The True Origin of The Universe?

[paddoboy]

That depends on who you ask, and what theory you examine. The problem with string theory, for example, is that it is too successful, and predicts a plethora of realities with different laws.

Someone once described string theory [and its derivitives] as late 21st century physics, that accidently fell into the 20th century...Stephen Hawking??
Still worth considering on that score, and until we have the necessary means to examine and observe at those quantum scales.

Even without string theory, if we consider, for example, the big squeeze hypothesis, it predicts that this universe is one in a chain of universes and allows for the possibility that the previous universe might have influenced the conditions and properties of this one.

Sort of the scenario that I was speculating on. Whatever conditions were like at and pre BB, whether fluctuations in the quantum foam, or as you speculate, "chains of Universes", it would control the laws and constants we presently have.
For instance, if we look at the quantum foam scenario, some other fluctuations may arise [analogous to a soap bubble in a bath tub] only to burst before it expanded to a size where matter evolved and life evolved from that inert matter.....Other bubbles may have arisen, and be driven to enormous size by conditions, and subsequently again bursting before life can arise.

Any hypothesis, however, that predicts that the universe passed through a singularity pretty much automatically predicts that previous universes (where predicted) can have no influence over this one.

Hmmm, Interesting....I have not actually heard or even envisaged that type of scenario. Why wouldn't any previous Universe's conditions, not influence our one, if that picture is correct.
I mean are we not looking at a wormhole type of scenario and ERB?
So why would conditions not "flow"through, so to speak?

Then there's the brane collision theory which makes different predictions all together. They do all have one thing in commmon, they all predict that from a modern perspective the early universe looked like alot like singularity.

My picture of a singularity, is just a region of space-time, at the quantum-Planck level, that has the smallest volume allowed, and at which GR and the laws of physics do not seem to apply.
A singularity is not in itself "Infinite", but "MAY" lead to Infinite quantities.
What I'm describing is a physical singularity.
A mathematical singularity is a different beast.

Any hypothesis that fails to make at least this one prediction isn't worth considering.

Agreed.


Just some food for thought. Not sure if I read this somewhere, or if it is just my own thoughts on the subject...probably the latter.
The great Fred Hoyle coined the term BB, in a derisive attack on the model.
He proposed Steady State.
My thoughts on why he was of this frame of mind are that despite being otherwise a top notch scientist, his problem [in my opinion] may have been that the BB model, was leaving the door open for creationists and other God botherer types, in the fact that cosmologists could not explain, and still cannot explain, the whys and hows of that precise moment of the BB itself.
They [the God botherers] used that to invoke their deity of choice]
Therefor he could not give them that opportunity and along with Bondi and Gold, came up with Steady State.
Mainstream science on the other hand, and despite that "opening", but to its credit, accepted the way the evidence pointed to and upheld the scientific methodology despite the obvious forthcoming take from the religious types.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Why is this so difficult to answer?

No. The universe now is as it is, regardless of the origins.

Thank you, AlexG!

That is what I honestly consider the answer to be.

Simple question...simple answer.

That simple answer, and the fact that it was not proffered on SciForums until the 95th Post, "speaks volumes"...so to speak.

Thanks again, AlexG, for simply : Objectively considering not only the question, but also your answer.

 

[paddoboy]

Thank you, AlexG!

That is what I honestly consider the answer to be.

Simple question...simple answer.

That simple answer, and the fact that it was not proffered on SciForums until the 95th Post, "speaks volumes"...so to speak.

Thanks again, AlexG, for simply : Objectively considering not only the question, but also your answer.

Well that's simply because it is just one opinion dmoe.

I differ slightly and see the laws and nature of the Universe dependent on the conditions at the instant of the BB, which evolved space and time.
[see my previous post for other examples.

But it is nice to see the myths discussions left out where they should be.

 

[paddoboy]

Why is this so difficult to answer?

No. The universe now is as it is, regardless of the origins.

Probably due to the complexity and preamble of the OP.
Irrespective Alex, I see the following speculative assumption at post 39 interesting, and more logical.
What do you think?

There is a post or two on this thread, explaining a logical speculative scenario, of how the Universe is probably the "Ultimate free lunch" at post 12 and
http://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

My own thoughts on this question of the fundamental laws of the Universe, were that they arose, or were melded in with the evolution of space and time at the BB, depending on the exact nature of that BB.
A speculative scenario, [which is all this is, albeit a reasonably logical one based on what we already know] has it that our BB arose from the quantum foam, due to some fluctuation, and probably just being one fluctuation, among many...some with different fundamental laws or constants, that saw them arise, and collapse in comparative quick time, while others just were not conducive to life as we know it.

 

[AlexG]

I think that the question was not 'what was the origin of the universe', but what would change today if it was this or that. The answer is nothing would change. The way things are is the way things are, regardless of the reason 13.7 billion years ago.

Personally, I'm an atheist, and see no need for the existence of god to explain the universe. If the net energy of the universe is zero, then a quantum fluctuation can explain the origin.

 

[paddoboy]

I think that the question was not 'what was the origin of the universe', but what would change today if it was this or that. The answer is nothing would change. The way things are is the way things are, regardless of the reason 13.7 billion years ago.

Personally, I'm an atheist, and see no need for the existence of god to explain the universe. If the net energy of the universe is zero, then a quantum fluctuation can explain the origin.

Probably agree with that Alex, but the "what would change if it was this or that" included that mythological concept of God from the OP, and I see that as a non scientific alternative, albeit a popular one.

I also totally agree with the notion that God and the need for one is now redundant, and getting more redundant as cosmology progresses.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Just some food for thought. Not sure if I read this somewhere, or if it is just my own thoughts on the subject...probably the latter.
The great Fred Hoyle coined the term BB, in a derisive attack on the model.
He proposed Steady State.
My thoughts on why he was of this frame of mind are that despite being otherwise a top notch scientist, his problem [in my opinion] may have been that the BB model, was leaving the door open for creationists and other God botherer types, in the fact that cosmologists could not explain, and still cannot explain, the whys and hows of that precise moment of the BB itself.
They [the God botherers] used that to invoke their deity of choice]
Therefor he could not give them that opportunity and along with Bondi and Gold, came up with Steady State.
Mainstream science on the other hand, and despite that "opening", but to its credit, accepted the way the evidence pointed to and upheld the scientific methodology despite the obvious forthcoming take from the religious types.

I think Hoyle was simply more of a mind that the universe always existed.


As long as they have the attitude they do, the the God botherers will always find an open door or they open doors which are not there. If Steady State had prevailed, they would find some way to claim that as evidence of their godfantasy. If we ever do explain, the whys and hows of that precise moment of the BB itself or if we somehow find that BB is incorrect, after all, Bible Babblers will grab either & twist it to pretend to support their bullshit.

 

[paddoboy]

As long as they have the attitude they do, the the God botherers will always find an open door or they open doors which are not there. If Steady State had prevailed, they would find some way to claim that as evidence of their godfantasy. If we ever do explain, the whys and hows of that precise moment of the BB itself or if we somehow find that BB is incorrect, after all, Bible Babblers will grab either & twist it to pretend to support their bullshit.

Yeah, sure they would, I agree.
I probably also see a future QGT giving us the why and how of the BB, and I'm pretty sure the BB model itself, will be contained in such a QGT.

 

[Trippy]

MODERATOR NOTE:

21 Posts deleted because I deemed them to meet one of the following criteria:
1. They amounted to trolling.
2. They were offtopic.
3. They were responses to posts that fell into categories one or two.

 

[heytogi]

I really think that it started when time was borne. For me the question is: when was time born? Cause i dont believe in any creator, i'm not an astronomist, or a scientific but i think time is responsible for everything. In the universe or in this world.

 

[paddoboy]

I really think that it started when time was borne. For me the question is: when was time born? Cause i dont believe in any creator, i'm not an astronomist, or a scientific but i think time is responsible for everything. In the universe or in this world.

You have nearly got it.
The BB theory is a theory of the evolution of space and time.....not as most lay people imagine, matter and energy, although there certainly was energy associated with space.
Science gives us a good picture as to how things evolved from 10-43 seconds after the BB itself. Before that we know zilch. After that, we can understand, although the closer to that 10-43 seconds we are, the less certain.
Still, what is known, is in conjunction with the known laws of physics and GR.
Space and time, is now more correctly known as spacetime...the 4 dimensional framework that is the backbone of the Universe, in fact it is the Universe.

 

[James R]

dmoe:

BTW, since you like having your questions answered. May I request that you may possibly see fit to answer the following question from my previous response to you? :

Would you care to "elaborate" on how those "likely" differences "in fundamental ways from one that doesn't have such a being" would be discerned?

I thought I did that in my last reply to you. See comments on a loving god, etc.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

dmoe:
I thought I did that in my last reply to you. See comments on a loving god, etc.

James R.:

I read those "comments" once...in your next to last reply

 

[Trippy]

Someone once described string theory [and its derivitives] as late 21st century physics, that accidently fell into the 20th century...Stephen Hawking??
Still worth considering on that score, and until we have the necessary means to examine and observe at those quantum scales.

I'm neither condeming nor condoning it. I'm simply pointing out that the greatest criticism of string theory is that it is too versatile.

Sort of the scenario that I was speculating on. Whatever conditions were like at and pre BB, whether fluctuations in the quantum foam, or as you speculate, "chains of Universes", it would control the laws and constants we presently have.

I'm not so sure.

For instance, if we look at the quantum foam scenario, some other fluctuations may arise [analogous to a soap bubble in a bath tub] only to burst before it expanded to a size where matter evolved and life evolved from that inert matter.....Other bubbles may have arisen, and be driven to enormous size by conditions, and subsequently again bursting before life can arise.

A different scenario all together.

Hmmm, Interesting....I have not actually heard or even envisaged that type of scenario. Why wouldn't any previous Universe's conditions, not influence our one, if that picture is correct.
I mean are we not looking at a wormhole type of scenario and ERB?
So why would conditions not "flow"through, so to speak?

Soemthing about the breakdown of laws of physics or other.

My picture of a singularity, is just a region of space-time, at the quantum-Planck level, that has the smallest volume allowed, and at which GR and the laws of physics do not seem to apply.
A singularity is not in itself "Infinite", but "MAY" lead to Infinite quantities.
What I'm describing is a physical singularity.
A mathematical singularity is a different beast.

Actually, no it isn't. Well, not really anyway.

A singularity is just a place where some 'thing' is undefined. If you consider the polar co-ordinate system, then the origin is a singularity (I never thought I'd string those two names together in a sentence).

There was a time when people thought the event horizon was the singularity, because that appeared to be what relativity was telling them, however, somebody had the sinularly brilliant idea of changing the way we measure space and time. The singularity at the event horizon disappeared and a new one appeared.

The way I explain a blackhole singularity to people is this. We know that relativity makes accurate predictions under all the circumstances that we can measure. We also know that, while they can be partially resolved, relativity and quantum mechanics do not add up. This tells us that both quantum mechanics and relativity are incomplete and new physics is required. What will this new physics look like? I'm not even going to pretend to know, however, what I do know is that at some point the predictions of relativity are going to increasingly deviate from reality, just as newtonian mechanics did. Under those circumstances new physics will emerge which will reduce to newtonian mechanics under some circumstances, relativity under other circumstances, and make some new testable predictions.

What does this mean for a blackhole singularity you may ask? Well i'll tell you. What this means is that somewhere between the event horizon and what we currently refer to as the singularity, the predictions of relativity will increasingly deviate from observed reality until they are just plain wrong - just the same as newtonian mechanics fails to correctly predict the precession of mercuries orbit or the bending of starlight close to the sun. The thing is relativity doesn't know this yet. Relativity just blunders on until it hits r=0 and says:

(I'm outta here).​

Agreed.

Just some food for thought. Not sure if I read this somewhere, or if it is just my own thoughts on the subject...probably the latter.
The great Fred Hoyle coined the term BB, in a derisive attack on the model.
He proposed Steady State.
My thoughts on why he was of this frame of mind are that despite being otherwise a top notch scientist, his problem [in my opinion] may have been that the BB model, was leaving the door open for creationists and other God botherer types, in the fact that cosmologists could not explain, and still cannot explain, the whys and hows of that precise moment of the BB itself.
They [the God botherers] used that to invoke their deity of choice]
Therefor he could not give them that opportunity and along with Bondi and Gold, came up with Steady State.
Mainstream science on the other hand, and despite that "opening", but to its credit, accepted the way the evidence pointed to and upheld the scientific methodology despite the obvious forthcoming take from the religious types.

Scientests often make findings that make them uncomfortable. Been there myself.

Doing a chain of reactions with cholestanol. Converting it from, IIRC 1α to 1β, or some such. one of the steps involved a reaction converting a single bond to a double bond and then back again, but the trick is in how you convert it back again. I forget what the rule is, however, I seem to recall that if the reaction is exothermic you get an markovnikov addition, and if it's endothermic you get an anti-markovnikov addition (don't hold me to that, it's nearly midnight and I aint looking it up, haven't used this stuff in years). I sat down and did the calculation to see for myself (i knew what the outcome of the experiment was in advance) and low and behold my calculations predicted the opposite of what was observed.

Did I claim to have over-turned this particular aspect of chemistry? No.
Did I get upset and emotional when my supervisor suggested I had made a mistake? No.
Did I accuse him of trying to perpetuate a mainstream conspiracy to conceal the truth? No.
Did I call him a troll and storm off in a rage? No.

What did I do? I went back to my seat, re-checked my work, identified my error (I hadn't fully accounted for all of the energy sources and sinks in my calculations), repeated my calculation, and low and behold came up with an answer that matched reality.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Post #89...!?

 

[Aqueous Id]

SciForums is supposed to be a Science Forum.

I was taught that in Science, making Objective Observations was the "Golden Rule", so to speak. And that Subjective Observations were not considered "Good Science".

And then you went on to post religious questions in a science thread. How objectively scientific is that?

I presented an OP in a very simple and Objective vein, with a very coherent and "Highlighted" Topic :

It doesn't get to be called objective by proclamation. It has to actually be objective. There are all kinds of ways that Creationists invent excuses for pretending that Creationism trumps Science. But I think calling it "objective" is an innovation on all of that.

My hope was to stimulate an Objective and interesting "discussion " on that Topic.

On Creationism? I doubt it. If you say you're a Creationist and I classify you, rather objectively, as an adherent to traditional myths invented by superstitious people, to explain phenomena for which they had no science. . . how interesting a discussion are you going to find in that? I doubt you really want to talk about the tablets at Nineveh which prove that the Flood Myth originated in present day Iraq, among the enemies of the proto-Jewish people who I presume you consider your cultural forebears. Or that you want to talk about the inscription on the obelisk by Hammurabi which lays out the first detailed set of laws ever known to have been written, which trumps the Christian, Jewish and Moslem claims to having received their laws directly from God. (As if physical evidence is needed to do that.) And so on. We can talk about evidence all day long, but if we're going to prosecute an objective treatment of it, then we're going to proceed scientifically, which completely rules out religion. I don't think you're really looking forward to that. Are you?

Being that I Posted the OP on a Science Forum, I would prefer an Objective Discussion.

I would also prefer that this Thread not devolve into a Subjective Argument.

If this Thread has not already devolved, and not already been "Derailed" or "Hi-Jacked"...

...I honestly welcome any Objective Observations concerning :

I don't think you're going to get what you want. But you might get what you need, which is a little science. Unfortunately I don't think it has anything to do with cosmology. As with all such threads, they really belong in a science thread that dissects the origin of religions, with a focus on the evidence, which are warehouses full of artifacts, plus of course all of the relevant literature from scholars of antiquity who lend a wealth of information to the question. But most of all, any objective treatment of this subject needs to treat the evolution of Anabaptism from the fringes of the Protestant Reformation to its insinuation among American pioneers who were just plain dumb and extremely gullible, living in the wilderness with no exposure to learning. That's the tradition that you appear to be appealing to, insofar as you've referenced the stupidest of ideas ever to occur to people, which is to treat myth, legend and fable as literal truth, and then set up rules to govern society based on such principles.

As for Cosmology, it makes no difference what Carl Sagan thinks might have happened before the Big Bang, if the prevailing scholarship is correct, which tells us that time and space are created in the Big Bang. You might get some mileage talking about the rationale for sequencing the epochs that occurred after the Big Bang, which is perfect for this Forum, but I doubt that's on your mind at all. My point is, there is no point in asking what happens "before" the creation of time. That kind of discussion also has nothing to do with cosmology, but may be better suited to a thread on philosophy, although it's a niche area probably better suited to people with good math skills (since it deals with boundary conditions and limits).

To make clear that I’m not disparaging Carl Sagan, who was the Bill Nye, Science Guy of the ... 80s? If there were any quote I would pick from him to characterize the question you’ve posed, I would take the one from Contact where Jodie Foster’s character (in the book, the film didn’t do this justice) is arguing Religion vs Science with her boyfriend, who becomes the manipulative preacher. The part I thought was quintessential Sagan is where the scientist asks: if God were actually trying to give us as message, don’t you think he would have just carved E=mc[sup]2[/sup] on the Moon, so when humans got to that point it would be clear that such a message were sent, and that such a God actually existed (words to that effect). That’s the kind of logic that moves people.

Other than that, I can only guess you have no use for my comments since they pretty much trounce the unstated agenda here, which is Creationism. My assumption is that you will either ignore them or follow up with your 99 questions "Where did I say that" etc. instead of actually engaging any of the facts I presented. Do you see the problem I'm seeing? I doubt it. But I'm always willing to see anything through with any poster who has an ounce of sincerity. I'm just not sure if that includes you, because you're always harboring all of these religious ideas along with sort of coded attacks on science. And I think there is something wrong with your science preparation, I'm just not sure what it is. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just that you should probably scale back your expectations about the level of technical information being exchanged in dialogue with you . . . if in fact that is what you are seeking.

 

[paddoboy]

A different scenario all together.

OK, accepted....My speculative scenario is entirely different.
But doesn't your "chains of Universes" scenario require WH's? I have often speculated myself, re the BB being the back end of a BH in another Universe, with an outpouring of space and time, into our Universe.
But that idea was deflated by a GR expert on another forum, whom I found to be knowledgable and reputable.

Soemthing about the breakdown of laws of physics or other.

Yep, OK, at the quantum/Planck scale certainly.
But I just see that as just limiting any constructive speculation within the bounds of GR and known physical laws.
Maybe once space and time form through and past the wormhole and ERB, we once again have the more familiar laws of physics and GR.

Actually, no it isn't. Well, not really anyway.

A singularity is just a place where some 'thing' is undefined. If you consider the polar co-ordinate system, then the origin is a singularity (I never thought I'd string those two names together in a sentence).

There was a time when people thought the event horizon was the singularity, because that appeared to be what relativity was telling them, however, somebody had the sinularly brilliant idea of changing the way we measure space and time. The singularity at the event horizon disappeared and a new one appeared.

The way I explain a blackhole singularity to people is this. We know that relativity makes accurate predictions under all the circumstances that we can measure. We also know that, while they can be partially resolved, relativity and quantum mechanics do not add up. This tells us that both quantum mechanics and relativity are incomplete and new physics is required. What will this new physics look like? I'm not even going to pretend to know, however, what I do know is that at some point the predictions of relativity are going to increasingly deviate from reality, just as newtonian mechanics did. Under those circumstances new physics will emerge which will reduce to newtonian mechanics under some circumstances, relativity under other circumstances, and make some new testable predictions.

What does this mean for a blackhole singularity you may ask? Well i'll tell you. What this means is that somewhere between the event horizon and what we currently refer to as the singularity, the predictions of relativity will increasingly deviate from observed reality until they are just plain wrong - just the same as newtonian mechanics fails to correctly predict the precession of mercuries orbit or the bending of starlight close to the sun. The thing is relativity doesn't know this yet. Relativity just blunders on until it hits r=0 and says:

I see the singularity as real....I see it as real as spacetime. I see this "ündefining"as you put it, as simply spacetime at the quantum/Planck level...a small [the smallest volume of spacetime allowable] volume of spacetime, in which our laws and GR appear not to be applicable, or at least we cannot "observe" them.

The predictions of GR [as I prefer to put it] just get less accurate, much as Newtonian physics gets less and less accurate, when larger masses, higher speeds are discussed.

When you speak of a BH between the EH and the Singularity, what have you really got? Just critically curved spacetime, that may along with mass density, move to infinity.
Although I don't believe that is so, and the true nature will be revealed with a observable QGT.

Scientests often make findings that make them uncomfortable. Been there myself.

Doing a chain of reactions with cholestanol. Converting it from, IIRC 1α to 1β, or some such. one of the steps involved a reaction converting a single bond to a double bond and then back again, but the trick is in how you convert it back again. I forget what the rule is, however, I seem to recall that if the reaction is exothermic you get an markovnikov addition, and if it's endothermic you get an anti-markovnikov addition (don't hold me to that, it's nearly midnight and I aint looking it up, haven't used this stuff in years). I sat down and did the calculation to see for myself (i knew what the outcome of the experiment was in advance) and low and behold my calculations predicted the opposite of what was observed.

Did I claim to have over-turned this particular aspect of chemistry? No.
Did I get upset and emotional when my supervisor suggested I had made a mistake? No.
Did I accuse him of trying to perpetuate a mainstream conspiracy to conceal the truth? No.
Did I call him a troll and storm off in a rage? No.

What did I do? I went back to my seat, re-checked my work, identified my error (I hadn't fully accounted for all of the energy sources and sinks in my calculations), repeated my calculation, and low and behold came up with an answer that matched reality.

I would love to say, been there, done that. But as you well know, I aint no scientist, but at the risk of being labelled a suck hole and science cheer leader, commend you on your approach.

 

[paddoboy]

I'm neither condeming nor condoning it. I'm simply pointing out that the greatest criticism of string theory is that it is too versatile.

Can you elaborate on that Trippy?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

@ Aqueous Id

1.) - The "religious questions" that you seem to be "Subjectively" referring to were a part of the "premise" of the OP.

2.) - You should know the difference between "Subjective" and "Objective".

3.) - I have never "said" that I am a "Creationist" in any of my nearly 1,800 Posts on SciForums.

4.) - I have, in my nearly 1,800 Posts on SciForums, stated very succinctly that I am NOT, in any way shape or form, a Theist.

5.) - Any assumption, presumptions or intentional mis-characterizations you manufacture are the result of your own apparent inability to Objectively Observe reality.

6.) - Your statement, Aqueous Id, : "I don't think you're going to get what you want". I perceive that as a statement professing what you hope to achieve by Posting in this Thread.

7.) - As I have related to you before, Aqueous Id : I have no interest, need or proclivity to "play your little games"!

 

[paddoboy]

It doesn't get to be called objective by proclamation. It has to actually be objective. There are all kinds of ways that Creationists invent excuses for pretending that Creationism trumps Science. But I think calling it "objective" is an innovation on all of that.

And then we have their closet supporters.

We can talk about evidence all day long, but if we're going to prosecute an objective treatment of it, then we're going to proceed scientifically, which completely rules out religion. I don't think you're really looking forward to that. Are you?

I've said words to that effect a 100 times....well at least 99 times.

Other than that, I can only guess you have no use for my comments since they pretty much trounce the unstated agenda here, which is Creationism. My assumption is that you will either ignore them or follow up with your 99 questions "Where did I say that" etc. instead of actually engaging any of the facts I presented. Do you see the problem I'm seeing? I doubt it. But I'm always willing to see anything through with any poster who has an ounce of sincerity. I'm just not sure if that includes you, because you're always harboring all of these religious ideas along with sort of coded attacks on science. And I think there is something wrong with your science preparation, I'm just not sure what it is. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just that you should probably scale back your expectations about the level of technical information being exchanged in dialogue with you . . . if in fact that is what you are seeking.

I see some underlying agenda, don't really know why exactly, so one can at best form a logical most likely subjective opinion.