A Thought

[scitsofreaky]

While in a "discussion" with someone who claimed that the universe is "too precise" to have come about by radom chance I had a thought: what if the "universe" (I really don't know what to call it) was in a constant state of banging. What if the universe was banging but each result wasn't "precise" enough to actually exist, until the universe as we know it banged into existence.

His response is something like, "You can't unboil an egg or unburn a piece of paper. Once the universe fails, it fails." Since when is the universe like a piece of paper or an egg? I didn't want to respond if my idea was totally crazy and utterly rediculous, so I wanted to see what you guys thought. And yes, it is related to the cyclical view of the universe, but not in a way I have seen before.

[pandora]

I understand what you're saying... that the universe has existed many times before, and maybe not each time was well desigined, so it either failed or just didn't get very far... and this last time, it just happened to be right.

 

I think there's a term for this, but I don't know it. It has some relation to statistics, too.

[sonofspong]

For all we know, the universe could be just one big snowglobe, and everything we are dreamed up by some stupid sick kid. (Like in the finale of that hospital show, forgot the name)

[Skankboy]

I've had a theory similar to this one. I call it the "Pearl Necklace" universe theory (no jokes please)

 

Essentially the existence of the universe from an outside observer would look like a long chain of pearls. Each pearl represents 1 bang/crunch cycle for a universe. Some of the pearls are quite small or near non-existent, showing a universe where the expansion never took and the universe collapsed back on itself. Other pearls are (like the one we currently find ourselves in) full and round showing the expansion and ultimate collapse of a universe.

 

In this way the universe, as we see it, is finite (because time as we experience it is a function of space) but if one could exist in imaginary time (see Stephen Hawking for this, it would take too long to explain) they would be able to see an infinite regression of such cycles.

 

IMOHO,

[Guest VorJack]

An alternative is the multiple universe hypothesis. This may only be one of an infinity of universes, this one perhaps slightly more habitable than others.

 

But yes, the hypothesis exists that there will be a "Big Crunch" as the collective force of gravity of all the matter in the universe overcomes the initial force of inflation, and that the resulting singularity might explode outward again to create a new universe with new laws. Obviously, it's a little hard to collect evidence for one way or the other, but it's logical and feasible. Questions of 'Dark Energy' and 'Dark Matter' play into this, so it's pretty cutting edge stuff.

 

The only other thing I would add is that "too percise" is a ridiculous charge when we have no other examples to compare it to. Perhaps the laws have to be formed in within a certain range based on the nature of space and matter. How many universes has this person experienced?

[Amanda]

While in a "discussion" with someone who claimed that the universe is "too precise" to have come about by radom chance

 

Let's say the universe did come about through random occurrences, by chance. However, didn't the forces that were and are, cause this inevitable, eventual outcome, this time around... proof by the mere fact we are here now? Could there be an unconscious 'intent' driving things?

 

Sure, everything might be bang to bang, or even a string of bang to bangs. However, let's assume it came out of perhaps one initial explosion, that maybe created this string of pearls... wouldn't everything have to exist from this initial energy? So this energy would have to be in everything, and everything in it, right? Wouldn't it just be this energy going out and expressing itself in different ways, then coming back on itself, over and over again?

 

I guess, considering all eternity, it/us/we wouldn't get too bored that way...

[Ouroboros]

Put it this way.

 

Let's say there are three basic constants the whole universe is founded on, and these values could be in an infinite number of combinations.

 

Let's say there is an infinite number of universes, each one with a unique combination of these three constants.

 

Most of these universes collapse because the combination of the constants are unstable, but in some of them the constants weight up and counterbalance each other, to make a functional universe, with different properties than our own. But they work, and stars and planets etc looks completely different. And so does life in there.

 

But among all these universes there is one, and only one, that have the exact combination of the three constants like our universe... and that's our universe.

 

What's funny is that the life in the other functional universes are sitting, contemplating, if there is a God that created their personally perfect universe...

[RHEMtron]

While in a "discussion" with someone who claimed that the universe is "too precise" to have come about by radom chance I had a thought: what if the "universe" (I really don't know what to call it) was in a constant state of banging. What if the universe was banging but each result wasn't "precise" enough to actually exist, until the universe as we know it banged into existence.

That is an actually theory held by many astro and quantum physicists. The Big Bang happened many times, but the constant and equations just werent right, resulting in a recollapse of the universe. This happened however many times until it just was right, and the universe was able to sustain itself.

 

But then again, i wouldve been an ass and first asked that person, "Define precise? What gives you the credibility to make such a claim? Do you have a PhD in astrophysics? No? Then shut-up!!"

 

His response is something like, "You can't unboil an egg or unburn a piece of paper. Once the universe fails, it fails."

No, but you can let a car's alternator recharge a battery after leaving the car lights on. A person can also expend energy and burn him/herself out, collapse, rest, recharge, and be full of energy again. Or more appropriately, the energy in water molecules can be increased to become liquid, then decreased to become ice, then increased again to become gas. The point is, something can change into, and back into, different states.

[scitsofreaky]

Thanks for the replies, I don't feel like an idiot now.

On a somewhat related note, I was wondering how entropy and singularity relate. I mean, isn't singularity the opposite of entropy? My point is that if that is the case, then wouldn't energy "fight" singularity, making big bangs the state energy wants to be in?

But, wouldn't it take some sort of force or energy to get from chaos to the order of singularity?

 

Oh, and here is the topic: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showt...597&page=14 It is a long discussion which I haven't paid much attention to, but it certainly is interesting.

 

And here is an interesting article about chaos coming from order.

[RHEMtron]

But, wouldn't it take some sort of force or energy to get from chaos to the order of singularity?

Are you still refering to the multiple Bangs? From my own personal understandings of everything, the answer would be yes. But considering the multiple bang theory, since the constants and equations to govern the universe werent right, energy would not have stabilized... or rather the system[universe] was not stabilized. That would result in a MASSIVE amount of energy floating around in the system. Enough energy to cause the recollapse into the singularity. Once back in the singularity, energy builds [like steam pressure building in a closed system] until there is enough to break through the threshold. Once this happens, a Bang occurs, restarting the cycle until conditions are favorable....

 

But again this all from my own personal understanding. I only went to school for biochemistry. If anybody else here is better or qualified, or has more extensive education in physics, thermodynamics, etc., please feel free to add or correct me.

 

-rhem

[All Gods Fail]

Thanks for the replies, I don't feel like an idiot now.

On a somewhat related note, I was wondering how entropy and singularity relate. I mean, isn't singularity the opposite of entropy? My point is that if that is the case, then wouldn't energy "fight" singularity, making big bangs the state energy wants to be in?

But, wouldn't it take some sort of force or energy to get from chaos to the order of singularity?

 

Oh, and here is the topic: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showt...597&page=14 It is a long discussion which I haven't paid much attention to, but it certainly is interesting.

 

And here is an interesting article about chaos coming from order.

 

Here's something else to consider: the universe (and everything in it) is a hologram.

 

Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

 

Don't know how the hologram theory is accepted by physicists in general, but as pure speculation it's fascinating.

[Amanda]

But, wouldn't it take some sort of force or energy to get from chaos to the order of singularity?

Are you still refering to the multiple Bangs? From my own personal understandings of everything, the answer would be yes. But considering the multiple bang theory, since the constants and equations to govern the universe werent right, energy would not have stabilized... or rather the system[universe] was not stabilized. That would result in a MASSIVE amount of energy floating around in the system. Enough energy to cause the recollapse into the singularity. Once back in the singularity, energy builds [like steam pressure building in a closed system] until there is enough to break through the threshold. Once this happens, a Bang occurs, restarting the cycle until conditions are favorable....

 

But again this all from my own personal understanding. I only went to school for biochemistry. If anybody else here is better or qualified, or has more extensive education in physics, thermodynamics, etc., please feel free to add or correct me.

 

-rhem

 

Rhem, if the recollapse process brings chaos back into order in the singularity, could it be possible that each bang is done in a more effective manner than the last one? I know the word 'effective' is vague, but could there is an ultimate superior state it is reaching to attain, of which we are not aware? Could each bang be reorganizing itself more effectively each time... till we reached a perfect, consistently self stabilizing situation?

 

 

 

You went to school for biochemistry!

[Skankboy]

if the recollapse process brings chaos back into order in the singularity, could it be possible that each bang is done in a more effective manner than the last one? I know the word 'effective' is vague, but could there is an ultimate superior state it is reaching to attain, of which we are not aware? Could each bang be reorganizing itself more effectively each time... till we reached a perfect, consistently self stabilizing situation?

 

I know this was for Rhem, but I'd like to comment on this Amanda. Of course it's possible that this entire process has a "purpose" of some kind. But it's most likely there is no way to ever know (due to our perception of time/space). Personally, I don't see any need for a "purpose". Is the purpose of water droplets to create beautiful snowflakes? No, the laws of physics and chemistry show that no purpose is necessary for this process to occur. Notice I say "necessary", not"possible". ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, but many things are very improbable. To me, the idea of an overriding consciousness of some kind or the idea that we are somehow the intended result of some master plan just seems egotistical. What an amazing waste of space, just to get to us!

 

 

I believe all of these processes can occur with no intent or conscious direction being necessary. Does this mean it's impossible? No. But with no proof to indicate any intention in the processes, I see no reason to add one (occam's razor).

 

Are you still refering to the multiple Bangs? From my own personal understandings of everything, the answer would be yes. But considering the multiple bang theory, since the constants and equations to govern the universe werent right, energy would not have stabilized... or rather the system[universe] was not stabilized. That would result in a MASSIVE amount of energy floating around in the system. Enough energy to cause the recollapse into the singularity. Once back in the singularity, energy builds [like steam pressure building in a closed system] until there is enough to break through the threshold. Once this happens, a Bang occurs, restarting the cycle until conditions are favorable....

 

This is BY FAR, the best explanation of the process I've ever seen...and I was fortunate enough to go to a lecture by Dr. Hawkin! Great work Rhem...

 

IMOHO,

[scitsofreaky]

But, wouldn't it take some sort of force or energy to get from chaos to the order of singularity?

Are you still refering to the multiple Bangs? From my own personal understandings of everything, the answer would be yes. But considering the multiple bang theory, since the constants and equations to govern the universe werent right, energy would not have stabilized... or rather the system[universe] was not stabilized. That would result in a MASSIVE amount of energy floating around in the system. Enough energy to cause the recollapse into the singularity. Once back in the singularity, energy builds [like steam pressure building in a closed system] until there is enough to break through the threshold. Once this happens, a Bang occurs, restarting the cycle until conditions are favorable....

 

But again this all from my own personal understanding. I only went to school for biochemistry. If anybody else here is better or qualified, or has more extensive education in physics, thermodynamics, etc., please feel free to add or correct me.

 

-rhem

Wow, I actually understand that. I have a question about the part I italicized. How/why does energy build? Isn't the singularity the sum of all energy?

[Amanda]

Personally, I don't see any need for a "purpose". Is the purpose of water droplets to create beautiful snowflakes? No, the laws of physics and chemistry show that no purpose is necessary for this process to occur. Notice I say "necessary", not"possible". ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE, but many things are very improbable. To me, the idea of an overriding consciousness of some kind or the idea that we are somehow the intended result of some master plan just seems egotistical. What an amazing waste of space, just to get to us!

 

Skankboy, I wasn't referring so much to any consciousness in that question, nor would I ever imply or say the universe is centered around us. I apologize if I was misunderstood. I was thinking more like some kind of evolution, a similar type of evolving force. Maybe in the collapse, the bang kept what worked out better last time around as it made order in its singularity state, and perhaps had no more conscious intent than the evolution of things here.

 

Although, there are leading scientist that suggest that consciousness created matter, and not vice versa. I agree that a snowflake from a water droplet is awesome. Yet, I think it's more amazing that there may be a consciousness that created receptors to percieve its environment in such a way to create an experience... a way of experiencing interrelating to all things, in addition to one of just being. Of course, that's just my opinion.

 

Hey, you guys are way out of my league... I hope I did not frustrate anyone with such questioning. Science is just a fascinating subject for me, and you all have such a stimulating conversation! Can't say my degree is in biochemistry, physics, or any similar subject though.

[RationalThought]

We can add to the mix the Self Reproducing Inflationary Universe.

 

The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe; November 1994; Scientific American Magazine; by Linde; 8 Page(s)

 

If my colleagues and I are right, we may soon be saying good-bye to the idea that our universe was a single fireball created in the big bang. We are exploring a new theory based on a 15- year-old notion that the universe went through a stage of inflation. During that time, the theory holds, the cosmos became exponentially large within an in- finitesimal fraction of a second. At the end of this period, the universe continued its evolution according to the big bang model. As workers refined this inflationary scenario, they uncovered some surprising consequences. One of them constitutes a fundamental change in how the cosmos is seen. Recent versions of inflationary theory assert that instead of being an expanding ball of fire the universe is a huge, growing fractal. It consists of many inflating balls that produce new balls, which in turn produce more balls, ad infinitum.

 

Cosmologists did not arbitrarily invent this rather peculiar vision of the universe. Several workers, first in Russia and later in the U.S., proposed the inflationary hypothesis that is the basis of its foundation. We did so to solve some of the complications left by the old big bang idea. In its standard form, the big bang theory maintains that the universe was born about 15 billion years ago from a cosmological singularity--a state in which the temperature and density are infinitely high. Of course, one cannot really speak in physical terms about these quantities as being infinite. One usually assumes that the current laws of physics did not apply then. They took hold only after the density of the universe dropped below the so-called Planck density, which equals about 1094 grams per cubic centimeter.

 

 

RationalThought

[Fweethawt]

I wish that I had more to add to this thread other than a comment about how speaking of "constant banging" and "pearl necklace(s)" is turning me on.

[Ouroboros]

I just learned about Quantum Tunneling, and if anyone thought anything in science was weird, this is weirdest, on the same level as Quantum Entanglement...

 

I never realized that the particles don't really exist in one place, but in many places simultaneous based on probabilities. And when you try to figure out where they are you change the probability factors so they would lean towards more likely existing in one spot than the other. urgh.

 

Looking at quantum mechanics and probabilities, there's no "too precise" argument. There's no precise at all. Particle jumps out and into existence based on quantum states!