The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

[WillieB]

Durgatosh:

 

I’ve been away from this forum lately and so I have just recently encountered this thread. You seem to have opened up an area in which the length of discussions far surpasses zero and may even extend to infinity. I offer my congratulations on your ingenuity and refusal to abandon your concept.

 

Though I do not claim to approach your level of competence in this field you and I seem to be in similar positions. You have reached a concept that you find reasonable and it potentially offers explanations for conditions that were previously unexplained. You are not able to advance this concept any further and you made your original post in the hope of receiving assistance in doing so. I too have reached a concept in which I need assistance to advance. While your quest deals with the origin of the universe mine deals with how the universe, once established, actually operates. My original goal was simple. “HOW ARE ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS CREATED AND HOW DO THEY ACTUALLY EXERT THEIR FORCES? The answer that was derived quickly led to other far reaching questions and answers. You can find this discussion on the thread “Keep it Simple” on this forum.

 

One of the answers mirrors your basic premise that a positive and negative something is created of out a nothing. The following is a quote from the underlying paper titled “The Incremental Universe.”

 

"That is an unanswerable question. It would seem that the law of preservation of charge would prevent their formation but perhaps some phenomenon can produce them by splitting a “nothing,” a zero of charge, into two equal and opposite bundles. This conjectured capability could serve to explain the continued expansion of our universe."

 

The forum members have really put you through the wringer. I am sure that it has been a lot of fun for you but it seems that you have received very little help in actually advancing your concept. I wish that I could provide it! If you have any comments or suggestions after reading my paper please let me know.

 

Bill Britton (WillieB)

[cohen avshalom]

thank you for suggestion help:

i can only got till the beginning point,when the nember could all equell to zero,but the first spark,that began the process when everything is zero,i can not explane,maybe you suggest here?

second i was remarking a bout the second law of thermodynamics-does he take place-with a open universe model?

someone else spoke a bout Alan Guth-and the great battleground of theoretical physics in the 1980s.

he said that Alan Guth was one of the first to propose that the universe might have been a "Quantum Tunneling Event" (a Quantum Leap) base on the peculiar fact that the approximate value of alll Gravitational Energy (which is "Negative"...only attracts.) was about equal to the known Mass-Energy of the Universe.

and he said else difference in power between the Gravitational and Electromagnetic forces.

you know what any remark could help(might see another time the site-in page 3 second remark -should been writting mass/energy not just mass-i will repair this next time when i will update the site).

but try to look the atum as proton and neutron and electon pulling because they have mass -for there direction,just like star force because he have mass

(gravitation -law),dont look for trend to equality(it could confuse you at first)-see in diffrent point.-i am waitting

wait for your remark?

Cohen avshalom charly isreal/haifa

Icarus 5, Unlimited energy being produced at the outter edge of expanding space

[cohen avshalom]

thank you for suggestion help:

i can only got till the beginning point,when the nember could all equell to zero,but the first spark,that began the process when everything is zero,i can not explane,maybe you suggest here?

second i was remarking a bout the second law of thermodynamics-does he take place-with a open universe model?

someone else spoke a bout Alan Guth-and the great battleground of theoretical physics in the 1980s.

he said that Alan Guth was one of the first to propose that the universe might have been a "Quantum Tunneling Event" (a Quantum Leap) base on the peculiar fact that the approximate value of alll Gravitational Energy (which is "Negative"...only attracts.) was about equal to the known Mass-Energy of the Universe.

and he said else difference in power between the Gravitational and Electromagnetic forces.

you know what any remark could help(might see another time the site-in page 3 second remark -should been writting mass/energy not just mass-i will repair this next time when i will update the site).

but try to look the atum as proton and neutron and electon pulling because they have mass -for there direction,just like star force because he have mass

(gravitation -law),dont look for trend to equality(it could confuse you at first)-see in diffrent point.-i am waitting

wait for your remark?

Cohen avshalom charly isreal/haifa

Icarus 5 Unlimited energy being produced at the outter edge of expanding space

[durgatosh]

I was away for a while and hence I am catching up with the recent responses.

 

Willie B

You seem to have opened up an area in which the length of discussions far surpasses zero and may even extend to infinity. I offer my congratulations on your ingenuity and refusal to abandon your concept.

 

...One of the answers mirrors your basic premise that a positive and negative something is created of out a nothing. The following is a quote from the underlying paper titled “The Incremental Universe.”

 

"That is an unanswerable question. It would seem that the law of preservation of charge would prevent their formation but perhaps some phenomenon can produce them by splitting a “nothing,” a zero of charge, into two equal and opposite bundles. This conjectured capability could serve to explain the continued expansion of our universe."

 

The forum members have really put you through the wringer. I am sure that it has been a lot of fun for you but it seems that you have received very little help in actually advancing your concept. I wish that I could provide it! If you have any comments or suggestions after reading my paper please let me know.

 

Bill Britton (WillieB)

 

Thanks Bill for your complement and suggestions. I would go through your paper on Incremental Universe and get back to you. The only clarification I would like to offer is that my concept of "split of zero" was an attempt to explian the origin from nothing. However, as I have mentioned before, I gave up on this because of its limitations (if zero can split, so can the other things!). Then, I formulated my concept of infinite instability of zero and arrived at the conclusion of the equivalence of zero (sum total) and infinity (the entire range of negative to positive infinity). This explains the eternity of the universe with a sum total of zero.

 

cohen avshalom

i can only got till the beginning point,when the nember could all equell to zero,but the first spark,that began the process when everything is zero,i can not explane,maybe you suggest here?

 

The problem is that we are looking at the first spark, or the split of zero. My own reason and understanding is that zero cannot exist by itself (infinite instability of zero) and can exist only as the multitude of positives and negatives with a sum total of zero (the infinite eternal universe).

 

DP

[Eclogite]

Durgatosh, I have read and re-read your posts several times. The problem I have is that your conclusions appear to be based purely on supposition and flimsy chains of logic. Nothing (no pun intended) is based on evidence. You offer no material justifcation for your thoughts. At best this places your thoughts in the realm of speculative philosophy. At worst, well.......

This might be appropriate if you had opened the thread in Philosophy or General, but in the Astronomy/Cosmology section surely something more substantive is necessary.

[durgatosh]

Eclogite

Durgatosh, I have read and re-read your posts several times. The problem I have is that your conclusions appear to be based purely on supposition and flimsy chains of logic. Nothing (no pun intended) is based on evidence. You offer no material justifcation for your thoughts. At best this places your thoughts in the realm of speculative philosophy. At worst, well.......

This might be appropriate if you had opened the thread in Philosophy or General, but in the Astronomy/Cosmology section surely something more substantive is necessary.

 

Of course, it is based on pure logic and some basic mathematics. The infinite instability of zero finds its support from the quantum theory. I don't think that we will ever find material evidence of the birth or eternity of the universe (all material things are product of the universe rather than the source). You can derive a persons lineage from his parents and grandparents but you cannot find the lineage of a father or grandfather directly from the son or grandson (at best it would be speculative or indirect).

 

I wonder on what you mean by "At worst, well....." Go ahead and complete your statement. For I am not the one who would make such sly remarks on you even if you would make on me.

 

Th problem with most thinkers today is that they want to be too compartmentalized in their disciplines and thus suffer from a narrow tubular vision. The birth and growth of astronomy and astrophysics has seen people like Aristotle and Plato, people who were philosophers more than astronomers. Too much compartmentalization would never lead us towards the truth; only way to truth is an all-inclusive approach to knowledge. Alas, few people today understand the value of such an approach.

 

Anyway, I am not forcing my opinion on anyone. You are entitled to your opinion and are free to criticize me. My theory satisfies my urge and desire to know about the understanding of the universe, and I have shared this in this forum.

 

DP

[WillieB]

Durgatosh,

 

Thanks for your reply. Contrary to Eclogite I don'tthink that a post on this forum is required to be backed up with incontrovertable proof. Keep on thinking!

 

However I would like to offer one observation. Don't permit your thinking become bogged down by a slavish devotion to pure mathematics. In the end, it will be logic that solves our hope for a TOE. Hopefully that logic will be capable of being confirmed in one way or another by mathematics, but, first a conclusion must be drawn to point the physics community in the right direction.

 

You have let your definition of "nothing" irrevocably point to "Zero." My "nothing" is absolutely empty space. But even that is not a nothing. It is empty space and who can tell us what empty space consists of? As of now noone can answer that. My concept is that empty space, given the right conditions can condense into one positive charge matched by one negative charge. That is not exactly the same as a zero splitting into a +1 and a -1 but it comes very close.

 

Good luck with your pondering of the things that compose ourselves, our world, our universe!

 

WillieB

[Eclogite]

Of course, it is based on pure logic and some basic mathematics.

I just found the logic to be poorly structured and unconvincing. Since I believe you would hope to persuade some readers of the validity of your concept I imagined you would find such a perception helpful: it offers you a chance to present your hypothesis in a more digestible manner.

The infinite instability of zero finds its support from the quantum theory.

Please direct me to the post(s) where you demonstrate this point.

I don't think that we will ever find material evidence of the birth or eternity of the universe (all material things are product of the universe rather than the source).

Then you don't consider the background radiation to be evidence of the Big Bang. That is an interesting position to take. What causes you to reject that evidence?

 

I wonder on what you mean by "At worst, well....." Go ahead and complete your statement. For I am not the one who would make such sly remarks on you even if you would make on me.

I am sorry if I have offended you by this remark. The remark was not made on you, but on your hypothesis. It was certainly not intended to be sly, but rather to be restrained, diplomatic and respectful. I regret that I have completely missed the mark in that regard.

Durgatosh, I have invested substantial time in reading your arguments and trying to make sense of them. I hope you would acknowledge that represents a mark of considerable respect for you and an attempt to deliver similar respect for your hypothesis. Whilst I retain the respect for you as an individual I am genuinely struggling, as indicated earlier, to extend that respect to your hypothesis. That is what the the phrase "At worst, well...." was intended to convey with tact and sensitivity.

Of course, if you would prefer that I lie to you about my opinion I can probably manage that.:phones:

Th problem with most thinkers today is that they want to be too compartmentalized in their disciplines and thus suffer from a narrow tubular vision. .........Alas, few people today understand the value of such an approach.

I agree completely. I am simply suggesting that such broad thinking should be accompanied by meticulous logic, incisive insights, and vigorous self criticism.

Anyway, I am not forcing my opinion on anyone. You are entitled to your opinion and are free to criticize me.

Again, I repeat, I am not criticising you, I am criticising your hypothesis. I understand that we can all be sensitive to criticisms of our 'children', but without such criticism they are unlikely to grow into adulthood.

 

Willie B, I would be really intrigued to learn where in my post I suggest, implicitly or explicitly, "that a post on this forum is required to be backed up with incontrovertable proof."

I don't believe that and did not say it. Some evidence would, however, be nice.

[CraigD]

Ok...next question, what's the difference [between dark mater and antimatter]?

Dark matter is matter that we’re unable to observe with some sort of EM radiation (photons) – radio, infrared, visible light, urtraviolet, etc. We can observe its apparent gravitational effect, we just can’t directly “see” it. Antimatter may just be very cool ordinary matter not touched by enough radiation from regular matter for us to be observed. It may be something very weird. Or maybe, for any of a variety of reasons, we’re wrong in the observations and theories that lead us to conclude that at least 95% of the observed universe is made of dark matter, and there’s much less of it than we think.

 

Antimatter is made of fundamental particles that are the antiparticles of the ordinary ones – positrons where there are usually electrons, antiprotons and antineutrons in place of protons and neutrons. Though we suspect there’s very little antimatter in the universe, in principle, a whole galaxy made of it would be hard to tell from one made of ordinary matter – the tip off would be a lot of unexpected high-energy radiation where it’s antimatter interstellar gas collided and annihilated with the ordinary mater gas of intergalactic space. No such galaxy or smaller structure has been observed. We know with high confidence that antimatter can exist, though, having made very tiny amounts of it in particle accelerator/collectors, including putting together positrons and antiprotons to make antihydrogen.

[durgatosh]

Eclogite

I just found the logic to be poorly structured and unconvincing.

 

I would have appreciated if you would have pin-pointed the defects in the logic of my hypothesis rather than making a professorial statement of it being poorly structured and unconvincing. I can understand if it does not appeal to your way of thinking but I have not set out to win publicity; it is a sincere search for truth which I have shared in the forum.

 

Eclogite

Then you don't consider the background radiation to be evidence of the Big Bang. That is an interesting position to take. What causes you to reject that evidence?

 

Background radiation is not a direct evidence to big bang. It offers an indirect support to big bang but has been also explained to occur because of other reasons. Anyway, I do not object to big bang; what I object to is the big bang being the birth of universe. My search is the origin (or an explanation of eternity) of the universe; whether or not big bang occured is irrelevant to my search.

 

Eclogite

I am sorry if I have offended you by this remark. The remark was not made on you, but on your hypothesis. It was certainly not intended to be sly, but rather to be restrained, diplomatic and respectful. I regret that I have completely missed the mark in that regard.

.....That is what the the phrase "At worst, well...." was intended to convey with tact and sensitivity.

 

My language is not so bad that I cannot understand the difference between a restrained, respectful remark and a sly remark. Anyway, there is no need for being sorry, I am not asking for any apology or any explanation.

 

For this forum, I am what my hypothesis is. What else is known about me in this forum! I don't mind criticisms for my hypothesis; you can see plenty of that in this thread and you can also see how I have responded. What I certainly don't like is when people get over the board and start making statements like "at worst, well...." You ask whosoever you want and let me know if one of them thinks that it is a tact and sensitive remark.

 

Eclogite

Please direct me to the post(s) where you demonstrate this point.

 

I have explained about the infinite instability of zero and have also explained how it is supported by quantum theory in many previous posts including the first post. At the cost of repetition, I shall explain it again. Split of zero explains the origin from nothing, but suffers from a problem: if zero can split, so can anything (but we don't see spontaneous splitting of entities very often). Then I illustrated the paradox of the overtaking vehicles and explained the paradox by describing that continuity is not possible; all things (matter, energy, time, space) actually jump in quanta: there is a discrete value below which these entities cannot be further subdivided. Quantum theory, at its very basic level, talks about energy absorption and dissipation in packets or quanta, not in a continuous way.

 

Extending this concept further and trying to explain why there should be a minimum quantum (beyond which further subdivisions are not possible), I presented the hypothesis: "the instability of an entity is directly proportional to its proximity to zero". This means that zero is impossible as it would be infinitely unstable. Zero represents nothing, therefore, nothing cannot exist. But if we have to explain the origin, we have to go to nothing in order to avoid the repeated question of "where did it come from?"

 

This led to my final theory that Zero actually represents the entire universe (it being the sum total of everything from negative infinity to positive infinity). It is the equivalence of zero and infinity that explains the eternal nature of this universe.

 

WillieB

You have let your definition of "nothing" irrevocably point to "Zero." My "nothing" is absolutely empty space. But even that is not a nothing. It is empty space and who can tell us what empty space consists of?

 

Empty space is still a space, it may contain nothing, but is still not nothing. To me, nothing is absolutely nothing: no space, no time, no energy, no matter. This can be represented mathematically by zero. But as I have explained, the equivalence of zero and infinity explains the nature of the universe.

 

WillieB

However I would like to offer one observation. Don't permit your thinking become bogged down by a slavish devotion to pure mathematics. In the end, it will be logic that solves our hope for a TOE. Hopefully that logic will be capable of being confirmed in one way or another by mathematics, but, first a conclusion must be drawn to point the physics community in the right direction.

 

I understand it; no discipline is perfect in itself. But you would appreciate that one has to use a language to explain one's thoughts and feelings. Similarly, to explain such abstract concepts and logic, one has to use mathematics. No other means of communication can communicate these logical and conceptual intricacies.

 

DP

[Eclogite]

I would have appreciated if you would have pin-pointed the defects in the logic of my hypothesis rather than making a professorial statement of it being poorly structured and unconvincing.

On a good day, when editing the technical writing of my subordinates and peers, I can generally do exactly that: pinpoint the occasional slip, ambiguity, or confusion. On a bad day someone will submit something that misses the mark by so much, that all I can say is 'you need to start again'.

That, regretably is how I have felt about your posts in this thread, despite extended and severe efforts to grapple with it.

it is a sincere search for truth which I have shared in the forum.

I don't doubt your sincerity.

Background radiation is not a direct evidence to big bang......etc

I was just curious. I have severe reservations about Big Bang theory, so I was curious to know what if any objections you had to it.

My language is not so bad that I cannot understand the difference between a restrained, respectful remark and a sly remark. .........You ask whosoever you want and let me know if one of them thinks that it is a tact and sensitive remark.

You seem to be confusing intent with result. I intended the style to be tactful, you found it to be sly. What can I say? You appear to be calling me a liar, suggesting that not only did the remark appear to be sly, but that my intent was to be sly. Again, what can I say?

I suggest we leave it here since this is incidental to the thread topic.

 

I have explained about the infinite instability of zero and have also explained how it is supported by quantum theory in many previous posts ...........Quantum theory, at its very basic level, talks about energy absorption and dissipation in packets or quanta, not in a continuous way.

Thank you for taking the time to present your thoughts on this yet again. I confess to a misunderstanding. When you said that quantum theory supported the concept of the instability of zero I expected something more: indeed a lot more. All you seem to have done is to employ similar terminology in an ad hoc manner, making no substantive links between your hypothesis and quantum theory. It looks like a lot of arm waving from where I am sitting.

[WillieB]

Durgatosh,

 

Now that you and Eclogite have completed your fencing match, perhaps I can, once again try to discuss the point that my last post was attempting to make clear. Your original posts clarified that you were trying to offer an alternative to the BB. Eventually you expressed the viewpoint that something that you called zero exists from minus infinity to plus infinity and that zero is infinitely unstable and must decay into a positive something and a negative something. I presume that you intend to contend that these decay products are the things that compose the finest grains of our universe.

 

Our universe is made up of physical things, not zeroes nor decay products of zeroes. Just what do you envision these zeroes to represent? Is it empty space? Is it some material thing that has made its way into our universe through a wormhole or by some other esoteric method? Before you can proceed one tiny step further in your hypothesis you must attach a definition to your zeroes and that definition must include something of substance, not just a representation of something by a meaningless number. Using your terminology, my zero is an electrical charge of (+1e - 1e) or, to conform to the quark hypothesis, perhaps (+1/3e - 1/3e). What is your zero?

[durgatosh]

WillieB

Our universe is made up of physical things, not zeroes nor decay products of zeroes. Just what do you envision these zeroes to represent? Is it empty space? Is it some material thing that has made its way into our universe through a wormhole or by some other esoteric method? Before you can proceed one tiny step further in your hypothesis you must attach a definition to your zeroes and that definition must include something of substance, not just a representation of something by a meaningless number. Using your terminology, my zero is an electrical charge of (+1e - 1e) or, to conform to the quark hypothesis, perhaps (+1/3e - 1/3e). What is your zero?

 

In my previous post, I had replied to your query about what my zero is. You are right that our universe is made up of physical things, not zero or its decay products.

 

It is important to understand that besides matter and energy, other basic entities which make/define the universe are space, time (and consciousness, if I can add). Universe is a conglomerate of all these entities; everything else can be reduced to these basic entities.

 

If you now try to imagine the concept of "nothing", you would appreciate that it is not empty space, because empty space is still a space, it is not nothing. Nothing is absolutely nothing (no space, no time, no matter, no energy); what can it be represented as better than zero! So my zero is exactly this: absolutely nothing.

 

It is difficult to imagine nothing; hence it is equally difficult to know the real nature of zero. With some lateral thinking, analysis of the common observation of overtaking vehicles (see my explanation of the paradox), and coupling it with the basic tenets of he quantum theory, I proposed my hypothesis "the instability of an entity is directly proportional to its proximity to zero": therefore zero is infinitely unstable. Of course, Eclogite will object to it because this conclusion is not a direct derivation from the quantum theory. Rather, this infinite instability of zero offers a mathematical foundation for quantum theory.

 

Rest of my theory is simple. Because zero cannot exist on its own, and because to explain origin one has to go to nothing (zero), zero exists as the entire universe with all the spectrum from minus infinity to plus infinity.

 

So zero does not decay; it simply cannot exist independently. The universe exists because nothing (zero) cannot, yet the sum total of the universe would be zero.

 

I regret if you feel that there was a sort of fencing match between me and Eclogite. I never want a discussion to degenerate into such a thing.

 

Eclogite, most of physics is about the "how" of the univese but my search is about the "why". In this search, one has to think laterally and reason things with logic and mathematics. In such a search, one has to be prepared to think in an unconventional way. My way of thinking does not appeal to your method and that is okay, I respect that. That is possibly the reason why you find my logic and reasoning to be completely out of the mark. One must also remember the limitations of the mental faculty of the human species. Is it certain that we will be able to find direct evidence to the explanantion for truth and reality? Perhaps not.

 

DP

[Eclogite]

I regret if you feel that there was a sort of fencing match between me and Eclogite. I never want a discussion to degenerate into such a thing.

I agree Durgatosh. We are simply debating a topic from two diverse perspectives.

[WillieB]

Eclogite,

 

You asked why I posted the thought that you were requiring definitive proof of Durgatosh's position. You actually didn't but I suppose that the following is why I initially came away with that impression:

 

"Durgatosh, I have read and re-read your posts several times. The problem I have is that your conclusions appear to be based purely on supposition and flimsy chains of logic. Nothing (no pun intended) is based on evidence. You offer no material justifcation for your thoughts."

 

I was attempting to encourage original thought process but I must apologize for overstating my case. I most definitely agree that one cannot replace the BB with a supposition about the instability of the number "zero." That is true in spite of the fact that the BB is still just an unproven theory backed up by other unproven theories. Did the inflationary period actually occur or are their other equally plausible reasons for the smoothness problem and the ratio of some of the elements? Are there other explanations for the initial (and now accelerating) expansion? Is the age of the universe an adequate determinant of the temperature of the MBR? I, for one would rather continue contemplating this connundrum. Let's just keep plugging away!

 

Best of the good things:

 

WillieB

[swampfox]

I only wish to suggest to Durgatosh his concept of "nothing" seems to be an attempt to come to terms with origins without a familiarity with non-linear dynamics . . . just telling you what it looks like to me. You wish to know. I don't blame you. So do I: a long time ago I use to look outside my window and wonder why about a lot of things. Then I started studying non-linear dynamics. I no longer wonder why about a lot of things.

 

Not saying I know, just sayin' I no longer wonder why.

[Little Bang]

221 posts on the infinite splitting of zero, awesome use of intellect.