before the big bang,

But isn't it just as much of a "cop-out" to BELIEVE that one day far into the future, science will find the answer? Aren't both of those a belief?

And it's even moreso true when you made the statement: "but i believe that we will never find the ultimate cause to our existance."

So how is the belief in god a cop-out, but yours is not?

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes you're right in saying that it would be just as much of a cop-out to believe that science will find "the answer". but i don't believe that either.

i wasn't really clear with my point. i was thinking of people who think that god created everything and then use that as an excuse to denounce research and the scientific method without really knowing anything about it.

its a cop-out really to say anything absolute, but how can you express yourself in this language without doing so? the reason why i said i believe we will never find out the ultimate cause to our existance is because we can always ask questions. we can always wonder what caused the unvierse, or what caused god, or what caused god's creator, or what chain of reactions led to the big bang, ad infinitum. even if the universe is infinite, or if there is a multiverse and it is infinite (or if there is an ever-increasing complex -verse made of smaller multiverses) then there will still be causes and effects, just an endless amount of them.

i don't completely deny the existance of god because i believe that it is illogical to ever do so. we may find out if there is a god if he shows himself to us, but if there isn't a god, we will never find out.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What I've been assuming all along, is that there never was a "beginning." I view the Big Bang as a cycle that just contiues to expand, contract, expand, ad infintum. Why can't you comprehend an infinity? We do it all the time in mathematics?

And again, why does there have to be a reason for anything? For existence? It just is: The Tao.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

if you read my post as a whole, you will find i dont think god created the universe, i dont "think" anything created the universe, but anything including god is a possibility,


i dont know or believe anything, apart from anything is possible,


peace

 

its possible,

peace.

 

It's certainly possible!

peace!

 

If the current theories about the multiverse are right, the present universe that we inhabit was born from a previously-existing universe.

 

Reread what I posted above: we're in agreement. Expand-contact-expand-contract, ad infinitum. None of the other previous universes and none of the other future ones will be alike.

 

There's also another aspect to the MultiVerse theory. It predicts that our universe may have existed in it's parent universe (as a tiny nub) and then bumped into a sibling and they resultant effect was a rapid expansion and the unvierse we are in today.

 

Where did this fairy-tale come from?

What bothers me the most is that most responders to this thread seem to think that there has to be a "beginning," an "initial," a "creation," or a birth or a dawn that gave rise to what we have today, as if there is no such thing as "eternal," "constant," "everlasting," infinity," time without a beginning or end.

This is like an anthropomorphic extrapolation of our universe: as if just because we are mortal and finite, therefore the universe cannot be immortal and infinite.

 

Fairy tale? It's part of the 'Many Worlds' theory bub... real theoretical physics. Infinite cyclical behavior, finite cyclical behavior, other behavior, it's all theory.

I get a sense that you feel frustrated that people in this thread have not acknowledged your message that a begining / end is not necessary applicable to the structure of the universe.

 

Yes, I do.

Anyways, you post "it's parent universe (as a tiny nub) and then bumped into a sibling." Sources please? I've just never heard of this one.

 

Sure thing. Dr. Andrei Linde (Professor of Physics @ Stanford University) gave a public lecture about this in March 2003. I am sure he is still active in this area and I would suggest reaching out to him for further info.

 

NOTICE TH"IS HAS ALREADY BEEN POSTED IN ANOTHER THREAD - sorry but it did seem like a good place for this just as well as the other place

Please be kind, this is only a theory. This thoery does have alot of supporting information all but one which is the basis of my theory. So if anyone knows about thermodynamics well enough to help with the third law, please do!
Science does state that energy cannot be created but that does not make it true. Seeing as how at one point science stated that earth was the center of the universe.

Ok now on with the theory

Lets say about 15+ billion years ago there was nothing no energy no matter no nothing. well with no energy you obviously have nothing to cause heat. So without heat would space become very cold so cold that it becomes absolute zero. But if that is true then the third law of thermodynmics is wrong which says that absolute zero cannot be reached. one expert on thermodynamics stated this
"ABSOLUTE ZERO?

Unfortunately we are unable to reach absolute zero itself. It is forbidden by the third law of thermodynamics. In practice, though, it is often the heat input from the outside force (or "heat leak") into an experiment which prevents further cooling. In the low temperature limit, all heat capacities C go to zero so that for a heat energy input Q the temperature rise dT = Q/C becomes increasingly large. Even absorbed cosmic rays can produce a significant heat leak."

well if a heat leak keeps us from reaching absolute zero is it possible that a space vacuum could have been this outside force this person speaks of. Seeing as how a space vacuum exist's where there is nothing this seems fairly reasonable to state. Also since many heat leaks can be started by a space vacuum it does seem reasonable to state that. So now that you have a heat leak you now have energy correct. Now that there is energy, you now have the basis of the universe's creation. Also the farthest depths od space are 3 degrees above absolute zero and since space is still expanding it could be heat leaks causing space to expand. So this theroy could be explained with somthing that takes no energy input to cause somthing that gives off an energy output. pay close attention to that because if that is correct it changes the laws of thermodynamics. Since a space vacuum which i beleive takes no energy input to work because it exist when there is NOTHING, and cause's reactions it should be proof that an energy force can be created from somthing that does not take an energy input. I suppose the nly time it does take energy is when it is expanding molecules away form each other but thats not the case this time because there are no molecules yet. So somthing that is caused by a lack of anything, starts somthing thats there when there isnt anything, which is temperature. so does it not equal out?

the website i got the heat leak from from is this http://www.ph.rhbnc.ac.uk/schools/ZeroT/Absolute.html the person who stated it is Michael Lea, a professor of physics at Royal Holloway, and the university of london also a member of the Low Temperature Physics Research Group.

 

Also for the big bang theory to be correct there would have to be a energy source to have started a big bang correct? well if there is nothing before the big bang then there is no energy to create the big bang. So how can the big bang be true if it couldn't have happened?

 

Ricky Houy: "Also since many heat leaks can be started by a space vacuum"

Where does this assumption come from?

 

"Dr. Andrei Linde of Stanford University, a leading inflation theorist, cautioned that the principle should be invoked with care, but that it seemed sensible to assess all cosmic parameters, all elements brought to bear in support of theories, with one view in mind, namely, "what allows us to be here."

"Only the anthropic principle plus inflation will explain the universe as we see it," Linde concluded.

Both Linde and Guth of MIT have taken another romantic plunge with the idea of "eternal inflation." If an explosive event like the Big Bang, followed immediately by a brief phase of rapid cosmic expansion, happened once, they posit that it could happen an infinite number of times, and may well have.

Conceiving of an inflation that cannot reproduce bubbles of new universes many times, Guth said, seemed "as implausible as discovering a species of rabbits incapable of reproduction." He paused. "So universes reproduce like rabbits."

From the front row, Dr. Rocky Kolb of the University of Chicago piped up, "You mean, pull it out of the hat."

"OK, I'll look for a different analogy some other time," Guth responded.

If there are parallel universes elsewhere, each would have started with its own big bang, grown from a separate inflationary bubble and probably acquired entirely different laws of physics. Ours may not be a typical universe. Instead of the four dimensions of space-time in this universe, Linde suggested, other universes could have as many as 11 dimensions; some could be dimension-challenged, with only 3. Some universes could be stillborn or unstable and short-lived, thus lacking the time to evolve stars and planets where life might emerge. It could be, invoking anthropic reasoning, that a universe must have, say, a cosmological constant of precisely the right value and properties to support intelligent life.

The romantics may have outdone themselves with their eternal inflation and a multiverse instead of a universe. Even if scientists established sound reasons for their existence, parallel universes would be discrete and widely separated entities, beyond communication with each other.

No one in this universe, cosmologists said, would be able to gain any direct knowledge of other universes, though in time the theorists might make a persuasive case for their existence. Human beings would then have discovered the ultimate limit to their knowing what is out there. They might find solace, though, if there is anything to the anthropic principle, in thinking that theirs is a defining presence in the one universe they know and are trying to comprehend."
http://www.ishipress.com/cosmos.htm

Dr. Andrei Linde is a proponent of the inflationary universe theory: inflate-defate-inflate-deflate: expand-contract-expand-contract. But as the reporter states above, "the romantics may have outdone themselves" on this one: multi-universe theory like "rabbits reproducing...OK I'll look for a different analogy."

I can conceive that there are multiple dimensions, but what he's putting forward here, without any explanations as to how (cause-effect, means of way) is kind've a crack-pot. He's throwing out many different possible theories without any support or explanations.

However, also:

"By analyzing the bumps in the cosmic microwaves, which according to inflation are the result of microscopic fluctuations in the mysterious force field that drove inflation, along with other data, scientists have ruled out one simple version of inflation that is often seen in textbooks. Other versions, he added, fit the data quite well. The data are good enough to rule out whole classes of inflationary theories. That is a boon for particle physicists, who want to know what laws governed the universe at the beginning of time."
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/bigbangconfirmation021302.htm

 

"Some theorists suggest that the Big Bang was not so much a birth as a transition, a "quantum leap" from some formless era of imaginary time, or from nothing at all. Still others are exploring models in which cosmic history begins with a collision with a universe from another dimension.

According to a theory known as eternal inflation, put forward by Dr. Linde in 1986, what we know as the Big Bang was only one out of many in a chain reaction of big bangs by which the universe endlessly reproduces and reinvents itself. "Any particular part of the universe may die, and probably will die," Dr. Linde said, "but the universe as a whole is immortal."

He considered what would happen if, as the universe was cooling during its first violently hot moments, an energy field known as the Higgs field, which interacts with particles to give them their masses, was somehow, briefly, unable to release its energy. Space, he concluded, would be suffused with a sort of latent energy that would violently push the universe apart. In an eyeblink the universe would double some 60 times over, until the Higgs field released its energy and filled the outrushing universe with hot particles. Cosmic history would then ensue.

Cosmologists like inflation because such a huge outrush would have smoothed any gross irregularities from the primordial cosmos, leaving it homogeneous and geometrically flat. Moreover, it allows the whole cosmos to grow from next to nothing, which caused Dr. Guth to dub the universe "the ultimate free lunch."

Subsequent calculations ruled out the Higgs field as the inflating agent, but there are other inflation candidates that would have the same effect. More important, from the pre- Big-Bang perspective, Dr. Linde concluded, one inflationary bubble would sprout another, which in turn would sprout even more. In effect each bubble would be a new big bang, a new universe with different characteristics and perhaps even different dimensions. Our universe would merely be one of them. "If it starts, this process can keep happening forever," Dr. Linde explained. "It can happen now, in some part of the universe."

The greater universe envisioned by eternal inflation is so unimaginably large, chaotic and diverse that the question of a beginning to the whole shebang becomes almost irrelevant. For cosmologists like Dr. Guth and Dr. Linde, that is in fact the theory's lure. "Chaotic inflation allows us to explain our world without making such assumptions as the simultaneous creation of the whole universe from nothing," Dr. Linde said in an e-mail message."
http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/before_the_big_bang_there_was__.htm

This is all just really wild and whacky speculation!

 

"Dr. Andrei Linde used the projector but showed 20 transparencies. His talk was more technical than the talks of Davies and Rees. More equations and diagrams were utilized as he elucidated his inflationary universe models. Whenever he showed
a transparency with lots of equations, he allayed the fears of his audience by saying, "I'm not going to prove these equations. I'm only going to point to them." This elicited lots of laughter. Linde was the most humorous of the three speakers despite his more technical talk."
http://www.wisdomportal.com/Stanford/UniverseOrMultiverse.html

You could also say that, in other words, he posted numerous erroneous technical equations that he dared not attempt to try and explain them to the audience. Else he expose inconsitentcy or fiction.

 

I did some research on heat leaks, and learned that in labs that try to test for absolute zero. Use the vacuum affect and they do start to case some heat leaks.