Origin of the universe?

[Sedodes]

I put my faith in education, alcohol, computers, fishing, and women.  Not necessarily in that order, and not with faith being the only thing I put into them 

[Taalo]

Yes a very interesting discussion.

According to modern generally accepted scientific theory, our universe was created from absolutely *nothing*, the  reason why we can't understand how that is possible is because we live in a 4 dimensional universe where *time* is an essential and taken for granted constant which we assume must exist everywhere outside of our universe which most likely isn't the case. Another theory holds that along with our universe a large number of other universes were formed where the speed of light is slightly different from ours, and gravitational forces are greater or smaller than in our universe, thus other universes could consist entirely of black holes or just pure energy, there are universes that don't have time like ours has. Generally it's wrong to ask a question about what was *before* the big bang because time itself didn't even exist, so there was no *before* and no *after*

[Sedodes]

Actually, Taalo, a somewhat new theory that's gaining a fair sized following is that our local space is a "bubble" where the constants that we have (speed of light, strength of gravity, etc.) are what they are.  In this theory, other areas of our universe have different constants, meaning that if one were to travel across the invisible boundary of local constants one would simply cease to be because the constants that allow for the simple things (like a complex brain and nervous system) wouldn't allow those those mechanisms to exist.  This theory came about due to the observation of, if my memory serves, certain arsenic isotopes in a distant galaxy which can't exist.

See "Inconsistant Consistants" in Scientific American (can't remember the month -- between February and July 2005) for more information.

Because of our rather limited linear mindset, as I've said before, it's quite feasable that our universe created itself with no "violation of logic" involved.  Or, more appropriately with what's mentioned above, a part of the universe created itself and the rest is just "dreggs" or "runoff" from this creation.

Imagine the *nothing* of non-universe as liquid.  To make a *solid* *something* universe, you need to *freeze* a part of it.  The problem is once that first *solid* part is created, the rest of the *nothing* begins to *solidify* unintentionally.  Funny how the universe is expanding, isn't it?

[Taalo]

Thanks for the introduction to this new theory, I'll check the "Scientific American" for more details when I get a chance.

It's interesting though that information could get inside our own local space "bubble" from area of the universe where constants are different, if light (i.e. information) can be translated from that area into ours then perhaps so can matter and vice versa, I think there's a possibility that all constants change as we travel through space in our universe but we don't notice it and our structure doesn't disintegrate because that change is so small that can be ignored and we simply can't detect it.

In the usual Big Bang theory it is believed that since constants are different in other universes, then we can neither experience, nor touch or create tools from matter in our universe governed by our specific gravitational, electromagnetic and nuclear forces that can perceive or detect either light or matter of the entirely different universe, from our standpoint those other universes don't "exist" we can only understand them through language of mathematics.

The Big Bang theory states that our universe came into being after inflanting from absoulte nothing to the size of about
10(-33 power) of 1 cm - that's the point when simple laws of Quantum mechanics begin making sense, i.e. electrons and other particles are spaced out enough from each other for gravity to make sense Our constants became defined as we know them, that particular point is called the Planck time, before that point no physical laws of space and time were defined. Everything before the Planck time is called the Planck era, that era is basically theorized to be a 10 dimensional chaos where no physical laws make sense, the chaos ends and universe becomes 4-dimensional as we know it. Inflation of our universe didn't stop since the beginning and it's still expanding from that zero-nothing point. It's calculated to be about 15 Billions years old. I believe that this general theory will be revised many times as Scientists come across new discoveries, i.e the Unified Filed Theory or something like that, but up until now this is the best they got

[Sedodes]

Good to see someone (else?) who understands physics rather than just "knows" it.  "Scientific American" has another wonderful article (in a different issue -- I'll post the names of the issues later today when I dig up the magazines) regarding common misperceptions about the big bang and spacial expansion.  It clairified how light can surpass spatial expansion via the"doppler effect" and that, aside from relatively small local velocities, it's not that bodies of matter are "moving away from each other" but instead that the space between those bodies is expanding.  I think it covered six "common" things that people (including physicists) get wrong by virtue of simple misunderstanding.

If you're interested in string theory SciAm also (recently) did a wonderful article making it at least graspable by those of us who aren't versed in types of mathematics I can't even spell or pronounce.  Sadly, I know with utmost certainty I no longer have that issue as it was before I started to save my magazines.

[GeomanNL]

I hesitate to ask this (since I only know some elemantary graduate physics, nothing detailed), but maybe you got some ideas about it.

* about time:
Time is used like an independent variable. However, I think time is purely a descriptive variable that describes "evolution" of the universe (movement of objects; decay of particles), and as far as I know, nobody knows what it describes exactly.

I think it has got something to do with "entropy", which is another descriptive parameter; namely an increase in entropy equals evolution, which requires creation of "energy", which leads to velocities.

* about observations:
I also think that observations are the basis of physical laws. Now, if *some* observations lead to the concept that we are "nothing", while anybody can see that there's "something", there's some kind of inconsistency in that theory, maybe an assumption that fills in the gap of incomplete observations and creates an absolute theory (to work with) instead of taking into account possible error.

For example, law of gravity is symmetric in "time", but imo entropy ensures that time cannot ever be turned back. Isn't that a conflict, can a symmetrical law exist in an evolving universe ? This notion has no practical implications of course, only theoretical.

Have you considered something like that ?

[Taalo]

I guess you were asking everyone, so I'll give this a shot

"Time is used like an independent variable. However, I think time is purely a descriptive variable that describes "evolution" of the universe (movement of objects; decay of particles), and as far as I know, nobody knows what it describes exactly."

I don't know if time is any longer used as an independent variable, it's used only along with space, i.e. it sort of describes "coordinates" of each particle, there's I think an infinite amount of references in our universe and I only guess each instance of spacetime continuum is adjusated on continuus basis, I think it can be understood if each one of these infinite points of references is sort of a super computer that computes it's own time with relation with the each one of the other infinite points of refrences in our universe, this process never ends and this forms the complex jumble which they call spacetime continuum, I think it's pretty hard to visualize though.

"I think it has got something to do with "entropy", which is another descriptive parameter; namely an increase in entropy equals evolution, which requires creation of "energy", which leads to velocities."

Entropy is just a natural process for all particles in our universe to go from order to disorder, i.e. higher entropy, the overall probability of particles to go back to order is much much lower therefore it has to go to higher disorder, that's why time moves only forward, because probability of going back is so small that it's considered impossible.

"I also think that observations are the basis of physical laws. Now, if *some* observations lead to the concept that we are "nothing", while anybody can see that there's "something", there's some kind of inconsistency in that theory, maybe an assumption that fills in the gap of incomplete observations and creates an absolute theory (to work with) instead of taking into account possible error."

I don't think it's possible to observe "nothing", and I don't think such thing exists in our universe, everything is filled with that spacetime continuum  What's outside of our universe is perhaps a different matter.

"For example, law of gravity is symmetric in "time", but imo entropy ensures that time cannot ever be turned back. Isn't that a conflict, can a symmetrical law exist in an evolving universe ? This notion has no practical implications of course, only theoretical.
"

I am a little puzzled by this because I'm not sure I understand what meaning you put in law of gravity being symmetric in "time". I just generally don't think it's possible to go back in time, at least there's no definite answer to that in modern science yet.

[GeomanNL]

"I don't think it's possible to observe "nothing", and I don't think such thing exists in our universe, everything is filled with that spacetime continuum   What's outside of our universe is perhaps a different matter."

Of course... but what I wanted to say is that there may be a conflict in observations. If someone says that the laws of the universe, as constrained by current observations, leads to an origin that is best described as "nothing", then it's in conflict with the observation that there's actually "something".

"I am a little puzzled by this because I'm not sure I understand what meaning you put in law of gravity being symmetric in "time". I just generally don't think it's possible to go back in time, at least there's no definite answer to that in modern science yet."

Not much, just that it gives the idea that our universe is neatly ordered and predictable, which is probably true on short timescales, but may not be true on long timescales. Oops... I should've said the wave equation... there's no time involved in gravity

[Taalo]

     Scientists only speculate what that "nothing" is that our universe came from, generally it's all the matter and energy in our universe compressed into zero volume, they call that cosmic singularity it's hard to understand and I don't know of any theories that try to explain the properties of this cosmic singularity, it's properties are obviously unknown, but definitely there was no spacetime only mass with infinite gravity and infinite temperature.

"Not much, just that it gives the idea that our universe is neatly ordered and predictable, which is probably true on short timescales, but may not be true on long timescales. Oops... I should've said the wave equation... there's no time involved in gravity"

Well yeah, at small speeds and masses Newtonian physics work wonderfully. General theory of relativity and most of modern science is useful only with much higher speeds and masses than we deal with on Earth, so Newtonian physics is still good for most of our purposes. Totally agree with you. Generally theory of relativity explains gravity in a different way, mass makes spacetime to curve and space near mass contracts and dilates away from it, so I guess the larger the mass the larger is contraction of space which makes other objects fall towards that higher contraction of space. Although I must say I don't fully understand that process myself, I should read more on that.

[Sedodes]

From http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~arobic/funny/physicalwomen.html

Physical theories as women
By Simon Dedeo


0. Newtonian gravity is your high-school girlfriend. As your first encounter with physics, she's amazing. You will never forget Newtonian gravity, even if you're not in touch very much anymore.

1. Electrodynamics is your college girlfriend. Pretty complex, you probably won't date long enough to really understand her.

2. Special relativity is the girl you meet at the dorm party while you're dating electrodynamics. You make out. It's not really cheating because it's not like you call her back. But you have a sneaking suspicion she knows electrodynamics and told her everything.

3. Quantum mechanics is the girl you meet at the poetry reading. Everyone thinks she's really interesting and people you don't know are obsessed about her. You go out. It turns out that she's pretty complicated and has some issues. Later, after you've broken up, you wonder if her aura of mystery is actually just confusion.

4. General relativity is your high-school girlfriend all grown up. Man, she is amazing. You sort of regret not keeping in touch. She hates quantum mechanics for obscure reasons.

5. Quantum field theory is from overseas, but she doesn't really have an accent. You fall deeply in love, but she treats you horribly. You are pretty sure she's fooling around with half of your friends, but you don't care. You know it will end badly.

6. Cosmology is the girl that doesn't really date, but has lots of hot friends. Some people date cosmology just to hang out with her friends.

7. Analytical classical mechanics is a bit older, and knows stuff you don't.

8. String theory is off in her own little world. She is either profound or insane. If you start dating, you never see your friends anymore. It's just string theory, 24/7.


Scientific American issue names/dates will be posted today.  I got busy last night (not like that, pervert) and am again at this moment.

[Taalo]

Funny stuff, I guess I've been dating my highschool girlfreind all grown up lately 

I have a book called "Introduction to String Field Theory" by Warren Siegel, I haven't really started reading it seriously yet, but I can tell for sure it can make any mathematician of physicist scratch his head, so I guess it's only called "introduction". String theory is somewhat of a mystery to me and to others so far although a gut feeling tells me though it can turn into "theory of everything" one day.

[Eth]

String theory is somewhat of a mystery to me and to others so far although a gut feeling tells me though it can turn into "theory of everything" one day.

  My gut says the same thing.  The experimental data will be decades in coming, however.  It may turn out to be a dead-end. 
  The universe of ten dimensions is still, according to superstring theory, with us.  The resonance of ten dimensional superstrings determines their properties (i.e., those of electrons, charm, neutrons, etc., and possibly gravitons). 
  I got my dope from Brian Greene's Elegant Universe.  I read it to learn about quantum theory, but discovered the hitherto unknown world of superstring theory while I was reading it.  Fun stuff. 

[Lukipela]

Well, this certainly is an amusing little discussion. However, these so called "theories" forget to take into account quite a lot of actual facts. For example, none of you have managed to explain to me how the big bang theory manages to take into account that the Earth is in the exact centre of the universe. And if the Universe supposedly has been around for that long,why is the Earth only around 6000 years old? String theory is just confused babble about multidimensionality, that still fails to even lightly touch ob the subjects of the higher spheres of heaven. Don't you think it's a bit incompetent to "forget" to include the location of the creator in your little theory???

Seriously, you people are as bad as those evolutionists! "Oh yeah, the eye eviolved"... What use would half an eye ever be!!!

If you seriously want to find out howthings REALLY work, I recommend you go here. There is a lot of information about varying subjects there, and it's not too late to learn!

[Sedodes]

Gah, Lukipela, aren't there enough religion/physics arguments on this board already?

Although I do agree that only the wicked and sinful catch STDs.  Condoms are for heathens!

[MrMarch]

Well, this certainly is an amusing little discussion. However, these so called "theories" forget to take into account quite a lot of actual facts. For example, none of you have managed to explain to me how the big bang theory manages to take into account that the Earth is in the exact centre of the universe. And if the Universe supposedly has been around for that long,why is the Earth only around 6000 years old? String theory is just confused babble about multidimensionality, that still fails to even lightly touch ob the subjects of the higher spheres of heaven. Don't you think it's a bit incompetent to "forget" to include the location of the creator in your little theory???

Seriously, you people are as bad as those evolutionists! "Oh yeah, the eye eviolved"... What use would half an eye ever be!!!

If you seriously want to find out howthings REALLY work, I recommend you go here. There is a lot of information about varying subjects there, and it's not too late to learn!

Wow, that's a surefire way to start a flame war.  I can only hope this was some joke and the hate thrown at "evolutionists" was just bad taste.