The origins of the universe

[Etzelaire]

When I ask myself about the origin of everything I always encounter the same problem, how is matter created from nothing? Or, how is it possible that everything has started from something from the beggining and it has never been a 'void'?

 

[Randomperson]

When I ask myself about the origin of everything I always encounter the same problem, how is matter created from nothing? Or, how is it possible that everything has started from something from the beggining and it has never been a 'void'?

Well, everything on our periodic table of elements comes from different stars fusing more and more atoms together, our sun is one of the base ones, it fuses 2 hydrogen into 1 helium, over and over and over again, until it runs out of fuel or explodes violently. Bigger heavier stars fuse bigger heavier elements, and when they explode they scatter the product, which is why the sheer unimaginable age of things is no big deal, it takes forever to make all this stuff this way compared to how short lived and finite we are. Stellar nurseries are full of all types of stars, and can have catastrophic novas cascades, which result in theory can result in systems like ours being born with some many diverse elements all in one place when it happens.

The universe is old and infinite, we are truly insignificant in comparison.

 

[Etzelaire]

Well, everything on our periodic table of elements comes from different stars fusing more and more atoms together, our sun is one of the base ones, it fuses 2 hydrogen into 1 helium, over and over and over again, until it runs out of fuel or explodes violently. Bigger heavier stars fuse bigger heavier elements, and when they explode they scatter the product, which is why the sheer unimaginable age of things is no big deal, it takes forever to make all this stuff this way compared to how short lived and finite we are. Stellar nurseries are full of all types of stars, and can have catastrophic novas cascades, which result in theory can result in systems like ours being born with some many diverse elements all in one place when it happens.

The universe is old and infinite, we are truly insignificant in comparison.

I see you know about the issue, I'll send you a message maybe you could suggest me some books to read about it.

 

[danyalson]

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.

There is evidence of intelligent design. But evidence doesn't always point to truth.

For example, the forces (strong, weak, gravity and EM) are tweaked precisely to several decimal places just so matter can hold together and interact like it does. "How could that be a coincidence?", some might ask. If there is only one universe it is a pretty big coincidence, but if there exists many many other universes each with different settings it's just a matter of time before you get one just right.

And a creator could make himself known and if he was truly almighty he could make us believe if he wanted to. If we were in a computer program the programmer could make himself known simply by adding code to the program alerting us of our true condition. You gotta think outside the box on this stuff. Actually, It really helps if you can forget the box is there altogether.

 

[Randomperson]

There is evidence of intelligent design. But evidence doesn't always point to truth.

For example, the forces (strong, weak, gravity and EM) are tweaked precisely to several decimal places just so matter can hold together and interact like it does. "How could that be a coincidence?", some might ask. If there is only one universe it is a pretty big coincidence, but if there exists many many other universes each with different settings it's just a matter of time before you get one just right.

And a creator could make himself known and if he was truly almighty he could make us believe if he wanted to. If we were in a computer program the programmer could make himself known simply by adding code to the program alerting us of our true condition. You gotta think outside the box on this stuff. Actually, It really helps if you can forget the box is there altogether.

A box big enough to hold a universe? Now that is just silly sir. Everyone knows if you are going to contain a universe in a container you should use a sphere, and bend it into a double infinity loop!

 

[apsie]

There is evidence of intelligent design. But evidence doesn't always point to truth.

For example, the forces (strong, weak, gravity and EM) are tweaked precisely to several decimal places just so matter can hold together and interact like it does. "How could that be a coincidence?", some might ask. If there is only one universe it is a pretty big coincidence, but if there exists many many other universes each with different settings it's just a matter of time before you get one just right.

Have they been "tweaked"?
Fill a glass with oil and water, shake it up. After a while its going to settle. You could say the molecules have been "tweaked" in order to have seperate layers of water and oil.
Its only a coincidence if you percieve it as such.
Its happened countless times so its no longer a coincidence, its causality.

You look at cause and effect and look back in time over and over again, untill it no longer makes sense to you, thats when we develop new theories based on what we do know.
Basing hypotheses on what we don't know is also a possibility, and is what religion and the likes are based on.

 

[OdinTheAardvark]

The universe was created last Tuesday morning at 9:32 BST.

We were created with 'memories' of what 'came before' that point.

The universe was created to look as though it had in fact been created 13.5 billion years ago.

The creator was a 7.3cm, invisible, furry kangaroo-shaped being.

You may think this is rubbish, but can you prove me wrong?

 

[danyalson]

A box big enough to hold a universe? Now that is just silly sir. Everyone knows if you are going to contain a universe in a container you should use a sphere, and bend it into a double infinity loop!

When I mentioned thinking outside the box I wasn't referring to the universe being in a box.

 

[danyalson]

Have they been "tweaked"?
Fill a glass with oil and water, shake it up. After a while its going to settle. You could say the molecules have been "tweaked" in order to have seperate layers of water and oil.
Its only a coincidence if you percieve it as such.
Its happened countless times so its no longer a coincidence, its causality.

You look at cause and effect and look back in time over and over again, untill it no longer makes sense to you, thats when we develop new theories based on what we do know.
Basing hypotheses on what we don't know is also a possibility, and is what religion and the likes are based on.

The Multiverse theory suggests that different 'settings' of the forces can and most likely do occur during the period right after hyperinflation.

The theory is based on the idea that we were only one of many universes that exist. In fact, quantum mechanics suggest that every particle/energy combination that could exist, does exist in one universe or another. All possibilities are played out on a grand incomprehensible scale. In some of those possibilities the conditions for life exist, and in others matter never formed at all. In some the Higgs Field is absent and matter formed but with zero mass resulting in a universe where everything moves around at Light Speed.

It is difficult to imagine what universes ruled by different laws of physics might look like but we must understand that the laws that govern a universe are confined within that universe. An example of this is Hyperinflation itself. In the single Planck Time after the Big Bang the universe expanded from much smaller than a proton to the size of a softball. This is MUCH faster than the speed of light. The reason this is possible is either because the speed of light rule did not exist yet, or because the universe was expanding into hyperspace where there is no restriction or concept of velocity.

The point is, not every universe formed in the same way. The fact that were in one that supports life is no coincidence at all, since that's the only place where we could exist.

 

[gonzerd]

Coincidence or not, but I came across this image today...

 

[gregmcph]

+1 + -1 = 0

 

[AsheSkyler]

When I mentioned thinking outside the box I wasn't referring to the universe being in a box.

It'd better have come with a lifetime warranty if it did and I hope somebody remembered to fill out the registration card.

 

[danyalson]

It'd better have come with a lifetime warranty if it did and I hope somebody remembered to fill out the registration card.

Lol I don't get it. You mean because the universe is expanding and would destroy the box?

 

[AsheSkyler]

Lol I don't get it. You mean because the universe is expanding and would destroy the box?

Not so much concerns about it expanding outside the box. (Because since when does anything ever go neatly back in the box the same way it came out so you can store it easily? Frustrating!) But, rumour has it that the universe will collapse someday, and when it does, I demand a replacement!

 

[danyalson]

Not so much concerns about it expanding outside the box. (Because since when does anything ever go neatly back in the box the same way it came out so you can store it easily? Frustrating!) But, rumour has it that the universe will collapse someday, and when it does, I demand a replacement!

Oh okay! I have to have things explained sometimes. It's possible that the universe will collapse but I think it's more likely that it will freeze out first. Both theories are very compelling but it's hard to know for sure without knowing exactly how we came into existence to begin with.

 

[Daniel]

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.

I have thought this very thing myself! I came to it from a Taoist perspective--call it the Big Yang Theory. The seeds of yin grow within yang, and the seeds of yang grow within yin.

The black holes are like the universe's yin energy. All the matter in the universe eventually condenses into a single point with infinite mass, and then BANG! The next universal Spring comes around again.

What follows is the way I see things, so take or leave what you wish, and I humbly respect everyone else's perspectives... I feel that seeing the beauty and wonder of existence and thinking that it must have been "created", using our human concept of the notion, is putting the cart before the horse. To me, it's a kind of backwards way of looking at things. Again--all due respect meant; I am a spiritual person who looks at all as one. I don't think I'm actually disagreeing with anyone's perspective here as much as expressing it differently.

I see universal oneness as the collective energy that is the universe. "Matter" is what it looks like from the outside. "Consciousness" is what it looks like from the inside. We see a deity where we see the collective energy that is analogous to the energy inside us. (I think this is a Buddhist perspective, but I could be wrong.)

I like how quantum physics helped us see the energy in all things. Action at a distance, but "spooky" was the value judgment imposed because we thought we knew everything. And that was Einstein.

We see order in the universe and we figure it must have been the creation of a "being" because we feel we exist in a state of chaos on this planet unless we impose some sort of order, unless we assert control. To me, this notion of "creation" has felt like a case of anthropomorphic/egoic projection. As if chaos was the norm unless "someone" imposed order. Whereas other species will just follow the tune of the music of existence, like the way a hummingbird's migration pattern is naturally timed with the blooming of the plants from which it feeds. No one had to figure it out and teach the hummingbird to do that, not even mama and papa hummingbird--they just do it. Now that's order.

The way I prefer to look at our place within existence is that the hummingbird's kind of order is the "natural way", and we screw it up by trying to impose our piddly little human ideas upon it, and its our creations that are the ones that eventually turn to chaos. We have to keep adapting and changing because every time we try to impose our own static order, God/The Universe responds with "consequences". I say it's an insult to God/The Universe to compare our ability to create things with the order of the Universe. That's why nature and the cosmos are beautiful, wonderful, and amazing--because it's better than anything we could make! (Fortunately, we do learn a thing or two here and there.)

The Biblical creation story tells this story in hilarious fashion.
Chapter one--God says, "It's all good." Chapter two--"Uh, we tried to make things our own way...oh s***! I think we f***ed up." And God said, "Yup...Told ya! I'll be around, if you can tear yourself away from your toiling and bickering."

That's why it's so freakishly good when we get a Mozart. And so typical that our commercial music machine churns out Justin Biebers. We are the creatures who evolved a level of consciousness deep enough to perceive consciousness itself. But we approach Godliness when we get out of our own way!

I'm not a quantum physicist by any means, but I like to remain cautious about whether we develop ideas like the multiverse because that's the way our math suggests it would work. Treating math as if it is a "truth outside" of human conception is, to me, a modern form of Creationism, a kind of egoic projection. Math is a language we invented. It is only "outside of us" when it is applicable. And when it is applicable, and it actually works, it's as beautiful as a Beethoven Symphony. I just prefer to see science steer clear of the trap of operating as if human intelligence were an end in and of itself, the be-all and end-all. Because there is tremendous evidence to the contrary.

Here's another fun thing I like to think about... We are all energy, and we can perceive our own consciousness from the inside. Now think of what kind of consciousness the Earth, that big lava ball with a flimsy outer crust, must have, seen from the inside. And how about the Sun?

 

[danyalson]

I'm not a quantum physicist by any means, but I like to remain cautious about whether we develop ideas like the multiverse because that's the way our math suggests it would work. Treating math as if it is a "truth outside" of human conception is, to me, a modern form of Creationism, a kind of egoic projection. Math is a language we invented. It is only "outside of us" when it is applicable. And when it is applicable, and it actually works, it's as beautiful as a Beethoven Symphony. I just prefer to see science steer clear of the trap of operating as if human intelligence were an end in and of itself, the be-all and end-all. Because there is tremendous evidence to the contrary.

Here's another fun thing I like to think about... We are all energy, and we can perceive our own consciousness from the inside. Now think of what kind of consciousness the Earth, that big lava ball with a flimsy outer crust, must have, seen from the inside. And how about the Sun?

I agree with so much of what you said until you get to the math part. Math is the only universal language in the universe. For example regardless how it is expressed the circumference of a circle is pi*r^2.

 

[AsheSkyler]

Okay, I'm now counting three Taoists, myself included. I've never found this many out and about at the same spot away from Taoist forums. Are we as Aspies inclined to go Taoist when we divert away from "mainstream" religions/philosophies/beliefs such as Christian, Hindu, Atheism? (I don't call Taoism a mainstream because we're kind of like Buddhism's little cousin or something.)

Oh okay! I have to have things explained sometimes. It's possible that the universe will collapse but I think it's more likely that it will freeze out first. Both theories are very compelling but it's hard to know for sure without knowing exactly how we came into existence to begin with.

No worries, sometimes my jokes are so far in the outfield I'm playing in another stadium. Or so I've been told.

I think I'm most fascinated at what's on the edges rather than in which direction it's moving. "Expanding" implies "edge of thing". What's beyond the edges of the universe? Another universe? Is a parallel universe actually a universe literally next to ours rather than some strange extra dimension where everything is almost the same and in the same spot? Although I guess that train of thinking has been fairly explored in sci fi with multiverses and whatnot, now that I think about it. So instead, what's in the space between them? Literal nothingness, or perhaps those little god/omega particles that when touched by the ends of an expanding universe will erupt so our universe shrinks to nothing and another sprouts inbetween like some bizarre series of cosmic slinkies?

 

[Daniel]

I agree with so much of what you said until you get to the math part. Math is the only universal language in the universe. For example regardless how it is expressed the circumference of a circle is pi*r^2.

Math is us mapping the order of the universe--it is universal because we are part of the universe, and not separate from it. Perfect circles, such as those you get from pi*r^2, exists as a concept in the noosphere. It's a wonderful language, and it's amazing when it works, but it's dependent on people getting it right.

I understand that you will likely not see this from my perspective, and that's fine. This was kind of my point--math is like a religion to people who practice math. To me, it's as much a matter of practical application and perspective as "religions" are to religious people. I'm being deliberately provocative here for the sake of discussion, and I expect opposition! Because I'm attacking your belief system, and you can't imagine things any other way. Correct if me if wrong here.

You agreed with me because I was on your side of the "creation debate" until I countered your side, too. That's my point. There are no sides--only oneness. Pick a side, you get disagreement--it's in the act of picking, and deciding there are sides.

 

[apsie]

Ugh... Here comes the language barrier.