The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

[infamous]

Hello All

 

Keep it simple

 

The universe is "ALL"

But ofcourse, why didn't I think of that? Now that leaves just one more question; What does ALL mean??...........Infy

[durgatosh]

Hydrogen Bond

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.

 

That is precisely why zero is infinitely unstable. Zero (a mathematical symbol for nothingness) can exist only as a net sum of all things but can't exist by itself. Is it possible to think about the existence of nothing (no space, no time, no matter, no energy .... and s forth)!

 

Harry Costas

Hello All

 

Keep it simple

 

The universe is "ALL"

 

Agreed, cent percent. Universe is all.

 

 

Infamous

Now that leaves just one more question; What does ALL mean??...........Infy

 

ALL is the universe; an expression of zero (sum total of all), existing as the whole range of negative to positive infinity.

 

DP

[infamous]

 

 

 

 

ALL is the universe; an expression of zero (sum total of all), existing as the whole range of negative to positive infinity.

 

DP

Actually durgatosh, I think you missed the humor in my last statement. And BTW, our universe may not be ALL. Because our universe appears to be bounded and finite, there may exit beyond it's parameter other universes such as is theorized in the bubble or foam universal theory. Sadly, the answer to this question will probably remain beyond our discovery because pyhsics disallows travel beyond or outside our present universal existence. Given enough time and technological advancements, these limits may be overcome. Personally, I doubt it however.....................Infy

[durgatosh]

Infamous

Actually durgatosh, I think you missed the humor in my last statement. And BTW, our universe may not be ALL. Because our universe appears to be bounded and finite, there may exit beyond it's parameter other universes such as is theorized in the bubble or foam universal theory.

 

I understand your point, Infy. One would fall into problems of origin if one looks ony at the observable universe (a better term for it would probably be "scientifically definable univese"). That is why one cannot answer questions of origin satisfactorily using theories like the Big-Bang or the bubble or foam theory mentioned by you.

 

This is the reason why I am compelled to look at "All" or "Eternity", and I would like to call it the universe because of the ack of any other satisfactoy terminology for it. It may be beyond the definable universe and beyond our scientific methods, but it answers these question. "All" or "eternity" is infinite in range, and at the same time zero in sum total.

 

If you elect not to accept "universe" as a term for "all" or "eternity", my theory can be alternatively phrased as "Origin of eternity".

 

DP

[Turtle]

But ofcourse, why didn't I think of that? Now that leaves just one more question; What does ALL mean??...........Infy

 

It means one (1). Durgatosh keeps insisting it's zero, but of course one has to ask how many zero(s) and the answer is again one. This thread is 1 big pile of hoakum. *:)

Booger on my finger,

Turtle

 

*IMO

[CraigD]

For example if matter and anti-matter pop out of space they may equal zero net mass.

According to theory, antimatter has the same positive mass as its anti (normal matter) particle, so matter and antimatter resulting from pair production – popping out of space – have nonzero net mass. If antimatter had negative mass, then the energy of its annihilation and the energy required to generate it would be zero ([math]E = mc^2 + -mc^2 = 0[/math]).

 

Antimatter differs from ordinary matter in charge only.

… equal parts of matter-antimatter could not come from a void but needed the appropriate amount of positive starting energy.

Correct. However, theoretically predicted and experimentally confirmed phenomena such as the Casimir effect predict that ordinary vacuum has energy – ”vacuum energy” in the form of virtual particles. This isn’t just a necessary feature of the formalism of quantum mechanics – were it not the case, no mechanism would exist for small black holes – which many events can theoretically create – to evaporate, and the universe would be dominated by numerous tiny, combining black holes – or so the argument goes.

[Southtown]

I was just parousing my usual pseudo-science on this particular topic.

 

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=849347

[Eilizsia]

the questions are..?

 

How is energy infinet.

How does it get its energy. Zero Point?

Does the Energy reproduce itself.

 

Has this universe existed more than once before if it will eventually collapes on itself and start a new universe?

 

How does antimatter create matter.

 

Do we want to know the Meaning to life and understand it or are we looking to our lives meaning more than Understanding ourselves?

 

Is Alpha Really Omego leading To Alpha. The Beginning Reaching to the End to the Beginning. Meaning......We may have read 20 out of 1000 pages in a book and even though the Beginning of the Story is not known. We can Eventually find out how it ends. The Book Then Closes and You pass it on the the Next reader. Only to find out that the story is only understood at Page 500. and we Dont need to Know about the Beginning because the best parts you meet half way and everything is interesting. You eventually forget how the beginning was and realise the book is good to read. Life is the same way even if we dont understand the beginning we can grasp it cant be a bad thing to learn it. even if the ending is not what we expected, we can start over.

 

That was the best Equation i have done so far.

[Eilizsia]

But ofcourse, why didn't I think of that? Now that leaves just one more question; What does ALL mean??...........Infy

 

ALL maybe a word that defines, (Whole)(everything)(anything). Because who can say what belongs and what doesnt. Who can say they know the Answer or question to define Why the Universe (Is), AnyOne can. There is No Right or Wrong, Only a different perception of an individual Understanding, that creates a Whole subject of everything Having a perspose to exist without needing to explane if it should or why it does.

[Eilizsia]

Actually durgatosh, I think you missed the humor in my last statement. And BTW, our universe may not be ALL. Because our universe appears to be bounded and finite, there may exit beyond it's parameter other universes such as is theorized in the bubble or foam universal theory. Sadly, the answer to this question will probably remain beyond our discovery because pyhsics disallows travel beyond or outside our present universal existence. Given enough time and technological advancements, these limits may be overcome. Personally, I doubt it however.....................Infy

 

finite

 

The Universe is Not Infinate as you say...

 

Because the universe is only the universe because things exist in space. and Space Is Infinate because the universe can suposedly Expand futher. Thus Time is not infinate either in the universe.....Time is Infinate in Space because Time does not exist where Nothing Exists. Thus Beyond the Universe is the concept to Travel Around Time which is the Universe. If The Universe itself can not expand further then space might have the barrier or The Magnetic Expansion rate becomes weak between larger Elecromagnetic fields in the Universe.

[HydrogenBond]

According to theory, antimatter has the same positive mass as its anti (normal matter) particle, so matter and antimatter resulting from pair production – popping out of space – have nonzero net mass. If antimatter had negative mass, then the energy of its annihilation and the energy required to generate it would be zero ().

 

I stand corrected there. But this explanation raises an interesting point. If matter and anti-matter only differ by charge, does that mean that protons and electrons are matter and anti-matter or vice versa. In other words, in the case of the proton the matter aspect is the positive one. In the case of the electron, because it is negative it is anti-matter if we define matter as the positively charged one of the matter-antimatter pair.

 

If this is true both matter and antimatter exist side-by-side in our universe. Picuture this, if matter-antimatter can form from energy, why not going to proton-electron directly. This results in a matter-antimatter odd-couple pair that is stable. No waste.

[infamous]

finite

 

The Universe is Not Infinate as you say...

Please read my post again. I state: "Our universe appears to be bounded and finite ". I made no such claim that the universe was Infinite.............................Infy

[durgatosh]

Turtle

It means one (1). Dirtosh keeps insisting it's zero, but of course one has to ask how many zero(s) and the answer is again one. This thread is 1 big pile of hoakum. *

 

Sadly, you got it wrong; from my name to my concept. About your opinion about this thread, you are entitled to it. I had expected a better and a greater understanding of zero by a mathematician.

 

Eilizsia

and we Dont need to Know about the Beginning because the best parts you meet half way and everything is interesting. You eventually forget how the beginning was and realise the book is good to read. Life is the same way even if we dont understand the beginning we can grasp it cant be a bad thing to learn it. even if the ending is not what we expected, we can start over.

 

This may be true. But curiosity is something which cannot be satiated by saying that it is fine if we don't understand something. More difficult the question is, more effort does the curious mind make to answer it. And the answers sometimes can be ridiculously simple. It is only that we are conditioned not to look at such questions in a different manner.

 

DP

[Turtle]

Sadly, you [Turtle] got it wrong; from my name to my concept. About your opinion about this thread, you are entitled to it. I had expected a better and a greater understanding of zero by a mathematician.

Spelling correction made Durgatosh.

What you expected was my agreement with your concept. :pirate: My understanding of zero is as good as it gets. :ud: If there is a first cause, there is only one of them. ;)

[durgatosh]

Turtle

What you expected was my agreement with your concept. My understanding of zero is as good as it gets. If there is a first cause, there is only one of them.

 

Turtle

...but of course one has to ask how many zero(s) and the answer is again one.

 

No, Turtle, I do not expect agreement with all my concepts. And I respect the opinions to the contrary.

 

It doesn't make a difference whether zero is represented as one zero or thousand zeros because zero is a representation for nothing.

 

My idea of the origin is not that of a first cause. As I explained earlier, it is an explanation of an eternal universe with a sum total of zero. It is the impossibility of zero (nothingness) to exist on its own and therefore manifesting as a vast multitudes of positives and negatives, the sum total being zero.

 

DP

[Turtle]

It is the impossibility of zero (nothingness) to exist on its own and therefore manifesting as a vast multitudes of positives and negatives, the sum total being zero.

 

DP

It is more than my opinion that such a view does not fit the observation(s). ;)

[durgatosh]

Turtle

It is more than my opinion that such a view does not fit the observation(s).

 

It is extremely difficult to find predicatble observations at that scale. You see, when we discuss about my hypothesis of "the instability of a thing is directly proportional to its proximity to zero", it involves a scale which is of the magnitude of a quantum (of distance, of time, of mass/energy). Electrons and positrons are higher than that scale but we already start seeing pair production and pair annihilation: instability in a manner that the mass transmutes to energy spontaneously. Of course, the energy is still conserved.

 

It would be extremely difficult (if at all possible) to get so close to zero (in real life or by experiments) in order to observe the kind of instability I am talking about. It is quite possible that the distinction between time, space, energy/mass would get blurred in that scale and we suddenly would realize that these are entities which are actually interconvertible (just as we know that mass and energy are interconvertible). Alternatively, we may start finding evidences of negative mass, negative energy, negative space, and negative time at that order of magnitude. In either scenario, the sum total would be zero.

 

Because of the difficulty in producing experimental conditions for such small magnitudes, I have attempted to gather support from the quantum theory and my illustration of the paradox of overtaking vehicles (please see post #1). When experimental or observational confirmations are not possible, mathematics is the means to the understanding of the real nature of zero.

 

It is in the real nature of zero that we will find evidence of eternity because zero is both-sided infinity (from negative infinity to positive infinity).

 

DP