Theories on how the universe was created....Please Help!!!

[Sharky]

How come nobody mentioned my theory of Warp Mechanics!?

It is the most elaborate theory I have ever seen much less heared of.

You can check it out on the second page of the general discussions forum.

It discusses every single aspect of the universe and it's makeup from molecular to sub-atomic particle structure. It also discusses sub-atomic motion as a warped passing. It states that in terms of creation that the speed of light is actually the speed of motionlessness slowing down.

Kinetic energy is released slower than Potential energy. This also collaborates with the idea that in space a spiral motion is equal to a strait line in terms of acceleration.

[Cait]

I'm not sure about your theory but I do know that the Big Bang theory might be wrong. Some astronomers have seen stars thet believe have been aged farther back that the Big Bang theory was suposed to happen.

[Tormod]

Hi Cait - welcome to our forums!

 

that some stars seem older than the age of the Universe has been a known paradox for some years now. It is believed to be thoroughly solved, especially after the Hubble Space Telescope, the MAP project and other tools enabled scientists to make finer calculations.

 

Here are some articles:

The First Starlight (NASA article)

 

How can the oldest stars in the Universe be older than the Universe?

 

How Old is the Universe?

 

Hubble tackles paradox of Universe's age

 

Tormod

[administrator]

the universe is cosmic and is being created by your ability to percieve motion, color, weights and measures. ( descarte's "I think therefore i am" )

 

 

the future is speculation and cannot be proven until it becomes history.

 

the past is future that has become history.

 

we all are then doomed to live in our own little universe

[syndicated]

I have a few questions concerning the many theories and facts that are circulating on this tread.

Firstly, Tormud you mentioned that before the universe began to expand due to the big bang or whatever other unproven theories there are, that the "universe" was infinitly small. Doesn't this conflict with Planck's length? I mean there MUST have been something tangible there right before it started to expand. There must have been something to trigger it as well, I mean everything happens for a reason. But lets assume for a moment that the universe WAS infinitly small, how did that infinitly small "thing" get there? To think that it came from nothing would violate every law and theory man has created and I think essentially would put an end to any research into where it came from. So I find this very hard to grasp.

So here's my crazy idea that i've been mulling over for a day or so. I think it has some feasability to it, but i'll let you be the judges of that.

What if, in another universe a star went supernova, creating a black whole obviously, and the matter which said black hole sucked in began our universe. This still satisfies the expansionism that prevailed at the begining of the universe and satisfies the fact that everything in our universe must have come from somewhere. My biggest question remaining is where would that portal from my aforementioned black hole gone? A black hole can only contain a finite amount of matter at any given time... so maybe it closed or was cut-off when our universe expanded.

I may be re-hashing someone elses idea thought up a long time ago, infact it is more than likely, but I like to think of it as my own! :-)

 

My second is to the person who mentioned that astronomers have found stars that are older than the universe itself. I think that's completely implausible. The distance and age of a star is calculated by the amount of red-shift that the light from the star has correct? This red-shift can and would be affected by any gravitational, electromagnetic, or atmospheric effects that the light from that star passes through. Not to mention the fact that the light were are seeing from these stars is billions of years old, so maybe at some point the star was moving away from us at a faster rate?

 

Well thats it for now...

 

Later!

Ben

[Tormod]

You have some very good questions, Ben. Here are some "answers." But before I say anything, I'd like to point out that whenever I write something in these forums, I never state absolute truths. Some people think that because I might write "before the Big Bang there was nothing" that I then assume that to be the truth. Not so.

 

The thing with cosmology is that there are so many things we don't know. Always assume that what is written is a thought, a theory, a speculation. And then make up your own mind! Thinking is good, philosophizing is very good, and throwing out strange ideas because of it is wonderful.

 

Nuff said.

 

Originally posted by: syndicated

Tormud (sic! - check my name again) you mentioned that before the universe began to expand due to the big bang or whatever other unproven theories there are, that the "universe" was infinitly small. Doesn't this conflict with Planck's length?

 

It is of course impossible to answer this question without being biased in one way or another. It is probably impossible to "prove" the Big Bang ever happened. It is, however, a likely theory which nicely fits the data we have, so in this discussion let's just assume it is correct. Yet there are thousands of theories as to what exactly the Big Bang _was_ (an explosion? an implosion? a quantum fluctuation in another Universe?) - but it is widely regarded as the beginning of the known, observable Universe, which means that it happened at the beginning of the time we use to measure the age of the Universe (13.7 billion years +/- 0.1 bln years).

 

I believe that the planck length is a result of the features of our Universe, like the inflation, expansion, vacuum energy, speed of light etc. Our Universe _might_ have existed before the Big Bang, and so the Big Bang _might_ have been just another "beginning" of one bubble inside another. But I think the laws and constants of nature are what came out of the Big Bang. Therefore, the planck length did not exist before after the Big Bang. So there is no paradox.

 

As for whether there really was a singularity or not: I don't know. If you ask a string theorist, she will probably tell you that there is no such thing as a singularity. But that only forces the question, "then out of what came the Big Bang". Maybe we should discuss that next!

 

I mean there MUST have been something tangible there right before it started to expand. There must have been something to trigger it as well, I mean everything happens for a reason. But lets assume for a moment that the universe WAS infinitly small, how did that infinitly small "thing" get there? To think that it came from nothing would violate every law and theory man has created and I think essentially would put an end to any research into where it came from. So I find this very hard to grasp.

 

I disagree. We think everything has to have a reason. The entire basis for the way we perform experiments and think about science is based in causality. But I am finding it increasingly hard to believe that everything _must_ have a "first cause". It's a chicken-and-egg question.

 

I also think it is incorrect to say there was something "there". There was no "there" before the Universe was born, so from our point of view (being inside our Universe) the Big Bang did not happen anywhere. On the contrary, if we accept (for the sake of argument) that the Big Bang was the beginning of the Universe, then it happened everywhere at once!

 

So here's my crazy idea that i've been mulling over for a day or so. I think it has some feasability to it, but i'll let you be the judges of that.

What if, in another universe a star went supernova, creating a black whole obviously, and the matter which said black hole sucked in began our universe. This still satisfies the expansionism that prevailed at the begining of the universe and satisfies the fact that everything in our universe must have come from somew

[syndicated]

Tormod (see? i got it right this time! :-), thanks for the reply. The last part of my post about the stars being older in the universe was not directed at you however.

I didn't consider any of the points you mentioned in your reply and a lot of it makes sense. I would propose to debate your point on causality in dealing with the begining with the universe, but alas, no one knows what happened and there's no point in arguing with "what if's" and other hypothetical statements.

I'm more interested in why you are leaning towards the idea that there was -nothing- before the big bang. Mind you it is hard for me to grasp that idea, since the action-reaction principle is what I was raised with in school. Is there something I can read on this idea you're pondering?

 

I'm not sure if i agree with your statement that the laws of nature were created from the start of the universe. I would tend to think that even the big bang would have to have had some sort of governing dynamics or laws in order for it to have resulted in what it is today. Even in chaos, there is a pattern, yes? I don't think that even in the moment right before the big bang, there was a true chaotic state. But that's abstract thinking and I don't expect anyone to answer that.

 

Anwayz, thanks again for the insight.

 

Later!

Ben

[Tormod]

I would propose to debate your point on causality in dealing with the begining with the universe, but alas, no one knows what happened and there's no point in arguing with "what if's" and other hypothetical statements.

 

Yes, we should discuss this further! I disagree with you that we should stay away from the philosophical questions, because what we are discussing is all about theories and not "truth". We cannot possibly claim to know the "truth" about the Universe, what was before it or how it came into being. (It's hard enough just dealing with the ideas of a Big Bang, cosmic expansion and the multitude of theories for just about every aspect of cosmic genesis). Better bring ideas into the open and discuss them freely.

 

I'm more interested in why you are leaning towards the idea that there was -nothing- before the big bang. Mind you it is hard for me to grasp that idea, since the action-reaction principle is what I was raised with in school. Is there something I can read on this idea you're pondering?

 

Actually, I do not lean against the theory that before the Big Bang there was "nothing". I think what I'm trying to say is that when we discuss "where does our Universe come from", I believe that the Big Bang was the origin of the "observable" Universe. With that I mean that anything we see (and can ever see) originated with the Big Bang. This means, obviously, that I leave the gate open for the possibility that there are many Universes and that ours is just one of many, in which the properties of the Universe allowed for intelligent beings to evolve. In this respect I lean on the "anthropic principle".

 

The observable Universe has expanded from a miniscule size (infinite or not) to what we see today. There is every reason to believe that the Universe is vastly, hugely larger than what we observe. One reason for this is that during the inflationary period, some cosmologists maintain that the inflation happened so fast that it surpassed the speed of light many, many times. How can this be true?

 

I'm not sure if i agree with your statement that the laws of nature were created from the start of the universe. I would tend to think that even the big bang would have to have had some sort of governing dynamics or laws in order for it to have resulted in what it is today. Even in chaos, there is a pattern, yes? I don't think that even in the moment right before the big bang, there was a true chaotic state. But that's abstract thinking and I don't expect anyone to answer that.

 

Consider this: The speed of light - as we measure it in our Universe - cannot have existed before there was a space through which light could move. Following my argument that the Universe which we observe was created by (or through, or via, or whatever) the Big Bang, a) there was no light in the initial period, only energy and B) there was no space. Thus the speed of light was settled only after the inflationary period (only a very small fraction of the first second) was finished. So, the speed of light, which we consider one of the fundamental values in our Universe, is a direct result of the way our Universe was created. The same goes for the planck length. What is the planck length? It is the shortest possible distance a wave of light can move. At this level space dissolves into some kind of foam (HIGHLY speculative, you must delve into string theory to really get any of this). The way space-time is constructed is therefore also a direct consequence of the first thing that happened in our Universe - which in this line of argument was The Big Bang. In other universes, space-time may be different.

 

When we say there is order in the chaos we are usually referring to the way we can find patterns in what is perceived to be chaos (I put together a hypography on chaos theory quite a while ago, check the Hypographies section or search for chaos theory). I don't know how we should apply chaos the

[fatty_ashy]

Just to offer my two cents worth. If too much negative mass is put into a wormhole, it would start a new universe, won't it? I don't really get the Parallel Universe part.

[Tormod]

fatty_ashy, could you be more precise? What is it you don't get about a parallell universe? What it means, whether they exist, or what? It's not one but many, many theories.

 

In quantum mechanics there is a many worlds theory which says that every time a quantum decision has to be made (say, should a photon spin this way or that), both things actually happen and the Universe splits in two - one in which the particle spins up, one in which it spins down. Some even claim to have evidence for this (how on Earth...).

 

In the Multiverse theory, which is basically essential for the Anthropic principle (which says, basically, that the Universe is built the way it is because we are here to observe it), there are endless numbers of possible universes, and we inhabit the one in which we are most likely to evolve in.

 

There are more as well...

 

As for wormholes, check out our special on wormholes.

 

Tormod

[fatty_ashy]

Sorry about that tormod, it's just that my mind is getting overloaded from all these...I find it hard to think straight.

I was actually curious about the "parrellel universes" theory. Because i have read many articles relating to entering a wormhole and being able to see another "universe", or how entering a singularity will get you somewhere else, providing you don't die first. If there is a multiverse, how does that explain the begining of OUR universe??

[Tormod]

He, he. Very good question. It doesn't, of course. Like many cosmological theories, it only pushes the gensis problem further back.

 

I have read several theories about the beginning of our Universe within the so-called Multiverse (sometimes also called the "Ensemble") theory. I can't begin to explain all of them (because, frankly, it is beyond me).

 

It is easy to imagine some of the possibilities, though:

 

1) Our Universe is one in a series of universes (only one exists at any given time, but there was no beginning of this sequence)

2) The Many Worlds theory which I mentioned above, which (usually) cites the Big Bang as the origin

3) Our Universe was born out of a black hole in another universe, taking with it some of the properties of that universe, but having some unique features. Again, our own Universe could be the "mother" of many other universes existing simultaneously

4) This one is kinda weird: Our own Universe went through a time loop, went back in time and caused its own creation (no kidding, Richard Gott writes about this in his book "Time travel in Einstein's Universe")

5) Our Universe is just one of many "blobs" inside a much larger unit, with a local Big Bang originating inside this unit. The other siblings could have different properties, like varying natural constants, physical laws etc.

 

Now, as to what caused the beginning...it's still a matter of speculation, and I think it will stay there for a very long time yet.

 

Tormod

[Tormod]

I just picked up a copy of the May issue of Scientific American - they have a feature on "the fact that parallell universes exist".

 

Did anyone else read it yet?

 

Tormod

[BlUeGrAsSgAl88]

hello. i needed help with that theories thing too and this thread helped out TONZ!!!!!!! thnx everyone who helped answer the qeustion!!!

[BlUeGrAsSgAl88]

oh i also have a question. can sumone tell me a specific theory that has NOTHING to do with the big bang or the Creation(that God created everything). if you do plz reply ASAP. one other thing--a while back sumone wrote a thread about how if you talk about the creation at school all kinds of bad things start happenenin?!?!? i SO agree with that. especially now with the war. well i jus wanted 2 write that.

[Tormod]

BlUeGrAsSgAl88, Welcome!

 

A theory which does not involve the Big Bang and Creation? How about the steady-state theory? The Universe never changes, but only appears to be changing from our viewpoint.

 

Also, of course, just about any non-creationist theory which defies the Big Bang...you'll find endless amounts of them on the net, but most of them are crackpot theories.

 

No, seriously: the Big Bang theory is not very old, so there were lots of theories about cosmological genesis (without the need for a God) before the Big Bang became an acceptable theory. I guess there still are viable alternatives.

 

Here is a good link

 

Tormod

[administrator]

Spirals. Not enough attention is paid to this structure. I believe this is the key. Determine the function of that structure and the how and why is sure to follow. Remember matter is simply energy slowed, rather the offspring. Matter is born of energy. There exists a dynamic system of energy into matter and back again. Unlikely a result of a singular event, but rather the workings of a never ending perptual machine.