Creation of the Universe

Creation of the Universe

Right, I have been pondering this question for years and my biggest question is: According to the “Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy”; matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. This leads me to the question one cannot answer: “The universe must have started with nothing, so then, how can there be something here?” I can however attempt to answer another question, in relation to the creation of this universe.

Primus Inter Pares' Theory on the Creation of the Universe:

To accurately explain my theory on the creation of the universe I have to establish certain things:

1. Black Holes: First we need to establish what *I* believe black holes to be, my interpretation of black holes is quite standard: Black holes are simply an area of super compressed matter, in a very small space, thus leading to impossibly high gravity according to the equation: GM1M2/R^2 Thisis means that not even light can escape from this mass, my theory is based on the concept that black holes have no limit to their mass (*), and that the density of black holes either remain the same or increase with the size

2. Anti-Matter: This one is a bit simpler; many people want to believe that before there was matter, there was anti-matter. This has one major flaw, even anti-matter is a form of matter, and to start with there was NOTHING! Also you cannot have anti-matter without matter to start with, I heard a good analogy the other day: “Think of a coin factory, first the metal is melted down into sheets and then the coins are punched out, you can refer to the remainder as an anti-coin” although the intricacies of coin making are not accurate in this area the point is well made, let’s stick with that model for my theory.

My theory that does NOT account for the original creation of matter is as follows:

Let us say that this is not the first time the Universe has been created, and that this is simply on of the many ages of the universe, let us call the age which we are living in “Age x” I will try to explain how we got to “Age x” by going from the present to “Age x+1”

We know of the existence of black holes in out universe to date, and the awesome destructive power they posses, eating entire solar systems in the matter of moments, we have also determined the existence of much bigger black holes than what seems to be the norm, we do not however know what will happen if two black holes meet. My theory is that they combine to become a much greater black hole, now in regards to (*) I stated that the black hole has an infinite growth, I believe that this is not exactly true, however I needed to state that black holes have to grow to the size needed. So with this, how we go from “Age x” to “Age x+1” is this:

Black holes have already been established in our universe so that aspect has already happened, what I believe will continue, will be the expansion in number and size of these black holes over time, until the numbers cease to grow, and the black holes start combining at a higher rate, increasing the average size. Now, the black hole cannot (*) reach a certain size, this is because the “Law of Conservation of Matter” states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, therefore, when one black hole eventually consumes all matter, it will not stay that way, become unstable and explode, this will be the “Big Bang” scientists refer to, and that big bang, similar to the one that hailed in “Age x” will also hail in “Age x+1”

Another theory is that black holes DO have a limiting size within realistic limits, and continually the cycle of implosion and explosion happens, this would account for the universe continually expanding AND the fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed.


Thank you, see if you can rip it apart :)

I don't know what to say, but the universe was created with the big bang. That's shaking it all, I'm thru' to y'all hear me?!

Hmmm, this is all getting way too complicated. There must of been something before the big bang other wise it couldn't of happened. Poopdydoop.

Have u ever heard of 'Big Bang'?!

The Jatravartid People of Viltvodle Six firmly believe that the entire universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called The Great Green Arkleseizure. They live in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming Of The Great White Handkerchief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sweet_Angel

Have u ever heard of 'Big Bang'?!

---

Did you read my post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primus Inter Pares

Black holes have already been established in our universe so that aspect has already happened, what I believe will continue, will be the expansion in number and size of these black holes over time, until the numbers cease to grow, and the black holes start combining at a higher rate, increasing the average size. Now, the black hole cannot (*) reach a certain size, this is because the “Law of Conservation of Matter” states that matter cannot be created or destroyed, therefore, when one black hole eventually consumes all matter, it will not stay that way, become unstable and explode, this will be the “Big Bang” scientists refer to, and that big bang, similar to the one that hailed in “Age x” will also hail in “Age x+1”

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alive-Man

Not the first time the universe has been created???
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...

---

Errrr... yes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alive-Man

Hmmm, this is all getting way too complicated. There must of been something before the big bang other wise it couldn't of happened.

---

Yeah, my theory does not account for the original creation of matter thus:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primus Inter Pares

My theory that does NOT account for the original creation of matter is as follows:

---

My Theory brings us all the way up to "square one" so to say, all you have to find now is how matter was originally created. The only plausible explaination I can provide is that "empty space" is itself matter and can be converted (ie. the fabric of space) However, using the Law of Conservation of Matter, even that is impossible unless the fabric of space does not obey the laws of physics. Even then it would have to start at "nothing" which would mean nothing at all, not even space, because space is still something ;)

Hmmm.... You make some points and back them up with facts in a logical manner... I like this guy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primus Inter Pares

“Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy”; matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

---

Just so you know, there are exceptions to this. Nuclear fusion and fission and the process of creating atoms though extreme amounts of energy (I don't know the name of this process) do not abide by this law. However, these processes can just be seen as transforming matter to energy and vice versa.

That's a nice theory by the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psychotic

The Jatravartid People of Viltvodle Six firmly believe that the entire universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called The Great Green Arkleseizure. They live in perpetual fear of the time they call The Coming Of The Great White Handkerchief.

---

thats from the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy lol


very interesting that is also technically denying a creator

I find it rather well explained in Genesis, myself~

Kishi mae it all!!

So do I but still, I enjoy logical thinking...

It's certainly an interesting idea. The thing is, extremely massive black holes don't explode - their gravity is just too high for that kind of large scale energy release. That being said, they can and do evaporate over time - virtual particles, which appear and disappear continuously in a vaccuum, appear near the event horizon of a black hole, and gain just enough of a boost from its gravity and in the right direction that they become real particles. This steals a bit of energy from the black hole, and causes it to lose mass. It's known as Hawking Radiation.

As for where it all came from in the first place, I think one of the prevailing theories is that the universe is basically a virtual particle; a quantum fluctuation, that as long as the net energy gain remains zero, our universe may continue to exist as it is. I *think* that's how the theory goes.

The universe is supported on the back of a tortoise, which is in turn supported by an infinite number of other tortoises.

No matter how hard we try, we won't find the an answere that we can say is the correct one. :p

The more you think about it and tries to figure it out, the more un-answerable questions you'll come up with. And then you'll, eventually, go insane. :greenie:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Shadow

The more you think about it and tries to figure it out, the more un-answerable questions you'll come up with. And then you'll, eventually, go insane. :greenie:

---

Thats pretty much it in a nutshell.The creation of the universe is probaly far beyond our understanding.

I had an idea about this awhile ago. It's still in EoEo somewhere for those who want to read it.

Until theoretical and quantum physics progresses a bit, I think we're a ways off from figuring this one out.

Give it 50-100 years and maybe we might find out.I doubt it though.

I couldn't be bothered reading all that and I don't know how many people have all ready said it, but my theory is that God created everything.

Even if we do "find out" it may just be so that we "think" that we've found out. :p

No matter how true it may seem to be... it MAY still be completely wrong. Everything we know is nothing but what we belive that we know. No matter how sure we may be, it will still just be a guess. XD! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fridaysong

I couldn't be bothered reading all that and I don't know how many people have all ready said it, but my theory is that God created everything.

---

Then how come god existed all of a sudden? What created god? What IS god? :p

Like in heliocentricity, ppl thought that the sun was the center of the universe and planets moved in loops around the earth!

You know what i'm glad about? How none of this has anything to do with god. I'm Agnostic until we find proof that the world could have been created differently. Well, not the world but any kind of matter. The anti-matter thing, about how you need matter to have anti-matter is somewhat logical, but I compare it to how scientists say that the neutrons and protons and electrons are the smallest piece of matter: what makes them? Whatever makes a proton is probably smaller then the proton so basically, whatever makes anything is made of something which basically means everything is infinite. It is somewhat irrational, but it is very logical IMO.

'The more you know, the less you know'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hroth

You know what i'm glad about? How none of this has anything to do with god. I'm Agnostic until we find proof that the world could have been created differently. Well, not the world but any kind of matter. The anti-matter thing, about how you need matter to have anti-matter is somewhat logical, but I compare it to how scientists say that the neutrons and protons and electrons are the smallest piece of matter: what makes them? Whatever makes a proton is probably smaller then the proton so basically, whatever makes anything is made of something which basically means everything is infinite. It is somewhat irrational, but it is very logical IMO.

---

As far as we know, quarks are the smallest. Also I think neutrinos are even smaller than that, but I don't remember.

Fine then, what makes a quark? Catch my drift?

On the other hand... we'll hardly ever be able to identify the absolutely smallest. :p So there's probably smaller things... just that we won't be able to find them. :p

Sounds cool. Really it does. I think the universe is cyclic, as you stated it constantly destroys and recreates itself. The only thing is trying to understand the initial cause. Maybe it is beyond humans comprehension. Maybe there is no actually beginning. Mayb eit is only our mind that limit us to thinking everything must begin which prevents us from actually accepting no beginning. Maybe we are a dream of a being (I thought of this before FF X came out, so i di dnot steal the idea from there, actually what I thought is somewhat weird). Maybe The HitchHikker's Guide to the Galaxyis right.

There may be no beggining, since human thinking is so linear, just like we think time goes in a straight line, doesn't mean it's true. Time doesnt continue, it is, we just percieve its change

Quote:

---

Genesis 1.1

In the Beginning, God Created the Heavens and the Earth.

---

THERES YOUR ANSWER YOU ATHEISTS! < /Religious Tangent >

Sorry for that.

Time is layers for all I know. And you're right, I mean what proof do we have that Earth as it is now was the first and only one that is as is now? This fact will also negate all religions as they were started by humans in "this" earth's life cycle which is basically proof that there ain't no god watching over us and that there never was and never will be. I also think that Earth is a living matter, a living being, and like all living beings, it will die. I mean, it is made of water, earth and air just like we are made of skin and different tissues, of fat and everything. There are definitely life cycles to earth, they're just longer than any of us will ever know. I find something stupid though, that we started counting time when Jesus was born... or died... whatver, it had something to do with him. It is pure bunks. There was definitely time before Jesus and there was time before there even was an earth. Another thing that is interesting in the earth's life cycles is that "aliens" might actually be old earthlings that survived long enough in the earth's life cycle to discover and travel to other planets, I don't think that's too crazy.

I personally believe that unveiling the mystery behind the creation of the universe is completely beyond my process of thought.

Therefore any explanation is just as valid as the next. Whether it involves a God(s) or complex mathatmatical equation.

My favourite, however, is the concept that the Universe was created by a God who made the whole of the Universe from the very snot of his nose.

Woo hoo! Sesspool!

Quoting a passage:

"The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists - and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness - the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).
The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one's inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute. As far as can be observed, infants and savages do not grasp it (they may, perhaps, have some rudimentary glimmer of it). Very few men ever choose to grasp it and fully accept it. The majority keep swinging from side to side, implicitly recognizing the primacy of existence in some cases and denying it in others, adopting a kind of hit-or-miss, rule-of-thumb epistemological agnosticism, through ignorance and/or by intention - the result of which is the shrinking of their intellectual range, i.e., of their capacity to deal with abstractions. And although few people today believe that the singing of mystic incantations will bring rain, most people still regard as valid an argument such as: "If there is no God, who created the universe?"
To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the Law of Identity [which is the Aristotelian concept of "A is A"]. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe - from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life - are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given - i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition." - Ayn Rand

The theme centers more on the nature of existence, but it also happens to go through my idea of the "creation" of the universe. For the full essay, see "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made" in Philosophy: Who Needs It.

I think I've come to accept Primus' theory on the universe.

It seems to be the most logical one i've heard and the most plausable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Shadow

The more you think about it and tries to figure it out, the more un-answerable questions you'll come up with. And then you'll, eventually, go insane. :greenie:

---

Altready done :D

Quote:

---

Genesis 1.1

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth

---

Sorry, evil atheist here, I find many flaws with the theory of God and religion, it is based on that there can be no revision or refinement of what God is, also it does not provide any insight into how God iself was created. Now as I can't be bothered with a theological debate currently I'll leave it at that.


So what we have is:

T(0) - Creation of Matter - The Cycle of Implosion and Explosion - "Age x"

T (0) is Nothing thus the only missing link is the creation of matter, that proves a problem, I can give certain ideas as to how, but that brings me to a T (-1)

Say that empty space is itself matter, and that empty space can be changed to the matter we know now. Other theories would be about another form of matter that CAN be created or destroyed, but to created ANYTHING you must have something to start with.

Also: People have asked me questions about how the black holes explode in the first place, to do this I have to make the assumption that:

1. Gravity has no limits

This would mean that as the black holes grow larger all things in the universe would begin to feel a more significant gravitational force, this however is still weak as GM(1)M(2)/R^2 where R is the distance between the centres of mass, however as the planets move in any direction at such great speeds even an insignificant force, if no other is applied, would make the solar systems orbit the original black hole, spiralling into it until consumed. Say, once the black hole has consumed all, eventually it would be the only thing producing a gravitational force. But considering mass is always on the move, eventually the black hole would have a period of polarity where there are unequal masses on each side, now with this, I can make the assumption it would lead to an explosion of the black hole. And for matter to be once more expelled (ie. Big Bang)

...wtf dude, a bit late, I linked it as an example :D

Damn, I was hoping this would be a silly thread and I could respond with some spam like "OMG PIP YOU CREATED THE WORLD LOL". :\

I don't know if the following facts "rip your theory apart" per se, but they are facts to consider should you wish to revise your outlook on the origins of the universe. I would also highly recommend Jebus's thread.

F_grav = GM₁M₂/R² :D

Fact: Black holes are super-dense mass. The event horizon, which is the radius from the black hole from which no mass nor light can escape the gravitational field effects of the black hole, is visually determined and used to determine mass and volume.

Fact: "Anti-matter" is just a fancy term and is more of a misnomer than anything else. It is better to think of "anti-matter" as "conjugate-matter" or "complementary-matter". The process of mutual annihilation is simply a consequence of the existence of mass-energy.

Fact: Black holes can be of any size. It is the density that determines black hole formation. The Earth can be a black hole as well, it just needs to be reduced in diameter by about 4 x 10²⁶.

And finally...

Fact: The Law of Conservation of Matter or whatever it is includes mass and energy. In fact, it is nothing more than the concept of mass-energy incorporated within the Conservation of Energy principle. Energy is always conserved, and if you see energy not conserved within a system you look for mass creation or destruction. Thus, the mass of a system can increase or decrease based on the energy input.

[q=Jebus]I had an idea about this awhile ago. It's still in EoEo somewhere for those who want to read it.

Until theoretical and quantum physics progresses a bit, I think we're a ways off from figuring this one out.[/q]Jebus's idea was fairly legit, and I brought it up for discussion with one of my professors who specializes in string theory. Except for violating the principle of causality (a big one :p) it was pretty good. Jebus soon switched from law to physics. :D

...

...

OMG I CREATED THE WORLD LOL

Yeah, you have a lot of good points there actually.

The universe was created when I decided to puke existance.

Oh snap, I didn't realize how old this thread was. :p

In theory, the universe was created when a really old thread was revived and there was a huge explosion.

We are all just mold on a piece of bread, everything is just so complicated.

I KNEW I should have tidied my room today! Damn moldy bread...

Black Holes aren't 'holes' at all. A black hole is what is left after a white dwarf star has died. A star starts as a burning gas ball. As it ages, it gets bigger and redder (depending on the colour I spose. A blue star would get bluer). Once it has reached its top size it begins to shrink. As it shrinks it cools off and becomes what is known as a White Dwarf. After a while the star dies out, becomes black and is known as a 'Black Hole'. A black hole has a huge gravitational pull and thats where all that stuff about things getting sucked into it come from and because even though a 'Black Hole' is much, much smaller than the original size it was when it was a star, it is still way bigger than the planets it engulfs. Hence the reason why it also sucks in planets and they crumble and die when they hit its surface.

I can't exactly remember where I read this but i've read it in several different places. Also, it was explained much better and worded better in the books I read it from than the way I've posted it here :greenie:

Hurray for revived threads!

lol erviving ur owns thredz. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slade

Black Holes aren't 'holes' at all. A black hole is what is left after a white dwarf star has died. A star starts as a burning gas ball. As it ages, it gets bigger and redder (depending on the colour I spose. A blue star would get bluer). Once it has reached its top size it begins to shrink. As it shrinks it cools off and becomes what is known as a White Dwarf. After a while the star dies out, becomes black and is known as a 'Black Hole'. A black hole has a huge gravitational pull and thats where all that stuff about things getting sucked into it come from and because even though a 'Black Hole' is much, much smaller than the original size it was when it was a star, it is still way bigger than the planets it engulfs. Hence the reason why it also sucks in planets and they crumble and die when they hit its surface.

---

I may as well get in again before the thread gets closed. Anyway, you are WAY off there. A low to moderate mass star, such as our sun, eventually becomes a white dwarf, but does NOT become a black hole. White dwarfs slowly cool into black dwarfs, and the only difference between a white dwarf and a black dwarf is the black dwarf has cooled enough that it no longer emits light. A much more massive star eventually becomes a neutron star, but an extremely massive star goes straight from red supergiant to black hole, through a supernova.

It is possible for a neutron star that accrues enough matter, for example by being in close orbit with a companion star, to become a black hole. But a white dwarf can NOT become a black hole, not unless it somehow gains enough mass to first become a neutron star and then keeps gaining mass to become a black hole. But that's a *lot* of mass to gain, and so it's unlikely any such white dwarf has become a black hole.

On top of that, all stars become redder as they age. That's because as they begin burning other fuels than hydrogen, they cool off. Cooler objects emit redder light than hot objects - that's why the sun, which is yellow now, will eventually become a red giant. Now, I don't recall my stellar evolution precisely at the moment, but as I do recall after becoming a red giant moderately massive stars go nova, and blow off their outer layers - to observers, it would look like the star was actually getting bigger until the gas gets diffuse enough for light from the remaining cinder, the white dwarf, to show through.

Black holes are not larger than planets. In fact, according to our understanding of quantum physics, they aren't even larger than electrons - they are singularities. An event horizon can be larger than a planet, but even then it depends on what planet you're talking about, and which black hole you're talking about - microscopic event horizons have been predicted, and possibly observed. Size doesn't matter, even amount of mass doesn't matter - what matters is how dense you're making that mass. Furthermore, nothing "crumbles" when it hits an event horizon - it would be more accurate to say it "spaghettifies" - so close to an event horizon, anything approaching it would be ripped apart by gravitational tides as gravity acting upon the object increases exponentially, to the point that a person going in could be experiencing, say, 15 g's at his head, but 350 g's at his feet.

Black holes do not suck. If the sun were to be replaced by a black hole of equal mass, the only thing that would tip us off would be when it suddenly gets dark 8 minutes later. If you were to compress the earth to the diameter of a quarter, it would be a black hole - this far from the earth's center, however, you would still feel 1 g.

And finally, a last little tidbit on black holes. A number of scientists running an experiment with a particle accellerator think they, for a moment, had created a black hole in their lab. And with current predictions about Hawking radiation, black holes could, in the distant future, be utilized to create incredibly fast computers.

Hi Super Christ. <3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magaso

THERES YOUR ANSWER YOU ATHEISTS! < /Religious Tangent >

Sorry for that.

---

*must be very careful when responding to this*

1: Stop kidding around; you're not sorry at all.
2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter, page 1, sentence 1

Space is the perfect place to hide.

---

I can quote the first sentence of best-selling novels, too. That doesn't make it true.
3: That ancient relic leaves out a few very important things: How did he do it? Where did he come from? What in his past compelled him to create a unierse or two on a whim? Why does he let his 'children' defile his green earth with the blood of themselves, and with the destruction of rainforest? There are too many holes in the 'explanation' it provides.

Well said Magaso. I find it a lot easier to belive we were all created by a higher being than to think that nothing exploded and created everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yumyums

Well said Magaso. I find it a lot easier to belive we were all created by a higher being than to think that nothing exploded and created everything.

---

The easiest path is rarely the right one.

I just dont think about it, it dosent concern me, why should I care.....

any time this comes up it makes me think of the book "the history of nearly everything" it explains so much stuff and its funny too.

Cambece

Wow, Ansem almost managed to turn this into a religious discussion.

First there was a massive bang then everything somehow popped up, somehow matter can spontaneously appear from nowhere, *bang* universe created end of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primus Inter Pares

Wow, Ansem almost managed to turn this into a religious discussion.

---

It wasn't my intention, PiP. I was presenting a rerasonable arguement to the statement.

I have no desire to ruin your great thread. *pets the thread*

I developed a hypothesis myself, also utilizing black holes, and incorporating the bi-universe principle from Star Ocean: Till the End of Time. It's difficult to explain, because it involves thinking of time very differently.
Okay, here goes. Don't laugh plz.

In the beginning of time, there was nothing (obviously). However, we know that somewhere along the line, there had to be something (our universe, henceforth called '3D Space' [the 3 D's obviously being length, width, and depth]).
But, how did 3D Space come to be?
It was created by the advanced civilizations of the superior universe (henceforth called '4D Space' [the 4th D being time]) They developed what they call the 'Eternal Sphere' program, which was a project to test their abilities in artificial intelligence. Think of it as an amazingly advanced version of 'The Sims'. The characters have free will and multipe mood patterns, and behaviors. AND, nobody can turn off the Eternal Sphere.
Now, where did 4D Space originate?
From the Eternal Sphere/3D Space.
As with any game, the Eternal Sphere has some glitches. What are these glitches? Black Holes. These transferred some of the material to a parallel plane, where time is independent. Within that plane, the material flourishes, and forms another universe, which then is populated by 4D Beings, who develop the Eternal Sphere.
It's confusing, I know, since time is different in the two universes. In one, 4D Space, past, present and future are closely intertwined, and continuously affect one another. In the other universe, 3D Space/the Eternal Sphere, time is linear and dependent on the universe itself.
Through this, each universe is dependent on the other, yet are completely isolated from one another.

NOTE: I realize that this has NO scientific evidence, and that it is impossible to prove. Please don't try to point that out. I just developed this hypothesis because I wanted an explanation that disregarded any gods, but still explains how the matter came to be.

Okay... rant over.

Eh, it's not important.