I had a crazy thought. Taking the big bang as truth, i wounder if the big bang could be like a large scale partical which like in small scale empty space can have particals poping in and out of existence, the universe poping in and exploding. The universe Spontaneously occuring as a huge partical which blows up as it comes into existence, maybe empty space brings universes to life in that manner.
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Spontaneously occuring universe
- Thread starter Cheeto
- Start date
this is the great mystery indeed.
god has dreamt us up, if you ask me.
But that might be just my intellectual lazyness.
god has dreamt us up, if you ask me.
But that might be just my intellectual lazyness.
Well quantum mechanics is all about popping in and out of existence. Naturalistic explanations of the big bang involve such ideas. There is a mathematical framework for that idea.
Be careful with the idea of empty space.
Be careful with the idea of empty space.
MetaXIII
Rising Star
I recently read an interesting theory that states that the universe always existed. It just expands to its maximum then contracts to its minimum. When the universe has contracted to its smallest size the BIG BANG occurs forcing it to expand again and so on. So by this theory there were many BIG BANGS before the one that created us. Which is interesting because I heard somewhere that while our universe is expanding its expansion is slowing down. So I guess we're nearing the mid-point of the cycle of the current universe.
MetaXIII said:
MetaXIII
From my perspective the universe has always and will always exist maybe not in the same way it does today but everything is always in a transition of change. This is why i have a problem with the whole big bang theory it does not make logical sense to me. The big bang did not create our universe as its always existed. An interesting concept is that we all manifest our own reality, to understanding everything you first have to understand nothingness.
Much Peace
MetaXIII
Rising Star
Dear Aegle:
I also believe that the universe always existed and always will. Why I thought this theory was interesting because instead of stating that the Big Bang created the universe it just implies that the Big Bang is only a force for its expansion.
The concept that we create our own reality is I think a beautiful and sad one at the same time. Beautiful because we can shape the world into a utopia of spirituality, art, science and love. On the other hand it's sad because of the world we live in. If the world we live in is a reflection of what we, on a global level, desire then I feel extreme sorrow for our fellow man.
I also believe that the universe always existed and always will. Why I thought this theory was interesting because instead of stating that the Big Bang created the universe it just implies that the Big Bang is only a force for its expansion.
The concept that we create our own reality is I think a beautiful and sad one at the same time. Beautiful because we can shape the world into a utopia of spirituality, art, science and love. On the other hand it's sad because of the world we live in. If the world we live in is a reflection of what we, on a global level, desire then I feel extreme sorrow for our fellow man.
polytrip said:
This reminds me of something I read in Children of Dune Today:
"To be a god can ultimately become boring and degrading. There'd be reason enough for the
invention of free will! A god might wish to escape into sleep and be alive only
in the unconscious projections of his dream-creatures."
MetaXIII said:
Dear MetaXIII
You are so polite, we are on the same page than but i still have a hard time factoring in the big bang in any way into my theories. But its a far more logical theory that the Big Bang was a force of its expansion rather than a force of its creation.
Indeed it is beautiful and sad, but i try not to get down about all the negativity in the world i try and focus on the positive things and I create positive thoughts and actions in my own life in turn putting more positivity out into the world around me which creates a small but significant ripple affect of compassion and kindness. Every little bit helps, one of my teachers always says to me do what you can slowly slowly...
Much Peace and Sunshine
MetaXIII said:
Actually, they used to think the universes expansion was slowing, now they think its increasing. And my main thought i was relating to an already known scientific theory of quantum mechanics where in empty space particals can pop in existence as long as they release there energy as soon as they come into existence. I was trying to relate that to the way any universe could be born, insisting that multiple universes pop in and out of existence as super particals with already thought to have supersymmetry, universe particals made of one material. I say this because they really think there was supersymmetry before the big bang, there just not sure exacly what caused the symmetry to break, so i offer the idea of it must release its energy because of quantom mechanics laws that state a partical can spontaneously pop into existence as log as it releases its energy as soon as it comes to be.
Truly, there's no way to actually tell weather either thoery would be correct, for all we know thoughts particals that pop in and out could be just like you suggest, they appear to pop in, but just draw back together and explode into smaller particals we have no way of detecting, i just feel that the univirse, how ever weather they spread out and add to the space soup to draw energy from, or they just blow up and draw back in over and over, i just think that both the empty space quantom mechanics paticals and the existenc of the universe is same thing, just the large scale version.
Aegle said:
No doubt they don't know for sure, but by observations they have determined they are on the right track because of certain elements created that only the energy of the big bang could be responsible for, certain elements stars can't produce, not even supernovas .
burnt said:
Is this an idea they have already thought of? Do you know of anything good to read on it, perhaps the big bang? I know i'm not to sure of some of the things the String Theory/M theory suggests, as big membrains that slap together to cause big bangs. I like parts of it also, another thing i think is kinda far out though is the Universe spliting, as in every choice creates another reality, i'm not to sure about that one. I've also wondered how they assume because there's anti particals for every partical, how all the anti particals would manage to come together in the same way the normal particals do to form an anti you, where do they come up with this stuff? I would figure that princible would just realate to partical, not how they come together.
Another thing i think is funny is how they say if you travel the speed of light then your traveling into the future, when really your just recieving light from the past and traveling to the present.
This is a common misconception. Human logic does not dictate the laws of the universe. Quantum mechanics is completely illogical. It is also what makes it possible that "something" can come from "nothing".
We evolved to observe a medium world in terms of size and speed. Our senses and way of thinking did not evolve to be able to observe events of to think about concepts on such cosmic scales. Fortunately our brain was capable of developing instrumentation and mathematics which makes such observations and theorizing possible.
Well there are observational events that should be detectable to tell which theory about the origin of the universe is more correct the common big bang inflationary model or the cyclic universe model. They are building satellites and already have telescopes looking for things call gravitational waves. Depending on how they are polarized will lend evidence to one theory or the other.
I should add that we are living in a very important time in the history of our universe. Had we only existed a number of billions years in the future our universe would be so dilute we would never see any galaxies beyond our own and never have known that there was more to our universe. Things far away from us are moving away faster too. It is now plausible that our universe will one day too cold and dilute for life to exist anymore. But our star will have died long before anything like that happens.
such as?
Yes they already thought of this. James Hartle and Stephen Hawking put together a model something like this. There is plenty to read on it all over. Its called the inflationary big bang model. String theory has no experimental evidence so right now its all speculation and math. It may never be testable given our current level of technology but maybe one day who knows.
They don't just assume anti particles exist. They were predicted and then experimental evidence arose for their existence. Theory predicted something confirmed by experiment. They do exist.
69ron
Rising Star
The Big Bang theory really puts a lot of people off to science. I wish they would not consider it science. It is actually a religious belief and not true science. It gives science a bad name.
Something cannot come from nothing. This is obvious, and although the Big Bang theory doesn’t quite say that, it comes close to saying that. The theory attempts to explain the origins of the universe which is a form of religious belief. It’s pseudoscience. We cannot know how the universe began. We were not there to record it. To believe the Big Bang theory you must believe that all of the data used to substantiate the theory is completely accurate, and that is a leap of faith isn’t it! So it’s not truly science. It’s religion in the guise of science where God is reduced to a force causing an explosion based on a little bit of evidence collected. No one actually recorded the explosion on film so they cannot say it happened with certainty, they instead chose to believe it did based on our very limited understanding of the universe. The explosion concept is still a form of God force at play. It’s still religion. The only difference being their “God” is an energy force while most people believe God to be far more than just that.
Something cannot come from nothing. This is obvious, and although the Big Bang theory doesn’t quite say that, it comes close to saying that. The theory attempts to explain the origins of the universe which is a form of religious belief. It’s pseudoscience. We cannot know how the universe began. We were not there to record it. To believe the Big Bang theory you must believe that all of the data used to substantiate the theory is completely accurate, and that is a leap of faith isn’t it! So it’s not truly science. It’s religion in the guise of science where God is reduced to a force causing an explosion based on a little bit of evidence collected. No one actually recorded the explosion on film so they cannot say it happened with certainty, they instead chose to believe it did based on our very limited understanding of the universe. The explosion concept is still a form of God force at play. It’s still religion. The only difference being their “God” is an energy force while most people believe God to be far more than just that.
^yeah good points the big bang is basically the creation myth of our day..the fact that so many people take it as fact is also very intersting from an anthropological standpoint..it really explain nothing yet so many people rely on it to explain creation.
69ron
Rising Star
Arguing about the Big Bang Religion is just like arguing about Christianity, Hunduism, etc. Because we have no actual proof of the Big Bang Religion, such as a movie filmed of it’s occurrence, it’ll never be a fact, just a religious belief. Just like we cannot photograph God, we cannot photograph the Big Bang and offer true evidence of it’s existence.
For this very reason we can argue until the end up time and no one will be right or wrong because, as there is no solid proof of the Big Bang occurring, there is also no solid proof of it not occurring. All we have is a little bit of data to go by gathered from our current time, and that’s all. We will never have a photo proving it happened, just a bunch of mathematical projections into the past based on current data collected. That’s it. That’s all we’ll ever have. So it can never be proven 100%. You cannot see, touch, or smell the Big Bang, it’s only an idea some humans have, and nothing more. That to me makes it a religious belief.
For this very reason we can argue until the end up time and no one will be right or wrong because, as there is no solid proof of the Big Bang occurring, there is also no solid proof of it not occurring. All we have is a little bit of data to go by gathered from our current time, and that’s all. We will never have a photo proving it happened, just a bunch of mathematical projections into the past based on current data collected. That’s it. That’s all we’ll ever have. So it can never be proven 100%. You cannot see, touch, or smell the Big Bang, it’s only an idea some humans have, and nothing more. That to me makes it a religious belief.
69ron
Rising Star
Here’s a good example of the flaw of the Big Bang Religion. It’s based on what we current see in the universe, assuming that we are seeing into the past because of the time it takes for light to travel to us. Viewing what is currently available for us to view, it appears to all be coming from a single point of origin. So it’s assumed this was always the case and that when projecting back to the start it must have all been a single point at one time, all smashed together (a lot of nonsense), and it suddenly exploded making the universe.
We are instead seeing a small glimpse in time where the universe is expanding, but then it contracts again, and expands again, and contracts again, similar to what happens to your lungs when you breathe, or like the waves crashing on the shore, or the cycles of the sun, etc.
If you took the same “science” and applied it to the human lungs and all you had was data from it expanding, your data would show that the lungs are constantly expanding. Until you recorded data from the contraction of the lungs, your data would be flawed because it’s incomplete. The same applies to the universe. It will expand and contract over and over, and that is all we are seeing, and we've only been able to record the expansion stage because our data doesn't go back far enough to cover the contraction stage. It’s a very slow vibration that takes an extremely long time to repeat. It’s caused by all the energy in all particles in the universe resonating with each other at a very low frequency, and nothing more than that.
Anyway, that’s how I see it through my scientific view of the current data. We are missing the data from the contraction, and so they make the stupid assumption that it endlessly expands. :roll:
We are instead seeing a small glimpse in time where the universe is expanding, but then it contracts again, and expands again, and contracts again, similar to what happens to your lungs when you breathe, or like the waves crashing on the shore, or the cycles of the sun, etc.
If you took the same “science” and applied it to the human lungs and all you had was data from it expanding, your data would show that the lungs are constantly expanding. Until you recorded data from the contraction of the lungs, your data would be flawed because it’s incomplete. The same applies to the universe. It will expand and contract over and over, and that is all we are seeing, and we've only been able to record the expansion stage because our data doesn't go back far enough to cover the contraction stage. It’s a very slow vibration that takes an extremely long time to repeat. It’s caused by all the energy in all particles in the universe resonating with each other at a very low frequency, and nothing more than that.
Anyway, that’s how I see it through my scientific view of the current data. We are missing the data from the contraction, and so they make the stupid assumption that it endlessly expands. :roll:
I believe that reincarnation means that this universe with everything in it, indeed will be born again. Also you and me, therefore.
That it might be billions of years in between this life or the next, but that it would feel as if it where only fractions of a second when our souls enter the space and timeles zone in between lives, the energ field out wich it is made and into wich it all will dissapear again.
That it might be billions of years in between this life or the next, but that it would feel as if it where only fractions of a second when our souls enter the space and timeles zone in between lives, the energ field out wich it is made and into wich it all will dissapear again.
ibeing897
Rising Star
I've got to object to the premise that something cannot come from nothing... it's a very difficult concept, but actually modern theoretical physicists have many examples.... also just from a philosophical point of view, why can't something come from nothing? I dont think you will answer that question... following that logic, you realise the universe/whatever does not require any explanation at that level... I've suggested people watch this before... but I'd point people to imagining the tenth dimension .. http://www. tenthdimension .com/ , it's just an example theory, but its an example of a universe that encompassed and starts from nothing... I had to watch it a few times before I got my head around the implications... but that is the basis of most quantum gravity theories.
I think the idea of something coming out of nothing is based on the idea that there is no true 'nothing'. What's meant is that something tangible can come out of something that's not.
fractal enchantment said:
Fractal Enchantment
I couldn't agree more.
Much Peace