Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: How the universe was created from Nothing

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    637

    How the universe was created from Nothing

    Here is an interesting article w/video explaining a theory of creation in the universe. It really is very intriguing and as contradictory as the theory is, it comes together and makes sense in the end. Enjoy.
    HARDY HAR HAR!

    And we're just gonna put a happy little bush in the corner right there, and it'll be our little secret. AND IF YOU TELL ANYONE! THAT, THAT BUSH IS THERE! I WILL COME TO YOUR HOUSE! AND I WILL CUT YOU!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Left Coast Currently
    Posts
    2,457
    I think I have a few universes in my wallet/bank account!!!!

    Now you know how they say you are rich when you have nothing...



    I guess the Neverending Story is really true.

    No really... interesting vid..


    DM

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    #1 Buck Adams fan
    Posts
    7,799
    Damn it now my brain hurts.....


    (going to have to get that magazine too :P )

    "I'm not happy unless you're not happy"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,146
    Your all heathens!!!

  5. #5
    As Tao tells us, when we die we are something that returns to nothing. How foolish it would be to not believe something can come from nothing.

  6. #6
    Guth's work has been out for a while now, and is certainly interesting and well-argued.

    Not so sure about the secondary component of the argument this video makes, which is also fairly popular. There is something logically problematic with taking certain physical 'rules' or characteristics of the universe as it is and then assuming (a) the universe has always had these rules or characteristics exactly as we see them today, and (b) these same rules or characteristics would necessarily apply to the ??????? into which the universe came to be.

    For it certainly cannot be missed that the universe is expanding into something (or nothing), and if it indeed 'banged', it arguably banged into this same something (or nothing), and this matrix, whatever it is or isn't, has no reasonable expectation of being anything like the universe that banged into it, either in terms of its form, its structure, or the physical rules that undergird it.

    Hence, just because the structural 'DNA' of physics in this universe permits (so we currently think) things to pop into and out of existence with no particular cause, there is no reason to assume this same DNA is at work in the unknown beyond the universe.

    We see this even in our own universe. At a micro level quantum mechanics operates, but it does not (to the best of our knowledge) operate at a macro level.

    Again, a most interesting theory, but by definition probably completely impossible to verify.

    But that's still no reason not to think it over.

    Nice chew-worthy topic!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by Menace_AO
    Guth's work has been out for a while now, and is certainly interesting and well-argued.

    Not so sure about the secondary component of the argument this video makes, which is also fairly popular. There is something logically problematic with taking certain physical 'rules' or characteristics of the universe as it is and then assuming (a) the universe has always had these rules or characteristics exactly as we see them today, and (b) these same rules or characteristics would necessarily apply to the ??????? into which the universe came to be.

    For it certainly cannot be missed that the universe is expanding into something (or nothing), and if it indeed 'banged', it arguably banged into this same something (or nothing), and this matrix, whatever it is or isn't, has no reasonable expectation of being anything like the universe that banged into it, either in terms of its form, its structure, or the physical rules that undergird it.

    Hence, just because the structural 'DNA' of physics in this universe permits (so we currently think) things to pop into and out of existence with no particular cause, there is no reason to assume this same DNA is at work in the unknown beyond the universe.

    We see this even in our own universe. At a micro level quantum mechanics operates, but it does not (to the best of our knowledge) operate at a macro level.

    Again, a most interesting theory, but by definition probably completely impossible to verify.

    But that's still no reason not to think it over.

    Nice chew-worthy topic!
    Great post! Your points certainly created more questions for me. I have always been a fan of magazines like pop. science, discover, the history channel specials that have been on the air recently but aside from that, I'm very much an amateur. I'm getting ready for some physics classes next semester at IU, so hopefuly that will elevate my "science talk" in the future.

    Based off points a) and b), since there is a valid possibility that the laws of physics could be almost anything within the medium or at the time in which the big bang occurred, I imagine this could make it almost impossible to really narrow down what caused the big bang (with any certainty) unless scientists somehow are able to peek underneath the expanse our universe resides within.

    I'm curious as to how scientists would accomplish that feat. Maybe through blackhole studies/experiments...I know the LHC was going to create some micro black holes, hmmm. But youre right, many of these theories may be almost impossible for us to concretely prove with current technology.
    Last edited by dahoeb; 08-01-2011 at 09:31 PM.

  8. #8
    Thankee!

    And always bear in mind that we are all 'amateurs'. Some are a little further down the road than others, but in the grand scheme, we are all illiterate children at best. Most of what is out there, we don't know. And probably much of what we 'know' is also not out there.

    So far as the physics stuff is concerned, bear in mind that when dealing with extreme scenarios such as black holes or the big bang, we have to tentatively table our understanding of normal physics. Case in point: since time (so far as we know) is a function of cosmic space (properly space-time), we cannot rightly talk about a 'time' before the big bang, since the space-time in which we live and operate and gauge time, did not exist. It's a hard concept to get the mind around, but again, one of those things we are born into and have to un-learn when we tackle the really thorny problems.

    And again, every possible scientific inquiry in this universe will only provide, eo ipso, a further understanding of . . . this universe.

    Black holes are nice, but they occur in this universe, which means in the end, they operate according to the rules that fund this space-time. Even if their operation alters the normal rules, the 'abnormal' rules they write for the rest of space-time are still underwritten by the larger cosmos.

    Probably it is the case that the only way to 'get out' of this universe is to think in ways that are entirely unlike this universe. One of the greatest barriers to new learning is the learning we already have. Science is really good in this place, so perhaps it may require something very un-scientific to think about whatever it is that is outside our little expanding bubble.

    Cheers.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    this dangeriously simplified. i get where the creators are comming from in making this, but its boardering on bull **** with how watered down it is.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by Menace_AO
    Guth's work has been out for a while now, and is certainly interesting and well-argued.

    Not so sure about the secondary component of the argument this video makes, which is also fairly popular. There is something logically problematic with taking certain physical 'rules' or characteristics of the universe as it is and then assuming (a) the universe has always had these rules or characteristics exactly as we see them today, and (b) these same rules or characteristics would necessarily apply to the ??????? into which the universe came to be.

    For it certainly cannot be missed that the universe is expanding into something (or nothing), and if it indeed 'banged', it arguably banged into this same something (or nothing), and this matrix, whatever it is or isn't, has no reasonable expectation of being anything like the universe that banged into it, either in terms of its form, its structure, or the physical rules that undergird it.

    Hence, just because the structural 'DNA' of physics in this universe permits (so we currently think) things to pop into and out of existence with no particular cause, there is no reason to assume this same DNA is at work in the unknown beyond the universe.

    We see this even in our own universe. At a micro level quantum mechanics operates, but it does not (to the best of our knowledge) operate at a macro level.

    Again, a most interesting theory, but by definition probably completely impossible to verify.

    But that's still no reason not to think it over.

    Nice chew-worthy topic!
    the matrix if you will is space time, and i agree completly.

    how can we assume that the rules of space time apply at a time before time, and a position outside of space? simply put, our language and construct of the universe is limited to within the universe.

    this is why i am consistently annoyed when poeple say that the universe came from nothing. there version of the big bang is that there was nothing, then something exploded and filled the void. this is incorrect, rather EVERYTHING was in the singularity, and everything expanded - the void included. space included. before the universe there may have been no such thing as time, there might have been no such thing as length. but again, our words break down ... how can something be BEFORE time itself?

    this leads us down some interesting thought experiments. if everything expanded, and if we live in a closed universe, or a multiverse - then everything will come back together, and expand again ... perhaps with totally different natural laws and fundamental eliments and forces. we know that in mere seconds after the big bang, the four natural forces were really one force, and then gravity broke off ... what if in a progression of natural big bangs each one produced a universe differently? perhaops the multiverse is a series of universes with fundamentally different laws, and formations. existing simulatnously, yet, also being consecutive.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 08-04-2011 at 10:08 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
    this is why i am consistently annoyed when poeple say that the universe came from nothing. there version of the big bang is that there was nothing, then something exploded and filled the void. this is incorrect

    Does the BB theory rule out the possibility of what the video covers, or is it a keystone that there be matter (or something) to create the singularity? I thought scientists were still sorta figuring out what the cause/origin of the BB was....then the question is raised, what created the stuff that fell into the singularity?
    Interesting post. I'm not being snarky with my questions, I'm genuinely curious, this is a really mind bending subject.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by dahoeb
    Interesting post. I'm not being snarky with my questions, I'm genuinely curious, this is a really mind bending subject.
    no, the big bang theory is part of what the video proposes. the video proposes that the unvierse may be a net sum of nothing - therefore solving the age old problem of how do you get something from nothing.

    but really, one must ask, does cuase and effect exist outside space, time, and matter? cause and effect is a law within our own universe, but how does one attempt to decern a cause for an event without time to tell them appart? or without matter for them to happen to? or without space for said action to happen in? we don't even have words or a framework in out mind to even talk about something like that, and without first testing to make sure cause and effect is valid outside our universe (if you can do that, here is your nobel prize), i think its premature to assume.

  13. #13

    wow

    Just got home from work and thought i would have a beer and check out whats happening on A.O,Ya WOW that video is deep,But i was talking to one of students at the u.of.a and they have learned about ANTI MATTER,That you take anti matter to create matter or somthing like that, then came on this Whole disscussion about creation.well i thought i would throw something out there.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by wixxxman
    Just got home from work and thought i would have a beer and check out whats happening on A.O,Ya WOW that video is deep,But i was talking to one of students at the u.of.a and they have learned about ANTI MATTER,That you take anti matter to create matter or somthing like that, then came on this Whole disscussion about creation.well i thought i would throw something out there.
    anti-matter destroys matter. it doesn't create it.

    its is interesting, in the big bang, matter and energy paired off into particle/antipartical pairs. for the most part these pairs were in equal numbers (like electrons and positrons), but for some reason matter and antimatter must not have formed in equal parts, because now the universe is dominated with matter, and anti-matter is nearly non existent.

    why? we dont know.

  15. #15

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk
    anti-matter destroys matter. it doesn't create it.

    its is interesting, in the big bang, matter and energy paired off into particle/antipartical pairs. for the most part these pairs were in equal numbers (like electrons and positrons), but for some reason matter and antimatter must not have formed in equal parts, because now the universe is dominated with matter, and anti-matter is nearly non existent.

    why? we dont know.

    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i see but if you want to make this more intresting type this into the google looks like we are not the only ones that are curious ''Large Hadron Collider''
    ps Are you the same cockerpunk on you tube?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by wixxxman
    Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh i see but if you want to make this more intresting type this into the google looks like we are not the only ones that are curious ''Large Hadron Collider''
    ps Are you the same cockerpunk on you tube?
    yeah thats me.

    the LHC can make anti-matter, by recreating the super high energy levels of mere milliseconds after the big bang where matter essentially ceases to exist. then there are tons of detectors (those are the large flower looking things) that can pic up what makes up matter. one part is anti-matter.

  17. #17
    If only gravity was a real thing... and if only we where not being lied to about how this place turely works....
    stick to paintball kids.


    if you truely want to know whats going on, look up nassim haramine.


    Black Emag
    Red ULE body
    AGD 4.01
    SM1 10-14in Barrel
    Black NW on/off Drop

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,157
    Quote Originally Posted by SkyBoySurfer
    If only gravity was a real thing... and if only we where not being lied to about how this place turely works....
    stick to paintball kids.


    if you truely want to know whats going on, look up nassim haramine.
    LIES

    TIMECUBE.COM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •