The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

[Aireal]

Durgatosh

 

Now I think out of the box all the time, and I still agree with Maddog.

 

The point is, YOU ARE NOT THE ONE THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX.

 

In everything you have said, THERE IN NOTHING NEW, NO NEW THOUGHTS. IT'S ALL BEEN SAID BEFORE.

 

At first I complimented you for thinking deep thoughts, but now I see I was wrong. I thought you were just young and did not have great knowledge of history. Now I see that you could care less about history and what the great minds of the past thought. You have latched onto an idea and fell in love with it to the point you can not see anything else. This has been the downfall of many great and not so great minds over time. But it is sad to see it happen to anyone. Now I just feel sad for you, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

 

So I will not respond to your posts any longer, it is a waste of my time to revisit thoughts that have already been covered by the greatest minds of the last 7000 years. If you are too lazy to read, I am not going to spoon feed you the knowledge, especially when you could care less.

[durgatosh]

Aireal

 

Strong words indeed! I don't understand how do you reach such a conclusion about my not being aware of history or not caring for it at all or not having read the relevant things.

 

Visiting or not visiting a thread is a personal choice. If you have made that choice, I can't do much.

 

Aireal, I must say that I have enjoyed your posts in spite of our differences. The same differences which compel you to take the decision you have taken.

 

DP

[CraigD]

I perceive the core of durgatosh’s idea, “the split of zero”, to be summarize with by the catch-phrase “nature abhors a zero” (one shouldn’t underrate the value of a catch-phrase – consider the mileage Einstein got out of “God doesn’t play dice with the universe”) :naughty:

 

It’s a very attractive idea. That something exists because nothing cannot is compelling and self-contained. It is, however, a philosophical idea, not (at present) a scientific hypothesis; no one has to my knowledge succeeded in proposing an experiment that can verify or falsify it.

 

I see an ontological problem with the idea that “nature abhors a zero”. According to thermodynamics and similar philosophy-informing scientific theories, physical space, matter, and energy – both zero and non-zero things – are information, or data. Many of the most recent of these theories suggest that this data is discrete – that physical reality may map exactly to a single very large integer.

 

In these theories, a nothing, or zero, that has the quality of instability described by “the split of zero”, must map to data encoding this quality. Because there are many possible behaviors of “splitting nothing” – the rate at which the split occurs, the kinds of matter and energy involved, the number and topology of the dimensions of the space into which they split – this data has many possible values. Data with many possible values has high entropy, which one might described as “highly non-zero” (a system described by the integer zero has only one possible value, and thus has the lowest possible entropy, zero).

 

This problem doesn’t suggest that “nature abhors a zero” is not a quality of nature, only that the ultimate, underlying nature of such a zero cannot map to the integer zero.

 

Developing a scientific theory that predicts durgatosh’s “split of zero” is challenging, and related to the past few decades efforts to develop a “theory of everything”, such as string theory, explaining all observed reality. The “split of zero” condition places additional constraints on possible TOEs. It possible that such additional constraints may help to produce a TOE that makes testable predictions. To date, TOEs, which mathematically attractive, have failed to make testable predictions, leading some physicists to question if they are a legitimate branch of theoretical physics, or pure mathematics.

[HydrogenBond]

The number zero in physics maybe a function of time. For example, at the beginning of the universe there were 0 planets. When the earth was just forming there was 0 life on earth. In other words, these things were in potentia but did not yet exist. Or the building blocks were there but had not yet assembled into things we see today.

 

When we go back to the beginning of the universe we start with things we speculate to have existed at that time based on accelerator experiments and theory We assume this was the beginning such that there can not be zero of them because of this assumption. But if these were composed of precursor building blocks, that we don't yet know, there could have been zero of them at the beginning. Nobody address t=0 so we don't know the real orgin for sure.

 

The two discontinuites of zero and infinity may have been one state at the beginning of the universe. The way this can be done is by starting the universe at a C reference instead of zero reference. In the zero reference zero and infinity are always separate and distinct. If one uses special relativity at C, infinite distance will appear contained on a point.

 

Again what we have is infinite distance and infinite time appearing in the C reference to be a point that lasts an instinct. So if one has infinite distance and time, one will eventually accumulate energy, focused at the C reference point-instinct to create the primordial atom.

 

The C reference is both singular and differeniated. in other words, two photons on oppsite sides of the universe will see the same point reference yet are two distinct things within that point. If one could magnify that point in C reference, one could see the distinctions. The way this is done is with a slowdown from C reference into <C reference. This causes the expansion of the point/instant/infinite energy, and creates matter, since matter can not travel C and energy can not travel less than C.

[durgatosh]

Thanks Craig & HydrogenBond for putting the discussion back on track. The debate seemed to have degenerated into a war of words into which I too was regrettably provoked.

 

HydrogenBond

Again what we have is infinite distance and infinite time appearing in the C reference to be a point that lasts an instinct. So if one has infinite distance and time, one will eventually accumulate energy, focused at the C reference point-instinct to create the primordial atom.

 

The C reference is both singular and differeniated. in other words, two photons on oppsite sides of the universe will see the same point reference yet are two distinct things within that point. If one could magnify that point in C reference, one could see the distinctions. The way this is done is with a slowdown from C reference into <C reference. This causes the expansion of the point/instant/infinite energy, and creates matter, since matter can not travel C and energy can not travel less than C.

 

The idea of C reference is very interesting. I understand that it can explain infinite time and infinite space in one instant and one point, and may be infinite energy in a singularity. However, it still does not explain origin in true sense of the word. This is how I think about the origin:

 

Either the universe had an origin or it did not.

 

Situation 1 (there was an origin): One would have to answer the endless question of "where it came from". For Big-Bang, one would need to answer where did the singularity come from. For your idea about the C-reference, one would have to answer the same about the origin of one instant, one point, one singularity. Both Big-Bang and "C-reference" can explain creation of universe from a singularity but cannot explain the origin of that singularity. This problem can only be solved if one can trace the origin to nothing (zero). My idea of "split of zero" as born of the necessity to explain origin from nothing. However, it had its problems as I have mentioned before (we don't see objects splitting spontaneously; if 0=+2-2, so is 5=+7-2, and so on).

 

Situation 2 (there was no origin): In other words, universe is eternal. The steady-state theory is such a theory. In this approach, the problem is to explain the self-existence of the finite or infinite universe.

 

Is there a way out? I have attempted to provide an answer to this problem. If the sum total of the universe (all space, all time, all energy/mass, and everything else) is zero, one can explain the self-existence of the eternal universe. My hypothesis of the "infinite instability of zero" explains this scenario.

 

Craig D

Developing a scientific theory that predicts durgatosh’s “split of zero” is challenging, and related to the past few decades efforts to develop a “theory of everything”, such as string theory, explaining all observed reality. The “split of zero” condition places additional constraints on possible TOEs. It possible that such additional constraints may help to produce a TOE that makes testable predictions. To date, TOEs, which mathematically attractive, have failed to make testable predictions, leading some physicists to question if they are a legitimate branch of theoretical physics, or pure mathematics.

 

I agree that it would be extremely difficult to make testable predictions of my theory of infinite instability of zero. This would probably involve looking at such small magnitudes (of the range of a quantum or smaller? of time/mass/energy/space) and then seeing whether or not they become unstabe. I have given an indirect proof/justification derived from the quantum theory and the illustration of the paradox of overtaking vehicles.

 

Craig D

That something exists because nothing cannot is compelling and self-contained.

 

I could not have said it better! If I ever write a book on my ideas, I will surely acknowledge you for this statement. Thanks.

 

DP

[Sharmistha]

How can you arrive at the conclusion that the Universe will not end . Than what about Black hole theory. I believe one Universe is ending and the other is been created . This should be the general law. If Big bang is a starting there must be an end , is it not so ?

[LJP07]

I always wonder about this, as stupid as it might sound:

 

If the Universe is expanding where does it get this energy from. For example, when we blow into a balloon, it expands and gets bgger continously, then it would explode. So is there any idea as to what powered it?

[HydrogenBond]

If one looks at our universe, it is huge, but finite. As such, it is a subset of infinite. At C reference one has infinite space and infinite time. This implies infinite potential. What separates our universe from the C reference is matter causes our universe to exist in a reference that is less than C making it a subset of infinite potential.

 

In other words, if one uses 0 reference all types of paradoxes appear since one is trying to get something out of nothing. But if one starts at C, the universe has all the time and distince of infinity to build up potential. So even if one tiny irregularity appears in empty space in our reference, per cubic light year per year, that instanteously adds up to infinite potential in the C reference where time and space don't really apply. Every now and then, some of the additive potential is returned to zero reference to form a universe.

[leuv21]

this is a very very interesting post and i find it realistic. I agree with your fact that the universe has no start.. infinity lies close to eternity and time does not exist.

fabulous post... i am reading it again

[durgatosh]

Hydrogen Bond

In other words, if one uses 0 reference all types of paradoxes appear since one is trying to get something out of nothing. But if one starts at C, the universe has all the time and distince of infinity to build up potential. So even if one tiny irregularity appears in empty space in our reference, per cubic light year per year, that instanteously adds up to infinite potential in the C reference where time and space don't really apply. Every now and then, some of the additive potential is returned to zero reference to form a universe.

 

As I said earlier, the C-reference is an explanation for how the universe exists in a way it does. It does not answer why it exists. What causes the tiny irregularity in empty space that you mentioned to be the source of the infinite potential? And where did that empty space come from? In fact, the "Big-Bang" theory and your explanation of the "C-reference" answer many "hows" of the universe. But my search is the answer for "why" of the universe.

 

Please understand that my explanation is not "Zero reference" as it would literally mean. I thought about the "split of zero" but found problems with this answer. Thus, the idea about the infinite instability (or impossibility) of zero came in my mind, for which I gathered support from the quantum theory and the paradox of overtaking vehicles.

 

Universe did not begin from zero, but has always existed with a sum total of zero. As Craig interpreted my theory, the universe exists because nothing cannot exist.

 

DP

[HydrogenBond]

The universe, as we know it, did not always existed. What always existed was eternity, eternal or C reference. Our universe is a finite subset of eternity and therefore will only exist for a finite time because it is based on an average reference less than C.

 

Many years ago, I developed a relativistic slow down model for the creation of the universe. Where the universe begins at C and therefore was not initially part of our finite universe, i.e, t=0 When it slowed from C, this is where t=0+, begins. This caused matter to condense out of the eternal reference to form the finite universe, since matter can not travel at C and energy can not travel less than C.

 

As the reference slows from C, eternal time and distance becomes finite. Or the initial point reference at C, expands by slowing from C due to the reversal of special relativity. This is the expansion of the universe.

 

The question is where do the irregularities in space come from? This is based on the MDT model. If the eternal reference only slows reference in distance and time, i.e, massless, it creates finite quanta of energy, ie., wavelength-distance and frequency-time, without leaving the C reference in M. The mass variable stays at C until enough energy builds up. When it falls below C, matter condenses out and the finite universe appears.

[durgatosh]

Hydrogen Bond

The universe, as we know it, did not always existed. What always existed was eternity, eternal or C reference. Our universe is a finite subset of eternity and therefore will only exist for a finite time because it is based on an average reference less than C.

 

Well, my definition of universe is all that exists, observable and unobservable. So the question as to the origin of eternity or why this eternity is actually eternal is not answered by the C-reference model of the origin.

 

To solve this problem one has to look at nothingness (zero). Zero does not require a reason for existence because it is zero (nothing). If you add the instability as an inherent nature of zero, it is not difficult to understand that zero can exist only as a vast multitude of things and phenomena (positive and negative), what we understand as the universe.

 

DP

[infamous]

Well, my definition of universe is all that exists, observable and unobservable. So the question as to the origin of eternity or why this eternity is actually eternal is not answered by the C-reference model of the origin.

One concept about eternity that I'd like to articulate is the following: When people speak of eternity, for the most part, they try to understand it in terms of a passage of time. From my point of view, for what ever it's worth, eternity will exist whether a passage of time compliments it or not. Eternity is much like the concept of infinity and not far removed from the concept of zero also. Eternity defined is; Past, Present, Future and is absolute and indestructable.

 

To solve this problem one has to look at nothingness (zero). Zero does not require a reason for existence because it is zero (nothing). If you add the instability as an inherent nature of zero, it is not difficult to understand that zero can exist only as a vast multitude of things and phenomena (positive and negative), what we understand as the universe.

 

DP

The way I define zero is this: Eternity with no passage of time. So, when we talk about the Origin of the Universe, we view it in the context of; 0<time>0. When I define eternity, I view it like this:

 

(Eternity.......[0<......our universe beginning to end........>0].......Eternity)

 

Eternity will exist whether our universe does or not.............Infy

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

I have been reading these papers on the Big Bang

 

The Big Bang Theory Under Fire by William C. Mitchell

(As Published in Physics Essays Volume 10, Number 2, June 1997)

 

 

Cosmology: The Big Bang Theory

On the Problems of the 'Big Bang' Theory of Cosmology

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

 

The Metaphysics of Space and the Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) explains how our Finite Spherical Universe Exists within an Infinite Eternal Space

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm

 

 

Read the above papers and draw your own conclusions.

[durgatosh]

Infamous

One concept about eternity that I'd like to articulate is the following: When people speak of eternity, for the most part, they try to understand it in terms of a passage of time. From my point of view, for what ever it's worth, eternity will exist whether a passage of time compliments it or not. Eternity is much like the concept of infinity and not far removed from the concept of zero also. Eternity defined is; Past, Present, Future and is absolute and indestructable

 

What you call eternity, I call universe. Maybe there are more restrictive definitions of the universe, but my idea of universe includes all that is, was, and will be: not just the matter and energy, but also space, time, gravity, life, consciousness ... and all phenomena (explained and unexplained).

 

What is universe but a juggle between zero and infinity! It is a manifestation of the compulsion of zero to exist as infinity.

 

DP

[HydrogenBond]

Zero is a mathematical quantity, while nothingness, although similar to zero is different from zero. For example, the average charge in a hydrogen atom is zero but the hydrogen atom is not void of charge; it has two charges that add to zero charge. In this case zero charge and no charge, are two different things. That is why zero is too ambiguous.

 

For example if matter and anti-matter pop out of space they may equal zero net mass. If they recombine they give off positive energy. This means that equal parts of matter-antimatter could not come from a void but needed the appropriate amount of positive starting energy. In zero reference, this energy could have initially been void, since all energy was in C reference. With the slowdown from C, matter-energy suddenly appears in finite reference out of a 0 reference void.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Keep it simple

 

The universe is "ALL"