The origins of the universe

[Randomperson]

So does anyone else spend their free time pondering how the universe itself may have come to exist? Or how it might end?

I find myself thinking about this when I let my mind wander. I do think there was a big bang that initiated the current state of the universe as we can perceive it. But what was there before that? Was it all just a lack of anything? I find that hard to conceptualize.

Perhaps there was already a universe there, and this one of ours we are within was created within it?

Also due to entropy and other forces, the universe as it is, will not continue to be, especially give the nature of the black holes within it, these points of ultra density swallow up everything within their reach, such that even light photons can not escape their grasps. What we do know of physics suggests that eventually many of these holes will swallow up into more and more massive versions, and I personally postulate that perhaps there will come a point where the one that is left is so massive that it pulls enough into itself that the energy level inside becomes a critical mass, and then BANG, of a very big variety, and perhaps yet another universe is born within this universe, that may have been born within yet another universe.

Mind boggling is it not?

 

[Grumpy Cat]

Maybe the Big Bang happened - I'm not sure. But, if it did, The Big G(od) was there to light the match!

 

[StephF]

I don't believe in any god but if others want to thats fine too

 

[Harrison]

I follow the concepts of a holographic universe, something that answers my own personal questions and fits nicely with my Taoist beliefs.

 

[Randomperson]

I follow the concepts of a holographic universe, something that answers my own personal questions and fits nicely with my Taoist beliefs.

Holy ****ing ****, that is the most narcisism I have ever seen in one video. I have no idea what Taoism is, but this holographic universe thing puts earth as the center of the universe (it is not, it is not even the center of the solar system, and is on the outer edge near the end of the an arm of the spiral galaxy). The main problem I have with how they postulate this theory of theirs is that when you deal with millions and billions and trillions of light years, those things we can only see after its light travels for all those years to reach us are not there anymore, after millions of years they have moved, after billions and trillions they have been consumed or swallowed up by black holes.

And any assumptions that the universe can only exist because we observe it?! PREPOSTEROUS!

I thank you for sharing Harrison, but these scientists are even more insane then I am.

The one good point I agree with them on is that matter is nearly 100% empty space, matter is merely an illusion of the interaction of the energy that constitutes the entirety of the universe. Matter is just stratified energy, which is why neither is destroyed but merely converts back and forth between stratified and non stratified states, in my opinion.

 

[Harrison]

Holy ****ing ****, that is the most narcisism I have ever seen in one video. I have no idea what Taoism is, but this holographic universe thing puts earth as the center of the universe (it is not, it is not even the center of the solar system, and is on the outer edge near the end of the an arm of the spiral galaxy). The main problem I have with how they postulate this theory of theirs is that when you deal with millions and billions and trillions of light years, those things we can only see after its light travels for all those years to reach us are not there anymore, after millions of years they have moved, after billions and trillions they have been consumed or swallowed up by black holes.

And any assumptions that the universe can only exist because we observe it?! PREPOSTEROUS!

I thank you for sharing Harrison, but these scientists are even more insane then I am.

The one good point I agree with them on is that matter is nearly 100% empty space, matter is merely an illusion of the interaction of the energy that constitutes the entirety of the universe. Matter is just stratified energy, which is why neither is destroyed but merely converts back and forth between stratified and non stratified states, in my opinion.

I have no problem accepting the principles of the conservation of energy, it is, however, now seen as such a shaky proposition that in order to work the believers had to create a 'non measurable, zero viable' concept of 'dark energy' to make the thing pan out. Whilst some scientists are still pursuing dark energy most have consigned it to the bin.

Latest research data shows that the speed of light is not constant, actually this was hypothesised decades back but mainstream science shouted 'preposterous' even then. Best guess now -they were wrong. Space is not a vacuum, to claim it 'nearly' is just means it isn't, bit like saying 'I nearly won'. If, as you say, the universe is a dance of energy-matter then it cannot be empty, not even close to, and how do you explain the particles that just appear without a corresponding loss of matter? These are observed in the LHC and elsewhere and destabilise the theory of conservation of energy enough to make it untenable.

Existence through observation is soundly supported through quantum physics and the basic twin slit experiment. This shows that particles change merely because they are observed. Not guesswork, science.

Physics per se matches quantum physics/mechanics only at the macroscopic level. As soon as you go down to the smallest particles physics breaks down and fails to resolve itself. This again is not conjecture but hard science. It is the reason why mainstrean base physics cannot, and never, will find the 'elegant solution'.

I am old enough to have witnessed mainstream science saying we can't go to the Moon, or that Mars/Moon has never had water, or Mars never had oceans and indeed that Mars never had life. I listened to the calls of preposterous even then and watched them crumble over the years.

It doesn't matter how good the tools are of science, it still relies upon observation of the data, we observe the data and conclude a 'truth' but that truth is only as good as the observer. Human beings are are not 'out there', we are closed dynamic systems, everything we percive comes through the senses as electrical impulses and is decoded within the brain. So everything happens in there, you are not looking out through your eyes, you are feeling something with your fingers, it is all happening in that pitch black cave called your head. In there you create reality, it is interesting that the one thing science doesnt even try to tackle is the question of consciousness.

I have no issue with your viewpoint, I celebrate divergent views, but to view other viewpoints as narcisistic whilst claiming one's own view is the 'right one' is somewhat ironic.

 

[Randomperson]

"I have no issue with your viewpoint, I celebrate divergent views, but to view other viewpoints as narcisistic whilst claiming one's own view is the 'right one' is somewhat ironic." I poorly explained myself, it was not meant to come out quite like that, and I can agree with you that no human will ever know the truth of it all, we are far to finite and small. What I did intend to mean, is that the thinking that existence requires humanity to observe it, is ludicrously narcisitic. Reality as we perceive it may indeed require perception, but without us, the universe was here before us, and will be here long after we are gone, which I estimate at the most will be another 500 years, 50-100 years may see the end of mankind at the current rate of the destruction of our planets biosphere. We can postulate theoretical physics till we expire from old age, but that does nothing to stop the senseless masses from obliterating the last of our air recycling and water purification resources

 

[Harrison]

"I have no issue with your viewpoint, I celebrate divergent views, but to view other viewpoints as narcisistic whilst claiming one's own view is the 'right one' is somewhat ironic." I poorly explained myself, it was not meant to come out quite like that, and I can agree with you that no human will ever know the truth of it all, we are far to finite and small. What I did intend to mean, is that the thinking that existence requires humanity to observe it, is ludicrously narcisitic. Reality as we perceive it may indeed require perception, but without us, the universe was here before us, and will be here long after we are gone, which I estimate at the most will be another 500 years, 50-100 years may see the end of mankind at the current rate of the destruction of our planets biosphere. We can postulate theoretical physics till we expire from old age, but that does nothing to stop the senseless masses from obliterating the last of our air recycling and water purification resources

Accepted. Think about this boundless universe though, it is probably teeming with life and every bit of it is the conscious observation. Then we see manifestation of consciousness creating existence long before us and probably long after. In that case humanity is not that important.

I totally agree that humanity is facing an extinction level event of its own making, and unless something radically alters it will be soon.

For me the joy of science is that it is like poetry, a limited number of 'words' but an infinitely beautiful way to string them together

 

[Raul]

There are many theories that gravitate around the origins of the Universe. One of them was told by one of my Physics teachers in highschool. He asked us first if we know what particle is responsible for all the mass in the universe. We were all thinking about the atom, molecules, electrones and such. Neither of us were right, even if the surrounding materia is composed of such particles.
A new breakthrough revealed us the existence of a new king of particle called the Higgs Boson or known with another nickname ,, Gods Particle " The scientists still try to obtain this particle using a special accelerator by clashing many other particles together in the hopes that they will find out more about it. Its interesting nevertheless.

 

[Randomperson]

There are many theories that gravitate around the origins of the Universe. One of them was told by one of my Physics teachers in highschool. He asked us first if we know what particle is responsible for all the mass in the universe. We were all thinking about the atom, molecules, electrones and such. Neither of us were right, even if the surrounding materia is composed of such particles.
A new breakthrough revealed us the existence of a new king of particle called the Higgs Boson or known with another nickname ,, Gods Particle " The scientists still try to obtain this particle using a special accelerator by clashing many other particles together in the hopes that they will find out more about it. Its interesting nevertheless.

Well I wish them luck, because like I mentioned, I am pretty sure the universe is entirely and only composed of energy. The matter is just stratification of this energy, forces like gravity, just interaction between stratified energy. Perhaps there is some base unit particle, but it is likely so minuscule that we may never detect it. I could also be over simplifying or I could be completely wrong. But my "gut instinct" is rather certain. As Harrison mentioned, our basic human senses are a trap of illusion, one that even if you know its a trap, you are still stuck within.

 

[apsie]

Love really like this thread.
I've not much to add to it right now, allot has already been stated in above posts.

 

[Mephisto]

On a related note i like reading about exo planets. For example i like hearing about Io, one of Jupiter's many moons. It is the most volcanically active planetary body (that we know of so far) in our solar system. Personally i would like to hear more about the suposed planet in the Ort cloud. Just a theory right now. The theory goes there's a huge planet and its gravity is flinging objects in the ort cloud to the inner solar system.

 

[JohnH]

If you have a chance to see the new Cosmos series hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson, there was one episode that went into reasonable depth (for a TV show) on the current thinking and research. It is pretty much in line with what Randomperson is describing.

As to the theological aspects of it, my personal opinion is that I can't think of anything more unlikely than the fact that the universe exists at all. But yet it does exist. In my mind there is no distinction between the improbabilities of a universe coming into being 13.5 billion years ago out of noplace, a universe that always existed in some form but the part of it we live in appeared then, or that a being or deity existed forever (which is an exceptionally long time) and 13.5 billion years ago decided to make a universe.

 

[Etzelaire]

Science is no pure knowledge and our understanding of the universe is subjected to our spectrum... Maybe the universe is just whatever one wants to do with his/her phenomenon. Whatever I think is true for me and no-one can make me change my mind unless I'm willing to.

 

[wyverary]

If you have a chance to see the new Cosmos series hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson, there was one episode that went into reasonable depth (for a TV show) on the current thinking and research. It is pretty much in line with what Randomperson is describing.

As to the theological aspects of it, my personal opinion is that I can't think of anything more unlikely than the fact that the universe exists at all. But yet it does exist. In my mind there is no distinction between the improbabilities of a universe coming into being 13.5 billion years ago out of noplace, a universe that always existed in some form but the part of it we live in appeared then, or that a being or deity existed forever (which is an exceptionally long time) and 13.5 billion years ago decided to make a universe.

If you're interested in exploring the secular explanation of the universe, I highly recommend A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. Yes, he is making some bold statements as to the non-existence of a deity, but the concepts he describes are fascinating, and the science is a joy to read about.

 

[apsie]

We only know what we can measure.

The concept of a holographic universe can not be falsified, nor can anyone falsify the idea that there is a bowl of spaghetti in orbit around jupiter.
If you can not falsify something, you can not test it.
All you can do is ponder about the probability of such a thing. We are then back to the realm of faith and religion.

The holographic universe hypothesis is very plausible indeed, I also think its a possibility, just not a very likely one.
We can come up with any number of hypothesis really, but few of them fit the facts of what we already know, even though some of those facts are open for interpretation.
We may be limited by our senses - what we can percieve, but we have been developing many tools that extend just that.
I'm confident humanity has the potential to figure out the universe, I just doubt we'll ever get there.
I'd rather not say why as that would probably lock the thread, which I think is a shame.

 

[danyalson]

I love seeing someone else as interested in the same things I am. I think we could probably falsify that a giant bowl of spaghetti is orbiting Jupiter but it's harder to falsify some of the more abstract concepts. There are signs we can look for to prove theories but right now we either lack the technology or haven't had any good hits.

You're right that some concepts in physics and cosmology often lead back to philosophy or religion. I don't think it's possible to prove the existence of an intelligent creator unless that creator decided to make himself known to us.

I have always thought it is an interesting concept that we could simply be the product of a computer simulation. Within the next 100 years we will develop the capability of creating artificially intelligent programs that could be self aware. Combine that with with an artificial reality for the intelligence to "live" in, it would be plausible that we could create a reality much like our own inhabited by AI programs that are totally unaware that we created them.

 

[Randomperson]

We can definitely falsify a bowl of pasta orbiting jupiter, no one can currently get a bowl of pasta into a jupiter orbit after all. And whatever created the universe, is definitely not intelligent, after all it made a world like earth with a species like humans on it, that are destroying their own habitat beyond repair and renewal!

I am very fascinated by the prospects of AI and artificial bodies within the near future, it may well end up being the only way I ever find a compatible female partner (literally have to build one).

 

[zurb]

You're right that some concepts in physics and cosmology often lead back to philosophy or religion. I don't think it's possible to prove the existence of an intelligent creator unless that creator decided to make himself known to us.

What would a creator have to do to make himself known? Seems to me if he made himself known, it would blow our brains. And if somehow he revealed himself in a way we could manage, half the population would still reject him.
Personally, I think there's more than enough evidence to support intelligent design. Not looking for argument, that's just my opinion.

 

[AsheSkyler]

The beginning is one of my favorite things to fall asleep fantasizing about. Being an artist, I cannot fathom that all this beauty wasn't hand crafted. Being curious, I like to think about all the ways I've heard and imagine them. Two little atoms (or something of opposing values) suddenly setting off a spark and then chain reacting on and on to create modern life? Some powerful lifeform detail guiding the whole thing? A goddess danced and life sprang from her footsteps? Music? Dreams? Some kind of accordion thing where the universe expands to huge proportions, collapses to a speck, then starts all over in an endless cycle? I eat it all up. I believe we'll never know for certain without a time machine, and possibly wouldn't understand what we saw anyway.