Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Nature Of The Universe

  1. Dec 18, 2011 #1
    Everyone seems preoccupied with the Big Bang and there are believers and non believers. I choose to look outside the box and understand The Nature Of The Universe...

    Are there any articles available on this subject?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 18, 2011 #2

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Sounds like you're looking for books written by folks on acid, not physics books, and this is probably not the best place to get that kind of recommendation.
     
  4. Dec 18, 2011 #3
    I don't get the question.

    Big Bang is not questionable from the fact that we have observations confirming it. (From our knowledge over nuclear physics and how the universe is today, up to astronomical observations). Maybe the philosophies around Big Bang are "questionable" , and the BigBang's theory of course changed through the years from what it was back to when it was introduced.

    Now what do you mean by the "The Nature of the Universe" for which you ask articles?
     
  5. Dec 18, 2011 #4

    e.bar.goum

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    One could say that "The Nature of the Universe" as you put it, is precisely what cosmologists study. So, well, all of http://arxiv.org/list/astro-ph.CO/recent ?

    Insofar as there is a "preoccupation" with the big bang, that seems to be an occupation of laypeople, rather than of cosmologists, as the above link shows.

    However, when one wishes to study the "nature of the universe" one tends to study it's beginnings, as they guide the future evolution of the universe. In addition, the only place we can see the universe "as it is today" is, well, where you are sitting. As we look into space, we look back in time, so the reason for the study of the formation and evolution of the universe is obvious.
     
  6. Dec 18, 2011 #5
    Yes I get your points:

    By the Nature Of The Universe, I mean the Universe's function as a whole.

    Question is.....Does the universe function as some part of a larger cosmological machine, working on a far grander timescale.

    And my reason for wanting to understand this is in doing so it might shed some light onto the Big Bang, if there was such an event!
     
  7. Dec 18, 2011 #6

    e.bar.goum

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Well, it's function is to be a universe. Really, that's a totally nonsensical question. The universe is merely the space in which everything happens. There is no "purpose" to the universe. It just is. And there certainly was a Big Bang, in the form as defined by the consensus science. The only people who doubt it are pseudo-scientists, cranks, and people who don't understand physics.
     
  8. Dec 18, 2011 #7

    I disagree with such statements as "cranks" "not understanding" etc.
    Of course everything seems like Big Bang Theory is correct. BUT- Big Bang theory has been enriched in such a point that it doesnt resemble to its initial status at all. New ideas, new knowledge, new observations are evolving the theory as we know today.

    Now as for the rest, the ideas over a multiuniverse system come from M-Theory and there are several books of several levels you can search for it. Hawking has done a good job in his latest book in giving the idea of how the universe began and how it came to what we see today, although even he makes some philosophical statements.
    It is NORMAL since by the time you try to give someone who has no foundations to understand something so complexed (like String/M Theory) you are to make such a conversation in book. It is even difficult to give people understand the "classical" quantum mechanics :p
     
  9. Dec 18, 2011 #8
    How is that a nonsensical question and your saying the Universe's function is to be a Universe , so why try to understand the big bang. Following on from what you say then there's nothing to the Big Bang.....I mean you could go on but your contradicting yourself
     
  10. Dec 18, 2011 #9

    e.bar.goum

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Obviously, I never said that Big Bang theory wasn't allowed to evolve. However, there is little doubt that at one point, ~13.7 Gya, the universe was much smaller than it is "now", and has since expanded. Indeed, measurements of SN Ia in the last decade have confirmed that the idea of a "matter dominated" epoch giving way to a "cosmological constant dominated universe", as given by the Friedmann equations. Big bang cosmology is one of the triumphs of modern science. See also, http://xkcd.com/54/.
     
  11. Dec 18, 2011 #10

    e.bar.goum

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    It's nonsensical because the universe isn't something that can have a purpose apart from to contain reality. Why do things need to have a deeper purpose to study them? We study the universe because that's what we live in! The universes function is self-defined - to be a universe. I'm not contradicting myself at all.
     
  12. Dec 18, 2011 #11
    this thing is turning into a philosophical conversation.
    Hahahaha.
    Finding the "purpose of universe".
     
  13. Dec 18, 2011 #12

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I couldn't agree more. I still think my original post (#2) was correct.
     
  14. Dec 18, 2011 #13

    e.bar.goum

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Agreed. I think that's what I was trying to say, but obviously didn't say it bluntly enough.
     
  15. Dec 18, 2011 #14
    You do not know that the purpose of the universe is to contain reality...Most things have a purpose and its a well known fact that the subject of reality is more of a philisophical topic...

    To be or not to be....!
     
  16. Dec 18, 2011 #15
    what is the purpose of an electron?
    Because universe is way big enough to speak for its purpose
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2011
  17. Dec 18, 2011 #16

    e.bar.goum

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    I shouldn't even bother replying, but I'm bored, so why not? Not to get all semantic, but the definition of the word "universe" ( http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/214800?redirectedFrom=universe#eid ) encodes it's purpose, or lack thereof - "All existing matter, space, time, energy, etc., regarded collectively, esp. as constituting a systematic or ordered whole; the whole of creation, the cosmos."

    Most things don't have a purpose! Only things that we create have a purpose. My mug, for holding tea, for instance. My iPod, to listen to music.

    But things that are created in nature don't have a purpose, apart from perhaps the purpose of living things is to reproduce. The earth doesn't have a purpose, nor does the sun or the oceans, or electrons, or protons. They just *are*.
     
  18. Dec 18, 2011 #17
    Seems like you lot got problems
     
  19. Dec 18, 2011 #18
    got problems because you try to give something not living a purpose or a consciousness?

    these kind of conversations might be fun or interesting for someone searching. But of course they lack "science" because they are totally subjective. And so "there stops Science and starts Randomness"
     
  20. Dec 18, 2011 #19

    e.bar.goum

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    It seems more problematic to attempt to assign everything "purpose".
     
  21. Dec 18, 2011 #20
    There is no difference to discussing this as there is to discussing the multiverse or blackholes...I mean once discovered what was before the big bang theory then in relation to my intitial question what will that prove.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook