The collision story seems dramatic. However we still have to content with the CMB. Can there be a seperate explaination for the CMB other than the Big Bang??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profpat
Hi Everyone;
Lets start off that there is a difference between oblivion and consciousness. We are conscious, are we not? We are also conscious of 3 dimensional space. Given that should we not attempt to understand where this 3 dimensional space came from, be it real or illusion?
Thats all I'm trying to do here, and again it's my thought we start with zero, then 1st dimension, then 2nd dimension, and finally 3rd dimension.
Dipayankar I agree how indeed do we get something from nothing. Being a theist I believe in the creation story, although I realize that is not OBJECTIVE but SUBJECTIVE. The alternative would be to believe in some sort of steady state universe. One theory I heard is that our universe was created when 2 parallel universes collided, but than your back to where did those universes come from.
Please share your thoughts on this subject gentlemen and ladies.
I think Greg pretty much nailed it when he said the lack of dimensionless particles result in dimensions...by default I would add.
The two membrane collision you mentioned, Pat, would first require the formation of membranes which I think any one-demsional collision would accomplish. So two opposing one-dimesional time directions would result in the membranes and they would contain fluctuations that would accumulate from the membranes to result in the 3-d universe you're after.
Depending upon the force of the random fluctuations of the universes, the motion would follow the greatest amplitude because it would overcome lesser amplitudes, and this would result in universal collisions which would create a continuous formation of new universes originating from the point of impact.
"Can there be a seperate explaination for the CMB other than the Big Bang??"
Perhaps a virtual radiation would suffice, Dip. Whereby the radiation from galaxies cause photonic collisions which in turn create matter and antimatter which in turn would increase the density of the media the radiation has to propagate through. So the microwave would be somewhat non-homogenous dependent upon distance.
Since there cannot be something from nothing, there could be no creation of the ultimate ground of all reality; however, this doesn't apply to space-times, for they come and go, space being emergent from something underneath. The "underneath" is eternal and somewhat like the like the quantum realm, in that it is neither here nor not here, but everywhere and nowhere. This probability of possibilities is in between existence and non-existence, but really neither.
So, we don't have to worry about why the "underneath" was the exact right "stuff" (an ever present question about eternal stuff), since it is but possibility, which covers any and all possible results.
As for why the universe worked, only the stable particles were possible and so they remained and combined.
Austin, from my one paradox of something from nothing ( which can be explained if you believe in God ) you come up with 3 or more paradoxes, to explain what I can explain with 1. You have it here but not here ( paradox #1 ). Everywhere but nowhere ( paradox #2 ). Existence and nonexistence ( paradox #3 ). I believe Occram when faced with the possibility of 1 paradox versus 3 paradoxes, the obvious choice would be to explore the ONE. Sorry but it appears to be a lot of gpbbledygook on your part my friend.
Nobody I do agree parallel universes colliding could explain our universe, but again more complications in that now we have 2 universes to explain. I also don't buy into that theory.
Dipayankar, I'm not that familiar with astrophysics to answer your question. My hobby if you will is quantum or nuclear physics.
Just my thoughts gentlemen, keep your thoughts coming.
Best to all,
Pat
P.S. BTW It could be something from something it's just that everything would be in a very little ( but real ) tiny point, at the beginning.
Last edited by Profpat : 01-26-2008 at 09:57 AM.
Reason: added P.S.
Austin, from my one paradox of something from nothing ( which can be explained if you believe in God ) you come up with 3 or more paradoxes, to explain what I can explain with 1. You have it here but not here ( paradox #1 ). Everywhere but nowhere ( paradox #2 ). Existence and nonexistence ( paradox #3 ). I believe Occram when faced with the possibility of 1 paradox versus 3 paradoxes, the obvious choice would be to explore the ONE. Sorry but it appears to be a lot of gpbbledygook on your part my friend.
Nobody I do agree parallel universes colliding could explain our universe, but again more complications in that now we have 2 universes to explain. I also don't buy into that theory.
Dipayankar, I'm not that familiar with astrophysics to answer your question. My hobby if you will is quantum or nuclear physics.
Just my thoughts gentlemen, keep your thoughts coming.
Semantics Professor.
Awareness sees all. The thinking-labelling mechanism steps in and starts labelling things based on ones unique and individual culture, conditioning, and memory and therein lies the problem.
10 people witnessing the same event will give 10 different accounts of what was seen, as each saw from a seperate and distinctively different perspective, albeit possibly only 6 degrees of seperation, the functioning awareness within all saw the same occurance each individual describes what was seen relative to themselves and not on the whole of it, hypnosis and regression have proven this.
Naturally we consider this odd, or uncommon, yet we fail to be bewildered[awed] by such examples of the Omnipotent Power of The Mind.
Best to you Sir
Quote:
Originally Posted by Profpat
Hi Drifter;
Thanks for the links. I would call them interesting curiousities, not paradoxes.
Linear Mode
