The Origin of the Universe

[BootyBay]

Where did the Universe come from?  Wait.. what is the Universe?  Wait.. what is the definition of "is?"  No, the definition of "the Universe" is vital to understanding where it came from.  We tend to accept that "the Universe" is all that there is (meaning: it affects us).  Space could be considered a component of the Universe - even if only vacuously.  But, to keep the record straight:  What does the Universe look like?  A ball?  A brane?  Fractional (fractal) dimensional objects?  Or do we even know?  It would be interesting to have a conclusion to this, but it is improbable it exists in its current form: everything there is.  So, how do we understand the origin of everything there is if the sum of the component parts is intangible?  We can deduce a reason.. like "it was a single point and that's all there was because forces acting on stars and planets now cause them to accelerate, and those stars and planets are all accelerating away from each other, therefore, by reversing time, we see them all collapse in on each other."  But was there only a single point?  Were there multiple "origins?"  Where is the edge of the Universe? (or is there one at all?)  If these questions cannot be answered, what kind of results will we get from our limited observational capabilities?

[Requia ☣]

The astrophysicists seem fairly certain at this point that the universe is infinite.  The reasoning for this is beyond me though.

[Bu🤠ns]

asking such questions is like trying to smell your own nose with your own nose.

is implies a separation between what is and what isn't.  OTOH if they really aren't separate there is only an isness which includes both subject and object.

ATM, the universe looks like your computer.

just as any point on a sphere can be regarded as the center. so can any position OF the universe be regarded as the center (or point of origin). 

Sometimes when one asks a question that creates frusteration after frusteration it might simply be a matter of asking the right question in the wrong way.  start with the fundamental assumptions of language and work from there.

The universe doesn't come from..it just comes.

or in short

it's you.

[rong]

man, i don't even know where the universe is

[Payne]

Where did the Universe come from?  Wait.. what is the Universe?  Wait.. what is the definition of "is?"  No, the definition of "the Universe" is vital to understanding where it came from.  We tend to accept that "the Universe" is all that there is (meaning: it affects us).  Space could be considered a component of the Universe - even if only vacuously.  But, to keep the record straight:  What does the Universe look like?  A ball?  A brane?  Fractional (fractal) dimensional objects?  Or do we even know?  It would be interesting to have a conclusion to this, but it is improbable it exists in its current form: everything there is.  So, how do we understand the origin of everything there is if the sum of the component parts is intangible?  We can deduce a reason.. like "it was a single point and that's all there was because forces acting on stars and planets now cause them to accelerate, and those stars and planets are all accelerating away from each other, therefore, by reversing time, we see them all collapse in on each other."  But was there only a single point?  Were there multiple "origins?"  Where is the edge of the Universe? (or is there one at all?)  If these questions cannot be answered, what kind of results will we get from our limited observational capabilities?

Whut.

Go ask Stephen Hawking, and he'll tell you he doesn't know, and until we can get a better picture of the fundamental forces, and how they interact, we aren't going to know.

There does seem to be a number of different theories that support the Big Bang theory, however. It does seem to be the likeliest explanation for the origin of the universe.

~Galaxys are moving away from each other, as shown by red shift.

~There is a background radiation signature (which is actually part of the static you see on TV sets or hear on detuned radios), which appears to have been caused by the Big Bang.

~Looking at a tremendously distant part of the universe, and therefore "back in time" we can see a significant number of far less mature galaxies , which seems to support the idea that Galaxies were closer to each other and less evolved in the distant past.

~Hawking appears to proven that black holes are NOT eternal, static, objects, but that they do emit radiation, and slowly degrade over time. If everything in the universe was packed into a singularity, really a "black hole", then it's quite possible that similar "mechanics" could have something to do with the moment of origin.

Theorising on the shape of the universe is like asking what colour time is. It's meaningless. As is, at this time, anything more detailed than the standard basic Big Bang. Insufficient data to properly make any kind of model.

Riffing off of popular, but contentious theories, such as string theory, won't get you anywhere. Not even the scientific community can agree on them.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Where did the Universe come from?  Wait.. what is the Universe?  Wait.. what is the definition of "is?"  No, the definition of "the Universe" is vital to understanding where it came from.  We tend to accept that "the Universe" is all that there is (meaning: it affects us).  Space could be considered a component of the Universe - even if only vacuously.  But, to keep the record straight:  What does the Universe look like?  A ball?  A brane?  Fractional (fractal) dimensional objects?  Or do we even know?  It would be interesting to have a conclusion to this, but it is improbable it exists in its current form: everything there is.  So, how do we understand the origin of everything there is if the sum of the component parts is intangible?  We can deduce a reason.. like "it was a single point and that's all there was because forces acting on stars and planets now cause them to accelerate, and those stars and planets are all accelerating away from each other, therefore, by reversing time, we see them all collapse in on each other."  But was there only a single point?  Were there multiple "origins?"  Where is the edge of the Universe? (or is there one at all?)  If these questions cannot be answered, what kind of results will we get from our limited observational capabilities?

I think that we will come up with lots of new models which fit new data as its discovered... and

I think that's really OK. I doubt that we will ever KNOW what happened to cause life, or if anything happened at all.... Maybe the idea that the Universe 'started' is based solely on our tendency to perceive things in a linear fashion. For example, Peter Carroll, well known Chaos Magician, quit Chaos Magic for awhile and holed up with some physicists. He came out of that experience with a concept called H6D, which models the Universe as a 6 dimensional hypercube (3 dimensions HxLxW and 3 time diminsions PastxPresentxFuture). In some cases his model addresses some flaws that the current Big Bang model has... I don't believe its true, but the model does seem interesting and potentially useful, if it can account for some things which BB cannot.

Here's an overview:
http://specularium.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=51

[fomenter]

its turtles all the way down

[Bu🤠ns]

hey kinda like how rocks look like miniature mountains, eh

[LMNO]

Where did the Universe come from?  Wait.. what is the Universe?  Wait.. what is the definition of "is?"  No, the definition of "the Universe" is vital to understanding where it came from.  We tend to accept that "the Universe" is all that there is (meaning: it affects us).  Space could be considered a component of the Universe - even if only vacuously.  But, to keep the record straight:  What does the Universe look like?  A ball?  A brane?  Fractional (fractal) dimensional objects?  Or do we even know?  It would be interesting to have a conclusion to this, but it is improbable it exists in its current form: everything there is.  So, how do we understand the origin of everything there is if the sum of the component parts is intangible?  We can deduce a reason.. like "it was a single point and that's all there was because forces acting on stars and planets now cause them to accelerate, and those stars and planets are all accelerating away from each other, therefore, by reversing time, we see them all collapse in on each other."  But was there only a single point?  Were there multiple "origins?"  Where is the edge of the Universe? (or is there one at all?)  If these questions cannot be answered, what kind of results will we get from our limited observational capabilities?

We don't know.

We have a few ideas.

None have been strongly proven.

Some seem more likely than others because the math mostly works, and we can make more-or-less accurate predictions based on them.


Also,

[Vene]

Where did the Universe come from?  Wait.. what is the Universe?  Wait.. what is the definition of "is?"  No, the definition of "the Universe" is vital to understanding where it came from.  We tend to accept that "the Universe" is all that there is (meaning: it affects us).  Space could be considered a component of the Universe - even if only vacuously.  But, to keep the record straight:  What does the Universe look like?  A ball?  A brane?  Fractional (fractal) dimensional objects?  Or do we even know?  It would be interesting to have a conclusion to this, but it is improbable it exists in its current form: everything there is.  So, how do we understand the origin of everything there is if the sum of the component parts is intangible?  We can deduce a reason.. like "it was a single point and that's all there was because forces acting on stars and planets now cause them to accelerate, and those stars and planets are all accelerating away from each other, therefore, by reversing time, we see them all collapse in on each other."  But was there only a single point?  Were there multiple "origins?"  Where is the edge of the Universe? (or is there one at all?)  If these questions cannot be answered, what kind of results will we get from our limited observational capabilities?

We don't know.

We have a few ideas.

None have been strongly proven.

Some seem more likely than others because the math mostly works, and we can make more-or-less accurate predictions based on them.


Also,

Here's what I have to say:

[BootyBay]

I think that we will come up with lots of new models which fit new data as its discovered... and

I think that's really OK. I doubt that we will ever KNOW what happened to cause life, or if anything happened at all.... Maybe the idea that the Universe 'started' is based solely on our tendency to perceive things in a linear fashion. For example, Peter Carroll, well known Chaos Magician, quit Chaos Magic for awhile and holed up with some physicists. He came out of that experience with a concept called H6D, which models the Universe as a 6 dimensional hypercube (3 dimensions HxLxW and 3 time diminsions PastxPresentxFuture). In some cases his model addresses some flaws that the current Big Bang model has... I don't believe its true, but the model does seem interesting and potentially useful, if it can account for some things which BB cannot.

Here's an overview:
http://specularium.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=51

Holy Jumping Jesus Jack Flash!  This is goin in my notebook of amazing theories (it exists in outer space somewhere I think).  You truly are the master of all things science around here (it certainly seems to me).
P.S. I'm getting all excited cos I'm a soon-to-be math major (possibly physics major also now).

[rong]

P.S. I'm getting all excited cos I'm a soon-to-be math major (possibly physics major also now).

DON'T DO IT!!!!!  RUN AWAY!!!  NEVER LOOK BACK!!!!  BE AN ELECTRICIAN INSTEAD!!!!

[PeregrineBF]

The current interpretation AFAICT is that the universe is finite, contains at least 4 dimensions, probably 11 or more, and roughly soccer-ball shaped. 11-14 dimensional soccer ball shaped, that is. But the Brane theory people could be right, and there could be hundreds of dimensions, some of which are infinite and others being finite... So it's really a bit of a mess. Oh, the observable matter seems to be mostly evenly distributed  over about 93 billion lightyears.

[P3nT4gR4m]

The astrophysicists seem fairly certain at this point this week that the universe is infinite.  The reasoning for this is beyond me though.

fixd for accuracy

[Triple Zero]

its turtles all the way down

hey kinda like how rocks look like miniature mountains, eh

no.

it's kind of like the law of fives.

there is no reason why the large-scale structure of the universe should look like neurons, except that it gives certain hippies some excuses to write a new book about how we're all the dream of some giant brain or something.

if you look at larger scale structures of the universe, you encounter an immense variety of shapes, structures and whatnot. especially given the arbitrary way you can colour these pictures (the colours at these scales hardly ever correspond to actual visible light).

one of these shapes/structures was bound to have a striking similarity with some micro structure. we'd have been equally impressed if it would have represented some other larger or smaller scale structure of the brain, something in an atom, molecule, DNA, electron, or whatever else our fancy pattern-recognition mechanisms can come up with.

then there's the problem that these large scale structures of the universe are in fact shaped like Voronoi-cells (why this is, is quite interesting, but beyond me), which only resembles certain microscopic images of the brain and only when projected/visualized in one particular way.