Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Where did we come from?

Options
123457»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 10,992 ✭✭✭✭partyatmygaff


    strobe wrote: »
    See but this is the problem when people say "from nothing comes nothing" and then try to bring into play a god to precede "nothing". Where did the god come from if you already believe it can't have come from nothing, then it must have come from something that preceded it. You either get caught professing it is turtles all the way down http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down or saying "god" didn't need to come from anything because it always existed. But if are excepting the god could have always existed without having to have been "created" then why couldn't the universe have always existed in some form removing any requirement for it to have ever been "created" either?
    Where did we as humans learn and discover that from nothing can come from nothing? Existence. Therefore it's a law of existence. We studied existence and created a theory which then developed into a law. The question is what came before existence and what (If any) laws governed it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    bluewolf wrote: »
    I
    God theory is not a theory because it does not make predictions[other than 'you're all going to hell' ;) ], it is not falsifiable and not remotely testable.

    Well it does but they're either vague enough to fit any number of circumstances or the predictions fail and are promptly redefined, forgotten about or excuses are thought up. For example if you pray for something and it happens that's proof that god exists but if you pray and it doesn't happen it just wasn't god's will. And you have to make sure to pray for something that could happen anyway without divine intervention. Amputees ain't getting their arms back no matter how hard they pray


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    You contradicted yourself in that case, because the other theories are also only observable after the creation of the universe

    Every theory is within the confines of after the moment of creation because as far as we know TIME DIDN'T EXIST before the big bang!

    Creation ex nihilo - Without God (1997)

    Mark I. Vuletic


    Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things - perhaps even the entire universe - can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes. This document is an attempt to compile quotes that explain how all of this is supposed to work.
    Eventually, I would like to write an article assessing the value of quantum vacuum fluctuations as a means of producing universes, but for the time being, I will just let the scientists speak for themselves and leave evaluation to the reader.
    Vacuum Fluctuations and Virtual Particles
    • In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies, 1983, 162)
    • The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they are called virtual particles. (Morris, 1990, 24)
    • Even though we can't see them, we know that these virtual particles are "really there" in empty space because they leave a detectable trace of their activities. One effect of virtual photons, for example, is to produce a tiny shift in the energy levels of atoms. They also cause an equally tiny change in the magnetic moment of electrons. These minute but significant alterations have been very accurately measured using spectroscopic techniques. (Davies, 1994, 32)
    • [Virtual particle pairs] are predicted to have a calculable effect upon the energy levels of atoms. The effect expected is minute - only a change of one part in a billion, but it has been confirmed by experimenters.

      In 1953 Willis Lamb measured this excited energy state for a hydrogen atom. This is now called the Lamb shift. The energy difference predicted by the effects of the vacuum on atoms is so small that it is only detectable as a transition at microwave frequencies. The precision of microwave measurements is so great that Lamb was able to measure the shift to five significant figures. He subsequently received the Nobel Prize for his work. No doubt remains that virtual particles are really there. (Barrow & Silk, 1993, 65-66)
    • In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. (Morris, 1990, 25)
    Vacuum Fluctuations and the Origin of the Universe
    • There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988, 129) [thanks to Ross King for this quote]
    • There is a still more remarkable possibility, which is the creation of matter from a state of zero energy. This possibility arises because energy can be both positive and negative. The energy of motion or the energy of mass is always positive, but the energy of attraction, such as that due to certain types of gravitational or electromagnetic field, is negative. Circumstances can arise in which the positive energy that goes to make up the mass of newly-created particles of matter is exactly offset by the negative energy of gravity of electromagnetism. For example, in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus the electric field is intense. If a nucleus containing 200 protons could be made (possible but difficult), then the system becomes unstable against the spontaneous production of electron-positron pairs, without any energy input at all. The reason is that the negative electric energy can exactly offset the energy of their masses.

      In the gravitational case the situation is still more bizarre, for the gravitational field is only a spacewarp - curved space. The energy locked up in a spacewarp can be converted into particles of matter and antimatter. This occurs, for example, near a black hole, and was probably also the most important source of particles in the big bang. Thus, matter appears spontaneously out of empty space. The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?

      It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero wihin the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all. (Davies, 1983, 31-32)
    • Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we know - the universe. Maybe the universe itself sprang into existence out of nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility. (Pagels, 1982, 247)
    • In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe.

      The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum." As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself.

      As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang.

      The forces and particles that appear are more-or-less random, governed only by symmetry principles (like the conservation principles of energy and momentum) that are also not the product of design but exactly what one has in the absence of design.

      The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms. (Stenger, 1996)
    • Where did all the matter and radiation in the universe come from in the first place? Recent intriguing theoretical research by physicists such as Steven Weinberg of Harvard and Ya. B. Zel'dovich in Moscow suggest that the universe began as a perfect vacuum and that all the particles of the material world were created from the expansion of space...

      Think about the universe immediately after the Big Bang. Space is violently expanding with explosive vigor. Yet, as we have seen, all space is seething with virtual pairs of particles and antiparticles. Normally, a particle and anti-particle have no trouble getting back together in a time interval...short enough so that the conservation of mass is satisfied under the uncertainty principle. During the Big Bang, however, space was expanding so fast that particles were rapidly pulled away from their corresponding antiparticles. Deprived of the opportunity to recombine, these virtual particles had to become real particles in the real world. Where did the energy come from to achieve this materialization?

      Recall that the Big Bang was like the center of a black hole. A vast supply of gravitational energy was therefore associated with the intense gravity of this cosmic singularity. This resource provided ample energy to completely fill the universe with all conceivable kinds of particles and antiparticles. Thus, immediately after the Planck time, the universe was flooded with particles and antiparticles created by the violent expansion of space. (Kaufmann, 1985, 529-532)
    • ...the idea of a First Cause sounds somewhat fishy in light of the modern theory of quantum mechanics. According to the most commonly accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics, individual subatomic particles can behave in unpredictable ways and there are numerous random, uncaused events. (Morris, 1997, 19)
    Link

    So, something can come out of nothing, Welcome to theoretical physics :cool:

    I personally can't question all of the nooks and cranny's of this amazing idea yet as my math/physics isn't up to par, yet.... ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Where did we as humans learn and discover that from nothing can come from nothing? Existence. Therefore it's a law of existence. We studied existence and created a theory which then developed into a law. The question is what came before existence and what (If any) laws governed it?

    That's a very important question. My only objection is when someone proposes that some entity must have come before "existence" without addressing the question of why it must have or what came before it. The infinite regress problem.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Every theory is within the confines of after the moment of creation because as far as we know TIME DIDN'T EXIST before the big bang!

    Well I'm no quantum physicist so I'm not even going to attempt to question any of that! I will say though, that quantum particles appearing and vanishing spontaneously is observable only in our enviroment where simple particles also exist, so there's no real way to know that they are created in nothingness

    Interesting read all the same :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    As far as I understand it they pop in and out of existence randomly & account for black hole evaporation in some way I forget :p Crazy stuff!

    Basically the idea is that the universe could do the same without spending any energy & you've got top physicists working on this...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 337 ✭✭WildBoots


    People aren't wearing enough hats.


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    WildBoots wrote: »
    People aren't wearing enough hats.

    Can I just ask, with reference to your second point, when you say souls don't develop because people become distracted...Has anyone noticed that building there before?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3 Helper Monkey


    Ask Jim Corr, he is bound to know:D


  • Registered Users Posts: 357 ✭✭Horse_box


    I believe in evolution to a point, but in my mind there is no possibility we completley came about through the evolutionary process, as scientists say

    I believe that we were put here by beings so advanced and intelligent that we cannot get our tiny little brains to understand the true beginning of life

    For all we know we could be some form of experiment that have evolved into what we have today.

    Whatever or whomever started life as we know it, I have to say, It's pretty ****ing cool!:D


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 553 ✭✭✭NoHornJan


    The eternal mystery.. If it ever is solved, will it be the begining of the end or the end of the begining??


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Maybe we are all just part of a "Sims" like computer game for aliens! haha


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,616 ✭✭✭maninasia


    You need a product and an instigator to create something. All we can see in front of us is the end product or the result of that process and from that we're trying to decipher the product and what processed it in to existence.

    We all know that nothing can come from nothing. Energy cannot be created or destroyed after all. Therefore there must have been something that preceded all of that. Something higher than all of that and something that organised the chaotic nothingness into existence as we know it. Where God (Or higher being or force if you prefer the term) came from is something I doubt we will ever discover or comprehend.

    My answer to this is simple. There was always 'Something' and there will always be 'Something', because as you said something cannot come from nothing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,616 ✭✭✭maninasia


    WIZE wrote: »
    This is what i believe

    As the earth cooled down A giant Ice Asteroid with cells frozen in it from another exploded planet landed on earth and melted creating the sea which in turn released the cells which started to Multiply so life came from the seas to create what we have now

    What we need to find out is if the Bacteria that lives inside the earth resembles Bacteria that could be found on the moon and on mars or even on titan

    This may not be far off the mark. But most water on Earth is not assumed not to have come from comets/asteroids, although a sizeable portion did come from that route (if I remember correctly). The water arriving in comets/asteroids would be added a small bit at a time and in fact Earth is still getting water from this route today!


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,616 ✭✭✭maninasia


    --Kaiser-- wrote: »
    It is a long list indeed of the factors to do with Earth and our Universe which were necessary for life (as we know it) to take hold.

    Few examples;

    Our moon acts a shield absorbing possible dangerous asteroids from impacting Earth

    Distance from the Earth to the Sun is close enough that water is (predominatly) liquid but not too close that it all vapourises.

    Prescence of a magnetic field which diverts deadly solar rays and other radiation.

    Density of matter in the universe is just about correct to prevent the Universe from collapsing.

    Even more complex, an increase in Strong Nuclear Force would have meant that all Hydrogen in the Universe would have converted to Helium, meaning water could not form.

    This is known as the Anthropic Principle. Now this could be interpreted to mean that there must some sort of higher power which shepherded us into existence, given that there are so many factors which need to be present for us to exist. Another interpretation is that the Universe is the way it is because otherwise we wouldn't be here.

    Yes the Anthropic Principle. What a load of codswallop.

    It's akin to sitting at a bar drinking a pint of Guinness and thinking that 'Wow' my whole life was setup just right (born in Ireland, like beer, have money, wife is at the in-laws today, kids at football practice, boss wasn't around so I got off early, car broke down so cycled to work, drop in to the local on the way home just missed getting squashed by a bus by inches) that it led to me having this miracle black stuff pouring down my gob at 7:33pm on a random Wednesday evening in my local :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,616 ✭✭✭maninasia


    But it works and is simpler than a supernatural being.
    It's where I'd put my money.

    Who said anything about a supernatural being. It's a very rough theory..a video doesn't show the ins and outs. There are many theories on how molecular replication leading to life got started, this is only one of many.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Horse_box wrote: »
    I believe in evolution to a point, but in my mind there is no possibility we completley came about through the evolutionary process, as scientists say

    And what are you basing this on?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    maninasia wrote: »
    Yes the Anthropic Principle. What a load of codswallop. It's akin to sitting at a bar drinking a pint of Guinness and thinking that 'Wow' my whole life was setup just right

    I like Douglas Adams' "sentient puddle" version of this:
    . . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.


  • Registered Users Posts: 357 ✭✭Horse_box


    And what are you basing this on?


    I just don't think the Solar system and all the allignments that exist in the Milky way that allow Earth to be so ideal for life, can be a pure fluke


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    Horse_box wrote: »
    I just don't think the Solar system and all the allignments that exist in the Milky way that allow Earth to be so ideal for life, can be a pure fluke

    Actually, I don't think earth is ideal for US. It was just about conductive and we nearly missed the boat, it took a series of Global Extinction events to allow us to develop and eventually dominate.

    This planet is not a particularly healthy place to be, one could argue that the 'protection' systems are at their very minimal and we live under the shadow of Global Extinction events, ie some of the same events that allowed us to dominate, are still there, and threaten to wipe out mankind.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,547 ✭✭✭Agricola


    Horse_box wrote: »
    I just don't think the Solar system and all the allignments that exist in the Milky way that allow Earth to be so ideal for life, can be a pure fluke

    The chances of a planet being close enough to its star to support life are quite significant, when you take into account the enormous number of galaxies and stars in the known universe.
    Its not a fluke, it onlys seems that way to us. I imagine theres lots of other lifeforms in the universe that believe they are flukes aswell.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭scientific1982


    WIZE wrote: »
    I was watching the Documentry on The Discovery Channel and they said life most likey started from minerals on an asteroid which crashed into Earth

    Religous people will say Adam and Eve

    So how did life end up on earth

    That is the Question
    We're a highly complex computer simulation made by an advanced race of humans.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    We're a highly complex computer simulation made by an advanced race of humans.
    My god, I always knew I was a character in the sims!!!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Somewhat related news -

    Model describes universe with no big bang, no beginning, and no end


    By suggesting that mass, time, and length can be converted into one another as the universe evolves, Wun-Yi Shu has proposed a new class of cosmological models that may fit observations of the universe better than the current big bang model. What this means specifically is that the new models might explain the increasing acceleration of the universe without relying on a cosmological constant such as dark energy, as well as solve or eliminate other cosmological dilemmas such as the flatness problem and the horizon problem.

    [more]


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 343 ✭✭Sparticle


    That theory raises more problems than it solves. If the universe has existed in a quasi-steady state for an infinite amount of time just with alternating rates of acceleration and deceleration then why hasn't it died the heat death an infinite time ago? Where are all the civilizations that have existed for infinity colonizing our planet?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Sorry for the bump, but there's a Horizon documentary on BBC2 tonight at 9 called 'What Happened Before the Big-Bang?' for anyone interested


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    And a time team special at 8 on CH4 .....bout Vikings....not that we don't know where they came from, but still....


Advertisement