The True Origin of The Universe?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by dumbest man on earth, Jun 9, 2014.

  1. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Of course he isn't, and that's a rather strange question for you to ask under the circumstances.

    Indeed. You seem to have a good understanding of the current state of macrocosmology.

    Neither you nor River fall back on the religionists' crutch of proud ignorance: "God did it and we're way too stupid to understand how or why."

    The description of the Big Bang that I find both simplest and most elegant postulates nothing except the Three Laws of Thermodynamics. Like all of the laws of nature (including logic and arithmetic), these popped into existence at t=0 as attributes of the newly existing space-time continuum. The Second Law assures us that spatially and temporally local reversals of entropy are possible, and there is no limit on their size. Starting from that point in space and time, the rest of the attributes of the universe sprang into existence at random. Since they just happened to result in the existence of a stable universe (how many other "times" has this happened but resulted in something that could not be sustained?), well then here we are. Ever since a few tiny fractions of a second after the Big Bang, entropy has been winning out and the universe is inexorably heading for its end.

    As I said above, because it can. For all we know, zillions of other universes have popped into existence and eventually collapsed back in on themselves. Their natural laws may be nothing at all like ours: no mass, no energy, 1+1 does not =2, and if all A's are B's and all B's are C's, there still might be a few A's that are not C's.

    As long as this scenario does not violate the Laws of Thermodynamics, it's just as good an explanation as any other.

    For matter and/or energy to suddenly appear out of nowhere that does not net to zero, then we're getting closer to the religious model. And of course its fatal flaw is, "Okay, then where did the god come from?"
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. wellwisher Banned Banned

    How do you prove this other than the dogma of convention? An explosion causes matter and energy to lower density thereby, according to GR, causing space-time to expand. What lab experiment can we do where we use space-time first? The premise appears like a magic trick.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    The proof is in the geometry: the BB is uniform expansion: explosions are not. So if the BB were a normal explosion, we would be able to calculate the location of the center and edges by measuring the velocities of other galaxies and plotting the profile.

    Also, crackpots like to cry dogma when don't like something in mainstream science, but they are holding that gun backwards: The BBT is not very old and is being aggressively researched and changed as new discoveries are made. That's the opposite of dogma. And instead, the ideas favored by crackpots tend to be long dead ideas they are still clinging to -- dogmatically.
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2014
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    It appears magical to you because you do not understand it, in the same way a photographs seemed magical to primitive people who who never been exposed to technology.
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    We don't use lab experiments when we're doing cosmology, though our cosmological models are informed by lab experiments as well as observations of the universe. What we need to do is to look at how the universe actually is, and what it's doing now.

    What the universe is doing now is expanding. We know that from observations. It quickly follows that in the past the universe must have been smaller than it is today. Wind the clock backwards using known physics and the conclusion is that there was a big bang.

    The characteristics of the big bang must be modelled theoretically, again using known physics, and then those models run forward to a point where we can compare actual observational data with the models' predictions. If the data matches the model, then the model is a good model. If it doesn't, then it's back to the drawing board.

    Note that, in essence, this is how all science is done. Dogma really doesn't come into it.

    So, to answer your question: we know that the big bang explosion was an explosion of spacetime because the best-fit cosmological models that we have support that hypothesis. Again, dogma doesn't enter the picture.
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    My question was prompted by his remark thus.....
    Yes, I certainly realise river's doesn't need the God crutch, but his continuing asking of inane questions, that have been answered again and again, just for the sole purpose of promoting Plasma/Electric hypothesis, is referenced in nearly every thread he posts in.

    I saw his remark as deserving of a tic type of question.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Seeyas all in three days!
    Off to Fiji in a couple of hours!
  10. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    The magic trick was that even though the BB disproved the rules of entropy it was still seen as valid, and higher dimensional physics showed that entropy was still valid in higher dimensional spacetime. If you did away with higher dimensional physics, you would have to do away with the rules of entropy as well. The "dogma of convention" here comes from the faith in physics that we already have and the possibility that new physics can explain why it is not wrong in any case.
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    That's just plain nonsense. First the BB does not violate entropy or any other known law.
    In fact all known laws including entropy, most likely evolved with the evolution of spacetime at the BB.
    Secondly the law of entropy has nothing to do with any higher dimensional spacetimes, and thirdly, the "dogma of convention" which observationally doesn't exist, is still many rungs up the ladder from the "dogma of stupidity" and "anti establishment" bias, which so may "would be's if they could be's" seem to have.
    The inflationary model (described in my previous post, “What Did Go ‘Bang’ in the Big Bang?”) suggested an elegant solution to the puzzle of why our universe is expanding. The model relies on the fact that a region of space filled with a peculiar state called “false vacuum” experiences rapid expansion due to a repulsive gravitational force. But what happened before that? How did the universe get to that state? Naïvely, one would expect that a universe which began from a singularity—a state of infinite matter density and infinite curvature—would collapse rather than expand, since the gravitational attraction of the matter would overwhelm the repulsive force. Before the 1980s, the prevailing views were that the universe was already expanding (albeit in a more leisurely manner) even before inflation, thus diluting matter to the point where the false vacuum started to dominate. However, this was not a satisfactory picture, since it required an unexplained expansion that existed before inflation. We can understand the problem with a simple model of a closed, spherical universe, which is filled with vacuum energy (that generates repulsive gravity) and matter (that creates attractive gravity). Let’s examine this universe when it is momentarily at rest—neither expanding nor contracting. Cosmic evolution from there on will depend crucially on the size of the universe at that instant. According to Einstein’s General Relativity, if the cosmic radius is very small, attractive gravity will win and this universe will collapse to a point. If the radius is very large, repulsive gravity will have the upper hand, and inflation will ensue. In classical physics, the universe could not pass from a collapsing state to an inflating one without the infusion of some energy into it (which the assumption of a pre-inflation expansion attempted to do). However, in 1982 my colleague Alex Vilenkin, a physicist at Tufts University, suddenly had a brilliant realization. In quantum mechanics—the theory of the subatomic world—even processes that are forbidden by classical physics have a certain probability of occurring. This phenomenon is known as quantum tunneling, and it is being routinely observed in radioactive decays and in solid-state physics. Because of its probabilistic nature, quantum mechanics reveals that even a universe that would have been destined to collapse in classical General Relativity could actually tunnel (albeit with a small probability) to the other side, and emerge as an inflating universe. That is, our universe could have started out as a speck doomed to collapse to a singularity, but instead it tunneled through the energy barrier to a larger radius, initiating inflation (Figure 1). But this was not all. Vilenkin demonstrated mathematically that the probability for tunneling did not vanish even when he took the initial size of the universe to be zero. In other words, the universe could tunnel to some radius that allowed it to inflate from literally nothing!

    There is something I need to explain here. “Nothing” is not the same as the vacuum. The physical vacuum, or empty space, is very rich. It has energy, and virtual particles and antiparticles continually appear and disappear in it. Einstein taught us that it can also warp and stretch. By “nothing” I mean that neither space nor time exist. Put differently, if we were to go back in time from the present, Vilenkin’s scenario demonstrated that we would reach a beginning—a point beyond which spacetime did not exist.

    Two questions immediately arise: (1) What about conservation of energy? (2) Why did the universe appear at all? As it turns out, conservation of energy is not a problem. While all the mass in our universe has positive energy, the gravitational attraction has a negative energy associated with it, which precisely balances the positive one. The total energy of our universe is precisely zero, so that there is no problem with the universe materializing out of nothing. Why did the universe appear? Because the laws of physics allowed it to. In quantum mechanics, any process has a certain probability of occurring, and no cause is needed. You will notice, however, that we do have to assume that the laws of physics continue to apply even when there is nothing. I shall return to this assumption in a future post.

    I do not want to leave you with the impression that Vilenkin’s scenario of spacetime tunneling from nothingness into existence is an established fact. At this point it is no more than an attractive speculation that is consistent with the laws of physics. But it addresses what is arguably the biggest question of them all: How did it all begin?
  12. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    I think we came from a stem cell type thing, where it's born to become anything. Something ambiguous like love to father us all.
  13. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Your right it doesn't, because BB models can be done that show that space can expand in higher dimensions that alleviates that problem...
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Except higher dimensions are not needed, as the problem you Imagine does not exist, and are not part of BB theory anyway.
  15. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    Lies, it is a major part of it. Watch any special about the Big Bang, odds are they will mention it. It doesn't expand like a normal explosion. The same physics cannot describe it. It has exponential expansion that can't be described by entropy alone, because things don't normally blow up the way the universe did. It is just not a part of your knowledge of the BB theory. That really isn't saying much at all.
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Extra dimensions aren't needed to account for the big bang entropy.*

    At the big bang the universe was in a very low entropy state, and entropy has been increasing in the universe from the moment of the big bang onwards. This is all in accordance with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There's no violation to be seen.

    * To explain exactly what occurred at the earliest instants of the big bang, extra dimensions may turn out to be needed (e.g. if string theories are correct), but not to explain entropy.
  17. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Lots of things grow exponentially - how many times, for example, do you think that you need to fold a piece of paper before it would be 93 billion light years long?
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    That's just delusionary rubbish talk on your part.
    The laws and entropy as we know them, came into existence at the BB, and the observational evidence we have supports that.
    As James has mentioned, if a future QGT, or some validation of string theory or any one of its many derivitives, is finally achieved, it "MAY" need extra dimensions to explain the time frame between t=0 and t+10-43 seconds.
  19. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    This is surprising, because the universe is too homogeneous. Entropy says that there should be more disorder. There was a theory developed by one of the leading Big Bang theorist that tells about this, but I cannot remember his name. Oh well. I can't believe none of you have ever heard about this theory. It has been written about in many books, and it has made it's way to a number of television specials...
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member



    Firstly entropy "IS" disorder.
    And James is a physicist [I have knowledge of that from another forum] so I imagine would be aware of that if it were factual.
  21. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    "I have to admit that there is no clear consensus among cosmologists, but
    to many of us the assumptions seem to be pointing to eternal inflation, and the multiverse." - Alan Guth, 2013

    You don't have to go further than the title of this paper to see that he believes in the multiverse that would require extra dimensions. He was trying to explain the problem of how the universe having to be so uniform so that it is so homogeneous now could result in formation of things like stars and galaxies. He explains this by saying that these discrepancies are formed from quantum fluctuations. It is a problem that has plagued cosmology for a long time. It is thought that if there was 10^500 alternate universes that it could account for the force of inflation.

    ho-mo-ge-ne-ous; of the same kind, alike. Entropy increases over time. The universe is homogeneous. See a problem here?

    Say the universe was on the surface of a balloon. Each star was a dot on that balloon. If you blow up the balloon, then the stars would expand equally away from each other. Now set off a firecracker. The debris from it doesn't expand equally away from itself. To have a scenario like the balloon, it would require higher dimensions. The stars on the balloon wouldn't increase in disorder and still be homogeneous. There wouldn't be a change of order or disorder on the balloon.

    So what? You going to say the universe isn't homogeneous now?
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Oh I also see multiple Universes as a reasonable logical speculative scenario.....But like Guth, I accept it as just speculative at this time.

    Analogies serve a purpose. Analogies also have limitations.
    You are twisting yours for your own agenda.
  23. Layman Totally Internally Reflected Valued Senior Member

    It is impossible to imagine higher dimensions. Then it is possible to see the outcomes of the effects of higher dimensions by using lower dimensional examples. This has become an accepted way to try to understand the effects of higher dimensions. Then the analogy should be an accurate representation of how higher dimensional expansion would play a role with something like entropy. I really don't know in what way you think I have twisted this idea or what agenda you presume I have.

    The only agenda I have had in these forums lately is trying to get someone to use their brain and have their own thoughts about something, rather than just sitting in a comatose state of nostalgia... If I wanted to know what that opinion was, I could figure that on my own. I wouldn't need to ask someone what that would be.

Share This Page