Image: Holly Lindem (photoillustration); Gene Burkhardt (styling)
In Brief
- Our universe began with a hot big bang 13.7 billion years ago and has expanded and cooled ever since. It has evolved from a formless soup of elementary particles into the richly structured cosmos of today.
- The first microsecond was the formative period when matter came to dominate over
antimatter, the seeds for galaxies and other structures were planted, and dark matter (the unidentified material that holds those structures together) was created. - The future of the universe lies in the hands of dark energy, an unknown form of energy that caused cosmic expansion to begin accelerating a few billion years ago.
More In This Article
The universe is big in both space and time and, for much of humankind’s history, was beyond the reach of our instruments and our minds. That changed dramatically in the 20th century. The advances were driven equally by powerful ideas—from Einstein’s general relativity to modern theories of the elementary particles—and powerful instruments—from the 100- and 200-inch reflectors that George Ellery Hale built, which took us beyond our Milky Way galaxy, to the Hubble Space Telescope, which has taken us back to the birth of galaxies. Over the past 20 years the pace of progress has accelerated with the realization that dark matter is not made of ordinary atoms, the discovery of dark energy, and the dawning of bold ideas such as cosmic inflation and the multiverse.
The universe of 100 years ago was simple: eternal, unchanging, consisting of a single galaxy, containing a few million visible stars. The picture today is more complete and much richer. The cosmos began 13.7 billion years ago with the big bang. A fraction of a second after the beginning, the universe was a hot, formless soup of the most elementary particles, quarks and leptons. As it expanded and cooled, layer on layer of structure developed: neutrons and protons, atomic nuclei, atoms, stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, and finally superclusters. The observable part of the universe is now inhabited by 100 billion galaxies, each containing 100 billion stars and probably a similar number of planets. Galaxies themselves are held together by the gravity of the mysterious dark matter. The universe continues to expand and indeed does so at an accelerating pace, driven by dark energy, an even more mysterious form of energy whose gravitational force repels rather than attracts.
This article was originally published with the title Origin of the Universe.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
102 Comments
Add CommentThe big-bang cosmological theory apparently is accepted by just about everyone, despite some puzzling questions. If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into? What was it that went bang? What existed before the big bang? <Lacey@easternct.edu>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"[The universe] evolved from a formless soup of elementary particles."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat was the origin of the soup?
Unfortunately the origin of the pre-elementary soup is likely a question that only Aunt Jemima, known for the first ready mix, bless her heart, could answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love how we can just assume that everything we know such as the laws of thermodynamics are violated by the things we dont know so that everything can fit into the neat box where there is no God and thus no accountability. Aside from the issues raised already about what is the expanding universe expanding into and what came before the big bang ect, we have organization from chaos, a cooling universe speeding up but only over the past few billion years with no explainable impetus. Nice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell at present we are in no position to know the origins of universe, all these are assumptions , we are just in a process of assessing what the universe is made of, even the giant collider will just yield the information regarding the composition in details and the way the composite particles react at enormous temperatures.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe as a life bearing organisms are product of the universe, i feel we are here to make use of the universe, it is only a matter of CHANCE we have intelligence, so if we want to make good use of this gift we have to work constructively towards HUMAN IMMORTALITY. Well this may spell stupid but its not, our life is dependent on molecules and organelles which much bigger than the individual atoms and thus much in our domain of control.
With the advancement of the NANOTECNOLOGY we are nearing the stage we can manipulate with intracellular organelles, thus we can significantly increase the duration of life in near future, but this will not be able to make the life immortal. IMMORTALITY is not possible within the limits of Human body, we have create humanoids, which can have significantly longer duration of life with synthetic organs supporting the brain which in reality is the BEARER OF COGNITIVE LIFE.
We at present are not indulging in enough research to progress towards this within our lifetime. If we can accelerate the research process in NANOMEDICINE we can see increased life expectency within our lifetime thus progress towards the HUMANOID and then towards immortality.
Well if we have to know the origins of universe then we have to break the obstacle of death within our backyard so that we can be alive to know what the universe is or use the information of it.
"where there is no God and thus no accountability"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt never ceases to amaze me how, without God, so many religious types assume you'd have to become unaccountable horrible people. Personally, I think that the concept of God trivializes the significant beauty of our origin.
Don't like the scientific perspective? Why, then, are you here reading this article on Scientific American? I think I'll go complain to the publishing companies behind the latest man-made revisions of the Bible that they seem to be assuming that God came from somewhere and yet never workout where it came from.
No one thinks we've got all the answers - well, many religious sorts think so, but scientifically what we have is a diminishing but infinite set of unknowns. We'll never have all the answers, but we should always try to answer the questions we are capable of understanding.
If one day through the scientific process it is determined that the Big Bang relies on fallacy or that some other theory better fits the known and testable universe, scientists everywhere will adopt that theory as their working model. Most religions don't have this self-correcting concept built in (Buddhism does, I believe, by the intent of transmitting the belief system through generations verbally and with relations to personal experiences - whereas most faiths rely on the written word and attempt to prevent it from changing over time).
Ask yourself these three simple questions: Who wrote the Bible? When did they write it? Why did they write it?
Now consider: What if, when the Bible was written, someone wanted to use superstition and lore to control the behavior of those they ruled? Would that person or group likely try to overlap a new and purely man-made belief system on top of an existing loosely defined set of ceremonies and rituals already held in superstitious circles? Would they attack and persecute those who denied the faith? Does this not match what historical evidence there really is regarding the formation of many religions?
My point has wandered, but what I wanted to say was this: We cannot prove that anyone has, or ever will have, all the answers. At best we can simply answer "the next question". If we hold that hundreds of years ago someone else wrote down the Right answers and we don't question these answers then we might as well have never learned anything since the day they were written. That applies Science as well as Religion. For that matter it also applies to Literature, etc.
I feel that our God gave us the ability to try and understand the universe around us. In this way we are made in his image, yes science and faith can co-exist. Our approach to science as an American people is horrible, we need to teach ALL our childern the wonders of physics and science in general. If we are going to get anywhere in our universe we had better start acting like an intelegent species. I mean, just watch CNN for a few hours!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisId like to present to this topic what I wrote on Smashing Magazine, Stunning Space Photograpy. I derive great inspiration from science and technology which is the expert guide to unlocking the majesty and beauty of the Universe we live in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to mention the Universe before the Big Bang: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Anisotropies: their Discovery and Utilization, Nobel Lecture, December 8, 2006 by George F. Smoot. I present only two snippets from the lecture wherein he states within his lecture.
1. "The Cosmic Background Radiation Observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) temperature anisotropies have revolutionized and continue to revolutionize our understanding of the Universe. The observation of the CMB anisotropies angular power spectrum with its plateau, acoustic peaks, and high frequency damping tail have established a standard cosmological model consisting of a flat (critical density) geometry, with contents being mainly dark energy and dark matter and a small amount of ordinary matter. In this successful model the dark and ordinary matter formed its structure through gravitational instability acting on the quantum fluctuations generated during the very early Inflationary epoch. Current and future observations will test this model and determine its key cosmological parameters with spectacular precision and confidence."
2. "According to Big Bang theory, our universe began in a nearly perfect thermal equilibrium state with very high temperature. The universe is dynamic and has been ever expanding and cooling since its birth. When the temperature of the universe dropped to 3,000 K there were insufficient energetic CMB photons to keep hydrogen or helium atoms ionized. Thus, the primeval plasma of charged nuclei electrons and photons changed into neutral atoms plus background radiation. The background radiation could then propagate through space freely, though being stretched by the continuing expansion of the universe, while baryonic matter (mostly hydrogen and helium atoms) could cluster by gravitational attraction to form stars, galaxies and even larger structures. For these structures to form there must have been primordial perturbations in the early matter and energy distributions. The primordial fluctuations of matter density that will later form large scale structures leave imprints in the form of temperature anisotropies in the CMB."
And some added information from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Technology Reviews article, Nobel Causes, Cell biology and cosmology will never be the same, thanks to Andrew Fire, PhD 83, and George Smoot 66, PhD by Katherine Bourzac, January 12, 2007:
He [George Smoot] co-led the research team behind NASAs COBE satellite, which made the first quantitative measurements of the initial conditions of the universe. Smoots 1992 map of tiny temperature variations in cosmic radiation originating from about 14 billion years ago is the big bang theorys smoking gun. The minute fluctuations Smoot charted are thought to indicate the local concentrations of energythe seeds around which matter coalesced into the clusters of galaxies that make up todays universe . (p.1)
And, from the same article, Astrophysicists say Smoot and Mathers announcement of COBEs results was a turning point for cosmology, when philosophical speculation about the universes origins gave way to a science built on quantitative evidence. Smoots map was subsequently verified by further balloon experiments and has since been enhanced by more sensitive measurements from WMAP, a NASA satellite still in orbit. Bertschinger likens Smoot and the other COBE scientists to explorers finding new continents. You first find the continents and then explore the coastlines and make your maps more and more refined, he says. (p.5)
###
Thanks,
Mars~
It always comes down to "How did something come out of nothing?" When the potential for there to be something existed, something existed. Whether that arose or always was isn't really a choice, as time would have been created in it as well. There would only have been nothing, and the potential for something. Whether an infinite variety of potentials existed and this was one of them, or all there needed to be was one, with the potential available, something would have to have stopped something from coming out of nothing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you need a puppeteer god telling you you're the center of the universe just to comfort you emotionally and satisfy your insatiable ego, then by all means have at it. But call it what it is.
"What is it expanding into?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, something is expanding into nothing.
Guess what? Dark matter existed before the Big Bang that happened under conditions that we are starting to study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn de Valois
The theory is accepted because it fits all the evidence. There are some "puzzling questions". Further research will provide answers which will either refine or replace the current theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe really interesting questions are much more complex and profound than the rather simplistic ones you propose. What is it expanding into? It isn't expanding "into" anything; it is all there is and it is getting bigger. What was there before? There was no "before"; it was the start of time. Now isn't *that* magnificent and mysterious?
There ain't nothing in space!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisspace is jam packed full of something.
Dark matter /Dark energy, AETHER the foundation building block of everything fills the void.
THE BIG BANG is an idea that's time is about over. A shock wave of creation in the aether is not an explosion in the void from a primadorial singularity.
The aether has charge, is supra-magnetic, and causes the effects of inertia/mass and when it's chaos is organized hydrogen1 atom, the building block of matter, is formed.
Always there was was nothing with potential for all what it was ,what it is and what it would be.then the potential actualised with big bang which is no bang at all.Time,space,matter,energy(all forms of),with their known and unknown inherent nature(physics,chemistry,their principles,processesetc) came into existense.THIS IS THE ONLY INFERENCE AS OF NOW.WHEATHER WE CAN KNOW THE ORIGINS AND ITS CAUSES IS BIG QUESTION.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I do not understand is why science and religion cannot co-exist. The Bible, The Torah, and the Quran were all written by God. If any one is in doubt, try to recreate what is written therein.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Quran specifically deals with scientific facts, telling us about the Big Bang, predicting that the universe and the end of time will be the result of a Big Crunch. It talks about black holes. It talks about stars. It talks about "something" beyond the realm of the universe. And it tells us that we are not alone. It talks about life evolving from water. We didn't know all these facts 1400 years ago. God insists we must think, think, think. We must ponder on the mysteries and wonders of the universe and find answers.
To those of understanding, the truth will be revealed. And to my understanding, the truth is that there is a God, the Master Creator. One may ask where God came from. Well we don't really even know why the Big Bang originated, what dark matter is... There are things unseen that our little created brains cannot comprehend. If we realize that our power is limited, we can appreciate the beauty of that which God created. Because we submit ourselves to the fact that we were, after all, created as well.
Something created us. It cannot be molecules and unthinking atoms. Human beings and life is wonderful, perfect. Created by the Perfect Creator.
This, thus, is my opinion. To each his own. "Let there be no compulsion in religion", as God teaches us.
Peace to all. =]
Something came out of nothing,and that something experienced a big bang. What is that nothing-and that is still a question. So one cannot say science has answered all questions about origin of the universe ,and the philosopher can rest. Not till one understands more about the nothing. Probably it had some energy potential and an intrinsic flux that is inherent in its nature. That could have been a quality field with a vector principle associated with it. Like a quality of radiance,or liquidity or solidity which on second quantization naturally gave rise to basic or fundamental quantities like the photon,electron and the quark-gluon. Space evolved to accommodate this elemental quantity and form,and then interactions of the vacuum energy field ,and the elemental vector principles gave rise to a flux field drawing energy from from or activated by the original field of energy potential.This is the substratum for the nothing from which something has sprung up,and that gave rise to time and entropy. Destiny is what relates everything together ,and that is the genesis for the relational principle and quantum entanglement.When disentanglement due to intrinsic flux causes decoherence and macrostate existence ,the qubits of information in the entangled state now appears as the entropy or gravity signals. This the collapsed macrostate where the dark energy universe derived power from the original potential and caused an inflationary pressure causing the fundamental force field to appear. In fact the force fields are a consequence of the inflation since quantum coherence is the natural state. The gross or macro state has sprung from the quantum microstate ,as above ,to return back to the same potential state of apparent nothingness.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe quasi steady state theories could have explained the state of affairs as well as the big bang but for the lobbying in science ,and the fact that meta-reason and emotions play a crucial role in theory formation. As Einstein once pointed out to Heisenberg theory determines measurement,and big bang seemed to score ahead of steady state theories
SURESHKUMAR.S,SCIENTIST AND ADVISER,NIIST,TRIVANDRUM,KERALA,INDIA
When are the scientist going to realize that dark energy is space-time,and dark mass is photons at rest surrounded by space-time,E=mc squared works both ways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh deary me
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Dark matter and dark energy are not fact they are theory and should be treated and written about as such.
2. The universe we live in is an expanding space-time event within the quantum structure of an object and not the object itself.
3. Paradoxes do not exist, just incomplete theories and limited understanding.
4. Before the so called big bang (extremely poor term) there was no space-time within the object but that does not mean there was no time.
Not the best, most in depth or informative article.
The scientific establishment's attempt to maintain the standard model by repeatedly modifying it to fit every unexpected experimental result that comes along can only serve to needlessly complicate an already highly untenable theory. Cosmology appears to be at a precipice similiar to what Einstein faced prior to his seminal views on special relativity. Perhaps we are approaching a similiar epiphany where we can once and for all overthrow the dictums of particle physics and recognize the essential nature of existence as the broken symmetries in a multi-dimensional manifold intersecting space-time along parallel universes. Mass and energy, both light and dark, are the effects of the basic forces of nature that result from these broken symmetries, just as Einstein explained gravity in his theory of general relativity. The ancient Greeks were right. Reality is an illusion. Mass and energy consist essentially of nothing more than displaced dimensions intersecting at discrete points throughout our space-time continuum. It's time to yell out that the emperor has no clothes and reassess the standard model from an entirely new perspective.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe theories about quantium machanics and the big bang are starting to come together from decades of hard work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere do you all think all our technology came from? If Einstien had been wrong your lasers and GPS systems wouldn't have ever worked, and we may have lost WWII. Just because you alter a recipe, big bang/quantium machanics, doesn't mean you dilute the sauce. What i mean is this: Newtons therories were FACT until 1904 when the Special Theory Of Reletivity came along. We then adjusted our Understanding to be what is Empirically provable(SCIENCE!). But ultimately we have more to discover and learn which is WHY we need to stop acting like science is out to prove religion wrong. Science is just trying to understand the world around us, why else did GOD put us here in the first place with the ablity to grow our intelect? One day we WILL know where and how our universe came into being and i am sure that the hard work of THOUSANDS of Cosmologists and Therorists, like that of Stephen Hawking and John Schwarz. We need to encourage our young people to actively engage in learning Physics and Math so we can move faster into the future of technology and theory.
We may also finally grow emotionally from this as well, which i think Humanity has been failing to do, as technology becomes more part of our lives we need to step back and grasp the deeper understanding of how special we are in the universe. I think from this we can come to a place in our existance where Humanity can finally feel like they know thier place in the universe and be at peace.
;)
Telrunya,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes it is nice. What would the world be if science did not have mysteries yet to solve? I'm hopeful and certain that it takes more than a few hundred years of effort to learn all there is about the Universe and that we have not even scratched the surface.
Science is a product of what we observe around us, building upon hypothesis and theories to establishment of observed laws. When we step outside of what we can observe and extrapolate to a time way beyond our origins and then try to establish it as fact, we fall outside our realm of true understanding. A soup of cosmic particles instantaneously conglomerating into solid matter and then exploding to the ends of the universe could have happened but the bare truth is that we will never know. We will never be able to answer the final why until such time that we meet our creator.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally the concept of the universe starting from nothing, going through a big bang and then actually evolving from that point goes against already established laws of physics (conservative of mass/energy) and thermodynamics (second law, the law of entropy). As an engineer I can only establish the gap between what is observed and what is possible as being God the creator. My faith in Him reconciles what my engineering mind can perceive to be right and what hearts knows to be right. It is a personal choice for me.
The universe is a big place and what we know about the universe is far outweighed by what we don't know. I respect what Mr. Turner has written in his article and while I don't agree with its entire contents, it is well written and it invokes thought.
How many Big Bangs do we think there were before the Milky Way had its Big One, or are we to believe in our Ego driven since of being to actually believ we were the first?...I believe we are the left overs of several Big Ones...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found the article very interesting as well as highly theoretical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInflation theory is simply a way to explain the fact that we can observe galaxies that are older than the big bang. I don't believe that there is any actual evidence that matter expanded at speeds faster than light. I don't doubt that there was a cataclysmic event in our galaxy 14 billion years ago that left evidence for us to discover. But just because it is the oldest thing we have evidence of doesn't mean that it was "the beginning".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJamboozle...You are absolutely the most reasonable man of your religion. I honor your tolerance.
Yes, the scientific interests have fuelled our curiosity and it will continue to do so for an indefinite period.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn addition, I do approve and endorse everyone’s concept of the past and present, it is an indomitable examinable theory.
What are more curios? In this Universe, is the intelligent? In addition, practicality of our minds, “Thoughts” which can travel and observe, the Past, the present, and the future. (All at no cost practically)
My respect very strongly is to the continuous Almighty Creator, allowing only the perfect to addvance without trail or error.
"Death does not exist for noone, but only in appearance, nor does birth exist for noone, but only in appearance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe conversion of substance to nature is considered birth, whereas the conversion of nature to substance is considered death.
Neither something is born, nor it ever detoriates but, at first, it becomes visible and latter it becomes invisible. And the first occures due to the substance of matter, of which is always the same and differs only due to motion or suspension.
Because this of neccesity, the same with change that does not occure from somewhere external but the whole tranfers into parts and the parts into whole, all because of the unity of the Eternal"
Letter of Appolonious of Tyanna to Roman commander Valerious for the loss of his son.
...is it all Greek to you? I bet!
Antonis
"Death does not exist for noone, but only in appearance, nor does birth exist for noone, but only in appearance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe conversion of substance to nature is considered birth, whereas the conversion of nature to substance is considered death.
Neither something is born, nor it ever detoriates but, at first, it becomes visible and latter it becomes invisible. And the first occures due to the substance of matter, of which is always the same and differs only due to motion or suspension.
Because this of neccesity, the same with change that does not occure from somewhere external but the whole tranfers into parts and the parts into whole, all because of the unity of the Eternal"
Letter of Appolonious of Tyanna to Roman commander Valerious for the loss of his son.
...is it all Greek to you? I bet!
Antonis
g3wqwhhwdqh
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Death does not exist for noone, but only in appearance, nor does birth exist for noone but only in appearance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe conversion of substance to nature is considered birth, whereas the conversion of nature to substance is considered death.
Neither is something being born, nor it ever detoriates, but at first it becomes visible and later it becomes invisible.
And the first occures due to the substance of matter, the later due to the refinment of the substance, of which is always the same and differs only to motion or suspension.
Because, this is of neccesity the same with the change, which does not occure from somewhere external but the whole transferes into parts and the parts into the whole. All because of the unity of the eternal"
Letter of Appolonius of Tyanna to Roman commander Vallerius on the loss of his son.
Science and religion will never coexist. Science and spirituality though...well there you have it!
"Death does not exist for noone, but only in appearance, nor does birth exist for noone but only in appearance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe conversion of substance to nature is considered birth, whereas the conversion of nature to substance is considered death.
Neither is something being born, nor it ever detoriates, but at first it becomes visible and later it becomes invisible.
And the first occures due to the substance of matter, the later due to the refinment of the substance, of which is always the same and differs only to motion or suspension.
Because, this is of neccesity the same with the change, which does not occure from somewhere external but the whole transferes into parts and the parts into the whole. All because of the unity of the eternal"
Letter of Appolonius of Tyanna to Roman commander Vallerius on the loss of his son.
Science and religion will never coexist. Science and spirituality though...well there you have it!
I sincerely apologize for the repeated comments. I was exporing the procedure of posting and I did not realize that I was already in. Again...my sincere apologies to all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you
Your apology is the only coherent thing you posted. You are slic...I am notslic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour responce does not surprise me at all. It has been thousands of years that people have not been able to read between the lines. The world would have been a much better place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Men have no comprehension of the Logos, as I have desribed it just as much as they hear about it as they did before they heard about it. Even though all things occure according to the Logos, men seem to have no experiance whatsoever, evemn when they experience the words and deeds which I use to explain physis, of how the Logos applies to each thing and what it is. The rest of mankind are unconsious of what they do while awake as they are of what they do while they sleep."
Heraclitus
If you are not slic, you will be stuck.
How infinite is the multiverse (including in what respects is it _not_ infinite)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is too hard a question to answer exhaustively and perfectly, though it is at least possible to ask it. :-)
However, we can already rationally conclude that it must be a purposeless/goalless process that was never ever 'pioneered'. That's for sure! ;-)
On the other hand, it is rationally plausible that the multiverse is forever pioneering new possibilities of energy patterning -- to the limits (or within the bounds) of by us already discovered (through the process of Science) and securely established principles, theoretical insights or conclusions.
--
P.S.
One of those through Science securely established principles (or theoretical insights/conclusions) is a principle that has as if both 'originated within' and been 'siphoned-off' from a 'SEPTIC think-tank' :-) and that is not "fundamentally physical" but is fundamental within any "Evolutionary Pressure Totality" that has given rise to a phylogeny of neuromuscular fauna (most especially the phylogeny of folk).
The one I am angling at is a perversely entertaining principle that were somewhat intentionally formulated in a funny way (in respect of some of its logical/definitional details) in order to prevent some of its serious meaning from turning into a philosophically off-putting ordeal.
The principle explains how and why very many more "human behavioral manifestations" (of What Is ultimately going on) than just religious beliefs evolved, develop, and are motivated.
This principle can be worded (in an fairly abbreviated form) as:
The principle of naturally selective preference (hence it can be seen as a "sub principle" of Darwin's principle of Natural Selection) for "Ambiadvantagously" Evolved, Veritable Actention {selection serving} Systems Incorporating Various Endorphins ("endorphins" is here used/meant as only one category of amongst other similar 'ingredients' whose functional role are instructive in that they combine to allow us to to more likely meet adverse lifetime challenges of "SHI" come "CURSES" type in ways that are procreation promoting by additionally being optimistic and exploitative of lifetime/evolutionary "opportunities".
It may be more compactly and allusively but less explicitly put as:
"The evolutionary principle that a typical human happens to be the most exceptionally "AEVASIVE" manifestation of".
P.P.S. Not every universal (or multiversal) principle have to be totally semantically simple! %)
I thought Appolonia was Michael Corleone's first wife. Please come into the 21st century. Since you don't know what SLIC is an acronym for, let me say that you should not label yourself as one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope for more thoughts regarding forever (time) and infinity (distance). Is there a theory of the Universe that takes them into account? Might scale be the only possible explanation for the basic questions of "What was before the Big Bang?" and "What's on the other side of the universe?".
Jean Rostand once said : " Moins on croit en Dieu, plus on comprend que d'autres y croient." Less we believe in God more we understand that others believe in Him ( aproximative traduction of my own).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConcerning God I came to believe more and more that we are (humanity) in a precess of creating God in our increasing comprehension on the laws governing Univers. When everytihing will be known and understood, then God will be created or more reasonably humanity would have realized the Idea of God. Is it possible ? That's another question ...
God is so powerful he doesn't need to exist. Therefore, man made god.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe laws of thermodynamics state that matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed. Therfore, the Big Bang not withstanding, something has and always will exsist. Physicists don't say nothing exsisted before the Bang, just that they don't know what was before. This will come as a great relief to religionist for they believe their God always has and always will exsist. Slush
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe laws of thermodynamics state that matter/energy can neither be created or destroyed. Therfore, the Big Bang not withstanding, energy/matter has always been and always will be. Physicists don't say there was nothing before the Bang, just that they don't know what happened then. This will come as a great relief to religionists for they believe their God always has been and always will be. Slush
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe general theory of relativity from a hundred years ago is not valid anymore since Vasily Yanchilin in his book The Quantum Theory of Gravitation showed as essential mistake that time and length were considered by Einstein as of the same kind, while in reality distance becomes bigger when the unit of length is taken smaller but the duration of a physical process decreases with a shorter second.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYanchilin offers a new theory in which p.e. black holes cannot exist. This is in agreement with the short duration of the big Bang, where the enormous concentration of mass did not lead to standstill of time. Einstein took as temporary workhypothesis before quantum theory was introduced that the speed of light is constant. But he could not imagine that it is quite independent of all other things. Yanchilin argues the hypothesis that this speed varies with the concentration of mass, is dependent of the potential of the total mass of the universe. Therefore the special theory of gravitation stays valid if interpreted thus that it depend on that potential, which of course is independent of movements of observers.
Vasily Yanchilin introduces a vision of the electron as innumerous times discontinuously appearing and disappearing within a sphere with Heisenberg dimensions. When time near mass runs faster then a particle will have in its half closest to that mass more appearances and in order to keep equilibrium between both halves the particle will move closer to that outer mass. So Yanchilin explains gravitation as a purely quantummechanical effect.
Also he describes the situation at the border of the universe, namely everything there has lost speed and direction, becomes undetermined. Such may also have been the situation before the Big Bang or before several bangs, driven by an Initiative from Outside. In science first cause is not known and we have to learn the language of the gods for understanding, which however is not possible. In religion first cause is the Creator and added is that he is friendly to mankind and wild flora and fauna (to the latter we are not or not sufficiently and that may cause anger). Philosophically "God in heaven" is nice because then within our world nothing needs to be superior to man.
Yanchilin wrote another book, but in Russian, on biological connections. Scientific American may interview him so that we can learn about his new research.
In the beginning there was nothing in the universe.... and then� energy,matter. How this happened? Accident? Chance?How the unIverse became organized?Where the information came from?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt evolve?
In the beginning there was nothing in the universe.... and then energy,matter. How this happened? Accident? Chance?How the unoverse became organized?Where the information came from?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt evolve?
IN THE BEGINING THERE WAS NOTHING AND THEN SOMETHING.WHAT'S YOUR EXPLANATION.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEvery time when I think about the end of the universe I ask myself what's beyond the end ...empty space.Than it means there is no end.It's not posible to have an end .Universe is endless.Correct me if I'm wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe universe should exist in order to expand (Big or Small Bang).Let's talk about the beggining,how from nothing we got something( energy,matter,information).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCalling "the puppeteer" anything but God might be a blasphemy punishable not only by big daddy after death but by big-wigging or stick-wielding zealots before death, too. ;-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever a more important and detailed reason why they will refuse to take your advice is that these people are taking refuge from their primal fears by way of ambiadvantageously naturally selected and typically naive (more or less so but nevertheless always naive) religious irrationality.
Most of them are very strongly motivated to guard their particular "Godly" (religious) surrogate for 'concrete' (not sexual and not platonic) love, simply because they were unlucky to have had some or several of their innate needs (of their infancy and early childhood) irrevocably denied (typically involving both depriving and abusive forms of need-negation).
Anyway, we all tend to be AEVASIVE (an abbreviation of a very condensed but very in-depth, relevant across the board, etymologically pioneering take on why and how our personalities are quite generally neurotically defensive - except of course not in every case neurotically defensive in a religious way.
I prefer to use the least associatively polluted way of referring to what is ultimately going on; so I prefer to not call it "Nothing" - since it is obviously also somewhat "thingy"; nor to call it "Something" - since it is also intangible or in some respects even unimaginable; nor to call it "Reality" - because of the polluting fact that psychological (neurotic/psychotic) "unreality" is also part of Reality; nor "Nature" - because of the common associative coupling to the notion of "mother(ing)".
That is why I frequently prefer (and practise) replacing all of the above names (or notions) that are traditionally used for referring to what ultimately is (was and will be) going on -- not to mention the really naive and completely nutty (or unintelligent) notion of a God, or Gods for that matter -- with What Is.
It's possible that the Universe is expanding into a real dimension higher than the 3rd.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's possible that what (big)banged was an incredibly massive black hole that the space it was embedded in could no longer contain it.
We know next to nothing about the nature of space itself. It's possible that general relativity is not a complete description of gravity even at the non-quantum level like Newton's. Einstein had to add the cosmological constant to general relativity to account for the experimental evidence that the universe is expanding. It is possible that the cosmological term needs to be a tensor as does the gravitational "constant" G.
Dark matter is not necessary to explain why galaxies stay together. It's possible that the gravitational "constant" is a function (tensor) of the surrounding space.
Dark energy is not necessary to explain the expansion of the universe. It's possible that it is the universe's nature to expand. And while the speed of light might be limited by the nature of the electromagnetic field that the universe provides this might have no bearing whatsoever on the rate that the universe expands. The fact of quantum pair production in the vacuum of space indicates that space itself abounds with energy.
Further, it's possible that the mass-energy present in the universe, while it can affect the curvature of space, has absolutely no effect on its expansion. The raisins in a loaf of baking bread do not limit the expansion of the bread itself as it is governed by wholly unassociated phenomena.
A question to Michael S. Turner: pretend the universe is like a water filled balloon; then fold the balloon like a brain, and fold and fold. Folding creates acceleration and couldn't folding make something that was close appear further away?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA question to Michael S. Turner: Pretend the universe is like a water filled balloon. Then fold the balloon like a brain, and fold and fold. Wouln't folding create acceleration and make something that was close further away?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI enjoyed Michael S. Turners article The Universe , but it fails to do something that all books and articles on cosmology that I have read fail to do: give a definition of space . Clearly space is not the empty vacuum that a layman might imagine. Light, which needs no ether to propagate, is somehow embedded in it, so that when space stretches, so does the light wave. Expanding space is apparently carrying galaxies with it. It is easy to envision galaxies moving apart as a result of an initial explosion . But it is difficult to envision galaxies embedded in space, like dots on an expanding balloon. And if space has been both decelerating and accelerating over time, the attachment of galaxies to space must be impressive in order to overcome the inertial forces involved. Finally, are there two kinds of space: the one kind in our universe and the second kind that our universe is expanding into?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding my last question in the previous post, I have heard it answered as "There is nothing outside our universe." My question then becomes "How is nothing different from an empty vacuum?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually one theory resembles a pattern of bubbles that basically says that our universe is expanding while other universes are contracting into themselves, so our universe is expanding where other universes used to exist but have now conctracted and given up this space to our universe. As for what was before the big bang, the theory is that our big bang was actually caused by a white hole which would explain the accelerating expansion of our universe, since that is what has been speculated to be caused by a white hole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was a singularity, a single mathematical point (zero volume, zero spacial dimension). Since space-time is essentially non-existent in a singularity, trying to assign a probability of something is a null argument. Either the universe always existed or one day it came into being by itself. It's no different than saying that a God must have always existed or somehow came into being. At least with the Big Bang, we have testable scientific evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the beginning, there was nothing but God, and God said “Let there be light”.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd space and time sprang into existence, and they were small and hot.
As time flowed and space expanded, they cooled.
As space-time cooled, all manner of particles were formed.
As the ones called fermions cooled, electrons and protons and neutrons and others were formed.
As they cooled, some combined to form hydrogen.
Where space-time was warped, dark clouds of hydrogen pooled.
Where the pools were deep, hydrogen fused with hydrogen to become helium.
It was then that the first stars lit the vast dark void.
And God saw that the light was good.
“What is it expanding into?”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a very good question. I think that the universe generates the dimensions that we visualize, they are apparent. So the Universe could expand forever because the three dimensions of space are simply defined by the forces that generate them. I my view, the real axis that exist are time, electromagnetic (which are two axis), the strong axis (from the strong force) and the weak. Gravity, I don’t think is a force so therefore it would not be an axis. Space seems to be generated from the forces integrated with respect to time, so it is not a real axis. That is why position and velocity are relative. The only space related concept that is real is acceleration which simply is a construct of force divided by mass and velocity is the integral of that acceleration and position the double integral. So space can exist as long as you can integrate!! I postulate that Gravity exists due to the distortion of time. Concentrations of energy distort time which during its shrinkage generates the apparent field of gravity.
Please note that what I said here is not accepted physics but my theories.
"What came before the big bang?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the other axis of the universe were generated by the “cooling” of energy into matter (phase change) then time, one of the axis of the Universe, came out of the big bang. If this is the case then there is no ‘before the big bang’. Try Reading Julian Barbour http://www.platonia.com/ He has some insight into this. The book Reinventing Gravity by John W. Moffat http://www.johnwmoffat.com/ does give some insight into this also though it is more indirect but the book is an easy read, brilliant work.
“In the beginning, there was nothing but God, and God said “Let there be light”.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVery nice but it fails to explain why the protons formed from the quarks in the manner that they did. Same for all of the other particles. It fails to explain how or why symmetry was broken. It is a list of what happened and not how it happened. This is the curiosity that we need fulfilled.
The universe can not have end (what's beyond the end?).Who made the stars and planet turn.This can not be a result of a explosion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour questions involve some misconceptions. The universe is not expanding into some pre-existing void space, but it is spacetime itself that is expanding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "bang" of the Big bang is currently best explaind as that it started with a very brief and rapid expansion of spacetime, known as cosmological inflation. That what inflated was a small bubble of false vacuum with a positive energy density and negative pressure, which rapidly expands due to the negative gravitational attraction (= repulsion).
During inflation the energy density of the inflaton field remains constant, but an equal and negative amount of gravitational energy is built up in the bubble, thus conserving the amount of energy. After a short while the inflaton field decays, the universe is reheated and the energy contained in the inflaton field is converted into particles.
The theory of cosmic inflation explains:
1. Why the universe is so nearly flat
2. Why the mass-density (omega) is near to 1 (any deviation from 1 would have driven the universe to either already recollapse or expand so quickly that galaxies or stars could not have formed)
3. Why there are no magnetic monopoles
The theory of cosmic inflation makes predictions that can be observed and which could rule out some or all of the inflation models, but observations thus far are in good agreements with the theory.
Some flavours of inflation models do not require initial conditions and are future-eternal (once started, goes on forever, rapidly taking over the universe), and although the inflation process (locally) starts and ends, in other parts of the universe inflation goes on.
But since inflation is future-eternal, it can have started an arbitrarly long time ago, and is thereby also (potentially) past-eternal.
Your assumption that scientists (or engineers) are not religious is an unfounded idea perpetrated upon us by a religious community that is in fear of science because science has debunked many unfounded statements about nature. In my case, I find the astounding workings of the cosmos and evolution, physics etc only amplify the wonder of existence. It has nothing to do with my belief that the salvation of mankind is to obtained through J.C. My thoughts on the discoveries of science is "My god, isn't that wonderful." My religion is not diminished because truth is the essence of God. Religion that cannot abide with science has a serious delusionary reality problem. Science only has a problem with religion when religions makes refutation of science without any attempt at rational discussion. Witness evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wish people would stop using the word "mystery" in scientific discussions. I know that it makes headlines more interesting, but the word carries so much baggage, and conveys thae idea that scientists are involved in something mysterious. Dark matter and dark energy are not "mysterious", they are simply unexplained observations. Theoretical or observational insights may or may not explain them, but the process will not and must not be mysterious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeptember 9, 2009 Eddie R. McCarvill
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1923 Cambie-Solsqua Rd.
Sicamous, BC, Canada V0E 2V4
Ph. (250) 804 5877
E-mail ( eddierleram@live.com )
www.ScientificAmerican.com/sciammag
Concerning Sept., 2009 cosmology article, The Universe by Michael S. Turner.
To understand the universe is a noble task, but cosmologists seem to exhibit the same old/same old in new articles; much of which is theory. Before one tackles subjects harder than trigonometry and actions provided by various chemicals; one manages to be proficient in basic math and chemistry. Cosmologists should do their best to understand the basic system that is used in many of the operations of stars like our Sun. By doing step one the steps to understanding where the universes material came from, how it all arrived and how it was then jetted in a contained stream for 380,000 years before suddenly blooming out to a very enlarged form into the spaces to be eventually seen by mans tools; will be as easy to understand as it was to learn the abcs in their early and innocent days.
After the initial moment of jetting into the dark ages; when the material to the universes new spaces settled down; some of its particles became positive energied protons and negative energied electrons. Those two items; of which man has learned a few facts; but whose properties have been partially overlooked; and which fits the particals into answering some of the Suns mysteries:
Protons interactions creates and conducts the energies of the tiny electron and its groupings. Protons and electrons have a half-spin; which tends to flip the polar axis to changing directions with the advent of off-site energies; but each also have their masses and structures rotating about their polar axis. That rotational aspect explains the incoming energy to the short lived spicules and tells of tasks performed in those few minutes of existence. Spicules tasks are responsible for the millions degrees of hot gas jetted into the lower corona to create the items of beauty called , Celestial Moss. That aspect also explains in detail from what system and how the energies arrive to different spicules at different times such that at any location; where spicules can be found; there are always spicules in differing mid-moments of their actions. To understand those miniscule systems in our star will advance man to where the mysteries of the elusive dynamo, the polarity reversals, the systems which create the great white sheets of protons that scream away from the equatorial regions short moments before a polarity reversal takes effect, will all be completely understood, such that man can use this new information to understand the different aspects of the universes constructions.
For that to happen, man must return to the days when an instructors words were believed, unless one had the proof that the master was absolutely wrong.
Words by an avid, fillable and squeezable sponge of new information on our stars ancient footings:
The Ancient
Eddie R. McCarvill
September 9, 2009 Eddie R. McCarvill
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1923 Cambie-Solsqua Rd.
Sicamous, BC, Canada V0E 2V4
Ph. (250) 804 5877
E-mail ( eddierleram@live.com )
www.ScientificAmerican.com/sciammag
Concerning Sept., 2009 cosmology article, ‘The Universe’ by Michael S. Turner.
To understand the universe is a noble task, but cosmologists seem to exhibit the same old/same old in new articles; much of which is theory. Before one tackles subjects harder than trigonometry and actions provided by various chemicals; one manages to be proficient in basic math and chemistry. Cosmologists should do their best to understand the basic system that is used in many of the operations of stars like our Sun. By doing step one the steps to understanding where the universe’s material came from, how it all arrived and how it was then jetted in a contained stream for 380,000 years before suddenly blooming out to a very enlarged form into the spaces to be eventually seen by man’s tools; will be as easy to understand as it was to learn the abc’s in their early and innocent days.
After the initial moment of jetting into the dark ages; when the material to the universe’s new spaces settled down; some of its particles became positive energied protons and negative energied electrons. Those two items; of which man has learned a few facts; but whose properties have been partially overlooked; and which fits the particals into answering some of the Sun’s mysteries:
Proton’s interactions creates and conducts the energies of the tiny electron and its groupings. Protons and electrons have a half-spin; which tends to flip the polar axis to changing directions with the advent of off-site energies; but each also have their masses and structures rotating about their polar axis’. That rotational aspect explains the incoming energy to the short lived spicules and tells of tasks performed in those few minutes of existence. Spicule’s tasks are responsible for the millions degrees of hot gas jetted into the lower corona to create the items of beauty called , ‘Celestial Moss’. That aspect also explains in detail from what system and how the energies arrive to different spicules at different times such that at any location; where spicules can be found; there are always spicules in differing mid-moments of their actions. To understand those miniscule systems in our star will advance man to where the mysteries of the elusive dynamo, the polarity reversals, the systems which create the great white sheets of protons that scream away from the equatorial regions short moments before a polarity reversal takes effect, will all be completely understood, such that man can use this new information to understand the different aspects of the universe’s constructions.
For that to happen, man must return to the days when an instructor’s words were believed, unless one had the proof that the master was absolutely wrong.
Words by an avid, fillable and squeezable sponge of new information on our star’s ancient footings:
The Ancient
Eddie R. McCarvill
From: < eddierleram@live.com >
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSubject: Short Replies and new proffered science:
To Hotblack:
How did something come out of nothing? The trick there is to understand a bigger picture, which shows not only how something came jetting our way, but what were the forces that played so many differing events on the incoming particals. To understand those forces; which are not at all difficult to comprehend, because they have been taught in some of the Worlds schools for over a century although of a different size; (which makes no difference except for the energy comparisons;)will not only explain your questions about our universes situations, but about our stars operations.
To Jim Lacey:
What the universe may be expanding into could have a few scenarios involved, but my searches tell me that after a spell of time, the escaping material, which may now be on an outward path, is still on the highway and traveling forward as well. That; under my understandings of things on a very slight curved path; will have our spreading out articles that have lost their hold together EM energy, coming into the magnetic reaches of a force that is as powerful as the one that had held our universe in a tight wrap. That event will see the reverse motions of that which our universe has gone through since its birthing moments. Well, a theory is a theory.
To Telrunya and to Chrystal Ocean:
With the above as accepted facts, then the question of what was on the other side of the device that jetted our hot and basic particals into this space; is that it was much like the particals that came this way along the 380,000 year long Dark Ages; which were a collimated streams loads of another melted down universes products& quite likely.
To Envme:
All of those above actions do not come free, because a tithe is gathered out of each devices, passing through material, and which it has been reported as about 25% of the incoming energy to a black hole, while the remainder is the effluent to create a new, but smaller universe. So, Aunt Jemimas cook stove was most likely a very large and hot black hole, of which there would have to be two of them in opposed locations upon this very great circle c/w their common barycenter, which incidentally need not be a fictional point at the meeting point of their mutual attractants, distant EM energies, versus the slight outward throw of the curving systems centrifugal repellant. That does bring into thought that for two items to be magnetically attracted; then they must be of opposite polarities. Who knows exactly what goes on inside of a black hole, but while destructing the quark soup; the greatest energy release may come as particles become anti particles; which would then have the excreted effluent to be of an opposite polarity.
Effluent is not all bad, because much of the effluent that comes from each fusion reaction in any star in our universe; black holes included; is the stuff; positive energied protons; which constitutes 80% of our solar wind. It also constitutes the most mass in our star. It also creates and conducts electromagnetic energy from interactions with any other substance. It also is attracted and magnetically fastened to any magnetic Line of Force, which event has then changed the LF into an Electromagnetic Field line, or conductor of EM energy.
Those short explanations can be extrapolated to answer scientists questions about the mysteries of the Suns operations, such as where and what are the dynamos, what causes the polarity reversals, what creates the doubled amount of heat to the chromospheres areas as opposed to that in the photosphere, what causes the coronas temperature to rise up into the millions of degrees Kelvin, what alters the flavor of the neutrinos between their exit from the Sun and the moments when they pierce our planet. Hundreds of other questions can be added to the list of things; which can be easily explained for understanding by the use of electromagnetics, such as the holding together of a universes or of a galaxys product, and whose gradual energy deletions would set items free of their forcefully held positions.
But, the thing I like best about protons is when they are magnetically adhered to an EM-FL conductor upon which circling electrons in melded together groupings and their toroids of magnetics, which can haul more protons inside of the magnetic toroids when the whole thing is in the form of an absolutely straight and tubular collimated stream& well, ther can be a slight curvature to the stream with the right conditions being in effect. There are thousands of thousands of those streams that can be viewed: the best known image is in the proto star Herbig-Haro 34, which has the title of The Waterfall. Although it was suggested to me that it appeared to be a phallic symbol, and there are several sections of the collimated stream that have been ejected from loss of energy at the streams tip, and which could be stated to be& well, use your imagination. Each white dot along the shaft like object are hot spots; of each donut-like section of the tube, and those are visible there merely because; from the cameras viewpoint; that covering point of each toroid has the smallest overburden of lower compressed, but still a hot proton gas.
To see an EM-FL that has white hot proton gas along its complete length; then look to the straight line in the pulsing neutron star Vela, known as The Crossbow; a NASA image. Each of the white hot blobs at the junctions with the hemi-rings is an induction zone of vibrating, standing magnetic waves; which are buried from sight by the Sun-like glare: That stuff is the same stuff that makes up the energized termination shock zone around our star and around the neutron star Velas accoutrements. The hemi-rings are the stars EM energy capacitors, or energy storage devices that are capable of instant energy release or intake. By looking at the proton gas in the surround of vibrating SMW, then you can tell which way the star and its accoutrements are traveling; in relation to its surroundings and to the interstellar winds; which are pushing on the SMW filled with a loose-pack of positive energied protons.
So, call me a prevaricator, or a non-believer in God, (Which Im Not.) or one who says, Yes, many scientists seem to prefer to continue with their same old/same olds rather than stooping low enough to actually attempt to converse with one who was not allowed to attend their centers of higher learning. But, what ever you call me, dont beat around the bush; just do as I do; call a spade a spade. Remember though, I hold secrets to so very much more energy facts, whose effects could damage off-planet people or electronics, which is why scientists and government officials should step down from their pedestals of preconceived notions and discuss things with we who are not focused on such a narrow field.
Many of these facts have been rebuffed; by scientists who sit at the tops of their professions; since September of 2004, when I discovered the where, what and whys of our stars dynamos. So, speak softly& please, or I mightnt take it upon myself to explain how our star injects pulsations of EM energy to its cores fusion reactor zones to assist each EM explosion: Those results are noticeable by the surface risings of several hundred feet every five minutes at differing locations around the equatorial regions of the wonderful star of ours. Those facts may assist those who have been attempting to design mans first hot fusion reactor. Wouldnt it be nice to be able to scoop up reams of the Solar-Winds proton dust; which has been said to be layered across much of the moons surface and use that stuff to create EM energy through the fusion reaction process to supply energy to a manned moon base; the jump of location to our childrens, childrens futures in distant locations? (Of course, I could be wrong. So dig in down and dirty to disprove this freely proffered information. I can only thank you ahead of time; Thank you, thank you, thank you, and there is more to co-ome!
P.S. Informative reads on our Sun, c/w statements by top scientists, are found in the July, 2004 issue of National Geographic, and in the special edition of Scientific American, The Secret Lives Of Stars Page 35, The Stellar Dynamo. They need some upgrades to be presented; before the upcoming solar polarity reversal; for we their readers.
The Ancient
Eddie R. McCarvill
I think there is a mistake in this article, sorry if I am rong. I did not the whole article yet, but the "Cosmic Expansion" graphical presentation gives a wrong impresion about "shift to red".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis shifting to red is because of doppler effect, where things go away from each other, the waves gets longer in period. Your presentation gives an impresion that this is due to the reality that the esence of the universe is getting bigger.
We, from the pyhsics know that as the stars go away from each other by doppler effect of waves we see the distant stars radiate more towards red.
Your explanation gives the impression that even the universe stops enlarging the distant stars will still radiate shifting to red which is not true. Becsue if two things have steady position relatively to each other we do NOT observe shift to red.
Fatih �zel
You miss the point
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCosmological expansion is not that 2 bodies are moving apart from each other, so much as the space between them increasing.
Cosmological redshift is due to the relativistic effects of space itself expanding, not that the bodies are moving apart
(these may sound the same, but they are different
as an analogy
2 bodies 1 mtr apart (using a rule) - move them further apart - they now become say 2 mtr apart (using the same rule)
But if the space between them expands the rule expands at the same rate - therefore measuring the distance between (using the same rule) would still be 1 mtr, (however they are now further apart (in space/time) than before the space between them expanded)
However since the speed of light is constant there will be a red shift in the observed spectrum of one body to allow for the expansion of the space between )
OK, in the presence of such heady debate as the existence of G-d and "what is it expanding into?" I want to make a simple comment:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the figure in the article on page 3 of the magazine, the universe is shown expanding and, along with it, a light wave. But, last time I checked, purple is a shorter wavelength than blue. So the order should be purple, blue, red... not blue, purple, red as shown. (Or it could be blue, green, red.)
You may now resume your debate about elements of faith.
Sorry -- sticky "8" key. I meant to say, "In the figure on page 38..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere may have been a big bang, but it certainly was not the creation of the Universe because it was always there. That is why we call it the Universe. We know that you can not create or destroy space or time. You can not destroy energy or matter, you can only transform it. As short lived mortals on this planet Earth, we just have to accept, if we can't comprehend it, that there is such a thing as infinity, both in time and space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTwo half-universe size Black holes collide. The point of horizon contact experiences "zero g" and the material at that point tangentially escapes away with acceleration, spreading moving apart etc... Until expansion fails to the all attractive never can get far enough away and pulls all the material back together again and Boom
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHeres an over-simplified concept that might explain some observations of the universe without the need for quantifying dark energy. It is admittedly proffered by a simple mind, using limited data and employing virtually no scientific methodology but&
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe analogy of an expanding balloon used to teach children how all points on the surface move apart as it expands may be a closer universal model than we know. In my concept the balloon skin , (BS), is composed of dark matter that was the lightest matter composing the outer layer of a super-duper-massive black hole composed of many galaxy clusters collapsing into a singularity . There was a last straw of additional matter consumed that allowed the quarks in the center of the black hole to be sheared apart or fused by the gravitational forces that initiated a chain reaction shock wave and expansion analogous to a fission or fusion reaction but the particles in the outer dark matter layer maintained cohesive bonds to form the stretching BS.
As the expanding BS encountered matter in the surrounding universe, it obliterated the matter but shed dark matter particles inward for the cooling energy to form matter then galaxies around. The observed red shift expansion is simply the very dense BS exerting a gravitational force on the matter within, pulling it outward, (no dark energy, the BS sucks). We havent seen the edge of the expanding universe due to the limits of our technology but likely never will see anything because the BS still maintains sufficient density to capture light as any black hole would.
Not that I would understand any detailed scientific retort to this primitive BS concept, but please try anyway.
If the univerce keeps expanding ,then eventualy even atoms will evaporate, what will be left but a very large charged univerce possibly to dicharge into another big bang creating
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisan on going cycle. What does happen in a infinate discharge of energy ......Bang
"The origin of the universe" is an oxymoron, hardly a base for a discussion or any kind of further scientific debate. Since it is obvious and proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that you can not create or destroy space or time, neither can you destroy matter or energy, you can only transform them. Simple conclusion: the universe was always there, will always be there, no beginning, no end. Hard for us mortals to understand, logic just forces us to accept it. That is probably why somebody intelligent called it a universe at one time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The origin of the universe" is an oxymoron, hardly a base for a discussion or any kind of further scientific debate. Since it is obvious and proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that you can not create or destroy space or time, neither can you destroy matter or energy, you can only transform them. Simple conclusion: the universe was always there, will always be there, no beginning, no end. Hard for us mortals to understand, logic just forces us to accept it. That is probably why somebody intelligent called it a universe at one time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome of the scientific community all around you and me named the mirror matter, or the Dark matter, as it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, what is Dark Matter? (It is something that we do not know anything about, unknown) if they do not know anything about why then, it is included in trying to prove parallels in the scientific calculations, creating presumptions and not facts?
Let us look at Dark Matter (and not consider it of this dimension) for we know this matter is not able to mix and coexist with our existing matter.
Basically, because the dark matter, is something possibly escaped from a black hole, (a black hole refines or redefines any existing matter passing through it, in-to a super matter, and in-to a different type of Universe. With more dimensions)
Our Universe it self, has passed through many black holes, (inferiors) to arive here, at this time, space, and so few Dimensions.
We have Billions of facts, which we cannot explain, to ourselves or to the others, for example Intelligence, Thought, Dreams, Brains, infinity, things that are getting more refined as we travel through this time and space. Before we even arrive at a black hole, we know so littlie about our Brain, nevertheless we know that the centre of our Universe is at the top of our Brains, it is not just a physical sense, and the centre is there.
We know, from common sense that for every creation there is a begging and an end, yet from an unknown intelligent source of scientific facts, we know there is an infinitive existence.
"nothing" is unstable, so if there was nothing and unstable, it could transform into something and vice versa.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Jocaxian Nothingness [Nada Jocaxiano]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJo�o Carlos Holland de Barcellos
translated by Debora Policastro
The Jocaxian Nothingness (JN) is the Nothingness that exists. It is a physical system devoid not only of physical elements and physical laws, but also of rules of any kind.
In order to understand and intuit JN as an existent nothingness , we can mentally build it as follows: we withdraw all the matter, energy and the field they generate from the universe. Then we can withdraw dark energy and dark matter. What is left is something that is not the nonexistent. Let us continue our mental experiment and suppress elements of the universe: now, we withdraw physical laws and spatial dimensions. If we do not forget to withdraw anything, what is left is a JN: an existent nothingness.
JN is different from the Nothingness we generally think of. The commonly believed nothingness, which we might call Trivial Nothingness to distinguish it from the JN, is something from which nothing can arise, that is, the Trivial Nothing follows a rule: Nothing can happen . Thus, the Trivial Nothingness , the nothingness people generally think of when talking about nothingness , is not the simpler possible nothingness, it has at least one restriction rule.
Jocax did not define the JN as something in which nothing exists. Such definition is dubious and contains some contradictions as: If in the nothingness nothing exists, then, nothingness itself does not exist . No. First, Jocax defined what it means to exist: Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality . Therefore, JN has been defined as something that:
1- Has no physical elements of any kind (particles, energy, space, etc.)
2- Has no laws (no rules of any kind).
Being so, JN could have physically existed. JN is a construction that differs from the trivial nothingness since it does not contain the rule Nothing can happen . That way, Jocax liberates his JN from semantic paradoxes like: If it exists, then it does not exist and claims that this nothingness is SOMETHING that could have existed. That is, JN is the simpler possible physical structure, something like the minimal state of nature. And also the natural candidate for the origin of the universe.
We must not confuse the definition of the NJ with rules to be followed. It is only the declaration of a state. If nature is in the state defined by conditions 1 and 2 above, we say it is a Jocaxian-Nothingness . The state of a system is something that can change, differently from the rule that must be followed by the system (otherwise it would not be a rule). For example, the state has no physical elements ; it is a state, not a rule because, occasionally this state may change. If it was a rule it could not change (unless another rule eliminated the first one).
Being free of any elements, JN does not presume the existence of any existing thing but its own and, by the Occams Razor , it must be the simpler state possible of nature, therefore with no need for explanations about its origin. JN, of course, does not currently exist, but may have existed in a distant past. That is, JN would be the universe itself defined as a set of all existing things in its minimal state. Thus we can also say the Universe (being a JN) has always existed.
JN, as well as everything that can be understood by means of logic, must follow the tautology: it may or may NOT happen . This tautology absolute logical truth as we shall see, has also a semantic value in JN: it allows things to happen (or not).
We cannot say that events in the JN must necessarily occur. Eventually, it is possible that nothing really happens, that is, JN may continue indefinitely (time does not exist in a JN) without changing its initial state and with no occurrences. But there is a possibility that random phenomena can derive from this absolute nothingness. This conclusion comes logically from the analysis of a system without premises: as JN, by definition, does not have laws, it can be shaped as a logical system without premises.
We shall interrupt a little in order to open up an explanatory digression. We are dealing with two types of Jocaxian-Nothingness : the physical object named JN , which was the universe in its minimal state with the properties described above; and the theory which analyses this object, the JN-Theory. The JN-Theory, the theory about the JN-object (this text), uses logical rules to help us understand the JN-Object. But JN-object itself does not follow logical rules, once there are no laws it must obey. Nevertheless, I do not believe we will let possibilities to JN-object escape if we analyze it according to classic logic. However, we must be aware that this logical analysis (JN-Theory) could maybe limit some potentiality of JN-Object.
Within a system without premises, we cannot conclude that something cannot happen. There are no laws from which we can draw this conclusion. That is, there is no prohibition for anything to happen. If there is no prohibition for anything to happen, then, eventually, something may happen. That is, the tautological logics remain true in a system without premises: something happens or not . If something occasionally happens, this something must not obey rules and, therefore, would be totally random and unpredictable.
We call the first JN randomizations Schizo-Creations. This schizo-creations, once they come from something without laws, are totally random and, if we could watch them, they would seem completely schizophrenic . Of course with the first randomizations, JN is no longer the original JN as now it owns something, that is, the JN transforms. Because JN is not limited by any laws, it may eventually also generate laws, to which its elements - now itself would have to obey.
Let us show how the random generation of laws can produce a logical universe: suppose laws are generated randomly in a sequence. If a new law is generated and does not conflict with the others, all of them remain undamaged in the set of generated laws. However, if a law that conflicts with other laws previously generated appears, it replaces (kills) the previous laws that are inconsistent with it, since it must be obeyed (until a newer law opposes to it). Thus, in a true natural selection of laws, only a little set of laws compatible to each other would last. That answers a fundamental philosophical question about our universe: Why does the universe follow logical rules?
Thereby, the Jocaxian Nothingness is the natural candidate for the origin of the our cosmo, since it is the simpler possible state nature could present: a state of such simplicity there would not be the need to explain its existence. And, by logical consequence of this state, anything could be (or not) randomized, even our physical laws and elementary particles.
The Jocaxian Nothingness [Nada Jocaxiano]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJoão Carlos Holland de Barcellos
translated by Debora Policastro
The “Jocaxian Nothingness” (JN) is the “Nothingness” that exists. It is a physical system devoid not only of physical elements and physical laws, but also of rules of any kind.
In order to understand and intuit JN as an “existent nothingness”, we can mentally build it as follows: we withdraw all the matter, energy and the field they generate from the universe. Then we can withdraw dark energy and dark matter. What is left is something that is not the nonexistent. Let us continue our mental experiment and suppress elements of the universe: now, we withdraw physical laws and spatial dimensions. If we do not forget to withdraw anything, what is left is a JN: an existent nothingness.
JN is different from the Nothingness we generally think of. The commonly believed nothingness, which we might call “Trivial Nothingness” to distinguish it from the JN, is something from which nothing can arise, that is, the “Trivial Nothing” follows a rule: “Nothing can happen”. Thus, the “Trivial Nothingness”, the nothingness people generally think of when talking about “nothingness”, is not the simpler possible nothingness, it has at least one restriction rule.
Jocax did not define the JN as something in which nothing exists. Such definition is dubious and contains some contradictions as: “If in the nothingness nothing exists, then, nothingness itself does not exist”. No. First, Jocax defined what it means to exist: “Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality”. Therefore, JN has been defined as something that:
1- Has no physical elements of any kind (particles, energy, space, etc.)
2- Has no laws (no rules of any kind).
Being so, JN could have physically existed. JN is a construction that differs from the “trivial nothingness” since it does not contain the rule “Nothing can happen”. That way, Jocax liberates his JN from semantic paradoxes like: “If it exists, then it does not exist” and claims that this nothingness is SOMETHING that could have existed. That is, JN is the simpler possible physical structure, something like the minimal state of nature. And also the natural candidate for the origin of the universe.
We must not confuse the definition of the NJ with rules to be followed. It is only the declaration of a state. If nature is in the state defined by conditions 1 and 2 above, we say it is a “Jocaxian-Nothingness”. The state of a system is something that can change, differently from the rule that must be followed by the system (otherwise it would not be a rule). For example, the state “has no physical elements”; it is a state, not a rule because, occasionally this state may change. If it was a rule it could not change (unless another rule eliminated the first one).
Being free of any elements, JN does not presume the existence of any existing thing but its own and, by the “Occam’s Razor”, it must be the simpler state possible of nature, therefore with no need for explanations about its origin. JN, of course, does not currently exist, but may have existed in a distant past. That is, JN would be the universe itself – defined as a set of all existing things – in its minimal state. Thus we can also say the Universe (being a JN) has always existed.
JN, as well as everything that can be understood by means of logic, must follow the tautology: “it may or may NOT happen”. This tautology – absolute logical truth – as we shall see, has also a semantic value in JN: it allows things to happen (or not).
We cannot say that events in the JN must necessarily occur. Eventually, it is possible that nothing really happens, that is, JN may continue “indefinitely” (time does not exist in a JN) without changing its initial state and with no occurrences. But there is a possibility that random phenomena can derive from this absolute nothingness. This conclusion comes logically from the analysis of a system without premises: as JN, by definition, does not have laws, it can be shaped as a logical system without premises.
We shall interrupt a little in order to open up an explanatory digression. We are dealing with two types of “Jocaxian-Nothingness”: the physical object named “JN”, which was the universe in its minimal state with the properties described above; and the theory which analyses this object, the JN-Theory. The JN-Theory, the theory about the JN-object (this text), uses logical rules to help us understand the JN-Object. But JN-object itself does not follow logical rules, once there are no laws it must obey. Nevertheless, I do not believe we will let possibilities to JN-object escape if we analyze it according to classic logic. However, we must be aware that this logical analysis (JN-Theory) could maybe limit some potentiality of JN-Object.
Within a system without premises, we cannot conclude that something cannot happen. There are no laws from which we can draw this conclusion. That is, there is no prohibition for anything to happen. If there is no prohibition for anything to happen, then, eventually, something may happen. That is, the tautological logics remain true in a system without premises: “something happens or not”. If something occasionally happens, this something must not obey rules and, therefore, would be totally random and unpredictable.
We call the first JN randomizations Schizo-Creations. This schizo-creations, once they come from something without laws, are totally random and, if we could watch them, they would seem completely “schizophrenic”. Of course with the first randomizations, JN is no longer the original JN as now it owns something, that is, the JN transforms. Because JN is not limited by any laws, it may eventually also generate laws, to which its elements - now itself – would have to obey.
Let us show how the random generation of laws can produce a logical universe: suppose laws are generated randomly in a sequence. If a new law is generated and does not conflict with the others, all of them remain undamaged in the set of generated laws. However, if a law that conflicts with other laws previously generated appears, it replaces (kills) the previous laws that are inconsistent with it, since it must be obeyed (until a newer law opposes to it). Thus, in a true “natural selection” of laws, only a little set of laws compatible to each other would last. That answers a fundamental philosophical question about our universe: “Why does the universe follow logical rules?”
Thereby, the Jocaxian Nothingness is the natural candidate for the origin of the our cosmo, since it is the simpler possible state nature could present: a state of such simplicity there would not be the need to explain its existence. And, by logical consequence of this state, anything could be (or not) randomized, even our physical laws and elementary particles.
The Jocaxian Nothingness [Nada Jocaxiano]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJo�o Carlos Holland de Barcellos
translated by Debora Policastro
The Jocaxian Nothingness (JN) is the Nothingness that exists. It is a physical system devoid not only of physical elements and physical laws, but also of rules of any kind.
In order to understand and intuit JN as an existent nothingness , we can mentally build it as follows: we withdraw all the matter, energy and the field they generate from the universe. Then we can withdraw dark energy and dark matter. What is left is something that is not the nonexistent. Let us continue our mental experiment and suppress elements of the universe: now, we withdraw physical laws and spatial dimensions. If we do not forget to withdraw anything, what is left is a JN: an existent nothingness.
JN is different from the Nothingness we generally think of. The commonly believed nothingness, which we might call Trivial Nothingness to distinguish it from the JN, is something from which nothing can arise, that is, the Trivial Nothing follows a rule: Nothing can happen . Thus, the Trivial Nothingness , the nothingness people generally think of when talking about nothingness , is not the simpler possible nothingness, it has at least one restriction rule.
Jocax did not define the JN as something in which nothing exists. Such definition is dubious and contains some contradictions as: If in the nothingness nothing exists, then, nothingness itself does not exist . No. First, Jocax defined what it means to exist: Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality . Therefore, JN has been defined as something that:
1- Has no physical elements of any kind (particles, energy, space, etc.)
2- Has no laws (no rules of any kind).
Being so, JN could have physically existed. JN is a construction that differs from the trivial nothingness since it does not contain the rule Nothing can happen . That way, Jocax liberates his JN from semantic paradoxes like: If it exists, then it does not exist and claims that this nothingness is SOMETHING that could have existed. That is, JN is the simpler possible physical structure, something like the minimal state of nature. And also the natural candidate for the origin of the universe.
We must not confuse the definition of the NJ with rules to be followed. It is only the declaration of a state. If nature is in the state defined by conditions 1 and 2 above, we say it is a Jocaxian-Nothingness . The state of a system is something that can change, differently from the rule that must be followed by the system (otherwise it would not be a rule). For example, the state has no physical elements ; it is a state, not a rule because, occasionally this state may change. If it was a rule it could not change (unless another rule eliminated the first one).
Being free of any elements, JN does not presume the existence of any existing thing but its own and, by the Occams Razor , it must be the simpler state possible of nature, therefore with no need for explanations about its origin. JN, of course, does not currently exist, but may have existed in a distant past. That is, JN would be the universe itself defined as a set of all existing things in its minimal state. Thus we can also say the Universe (being a JN) has always existed.
JN, as well as everything that can be understood by means of logic, must follow the tautology: it may or may NOT happen . This tautology absolute logical truth as we shall see, has also a semantic value in JN: it allows things to happen (or not).
We cannot say that events in the JN must necessarily occur. Eventually, it is possible that nothing really happens, that is, JN may continue indefinitely (time does not exist in a JN) without changing its initial state and with no occurrences. But there is a possibility that random phenomena can derive from this absolute nothingness. This conclusion comes logically from the analysis of a system without premises: as JN, by definition, does not have laws, it can be shaped as a logical system without premises.
We shall interrupt a little in order to open up an explanatory digression. We are dealing with two types of Jocaxian-Nothingness : the physical object named JN , which was the universe in its minimal state with the properties described above; and the theory which analyses this object, the JN-Theory. The JN-Theory, the theory about the JN-object (this text), uses logical rules to help us understand the JN-Object. But JN-object itself does not follow logical rules, once there are no laws it must obey. Nevertheless, I do not believe we will let possibilities to JN-object escape if we analyze it according to classic logic. However, we must be aware that this logical analysis (JN-Theory) could maybe limit some potentiality of JN-Object.
Within a system without premises, we cannot conclude that something cannot happen. There are no laws from which we can draw this conclusion. That is, there is no prohibition for anything to happen. If there is no prohibition for anything to happen, then, eventually, something may happen. That is, the tautological logics remain true in a system without premises: something happens or not . If something occasionally happens, this something must not obey rules and, therefore, would be totally random and unpredictable.
We call the first JN randomizations Schizo-Creations. This schizo-creations, once they come from something without laws, are totally random and, if we could watch them, they would seem completely schizophrenic . Of course with the first randomizations, JN is no longer the original JN as now it owns something, that is, the JN transforms. Because JN is not limited by any laws, it may eventually also generate laws, to which its elements - now itself would have to obey.
Let us show how the random generation of laws can produce a logical universe: suppose laws are generated randomly in a sequence. If a new law is generated and does not conflict with the others, all of them remain undamaged in the set of generated laws. However, if a law that conflicts with other laws previously generated appears, it replaces (kills) the previous laws that are inconsistent with it, since it must be obeyed (until a newer law opposes to it). Thus, in a true natural selection of laws, only a little set of laws compatible to each other would last. That answers a fundamental philosophical question about our universe: Why does the universe follow logical rules?
Thereby, the Jocaxian Nothingness is the natural candidate for the origin of the our cosmo, since it is the simpler possible state nature could present: a state of such simplicity there would not be the need to explain its existence. And, by logical consequence of this state, anything could be (or not) randomized, even our physical laws and elementary particles.
The Jocaxian Nothingness [Nada Jocaxiano]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJoão Carlos Holland de Barcellos
translated by Debora Policastro
The “Jocaxian Nothingness” (JN) is the “Nothingness” that exists. It is a physical system devoid not only of physical elements and physical laws, but also of rules of any kind.
In order to understand and intuit JN as an “existent nothingness”, we can mentally build it as follows: we withdraw all the matter, energy and the field they generate from the universe. Then we can withdraw dark energy and dark matter. What is left is something that is not the nonexistent. Let us continue our mental experiment and suppress elements of the universe: now, we withdraw physical laws and spatial dimensions. If we do not forget to withdraw anything, what is left is a JN: an existent nothingness.
JN is different from the Nothingness we generally think of. The commonly believed nothingness, which we might call “Trivial Nothingness” to distinguish it from the JN, is something from which nothing can arise, that is, the “Trivial Nothing” follows a rule: “Nothing can happen”. Thus, the “Trivial Nothingness”, the nothingness people generally think of when talking about “nothingness”, is not the simpler possible nothingness, it has at least one restriction rule.
Jocax did not define the JN as something in which nothing exists. Such definition is dubious and contains some contradictions as: “If in the nothingness nothing exists, then, nothingness itself does not exist”. No. First, Jocax defined what it means to exist: “Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality”. Therefore, JN has been defined as something that:
1- Has no physical elements of any kind (particles, energy, space, etc.)
2- Has no laws (no rules of any kind).
Being so, JN could have physically existed. JN is a construction that differs from the “trivial nothingness” since it does not contain the rule “Nothing can happen”. That way, Jocax liberates his JN from semantic paradoxes like: “If it exists, then it does not exist” and claims that this nothingness is SOMETHING that could have existed. That is, JN is the simpler possible physical structure, something like the minimal state of nature. And also the natural candidate for the origin of the universe.
We must not confuse the definition of the NJ with rules to be followed. It is only the declaration of a state. If nature is in the state defined by conditions 1 and 2 above, we say it is a “Jocaxian-Nothingness”. The state of a system is something that can change, differently from the rule that must be followed by the system (otherwise it would not be a rule). For example, the state “has no physical elements”; it is a state, not a rule because, occasionally this state may change. If it was a rule it could not change (unless another rule eliminated the first one).
Being free of any elements, JN does not presume the existence of any existing thing but its own and, by the “Occam’s Razor”, it must be the simpler state possible of nature, therefore with no need for explanations about its origin. JN, of course, does not currently exist, but may have existed in a distant past. That is, JN would be the universe itself – defined as a set of all existing things – in its minimal state. Thus we can also say the Universe (being a JN) has always existed.
JN, as well as everything that can be understood by means of logic, must follow the tautology: “it may or may NOT happen”. This tautology – absolute logical truth – as we shall see, has also a semantic value in JN: it allows things to happen (or not).
We cannot say that events in the JN must necessarily occur. Eventually, it is possible that nothing really happens, that is, JN may continue “indefinitely” (time does not exist in a JN) without changing its initial state and with no occurrences. But there is a possibility that random phenomena can derive from this absolute nothingness. This conclusion comes logically from the analysis of a system without premises: as JN, by definition, does not have laws, it can be shaped as a logical system without premises.
We shall interrupt a little in order to open up an explanatory digression. We are dealing with two types of “Jocaxian-Nothingness”: the physical object named “JN”, which was the universe in its minimal state with the properties described above; and the theory which analyses this object, the JN-Theory. The JN-Theory, the theory about the JN-object (this text), uses logical rules to help us understand the JN-Object. But JN-object itself does not follow logical rules, once there are no laws it must obey. Nevertheless, I do not believe we will let possibilities to JN-object escape if we analyze it according to classic logic. However, we must be aware that this logical analysis (JN-Theory) could maybe limit some potentiality of JN-Object.
Within a system without premises, we cannot conclude that something cannot happen. There are no laws from which we can draw this conclusion. That is, there is no prohibition for anything to happen. If there is no prohibition for anything to happen, then, eventually, something may happen. That is, the tautological logics remain true in a system without premises: “something happens or not”. If something occasionally happens, this something must not obey rules and, therefore, would be totally random and unpredictable.
We call the first JN randomizations Schizo-Creations. This schizo-creations, once they come from something without laws, are totally random and, if we could watch them, they would seem completely “schizophrenic”. Of course with the first randomizations, JN is no longer the original JN as now it owns something, that is, the JN transforms. Because JN is not limited by any laws, it may eventually also generate laws, to which its elements - now itself – would have to obey.
Let us show how the random generation of laws can produce a logical universe: suppose laws are generated randomly in a sequence. If a new law is generated and does not conflict with the others, all of them remain undamaged in the set of generated laws. However, if a law that conflicts with other laws previously generated appears, it replaces (kills) the previous laws that are inconsistent with it, since it must be obeyed (until a newer law opposes to it). Thus, in a true “natural selection” of laws, only a little set of laws compatible to each other would last. That answers a fundamental philosophical question about our universe: “Why does the universe follow logical rules?”
Thereby, the Jocaxian Nothingness is the natural candidate for the origin of the our cosmo, since it is the simpler possible state nature could present: a state of such simplicity there would not be the need to explain its existence. And, by logical consequence of this state, anything could be (or not) randomized, even our physical laws and elementary particles.
The Jocaxian Nothingness [Nada Jocaxiano]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJo�o Carlos Holland de Barcellos
translated by Debora Policastro
The Jocaxian Nothingness (JN) is the Nothingness that exists. It is a physical system devoid not only of physical elements and physical laws, but also of rules of any kind.
In order to understand and intuit JN as an existent nothingness , we can mentally build it as follows: we withdraw all the matter, energy and the field they generate from the universe. Then we can withdraw dark energy and dark matter. What is left is something that is not the nonexistent. Let us continue our mental experiment and suppress elements of the universe: now, we withdraw physical laws and spatial dimensions. If we do not forget to withdraw anything, what is left is a JN: an existent nothingness.
JN is different from the Nothingness we generally think of. The commonly believed nothingness, which we might call Trivial Nothingness to distinguish it from the JN, is something from which nothing can arise, that is, the Trivial Nothing follows a rule: Nothing can happen . Thus, the Trivial Nothingness , the nothingness people generally think of when talking about nothingness , is not the simpler possible nothingness, it has at least one restriction rule.
Jocax did not define the JN as something in which nothing exists. Such definition is dubious and contains some contradictions as: If in the nothingness nothing exists, then, nothingness itself does not exist . No. First, Jocax defined what it means to exist: Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality . Therefore, JN has been defined as something that:
1- Has no physical elements of any kind (particles, energy, space, etc.)
2- Has no laws (no rules of any kind).
Being so, JN could have physically existed. JN is a construction that differs from the trivial nothingness since it does not contain the rule Nothing can happen . That way, Jocax liberates his JN from semantic paradoxes like: If it exists, then it does not exist and claims that this nothingness is SOMETHING that could have existed. That is, JN is the simpler possible physical structure, something like the minimal state of nature. And also the natural candidate for the origin of the universe.
We must not confuse the definition of the NJ with rules to be followed. It is only the declaration of a state. If nature is in the state defined by conditions 1 and 2 above, we say it is a Jocaxian-Nothingness . The state of a system is something that can change, differently from the rule that must be followed by the system (otherwise it would not be a rule). For example, the state has no physical elements ; it is a state, not a rule because, occasionally this state may change. If it was a rule it could not change (unless another rule eliminated the first one).
Being free of any elements, JN does not presume the existence of any existing thing but its own and, by the Occams Razor , it must be the simpler state possible of nature, therefore with no need for explanations about its origin. JN, of course, does not currently exist, but may have existed in a distant past. That is, JN would be the universe itself defined as a set of all existing things in its minimal state. Thus we can also say the Universe (being a JN) has always existed.
JN, as well as everything that can be understood by means of logic, must follow the tautology: it may or may NOT happen . This tautology absolute logical truth as we shall see, has also a semantic value in JN: it allows things to happen (or not).
We cannot say that events in the JN must necessarily occur. Eventually, it is possible that nothing really happens, that is, JN may continue indefinitely (time does not exist in a JN) without changing its initial state and with no occurrences. But there is a possibility that random phenomena can derive from this absolute nothingness. This conclusion comes logically from the analysis of a system without premises: as JN, by definition, does not have laws, it can be shaped as a logical system without premises.
We shall interrupt a little in order to open up an explanatory digression. We are dealing with two types of Jocaxian-Nothingness : the physical object named JN , which was the universe in its minimal state with the properties described above; and the theory which analyses this object, the JN-Theory. The JN-Theory, the theory about the JN-object (this text), uses logical rules to help us understand the JN-Object. But JN-object itself does not follow logical rules, once there are no laws it must obey. Nevertheless, I do not believe we will let possibilities to JN-object escape if we analyze it according to classic logic. However, we must be aware that this logical analysis (JN-Theory) could maybe limit some potentiality of JN-Object.
Within a system without premises, we cannot conclude that something cannot happen. There are no laws from which we can draw this conclusion. That is, there is no prohibition for anything to happen. If there is no prohibition for anything to happen, then, eventually, something may happen. That is, the tautological logics remain true in a system without premises: something happens or not . If something occasionally happens, this something must not obey rules and, therefore, would be totally random and unpredictable.
We call the first JN randomizations Schizo-Creations. This schizo-creations, once they come from something without laws, are totally random and, if we could watch them, they would seem completely schizophrenic . Of course with the first randomizations, JN is no longer the original JN as now it owns something, that is, the JN transforms. Because JN is not limited by any laws, it may eventually also generate laws, to which its elements - now itself would have to obey.
Let us show how the random generation of laws can produce a logical universe: suppose laws are generated randomly in a sequence. If a new law is generated and does not conflict with the others, all of them remain undamaged in the set of generated laws. However, if a law that conflicts with other laws previously generated appears, it replaces (kills) the previous laws that are inconsistent with it, since it must be obeyed (until a newer law opposes to it). Thus, in a true natural selection of laws, only a little set of laws compatible to each other would last. That answers a fundamental philosophical question about our universe: Why does the universe follow logical rules?
Thereby, the Jocaxian Nothingness is the natural candidate for the origin of the our cosmo, since it is the simpler possible state nature could present: a state of such simplicity there would not be the need to explain its existence. And, by logical consequence of this state, anything could be (or not) randomized, even our physical laws and elementary particles.
The Jocaxian Nothingness [Nada Jocaxiano]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJoão Carlos Holland de Barcellos
translated by Debora Policastro
The “Jocaxian Nothingness” (JN) is the “Nothingness” that exists. It is a physical system devoid not only of physical elements and physical laws, but also of rules of any kind.
In order to understand and intuit JN as an “existent nothingness”, we can mentally build it as follows: we withdraw all the matter, energy and the field they generate from the universe. Then we can withdraw dark energy and dark matter. What is left is something that is not the nonexistent. Let us continue our mental experiment and suppress elements of the universe: now, we withdraw physical laws and spatial dimensions. If we do not forget to withdraw anything, what is left is a JN: an existent nothingness.
JN is different from the Nothingness we generally think of. The commonly believed nothingness, which we might call “Trivial Nothingness” to distinguish it from the JN, is something from which nothing can arise, that is, the “Trivial Nothing” follows a rule: “Nothing can happen”. Thus, the “Trivial Nothingness”, the nothingness people generally think of when talking about “nothingness”, is not the simpler possible nothingness, it has at least one restriction rule.
Jocax did not define the JN as something in which nothing exists. Such definition is dubious and contains some contradictions as: “If in the nothingness nothing exists, then, nothingness itself does not exist”. No. First, Jocax defined what it means to exist: “Something exists when its properties are fulfilled within reality”. Therefore, JN has been defined as something that:
1- Has no physical elements of any kind (particles, energy, space, etc.)
2- Has no laws (no rules of any kind).
Being so, JN could have physically existed. JN is a construction that differs from the “trivial nothingness” since it does not contain the rule “Nothing can happen”. That way, Jocax liberates his JN from semantic paradoxes like: “If it exists, then it does not exist” and claims that this nothingness is SOMETHING that could have existed. That is, JN is the simpler possible physical structure, something like the minimal state of nature. And also the natural candidate for the origin of the universe.
We must not confuse the definition of the NJ with rules to be followed. It is only the declaration of a state. If nature is in the state defined by conditions 1 and 2 above, we say it is a “Jocaxian-Nothingness”. The state of a system is something that can change, differently from the rule that must be followed by the system (otherwise it would not be a rule). For example, the state “has no physical elements”; it is a state, not a rule because, occasionally this state may change. If it was a rule it could not change (unless another rule eliminated the first one).
Being free of any elements, JN does not presume the existence of any existing thing but its own and, by the “Occam’s Razor”, it must be the simpler state possible of nature, therefore with no need for explanations about its origin. JN, of course, does not currently exist, but may have existed in a distant past. That is, JN would be the universe itself – defined as a set of all existing things – in its minimal state. Thus we can also say the Universe (being a JN) has always existed.
JN, as well as everything that can be understood by means of logic, must follow the tautology: “it may or may NOT happen”. This tautology – absolute logical truth – as we shall see, has also a semantic value in JN: it allows things to happen (or not).
We cannot say that events in the JN must necessarily occur. Eventually, it is possible that nothing really happens, that is, JN may continue “indefinitely” (time does not exist in a JN) without changing its initial state and with no occurrences. But there is a possibility that random phenomena can derive from this absolute nothingness. This conclusion comes logically from the analysis of a system without premises: as JN, by definition, does not have laws, it can be shaped as a logical system without premises.
We shall interrupt a little in order to open up an explanatory digression. We are dealing with two types of “Jocaxian-Nothingness”: the physical object named “JN”, which was the universe in its minimal state with the properties described above; and the theory which analyses this object, the JN-Theory. The JN-Theory, the theory about the JN-object (this text), uses logical rules to help us understand the JN-Object. But JN-object itself does not follow logical rules, once there are no laws it must obey. Nevertheless, I do not believe we will let possibilities to JN-object escape if we analyze it according to classic logic. However, we must be aware that this logical analysis (JN-Theory) could maybe limit some potentiality of JN-Object.
Within a system without premises, we cannot conclude that something cannot happen. There are no laws from which we can draw this conclusion. That is, there is no prohibition for anything to happen. If there is no prohibition for anything to happen, then, eventually, something may happen. That is, the tautological logics remain true in a system without premises: “something happens or not”. If something occasionally happens, this something must not obey rules and, therefore, would be totally random and unpredictable.
We call the first JN randomizations Schizo-Creations. This schizo-creations, once they come from something without laws, are totally random and, if we could watch them, they would seem completely “schizophrenic”. Of course with the first randomizations, JN is no longer the original JN as now it owns something, that is, the JN transforms. Because JN is not limited by any laws, it may eventually also generate laws, to which its elements - now itself – would have to obey.
Let us show how the random generation of laws can produce a logical universe: suppose laws are generated randomly in a sequence. If a new law is generated and does not conflict with the others, all of them remain undamaged in the set of generated laws. However, if a law that conflicts with other laws previously generated appears, it replaces (kills) the previous laws that are inconsistent with it, since it must be obeyed (until a newer law opposes to it). Thus, in a true “natural selection” of laws, only a little set of laws compatible to each other would last. That answers a fundamental philosophical question about our universe: “Why does the universe follow logical rules?”
Thereby, the Jocaxian Nothingness is the natural candidate for the origin of the our cosmo, since it is the simpler possible state nature could present: a state of such simplicity there would not be the need to explain its existence. And, by logical consequence of this state, anything could be (or not) randomized, even our physical laws and elementary particles.
In fact, the more and more I read about these theories, the more I become convinced not only about existence of God, but as his(its) inevitable role as the ultimate controller of the cosmos.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn Spirituality there really are no "ism"s or "Ity"s. Any Organised Religion is only a play of dominance, not spirituality. Spirituality is knowing your spirit, i.e knowing your self experientially, not theoretically. It is an honest enquiry into the truth, that an individual has to make on his own, but at an experiential or super-experiential level. Theoretically we are composed of RNA and DNA, however experientially we are "ever-blissful", "Immortal" and of course "Self-illuminant", which is the nature of what many of us would term as "God". Realising our Self-Engulfed, immortal, blissful nature is what is the goal of Spirituality. When one experiences one's own self as the Self-illumined,Self-contained, fathomless, ever blissful spirit, engulfed in its glory, all Questions remain solved for such a "Dnyaani" (The enlightened one). There really is no comparison at all between this serene, superconcsious experience and any of the joys we experience in the world of matter. The language of silent super-consciousness alone is what remains. Science will someday probably answer in a complex way how the universe came to being in the state we see and know it today, however, the question of why the universe does even bother to exist would be best answered only by Spirituality and first-hand experience of the "absolute".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this||OM SHANTIH||
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ultimate experience described above, which actualises the limitless Self, immediately makes an ardent seeker realise that like a play of duality and non-duality, the universe has really not evolved in a bottom-top manner i.e from non-living to living, but that the super-conscious spirit, which is the basis of all life did not come into existence from a body composed of matter but has actually influenced the universe to evolve out of its own self to ultimately lead to organs and organelles causing its own actualisation in the form of living creatures having the inherent capability to experience it in their own Selves.
It amazes me that these superstitious thiests always whine and complain about this theory, with complaints thats SOMEONE had to take some act to make the big bang occur, or some sort of "intelligent design" (codeword for magical being) was needed since the system is so complex.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about looking at the elephant in the room and apply your complaints to your illogical faith? Who created god? By your logic there would have to be some sort of "intelligent design" behind his mythical creation. What came before god? And well you are at it, where is this magic being and why do only a few crazy zealots from a thosand years agoi get to meet him.
When you can answer these questions, come back and I will try to answer your complaints about the big bang.
I think most people think, that big bang theory refers to the origin of universe rather than the expansion of the universe. It's like claiming the theory of evolution explains the origin of life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo the title of this article might be misleading to some people who have not yet made the distinction.
About the theory, I find this article very informative and many theist are too quick to include God to the equation. I have always wondered that If I compare this theory among to all the other well accepted theories in science, I would find this theory at the bottom of the pile due to it's lack of evidence(which they only have one i.e galaxies are exceeding away from each other) and the other two are predicition from the theory.
Can someone fix me on this please?
Thanks
Regards
iKurwa89
Hello,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFollowing the Big Bang theory, I think that the universe was created from an old nebula 14 billion years ago.
Sincerely
Hershko
dordor77@netvision.net.il
Well dark matter and "dark energy" may have been a mystery, but two novel papers shed consideraqble light on this mystery. First we have to go back a little and adapt Newton so it is a bit more like general relativity, but technically gives the same answers. See: An advanced dynamic adaptation of Newtonian equations of gravity. Phyiscs Essays 21: 222-228.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen we go all the way to advanced quanum gravity which, then also explains dark energy. See: String quintessence and the formulation of advanced quantum gravity. Physics Essays. 22: 364-377.
Well the story goes something like this. in the early 20th century most believed that the Universe consisted of one galaxy- our own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen Hubble came along in about 1925 and proved that there was more than one galaxy.
Then shortly after in 1927, Hubble found that these multiple galaxies were moving away from each other at great speed. o.k. he did not have enough data to prove that they all arose from the same point, so he did not believe in the BIg Bang.
Anyway then comes the discovery by Penzias and Wilson in 1964-5 of the Cosmic microwave background radiation which was prdicted by Gamov in the 1940's and everybody started to believe in the BIg Bang. Then came the accurate measurements of the recession velocities, then COBE then WMAP, then type 1a suprnovae, then the Hubble telescope that can see almost all the way back to the beginning of the BIG Bang. And if seeing is not believing then the rest of the evidence is.
Well here we are and we stiil don't understand dark matter and dark energy, until 2 recent papers were published, which shed considerable light on the whole subject. First we have to translate general relativity back into something that does not give you infinities whenever you consider a black hole. See: An advanced dynamic adaptation of Newtonian equations of gravity. Physics Essays 21: 222-228. Then you go all the way to undserstanding quantum gravity and "dark energy" and dark matter. See: String quintessence and the formulation of advanced quantum gravity. Physics Essays 22: 364-377. Then when you understand quantum gravity, you come back to understanding quantum physiscs and energy equivalence and you can tie the lot together. See The formulation of harmonic quintessence and a fundamental energy equivalence equation. Physics Essays 23: 311-319.
In summary we have Hubble and his red shift, then Penzias an wilson with the cosmobc microwave back ground radiation, then CMBR, then COBE and WMAP with their anylysis of it then \TYpe 1a supernovae and then direct observation of the early Universe, thena quntum theory of gravity. See String quintessence and the formyulation of advaqnced quantum gravity. Physics Essays 22: 364-377. The a viable theory that explains qauntum physics. See The formulation od harmonic quintessence and a fundamental energy equivalence equation. Physics Essays 23: 311-319.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy assistant pastor said today that some planets in our solar system spin in opposite directions. He concluded that this disproves the Big Bang Theory, because if it were true the planets would all spin in the same direction. I think I know the answer but can anyone else explain?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe trouble with analogies is that they are models and not the real thing that they illustrate. Being inexact, they break down, in the face of some really good questions, and cause confusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What is it expanding into?" May be it it isn't. If the universe is self-contained, then the expansion is an internal observation. Surprisingly, there is no need for an outside :-)
"What was it that went bang?" It may help if one thinks of the "bang" as being a property of the universe, like it's energy.
"What existed before the big bang?" Well nothing. Can something come from nothing? The best answer seems to be that it looks like it :-) At the risk of using another analogy (I know it breaks down, but ...) Every cell in my body came from a single cell. That cell came from the union of external cells, and so on. Where did the first cell come from. Well it might just have come from a non-cell, e.g. chemical compounds and clays. Similarly where did the something of the universe come from? Maybe the "something" is not what we think it is from our everyday assumptions about matter. Maybe it is nothing, too. I will leave you with that thought.
The trouble with analogies is that they only model the things that they describe, and inevitably breakdown, especially when faced with really good questions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"What is it expanding into?" If the universe is self-contained, then the expansion is only relevant to an internal observer, and there is nothing outside. "Nothing" is not an easy concept :-)
"What was it that went bang?" One could say that the bang itself is property of the universe, rather like it's energy. The thing that is the universe is just that, the universe. Might this be the next next question in a different form?
" What existed before the big bang?" I will risk another analogy... Every cell in my body came from just one single cell. That cell came from the union of some external cells, and so on to a primeval cell. Where did it come from? A likely answer is from some things that were not cells - simpler structures, possibly mixtures of amino acids on clay structures. Now where did the something that is the universe come from? A likely answer is from that that which is not "something", i.e. nothing! My concepts of nothing and the substance of the universe are limited by my working, day-to-day experience :-)
Collisions could cause planets and other bodies to twist and rotate in other directions. You might ask your assistant why must all the planets rotate in the same direction? :-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReading that the beginning Universe consisted of "5 parts dark matter and 1 part hydrogen and helium" is surely only based on current acknowledgment that something is missing in our Universe. Of course, there is no mention as to where this Dark Matter came from.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy theory of March 2010 states a hypothetical CAUSE of Dark Matter/Pressure Ether which is available for viewing at: rldwyer-theorist.com/dark_matter. It basically states that the only ongoing activity in the Universe is the Speed of Light, and this activity would be the perfect choice for the creation or CAUSE of the unknown ongoing substance which is called Dark Matter.
Also, it would be logical to posit that only Pure Hydrogen was the element in the beginning Universe; not hydrogen and helium. In order for helium to exist, it must be in the fusion process which is only found in SUNS. Suns came first, then helium follows. There must be a logical "sequence of events" in the formation of the Universe.
The only entity that can exist before time and space is infinity. Science is unwilling to go beyond observation and what can be demonstrated. This does not mean it doesn’t exist it only points out the obvious flaw in science. If science believes in the laws of conservation then it too believes in infinity only in a different way. A black hole has infinite density, and there are many scientific equations the incorporate infinity for it not to be taken seriously. Stating that something existed before time and space is an egocentric ideology and falls into the same realms as the earth being in the center of the universe. Way to go science you just opened up a great void for all the creationists to pour into.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisaccording to the gospel of thomas, jesus said "If the flesh came into being because of Spirit, it is a wonder,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbut if Spirit came into Being because of the flesh,
that is the wonder of wonders. The greatest wonder is this:How is it that this being, that is inhabits this nothingness?"
THE universe CAN NOT have an end. The universe is infinite. Just think for a minute how the end will look like. Here comes the inevitable question about God.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is without doubdt that the universe started as just a small dot. The gross difference between the density of that dot,which is an extremely solid object, and its surrounding that are made of soft elements, caused it to explode. The process is the same law that causes the atom to oscillate on its own. As the fragementations are propelled they collected the kind of elements that would identify each of them. At the same time they also eject elements that are structurally different to theirs. Those elements that are collected by each body are the dark matters. When the life span of those bodies has reach their end they would seek the center of the mass that they use to constitute. The process of seeking the center of the mass is black hole. Black hole is just a reversed process of big bang that created it. As each body gravitates to the center of their mass they release the elements they have collected thus upon reaching the center they have come to their original element of extreme solidity. The released elements are, once again, the dark matters that the next fragmentation would collect on the next explosion. The aforementioned process is exactly the same that takes place when the atom vibrates. What separates atomic from universal vibration is duration and visibility. Size is a matter of number. Atomic vibration is an impersonal effort to equalize the gross disparity of density between the atom and its surrounding. Even within the atom itself, gross disparity of density among its particles and sub-particles exists, which triggers the atom to oscillate on its own. Uneven density is cause by uneven temperature. The process of atom oscillating on its own is dark energy, often describe as myterious. There is no mystery only refusal to accept explanation outside of accepted science norm. Global warming is not due to human activity but simply earth is heading to its black hole; atomic vibration explains this. The countless particles that resulted in the smashing of atom are the atom's dark matter. As each galactic body is made of dark matter and so is each object that is made of dark matter, its only a question of size or number. Take a cheese ball, cut various sizes from it. The time it would take for each cut to dry is measured by size. For less expensive, less time consuming, less effort, less tideous of finding explanation on how the universe came to be, please visit josepharellano.blogspot.com why global warming is unstoppable. my email, josephtarellano@yahoo.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisModern Physics collides with its greatest Paradox
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy Robert Castleton Wormus
The paradox I refer to is based on a new, far-reaching theory that may become modern physics’ next great revolution. A theory that explains the inexplicable: Mankind’s blatant disregard for his environment, his gluttonous misuse of natural resources, his failure to properly identify universal survival threats, and the global-wide apathy that impedes man’s progress toward a Class One Civilization.
An ‘Anthropic Paradox’: Man’s probabilistic evolutionary process has evolved him into an aggressive, highly intelligent, humanoid animal, capable of fabricating an illusion of his own intuitive-derived, experience-based, instinct-driven subjective reality; and incapable of accepting the counter-intuitive objective reality of modern science’s external world .(1)
This synthesized illusion of reality (a hologram in effect) has been well documented in the scientific community. Research in neuroscience has irrefutably proven that the mind actually augments the crude two-dimensional, blurred afferent images, sounds, smells, and context clues, stimulating our sensory receptors into the sharp, clear, crisp ‘fabricated’ images our minds intuitively project as reality.
Like an artist, the human mind, cleverly using form, dimensionality, animation, colorization, and shadowing; virtually ‘painting a picture’ that satisfies it’s intuitive whims, refusing to accept the weird, bizarre, alien, counter-intuitive external reality endorsed by modern physics.
Analogous to the animal maternal instinct, the human mind protects it’s ‘illusion’ of reality by deploying an armory, the Human Psyche's insurmountably powerful defense mechanisms; first, and most formidable, denial and then, as necessary, rationalization, repression, regression, and dissociation, affectively closing off Man’s mind to the external input of alternate counter-intuitive realities, concepts, or change.
The implications of this are staggering; encompassing the instinctive animalistic behaviors of wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony. Think of it as a short list for the human animal’s characteristic traits of hate, bigotry, greed, violence, anger, perversion, and apathy, to name a few.
Cognizant of our specie’s bias early on,, the scientific community was, non-the less blindsided by the shear tenacity of the human psyche.
In the bizarre world of quantum mechanics, the ‘conserved parity’ of these perceptions between humans of like universes, as well as the astounding revelation that a weird, alien counter-intuitive physical reality exists, ‘outside the mind’s eye’ is gaining Global acceptance.
Mankind’s fate, in light of our Central Nervous System’s ruse, barring intervention from the scientific community, may be the eminent and unelectable human ‘Extinction Event’.
With all due Respect, I am,
Robert Castleton Wormus, Physicist (310 953-5939)
*An Anthropic Paradox Robert Castleton Wormus, Physicist