Does anyone have any ideas on where this Universe came from?

I wonder about that... where did the Universe come from? How did it begin? Does it have a purpose? And what is that purpose?

Please post your ideas along with evidence which supports those ideas.

 

It would be hard to find evidence, especally since Humans werent around at the beginning of the universe.

 

Logical demonstrations would suffice for our purposes. I'm not asking anyone to take an oath on it.

 

hmm...

All i can think of would be God, i mean there had to be a before universe time right? How else would it get here out of nothing?
If you werent thinking back that far, such as how the matter got in the universe rather than the universes creation, you could look up the Higgs Boson.

 

No, I mean the very beginning. Including the question of where the higgs boson comes from. I understand higgs boson a little. All encompassing fields which causes other fields to get stuck and create massive particles. Something like that. But what is the God? That I've never gotten a handle on. Is it a person?

 

Think about what you just asked. A universe before time? How can you have something before time?

The big bang describes an expansion, not a creation. The universe might just have always existed, going through expansion and contraction cycles. This solution is far more elegant and logically sound than the God one. No unnecessary steps, like a God that always was. Cut ut out and be done with it. A universe that always was.

"The beauty of a self inquiring sentient universe is lost on those who wish to pursue the intellectually vacuous path of bronze age mythologies."
Thunderf00t?

 

Well...
I recently used this argument in a thread to defend that there is a God. Saying that the big bang created it all is stupid because there was unexplained mass and space involved in the big bang. I tried explaining that there had to be something before this, before just nothing. However its hard to explain when its infinite. God could be a being, but that is confusing too. Being that God could be a being leaves thoughts as to before God. However every religious text says that God always was and is. That means he was at the beginning of everything. But when is the beginning of the beginning?

 

WRONG! WRONG! nah im just kidding. I do think your wrong tho.

 

But what triggered the switch from there not being any time to there being time like we see today? I mean, I certainly don't know. Can you elaborate to show why such a trigger wouldn't be necessary? Cuz man, if those quarks didn't cling together like they do and then drag the negative charges around with them, or if all of it didn't tend to fall in on itself, there'd be no us. Just seems like some pretty random rules for everything to work out so nice. Why is there stuff instead of nothing? And why this certain type of stuff?

 

I just don't see what the God is. We know where humans come from, sperm and egg join and start to multiply... personality is determined by both genetics and life experience. So how do you suppose something like that existed even before time? There was no sperm or egg to make God or any type of experience for It to develop a personality. I think we can rule out the humanlike God, at the very least.

 

Answer: The Universe is eternal and uncreated. It did not "come from" anywhere. It always was.

Evidence: The laws of conservation and causality, all of which are empirically derived.

If it is true that energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed, then it has by definition always existed. In all of human experience, we have never once witnessed an exception to that law.

If it is true that every effect must have a cause, then there can be no "first cause" at it would violate that law. In all of human experience, we have never once witnessed an exception to that law.

If it is true that ex hihilo, nihil fit, then by definition something must have always existed. The only impossible thing is nothing. In all of human experience, we have never once witnessed an exception to that law.

 

Do you think the Universe just bounces back and forth randomly adopting certain physics at different times and ours only seems special and unique because it's ours? The very notion of "stuff" being something only we, in this particular part/time/whatever of the universe would comprehend?

 

Time speeds up and slows down depending on the environment around it. The closer you are to a massive object the slower time moves. Time moves slower standing next to the Empire State Building than it does standing in a Kentucky Corn Field. Time moves slower on Earth than it does in Space. Likewise Time moves slower on the surface of the sun than it does on Earth. And time is extremely slow near a black hole.

At the time of the big bang all of the universe's mass (that's a whole lot of mass) was compressed into a space the size of the period at the end of this sentence. The amount of mass would have meant that everywhere outside of that little speck in a vast empty void had time virtually stopped. For all intents and purposes there was no such thing as time before the big bang.

 

And so what prompted time to come into existence?

 

The spread of mass throughout the universe.

Time depends on mass.

If you were to somehow move past the edge of the universe to where mass no longer exists you would be moving so fast through time a single second to you could mean billions of years within the reach of the universe. Time moves slower near mass.

And because all the universe's mass was in one tiny spec time was essentially stopped on that speck. But it was still moving outside of the speck. And it was moving very quickly.

I know it sounds strange. But this is actually tested and proven science.

 

This sorta thing is really hard to wrap your head around so it's okay if you don't understand. But essentially time is completely relative on where you are. Essentially 1 second outside of the area where mass was in the void could have been equivalent to billions of years inside the area where that mass was.

 

Not really.

My current working model is that any universe like ours will spawn daughter universes in a topology akin to branching but still linear descent. The act of spawning a daughter universe is facilitated by passage of some universal "content" through a singularity of the sort that commenced our current instance of universe, and likewise of the sort that our universe generates all the time. We call them black holes.

I have no basis for discriminating between some hypothetical random reset of physical laws or a continuity of our existing laws through the singularity. Either is possible, but either way, it really doesn't matter as far as our current universe is concerned. The probability of our universe having exactly the laws it has is retrospective and therefore 100%. It is a brute fact, and therefore all other potential physics are impossible within it.

That said, every potential set of physical laws is equally "special and unique." That's not the same thing as saying they all have the same probability. For example, In his book The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology Victor Stenger did some calculations (in direct response to the much loved by theists Penrose calculation) to try and get a handle on what the variation of natural laws might look like. He randomly varied the constants of physics over a range of ten orders of magnitude around their existing values. For each resulting "toy" universe, he computed various quantities such as the size of atoms and the lifetimes of stars. He found that almost all combinations of physical constants lead to universes, albeit strange ones, that would live long enough for some type of complexity such as life to form. Here's a sample of 100 such universes randomly calculated.



Note that in well over half the universes, stars live at least a billion years.

 

I am comfortable with allowing the question of the universe to evolve into: "What prevented gravity from folding it all back in on itself immediately?"

 

"The Jatravartids believe that the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arklseizure. They live in permanent fear of a time they call The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief."

 

Have you checked Youtube and other sources for informative lectures and documentaries about this stuff? I know this is just the sort of thing I've seen Lawrence Krauss talk about in videos there. Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/results?sear....8.1.163.1000.0j8.8.0...0.0...1ac.YPvuH1dKnVg

 

Close.

For all intents and purposes there was no time within the Big Bang singularity. And this follows not just from the behavior of time in the presence of mass, but from the simple fact that singularities are dimensionless... to include durationless. But we know from direct experience that on this side of the singularity time advances anyway... and that should lead any rational person to at least consider the likelihood of the same thing on the other side. In that way, and especially since the the singularity is durationless, any time prior to the Big Bang would pass seamlessly and without interruption through it, like a line passes uninterrupted through any point along it.

 

nothing can be broken down into negative and positive, so you really can get something from nothing (-1) + (+1) = zero

if you cancel out all the negatives and the positive, what are you left with?


.

 

Wow really interesting stuff! I need to read more about it. Do you have any good book recommendations for someone really interested in it but has trouble with the heavy math behind it? Preferably something that reads with a lot of visual descriptions.

 

Personally, I'm a fan of the idea that Stephen Hawkins has proposed. The thing we perceive as time is just a statistical feature in causality. We don't actually experience time going forwards, we only experience a single point in space time, but since causality gives us memories and similar things from only those places from which causality can affect us and nowhere else, we get the experience of "having been" (in lack of better words) in the past but not the future. However, the "fabric" of space time (again, in lack of better words) does not rely on this statistical phenomenon, which means that I think there is no reason why reality must have "started" in the end of reality that we as humans see as the beginning.

From that, I would make an Occam's Razor argument that if there was an event of creation or start of existence, then it would be in the "middle" of space time. That's not a flawless argument, just my belief.

 

Tao, you explained Einsteins theory of relativity right?