what if we could see the very beginning of the birth of the universe? would we need a bigger, better satellite-based visual telescope? would we need a super-duper radiotelescope? i think not.. there will never be an authentic depiction of the moment the "cosmic egg" cracked its shell from a visual or radiotelescope device.
here are two examples why.. #1: we all know about the twins' paradox, where one twin stays on earth and the other takes off in a spaceship at the speed of light.. the space-bound twin returns 40 years later.. the earth-bound twin sees his brother and wonders why his twin has aged only a few days, while he as aged the normal 40 years.. the twin on the spaceship has aged very little because accelerating to near the speed of light slows the aging process.. although the space-bound twin feels he has aged normally while on the spaceship, he does see the difference when compared to his earth-bound brother.. each sees the other as having gone through a drastic change in the aging process, but sees nothing unusual in his own aging process.. #2: when we view the event horizon of a black hole, we see matter infalling at near the speed of light. with this speed and earth's distance from the black hole, it appears matter is moving very slowly into the event horizon or not at all.. pictures taken today of matter entering the event horizon would show the same detail thousands, even millions of years from now.. this is because matter moving into the event horizon at near the speed of light and the distance from earth combine to make it appear as if matter at the event horizon is unchanged, even over long periods.. matter at the event horizon still enters very quickly.. if we could position ourselves near a black hole we could actually see matter moving into the event horizon, even at near the speed of light.. but, combined with the distance from our solar system to the black hole, it appears as if matter has stalled its entrance inside the black hole..
now we are examining the inception of the universe.. if we could see the birth of the universe or the "cracking of the cosmic egg", how would it look? it wouldn't look like anything, and this is why.. we know that the birth of the universe brought forth a great amount of impetus from the "cosmic egg".. what was coming out was done with unbelievable energy. we have inferred that space itself was ejected from this "egg".. it has been determined that space is not bound by the speed of light.. for the universe to have formed as it has, space had to have expanded at many magnitudes higher than the speed of light.. from this understanding and what followed the ejection of space was also moving at an ultra-high velocity, that everything was moving at speeds higher than one can conceptualize.. because of this outpouring of space and some kind of matter at such high speed, it would be logical to assume that the principles that govern our observations of matter infalling at black holes' event horizons would also govern whatever observations we would hope to gain from witnessing the birth of the universe.. we cannot hope to actually observe the ejection of the contents of the "cosmic egg" because it would be moving so fast, much faster than the speed of light. that speed, combined with the distance of 13.8 billion light years as the age of the universe, is a convincing argument for denying us an actual visual of the "live birth" of the universe.. if we could see the "cosmic egg" prior to the opening of the universe, what would that be like?
there are two possibilities on the point of the initial cracking of the "cosmic egg".. #1: we would never see the cracking of the "shell".. due to the speed of the event, it would be happening too fast for us to track it, just as with matter falling into a black hole; we never see the matter actually falling or disappearing inside the event horizon.. this is the same reasoning.. #2: we may see a number of small cracks or fissures at locations at points on the "shell".. they would be incredibly small locations to interpret, but if we could observe them, these are all we could see.. this is because to initially open a series of fissures, whatever is trying to exit the "egg" would possibly have to accelerate to "escape velocity" to have enough energy to crack the "cosmic egg".. in this brief period, it might be possible to observe the opening of small fissures where contents of the "egg" would be ready to exit their confinement after exceeding escape velocity.. after opening the fissure fully, the contents would have achieved the ultra-high speed many magnitudes higher than the speed of light.. whether possibility #1 or #2 is more likely is not important.. we would never see either of them, but it is interesting to hypothesize on such issues.
if we attempt to observe the actual birth of the universe, but cannot see any more than what appears to be stagnation of the birthing process, what might we think then? if all we have to judge from are those apparent "still life" poses, what could we suppose? what impact could it have on us? we might wonder if there really is a universe after all.. if we dont see the actual "setting off" of the "cosmic egg", maybe all this never happened, maybe we aren't really here; maybe we are just part of another universe whose "birth" was successful, where ours failed, judging by the telescopic evidence which shows nothing happening with our "cosmic egg", even if we watched it for millions, maybe billions of years.. but, we are here; we know that.. if we cannot keep a picture for our photo albums we have to accept the theories supplied to us, and admire the graphic productions available to us and hope that our universe came to us in some form similar to the magnificent renderings compiled by artists..
here are two examples why.. #1: we all know about the twins' paradox, where one twin stays on earth and the other takes off in a spaceship at the speed of light.. the space-bound twin returns 40 years later.. the earth-bound twin sees his brother and wonders why his twin has aged only a few days, while he as aged the normal 40 years.. the twin on the spaceship has aged very little because accelerating to near the speed of light slows the aging process.. although the space-bound twin feels he has aged normally while on the spaceship, he does see the difference when compared to his earth-bound brother.. each sees the other as having gone through a drastic change in the aging process, but sees nothing unusual in his own aging process.. #2: when we view the event horizon of a black hole, we see matter infalling at near the speed of light. with this speed and earth's distance from the black hole, it appears matter is moving very slowly into the event horizon or not at all.. pictures taken today of matter entering the event horizon would show the same detail thousands, even millions of years from now.. this is because matter moving into the event horizon at near the speed of light and the distance from earth combine to make it appear as if matter at the event horizon is unchanged, even over long periods.. matter at the event horizon still enters very quickly.. if we could position ourselves near a black hole we could actually see matter moving into the event horizon, even at near the speed of light.. but, combined with the distance from our solar system to the black hole, it appears as if matter has stalled its entrance inside the black hole..
now we are examining the inception of the universe.. if we could see the birth of the universe or the "cracking of the cosmic egg", how would it look? it wouldn't look like anything, and this is why.. we know that the birth of the universe brought forth a great amount of impetus from the "cosmic egg".. what was coming out was done with unbelievable energy. we have inferred that space itself was ejected from this "egg".. it has been determined that space is not bound by the speed of light.. for the universe to have formed as it has, space had to have expanded at many magnitudes higher than the speed of light.. from this understanding and what followed the ejection of space was also moving at an ultra-high velocity, that everything was moving at speeds higher than one can conceptualize.. because of this outpouring of space and some kind of matter at such high speed, it would be logical to assume that the principles that govern our observations of matter infalling at black holes' event horizons would also govern whatever observations we would hope to gain from witnessing the birth of the universe.. we cannot hope to actually observe the ejection of the contents of the "cosmic egg" because it would be moving so fast, much faster than the speed of light. that speed, combined with the distance of 13.8 billion light years as the age of the universe, is a convincing argument for denying us an actual visual of the "live birth" of the universe.. if we could see the "cosmic egg" prior to the opening of the universe, what would that be like?
there are two possibilities on the point of the initial cracking of the "cosmic egg".. #1: we would never see the cracking of the "shell".. due to the speed of the event, it would be happening too fast for us to track it, just as with matter falling into a black hole; we never see the matter actually falling or disappearing inside the event horizon.. this is the same reasoning.. #2: we may see a number of small cracks or fissures at locations at points on the "shell".. they would be incredibly small locations to interpret, but if we could observe them, these are all we could see.. this is because to initially open a series of fissures, whatever is trying to exit the "egg" would possibly have to accelerate to "escape velocity" to have enough energy to crack the "cosmic egg".. in this brief period, it might be possible to observe the opening of small fissures where contents of the "egg" would be ready to exit their confinement after exceeding escape velocity.. after opening the fissure fully, the contents would have achieved the ultra-high speed many magnitudes higher than the speed of light.. whether possibility #1 or #2 is more likely is not important.. we would never see either of them, but it is interesting to hypothesize on such issues.
if we attempt to observe the actual birth of the universe, but cannot see any more than what appears to be stagnation of the birthing process, what might we think then? if all we have to judge from are those apparent "still life" poses, what could we suppose? what impact could it have on us? we might wonder if there really is a universe after all.. if we dont see the actual "setting off" of the "cosmic egg", maybe all this never happened, maybe we aren't really here; maybe we are just part of another universe whose "birth" was successful, where ours failed, judging by the telescopic evidence which shows nothing happening with our "cosmic egg", even if we watched it for millions, maybe billions of years.. but, we are here; we know that.. if we cannot keep a picture for our photo albums we have to accept the theories supplied to us, and admire the graphic productions available to us and hope that our universe came to us in some form similar to the magnificent renderings compiled by artists..
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram