If we are to some day be able to determine the time of the birth of the Universe, should we not be able to determine from what it was born? Further, what would we call the condition from which the Universe may have gotten birth?
I agree we should be able to determine what created the universe if we know when it was made. Good question. I hope someone with more knowledge of this than me replies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#0000ff"><em>William ( deapfreeze ) Hooper</em></font></p><p><font size="1">http://deapfreeze-amateur-astronomy.tk/</font></p><p> </p> </div>
I think not. No one ever lived in that time so its hard to tell. Its the same with the Origin of Life. No one can tell for sure that it was so like it was - even when we would create life like in the Miller experiment - that dosent mean it was so. It is only one of the millions of possibilities like it could have been.
Reversing time takes you back to when the universe was a single dimensionless point called the singularity, which is where classical physics breaks down because the math implodes into a bunch of infinities.<br /><br />One proposed solution to this is M-theory, which is an evolution of string theory extended into 11 dimensions. It's incomplete, but fixes a whole lot of problems.<br /><br />M-theory is inherently quantum mechanical, which is a huge advantage, and it incorporates gravity which classic physics does not. Another feature is membranes, AKA p-branes or colloquially just "branes". The 'p' stands for how many dimensions the brane has and can run from 0 to 9. A 0-brane would be just a point. <br /><br />Branes can also have shapes; toroids, spheres and many others.<br /><br />Here's where it becomes fun; many theorists believe that when branes impact each other the energy can create universes in each brane. Since their surfaces are irregular the energy distribution is therefore not smooth, resulting in features in the new universe like the irregularities in the cosmic background radiation. <br /><br />Remember those shapes? A p-brane that is a closed loop would solve one of classical physics big problems - it's a graviton and it's weaker than the intrinsic forces (strong and electromagnetic and weak) because much of its energy is 'outside'.<br /><br />This birth of the universe scenario is known as brane cosmology.<br /><br />So...if M-theory pans out you have your answer; the collision energy of 2 multidimensional objects called branes which live in an 11 dimensional spacetime. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<font color="cyan">Its the same with the Origin of Life. No one can tell for sure that it was so like it was</font> <br /><br />This is one of the questions I tried to raise in Human Biology forum. There is no way for us to tell how did the universe look like before the formation of life, on earth or any other places in the universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
"<i>There is no way for us to tell how did the universe look like before the formation of life, on earth or any other places in the universe.</i>"<br /><br />I would have to disagree by simply stating that we can view galaxies as they were 13+ billion year ago. I suppose taking the statement literally: "what does the universe look like"... we can't state what it currently looks like, but we can certainly describe what we are capable of observing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
We can tell how it looks to the point our technology alows us but we cannot tell how it looked when it was "birthed" or how it look 20+Billion Lightyears away. That is only a theory not a prove fact that it was so also like origin of life. Sorry but I am a agnostic on this I doubt we will have the answers about everything.
The JWST should be capable to see as far back as the first scattering of photons. Before that, the universe was opaque and I doubt any technology can physically 'see' beyond that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
I think that the laws of nature forbid us to ever know. If the universe started with a big bang having been caused by a big shrink, the singularity parting the contraction and the expansion would not incorporate the factor 'time', and hence, what we refer to as 'the past' would be erased such that it 'never was'. If we would be able to scientifically prove that the big expansion (the big bang) was the result of a big contraction, we would introduce 'time' where there wasn't any. That would either represent a paradox, or mean that we are wrong in believing in the non-existance of time in a singularity.
Could Should. There two words bring sometimes great twists but I am skeptical here for one thing about this because big awaitinings bring only failure sometimes. Like Millers experiemnt they thought that it was the "origin of life" but no and many other experiments that were researched in big ways brought the oposite or they had leaks. I agree with you second sentence it is true and I doubt that we will know everything.