How did the universe begin?

[cee-dee]

Durham University has a new physics centre and they aim to "find out how the Universe began":-

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/how-universe-begin-11m-new-12719998

So, how do YOU think the Universe began?

Me? OK, I'll have my say then it's over to you eh?

We (think) we know that Black Holes swallow matter of all sorts and we can "see" it happening as a Black Hole "feeds" off a star that's "ventured" a bit too close? OK so what's causing the Black Hole to do that? Gravity?

OK, so we know that if some space object ventures too close to another Planet or Star, gravity will draw it in and the object will collide with whatever's drawn it in?

So, if gravity does that, what's to stop many things from being "sucked in" to an ever increasing Black Hole which has "sucked in" all the other Black Holes over trillions of years (of our time) until it's sucked in more or less everything in the Universe? Such a mass of stuff with such immense gravity would have unbelievable pressure on the matter it's "sucked in", extreme pressure means heat?

The immense pressure and heat reach a critical point beyond which the whole lot explodes. The matter and gas get flung out where eventually blobs of matter become Stars as they cool. Those Stars "live" and "die", their remnants being attracted together along with clouds of gas all of which form other Stars, some with Planets, the lot leading to the evolution of the Universe all over again?

There, my idea, what's yours?

[jd.linklater]

Thank you, I wasn't aware of that.

[cee-dee]

All these scientific chaps alter and create "Laws" to suit themselves when prexisting "Laws" don't quite work out.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Probably the most famous example of where Newton's Laws of Motion don't work as observed from Earth is the orbit of Mercury around the Sun.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-200-year-old-mystery-of-mercurys-orbit-solved-1458642219

[evoman3957]

I think the essence of it all is " time ", for ANYTHING to exist; it has to exist in time.......no time means nothing exists. So to say that before the big bang, there was no time; is to say NOTHING existed. That, in itself, is to ask the human mind to take on board something that is way beyond it's capabilities. To then ask it to theorise, on how the big bang could have come about; from a state of complete non being, a state where nothing existed to kick it into action, a state where no catalytic possibilities existed, a totally inert state........is to expect way too much. At the current moment in time, almost half the human race can't keep up with mental evolution at its current rate.........so best not to tax it too much !!

[celticthebhoys585]

Who cares-we're here get on with it.

I say the big man upstairs started it. Suppose I'll meet him someday. 

[cee-dee]

If that's what you're expecting, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

[theelench]

My theory relies on accepting a few things before we start.  That we are living in a Multiverse with the possibility of an infinite number of universes.  That dark matter and energy do exist.  On a quantum level that Superstring Theory is correct and some sub-atomic particles can be in several (or possibly everywhere they have been and ever will be) at the same time. 

Lastly that something I read or heard so long ago I can't remember any other details is also correct (probably something to do with the theory of evolution).   That the primary function of a living organism is to multiply itself as many times as possible.  To give itself the best chance of survival in an evolving environment.

If you can accept all that my theory is pretty simple.

Our universe is a living organism something like a vast amoeba.  It lives in the Multiverse..  Dark matter and energy are the portion of the parent universe still in the previous universe that ours is in the process of splitting off from.  Which is why we can't detect them, they're not "here" to detect.

The Big Bang was the beginning of this split as the other universe divides itself in two.   The galaxies, stars and planets are akin to its constituent parts (nucleus etc.).

My theory would also explain why our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.  Surely it should remain constant if it was formed in a single explosive event in a vacuum.  But this is explained if the division is not complete and as more of this universe is split off  "the push" away from the parent gets stronger.

I think my theory explains the formation of our universe pretty neatly using the scientific observations and theories available at present but of course still leaves another question.   Where did the amoeba come from?

[cee-dee]

Like you say, we have no way of knowing if there are other "Universes" or whether the Universe as we know it was part of another until the Big Bang happened.

If as I speculate, if there is another Universe (or more), the enormous Black Hole that eventually exploded due to the heat and pressure could have formed "there".

Also, we don't know where our Universe is expanding to? For all we know, the expansion is due to it all heading for someplace else where, over trillions of years, the whole thing will take off all over again.

Again, we've no way of knowing how many times it's happened. Our time is short in comparison to the age of the Universe and it's only a relatively short time since the scientific world stopped explaining the inexplicable by tales of mysticism enacted by all-powerful beings.......

[theelench]

All very true but one I can see one small problem with your idea.

"Also we don't know where our universe is expanding to".   I thought scientists say that all the galaxies are expanding away from each other.  So unless time and space curve back on themselves somehow they will never again get close enough to form another super-massive black hole.

In my theory expansion will slow and stop when the galaxies are in their appropriate positions within the new galaxy and it becomes "mature".  At some point in time after that it will then start another Big Bang as it begins to split.  The next big bang being the point when it ruptures its boundary into the next "layer" of the multiverse.

[cee-dee]

If, as you say the galaxies are expanding away from one another, how come Anromeda is predicted to collide with the Milky Way in around 4 billion years time?

[upthecreekyetagain]

The universe is not expanding from a single point like a bubble - no matter which direction you look out into the universe you are looking straight at the the position of the 'big bang'

As such therefore although the universe as a whole is expanding that doesn't mean that all objects in the universe are moving away from each other.  It is space that is expanding, not the objects within it.

The universe isn't expanding into nothingness - if it were then as we looked out from the Earth there would be fewer stars/galaxies/gas etc. in some directions.  This is not the case, no matter in which direction you look and no matter from where in the universe you look from you will see an even spread of universal objects.  There is no visible edge to the universe.

[cee-dee]

This lark about the Universe expanding like a balloon being blown up just can't be right if you think it through.

If something went ***BANG***, stuff is thrown out. For the Universe to be expanding in all directions (as we see it.....) and not from a single point, surely "something" would have to remain at the point of "The Big Bang"? If not, there's a big empty space there?

Now, we only know the Universe as we see it, we have no idea just where in the scheme of things we are when looking at the Universe as a whole. We know where we are in relationship to all we can see (or detect), but what lies "beyond", we have absolutely no idea.

I suppose it won't be long before someone theorises that everything in the pre-universe (and it wasn't all in one place) went ***BANG*** all at the same time........ and that everything in the Universe is the same "distance" from the point of the Big Bang because  it all went ***BANG***......

[upthecreekyetagain]

You're taking the word "bang" in the "Big Bang" literally.

Everything isn't moving away from the point where the big bang occurred - that "point" is simply getting bigger and outside of the "point simply doesn't exist.

There is no "beyond".

[cee-dee]

No beyond? Who says? Prove it.

If "the point" is getting bigger, what's left in the middle?

[upthecreekyetagain]

The whole theory of the "Big Bang" is that there isn't a middle - no matter where you are in the Universe there are the same number of stars and other matter all around.  The Universe isn't expanding into empty space - it is expanding full stop.  We are where the Big Bang occurred, as is the Moon, the Sun, anywhere in the Milky Way in fact anywhere in the Universe.  

[cee-dee]

It's all very well repeating what others have theorised/speculated but no-one has ever explained just how, from nothing, a whole universe can simply appear and not only that, suddenly be all over the place.

If something is going somewhere, it has to have left somewhere.

It's all very well, "explaining" something with pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo, but logically, it just can't happen like that.

I invited people to put forward their own thoughts about how the Universe began, perhaps it's all beyond belief as to how it began?.

[upthecreekyetagain]

I prefer to take the theories put forward by the likes of Stephen Hawking, (who incidentally claims to have shown how the Universe can start from nothing), than those put forward by laymen such as myself and you.

I haven't read SH's papers, let alone understood them - I struggle with Einsteins general theory of relativity!

Suggestions of how I think the universe began would be as useful as someone who can't multiply two numbers together trying to explain calculus!

[cee-dee]

Like I said, we've all (well a lot of us) have seen all the "explanations" put forward by notables so for the purposes of a thread on ebay, the thoughts of members are far more interesting than repeating the same old things.

Now I like an argument (OK, a discussion putting points back and forth) but the thread wasn't about arguing the case for or against whatever notable theory floats your boat other than stating your case with your explanation.

OK, threads develop but lets have some ideas or your explanation of how you think whatever you believe can happen.

[theelench]

Well I still like my amoeba theory and from what others have said about the currently acceptable scientific theories mine includes most of them.

It explains the "why" the universe exists, dark matter and why it is expanding, to me at least .

[cee-dee]

Interesting yes, thing is, like all our theories, it doesn't explain how matter, even the smallest bit came in to being.

I suppose we can never be content with the bits we know about?