Why is there a universe? No, it's not god or 42
I still can't stop my mind going through russian doll universes.
In the Simplest of Terms: One Cannot Exist Without the Other. You Can't Have Something unless you can contrast it with Nothing and You Can't have Nothing without Contrasting it to Something. We Have Numbers which are something but We also have "Zero" which is nothing and that seems to make a lot of sense, just apply the same concept to a universe. Or Maybe there are two universes or multiple ones Each Positive One has a Negative Partner. Negative One Plus Positive One = Zero, In each case you have Somthing That Adds to Nothing.
Love this subject, and there are so many opinoins, like Callahan said. One thing to bear in mind, that nothing with a mass can travel faster than the speed of light. However, Time has no mass, and therefore can travel at any speed up and until the entropic value,
You've lost me there - speed=distance over time
@GothRik "TIME" is the factor , as Stephen Hawking tried to explain in his book of a similar name, ......extend time, and you can extend the universe. time has no meaning without entropy. and vis versa
@magicwatch Sorry, still lost. Time is one dimension it cannot have mass, speed is the combination of dimensions, so time cannot travel faster than light, since it does not 'travel'. I understand (at least I think I do) the concept of time being relative etc..
@GothRik Time is one of the four physical dimensions in the mathematics of quaternions (which our universe seems to deposited in). Many of the "theories of everything" believe our universe rests in more than 4 dimensions. I've heard that there are mathematical theorems that say that all noncommutative division rings (such as the quaternion ring) can only exist in powers of 2, and the highest order of these can only be 16 (which has subsequently been identified), Thus, I believe that if the universe is to be non-arbitrary, it has to exist in 16 dimensions.
One of the great drivers of Einstein was to not accept the arbitrary equality of G in the then-current theories of acceleration and gravity. He therefore linked the two in General Relativity. I believe he was also skeptical of the relationship between magnetic and electric forces, and thus now there is only one force (electro-magnetic). The universe is not arbitrary. When it appears that it is, there's something going on that hasn't been identified yet.
I like this, they are finally getting closer to understanding.
However, no big bang, no explosion is necessary.
These "bubbles" can form and burst continually and totally at random, yet chaos has patterns.
What is black holes are merely bursting bubbles of existence?
What is there was no explosion, and the universe is being pulled apart rather than being blown apart?
The bubbles could act as a catalyst for more to form, more bubbles increase the chances of surrounding bubbles remaining, if this contunies, those bubbles of existence expand outward. So then there is more on the outside than in the centre, and the gravity would pull the centre outward. Given that it is random, bullbles can pop up anywhere, thus not all would be pushing out all the time, so galaxies can collide, something I always had a problem with under the big bang theory with everything moving away from everything else. So also, no need for dark matter or dark energy.
even Einstein had a problem with Quantum mechanics, perhaps there is someone on this website that can come up with the ultimate equation, i.e." the theory of everything"
@magicwatch yes, such an answer would make so many things easier to understand.
@magicwatch The answer to Einstein's angst is the Many Worlds Theory. It puts determinism back into the equation. I think I believe it is true, and is my scapegoat belief of why there is a universe at all.
There are global effects and local effects. We still have meteors colliding with the Earth even though the universe is expanding. I believe Andromeda is going to collide with the Milky Way before our sun dies, and the Earth will be bombarded with life-destroying radiation before we get swallowed up by the sun. Still, it's not the time to build your bunker.
My brain is hurting! I don't understand a word anyone is saying!
I know how you feel, it would have gone over the top of my head a few years ago (lots of it still does). Curiosity got the better part of me and I chipped away at it. I would read up, google, youtube a bit at a time. It's still mystifying, but, more fascinating as I go.
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."-Richard Feynman
1This articles assumes the Universe came from nothing - it didnt - its always been here.
2 It describes the Observable universe as having a shape. The Universe has no shape.
It looks like the universe will always be here, but why has it always been here? What came before the Big Bang? If it's a cycle, shouldn't our universe be headed toward a Big Implosion, only to be followed by another Big Bang? But again, what started this cycle in the first place? Why should there be this cycle?
Perplexing questions. I sure wish I had answers or even beliefs.
@GlyndonD yes the Universe has always been here - and will always be here - no beginning, there will be no end. Space is infinite - the Big Band just describes an event that took place 14 billion years ago, in our little part of the universe - which is just a natural part of the life cycle of galaxies.
@GlyndonD There is no supporting evidence - astrophysicists only study what they can observe. The Universe is infinite, we know this because space continues forever, by definition it can not physically stop at any point. And its always been that way, infinite space, there was no beginning to the Universe - This is all true.
@gater No, it's not. Space is curved. Mass/gravity bends space back on itself. The "volume" of space is finite, but is growing. Only your imagined x-y-z coordinate system axes goes on straight and into infinity. This is supported by scientific observation and predicted by General Relativity. It's real. Black holes are real.
@gater Thanks. But Father Steve told me he was right, too. He had a book called the Bible that said the world was 6500 yeara old. He swore he was right, and I needed to believe him. I turned him down, too. No, years of knowledge and learning leada me to believe General Relativity is indeed true. I'm going with Einstein and his buddies, and not you.
No hard feelings?
For there to be inhabitants to contemplate a universe, there must be a universe. To put it another way, if there were nothing, there would be no one to notice.
So the universe is a by product of the laws of quatum physics? Seems more probably than being created by an anthromorphic super being who had no creation itself.
I accept that quantum mechanics has delivered the the existing universe from the Big Bang, but I'm still unfulfilled about why or how it happened in the first place. (No, not because of a god.)
Thanks for the article. Quantum Physics is fascinating
I haven't seen these lectures yet ( I'm still going through his astronomy series), but, I'm sure it will be great.
Let's analyze the verb phrase 'to think about there being nothing'. Can you really and truly think about 'there being nothing at all'? I say no. For to really think about there being nothing at all, you'd have to be able to think about yourself not existing to be doing any thinking at all. So you couldn't even think about yourself doing what you would be doing if you could think about 'there being nothing at all'. Therefore if you can't think of anything you could be talking about when you speak of 'there being nothing at all', then you aren't thinking about anything at all when you say it. So saying it is like saying nothing at all. It's a play on words that makes you think it's saying something when it's not.
Talk about nothing
Throw time in to the argument and it starts getting silly.
@GothRik That's my point. It's silly when people let words that make no sense trick them into believing they do.
Yes, I've always said during any theological discussion "What kind of god (God) are you talking about -- providential, deist, etc." Even though they claim to be monotheist (even trinityists), they cannot come up with one definition. Therefore, they should not be referring to "God", but maybe "the only god". I've argued before that agnostics/atheists should not use or even acknowledge the word "God" for it implies the existence of monotheism versus polytheism, and that "God" exists but you're only going to deny its existence. Don't play on their playing field.
By the way, can your God create another equal God? Why or why not?
This is kind of an age-old argument, first answered "I think, therefore I am." But it assumes a dependence of the logical (thought) on the physical (the universe). Physics borrows from mathematics (the three fundamental forces, statistics, etc.), but mathematicians believe their mathematics is independent of any universe. Yes, you have to have a physical brain to think of mathematics and reason, but it's more accepted that the logic and reason is "out there", only to be discovered and recognzied by the human brain and mind.