How did the Universe get here?

[edthecynic]

Yes, that is the current scientific theory. I can't post a link because I don't have enough posts yet, so you will have to take my word for it, for now.

I'm not sure I can take your word for it. The theory of relativity is, for all intents and purposes, set in stone. Theories that the universe is finite, however, is still being debated, isn't it?

I don't believe that a finite universe or an infinite one disproves the existence of God, though.

Well, you can just Google it yourself, I'm not stopping you. I don't believe there's one single astronomer who believes the universe is infinite.

There are actually two theories of an infinite universe, one that claims the universe will expand forever, the most accepted of all the theories infinite or otherwise, and the cyclic theory of a never ending cycle from Big Bang to Big Crunch and over again.

 

[edthecynic]

How did the Universe (i.e. everything that exists) get here?

And if you believe there are multiple universes, then how did the Multiverse get here?

We know the Universe wasn't always here, and will end sometime in the future.

How did everything begin, and what happens after the end?

I'm looking for an answer from those of you who say God definitely does not exist.

No...we do not know that. All we seem to be sure of is the SIZE of the universe before and after the Big Bang.

From what I can tell the CONTENT of the universe was the same....just packaged in a much smaller size.

The space between the elements of today's atoms is almost infinite.

Why was all that matter and energy concentrated into such a small space? I mean, how did that happen?

Gravity

 

[edthecynic]

If the Universe is and always was and always will be, and exists everywhere, then the Universe itself is God.

The energy of the universe always, is now, and always be the same total quantity, only the form will change. God could merely be the personification of energy. Energy, like God, exists in 3 forms, Kinetic (the Father), Potential (the Son), and Heat ( the Holy Spirit).

 

[Uncensored2008]

I personally like brane theory as a thought model for how our universe came into existence.

There are many theories out there, none is particularly provable at this point, but they are fun to debate from time to time.

I personally do not believe our lack of understanding of this huge and ancient problem as a demonstration that the only other choice is the existence of a deity that stands outside time with the unbelievable power to create an entire universe and understand it's ultimate fate. Humans have typically taken that approach, for a while lightning and thunder were evidence of a god, now that we understand them we don't need Thor anymore.

Brane theory deals with multi-dimensional quantum particle interaction and the attempt to rectify nuclear attraction with the weak force of gravity. I realize Dr. Brian Greene has postulated that the collision of two brane worlds with the same dimensional parameters could have been the catalyst for the Big Bang, but there is no supporting evidence.

Dr. Lisa Randall, who developed Brane Cosmology, is absolutely a proponent of the Big Bang.

 

[BobPlumb]

We all could simply be part of a computer simulation.

(Ref, Star Trek TNG)

 

[edthecynic]

so in other words, a universe which is not finite requires a metaphysical explanation.....

How do you know the universe is not finite?

well, lets put it this way....either the universe is finite or it isn't.....in the post I replied to you proposed a universe that always was and needed no creator......

however, science tells us the physical universe we live in did in fact have a beginning....so, whether you fall on string theory or some other method of traversing from some other universe to ours, it will in fact be a metaphysical explanation......

now if you argue instead that the universe is finite it needs to have a beginning and a cause.....can you postulate a beginning or a transition that resulted in our current universe that does NOT require a metaphysical explanation?......

Not quite! Science says the space/time we live in had a beginning, but the First Law of Thermodynamics proves that the physical universe of energy/matter has, is now, and will always exist in the same total quantity, only its form will change.

 

[edthecynic]

How did the Universe get here?

No one knows and they never will.

I would say no one knows FOR CERTAIN at this point in time, we have theories, but I would not rule out eventually figuring it out.

 

[Boss]

Not quite! Science says the space/time we live in had a beginning, but the First Law of Thermodynamics proves that the physical universe of energy/matter has, is now, and will always exist in the same total quantity, only its form will change.

You are expressing a physical law that works in a physical universe. There is no evidence this law applies to BEFORE a physical universe. If there is, you certainly haven't presented it. Energy and matter can only exist if there is space and time for them to exist in.

 

[edthecynic]

I love reading threads like this because it is fascinating to see how some people try to justify their objective reality. Theories that something physical existed before the Big Bang, before there was space and time for the physical to exist, are completely baseless and devoid of logic. As are the demands to know what "created" something that is non-physical and doesn't physically exist. The theory of the Big Bang/Crunch... that our universe operates in cycles, is obsolete and has been debunked within the past 20 years, but some people cling to this theory because they think it makes sense. Well, things that seem to make sense are often not true in physics. At one time (not that long ago in the scope of time) virtually everyone believed the earth was flat and the universe revolved around the earth, because that made sense.

Quantum mechanics is proving every day just how little we actually know. Our universe and reality is comprised of matter, which is simply atoms responding to frequency. We have a perception of objective reality due to an expanding universe which is not slowing down but speeding up. Time is relative to the observer, this is what Einstein proved with the Theory of Relativity. Without time, nothing physical can exist, there can be no perception of reality. Reality is merely our perception of time in the present, but the value of time is not consistent, it is relative to the observer. There is no perception of material reality past or future, only the present. Does the past exist? Yes and no. In the sense that we can recall time passed, it exists as memory, but it no longer has material presence in our objective reality. Does the future exist? We don't know. We can presume it does, but that is a faith-based presumption. So we can realize the only thing that physically exists in reality is the moment in space/time defined as "now." And "now" exists only because the universe is expanding and creating more spacetime for physical reality to exist.

IF the universe was timeless and eternal, without end, then we wouldn't have entropy. The fact that entropy exists is proof the universe will eventually end. IF the universe were supposed to "cycle" with an impending "Big Crunch" it would be slowing down, not speeding up. In fact, this realization that our universe is accelerating has caused many physicists to question a "Big Bang" to begin with. Explosion doesn't cause increase in relative velocity... when you fire a gun, the bullet is travelling at it's fastest speed when it leaves the barrel and will become slower the further it travels. The bullet doesn't speed up. If there was a "Big Bang" it seems that our universe is defying Newtonian Laws of Motion.

This is where quantum physics is so intriguing and amazing to me. It simply stands on it's ear, everything we have ever understood about physics and math and the universe itself. It is very much akin to the discovery the earth is not flat. All that we thought we knew can be set aside because it is no longer relevant. What we seem to be discovering is conscious observation controls reality. Try wrapping your minds around that one.

And I love pompous know-it-alls who believe their objective "reality" is the only reality.

Physical energy existed before the Big Bang, which only created a new time cycle. It's like if you have a drawing on an etch-a-sketch, when you flip it over only the drawing disappears, the etch-a-sketch still exists.

As the universe of energy/matter compresses to a single point in the Big Crunch that follows the Big Bang, there is a moment when the universe of energy is neither expanding nor contracting. In this SINGULARITY time does not exist for the moment, but the energy does. This is an extremely UNSTABLE condition and in the next moment you have a Big Bang and time begins again.

And you are completely wrong about entropy also. You seem to have forgotten two things about entropy, for the universe to end due to entropy, all motion must stop because kinetic energy is the energy of motion and kinetic energy is capable of doing work. The Third Law of Thermodynamics says there is no temperature at which all motion stops, so the universe can theoretically expand forever, so entropy allows that theory to exist.

And the second thing you have forgotten about entropy is it can equal zero, and any closed system with an entropy of zero can last forever, like the Big Bang, Big Crunch system. You could think of the universe as a perpetual commotion machine with an entropy of zero.

 

[Boss]

If the Universe is and always was and always will be, and exists everywhere, then the Universe itself is God.

The energy of the universe always, is now, and always be the same total quantity, only the form will change. God could merely be the personification of energy. Energy, like God, exists in 3 forms, Kinetic (the Father), Potential (the Son), and Heat ( the Holy Spirit).

Points for developing a scientific theory of the Holy Trinity!

The energy of the universe always, is now, and always be the same total quantity, only the form will change.

I don't know if I can accept this as immutable fact. Quantum mechanics tends to disagree. Now, this is what we've believed for a really long time, I accept that. But we are perceiving reality from within it. It is difficult to wrap our minds around the concept that reality we experience is an illusion. We are like characters in a film moving through a projector. We believe we are real and the events happening in the film are real, as they move frame by frame through the projector. It's hard for us to imagine anything else as a possibility. We point to the cellulose (energy) and presume because that is "real" we must also be "real." We know from our experience what frames have moved through the projector (past) but we don't know how many more frames will move through the projector, and the projector has no concept of our "reality" as such.

 

[edthecynic]

Not quite! Science says the space/time we live in had a beginning, but the First Law of Thermodynamics proves that the physical universe of energy/matter has, is now, and will always exist in the same total quantity, only its form will change.

You are expressing a physical law that works in a physical universe. There is no evidence this law applies to BEFORE a physical universe. If there is, you certainly haven't presented it. Energy and matter can only exist if there is space and time for them to exist in.

That simply is not true, and the proven FLoT establishes it. Space/time do not exist for a SINGULARITY, not because there is no physical energy/matter, but because for that momentary singularity there is no MOTION, and time exists only in terms of motion.

 

[Boss]

Physical energy existed before the Big Bang, which only created a new time cycle.

Nonsense, and you cannot prove this.

The "cycle" theory is dead. We've learned that our universe is not slowing down, it is speeding up. This ENDS any concept of a contracting or "crunching" universe that is cycling. Once was a time, this was a common theory, and most physicists accepted it... that's where the "Big Bang" idea came from! Interestingly enough, the term "Big Bang" was originally a denigration of the theory itself. Theoretical physicists like Stephen Hawking are now questioning whether there was ever such an event.

 

[Boss]

Not quite! Science says the space/time we live in had a beginning, but the First Law of Thermodynamics proves that the physical universe of energy/matter has, is now, and will always exist in the same total quantity, only its form will change.

You are expressing a physical law that works in a physical universe. There is no evidence this law applies to BEFORE a physical universe. If there is, you certainly haven't presented it. Energy and matter can only exist if there is space and time for them to exist in.

That simply is not true, and the proven FLoT establishes it. Space/time do not exist for a SINGULARITY, not because there is no physical energy/matter, but because for that momentary singularity there is no MOTION, and time exists only in terms of motion.

"Proven FLoT" is a PHYSICAL condition. It does not exist unless physical reality exists. Singularity is the theoretical beginning of a "Big Bang" not what preceded it. The simple scientific fact is, we do not know what preceded the Singularity, or if the Singularity actually happened, for that matter. It could be that our universe and physical reality came to exist when it split from another universe or collided with another universe. This is what unified field theory and string theory seek to discover, but nothing is conclusive or known at this time.

 

[edthecynic]

Physical energy existed before the Big Bang, which only created a new time cycle.

Nonsense, and you cannot prove this.

The "cycle" theory is dead. We've learned that our universe is not slowing down, it is speeding up. This ENDS any concept of a contracting or "crunching" universe that is cycling. Once was a time, this was a common theory, and most physicists accepted it... that's where the "Big Bang" idea came from! Interestingly enough, the term "Big Bang" was originally a denigration of the theory itself. Theoretical physicists like Stephen Hawking are now questioning whether there was ever such an event.

Wrong again, it is speeding up because it is being pulled into the super massive universal black hole. The gravitational pull of the black hole accelerates mater toward it. This shows just how ass backward you are!

 

[edthecynic]

You are expressing a physical law that works in a physical universe. There is no evidence this law applies to BEFORE a physical universe. If there is, you certainly haven't presented it. Energy and matter can only exist if there is space and time for them to exist in.

That simply is not true, and the proven FLoT establishes it. Space/time do not exist for a SINGULARITY, not because there is no physical energy/matter, but because for that momentary singularity there is no MOTION, and time exists only in terms of motion.

"Proven FLoT" is a PHYSICAL condition. It does not exist unless physical reality exists. Singularity is the theoretical beginning of a "Big Bang" not what preceded it. The simple scientific fact is, we do not know what preceded the Singularity, or if the Singularity actually happened, for that matter. It could be that our universe and physical reality came to exist when it split from another universe or collided with another universe. This is what unified field theory and string theory seek to discover, but nothing is conclusive or known at this time.

The singularity is BOTH the theoretical end of the Big Crunch and the beginning of the Big Bang. It is a singularity where energy/matter are neither expanding nor contracting.

Picture tossing a ball straight up in the air, it rises to a singular point and no farther before it falls back to the ground. At the highest point for a singular moment it is neither rising nor falling, it still exists but for that singular moment it is not moving.

What you need to learn is that just because something is not moving, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Boss]

Physical energy existed before the Big Bang, which only created a new time cycle.

Nonsense, and you cannot prove this.

The "cycle" theory is dead. We've learned that our universe is not slowing down, it is speeding up. This ENDS any concept of a contracting or "crunching" universe that is cycling. Once was a time, this was a common theory, and most physicists accepted it... that's where the "Big Bang" idea came from! Interestingly enough, the term "Big Bang" was originally a denigration of the theory itself. Theoretical physicists like Stephen Hawking are now questioning whether there was ever such an event.

Wrong again, it is speeding up because it is being pulled into the super massive universal black hole. The gravitational pull of the black hole accelerates mater toward it. This shows just how ass backward you are!

Sorry, you are just plain wrong. There is not a single universal massive black hole sucking our universe in. There are several black holes we've discovered, they are sucking in surrounding galaxies, not the entire universe. Still... if there IS this universal sucking black hole, that kinda fucks your theory of a contracting universe that is going to cycle, doesn't it?

 

[edthecynic]

Nonsense, and you cannot prove this.

The "cycle" theory is dead. We've learned that our universe is not slowing down, it is speeding up. This ENDS any concept of a contracting or "crunching" universe that is cycling. Once was a time, this was a common theory, and most physicists accepted it... that's where the "Big Bang" idea came from! Interestingly enough, the term "Big Bang" was originally a denigration of the theory itself. Theoretical physicists like Stephen Hawking are now questioning whether there was ever such an event.

Wrong again, it is speeding up because it is being pulled into the super massive universal black hole. The gravitational pull of the black hole accelerates mater toward it. This shows just how ass backward you are!

Sorry, you are just plain wrong. There is not a single universal massive black hole sucking our universe in. There are several black holes we've discovered, they are sucking in surrounding galaxies, not the entire universe. Still... if there IS this universal sucking black hole, that kinda fucks your theory of a contracting universe that is going to cycle, doesn't it?

Only to someone as ass backward as you.

 

[BobPlumb]

What is the definition of universe? Some people are referring to other universes. Would multiple universes simply be sub-universes of one gigantic possibly infinite main universe. Think of the outermost circle on a Venn diagram containing many smaller circles inside.

 

[Boss]

That simply is not true, and the proven FLoT establishes it. Space/time do not exist for a SINGULARITY, not because there is no physical energy/matter, but because for that momentary singularity there is no MOTION, and time exists only in terms of motion.

"Proven FLoT" is a PHYSICAL condition. It does not exist unless physical reality exists. Singularity is the theoretical beginning of a "Big Bang" not what preceded it. The simple scientific fact is, we do not know what preceded the Singularity, or if the Singularity actually happened, for that matter. It could be that our universe and physical reality came to exist when it split from another universe or collided with another universe. This is what unified field theory and string theory seek to discover, but nothing is conclusive or known at this time.

The singularity is BOTH the theoretical end of the Big Crunch and the beginning of the Big Bang. It is a singularity where energy/matter are neither expanding nor contracting.

Picture tossing a ball straight up in the air, it rises to a singular point and no farther before it falls back to the ground. At the highest point for a singular moment it is neither rising nor falling, it still exists but for that singular moment it is not moving.

What you need to learn is that just because something is not moving, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

When is the last time you threw a ball into the air and it continued to accelerate faster and faster? IF that happened, at what point would it logically reach this "singularity" point?

As I stated before, this WAS a viable theory at one time, when physicists believed that the universe was expanding but slowing down. We now know that it is not slowing down but speeding up. There is no logical way for it to reverse itself from this... see Newton's Laws of Motion. Like I said... you essentially have a "Flat Earth" theory here.

 

[Boss]

What is the definition of universe? Some people are referring to other universes. Would multiple universes simply be sub-universes of one gigantic possibly infinite main universe. Think of the outermost circle on a Venn diagram containing many smaller circles inside.

I think what you have to do here is suspend everything you understand about reality for a moment and consider that everything you've ever known and comprehended as "reality" is merely perception of spacetime continuum happening in a physical state.

We have no idea, concept, or ability to comprehend what another universe might be like. All we can relate to is what we understand of our own universe and the parameters of physical existence within our own space and time. Our concept of "logic" and "physics" simply may not be applicable to another universe. Does "time" exist there as it does here? Or maybe there is yet another dimension we can't even imagine? Perhaps "space" is restricted to one direction the way time is here, and "time" is as space is here? We cannot comprehend such a universe, it is out of our realm of understanding. Perhaps spiritual or metaphysical entities argue on message boards about the possibility of "physical" existence?