Physics theory Expansion and contraction of the universe

[I am that which I am]

I recently became obsessed again with theoretical physics. I am not a physicist and certainly would not be able to get all of the math related to it. But I still enjoy trying to understand how the universe works in this way and instead can often picture or see in my mind some theories. It would be nice to try to translate this into a theory but I do not think I have the capacity to do that, so I am open to help and otherwise open to discussion.

Onto the subject of the expansion and/or contraction of the universe; I see it in this way. The big bang may have started to push everything away but like throwing a rock in a pond the water pushes out of the way and then comes back in towards the center. So I think that we are just going down one of the waves made by throwing the rock, and right now it seems that everything is moving away. But perhaps closer to the original site of the big bang they would be moving closer, contracting. So I think that for a very long time (over billions of years) we will experience both contractions and expansions as the displacement of matter stabilizes. How exactly it would end (big crunch or spreading so far that nothing exists anymore) or if it does end I do not know but can build on this initial premise. Perhaps at one point the contractions and expansions will just stop once it is stable. Like a body of water that is disturbed by a rock eventually returns to normal. In this case the energy of the system may approach zero. And as energy is can neither be created or destroyed it will likely be converted into a stable mass. As this mass becomes larger then it might actually create another super-massive black hole and collapse as what started the big bang in the first place. But I am speculating a bit more here. I have heard of many other theories, like the ying and yang of black holes and large empty space that works together to keep things overall balanced and matter not too close and not too far.

Just my thoughts, but I would be happy to hear from other people in the area. Just spare me the math I am a neuroscientist (student ATM) not a physicist.

For you physics majors, researchers, et al. that think I might be bonkers: While I am an amateur I was able to figure out by picturing the reason for which Boron tends to only makes three bonds with other atoms when according to the periodic table and what they teach us it should make 4. I found it rather simple when I looked at it. The nucleus of Boron is smaller than that of Carbon (for example). The reason I theorized was because the nucleus of boron is much smaller than carbon (which invariably makes 4 bonds). Thus if you think of the bonds as a pair of electrons, and electrons as a particle that is attracted to the nucleus but at the same time pushes away other electrons there is a fine balance and line between these electrons and based on the size of the nucleus how many can fit around it and still be within close range of the nucleus' positive charge to be attracted. Boron having a slightly smaller nucleus than carbon exists just before that fine line and the positive charge just does not go quite far enough to attract a fourth electron pair (or bond). But for carbon it is just past this fine line where it's positive charge can attract four pairs of electrons in close proximity but not so close that they repel each other. Thus carbon makes some of the strongest bonds and invariably always needs to make 4 electron pair bonds. Interestingly carbon is the building block for all biological structures, proteins, DNA, lipids. I asked a physics professor I had and he confirmed that this was one reason why atoms do not always make the expected number of bonds based on the periodic table. Another reason was spin-spin coupling and others they are still exploring.

I am that which I am

 

[Harrison]

My favourite pastime is pondering the universe, I'm not a physicist either, just an old man with time on his hands. My journeys on the subject range from the highly spiritual to highly scientific, but for this thread I'll pick an old favourite as it matches up somewhat with your post.

This theory applies to the idea of 'Membranes' and the 'Multiverse' theories, both of which are mainstream science.

Firstly, we need to remember that we perceive the universe three dimensionally and can only do so in that manner. Yes, we can hypothesise many more dimensions and we can also define them within the constraints of our minds, but our senses only accept input based on three dimensions and limited wavelengths.

An example of this is there for all to see in the wonderful imagery we have of other galaxies, nebulae etc. We gaze in awe at the colours and form yet forget that the cameras recording that information work outside of our visible spectrum to include x-ray, gamma ray, infra-red and ultraviolet. So if you, as an astronaut, were fortunate enough to travel in space and view those same things, you would not see what you saw in the photos.

Back to membranes and multiverses.

Imagine that your world was two dimensional, length and breadth only, but I am a three dimensional being. Now, I take my three dimensional 'egg' or ovoid and very slowly lower it into your world. At first you will see a point suddenly bursting forth, followed by an expanding circle as the ovoid drops through your plane of existence. As the ovoid passes its widest point the circle will seem to contract back to the original point.

Of course, this hasn't actually happened. The whole ovoid has simply moved through your plane of existence, but to you there has been a point of creation, an expansion and a contraction back to zero point.

Now, the two differing dimensions may have differing laws of physics so the boundary between the two may interact violently. In this theory that violent interaction causes the formation of galaxies and all that we perceive. This of course means that our normal state of consciousness is not the product of our natural universe but the summation of the collision between the two differing planes of existence. Therefore life as we know it exists because of the collision and not despite it.

 

[apsie]

www.dimensions-math.org

 

[I am that which I am]

While I do not necessarily have that much time on my hands. My brain seems rather interested in this kind of data analysis, theorizing and philosophizing. So much so that it can keep me up at night

Firstly, we need to remember that we perceive the universe three dimensionally and can only do so in that manner. Yes, we can hypothesise many more dimensions and we can also define them within the constraints of our minds, but our senses only accept input based on three dimensions and limited wavelengths.

I am also familiar with the multiverse theory and it would make sense but is unfortunately rather difficult to test and prove. Yes I agree and unfortunately there are limitations to the way can perceive the universe and understand it in this sense. It is unlikely to only have 3 dimensions. Fortunately we have created some tools to be able to see more wavelengths. I think we still have to work on tools to be able to see more dimensions, though that would be quite fascinating. I am familiar with the idea that a being that can only see two dimensions might think some events are quite strange as they cannot consider or possibly imagine a third dimension. I have seen Flatland (there are many versions now) and pondered for quite some time as to what the fourth dimension might be and what it constitutes of. As others have theorized it might lend hand to the multiverse theory. If the fourth dimension would show infinitely many other "universes" where there are slightly different laws of physics.

Now, the two differing dimensions may have differing laws of physics so the boundary between the two may interact violently. In this theory that violent interaction causes the formation of galaxies and all that we perceive. This of course means that our normal state of consciousness is not the product of our natural universe but the summation of the collision between the two differing planes of existence. Therefore life as we know it exists because of the collision and not despite it.

Yes I also think that matter and the way we can perceive or be conscious of the universe is a result of a collision between perhaps several planes. I like the idea that everything is really a (perhaps) infinite number of waves that collide together to create matter as we know it in all of its complexities and levels. Perhaps seeing these waves interact would be the fourth dimension. Unfortunately if you think of the creation of our brain biologically it was created for crude survival in a natural world and not designed by nature to understand the universe. Still we try and ponder; perhaps we will eventually be able to surpass this limitation in it's design either by evolution or a technological singularity. But we have to grow to a great extent as a civilization before that, but I won't go too much on a tangent about that.

www.dimensions-math.org

Thanks for the link.

I am that which I am

 

[Spiller]

Imagine that your world was two dimensional, length and breadth only, but I am a three dimensional being. Now, I take my three dimensional 'egg' or ovoid and very slowly lower it into your world. At first you will see a point suddenly bursting forth, followed by an expanding circle as the ovoid drops through your plane of existence. As the ovoid passes its widest point the circle will seem to contract back to the original point.

Harrison, have you read 'Flatland' by Edwin A. Abbot?
I'm no physicist, though, I'm intrigued by the physical and spiritual nature of the Universe, it always seems to me that a microcosm, on any scale, is similar to a macrocosm; Newtonian atoms behave like solar systems; individual cells behave like complex organisms.
I see The Big Bang Theory as kind of small scale thinking.. what if our expanding universe, at least that part visible to us, expanding from its point of origin, is like quantum foam on a larger scale.. there are Big Bangs happening all over, just too far away for us to perceive; like raindrops on a pond, the ripples expand, intersect with other ripples, creating high matter/energy intersections which result in more Big Bangs..
In a finite universe, entropy in a closed system, however large, will eventually result in an evenly spread 'soup' of matter, perhaps. In an infinite universe, an open system, this process would continue infinitely.

 

[Harrison]

Never read 'Flatland' but it will be on my list now.

I agree that the biological brain is insufficient in understanding the true nature of the universe we inhabit. I see two solutions, firstly we learn the true nature of consciousness as I believe (as a Taoist) that it transcends three dimensional space. Secondly, look deeper into quantum computers as they may hold the power to break the barrier.

One could conceed that there are 'big bangs' happening at any time if we perceive membranes as moving through each other in an almost random motion rather than a sort of linear event. This could possibly create multiverses within each other which is the current thinking of the '15 level dimensions' scientists.

While I'm a firm supporter of entropy I do wonder if it is valid on such a macroscopic scale. One must remember the rule of conservation of energy. If it holds up there can be no real entropy. Also new research is finding that some energy is coming into this universe without prior mass or engagement here, it just appears. This lends to the idea that we are not a closed system.

 

[apsie]

I agree that the biological brain is insufficient in understanding the true nature of the universe we inhabit.

I disagree on that part. The potential for our biological brain could be limitless. Considering we can built extensions to it, for all intents and purposes.
Such extensions are immagined by our biological brain, so in a way they are part of it.
(I don't give dualism much credit, because I can not think of any way it could ever be proven likely, without resulting to magic)

The fact we can immagine a forth dimension, means that to alteast a small degree we can percieve it with our minds eye. We can build from that!
I don't mean that just because we can immagine something it has to be.

I'm familiar with most theories, and I can immagine how they correlate.
I won't bash any, but some seem more likely then others, and some of the others seem very unlikely.

Statements like: "humans are incapable of understanding" because of our limitations, are false.
Maybe adding "some" before humans would make it correct.

I can't link a video for some reason.
Google "Dan Dennet on conciousness". There's a video in which he makes good points, about how everyone thinks they're an expert.

Conway's game of life. (I'd lower sound volume, the music can be annoying)
People usually use the complexity arguement when they're out of other straws, how its proof of creation.
However, simple rules can create the most immersive (not necessarily complex) systems.
Its not complex, its simple!

If you can entertain the idea, the implications are massive. In the end, we could find 1 structure similar to a piece of code, which determines just about everything.
A few rules at the base of funcionality.

 

[I am that which I am]

'Flatland' by Edwin A. Abbot?

Yes there are also a few short films and a full length film around. I believe I have seen all of them. It was quite a brilliant book that inspired much thought.

like raindrops on a pond, the ripples expand, intersect with other ripples, creating high matter/energy intersections which result in more Big Bangs..

Yes I can see where you are going with this and perhaps if we think of it in more than three dimensions then overlapping foam or I tend to think of it as a body of water that is affected by a multitude of drops. It is possible that there are multitudes of these occurring simultaneously overlapping and not overlapping. I was just thinking at one level, which we can observe and seems to be telling us that the universe is expanding at the moment. I just think this is somewhat erroneous to say since we could just be going down a wave and at some point we will go back up another, where the universe is contracting slightly. It could indeed be influenced by other "universe systems", if you will, at the same level and that there are several levels on top of this that could have an effect that we do not know about. That would also be an interesting direction to go in and test.

I agree that the biological brain is insufficient in understanding the true nature of the universe we inhabit. I see two solutions, firstly we learn the true nature of consciousness as I believe (as a Taoist) that it transcends three dimensional space. Secondly, look deeper into quantum computers as they may hold the power to break the barrier.

Yes indeed we would have to learn far more about ourselves, how our consciousness is perhaps predetermined to think in certain patterns or certain ways and to analyze and perceive problems and answers in certain ways. Being aware of this would be another level of awareness to our consciousness. I have learned a great deal about perception and how it can be influenced, changed, manipulated, and how it overall leads us to certain conclusions through my studies (in neuroscience/psychology). An awareness of this in a great deal of detail might be necessary and quite the transcendence. A further level that may come with this transcendence is being able to understand and experience something (be it a complex physics problem or life) at different levels simultaneously. For example being able to know life as a snail that is not conscious in the same way that we are, as well as a human and at every level in-between and beyond simple human consciousness. In this way we could simultaneously gain various insight at different levels of thought and consciousness in a short period of time about a problem. This can also extend to ethics. Speaking of which I think we need to advance significantly in our morality, ethics, and spirituality as a society before we should even attempt to achieve transcendence. Yes quantum computing may also be along these lines and may help us go even further in this direction, but without significant societal, culture, (etc.) advancement it might actually be more dangerous to achieve transcendence or a technological singularity. We will either find ourselves overrun to nothingness or we will obliterate ourselves to nothingness (and I do not mean philosophical nothingness).

I disagree on that part. The potential for our biological brain could be limitless. Considering we can built extensions to it, for all intents and purposes.

In part I agree with you. I understood Harrison's statement and make my own in regards to the limits of our brain as it currently is. Yes we could build extensions onto it and could manipulate it to a much greater complexity. However, being a neuroscientist I can tell you we are very far from being able to do this. Yet, if we combine quantum computing or a technological singularity with these endeavors then it may be possible. Another thing to remember is that despite the many films with aliens that have a head and brain the size of a basketball (or larger). There is the issue of gravity. One reason why our brains have fluid channels throughout that hold cerebrospinal fluid is that the brain as we have it would crush itself if it was not floating in fluid, because of gravity. In fluids the brain is buoyant or floating, which greatly reduces the pressure the outer most regions experience as you move your head around. That and I think the alien's necks must be soar after a while. We have not reached the limit of of buoyancy for our floating brains, but I doubt it is that far. We must also think of oxygenating this thing and providing it with enough energy. If our technological advances persist we may solve this problem. Still building on the brain would be quite the task since it is incredibly complex and a truly wonderful organ. It is incredibly complex and one neuron can essentially process as much as a computer, we have billions of these neurons. We might also have to find better ways to process information and nature is already far ahead of us on that front and we are just starting to learn how nature got around several major issues. While many people might prefer their brains to be like a computer and remember vast amounts of data verbatim a computer is not creative and cannot adapt. You can program a computer to do this , but it's hardware is not very creative in and of itself. We can be quite creative and can adapt to complex situations.

I am curious as to what Taoism entails. I have had a general interest geared towards Buddhism but am also curious about other non-theistic eastern religions if you could to elaborate this point?

y. Also new research is finding that some energy is coming into this universe without prior mass or engagement here, it just appears. This lends to the idea that we are not a closed system.

Really I have not heard of this but it sounds rather fascinating. Where and how did they (and who) find this?

I am that which I am

 

[Harrison]

I disagree on that part. The potential for our biological brain could be limitless. Considering we can built extensions to it, for all intents and purposes.

The fact we can immagine a forth dimension, means that to alteast a small degree we can percieve it with our minds eye. We can build from that!
I don't mean that just because we can immagine something it has to be.

I'm familiar with most theories, and I can immagine how they correlate.
I won't bash any, but some seem more likely then others, and some of the others seem very unlikely.

Statements like: "humans are incapable of understanding" because of our limitations, are false.
Maybe adding "some" before humans would make it correct.

The moment you talk about extensions for the brain you are no longer talking about the brain, and imagining in science is no different to imagining in spirituality.

Yes, there are rare occasions when a Tesla comes along but they are rare and often pushed into the fringes. Mainstream science accomplishing a true verification of the multiverse? Not unless they allow computers to design the next generation, and so on.

Obviously, you may be an expert on this, me, I'm a layman and as such my opinion carries no weight beyond this thread so it's more for entertainment purposes. As I said originally 'my journeys on the subject range from the highly spiritual to highly scientific' so my viewpoint above is one of many I have, rather than the One

 

[Harrison]

Really I have not heard of this but it sounds rather fascinating. Where and how did they (and who) find this?

There are a few scientific journals publishing it, here's a quick link I found

Is the Universe Leaking Energy? - Scientific American

 

[apsie]

I think you misunderstood, probably because we don't agree on what conciousness is or how/where it originates.
To me, our brain is what generates conciousness (I see no reason to think otherwise), which is why I linked those videos.
If an idea stems from our conciousness, it stems from our brain.
There is absolutely no limit to what we can immagine, using what we have and what we will have.

The greatest minds all built on what others before them immagined. Its an ongoing process, in which all learned information can be passed on.
Sure, one mind may or may not be able to graps the full extent of ALL information by itself, but thats not what I was on about.

 

[Etzelaire]

I am studying just the beginning of everything as the big bang does not quite fit for me and I will soon start with black holes as I don't like their explanations even though math seems pretty consistent. I take nothing as real until I find out by myself.

 

[Harrison]

I think you misunderstood, probably because we don't agree on what conciousness is or how/where it originates.
To me, our brain is what generates conciousness (I see no reason to think otherwise), which is why I linked those videos.
If an idea stems from our conciousness, it stems from our brain.
There is absolutely no limit to what we can immagine, using what we have and what we will have.

The greatest minds all built on what others before them immagined. Its an ongoing process, in which all learned information can be passed on.
Sure, one mind may or may not be able to graps the full extent of ALL information by itself, but thats not what I was on about.

I am interested in why you believe consciousness arises from the brain.

Science admits it has no understanding of how consciousness is created or exactly where it resides. Yes, some (barbaric) experiments have been done to the deep recesses of the brain which 'appear' to disconnect consciousness in the same way that blowing up a radio disconnects a radio station.

Quantum physics however, now proposes that consciousness is a necessary part of the universe, perhaps predating humanity, and that under Einsteins rules for conservation of energy consciousness cannot be destroyed. They postulate that consciousness returns to the quantum field, they don't say, however, that it remains coherent as there is no research yet available to prove or disprove it.

I prefer to believe that if an idea stems from consciousness it is then translated by the brain. Jung's work showed that there is far more to consciousness than mere biological computing power.

I agree that information is passed generation to generation and is built upon, however, that process in and of itself doesn't make it infallible. History is replete with ideas that have been held on to for decades or generations only to be proven wrong. It is interesting that in todays accelerated learning curve no scientist worth their salt states something as 'fact', the usual formula is 'Given our current level of understanding...'. This secures their job when it all goes wrong

 

[Spiller]

To me, our brain is what generates conciousness

If an idea stems from our conciousness, it stems from our brain.

I prefer to believe that if an idea stems from consciousness it is then translated by the brain.

I see no reason to assume that, just because our human perceptions and current scientific understanding are based on the premise that this physical reality we experience is the real world, that this (gestures around at the universe) is all there is.
In my personal search for the meaning of life, the universe and everything, I've dabbled in Buddhism, Taoism, Wicca and Spiritualism.. if they can even be said to be different 'religions'. I've also studied the Paranormal - ghosts, UFO's, Healing, etc - and practiced meditation for 25 years.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio
Through meditation alone I've experienced that, contrary to scientific/medical opinion, conciousness can exist without thought, so, by extension, perhaps conciousness can also exist without brain.. factoring in thousands of years of spiritual belief/experience and anecdotal accounts of so called paranormal events, I've become inclined toward the idea that the Universe operates on the principle of Intelligent design, if for no other reason than that evolutionary systems can exist and become more complex over time.
I don't mean to be all esoteric on you all, it just never made sense to me that science can see so far, yet be so short sighted.

 

[apsie]

Firtsly I want to say, I don't mean to bash any vieuws, beliefs or opinions.
Not all opinions are equally valid however.

All claims regarding conciousness contain a massive logical fallacy, based on the presumption of the people making said claims that they understand what consciousness is.
(everyone thinks him/herself an expert - experience does not equal understanding)
All claims are speculation, which people then build uppon if/when it suits they're beliefs.
A series of what looks like random events, stretched out far enough can very much look similar to consciousness - Patterns emerge.

I see no reason to assume that, just because our human perceptions and current scientific understanding are based on the premise that this physical reality we experience is the real world, that this(gestures around at the universe) is all there is.

Thats a rather hollow arguement.
What we experience is the translation of reality, translated by our perception. We know what we know because we can test it, one way or another.
We don't know what we don't know because we can not (yet) test it.
Resulting to magic because we can not yet explain does not make magic valid.



I see no reason to assume that, just because or human perceptions and current scientific understanding are limited, that this physical reality we experience is NOT all there is.
Granted, we don't know. Some things we DO know, the things we can test. THAT is what I base my vieuw on.

I am interested in why you believe consciousness arises from the brain.

Science admits it has no understanding of how consciousness is created or exactly where it resides. Yes, some (barbaric) experiments have been done to the deep recesses of the brain which 'appear' to disconnect consciousness in the same way that blowing up a radio disconnects a radio station.

Because I am yet to be convinced otherwise. It seems more likely then the alternatives. Thats not to say I won't entertain the idea.
Science has provided us with some insights regarding conciousness, for starters that its most likely not what we think/thought it is.

Quantum physics however, now proposes that consciousness is a necessary part of the universe, perhaps predating humanity, and that under Einsteins rules for conservation of energy consciousness cannot be destroyed. They postulate that consciousness returns to the quantum field, they don't say, however, that it remains coherent as there is no research yet available to prove or disprove it.

Well, yes. In this regard however, consciousness stems from the tinyest of particles which perform a series of events. As far as we can tell, they behave either randomly or similar to everything else in the universe, depending uppon the variables. This gives us some insight, however it does not provide a lot of reason to believe in a collective quantum mind.
On this subject, Roger Penrose (heavily basing it on Jungs claims) proposed some hypothesis, which have sinse been tested and discredited.
Consciousness, in this regard, is not self conscious. It is a series of events, which lead to something we percieve as consciousness.

I guess I sort of agree in the end, that consciousness can not be destroyed. But, if consciousness consists (or is generated by) of a series of quantum events, then consciousness is just a series of events.
A collective quantum mind would be a collection of particles, behaving how particles do.
It is possible that this collection of particles, behaving how they do, results in some form of consciousness. It seems unlikely however that this would resemble anything selfconscious.
So I think "quantum mind" is not a good discription.

 

[apsie]

Ugh, I was being a pretentious dick the other day. Sorry!
I don't know any more for certain then you do, and whatever you choose to believe is valid enough.

 

[Harrison]

Ugh, I was being a pretentious dick the other day. Sorry!
I don't know any more for certain then you do, and whatever you choose to believe is valid enough.

No need to apologise for presenting your views, debate would be nothing without counterpoint. I found it interesting as my personal views on what was discussed lie on a different tangent to what I put forward, so it was an interesting thread.

 

[Harrison]

I am curious as to what Taoism entails. I have had a general interest geared towards Buddhism but am also curious about other non-theistic eastern religions if you could to elaborate this

I overlooked this question, so shall tack it in here.

Taoism is a philosophy of life rather than a religion, although there are sects that treat it as such.

Tao means 'path', of which there are two. The true Tao cannot be known as it lies beyond comprehension. However, the lesser tao represents the journey each of us make through life. My way of explaining it simply is as follows.

Order exists because I experience life, one second ahead of me is chaos, the chaos of choice and in making a choice I create order. So when I look into my past I see the path I have walked, that is my tao. It is unique to me via my experience of the greater Tao (chaos/unknown) and cannot be walked in the same way by anyone else.

Taoism gives advice on how to walk ones path, but not on what one should do. It's actually a great Aspie philosophy as it is basically scripts for functioning in the world.

Taoism has a system of science and arts that have developed through such things as tai chi, qi gong, acupuncture and martial arts, not to mention governance, architecture, social responsibility and so on.

Whilst there is a pagan version which includes deities etc, in its pure form it has nothing to guide or protect you outside of its advice on how to conduct yourself in accord with your path. Our guiding philosophy is summarised in the Tao de Ching by Lao Tzu.

Your avatar name is quite taoist.

 

[apsie]

Hi
I feel almost like I'm being bated here (sorry!), but if you will be kind enough to not take offence, I will save you tons of time. Both theories Big bang and expansion of the universe are over applied garbage from the oposite ends of the same incorectly applied statistical stick. And I find the lack of proper use of the law of (8), and laws of collection and dispersal to reflect poorly on the scientific community. It is totaly obvious that the universe consists of a stable matrix of local torruses?(8) In other words the universe was, is, and always will be a stable box of onions. period And the total lack of considering the second half of universe, (sub-atomics), unbelievable
As for Big bang and it's stupid sister they both totally violate the concept of a stable solid state universe, held I might add by the very same scientists, which I find totally inexplicable.
I hope this helps, please do not take offence is not aimed at you. best wishes Maelstrom

Big claims. Can you back them up?
You can PM me if you like.
I'm not offended, I'm just not sure how a Hurwitz Matrix holds up.
Particles can only travel one order of magnitude greater then said particles size?
Maybe you wouldn't mind explaining?
You arn't the only savant here.

 

[I am that which I am]

Hello,

I felt the thread went a bit off topic and since there is no way to know some of the things discussed for certain I decided to stop. No worries. It is interesting to talk to others and know their opinions and ideas as well.

Aspie
I did find the game quite interesting and how a simple rule can lead to such complex events. Hence I like the rule that there are trully only waves and their interaction is what "creates" for lack of a better term particles as we perceive them. The number of waves might actually be smaller than the number of particles that they are observing in the LHC when firing protons at each other. The number of particles and their variety is rather based on the different interaction of waves at different instances. It seems like a simpler explanation than an infinately large number of particles and a god particle at the center. Then again we do not quite know and I am sure that at least one physicist is trying to bring this theory to light (maybe a bit like superstring theory).
However, I hope you do not take offence to this aspie, that someone had to place those initial dots on the screen for them to interact and show such intricate patterns. So in a way this does not preclude a creator, watchmaker, or otherwise. As much as I myself prefer not to believe in the existance of such a being.

Maelstrom
No, you are not being bated. I agree it seems many of the laws of physics are being misapplied based on our observation of the universe and statistics. With people not realizing that we cannot measure what happens in the universe over a few billion years. Without making assumptions and guesses about the past. It is like people that claim evolution does not exist because there are missing links in the fosil records. Well there might be missing links but that is the simplest and most probable theory rather than bringing in God. In thinking further about the theory I realized when a bomb explodes it creates a large wave that pushes everything away but then this contracts and comes back, until the wave settles. I would imagine the Big bang might have been something similar but on a much larger and slower scale, a large wave that begins by pushing everything back but then pulls some of it back towards the center.

Granted I do not quite agree that the universe is a box, we have yet to see it end. But I cannot say it does not end at the same time. Why do you suggest it is like a stable box of onions? I am just guessing here that a box has limits and ends somewhere, thus containing the onions. While I do not quite understand how the universe might have such limits and what proves this or the opposite that it does not have limits of space.

I am not against the big bang theory, but think the theory that the universe is expanding (as we are observing) is limited by our observations and inability to prove otherwise without appropriate observations. How would you say the big bang theory is flawed?

I sort of understand your idea with the Matrix but would appreciate it as well if you expanded on the idea and explained this, to someone that is not a mathematician.

Thanks,
I am that which I am