Cosmogenesis .

[Mr Miyagi]

I'm interested in what the forum thinks on the matter of how the universe started.

I've listed all the options I'm aware of that are reasonably popular.

I've left an "other" just in case...

 

I'd be grateful if those voting other could enlighten me.

 

I voted 'Other' because like Anna B says I just dont know. no one does. It could have happened billions of years ago and personally in my view thats a cold case even the combined powers of Miss Marple, Poirot and the Sweeney could not solve.

[unbeliever]

I voted 'Other' because like Anna B says I just dont know. no one does. It could have happened billions of years ago and personally in my view thats a cold case even the combined powers of Miss Marple, Poirot and the Sweeney could not solve.

 

These people did not have the James Webb telescope, nor did they have neutrino and gravitation wave detectors. They're also fictional. These 2 things combined put them at a grave disadvantage in unraveling this particular mystery.

[Mr Miyagi]

These people did not have the James Webb telescope, nor did they have neutrino and gravitation wave detectors. They're also fictional. These 2 things combined put them at a grave disadvantage in unraveling this particular mystery.

 

Damn you Sir. Damn you with your rational thinking and logical conclusions.

[Nagel]

I don't understand 'always'.

[I1L2T3]

I always thought the universe was everything that exists, the totality of all matter, energy, and space, if so then what we see isn't the universe it is just part of the universe.

 

Quantum physics presents the possibility that multiple universes exist. I dunno but it seems possible that new universes can somehow spawn from existing ones. We could be in just one of trillions of universes with new ones being born all the time. Who knows? Nobody on earth does for sure.

[apelike]

Fluctuations in vacuum energy occur within the universe all the time. A pair of particles with all properties (charge, energy, mass etc) cancelling each other out is briefly born and then dies as the 2 particles cancel each other out.

 

A key prediction of this hypothesis is that the total energy of the whole universe should add up to zero. The hypothesis has gained popularity since 1998 when "dark energy" was effectively discovered as a result of observations of type 1a supernovae showing that the rate of expansion of the universe has increased with time. This dark energy brings the estimates of the total energy of the universe down to close to and consistent with zero. Without dark energy, it was nowhere near.

 

I dont think the above about dark energy can be 100% the case despite some observations and even the observations of type Ia supernovae are now being questioned. Dark energy, together with dark matter seems to be a best fit approach to make the maths work but does not really rely on much data only observation. What we still cant address is what has happened to all the anti-matter that should be about as there should be equal amounts of matter and anti-matter around the universe. Put that into the equation and dark matter does not fit so maybe dark energy is the same.

[sutty27]

Quantum physics presents the possibility that multiple universes exist. I dunno but it seems possible that new universes can somehow spawn from existing ones. We could be in just one of trillions of universes with new ones being born all the time. Who knows? Nobody on earth does for sure.

 

That's the bit I find confusing, if the universe is everything that exists, the totality of all matter, energy, and space, then how can there be more than one.

Surely what we see is just a small part of a much larger universe, and the expansion of this part was just an event in an already existing universe.

 

I like the idea what we perceive to be the universe is a tiny expansion of space/time within the event horizon of a black hole, from our prospective it been around for 13 billions years, from the perspective of anything on the outside of our bubble it just popped in and out of existence.

[unbeliever]

I dont think the above about dark energy can be 100% the case despite some observations and even the observations of type Ia supernovae are now being questioned. Dark energy, together with dark matter seems to be a best fit approach to make the maths work but does not really rely on much data only observation. What we still cant address is what has happened to all the anti-matter that should be about as there should be equal amounts of matter and anti-matter around the universe. Put that into the equation and dark matter does not fit so maybe dark energy is the same.

 

What you're describing there with the matter/anti-mantter asymmetry is also under heavy experimental investigation. There are a few natural processes where the properties of matter and anti-matter are slightly different. These are being studied heavily and more are being searched for. The provisional conclusion is that matter and anti-matter are imperfect reflections of each other.

The various kinds of astronomy I mentioned combined with particle physics experiments should eventually come together into a deeper fundamental physics model bringing us more insight into such things.

 

---------- Post added 02-05-2016 at 15:25 ----------

 

That's the bit I find confusing, if the universe is everything that exists, the totality of all matter, energy, and space, then how can there be more than one.

Surely what we see is just a small part of a much larger universe, and the expansion of this part was just an event in an already existing universe.

 

I like the idea what we perceive to be the universe is a tiny expansion of space/time within the event horizon of a black hole, from our prospective it been around for 13 billions years, from the perspective of anything on the outside of our bubble it just popped in and out of existence.

 

It would simply indicate that we were wrong to call it the universe. It's a failure of language born out of what would be a false assumption.

[sutty27]

It would simply indicate that we were wrong to call it the universe. It's a failure of language born out of what would be a false assumption.

 

So when I say the universe as always existed and someone else says it started 13 billions years ago, we can both be right at the same time based on our definition of universe.

[unbeliever]

So when I say the universe as always existed and someone else says it started 13 billions years ago, we can both be right at the same time based on our definition of universe.

 

After a fashion. Although I think the someone else would be better understood.

What you're referring to is commonly referred to as the multiverse.

Sometimes the meaning of a word drifts away from its etymology.