The theory of everthing, (Post your own ideas please)

[ghost_stalker]

I was again reading a topic on 'Creationism Vs. Evolution'
The main theory of creationism is that 'an all powerful creator' created the universe and every creature in it
the main theory of evolution is that a big bang happened and everything was created from that.
I dont believe in creationism whatsoever, and am often skeptical about the theories of evolution.
So I just dicided to post my own Ideas on how thigs got startd and such.
I believe that before the big bang the unvierse was made of countless numbers of less-than-atomic size particles, charged with energy. And all of these particles combined to form simple atoms, which kept forming together, and due the closeness of these particles many atoms where created, still spanning the entire universe, then the atoms kept combining to form larger clusters of atoms, until eventually they all combined on each other, now these atoms are still made of tiny particles charged with energy(think of the tiny particles as batteries, holding energy), and when the force of the gravity created by all of the particles in the universe compressed the particles an exploasion occoured by the gravity attempting to compress the energy in the particles thus the 'big bang happened'

I beleive that everything that exists is made of the particles (even atoms and light)and that the original compression of these particles that caused the big bang messed up the energy ratios in the particles, but all particles still hold energy, and all anergy is associated with a least one particle.
This makes sense (to me at least) of how gravity can affect light and some types of 'energy' the 'energy' that gravity affects is 'not pure energy but many particles combined that have high energy ratios. And other types of 'energy' that can pass through objects and are less affected by gravity have 1or few particle(s), so the partice passes through for exapmle a person, and the energy ratios are read by machines (x rays and such), and matter is just many,many combined particles that hace low energy ratios.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Where did the tiny particles come from?

[ghost_stalker]

they are the basis of everything, its like asking how big the universe is

[SteveA]

There is actually something called "The Theory of Everything" that many people are working on. There are observations made by Einstein (how space, time, weight and velocity interact with each other in ways we don't normally notice) and the more recent findings when observing things on a small scale. Two different sets of behavior are seen in the universe, one on very a large scale and one at very small scales. We know there should only be one set of rules that makes everything work but we can't find a single set that describes everything we observe - instead we use 2 different systems of calculating things depending on whether we're looking at very small scales or larger ones. The Theory of Everything, technically, is when someone finds a single set of rules that applies to larger or small scales the same, and include both Einsteins views and quantum observations.

But anyway, along with your views of the universe, I think most observations agree that this is likely how things evolved but I had some interesting ideas that might be fun to look for.

If the universe we see is all that exists (which is plenty of course) and there's nothing outside this, then at some point in time things should repeat. If you looked at the expansion of the big bang and possibly later the big crush, with likely another big bang, you could see it as a cycle repeating forever, like a guitar string vibrating back and forth, repeating a single note (ok, I'm sure someone is going to mention string theory).

The thing is that if there's no outside input, then eventually the universe would repeat, identically (not each big bang cycle maybe bit after X number of cycles) because there's no new "information" added to the system and it can't create new things out of nothing.

But, assuming there was a beginning to this, then there's a chance we haven't totally settled down to a single "pure note" yet, or that there are exteranl inputs to our universe that could create new and original events never seen before.

It could be that energy can be created or destroyed but it's just very unlikely to see. Imagine if as the universe cycled through big bangs and crushes, that there was a chance some "particles" could collide and be destroyed - like trying to play a bad note on the string, the string vibrates a little but only allows certain frequencies to remain stable. It could be possible to, for example, destroy matter or energy in this cycle of the universe but that event only would happen once and not be available to be destroyed next cycle, and why we don't see such actions normally occuring - anything destructive like that likely happened long ago and we've "stabilized" now. Or another way to look at it might be to see the planets orbiting in our solar system. They appear to have very regular orbital patterns (if they didn't they would have already collided or been ejected) but this doesn't mean they can't be moved from this position, it's just that it's unlikely anyone would find a star system with chaoticly orbiting planets.

So the point is that there's a decent possibility we could see more funky discoveries as we find out more about how the universe works (or at least appears to work).

Something along similar lines:

Question: "How could the Earth be so perfect for humans if it wasn't created that way?"

Answer: "How many people are on Venus asking why their planet is uninhabitable?" or
"How many deep sea animals are wonder what the likelyhood of having a comfortable 200C sulfuric acid vent around is?"

It's a problem with biased sampling. Here's a way you can show the same thing pretty easily. Ask random people who many siblings were in their family. You'll likely find an average of 4 or 5 or even more and many people would assume that means that most families have 4-5 or more people, but that's incorrect, it's lower. It's because there are more people from larger families, so you're more likely to ask someone from a large family how many siblings they had:

Like 2 families, 1 with no siblings and another family with 6 siblings - the average family size should be 3 but naively people would calculate it as 1 person with no siblings and 7 people with 6 siblings, which seem to say 5 1/4 is the average size, when 5 1/4 is close to the maximum, yet still done by random sampling.

Along similar lines, someone could ask:

Question: "What's the chances that humans developed and are living right now if the universe was randomly create?"

Answer: "If you're asking the question, it's 100% certainty"

If we have no consciousness when we're dead, then it doesn't matter whether you were dead for eons and only alive for 30 years, or if you're reincarnated each cycle of the universe (possibly as someone else to relive how you affected others ), 100% of what you know is life. We know nothing about death. If you take the percent time you're conscious and divide it by the percent time you're not unconscious, the answer is always 1. %0.0001 / %0.0001 is still 100% conscious.

You can also sampling bias also to show that if the population grew exponentially over time, like doubling every 50 years, and there happened to be a catastrophic event that destroyed everything, what's the probability you'd be born within the last 50 years before this occured - it's a 50/50 chance because more people are alive at the end than the beginning... but it's still fine to go into life insurance because you won't have to pay out.

There are ways of getting around the above observation but it still tends to indicate that the average life span of any species correlates with the period in which it reproduces, and you can see this to be true for most any animals - insects reproduce quickly but have short lifespans, mammals reproduce slower but live longer.

Well, that's not entirely on topic but it's some of the interesting observations I've made about how life/the universe could work. (But none of this even really hints at what consciousness is or the possibility of alternate universes).

[ghost_stalker]

Adding more to my theories..

I believe that the universe has an indefinete expanse, and that there was not 1 'big bang' but there are many 'big bangs' and that 'information' doesnt have to be added to the system but is rather made by the results of the expansion of one of these big bang events from on big bang effects another area of space and causes it to compress in on itself to create another big bang as our know universe is always expanding, and all that we know from research is only our immediate area of the universe.

To expand on my particle theory, suppose that the particles expanded indefinitely and that a certain amount of energy in the particles is required for a 'big bang' and that possibly in some parts of the universe not enough particles have combined to create big bangs in these areas, but there are also big bang events that occourced before ours, and the explosion of the big bang propels all particles outward from that source and after sometime they reach another grouping of matter creating another big bang. So therefore the universe creates it own differences in itself, and thus no two events can be exaclty the same

[SteveA]

Well our big bang could have resulted from the collapse of a black hole in a universe outside ours - and we're inside one.

Black holes slowly "evaporate" over time too, smaller ones faster than large ones, so it's also not impossible that new universes are created and destroyed as black holes form and evaporate over time.

Where did the tiny particles come from?

Yes, good question. I'm certain there are a lot of people thinking of a 3 letter word, but I still say he has no beard! :)

[ghost_stalker]

I dont think we will ever be able to explain where the stuff that everything is made of came from, the universe is itself and created itself, our own biased thougts say that it had to be created but there is no proof that anything created it but itself

[SteveA]

I remember having a good political discussion with a man once. We had some different views but seemed to share a common core of beliefs. I forgot how it came up but he said he was a pastor at one point and I said I didn't believe in God, in any typical sense (I haven't been actively religious in over 25 years) but somehow we came to a workable compromise on what God is. He asked me if I believed in day and night, hot and cold, up and down (which I did of course) and then he said God is the difference between life and death.

I substituded the word difference for distance, and God became something tangible (the distance between life and death) that I could work with and get a ruler and math equations behind ... someday when I've figured out how to calculate it :) Anyway, it's a definition that worked for me.

[ghost_stalker]

I came to a decision over believing in such a thing after taking a psychology class last year, that existence of such a thing is just the human mind accepting the nearest thing that can explain otherwise unexplainable events. the reason people believe that everything must be created is also associated with the need to explain things. This human need to explain otherwise unexplainable things is the root of all religions.

[Prometheus]

Where did the tiny particles come from?

I heard yesterday about some religion that says all matter came from god's ejaculate. Go figure.

[SoccerfreakAB2]

I don't believe in God because something had to have created him.
I'm not all thrilled about the big bang, because somerthing cannot come from nothing.
Basically, I'm not thrilled about anything with something popping into existence and growing.

So the only answer I see so far is that there was never "nothing," and that there was always something to exist. Does something need to be created? When you think about it, it doesn't. As we delve deeper into the atom, I think we will realize that it gets more and more basic. We are applying human concepts into the universe, like beginning and end. The basic parts of the universe have no beginning nor an end, they only change. Of course, all of this somewhat gives the theists to open up and talk about how awesome their oh mighty god is, when my little cousin might believe in superman ruling the universe, and has just as must reason to believe so. We are growing a curiosity for how things came into existence, and it's growing immensely. I hope we find the truth to these matters in my lifetime.

[Starboy]

Arg! The Big Bang does not posit that something came from nothing. It simply represents the latest frontier on ideas of existence. There is speculation as to what caused the Big Bang. You have allowed the supernaturalist to automatically frame the debate in your mind by making you think that current scientific theories posit that something came from nothing. There are some theories that make that claim but there are many others that don't.

Starboy

[Chris]

Quote by: Prometheus I heard yesterday about some religion that says all matter came from god's ejaculate. Go figure.

Are you serious? That is way too much. Was it some nutjob on the street handing out phamplets?

[dejadee]

Quote by: ghost_stalker I was again reading a topic on 'Creationism Vs. Evolution' The main theory of creationism is that 'an all powerful creator' created the universe and every creature in it the main theory of evolution is that a big bang happened and everything was created from that.

I'm confused...what does evolution have to do with the Big Bang theory? Last I checked, evolution didn't attempt to explain anything outside of biology...

As for a general theory of everything, I bet that either it doesn't exist or it's impossbile to know. Maybe the human mind can't conceive of the answer because we're too myopic or too biased towards certain concepts like "you can't create something out of nothing." Or maybe the existence of such a theory is logically impossible. Kurt Godel proved that it's impossible for any system complex enough (like mathematics) to be proven internally consistent (that is, free of contradiction). Physics is defintely complex enough, so there's no way of knowing if it's free of contradictions or not! So even though the universe acts differently on the small scale than the large scale, this might just be how the universe acts and there's nothing you can do about it!

[SteveA]

Quote by: dejadee I'm confused...what does evolution have to do with the Big Bang theory? Last I checked, evolution didn't attempt to explain anything outside of biology... As for a general theory of everything, I bet that either it doesn't exist or it's impossbile to know. Maybe the human mind can't conceive of the answer because we're too myopic or too biased towards certain concepts like "you can't create something out of nothing." Or maybe the existence of such a theory is logically impossible. Kurt Godel proved that it's impossible for any system complex enough (like mathematics) to be proven internally consistent (that is, free of contradiction). Physics is defintely complex enough, so there's no way of knowing if it's free of contradictions or not! So even though the universe acts differently on the small scale than the large scale, this might just be how the universe acts and there's nothing you can do about it!

I almost posted something like this. Yes, it's possible we could never know but a couple things to consider:

1) There's also a principle of computation equivalence that could imply we might never truly know how things work but could discover something that effectively works the same way.

2) We'll likely never know for certain whether or not we've uncovered every possible aspect of how the universe works, but if we can predict everything with enough accuracy to satisfy our needs then it would be almost identical in effect (and possibly simpler) compared to truly knowing how it works.

It's always possible some new unforeseen event could occur anyway, so I don't see how anyone could ever claim to know everything about how the universe operates, we can only say that it describes what we know so far.