# Just a little speculation about creation



## Michael (May 20, 2004)

This afternoon my cousin and I were discussing possible mechanisms for (I think it's called) inflation. It's been a while since I read Michio Kaku's _Hyperspace_, but I think the suggestion is that a mysterious force known as anti-gravity might have prevented the baby universe (resulting, I think, from a "quantum fluctuation") from collapsing upon itself and initiated inflation.

Clarification on the muddled parts of my explanation _would_ be appreciated, but what I really want to do is speculate about possible alternatives to anti-gravity for the mechanism. Since, apparently, "anti-gravity" was something of an afterthought because scientists really don't have any idea what happened in the first few seconds of creation, might there be a simpler explanation doesn't require this kind of obvious invention?

My cousin suggested that there might have been a series of fluctuations, or even a series of "bangs." The repetition of bangs may have been enough to set the universe on its present course--or maybe not. 

On the other hand, a bunch of fluctuations at once may have produced several or more baby universes that merged when they exploded. Dunno either way. Just a thought.

I'm looking for anyone else's ideas on this.  Just pure speculation--give it your best shot!

I won't mind if you switch this thread to philosophy, of course, Brian.  Took me a while consider the best place for it, and, of course, I don't know if I actually found it.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 20, 2004)

Thread is probably fine here. 

 As to the actual event - I'm afraid we are going to be stuck in the realms of speculation regarding this for some time. 

 As there are no definite answers, anything is possible. 

 Perhaps one way to really seriously adderss this issue to not to think about the act itself, but what might have been happening around _before_ the event. I think inflation itself sees infinite universes as like bubbles in some form of medium. That in itself could lend itself well to analogies.


----------



## Michael (May 21, 2004)

All good points, and interesting spec, too, Brian.  Thanks!  As far as _before_ creation--wow.  I'm stumped there, and always have been.  Of course, I believe in God (a "panentheistic" God), but talking or thinking about that can be pretty hard.

Biblically speaking, God "spoke" the universe into being.  I don't have any objections to that concept, even in the light of science.  Why not? He says, "Let there be light" and BOOM! It takes about ten billion years or so for us to come along afterward.  This disagrees (nominally) with the Biblical account, but not if you think about the idea that God exists outside of time (both in and out, for me).  What is a day to God?  I know--that question has been asked many times, with probably as many attempts to answer!


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 21, 2004)

I actually take the "god speaking" element as a metaphor for conscious thought - if that's an acceptable proposition for a panentheist.


----------



## Michael (May 21, 2004)

Almost anything's acceptable to me, Brian, except human sacrifice and hatred. But honestly, I think most if not all of the 1st 2 chapters (at least) of Genesis is metaphorical.  I think there's something to learn there, as I do with lots of religious writing, but I think it's a mistake to take it too literally.  Very good point, Brian!


----------



## Michael (May 21, 2004)

And, well . . . I may be going out on limb here, because this way beyond what I'm used to speculating about . . . "conscious thought" might just be the answer to everything!


----------



## Ivo (Jul 2, 2004)

I've been reading up on universe formation theories lately and the point you cousin made about a series of smaller bangs reminded me of a thoery I read recently.

Basically, it states that the universe we live in resides on a cosmic plane or sheet for lack of a better term.  Our plane is one of many with all containing some form of universe similar to our own.  

These planes are in a constant state of fluxuation and every once in a while these planes touch each other and a form of big bang occurs within the planes in question which are a product of these collisions.

It also explains a lot concerning parallel universes.  Its one of the more fascinating ideas I've read out there.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 2, 2004)

Ah, yes - I'm sure there was something in New Scientists about this a while ago - if I remember right they used the word "membranes" a lot...


----------



## Bountyhunter (Aug 29, 2004)

Michael said:
			
		

> My cousin suggested that there might have been a series of fluctuations, or even a series of "bangs." The repetition of bangs may have been enough to set the universe on its present course--or maybe not.
> 
> I'm looking for anyone else's ideas on this. Just pure speculation--give it your best shot!
> 
> I won't mind if you switch this thread to philosophy, of course, Brian. Took me a while consider the best place for it, and, of course, I don't know if I actually found it.


Well if thats not an inspiration to have some wild speculation regarding the nature of the Universe I don't know what is 

I took a shot at it anyway. I especially quite liked the idea of a repition of bangs, nature itself seems to like cycles and a cyclical nature to the Universe would seem to fit with how nature operates:

Theory of the Universe (Abstract)

Like anyone who hates detective stories I always flip to the end of the book and read the last page to understand who did it. In the Universe it’s rather the same way. It’s only by understanding how the Universe ends can we begin to understand how it begins and grows. Many of my ideas presented rely on the fundamental works of many more learned physicists than myself, this is merely a hypothesis extrapolating from these learned people.

At the end of the Universe the slow ever expansion from the Big Bang has been halted and in fact reversed by the sheer weight and mass now dispersed. Black Holes, super-gravity wells of mass, start to become so huge in size that they literally start to devour entire galaxies. The Black Holes start to become so large in their gravitational attraction that they start to interact with each other and combining as they try to mutually eat each other into Super-Black Holes which stretch across a number of galaxies.

The sheer mass of these Super-Black Holes is enough to start an inevitable decrease in the size of the Universe, the Universe’s boundaries are drawn back as the internal weight of these Super-Black Holes, over millions of years, exert their density and influence. Inevitably even the Super-Black Holes start to interact and attempt to devour each other causing Gigantic-Black Holes to be created as many Super-Black Holes come together. In an incredibly slow but incestuous process all of the Black Holes combine into one huge Entropy, gradually gaining such a gravitational pull and mass that all the Universe is drawn towards it.

The Entropy devours all mass in the Universe until all that is left in the Universe is, if-fact, the Entropy. However this is not enough, the sheer mass and gravitational power of the Entropy makes the individual atoms of the Universe caught by the Universe into one small, possibly perfectly spherical, ball. Small being a relative term when considering the ball contains the entire contents of every galaxy in the Universe.

And yet the Entropy demands more.

The sheer mass and internal gravity of the Entropy causes the ball to get smaller and smaller. Atoms are squeezed together, and in doing so, gradually gain tremendous amounts of energy in the form of heat. And yet the Entropy demands more. The ball of mass becomes ever smaller, atoms start to change in the internal pressure cooker of the Entropy. Protons and Neutrons gain so much energy they are moving freely between all the atoms. Even the smallest sub-component of the individual atom has so much energy that it’s super-charged and randomly flies around the ball of mass.

Over billions of years (if time, a very relative concept, has any meaning anymore) the entire contents of the Universe is again and again crushed by the Entropy, forcing the contents into a smaller and smaller ball. This, however, is the doom of the Entropy, as over time this ball has gained so much energy, so much heat, that the internal pressures can no longer be sustained.

After too much time to count, and the relentless gravitational pressure of the Entropy squeezes the mass of Universe into little more than a small (relatively) ball of hyper-charged atoms interacting with each other. A ball with so much energy that it is inevitable that a huge release will occur. After billions of years (if again, time can be said to exist in this situation) that release of hyper-charged atoms occurs in one huge explosion of energy.

One gigantic Big Bang.

And thus, the ever increasing in size, explosion creates the Universe as the hyper-charged atoms are spread out over billions of years. This release of energy will however gradually and inevitably slow as the sheer mass of the Universe starts to create Black Holes which will, eventually, combine to create Super-Black Holes, Gigantic-Black Holes and then the Entropy again.

Thus, the Universe could be said to be a linear progression of the Universe exploding from hyper-charged matter, to finally succumbing to its own mass and being drawn into an Entropy; which itself gives the Universe’s matter so much energy that it explodes with unbelievable amounts of energy. The cycle repeating itself over and over again.

Therefore to say that the Big Bang was the "start" of *this cycle* of the Universe that we live in is technically incorrect. *This cycle* of the Universe we currently live in was born from the destruction of the last cycle of the last Universe, just as it itself was created from the one before it. A cyclical process has no start or end.

This hypothesis does not however explain how the mass originated in the first place. The Universe may be in a cyclical motion of destruction and creation however only wild speculation can say where this matter originated from. How did the cycle start? In this, the theories of leading scientists may as well be compared with those of leading theologians.

In many ways, believers in a God here can at least have faith that it was their creator who placed down the initial seeds of creation and started off the cycle. Current physics and atheism would seem to lack any meaningful answers.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 29, 2004)

Interesting read, Bountyhunter - and welcome to the chronicles-network.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Aug 29, 2004)

God created the universe.


----------



## scalem X (Aug 30, 2004)

> God created the universe.


 

Describe god.



As for me I think nothing can disappear (like in a closed space energy can only change from electric to chemical and other forms but can never leave).

So I think that there must have always been what now is, but just in another form. This off course does not explain why there was nothing and now there is what now is, but it might be that everything was and the earth is a part of the process of becoming nothing (nothing being the smallest shape of everything).

We are obviously a part of the chicken and egg paradox (first the chicken or first the egg= first nothing or first everything). We know we live in nothing, but neither are we able to live in everything (poverty and wealth at the same time for example). So we must be in between nothing and everything. Which way we are going is hard to guess.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Aug 30, 2004)

God is a grey haired old man of Germanic stock.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Aug 31, 2004)

scalem X said:
			
		

> We are obviously a part of the chicken and egg paradox (first the chicken or first the egg= first nothing or first everything). We know we live in nothing, but neither are we able to live in everything (poverty and wealth at the same time for example). So we must be in between nothing and everything. Which way we are going is hard to guess.


Actually, if you accept evolution, "the chicken or the egg" is not a paradox.  The egg came first, in reptiles, before birds ever evolved. 

Seriously, this is an interesting question, and one that I think is insoluble at our present state of knowledge.  We can't see the moment of "creation", if there was one, i.e., the Big Bang itself.  If there was a Big Bang.  The universe could be oscillating (Bang, Crunch, Bang, Crunch, and so on, infinitely).  It could be infinite, time-wise (a "Steady State" universe), for all that the evidence doesn't seem to support that view now, as far as I know.  There could actually be many universes.  All time could be simultaneous, and so the idea of a beginning and an end doesn't have any real meaning.  There are many other possibilities.  Some have more probability of being correct, other have less.

Right now, we just can't know.  We can speculate.  We can assume.  We can even have faith.  But sure knowledge is going to have to wait for awhile.  Personally, I think it's more fun not knowing for sure.


----------



## aftermath (Sep 28, 2004)

> God created the universe.



That was always hard for me to grasp. I don't like the thought of god, or a god snapping his/her fingers and willing the universe into existence. 

So, just for agruement, we'll say god doesn't exist. Where did everything come from? The elements, the force behind the big bang, etc etc. I also don't like the idea that it all was there already. Something cannot come from nothing, so that means that it must have been there. 

What I think may have happened (this is probably a theory already, but i only moved on my own and really started to get interested into this form of science) is that anti gravity was already in the universe. Well this anti gravity masses and eventual caved in on itself forming black matter. With black matter now in the universe, there can now be gravity. the black matter is now pooled together by gravity and causes the big bang or big bangs (i lean more towards the multiple bangs theory). 


i'm not sure if that even made any sense.
where's a good stie to read up on these theories?


----------



## aftermath (Oct 2, 2004)

I guess i kinda this thread, eh?


----------

