Jump to content

Scientific/The Primal Atom?


Flyby
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know there are some sharp knives in the old DCS drawer. Maybe some of you can explain something to me. No Frivolity unless I start it first. OK? Here goes.

For some time I've been a bit fascinated by programs that talk about the origins of the Universe. The most popular theory seems to be the "Primal Atom. Then there are those who subscribe to the "String Theory", which seems to have led to the idea of parallel universes, and extra dimensions. I can follow along to an extent, but I always seem to get tripped up by one little issue that I seem to miss. If I go with the Big Bang (the explosion of the Primal Atom), or if I saddle up to the idea of parallel universes or extra dimensions, that one little trip wire gets me every time. Here it is: What encompasses the Universe or parallel Universes, or multiple dimensions? What was the medium in which the Primal Atom was suspended, and after the Big Bang, the Universe expanded (is expanding?)into? How can something exist in nothing. I'm not talking Dark Matter here, but pre-Big Bang. If I imagine that primal atom before it explodes, where is it?

OK. Time for a snack.

Flyby out

The U.S. Congress is the best governing body that BIG money can buy. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty simple. While my answer is to another question, i still hope it can give some indication for you ;)

 

Question.

Where in the universe did big bang happen?

 

Answer.

Imagine the universe as a balloon. What we know as the outside of our balloons doesn't count here, so ignore that. The beginning of big happened everywhere, it was when the balloon first inflation started. since then it have expanded, to fill more than it's beginning, but since the explosion was everywhere in the beginning it would have happened everywhere now too.

 

Of course you can start believing in religion, AFAIK it gives less headache ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What encompasses the Universe or parallel Universes, or multiple dimensions?

 

Nothing. If something exists, it is part of either the universe or the multiverse. There is no need for something "outside", because there is no such thing as "outside".

 

What was the medium in which the Primal Atom was suspended, and after the Big Bang, the Universe expanded (is expanding?)into?

 

Nothing. Really the same response as to the first question, but you need to realize that the Big Bang was NOT an explosion. Indeed, the term "big bang" was coined by Dr Hoyle, who was a proponent of the steady-state universe theory and used that term to ridicule the Big Bang theory. Unfortunately it stuck and causes people to get the impression that something expanded into something, which is not the case. (Many pop-science magazines and TV shows don't make this misunderstanding easier to eradicate, though.)

 

The Big Bang, and the expansion of the universe, isn't a movement that's happening over terrain, so to speak - it is actually creating the terrain. This is what causes the term "observable universe" - this is the radius from us where the sum of the expansion of the universe is smaller than the speed of light. There is a LOT of universe outside of that, but since the total expansion is greater than the speed of light, the light from over there will never reach us and we therefore cannot ever observe it.

 

How can something exist in nothing. I'm not talking Dark Matter here, but pre-Big Bang. If I imagine that primal atom before it explodes, where is it?

 

It is nowhere.

Mathematically, you do not need an origin of the universe. You don't need something that was "before", simply because time is just another spatial dimension. AND - the total energy content of the universe is zero. Nada. Null. So the energy of the universe as is today, and a universe that does not exist, are equal. Whether that means the universe actually came from nothing or whether it was caused by an M-brane collision in a multiverse... I don't know if we will ever be able to find that out, since we are unable to observe something that occured before our universe was in existance. But it is worth remembering that there really is no strict need for a "before" the big bang, even though I personally believe there was something analogous to "before".

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the perspectives, guys. Quite useful. But I'm having trouble discarding the idea of nothing being outside the balloon. I'm not having too much success embracing the idea that the Universe is expanding into nothing-ness. My understanding of the laws of physics (at the idiot level) tell me stuff occupies or displaces space and volume. This implies there is space and volume to be occupied, to my way of seeing it. Conceding the Big Bang as a misnomer is easy enough. But if the expanding Universe is creating "terrain" it still has to grow (into somewhere) beyond it's boundaries. Doesn't it?

 

I am not a traditionally religious person. I do follow the tenants of the Kybalion; as I find it to be a most objective and dispassionate view of "God". It's easy to think along those terms and see the Universe as mental. But scientifically, it won't float a lot of boats.

 

Still, thanks for the feedback.

Flyby out

btw, I think that "something" before the Big Bang is important. An airfoil cannot function in a vacuum. A fart cannot warm the trousers if there are no trousers to try and confine it. There has to be something to interact with/against to facilitate a change. :D


Edited by Flyby

The U.S. Congress is the best governing body that BIG money can buy. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the perspectives, guys. Quite useful. But I'm having trouble discarding the idea of nothing being outside the balloon. I'm not having too much success embracing the idea that the Universe is expanding into nothing-ness. My understanding of the laws of physics (at the idiot level) tell me stuff occupies or displaces space and volume. This implies there is space and volume to be occupied, to my way of seeing it. Conceding the Big Bang as a misnomer is easy enough. But if the expanding Universe is creating "terrain" it still has to grow (into somewhere) beyond it's boundaries. Doesn't it?

 

 

It implies nothing ... this is why quantum teleportation is possible - because you can 'skip' over a particular point or collection of points (ie. a line) ... in fact, the probability of a particle of certian size BEING (ie. occupying) at a particular place in space and time is zero. Not just very small, ZERO.

 

Wrap your brain around that ;)

 

I am not a traditionally religious person. I do follow the tenants of the Kybalion; as I find it to be a most objective and dispassionate view of "God". It's easy to think along those terms and see the Universe as mental. But scientifically, it won't float a lot of boats.

 

Still, thanks for the feedback.

Flyby out

You can't dismiss the idea that there may be nothing. Nothing on the outside is necessary at all. We aren't talking about a void wherein you can exist - that void itself is part of the universe - we are talking about an absolute lack of existence.

The universe expands existence itself into that - you cannot go outside, there is no outside. It is a completely self-contained bubble.


Edited by GGTharos

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It implies nothing ... this is why quantum teleportation is possible - because you can 'skip' over a particular point or collection of points (ie. a line) ... in fact, the probability of a particle of certian size BEING (ie. occupying) at a particular place in space and time is zero. Not just very small, ZERO.

 

Wrap your brain around that ;)

 

You can't dismiss the idea that there may be nothing. Nothing on the outside is necessary at all. We aren't talking about a void wherein you can exist - that void itself is part of the universe - we are talking about an absolute lack of existence.

The universe expands existence itself into that - you cannot go outside, there is no outside. It is a completely self-contained bubble.

Maybe we need to contemplate the nature of Nothing. Perhaps it is a misnomer in and of itself? It's interesting to read from a different view point: "Nothing on the outside is necessary (at all)" my parenthesis added. So Nothing is a necessity.Therefore, Nothing must exist in order for Something to expand into it. How can I concede nothing if nothing exists to concede? Wrap your brain around that, my friend. ;)

Flyby out

The U.S. Congress is the best governing body that BIG money can buy. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing is the absence of existence. The only thing that needs exist is its definition.

 

It's like 'zero'. What does zero mean? There are plenty of answers, one of which is 'the absence of a particular item from within a container' or sight, or in the universe, or anywhere.

 

I'm not concerned with tossing definitions around. The idea is imple: Nothingness is the absence of existence. It does not exist because it cannot. By the same token, nothingness is something you will not experience within existence ;)

 

It isn't particularly difficult to imagine that this universe is all there is; you can pine for more all you want, but it doesn't change that physically this is a real possibility - that there is nothing, and there can be nothing, outside this universe.

 

We don't really know, and no matter how much you pine for one result or the other, right now the math tells us we don't need to have anything outside of the universe to have a universe. That again ... is our limited understanding. :)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that all this discussions about "nothingness" stretch out from the narrow impression of seeing the universe as a beholder of mass.

Imagine now a universe of energy and in the same moment the "nothingness" is not so powerful anymore.

Spoiler

AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, MSI MEG X570 UNIFY (AM4, AMD X570, ATX), Noctua NH-DH14, EVGA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti XC3 ULTRA, Seasonic Focus PX (850W), Kingston HyperX 240GB, Samsung 970 EVO Plus (1000GB, M.2 2280), 32GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-3600 DIMM CL16, Cooler Master 932 HAF, Samsung Odyssey G5; 34", Win 10 X64 Pro, Track IR, TM Warthog, TM MFDs, Saitek Pro Flight Rudders

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It`s perfectly fine for me to understand the "nothing", the lack of existence. What I don`t get is how the something appeared from the nothing. They say it all started with the Big bang. But how exactly, what caused it, in what state was the matter before it? Some say there is no "before" cause time didn`t existed before the Big bang. That`s something quite beyond my understanding. The way I and probably most of the people think is that everything has a beginning and everything has an end.

 

Well here come the questions - had time existed before the Big bang?, if not that would mean that both nothing aka lack of existence and the something aka matter appeared at the moment of the Big bang. Again comes the fundamental question what`s the cause of this creation.

 

The other possibilities: there was "nothing" before the Big bang and then the "something" appeared. Or with other words - time existed before the Big bang. And at a given moment the Big Bang occurres. Then again - how come that something appears out of nothing at a precise moment? And the other variation: again time existed and in the nothing there was this "elemental something" aka matter in an unknown state. Then something caused the the Bang and shaped the "elemental something" in the universe we know today. The question though - what`s the origin of the "elemental something"? Aren`t we going again towards something born out of nothing?


Edited by topol-m

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think (i haven't read anything on this since the early 2000s) the current understanding is that time was created with the big bang, so you cannot say 'before' because it just does not make any sense.

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

topol, time makes sense only when there is some form of change. Time begins with the big bang because there's no change beforehand.

 

Also realize that time is a relative thing - you observe it, and it is relative to you. It was not possible to observe time by any means until the big bang occured, so time did not exist.

 

Time is a built in dimention/concept within the universe. Specifically, by saying 'there is nothing beyond the universe', you pretty much throw away the notion of time, energy, mass, time, superstrings, quarks, atoms, and all that stuff out the window. It DOES NOT EXIST outside.

 

Now how/why the big bang happened? Where did it come from? Good question, once that many people have been trying to answer :)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time is also being overestimated, it is just a human invention to make life easier.

As too the big bang: no one says that before big bang there was nothing. Big bang was just the beginning of now (whatever that means). Me personally I don't feel like before the big bang there was nothing. (feel: because everything is stated at this point about "before big bang" is pure speculation)

 

Edit: big bang.. I actually have more important things on my mind right now, like: when do I get my credit card so I can buy FC 2.0.


Edited by asparagin
Spoiler

AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, MSI MEG X570 UNIFY (AM4, AMD X570, ATX), Noctua NH-DH14, EVGA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti XC3 ULTRA, Seasonic Focus PX (850W), Kingston HyperX 240GB, Samsung 970 EVO Plus (1000GB, M.2 2280), 32GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-3600 DIMM CL16, Cooler Master 932 HAF, Samsung Odyssey G5; 34", Win 10 X64 Pro, Track IR, TM Warthog, TM MFDs, Saitek Pro Flight Rudders

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

topol, time makes sense only when there is some form of change. Time begins with the big bang because there's no change beforehand.

 

Also realize that time is a relative thing - you observe it, and it is relative to you. It was not possible to observe time by any means until the big bang occured, so time did not exist.

 

 

That would be true if indeed everything started with the big bang. But if it didn`t then time must have existed. For instance in the case there are 10 universes or 1 billion universes that exist in the nothing then there is actually a change: some are older, new appear (various big bangs)... That won`t explain why such big bangs might occure, what`s causing them and again how these universes appear from nothing.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do some reading into the Ekpyrotic Universe theory.

 

Interesting concept that our universe is like a membrane, or a "brane" to be more extact.

 

In this theory, there's not a "nothing" but membranes floating in a different dimension. If that's the case, then there can be an infinite number of universes. Our big bang, in this case, would have been the collision between two of these membranes. The resultant energy of the collision forms matter (planets, stars, galaxies, etc).

 

Also, this could be the destruction of out universe as we know if another collision occured.

 

One thing they did figure out was that space is not spherical. It's linear. Triangulation of fired lasers into space was used to determine this. So, that kinds pops the balloon theory.

 

00042F0D-1A0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000_p62.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing is the absence of existence. The only thing that needs exist is its definition.

 

It's like 'zero'. What does zero mean? There are plenty of answers, one of which is 'the absence of a particular item from within a container' or sight, or in the universe, or anywhere.

 

I'm not concerned with tossing definitions around. The idea is imple: Nothingness is the absence of existence. It does not exist because it cannot. By the same token, nothingness is something you will not experience within existence ;)

 

It isn't particularly difficult to imagine that this universe is all there is; you can pine for more all you want, but it doesn't change that physically this is a real possibility - that there is nothing, and there can be nothing, outside this universe.

 

We don't really know, and no matter how much you pine for one result or the other, right now the math tells us we don't need to have anything outside of the universe to have a universe. That again ... is our limited understanding. :)

Pine? That's one way to put it, I guess.:noexpression: But I've seen tv shows discussing parallel Universes, and extra dimensions. I suppose it was something for Copernicus to pine for support for his idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun.:P

Flyby out

The U.S. Congress is the best governing body that BIG money can buy. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make things more clearer to some, enjoy watching this lecture.

'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

I wish I had such professor teaching me physics :]

 

and bonus for some more understanding:

  • Like 1

51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-)

100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-)

 

:: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky

tail# 44 or 444

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Copernicus did something about it though, you're asking for opinions which is different. Either way you're entitled to your belief of how it all works; we're just pointing out that nothing outside of the universe is required to make the universe work as we know it :)

 

Pine? That's one way to put it, I guess.:noexpression: But I've seen tv shows discussing parallel Universes, and extra dimensions. I suppose it was something for Copernicus to pine for support for his idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun.:P

Flyby out

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we're just pointing out that nothing outside of the universe is required to make the universe work as we know it :)

well, OK.

The U.S. Congress is the best governing body that BIG money can buy. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did universe get to be?

God was feeling bored so he decided to play Sims.

 

God? :lol: :megalol:

Spoiler

AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, MSI MEG X570 UNIFY (AM4, AMD X570, ATX), Noctua NH-DH14, EVGA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti XC3 ULTRA, Seasonic Focus PX (850W), Kingston HyperX 240GB, Samsung 970 EVO Plus (1000GB, M.2 2280), 32GB G.Skill Trident Z Neo DDR4-3600 DIMM CL16, Cooler Master 932 HAF, Samsung Odyssey G5; 34", Win 10 X64 Pro, Track IR, TM Warthog, TM MFDs, Saitek Pro Flight Rudders

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To make things more clearer to some, enjoy watching this lecture.

'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009

I love this subject. Every time it's able to kick my brains in the balls.

The only thing that can overcome the awe from all this is the feeling when I realize how nerdy I am. :D

 

Thanks!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theoretical science have their paradoxes which should be accepted for what they are, that is unproven theories which are subject to change, like the evolution of the string theory and the evolution of the big bang theory.

However it’s wise to remember those scientists who laid the foundation for a lot of theories to become true facts.

 

I’ve seen enough of those TV programs and read some books to pursue my curiosity about this sort of nature and it answers as much as much as I want to know otherwise it’s a never ending sequence of questions

 

I’m going to try and write a layout of my own observations.

 

The concept of multiverse and parallel universes is different from one another that is to say that the multiverse is the collection of universes like our universe on a much larger scale whereas the idea of parallel universes is based on the extra dimensions.

It has been evident for some time that particles like photons and electrons can exist in more than one place at the same time and as an example to understanding the parallel universe is to imagine your brain which is responsible for your decisions and actions and that in turn is influenced by electrons in your brain cells, the very same electrons which can exist in multiple places at the same time (spilt personality? No not that) it basically means that if you decide to do some thing in this universe, it may not be the same in the parallel one and that’s where the splitting of universes occurs, (I didn’t invent this example it was described like so in one of those TV programs not the best example I‘d say) flip a coin if it‘s 50/50 the mathematics can take you to some level (not that I‘ve never tried to flip a coin, again bad example to use a coin for understanding the theory, not that I comprehensively understand it, but has any one seen exactly 50/50 phenomenon in this universe?).

 

Lets look at our universe from a perspective with the aid of wormholes and all that.

According to that theory it is possible to go far beyond our galaxy or even time and the question is why not before the big bang? That is to take your measurements and get out just in time before it kills you because it is defined as an explosion and a micro second of such inflation would have the creation of matter and anti mater annihilating each other with trillions of degrees (no chance looking at it and recording your findings).

How about the variable speed of light theory for the big bang expansion, it sounds good today whilst looking at the most distant galaxies and wondering how did they get there faster than the speed of light at some point and instead of slowing down they speeding up.

 

Look at this theoretical scenario:

The two objects travelling close to the speed of light in the same direction 300 miles apart (no one give a fuc and all that)…

But what if they truly go with the speed of light, their time would freeze and yet I can measure the distance but they don’t know about it because nothing changes for them until the impact.

I would write the theory of nothing but I need another day.

I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to all respondents. Very interesting stuff. You guys obviously get into this pretty deeply.

I like the idea of "there must be more". Extra dimensions. More Universes. They may be unproven, but the imagination has driven the human race from the trees to the Moon. All things are possible, if imaginable, somewhere, some place. So I'll continue to "pine" after the what-ifs.

S~!

Flyby out

The U.S. Congress is the best governing body that BIG money can buy. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...