|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
How did the univers begun?
If there is another topic regarding this subject, I am sorry for not seeing it and I hope the admins will delete my topic, if necessary. If there is no other topic regarding this idea, I would like to start by asking the simple child question : How did everything begun?
The religion is saying that God created everything and everyone. Regarding this option, my personal opinion is that God would have already got bored of always creating new people and check on them. Plus, if God created the man-kind, I am still wondering why he let all these bad things to happend. My question is simple: religion is just a way of mass-control. That has been from the begining till now. And it will continue as long as there will be people that will believe this kind of "stories". And we all know that there will always be a lot of "religious" persons, at least by definition. So, I think the option that God created the univers is out of questions. It is just a simple answer for a small child.
The second option is that the univers started with the BB. But, if the BB started the univers, and it created the energy, space, time and matter, that would mean that BB itself was not some kind of explosion, because we need at least space, time and energy for the explosion to take action. The only option would be that BB is just an expanding univers, starting from another existing space and time, borrowing energy from the "original" parent-univers. So this second option is out of question as well.
The third option is the univers starting as described by string theory. I do not know many things about the superstring theory, cromodynamic theory or M theory, but if my judgement is correct, the string theory is also based on somekind of explosion, same as BB. If I am wrong, please teach me the basics of this string theory. If I am correct, it would have the same gap as BB theory.
The fourth option is the strings, or something like that had the same starting point as the Hawking radiation has. From the "void" appear a pair of particles with opposite energy but the same mass, that eventually will reduce to nothing. For this option is the same question. Considering that void can produce virtual particles which afterwords may become real particles, that would mean that the void has some virtual characteristics, values, laws and is able to create everything (that's someway like God ideea). If we consider as correct this option, we can have the real "birth" of matter, energy, space and time as we know them, starting from "nothing". But that nothing should have a starting point in some virtual existences, which mean that there actually was "something" before our univers, so this option is also not a good answer to the original question.
My oppinion is that all the existence is a virtual existence into one of the virtual particles created from "void". When we "had" the BB, it was in the matter of fact the appearance of the two virtual particles. When the two virtual particles will gather to nothing, we will have the BC. That only if we will not find a way to virtually "travel" into another virtaul particle from another pair that would just be formed and continue our "existence" in the virtual reality from there. Sounds like a stupid ideea, but I think it's value is the same as the God creation.
Does anybody has other ideeas? Does anybody has some knowledge about experiments or theories that would explain the "original begining"?
The religion is saying that God created everything and everyone. Regarding this option, my personal opinion is that God would have already got bored of always creating new people and check on them. Plus, if God created the man-kind, I am still wondering why he let all these bad things to happend. My question is simple: religion is just a way of mass-control. That has been from the begining till now. And it will continue as long as there will be people that will believe this kind of "stories". And we all know that there will always be a lot of "religious" persons, at least by definition. So, I think the option that God created the univers is out of questions. It is just a simple answer for a small child.
The second option is that the univers started with the BB. But, if the BB started the univers, and it created the energy, space, time and matter, that would mean that BB itself was not some kind of explosion, because we need at least space, time and energy for the explosion to take action. The only option would be that BB is just an expanding univers, starting from another existing space and time, borrowing energy from the "original" parent-univers. So this second option is out of question as well.
The third option is the univers starting as described by string theory. I do not know many things about the superstring theory, cromodynamic theory or M theory, but if my judgement is correct, the string theory is also based on somekind of explosion, same as BB. If I am wrong, please teach me the basics of this string theory. If I am correct, it would have the same gap as BB theory.
The fourth option is the strings, or something like that had the same starting point as the Hawking radiation has. From the "void" appear a pair of particles with opposite energy but the same mass, that eventually will reduce to nothing. For this option is the same question. Considering that void can produce virtual particles which afterwords may become real particles, that would mean that the void has some virtual characteristics, values, laws and is able to create everything (that's someway like God ideea). If we consider as correct this option, we can have the real "birth" of matter, energy, space and time as we know them, starting from "nothing". But that nothing should have a starting point in some virtual existences, which mean that there actually was "something" before our univers, so this option is also not a good answer to the original question.
My oppinion is that all the existence is a virtual existence into one of the virtual particles created from "void". When we "had" the BB, it was in the matter of fact the appearance of the two virtual particles. When the two virtual particles will gather to nothing, we will have the BC. That only if we will not find a way to virtually "travel" into another virtaul particle from another pair that would just be formed and continue our "existence" in the virtual reality from there. Sounds like a stupid ideea, but I think it's value is the same as the God creation.
Does anybody has other ideeas? Does anybody has some knowledge about experiments or theories that would explain the "original begining"?
You have the big bang theory all wrong. One it was not an explosion. Two it did not create matter and energy. These things already existed and expanded not exploded. The theory does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe nor the origin of matter and energy. You do not need to borrow energy from a "parent" universe either.
| Xanatos wrote: |
| You have the big bang theory all wrong. One it was not an explosion. Two it did not create matter and energy. These things already existed and expanded not exploded. The theory does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe nor the origin of matter and energy. You do not need to borrow energy from a "parent" universe either. |
ok, Xanatos, but they must have a theory or some ideeas about how space and time begun in the first place..no? Do you know something about it? It's true that I was wrong in my post. The BB released those "things", not created them. But they must have already been created, then. How?
| anarhistu wrote: |
| ok, Xanatos, but they must have a theory or some ideeas about how space and time begun in the first place..no? Do you know something about it? It's true that I was wrong in my post. The BB released those "things", not created them. But they must have already been created, then. How? |
No, not really. There is some speculation involving the universe being unbounded and so having no begininng, but there really isn't some sort of real theory about it.
| Xanatos wrote: |
|
No, not really. There is some speculation involving the universe being unbounded and so having no begininng, but there really isn't some sort of real theory about it. |
It would make sense for time to have no beginning and no end if there is no beginning or end to space either. That seems to make the most sense to me. (What would the edge be like?) The option that makes the second most sense is that both time and space are looped, so that one edge curves back to the other, which would make time repeat itself over and over.
| Xanatos wrote: |
| You have the big bang theory all wrong. One it was not an explosion. Two it did not create matter and energy. These things already existed and expanded not exploded. The theory does not attempt to explain the origin of the universe nor the origin of matter and energy. You do not need to borrow energy from a "parent" universe either. |
I agree on 'No explosion' part, although I am not certain about that BB did not create 'Matter and Energy'. First of all, matter came from the energy, because almost equal amount of matter an anti-matter was created in the early universe from energy, and slight abundance of matter over anti-matter gave us current matter dominance.
How was energy created? As per law of conservation of energy, you cannot create energy from nothing. As I understand, there is factor of time involved in that law. As per BB theory, time itself was created (or came into existence), so how come anything existed before?
Regards,
B
| booksense wrote: |
| First of all, matter came from the energy |
Prove it. Matter and energy are related, but that doesn't meant that one came first.
| Quote: |
| How was energy created? As per law of conservation of energy, you cannot create energy from nothing. |
That's not really what the law says. What it really says is that the total energy of an isolated system must remain constant. What if there is a twin universe to ours made entirely of negative energy. This would keep the total energy at zero. Nothing lost or created. Highly improbable, but you never know. Would be cool though.
| Quote: |
| As per BB theory, time itself was created (or came into existence), so how come anything existed before?
|
You are misinformed. If the universe is unbounded then it has no beginning. In other words, time and the universe always were. If the universe is bounded however then it would still be pointless to talk about before the universe. Why? because time is a property of this universe, without it time does not exist, therefore it is not really plausible to speak about before the universe.
The universe doesn't exist was the easiest answer.
| Xanatos wrote: | ||||||
Prove it. Matter and energy are related, but that doesn't meant that one came first.
That's not really what the law says. What it really says is that the total energy of an isolated system must remain constant. What if there is a twin universe to ours made entirely of negative energy. This would keep the total energy at zero. Nothing lost or created. Highly improbable, but you never know. Would be cool though.
You are misinformed. If the universe is unbounded then it has no beginning. In other words, time and the universe always were. If the universe is bounded however then it would still be pointless to talk about before the universe. Why? because time is a property of this universe, without it time does not exist, therefore it is not really plausible to speak about before the universe. |
But if you say that the univers and time always were.... I understand time, energy and time existed before...I am not sure what I should name here.. before what? The univers and time where here....
That remains only to option that everything is relative, therefor virtual, therefor unreal, therefor is not, therefor we (and the rest of the matter and anti-matter in the univers and in any other universes or places there may be) are just the ilusion of an unexisting univers that it is alive.
If I understand correctly, nobody can justify some exact data about the "begining", so nobody can "destroy" the ideea that the time existed or not "before". There are just some ideea, as you said, but we have nothing for sure. In this, case, which is the most accepted and most "real" theory about the "begining" as we name it?
Well when I was younger I believed in God created the universe, now Im a young adult and believe in the big bang theory. Though my faith in God still remains but very slim.
Anyways my answer right now would be the big bang theory is how the universe was created
Anyways my answer right now would be the big bang theory is how the universe was created
What about the answer: I don't know. 'Cause that would be mine. I've read a few (though not all) of the theories you presented, but I still have to admit I remain unconvinced of any of the explanations.
| Xanatos wrote: | ||||||
Prove it. Matter and energy are related, but that doesn't meant that one came first.
That's not really what the law says. What it really says is that the total energy of an isolated system must remain constant. What if there is a twin universe to ours made entirely of negative energy. This would keep the total energy at zero. Nothing lost or created. Highly improbable, but you never know. Would be cool though.
You are misinformed. If the universe is unbounded then it has no beginning. In other words, time and the universe always were. If the universe is bounded however then it would still be pointless to talk about before the universe. Why? because time is a property of this universe, without it time does not exist, therefore it is not really plausible to speak about before the universe. |
If you read BB theory, initially there was only energy (how, it does not talk) and then came matter and anti-matter with matter in slightly higher proportion (Ref:http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/Big_Bang.html, check ElectroWeak Era, where Big Bang's vaccum energy phase transitioned to elementary particles)
I agree that law of energy says that it should remain constant.
Whether Universe is bounded or un-bounded, we do not know, no one currently knows how to look back before BB.
Thanks,
B
I think it should be "How did the universe begin?"
When we use the word did, the verb after it should be in its simple form.
Just an FYI ^_^v
When we use the word did, the verb after it should be in its simple form.
Just an FYI ^_^v
| Joanne wrote: |
| I think it should be "How did the universe begin?"
When we use the word did, the verb after it should be in its simple form. Just an FYI ^_^v |
Thank you for your correction, Joanne. It will not happend again, I promise. But I really paid less than no attention to my spelling when I created this thread. :)
| booksense wrote: | ||||||||
If you read BB theory, initially there was only energy (how, it does not talk) and then came matter and anti-matter with matter in slightly higher proportion (Ref:http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/Big_Bang.html, check ElectroWeak Era, where Big Bang's vaccum energy phase transitioned to elementary particles) I agree that law of energy says that it should remain constant. Whether Universe is bounded or un-bounded, we do not know, no one currently knows how to look back before BB. Thanks, B |
maybe you, booksense, can tell me where that "energy" came from. As I understand from your post, you know some things about BB theory and maybe you cans hare some knowledge about it, cause I would really like to find out some more details about this theory.
Thanks
| Dean_The_Great wrote: |
| What about the answer: I don't know. 'Cause that would be mine. I've read a few (though not all) of the theories you presented, but I still have to admit I remain unconvinced of any of the explanations. |
Dean_The_Great, that's the point here. We do not know but if we are amoung those that are interested in finding out what we and the others do not know, we should try to understand the missing steps. I am sure that nobody is really convinced that one theory or another is correct totally and the others are wrong. Somehow, most of them are correct, but only for parts of the problem. We just cannot see how to combine them. That's me, anyway....
| anarhistu wrote: |
|
maybe you, booksense, can tell me where that "energy" came from. As I understand from your post, you know some things about BB theory and maybe you cans hare some knowledge about it, cause I would really like to find out some more details about this theory. Thanks |
I have read two kind on answers, one is traditional that 'we do not know', and other that overall energy in in universe is zero, where gravity (negative energy) cancels outs other forces (positive energy), you can find more by searching for zero net energy and big bang.
Either way, there is no confirmed solution, mostly speculation. If we are to crack this puzzle, I can tell you we would know lot more about Universe and potentially why we exist (or came to be).
Hope this helps,
B
... it is was a God ...
| booksense wrote: | ||
I have read two kind on answers, one is traditional that 'we do not know', and other that overall energy in in universe is zero, where gravity (negative energy) cancels outs other forces (positive energy), you can find more by searching for zero net energy and big bang. Either way, there is no confirmed solution, mostly speculation. If we are to crack this puzzle, I can tell you we would know lot more about Universe and potentially why we exist (or came to be). Hope this helps, B |
Thanks booksense, but this helps me just a little.. I mean I knew the universe is basically not, the energy summed being 0, but at this step I would ask for some other "tips". If the energy is 0, same as the void has enough quantum energy to be able to create the Hawking radiation, how did this zero energy started to "show" itself as "real" or "virtual" energy? There had to be a "reason" which for the energy revealed itself in a way or another (both ways in the matter a fact). We know that +1 summed with -1 equals 0, but considering that we have 0, how do we get the +1 and the -1? Please do not get into the quantum instability or such..
Thanks again
| menadzer wrote: |
| ... it is was a God ...
|
If there was a God before everything, we come back to this:
" This is Me and that's where I end. And where I end the world starts. And the world ended before Me."
Prove "Me" and I will believe that there was God the first...
Related topics
 |