RE: Story of Everything - Part 1
A good overview of particle physics. However there is no solid evidence for a BIG BANG.
In fact it contradicts the first law of thermodynamics in that "Energy cannot be created or destroyed". If this is indeed the case (and there seems to be no evidence to falsify this law) then all the Energy in the Universe must have been concentrated into a minuscule or non existent area before this "Big Bang".
To explain this, the notion of a "Singularity" was postulated, but unfortunately no one can explain what exactly this could be, or how it could exist or why it should explode etc. In other words a Singularity is just a name for something that nobody understands.
I believe we find ourselves in this apparent paradox because we insist that the Universe must have started sometime, despite the fact that if Energy cannot be created or destroyed it must have always existed i.e It was never created (since that's not possible)
Similarity I believe that the same applies to the Universe as a whole as it is essentially nothing more than a form of this same Energy. And while it might expand, contract, explode, implode and all the other things it might do, the fact remains that it always existed (since Energy can't be created) and always will (since Energy can't be destroyed).
Please feel free to challenge these assertions
Chess teaches us many things of a crucial value, but the best ones are that "without the appropriate timing the best game will be probably lost" and that "we as humans will always improve not on our wins but our defeats and mistakes"... In this sense, probably Energy can't be created for we assume that it is always transformed, and it can't be destroyed, but if we lose and gain energy in transformation, isn't it destruction and rebirth of the same? How about the fact that we as humans need measurable and "touchable" things and only a few can understand that Singularity not only exists but we live it at the point that our social conditions are "layered" and the infinite value of space–time matter is infinitely more reliable on our individual input as we can even be living into the centre of a black hole without realizing it, augmenting or reducing our own weight which can be in both cases contradictory to what "was meant" as a physical equation... Physics and mathematics, like everything we have today, are products of "human guess," and even when those prove to happen as predicted or recalculated, how is it possible to challenge assertions when assertions are everything, none, and the whole... You won't probably find the relation, but referring to the "paradoxical state," words will be limited until humanity does not unify all languages and people come together into one state. If it was simple, "I love you" would be sufficient to keep a family together, and we all know that it is not, and as evolution advances, it might never be again... ∜mp
I guess string theory might give us answers to what happened before the big bang or what really caused the big bang. First we need to assume the existence of a multiverse. A big bang is caused by a collision of these universes thus conservation of energy.
But of course we have to assert the existence of strings and other 11 dimensions for the multiverse to exist. Thats what I know so far. Correct me if I’m wrong with string theory
To my mind string theory is nothing more than fanciful speculation with no supporting evidence (at least none that I know of). Calling it a theory is un-scientific for that very reason.
But even if we assume there is more than one Universe (which in itself is somewhat of an oxymoron} since the word "Universe" implies everything that exists and by definition there can't be more than one "everything that exists" so any other "Universe" would simply be part of the Universe.
But even if there were more than one of what we currently call the Universe at least two would have had to exist before any big bang if this"collision" was to take place. Unless a Universe collided with a singularity or two singularities collided with one another.
LOL this is bordering on the ridiculous and verging on insanity.
However, I believe the real reason why we come up with all these notions of how the Universe might have come into existence is because we can't or won't accept the notion that something could exist in perpetuity i.e. it always existed so it didn't have to be created. And if conservation of energy holds true then this must be the case.
I understand this is a very difficult concept for us to wrap our heads around since everything we're familiar with has a beginning and an end. However this doesn't necessarily apply to the Universe.
According to Occam’s razor the simplest explanation is most probably the correct one and to me the Eternal Universe is much simpler than all the others I've come across.
Even the notion of the collisions of multi verses doesn't in any way address or solve the question of how they might have come into existence in the first place. :)
The same as you I was asking the same question. Due to relativity’s prediction of an initial singularity. Physics could not go beyond the singularity since all of physics equation does not apply. But with the string thoery we can at least know that there may be parallel universes out there plus there is the possibility of uniting the four fundamental forces and understanding them in smaller scale.