I wish more people were content not having all the answers set in stone. There'd be a lot less fighting about the origins of the universe, and more frank, open discussion. Perhaps that's where we'd find the truth.
Origin of Universe: God <vs> Big Bang/Non-God theories
- Thread starter westmanguy
- Start date
I wish more people were content not having all the answers set in stone. There'd be a lot less fighting about the origins of the universe, and more frank, open discussion. Perhaps that's where we'd find the truth.
You know, the big bang theory can lend itself to my favourite scheme, and that is the "oscillating universe", which makes a bit more sense. Right now, all the stars and galaxies are flying away from each other. At some point, gravity will slow them down and stop them,(we hope) and drag them back together again where they will converge on a single point. All the matter in the universe will have dissappeared into that infinitesimal point and nothing will survive past that cusp. My universe will expand again in a big bang in another time, and another where, to start all over again. I didn't invent this, but I like this better that just saying there was a big bang....:wave:
The problem with that is, how many oscillations will occur? Infinity? Why shouldn't it be infinity? And yet, I don't think it can be infinity, for the same reason that I outlined in my previous post in this thread.
I thought matter could be created or destroyed by changing of state with energy. Fission destroys matter. The end result is less matter with energy making up the difference. Energy equals mass times speed of light squared. The total entrophy cannot be changed. The sum total of energy and matter may be mixed in any combination but the total sum remains the same. We have dark matter and dark energy to explain differences in what should be the summ total of existance in the universe.
There was matter before the Universe was created.
According to scientists, all the matter that exists in the Universe today was, before the Big Bang, all contained in a tiny space much smaller than the diameter of an atom. For reasons unknown, this then exploded and expanded to create the Universe. The Universe didn't expand into empty space as you would expect because there was no empty space until the Universe was created (NOTHING, not even empty space, existed before the Big Bang, except all the crunched up material that expanded to form the Universe). Instead it expanded into ? creating empty space as it went along.
All this means that all the matter that makes up yourself was once contained in a tiny microscopic dot that also contained the matter that makes a star billions of light years away, and all the matter that makes up a stranger walking down the street. EVERYTHING you see in the Universe was crunched together in this miniscule space (which sounds too hard to believe)
Evidence for the Big bang comes from the fact that all the galaxis are rushing away from each other from a central point, as though they all had the same origin in a certain point of space. A bit like debris exploding outwards from an exploding bomb. There's also evidence from a map of some sort of background radiation in space that was produced by NASA a few years ago. Some scientists believe that eventually they will all stop moving outwards and start to move back inwards, towards the centre again, and all gather together, squeezed (amazingly) into a miniscule space smaller than an atom. This is what they call the Big Crunch. Then ANOTHER Big Bang will happen and the whole process will start all over again.
Unless the Universe is infinite in size, meaning that there is an infinite number of planets in existence in the Universe. In that case, the chances of life happening somewhere in the Universe would almost certainly be 100% as in an infinite universe then everything must be possible.
It also means that, if the Universe is infinite, then there is a 100% chance of another planet in another part of the Universe that is EXACTLY like Earth in every detail, with the same shapes of the continents, the same countries, the same languages spoken - and another you.
Although this planet exactly like earth would definitely be an unimaginable distance away, a distance that humans can't contemplate.
I did a bit more research on the subject, and it's apparent that the original Big Bang theory is pretty much dead. There are hundreds of "spin-offs" by the sounds of it, that can't explain how the universe started, just that it keeps expanding, possibly condensing again, and then expanding again, over and over.
This idea is not new to me. I can't remember who's hypothesis it was, but it was the idea that every little possibility, every little chance in itself creates a new universe where that possibility is acted upon, thus there are infinite amount of me's, because everytime I think a new thought or take an action there is an alternate me somewhere doing the opposite. Therefore, everything, every possibility exists simultaneously. Err... I'll be quiet now, because I'm talking out of my ass. ^.^
This idea is not new to me. I can't remember who's hypothesis it was, but it was the idea that every little possibility, every little chance in itself creates a new universe where that possibility is acted upon, thus there are infinite amount of me's, because everytime I think a new thought or take an action there is an alternate me somewhere doing the opposite. Therefore, everything, every possibility exists simultaneously. Err... I'll be quiet now, because I'm talking out of my ass. ^.^
That's the so-called "many worlds" or parallel universes interpretation of quantum theory you're talking about, the notion that every possible quantum event actually happens. Instead of just being probabilistically predictable in one universe, a quantum event with multiple possible outcomes causes the universe to split into as many more universes as are required for each possible outcome to happen in one of them. There's no evidence for it, it's just an attempt to explain some of the bizarrely counter-intuitive results of quantum theory. The Big Bang theory's not anywhere near being dead though, it's just been heavily modified since its original conception. Somehow it seems relevent to re-post here something I posted in a thread about god being visible in creation a few months ago:
A recent book called The Cosmic Landscape by Leonard Susskind (a theoretical physicist of some renown, at least among theoretical physicists) goes into considerable detail about it, but the essence of it is that what we call the universe is but one of many pockets in a much larger whole he's dubbed the megaverse. It's another version of the old parallel universes theme, but with a difference: it's not just a speculation born out of attempts to make sense of quantum theory, this is what string theory appears to be pointing to quite explicitly. The pocket universes are born in random quantum fluctuations and the laws of physics won't be the same in all of them, we just happen to live in one whose laws permit life as we know it to develop. (And how could we be anywhere else?) String theory in fact seems to be suggesting there's somewhere around 10 to the 500th power of these pocket universes.
That's a big disappointment to a lot of theoretical physicists. They've been looking for their Holy Grail for almost a century, a single theory that'll explain it all; now it looks like they'll need about 10 to the 500th theories.
Thank you Dexter 
I try not to talk to much, seeing as I really don't know as much about the subject as I'd like to. Perhaps I'll head up to the library after physics class this morning, I'd like to know more about the subject. Any good reads I should consider?
I try not to talk to much, seeing as I really don't know as much about the subject as I'd like to. Perhaps I'll head up to the library after physics class this morning, I'd like to know more about the subject. Any good reads I should consider?
Lots.
Leonard Susskind, The Cosmic Connection
Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality
Robert Oerter, The Theory of Almost Everything
Marcus Chown, The Quantum Zoo
Richard Feynman, QED
Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time and The Universe in a Nutshell
John Barrow & Joseph Silk, The Left Hand of Creation
Stephen Hawking & Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time
Martin Rees, Our Cosmic Habitat
B.K. Ridley, Time, Space, and Things
And if you're studying physics, this one might appeal to you, though it's really a reference for physicists and is rather heavily mathematical:
Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality.
Those are just the ones I can see without actually getting up from my desk here... ;-)
I'd also suggest you stay away from Gary Zukav and Paul Davies, at least until you've had a chance to absorb some real science from some of those others. Zukav and Davies are sinking into mysticism. Zukav's a journalist and can perhaps be forgiven for not getting it right, but Davies as a respected theoretical physicist ought to know better.
Thank you! Hopefully I'll be able to find at least a few of those, if not I suppose I could get them online?
I'm not really studying physics, I'm taking it because it's a prereq for the program I want to take, but it does interest me, especially the astronomical and quantum stuff.
Oh Dexter! Is it a sin for a scientist to go beyond science? Is science a sect in which you lose credibility if you have any form of mystical or religious view of the world? Did Teilhard de Chardin commit a mistake in sharing his mystical thoughts with the world?
It seems to me if Davies is respected as a scientist, he can only contribute to the world by giving us his mystical insights. Intelligent people should be able to draw the line between his hard science and his own personal way of understanding it all. By many of your posts, you seem to think there is only crap coming out of mysticism... But at this point, when discussing such subjects as the origin of the universe, what is the difference between mysticism and philosophy?
No, as long as it's clear that's what the scientist is doing. Davies deliberately doesn't make it clear that his speculations are unscientific, and appears in fact to suggest that they're firmly grounded in science, when they're not.
No again, as long as you understand that he was a Roman Catholic priest with a particular agenda and his speculations on the apparently purposive nature of matter and energy have no basis in fact, and actually have much simpler explanations.
Yes, that's exactly what I think. It provides no useful answers, offers no guide for further investigation, and contributes exactly nothing to our real understanding of nature. Without evidence, you've got nothing. Such speculation can be fun, interesting, and entertaining, but without a grounding in reality, it's not going anywhere.
Philosophy, as I understand the word, is a form of rational and critical inquiry, mysticism is speculation and a heavy dose of wishful thinking with no basis in reality. Susskind subtitled his book The Cosmic Connection with "String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design" quite deliberately. Mysticism will never find the origin of the universe, it's by its nature untestable and unprovable, but science might.
Dark Matter
A super-dense substance used as a space ship fuel. Each pound of which weights over ten thousand pounds. It was mined in large amounts on the planet Vergon 6 until the whole planet was hollowed and on the verge of imploding in [1ACV04].
Also, the feces of a species called the Nibblonians.
Hope that helps!
Thank you Karrie your participation is appreciated, I'll note your contribution in the log of :wave:
Thank you Dexter
I try not to talk to much, seeing as I really don't know as much about the subject as I'd like to. Perhaps I'll head up to the library after physics class this morning, I'd like to know more about the subject. Any good reads I should consider?
Strange thing is AmberEyes, you have demonstrated that you know more about the subject than anyone one else here so far. I would suggest you read Richard Dawkins but start with his latest, 'The God Delusion' for immediate answers to the questions on ID and random chance, the two religious hoaxs, and natural selection which answers all the questions. Then maybe to 'Climbing Mt. Improbable' or 'The Bling Watchmaker' or 'Unweaving the Rainbow'. Or just start with his greatest accomplishment, 'The Selfish Gene' because you sound like you are ready for that one and it could be required reading for you anyway. I will just add, Richard Dawkins is the Simonyi professor for the advancement of human understanding, and that compels him to write his books in a language which even the layperson with a highschool education can understand. No big words and heavy science. Good for me too because physics in not my major.
I think if a lot of people could read some of those books before the religious recruiters got to them the world could be a lot different.
lol... I know it was smart alecky thing to post, but talk of dark matter always makes me think of Futurama, Fry cleaning Nibbler's litter box dragging off chunks of darkmatter. lol. I need to watch less tv.
Well you should think your actions through, I'v already forwarded the work order to the Inquisition Office of The DarkBeaver and I don't know if I can catch the mail boy in time to stop its delivery. Tellyvhizon is bad for you, haven't you heard that?, You thought you'd just discard that advice didn't you?Now look at the result tsktsktsk. you're going to be taller after the interview but wiser.:laughing7::laughing7::wave:
You'll just have to take my silly nature into account and go a little easy on me. lol.