: Could all be a simulation of some curious professor in a universe that makes sense
Both can't be explained, proven, or whatever. Just seems like ways for something to occur from nothing.
-
Cryosite wrote on 2010-10-13 18:29
Quote from Zid;183281:
Erhm, even with the idea of infinite past and future, it has to start and end somewhere. If matter and energy can't be destroyed or created, then why is it there in the first place? It *has* to start from somewhere. I'm not sure if there's an end, but there's a starting point at some point in time (which I think is the only true infinite in this case anyway).
Even if it's infinite, the universe is there, it's existing. Thus, something in nothing. A something isn't a part of nothing. It has to be created somehow.
You don't seem to grasp "infinite" very well. Why does it have to have a begginning, and why does it have to have been created?
Nothing that exists now is created. Everything from a simple dagger "created" by a smith, to a baby bunny "created by it's mother, even to light and heat "created" by the sun are not acts of creation... but mere changes in form, between matter to matter, energy to energy, or between matter and energy in either direction. The entire concept of "stuff" being created from nothing is a purely human invention... with no real evidence for existing.
A lot of people sure do try really hard to find it though. Whole civilizations and societies are willing to accept an imaginary, made up "being" simply to make this concept work. It's really just an extension of our ego, our dominant sense of self-importance. "I can imagine a time before my own existence, therefore as I have a beginning and an end, so must everything else."
-
Zid wrote on 2010-10-14 01:07
Quote from Cryosite;183342:
You don't seem to grasp "infinite" very well. Why does it have to have a begginning, and why does it have to have been created?
Nothing that exists now is created. Everything from a simple dagger "created" by a smith, to a baby bunny "created by it's mother, even to light and heat "created" by the sun are not acts of creation... but mere changes in form, between matter to matter, energy to energy, or between matter and energy in either direction. The entire concept of "stuff" being created from nothing is a purely human invention... with no real evidence for existing.
A lot of people sure do try really hard to find it though. Whole civilizations and societies are willing to accept an imaginary, made up "being" simply to make this concept work. It's really just an extension of our ego, our dominant sense of self-importance. "I can imagine a time before my own existence, therefore as I have a beginning and an end, so must everything else."
I don't grasp "infinity" as defined by you very well, because I have no reason to believe there isn't a start and an end. Me believing that infinity is impossible to grasp by human understanding is as unusual as believing some overlord entity actually caused this universe to happen and be. For example, how can I believe the universe has been infinite in existence if there's no concrete logic to it? Or why it even should be infinite instead of finite? Can one explain why something out of nothing is not applicable to an entire system instead of what's inside of it?
The way I see it, if the idea of "something out of nothing" didn't exist, then I think the universe and such doesn't need to exist. There wouldn't be a need to a universe, an existence, or any of these laws of nature, for that matter.
-
Chillax wrote on 2010-10-14 01:19
Quote from Zid;183809:
I don't grasp "infinity" as defined by you very well, because I have no reason to believe there isn't a start and an end. Me believing that infinity is impossible to grasp by human understanding is as unusual as believing some overlord entity actually caused this universe to happen and be. For example, how can I believe the universe has been infinite in existence if there's no concrete logic to it? Or why it even should be infinite instead of finite? Can one explain why something out of nothing is not applicable to an entire system instead of what's inside of it?
The way I see it, if the idea of "something out of nothing" didn't exist, then I think the universe and such doesn't need to exist. There wouldn't be a need to a universe, an existence, or any of these laws of nature, for that matter.
Then who created "God"? Which came first: the bird, or the egg?
-
Zid wrote on 2010-10-14 01:36
Quote from Chillax;183827:
Then who created "God"? Which came first: the bird, or the egg?
God, I can't prove if he exists or not, because that is beyond my limits or anybody's limits. Bird or egg, I wouldn't know either. Evolutionary theory leans towards the organism being in recognizable existence first before reproduction came into light.
I don't have much to believe in something from nothing, but I don't have any to believe that infinity of universe is undefined.
-
Osayidan wrote on 2010-10-15 01:45
The universe is most probably infinite, but to me that means infinite in size and infinite in forward time (be it an infinite big bang loop or infinite expansion, it's irrelevant to discussion). Going backwards in time, even if it's such a vast quantity of time that mortal beings would label it as "infinite", there must have been something going on which triggered this infinite loop universe.
The video discusses quantum particles that pop in and out of existence (these types of particles can be measured scientifically) that may have existed pre-big bang. These particles exist in the "nothingness" of the so called empty space of atoms, which may have been similar to the nothingness of an empty, unborn universe. These particles could have been responsible for triggering the big bang.
Taking this as a sensible explanation to the origins of the big bang (or the first big bang assuming an infinite loop), what would have caused these particles to exist anyways? where do they come from when they pop into existence? when they disappear do they go back where they came from? and where is that? I don't know if quantum mechanics has progressed that far yet, I'm still looking into it.