Questions about the origin of the universe

[kasse]

1. Is it true that time was created in the big bang? In that case; what was it created from?
2. Is it possible that the universe is infinite in space, matter/energy or time?
3. Will the universe continue to expand forever?
4. If time was created in the BB, does it need to have a cause? I've heard physicists say that all the laws of physics - and thus the concept of cause and effect - break down in the singularity, so that BB doesn't need a cause; it just happened. To me this sounds no more convincing than a Christin claiming that "God just did it".

 

[slipfall]

I think the big bang theory is all wrong. No scientist can explain where the mass came from. Their theory that all matter and anti-matter came to exsist in one second is flawed. One of the laws of nature is that high pressure goes to low pressure or positive to negative. If there were a parallel universe with more pressure than our universe, a black hole would be created and all matter would have poured into our universe, like a big sink hole.

Where do black holes go?? They always are leaving our universe or galaxy. There is never a black hole coming into our universe. Mass is leaving our universe because it is positively pressurized or highly pressurized. Black holes are "leaks" into another universe(s). The experiment in Europe concerns me, because if heat of that magnitude was present...why are we recreating that. Could an explosion or temp. on that scale, create a new "sink hole" or black hole to another universe. Earth would be gone in a blink of an eye! Can anyone out there disprove my theory??

 

[kasse]

It's not all wrong. There are too many observations that support it. No serious scientists doubt the BBT.

 

[slipfall]

I do not mean that it is all wrong. All matter came from a single or confined area. I just dispute that it was an explosion that came from a sub atom particle and developed into the universe...spontaneous creation of mass from almost nothing. It must come from somewhere.

 

[buffordboy23]

The experiment in Europe concerns me, because if heat of that magnitude was present...why are we recreating that. Could an explosion or temp. on that scale, create a new "sink hole" or black hole to another universe. Earth would be gone in a blink of an eye! Can anyone out there disprove my theory??

You shouldn't have concern over this notion. See this thread for 457, and counting, reasons:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=237184

 

[kasse]

I do not mean that it is all wrong. All matter came from a single or confined area. I just dispute that it was an explosion that came from a sub atom particle and developed into the universe...spontaneous creation of mass from almost nothing. It must come from somewhere.

It wasn't an explosion at a certain point in the universe, but an expansion of the universe itself (if I've got it right). Of course it's illogical that the mass came from nothing, and that's not what the BBT says either. The universe popping out of nowhere is no better a theory than the universe popping out of the hands of a deity.

Regarding the CERN project in Switzerland and France, I meet lots of uneducated people who are scared of what is going to happen, after reading all kinds of conspiracies. I sometimes wish internet was banned...

 

[granpa]

1. Is it true that time was created in the big bang? In that case; what was it created from?
2. Is it possible that the universe is infinite in space, matter/energy or time?
3. Will the universe continue to expand forever?
4. If time was created in the BB, does it need to have a cause? I've heard physicists say that all the laws of physics - and thus the concept of cause and effect - break down in the singularity, so that BB doesn't need a cause; it just happened. To me this sounds no more convincing than a Christin claiming that "God just did it".

why do you assume that it came from nothing? why not from everything?

time wasnt created. being created would require time. you can only go back so far. to the very beginning. and then you just can't go back any further.

 

[buffordboy23]

3. Will the universe continue to expand forever?

It will depend on the critical density parameter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Density_parameter

 

[kasse]

why do you assume that it came from nothing? why not from everything?

Good question. Never thought of it that way.

time wasnt created. being created would require time. you can only go back so far. to the beginning. and then you just can't go back any further.

I know that time wasn't created in the normal sense of the word, but do we really know that time has a beginning? Can't time be infinite?

 

[slipfall]

I do not assume that the universe came from nothing...it is my understanding, that the current popular scientific view is that everything came from a single particle of matter and it split into matter and anti-matter. Then it grew into our universe. I believe that such a particle would have a finite abondance of matter.

 

[kasse]

It will depend on the critical density parameter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Density_parameter

Is there a chance that this ever will be found? For example in CERN?

 

[granpa]

Can't time be infinite?

neither in duration nor in divisibility. time like everything else is finite and discrete.

 

[kasse]

I do not assume that the universe came from nothing...it is my understanding, that the current popular scientific view is that everything came from a single particle of matter and it split into matter and anti-matter. Then it grew into our universe. I believe that such a particle would have a finite abondance of matter.

Yes, because an infinite matter would mean infinite energy in a finite space, which is impossible.

 

[kasse]

neither in duration nor in divisibility. time like everything else is finite and discrete.

I thought we didn't even know WHAT time is...but then, since time is finite, does it mean that will have an end?

So we actually know that the energy/matter in our universe (and possible other universes) is finite?

 

[buffordboy23]

Is there a chance that this ever will be found? For example in CERN?

It can be deduced with the aid of astrophysical measurements. I believe the currently quoted value is a little larger than one. Current evidence has shown that the universe is currently expanding.

 

[kasse]

It can be deduced with the aid of astrophysical measurements. I believe the currently quoted value is a little larger than one. Current evidence has shown that the universe is currently expanding.

At the speed of light?

 

[buffordboy23]

At the speed of light?

See the link:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=575

 

[granpa]

I thought we didn't even know WHAT time is...but then, since time is finite, does it mean that will have an end?

So we actually know that the energy/matter in our universe (and possible other universes) is finite?

time will never end but at no time will an infinite amount of time have passed.

this is just common sense.

 

[buffordboy23]

time like everything else is finite and discrete.

What evidence suggests this? I have pondered on numerous occasions if there is a discreteness to time, but to my knowledge nothing supports this notion.

 

[granpa]

What evidence suggests this? I have pondered on numerous occasions if there is a discreteness to time, but to my knowledge nothing supports this notion.

common sense supports it. nothing can be infinitely divisible.

 

[buffordboy23]

common sense supports it. nothing can be infinitely divisible.

I see. So with this argument, you would have to suggest that space is also discrete as well, right? So, if we could zoom into the fabric of space with ultra-microscopic and absolute precision, we would find that something could exist at point 1 here or point 2 nearby, but not anywhere between? But, space was expanding and is currently expanding, so those points shall be further and further away yet nothing can exist between them. So, is this still all just a matter of common sense?

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of discreteness is plausible, but its not fully supported by any theory to my knowledge.

 

[granpa]

I see. So with this argument, you would have to suggest that space is also discrete as well, right? So, if we could zoom into the fabric of space with ultra-microscopic and absolute precision, we would find that something could exist at point 1 here or point 2 nearby, but not anywhere between? But, space was expanding and is currently expanding, so those points shall be further and further away yet nothing can exist between them. So, is this still all just a matter of common sense?

yip.

 

[granpa]

whats interesting to me is the question of why the universe is so complicated. the universe had to start in a very simple state. one can easily imagine a single particle existing in the beginning and that particle dividing into 2 then 4 then 8 and so on. but it seems like they should all be the same. such a universe woudnt be very interesting. so where did all the chaos come from?

 

[buffordboy23]

whats interesting to me is the question of why the universe is so complicated. the universe had to start in a very simple state. one can easily imagine a single particle existing in the beginning and that particle dividing into 2 then 4 then 8 and so on. but it seems like they should all be the same. such a universe woudnt be very interesting. so where did all the chaos come from?

String theory posits that all of the constituents of the universe are made of the same thing, little vibrating strings. The observed differences of the particles we see basically arise due to different string oscillations. If you are not familiar with this theory, I must note that it has not been proven to be the correct description of our universe, although it has a large and supportive mathematical basis. Our current technology cannot probe the scales needed to test the theory. Interestingly, the upcoming Large Hadron Collider experiments may be able validate some of the fundamental science that is the foundational to the theory, such as supersymmetry and extra dimensions of space.

 

[butthead]

it is a fact that universe is expanding that means there was a time when it was in minute form or in the form of smallest particle known to man kind ..so if scientists in CERN break this smallest particle and in reality if it is the smallest particle can't that lead to another big bang,the chances might be very less but i feel scientists are playing with something very dangerous,and if it is not dangerous their own theory of big bang should be in question

 

[Force1]

Big Bang Theory doesn't say there was a big bang. Many people take the Big Bang as an implication but there is nothing in BBT about the cause of the initial expansion or any preconditions like even that tiny particle. I might be wrong but if so I would like to see a link to where BBT referrers to such a particle. I view BBT as being General Relativity with inflation and the cosmological principle. That could have changed in the years since I got that impression :).

The Higgs boson and Higgs field is predicted based on Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. The LHC at CERN is a machine designed with the parameters to detect the decay of the Higgs boson but the particle itself will not be "seen". The Higgs mechanism is terminology I have seen when referring to what they hope to find.

There is no clear evidence that time is discrete or a continuum though there is evidence for both I would say, and there is no way to tell if the universe has or has not always existed but if energy cannot be created or destroyed, it has always existed. If energy can be created there could have been a beginning but then the source of the energy would need to be discovered.

One characteristic of science is that it requires all theory to have tentativeness. If you say time is discrete and insist it is so, that is dogma and doesn't qualify as science. If you could prove time is discrete, that would be nice but it is still subject to further discovery which could prove it wasn't discrete. The same goes for evidence of an origin, a beginning, and the possibility that the universe has or has not always existed. All must be considered tentative and subject to change.

 

[Clarity14]

I think the big bang theory is all wrong. No scientist can explain where the mass came from. Their theory that all matter and anti-matter came to exsist in one second is flawed. One of the laws of nature is that high pressure goes to low pressure or positive to negative. If there were a parallel universe with more pressure than our universe, a black hole would be created and all matter would have poured into our universe, like a big sink hole.

Where do black holes go?? They always are leaving our universe or galaxy. There is never a black hole coming into our universe. Mass is leaving our universe because it is positively pressurized or highly pressurized. Black holes are "leaks" into another universe(s). The experiment in Europe concerns me, because if heat of that magnitude was present...why are we recreating that. Could an explosion or temp. on that scale, create a new "sink hole" or black hole to another universe. Earth would be gone in a blink of an eye! Can anyone out there disprove my theory??

WELLLLLLLL black holes arent portals they are a massive amount of gravity that actually makes space and time look like nothing. it pulls light in. why does a black hole look like a black hole?? because light can't escape it. your theory of a parralel universe is that of stephen hawkings. which he later on said"uhhh i was wrong" black holes don't lead to other universes they just suck things in and condense them thus adding to there density. why arent there black holes pouring into our universe? wouldn't they be white holes? they would be pushing out light and matter that was sucked in from your so called parrallel universe into ours. seeing as how there is no other universe there is no white holes.
But you could use black holes as a basis to another theory. if the speed of light could go any faster it could travel in time. the black holes might actually be able to push the light to its limit and make it travel Faster than its supposed to and actually send it back in time to travel through the universe. it might even be logical to say it traveled all the way back to the big bang. but that would mean it was a parralell universe which isn't possible so were both wrong=]

 

[Clarity14]

Guys the fact of the matter is we are NEVER going to have a right answer.
The human brain is not powerful enough to concieve a theory about the universe.
Its just not going to happen for billions of years. Granted were around then. Nobody can figure out the ultimate question of the universe. Nor the answer. or how it happened. I think if someone did the universe would fix the error it self and reset itself back to the point the answer was concieved and erase it, making it look like it never happened and no one would ever notice. it could have happened already. The universe doesn't want us to know how it got here. That would just raise problems.

 

[TalonD]

of course there is an answer..
the answer is 42

 

[Clarity14]

of course there is an answer..
the answer is 42

so that means the ultimate question we should be asking is what do you get when you multiply 6 by 7. really if you use base 13 it would come out to this 6*7=42, 6*13+7*13+42*13=715/13=55

so the real answer would be 55

 

[jqnsmart]

Guys the fact of the matter is we are NEVER going to have a right answer.
The human brain is not powerful enough to concieve a theory about the universe.

Talk about a very pessimistic view of the universe.

I think that we will have an answer on the universe and what created it. Just knowing that people out there devote their entire careers to finding out how it happened is already very convincing that we will get an answer (at least to me). Either way, if people think that we will never figure it out then you have two option (or one):
1) Adopt a theory that is already out there, or make your own.
2) (if you're religious) Accept that God (or some other diety) made the world.

Again, either way, there is an answer, whether it has been confirmed or not.

 

[jqnsmart]

why arent there black holes pouring into our universe? wouldn't they be white holes? they would be pushing out light and matter that was sucked in from your so called parrallel universe into ours. seeing as how there is no other universe there is no white holes.

Maybe there are white holes. Maybe we just haven't seen them. Just like we haven't explored the oceans completely, which are right here, we haven't (and probably can't expect to in many lifetimes) explored the universe.


I've seen this idea in books before, so more than one person must find it plausible. It all ends up being a matter of searching in the right spot.

 

[SdogV]

It seems reasonable to assume that "things" (mass, energy, space, etc.) have an awareness for their surroundings, i.e. like life, they respond as their constitution, composition, and conditioning permits. Light as photons requires (needs?) mass for validation. Mass requires (needs?) time for validation. We spend a lot of $$$ banging particles together to see how and what they are made of. Yet, since mass excitation can produce photons, isn't it reasonable to assume a process where photons, needing mass, produce mass? I am unable to find much ongoing experimentation of attempts to produce mass from photons as suggested by relations, mc^2 = h f. = k T

 

[butthead]

even i feel mass and photons and space are related..if the planet Jupiter starts traveling from its orbit to Earth and back to its orbit at a speed of over billion light years per micro second(to and fro)...we will not only see this plannet as a bridge between Earth and Jupiter but if we try to touch it we will be able to feel the mass through out the path as the speed is very high...like ceiling fan appears to have many wings we might see this as a path or kinda bridge ..weird thought but may be space is time and time is space

 

[buffordboy23]

I am unable to find much ongoing experimentation of attempts to produce mass from photons as suggested by relations, mc^2 = h f. = k T

Check out the wikilink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics.

At the bottom of the page, there are some external links to research groups that study such physics.

 

[SdogV]

I checked that link, but it looked like particles are being accelerated in order to produce photons, NOT playing with a controlled source of photons. In my old research days, I was impressed by the fact that crossing electrical discharges to make coronas at different frequencies in a low pressure atmosphere of chlorine and oxygen magically produced chlorine heptoxide, impossible to achieve with a a single corona.

 

[granpa]

whats interesting to me is the question of why the universe is so complicated. the universe had to start in a very simple state. one can easily imagine a single particle existing in the beginning and that particle dividing into 2 then 4 then 8 and so on. but it seems like they should all be the same. such a universe woudnt be very interesting. so where did all the chaos come from?

it just occurred to me that if all the particles are the same then it would be meaningless to say that there was more than one. the very idea of dividing into 2 particles requires that they be different in some way.

 

[Pythagorean]

It's not all wrong. There are too many observations that support it. No serious scientists doubt the BBT.

Actually, I know a scientist that does. He makes a good point: we've never discovered infinite in nature. That isn't to say the big bang is completely wrong, but it could be significantly wrong.

Same scientist is skeptical about black holes as well (he doesn't deny the phenomena that we've come to call a black hole, just the mainstream theory for why we observe that phenomena)

 

[butthead]

i agree that there is no study goin on to find if protons can form a mass...but they can definitely give an illusion of touching the mass...and even the thing that we call mass is not actualy mass ,...mind you 90% of space exists in an atom and its protons ...or molecules revolving around it ...

 

[SixNein]

1. Is it true that time was created in the big bang? In that case; what was it created from?
2. Is it possible that the universe is infinite in space, matter/energy or time?
3. Will the universe continue to expand forever?
4. If time was created in the BB, does it need to have a cause? I've heard physicists say that all the laws of physics - and thus the concept of cause and effect - break down in the singularity, so that BB doesn't need a cause; it just happened. To me this sounds no more convincing than a Christin claiming that "God just did it".

1. Time is just a measurement of motion.
2. Sure it's possible.
3. The rubber-band theory is possible.
4. Well scientist are a bit hypocritical when it comes to religion. Science will never be able to disprove the existence of god nor will they be able to prove that a god didn't create the universe. So it's like the pot calling the kettle black.

At the end of the day, belief in God is a matter of faith for both atheist and religious people. Even the most advance aliens in the universe have to accept that fact.

 

[lubuntu]

1. Time is just a measurement of motion.
2. Sure it's possible.
3. The rubber-band theory is possible.
4. Well scientist are a bit hypocritical when it comes to religion. Science will never be able to disprove the existence of god nor will they be able to prove that a god didn't create the universe. So it's like the pot calling the kettle black.

At the end of the day, belief in God is a matter of faith for both atheist and religious people. Even the most advance aliens in the universe have to accept that fact.

SixNein, here is the simple refutation of your point #4

The burden of proving a god is on the believer not the disbeliever
Faith is not a virtuous thing and does nothing to benefit humanity

 

[SixNein]

SixNein, here is the simple refutation of your point #4

The burden of proving a god is on the believer not the disbeliever
Faith is not a virtuous thing and does nothing to benefit humanity

How do you know that I exist? Just about everything that you "know" is based upon faith.

It is mathematically proven (two proofs as a matter of fact) that some things cannot be explain logically. The Continuum hypothesis put forth by Georg Cantor, which deals with infinity, has had strong mathematical evidence that it's impossible to solve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Continuum_hypothesis

If mathematics cannot answer these questions, then it's siblings in science doesn't stand a chance.

 

[lubuntu]

I see, so if we can't figure out an answer to a question. Well...we might as well just make some crap up!

The only thing we can do that is of any use is to use empirical evidence to deduce things about reality.

I don't doubt science may not provide the answers to every question we bother to ask in the fullest of time. Yet perhaps, it is a failure in humanities way of trying to attach meaning to everything instead of a failure of empiricism. Some questions can simply not deserve an answer.

 

[Evo]

How do you know that I exist? Just about everything that you "know" is based upon faith.

It is mathematically proven (two proofs as a matter of fact) that some things cannot be explain logically. The Continuum hypothesis put forth by Georg Cantor, which deals with infinity, has had strong mathematical evidence that it's impossible to solve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Continuum_hypothesis

If mathematics cannot answer these questions, then it's siblings in science doesn't stand a chance.

You're citing someone that died almost a hundred years ago when religion had much more influence on rational thought than it does now.

Not to mention that he was quite possibly insane.

To Cantor, his mathematical views were intrinsically linked to their philosophical and theological implications—he identified the Absolute Infinite with God,[45] and he considered his work on transfinite numbers to have been directly communicated to him by God, who had chosen Cantor to reveal them to the world.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Continuum_hypothesis

 

[quantumdude]

Science will never be able to disprove the existence of god nor will they be able to prove that a god didn't create the universe.

That's precisely why the concept of god is scientifically useless: it isn't falsifiable. Any theory that works with a god can also work without one. It is a superfluous entity that needn't be posited in the first place. There's nothing hypocritical about rejecting such an idea.

 

[SixNein]

You're citing someone that died almost a hundred years ago when religion had much more influence on rational thought than it does now.

Not to mention that he was quite possibly insane.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor#Continuum_hypothesis

I'm citing one of the greatest mathematicians that has ever walked this planet. This hypothesis and the work on it is the foundation of computer science.

 

[SixNein]

That's precisely why the concept of god is scientifically useless: it isn't falsifiable. Any theory that works with a god can also work without one. It is a superfluous entity that needn't be posited in the first place. There's nothing hypocritical about rejecting such an idea.

Nor is it hypocritical to accept such an idea. It's hypocritical to say one is more correct with their belief then the other.

 

[lubuntu]

Nor is it hypocritical to accept such an idea. It's hypocritical to say one is more correct with their belief then the other.

Wrong again. If I make an assertion and have clear evidence which you can investigate that shows that to the best of our observation that an assertion is true, it is more correct than assertion made based on "a belief" or "faith."

Science is more correct than religion. There is an object truth we can deduce about the world we live in through experimentation. There is no hypocrisy in dismissing belief in the stead of evidence.

 

[quantumdude]

Nor is it hypocritical to accept such an idea.

I didn't say it was.

It's hypocritical to say one is more correct with their belief then the other.

If you mean that it's hypocritical for the one who says, "I believe god does not exist" to assert that he is more correct than the one who says "I believe god does exist", then I would agree with you. I wouldn't say either one of those things. Instead I say "I do not believe that god exists", which is perfectly in line with scientific evidence.

My point to you was that you say, "god can not be disproven" as though this should give scientists pause to consider it. It shouldn't. The fact that god isn't falsifiable is precisely the reason that "god" is ignorable.

 

[quantumdude]

I'm citing one of the greatest mathematicians that has ever walked this planet.

OK then here's a question for you: Why?

This thread is about the origin of the universe, not mathematics. Mathematical truths are true by definition. The same can not be said about scientific propositions, which are contingent on experimental results. Mathematics is a priori while science is a posteriori.