Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Quantum Stuff and the Origins of the Universe

  1. #1 Quantum Stuff and the Origins of the Universe 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6
    Hi, I know there are several topics about the big bang and the origins of the universe, but they didn't seem to be discussing what I'm looking for.

    My understanding of the theories of the cause of the universe used to be this: the universe started with the big bang. I could never wrap my head around this logic of something coming from nothing.

    Recently I have become aware of quantum stuff throwing a wrench into things... matter from nothing and other crazy fascinating things.

    Can someone summarize the current ideas of the cause of the universe or at least point me to where I can learn this? I don't know if I'm even talking about the big bang now or not; I assume the idea of time having a finiteness is still "IN," because of the argument that if time has been around forever than it never would have gotten to today.

    Bascially, I just want to learn about the latest ideas of what happened "when" time and the universe began.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Guest
    In three words, 'We don't know!'

    Many of us are at the point you are, ie the universe 'popped' into existence and now quantum physics is attempting to back this up.

    As to a summary of the ideas, there seem to be many of them but they are all pure speculation and guesswork so I for one pay no attention to any of them.

    I firmly believe that neither man nor any other intelligent life will never know, simply because there is nothing in our universe that exists that is older than the big bang, 'no evidence, no conclusions' just guesswork.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    general; we define energy as massless and some say massless to our understanding. if energy has some minute mass quantity which we do not understand then you would, if possible, created a larger mass from the smaller.

    40 years ago, we laughed at the idea of micro-organisms being in our beds, but now know there are billions in our beds and just as many on our bodies. not only billions, but not the same on each body, at least in total.

    in my opinion, the universe or what makes up our current universe was always present. the matter what ever it may have been, even if a universe, is ageless and timeless. this matter will also exist to our word infinity.

    as to latest theory; most i am told feel the Big Bang, is accepted as the scientific view. steady state in one version or another has been around forever and revised about as often as BB. the results, what we do see or know, is constantly being said to conform to either.

    keep in mind neither group is saying something from nothing. the singularity of BB, was something. this something from nothing has stemmed from trying to create life from matter, or life from inorganic matter which certainly should someday be accomplished.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    957
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    In three words, 'We don't know!'

    Many of us are at the point you are, ie the universe 'popped' into existence and now quantum physics is attempting to back this up.

    As to a summary of the ideas, there seem to be many of them but they are all pure speculation and guesswork so I for one pay no attention to any of them.

    I firmly believe that neither man nor any other intelligent life will never know, simply because there is nothing in our universe that exists that is older than the big bang, 'no evidence, no conclusions' just guesswork.
    I am going to paraphrase the words of Arthur C. Clarke when he said-
    if a moderator of an Internet Science Forum states that something is possible he is almost certainly right but when he states that something is impossible he is very probably wrong.
    If human beings,as a species, survive for even another thousand years it is not possible for even the cleverest,most imaginative scientist to predict the limits of scientific and technological knowledge.
    And if we survive for a million years we will be able to answer a few more difficult questions!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    I was under the impression that time was created during the big bang. So, presuming that thats true, there was no "before" the big bang. Not for us anyway.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    In three words, 'We don't know!'

    Many of us are at the point you are, ie the universe 'popped' into existence and now quantum physics is attempting to back this up.

    As to a summary of the ideas, there seem to be many of them but they are all pure speculation and guesswork so I for one pay no attention to any of them.

    I firmly believe that neither man nor any other intelligent life will never know, simply because there is nothing in our universe that exists that is older than the big bang, 'no evidence, no conclusions' just guesswork.
    I am going to paraphrase the words of Arthur C. Clarke when he said-
    if a moderator of an Internet Science Forum states that something is possible he is almost certainly right but when he states that something is impossible he is very probably wrong.
    If human beings,as a species, survive for even another thousand years it is not possible for even the cleverest,most imaginative scientist to predict the limits of scientific and technological knowledge.
    And if we survive for a million years we will be able to answer a few more difficult questions!

    Ok, I put you in an empty room, and I mean empty, just the walls ceiling and floor, no contamination, just pure air.

    The question is "What was last in this room before you".

    And no, you are not allowed to leave the room or take anything into it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    6
    I get it.

    Holliday says the answer of the universe's origins will be solved because of the advance of the experiments and discoveries of science. Megabrain says the answer will not be solved because it is impossible to discover or experiment outside the framework in which we discover and experiment.

    Or something like that.

    I'm still not quite getting this it's-not-really-something-from-nothing bit. The big bang was something; what are the latest ideas for what caused it? Especially if time started with it. I know you guys probably aren't too big on the theistic ideas, but some sort of timeless entity causing the universe and time is a little more attractive to me than time just popping itself out.

    Is this where the quantum stuff comes in? Or where can I read more about that stuff?

    Thanks for everybody's input.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    It's possible that the universe has always been here. At the end of this expansion period the universe will start to contract, until all the mater, energy etc is brought to a single point, then, big bang again. I think this is called the oscillating theory.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. Nevyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    880
    it's also possible that the universe will experiance heat death so it will run out of energy
    Come see some of my art work at http://nevyn-pendragon.deviantart.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Guest
    I'll paraphrase Newton here "If you were in a closed box in space nothing you could do within that box could tell you whether you were stationary or moving in uniform motion". He was correct, in the 200 odd years since his death and with all modern science this holds true. In the early twentienth century the attempts to prove/disprove the constancy of 'c' finally put paid to the last possible method of disproving Newton (ie measuring the speed of light in three axis to determine motion).

    Now, pardon my lack of knowledge of the big bang and what preceded it but if you are in a closed box and cannot detect that the box (and you) are in [constant uniform] motion, which after all is governed by classical physics what chance is there of 'seeing' before the big bang?.

    If some solution to this travelling box problem were found tomorrow, I'd bet a bag of beans the Big bang would be unravelled in a week. Every physicist in the world must have pondered this problem.

    Simply, if you are in a totally enclosed system with no external frames of reference you cannot predict the external environment. In your box you could be under the sea, hurtling through space, or in a bank it makes no difference. Speculation about mult-verses multi-branes, etc are just that, if a link is found to another 'universe' it would merely trap us in a slightly larger box, it would not answer the fundamental "How did it all start".


    EDIT: Einstein's paper on Equivalence principle was published 100 years ago in 1907, it is loosely allied to what I have been saying here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    957
    I studied a limited amount of science as part of my education and have read books on astronomy/popular science but I am not an expert, with detailed technical knowledge, on any branch of science.
    Questions about the origin of the universe are fascinating but these questions cannot be answered and some would argue that science will never be able to answer them, fully, and therefore such questions should not be regarded as a legitimate part of science.
    I think it was a French philosopher (Auguste Comte) who said that astronomers would never be able to work out the composition of the stars and he was proved wrong in a relatively short time.
    Was it a British astronomer who declared,in the late 1950's or even later,that the notion humans would set foot on the moon in the near future was garbage. We know what happened in 1969?
    I am sure that questions about the origins of the universe will be incredibly difficult to answer but science is the only hope-the answers won't come from religion!
    If we survive there is a huge amount of time ahead to make new discoveries and one could argue that one reason why conscious, intelligent beings exist is to try to find answers to such questions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    I studied a limited amount of science as part of my education and have read books on astronomy/popular science but I am not an expert, with detailed technical knowledge, on any branch of science.
    Questions about the origin of the universe are fascinating but these questions cannot be answered and some would argue that science will never be able to answer them, fully, and therefore such questions should not be regarded as a legitimate part of science.
    I think it was a French philosopher (Auguste Comte) who said that astronomers would never be able to work out the composition of the stars and he was proved wrong in a relatively short time.
    Was it a British astronomer who declared,in the late 1950's or even later,that the notion humans would set foot on the moon in the near future was garbage. We know what happened in 1969?
    I am sure that questions about the origins of the universe will be incredibly difficult to answer but science is the only hope-the answers won't come from religion!
    If we survive there is a huge amount of time ahead to make new discoveries and one could argue that one reason why conscious, intelligent beings exist is to try to find answers to such questions.
    Yes what you say is mostly true but they were all concerned with on-going phenomina or questions of future technology. My point is again without any knowledge, without a single survivng artiffact of pre-big bang there is no way to guess what is was like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor river_rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,515
    Um, what do you guys mean by "pre-big bang" here? The way we understand the world at the moment implies that this statement is meaningless. The notion of a before requires a "time" dimension to frame it in, and as the universe lacks a T=0 (time is only defined for t > 0, its similar to the kelvin temperature scale and absolute zero) this is on par with talking about fairies, it may be fun but it isn't physics. The big bang is the origin of spacetime, the whole enchilada.
    As is often the case with technical subjects we are presented with an unfortunate choice: an explanation that is accurate but incomprehensible, or comprehensible but wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Guest
    Yes I agree, BUt had I said "There was no time before big bang" then two things would happen, 1) I would not have enjoyed it so much (the debate) and two, I would be lying, for in truth neither I nor anyone else can say with absolute certainty that time zero was truly the birth of our universe. It is possible that an earlier universe existed which collapsed and re-started, it could have had different laws (as a simple example) - we don't know. The fact that nothing "pre big bang" remains does however (in my opinion) add weight that T=0 was the big bang, but not conclusively.

    IF you are unhappy, I will split the thread and bung it in Psuedo-science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    its said by a few that our equipment on Mars, may have found life, but for the lack of ideas on what life could be the equipment destroyed the find.
    many science, medical and technology advances or discoveries are made from error or unexpected.

    in the current atmosphere of thought, everything has to be based on accepted principles, most being hundreds of years old. the notion of being open minded or not held to standards are equal to anarchist and at worst to stupid to listen to. the causes for this are of no interest to me but are obvious to many.

    time has no meaning to anything but much (not all) of mankind. even if we are primitive creatures to other universal societies there concept of time would differ. it really does matter to us what was b-4 BB, time and anything relevant to understanding, IF indeed there was a BB. if that singularity was there to do whatever it did, how long and from where did it come. if it was there 100 billion years or a billion trillion years, what took so long under the theory itself. why couldn't what we see with all its process being learned daily, why not fit some of this new found complimentary BB stuff into that theory. personally i don't consider expansion a probability and x-rays or whatever could be a number of things but all the foundation to imply a single word. CREATION from nothing which itself is not the theory. if need be i can enter a God into the SSU, much easier than BBT. the only problem this will not conform to writings 1000's of years old.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    In three words, 'We don't know!'

    Many of us are at the point you are, ie the universe 'popped' into existence and now quantum physics is attempting to back this up.

    As to a summary of the ideas, there seem to be many of them but they are all pure speculation and guesswork so I for one pay no attention to any of them.

    I firmly believe that neither man nor any other intelligent life will never know, simply because there is nothing in our universe that exists that is older than the big bang, 'no evidence, no conclusions' just guesswork.
    If, as I believe our universe was created by the collapse of a star in a "bigger" universe and we are living inside a black-hole. Then all of this matter would have come from that initial star......

    ....Lets take Farsight's example of a rubber sheet. Place a heavy marble on the rubber sheet and it will warp space-time and everything will gravitate towards it; now place a heavy enough ball on the rubber sheet and it will literally rip the rubber around it and it (the ball) and the rubber under the ball will fall; the rubber; having being snapped from the rest of the rubber will now go back to its initial tension.

    A rubber sheet is the best way of explaining how gravity works on a 2D plane. Now lets look at it from a 3D perspective. Light, travels towards the black-hole and whilst appearing to enter it what happens is that the north gravitational pole and the south gravitational pole tug on the photon equally; the photon is split into a particle and its anti particle, which appear somewhere within this universe; if they appear close enough they will annihalate and turn back into light.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Guest
    Leo,

    We know that a black hole is very dense, almost as dense as an American president, but our 'universe' is almost empty not only are the galaxies very far apart but the atoms within them are also 'spacious' I'd like to know what the density actually is so if you come across a link...
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •