My theory on creation of the universe - criticism wanted

sekse · Jul 11, 2006

Ok. I have had a kind of theory for some time now and wanted to run it past a few other brainiacs. Einstein mathematically proved the existance of wormholes, rips in the space time continuum allowing matter and energy to pass from one point in space and possibly time to another instantly, like a warp. Also, it has now been discussed that the charges of subatomic particles can fluctuate. Both of these aid my theory, which is IMPOSSIBLE to prove, but still a good thought. What if subatomic particles reverse charge over time, like an electron today may in a few hundred billion years become a nuetron, later a proton, then back. In that respect, what if the universe originally consisted of only one subatomic particle, which travelled through space and time over thousands of trillions of years, over and over, coupling upon itself, changing polarity, thus creating all the matter in the universe from one tiny particle? Example, I have a baseball that changes colors from red to yellow to blue, and I have a way to create a wormhole to feed it through. Suppose I take it and run it through the wormhole over and over, sending it back in time. I would then have several balls, and of all 3 colors. As long as I continued to feed them through the wormhole, my count would continue to grow. Then I could sell them on ebay and they would disappear as soon as the buyer left feedback, lol. (just kidding with that) An interesting thought, and I would appreciate any INTELLIGENT feedback on this, see if there are any flaws I have overlooked. But please, if you don't understand it, don't post anything about "That's stupid, the universe from one particle," or "You idiot, God made the universe," or anything about it being sneezed out from you "Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy" fans, lol.

summoner · Jul 11, 2006

Was going to mention the big sneeze!! I guess right off the top of my head I can think of a few problems. You'll need to explain away the CMBR which I don't think that a wormhole could do. Second is the mass of a neutron and protron are similar, but how do you explain the almost noexistant mass of an electron? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

harmonicaman · Jul 11, 2006

"Einstein mathematically proved the existance of wormholes..." Yes, but wormholes seem to be merely mathematical curiosities which don't manifest themselves in the macro-universe. There's a better chance that the theorized wormhole could exist in the subatomic universe; if they exist at all. No candidate "White Holes" have been observed which would indicate the presence of a wormhole ejecting matter into space. There're a lot of mathematical cosmological models that don't quite translate into reality, but this only highlights the fact that there is a lot more we need to learn a lot about how our universe operates. Our universe is the conflict between the static "m" and "E" (which was created during the BB event and cannot be created or destroyed; yadda, yadda, yadda...) and the infinitely expanding time and expansion of space -- the "c"! These two entities aren't compatible and how they interact defines our existence; E=mc2. "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams

larper · Jul 11, 2006

There was a SciFi short story years ago, might have been a Frederick Brown story, about a guy that builds the worlds first electron capturer. You see, before this, electrons are detectable, but no one has ever actually captured one before. There are concerns that electrons are positrons are really just the same thing, zipping back and forth through time, and that there might actually be only one true electron. Capturing this would effectively end the universe. He poo-poos the idea and turns the machine on. Story ends right there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Vote Libertarian </div>

sekse · Jul 11, 2006

hmmm, never saw that movie. sounds like someone else had a similar idea before. Interesting. As for the difference in mass, it may be caused by the charge. Just a thought, maybe a negative charge has a negative weight. Nobody has ever weighed energy, and electricity needs both a positive and a negative thus the weight difference could cancel eachother out, so that batteries don't simply float around. I dunno, just an idea. Like I said, no evidence to back this up, and it is nearly impossible to obtain any evidence to this in todays world. One thing's for sure, if I am right, those monks had it right all along about being one with the universe and all, lol. If you think about it, if we are simply one particle coupled over and over, then you are the computer, the grass, and everyone in the world. You are the sun and all the stars you can see. We are the entire universe, just at a different time. Kinda interesting, makes me wish I was a stoner, lol.

pyoko · Jul 11, 2006

My input: to: 'consisted of only one subatomic particle, which travelled through space and time over thousands of trillions of years' In my understanding, space and time are (is?) a product of mass. How does the 'one particle' travel through something that isnt there? Or is it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -pyoko the duck It is by will alone I set my mind in motion. </div>

nova_explored · Jul 11, 2006

on particle would imply one charge. unless that particle had many subatomic layers of structure fullfilled by opposite charges, which the electron is not. electrons cannot break down any further, the nucleus of an atom, however, can. electrons however display fuzzy QM characteristics that associate it to the photon, which is chargeless but can take on the properties of the negative charged electron. a singularity would have no charge and no properties. point being, electrons that suddenly changed to positive charges, and would manifest exponentially overtime would send the universe apart, or allow it to die as subatomic structure could not be supported, however the properties of the electron are kind of inseperable from the nucleus. so any change in charge over eons of time would be of a whole system and not of its parts individually. the universe works in symetry subatomically. but again, the electron is negative not of its own volition so it has no say in changing its charge, nor does any other particle for that matter. the photon is the only particle that can exhibit both positive and negative charge characteristics as it works with both (as it genuinely has no charge) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

yevaud · Jul 11, 2006

Ah, that was recently proven to be somewhat incorrect. The ability of the "Normal" electron (solar in origin) to morph into a Tau or Muon electron was measured. So the fundamental particles are a bit more unstable than you'd think. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

docm · Jul 11, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Yevaud said; "Ah, that was recently proven to be somewhat incorrect. The ability of the "Normal" electron (solar in origin) to morph into a Tau or Muon electron was measured."<hr /></blockquote> Solar e-neutrinos morphing into m-neutrinos or t-neutrinos, yes. Electrons themselves morphing, I don't think so <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Both are leptons, as are the non-neutrino muon and tau particles, but AFAIK they are not interchangable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

sekse · Jul 12, 2006

Yes, I understand that according to our current knowledge, it seems impossible for an electron to change polarities, and it is a good point that without a positive, there could be no negative. What if charge is a matter of perspective, though? What if what we concider a positive or negative charge is simply a phase of some sort? Say it's a matter of positive or negative subatomic gravity or who knows what else. My point is, from our perspective and VERY limited knowledge, one force can not exist without an equal and opposite force, thus an electron can not exist without a proton, and light can not exist without darkness, etc. (Although there had to be light to creat darkness, as they are both matters of perspective) This is true from what we know now, and a few hundred years ago, the earth was flat and the center of the universe. What if charge is for example a type of vibration, clockwise is positive and c-clockwise is negative. This is very unlikely the case, but an example, because we have NO idea of what makes an electron tick. We have no idea what a negative charge really is, except to say it is positive's opposite, and vice versa. As I have said, it has been observed that the charge of electrons billions of years ago had a lower negative charge than atoms today, indicating one of two things. They either A) continue to grow infinitely more and more charged until something happens (what happens we have no clue) or B) the charge follows a parabolic phase shift of some kind, be it increase and decrease of negative charge or a complete phase shift inverting the polarities. If protons are equal and opposite to electrons, it can be said that they too experience this newly discovered phase shift. Otherwise the charge of the electron would become greater than the proton and the atom would collapse or explode. We simple do not know enough about the physics of subatomic particles to make conclusions as to how they work, so we gue

sekse · Jul 12, 2006

In response to: Poster: Yevaud Subject: Re: My theory on creation of the universe - criticism wanted Ah, that was recently proven to be somewhat incorrect. The ability of the "Normal" electron (solar in origin) to morph into a Tau or Muon electron was measured. So the fundamental particles are a bit more unstable than you'd think. What was disproven? If you are reffering to the phase shift of an electron, you are reffering to the wrong case. The case I refer to was recently published as a result of monitoring the matter of quasars billions of light years away. By analizing the spectrum of light emitted they have found ways to study the atoms of the quasar which are billions of years old, and it was discovered that the electrons contained a weaker charge. http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060711/sc_space/scientistsquestionnaturesfundamentallaws quote: the quasar observations are sometimes interpreted as indicating that light was faster in the past, or that the electron had a weaker charge.

CalliArcale · Jul 12, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Einstein mathematically proved the existance of wormholes, rips in the space time continuum allowing matter and energy to pass from one point in space and possibly time to another instantly, like a warp.<hr /></blockquote> One minor quibble, and then I think I've exhausted all the expertise I can possibly bring to this thread. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Einstein did not prove the existence of wormholes. But I do believe he proved the *plausibility* of them. Some other things that he proved mathematically plausible include black holes and gravitational lensing. Both of those he thought would never actually be observed; he felt the odds were absurdly against them actually existing. But many examples of both have since been observed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

vandivx · Jul 12, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />sekse: space and time ... are measurements of mass would be more accurate. Space is absolutley nothing, total oblivion, although we use it to define the gap between to bodies of mass, making it a measurement. Time, in the same respect, is a measurement of travel. We are always counting time as measuring the gap between 2 events<hr /></blockquote> nothing is 'absolutely nothing', if something were truly an 'oblivion', we wouldn't even be aware of it but we are aware of space even if it seems to be only in relation to bodies of matter. Space actually manifests its existence in many ways, direct and indirect but physicists don't want to or cannot afford to recognize it as being something because of other theories they mistakenly hold on to. It is a mark of intellectual savagery (which is tragedy of modern physics) to call something nothing just because one can't touch it or otherwise physically handle it, in the same way as one can touch matter. Einstein himself wrote (for what its worth) that the existence of curvature tensor (what it stands for) disposes of the fact that space as such is physically empty... (freely quoting from memory). Time is a measurement of change - of change as such. We are aware of time only because of various changes we observe (external to us or internal within our bodies). 'Travel', that is a motion, is just one type of change. And of course, change or more precisely the rate at which change occurs is directly related to energy and therefore time is related to energy. vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

sekse · Jul 13, 2006

Very good point about curvature tensor, And I guess it is true space is not simply empty, as there is a thin air of mostly hydrogen in space. Kind of an interesting point that we don't know what the heck space really is. As for time being a measuerment of change, that sounds a bit better, I just couldn't find the right words. I quess time could best be described as a measurement of both change and travel, as both do work with it. Just really sucks we have such short life spans, I would love to be around when we finally figure all this stuff out. We really are a smart species, we invented what we call time to measure something we can't even define, rather than first deciding what we're measuring.

sekse · Jul 13, 2006

In retrospect, this all brings us back to before. First off, maybe we are backwards. We are saying that something as big as the universe can't be just empty space with a few big balls here and there, but when the first piece of matter appeared, it appeared in a universe full of absolutely nothing. Thus meaning space would be nothing, but has become filled with matter, thus both theories fit. The main paradox with it is the good ol' chicken and the egg. Which one came first, matter or the universe. If the universe is a product of matter, and matter is a product of the universe, who showed up for the party first? Wait, I just had an epiphany. What if I am right, and the universe is simply one particle traveling through time changing phase. Now suppose that thousands of years from now some super genius finds a way to create matter by making a proton. (I know, we say it is impossible, but so was sailing round the world a few hundred years ago) In essence, we create the universe and that is how it came to exist. By creating one subatmic particle, we could create the entire universe. That particle would travel to the dawn of time and back over and over, making the matter of the universe. Of course, this brings up a variant of the matricide paradox, wouldn't we have had to exist to make the universe to begin with? Or would the fact that the particle travelled through time and created it lead to our creation leading to it's creation? Deep thought moment.

nova_explored · Jul 13, 2006

okay now you're moving into string theory. frequency and vibration dictate charge in string theory. right now weaker charges could be just about anything under the sun until we know better the conditions of the infant state of the universe. but physicists almost determitedly believe that the electron is the grounding force of the universe. without it, we don't have structure. basically, split an electron apart (most likely using more energy than is currently available in the universe) and there will be no further substructure. it's a negative charge for a very good reason. but i don't want to paste it all as there would be many many cross references needed to explain. but you've struck upon the single most exciting component of physics that i share. yay! the following from wikipedia excerpts: It turns out that the spin of a particle is closely related to its properties in statistical mechanics. Particles with half-integer spin obey Fermi-Dirac statistics, and are known as fermions. They are subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, which forbids them from sharing quantum states, and are described in quantum theory by "antisymmetric states" Elementary particles are particles that cannot be divided into any smaller units, such as the photon, the electron, and the various quarks. Theoretical and experimental studies have shown that the spin possessed by these particles cannot be explained by postulating that they are made up of even smaller particles rotating about a common center of mass (see classical electron radius); as far as we can tell, these elementary particles are true point particles. The spin that they carry is a truly intrinsic physical property, akin to a particle's electric charge and mass. Electrons and positrons can annihilate each other and produce a pair of photons. However, high-energy photons may transform into an electron and a positron by a process called pair production or <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nova_explored · Jul 13, 2006

ah, i'm off base, ur talking about space in respect to the universe and charges. on that, space and our known universe are intricately linked. when the universe was born, space expanded with all the properties of the universe in it. they were born at the same time and are inseperable. however outside the 'space' of the universe is entirely up in the air for conjecture. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

harmonicaman · Jul 13, 2006

Sekse - "...but when the first piece of matter appeared, it appeared in a universe full of absolutely nothing." Mainstream cosmologists (Einstein, Hawking, etc.) tend to agree that the universe started as an infinitesimally small and dense singularity which underwent an initial inflation that lasted a tiny fraction of a second (1.), expanding much faster than the speed of light (although the actual speed of light during the Big Bang event is still an unknown...). The infant universe was very hot, so hot that ordinary atoms couldn't exist yet -- time and space seems to have occurred first, but this idea is open to debate. Electrons caused very small packets of light (photons) to scatter continuously and light was linked, or coupled, to these particles. This caused the hot primordial universe glow like a plasma and consisted of protons, electrons, neutrons, neutrinos, photons, etc. The universe cooled as it expanded and eventually, after about 300,000 years, it was cool enough so that the first atoms could form(2.). Photons are more likely to scatter off of ionized particles (like protons and electrons that have an electrical charge) than neutrally-charged atoms, so photons could now travel through the universe in straight paths instead of constantly being scattered by electrons. As a result, the formation of atoms lead to the creation of the elements hydrogen and helium, and the now free-streaming photons made up a nearly uniform light radiation that filled the whole universe. The study of this radiation, which is call the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)(3.), may hold the key to some of the most pressing questions about the universe and our ultimate fate. Nova_Explored - "...however outside the 'space' of the universe is entirely up in the air for conjecture." But if the universe is

vandivx · Jul 13, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />And I guess it is true space is not simply empty, as there is a thin air of mostly hydrogen in space. Kind of an interesting point that we don't know what the heck space really is.<hr /></blockquote> Hydrogen is matter, when I say space is something I don't mean that we find something in space pretty well everywhere (which is true). To explain by way of analogy, think of matter as for example cabage and space as the field from which cabage grows. Today's views that see matter existing as selfcontained bodies howering in the middle of nothing (or oblivion to use your term) are as badly mistaken as would be views of city dwellers that cabage comes out of thin air, that is without needing field of soil to grow out of. When I talk of space being something, I mean something that underlies matter, something that matter arises out of, similar to that cabage arising out of soil to use the same words. It is true that soil is matter and cabage is matter, analogies are just analogies and can't be carried too far, still we could say from certain perspective that the cabage is not soil and soil is not cabage. By the same token, I would say that space is not matter and matter is not space, still the matter arises out of space same as the cabage 'arises' out of soil. Only in the case of space we have here something underlying the matter while it itself is not matter. Space is simply different existent from matter, it exists on lower hierarchy than matter but still it is an existent, that is something, not 'nothing' or 'oblivion' or void. We shall never be able to understand matter as long as we view it as isolated bodies existing in vacuum or in void or in oblivion, disconnected from everything. Such view is as magical as is that of the cabage coming to be out of thin air. Of course, macroscopic bodies of mater don't themselves arise out of space as such but rather particl <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

observer7 · Jul 13, 2006

I seem to remember reading something about string theory that I thought was very unusual. It seem that in one (or maybe 2 or more) of the variations of string theory that the variable for "size" produces an interesting symetry around the planck length. That is if size is measured in planck units then x and 1/x give the same results in the equations. Therefore our universe can be viewed as being extremely huge or microscopically small. Either way works. -- <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "Time exists so that everything doesn't happen at once" Albert Einstein </div>

sekse · Jul 13, 2006

maybe it is very small. Maybe our solar system is simply an atom, with our galaxy being a molecule. Maybe we are a living on an electron of an atom that exists on some huge wife beating alcoholic couch potatoe's pubic hair, we'll never know. Even if this were true, we would be so mall we would never be able to see such a big picture. We'll just never know.

kmarinas86 · Jul 13, 2006

Maybe our solar system is simply an atom, with our galaxy being a molecule. It's not. Why? Where are the polymers made of star systems? The organic molecules made of star systems? The alkaline star systems? The halogen star systems? The silicon star systems? We don't see them. It is more plausible that our universe be a gluon than the solarsystem be fluorine. Maybe we are a living on an electron of an atom that exists on some huge wife beating alcoholic couch potatoe's pubic hair, we'll never know. Even if this were true, we would be so mall we would never be able to see such a big picture. We'll just never know. LMAO

harmonicaman · Jul 13, 2006

Kmarina86; I dunno, I think you're being a bit too harsh. This concept has been bandied about in Science Fiction circles for years. Remember "The Immunity Syndrome" episode of (the original) Star Trek which featured a giant Solar System sized ameoba? Sekse; you need to review FSU's excellent "Powers of 10" tutorial...

nova_explored · Jul 13, 2006

cool link as for outside the singularity and its expansion - no one knows what it is, or how it functions, etc. etc. my point was that spacetime and matter are all part of the singularity and hence cannot be seperated. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

vandivx · Jul 14, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />harmonicaman: Kmarina86; I dunno, I think you're being a bit too harsh. This concept has been bandied about in Science Fiction circles for years. Remember "The Immunity Syndrome" episode of (the original) Star Trek which featured a giant Solar System sized ameoba?<hr /></blockquote> but is this forum for science fiction or science reality, that is the question clearly some people have trouble distinguishing the difference but at least they should try to stick to discussing science without the fiction vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

My theory on creation of the universe - criticism wanted

sekse

Guest

summoner

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

larper

Guest

sekse

Guest

pyoko

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

yevaud

Guest

docm

Guest

sekse

Guest

sekse

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

vandivx

Guest

sekse

Guest

sekse

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

vandivx

Guest

observer7

Guest

sekse

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

nova_explored

Guest

vandivx

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page