A Universe from Nothing

Dude!!! You guys are violating causality here.

jeffrey samuel said:

...there is no point in arguing about it and talking craps about others belief kindly stop this business

Click to expand...

xaccto said:

If this is contrary to your belief, then your belief is crap....

Click to expand...

Jeffrey complained about your post nearly a month before you wrote it?! 8-O

godfreyl said:

Dude!!! You guys are violating causality here.


Jeffrey complained about your post nearly a month before you wrote it?! 8-O

Click to expand...

with out valid point there is no way i am going to post here

JS, before you posted did you even bother to watch Lawrence Krauss's lecture? Which is what post #1 is about!! if you had, you would learn that the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) launched in 2001, and from a orbital position that held the earth to shadow the sun (as the sun is a pretty big noise source) spent 7 years mapping the Cosmic Background Radiation. Calculations from this mapping has determined the flat universe.If this is contrary to your belief, then your belief is crap, and no I don't see "belief" as sacrosanct, if its crap its crap. Spade is a spade.

now reading "A Universe from Nothing" Lawrence Krauss. The video is good, but reading it is better too......

Click to expand...

i went through that crap more than once to be more sure about my point

here is my point

initial energy is 0

Click to expand...

he spit this crap more often how on earth do you think that is possible
if Energy=0 velocity=0 Temp=0 and Mass=0 this is what he meant

if so then where did the initial energy come for the first oscillation to occur in quanta
if initial energy =0 then how did a quantum vibrate with such large magnitude to generate the whole of universe.

if what he says is true then the work done must have drawn the whole energy system into the negative energy hich breaks almost all the laws of nature which we have right now

if what i say is true then there is a possiblity of proving all known theories as wrong regarding the formation of universe



PS if an 18 year old can find this out i wonder why the cosmologists have not shoved their boots in his face

kindly don't make me go through the same crap again

- - - Updated - - -

his theory just proved that i am very much correct in my belief for additional info my pal

jeffrey samuel said:

here is my point

Click to expand...

You seem to be very angry about a lot of things, but because you’re on this forum it means that you have some scientific background.
I’d urge you to take more pragmatic position and not to call other scientists’ theories CRAP.
The concept of coming out of nothing is a very plausible one, especially when one takes into account what physicists have come up with about visible and invisible matter and energy, that is, that zero-state energy is unstable.
Studying more does not hurt, so in the internet era go for free lectures on cosmology by prof. Lenny Susskind:
https://www.virtualprofessors.com/cosmology-course-stanford-leonard-susskind
:wink:
IanP

there is no point in me to get angry at all just that i have some difficulty in finding the best way to post it

about dark energy and all prof amazed me and opened my eyes to many new things which i never felt was possible but the only prob with that is 0 initial energy i am still not able to digest and comprehend it he also never said about how the first oscillations where set up but just stated it so there is still an uncertainity in his work

trying to post our heads out is the best way i learnt to get the maximum info from my pals here

sorry if i rubbed any one the wrong way

Stephen hawking's arrow of time is not a boomerang!!

I found a link worth pondering on. This was related to formation of universe and recent discovery https://www.science20.com/hammock_physicist/quantum_galaxy_ngc_1277-97761

https://www.science20.com/news_articles/ngc_1277_black_hole_size_might_make_galaxy_evolution_models_wobble-97568

Both are reliable sources what are your take here

very interesting:smile:tread..

- - - Updated - - -

very interesting:smile:tread..

@flatulent: do u remember it enough to quote it here please?

This is all very good stuff... and definitely on the bleeding edge of astrophysics/ physics etc etc.
Particle pairs getting generated out of energy is not new, and has been seen/ proven/ etc etc many times.

I think the key point here is that we are talking about ZERO energy having a quantum fluctuation, and from this producing an entire universe whose sumtotal energy continues to be zero. All this supported by & based on very precise & accurate measurements of background radiation, matter distributions, dark matter and so on.

No mention is made of the location of this zero energy - i.e. what was around this mysterious zero energy point ?
No direct connection is made how zero energy can possibly have a quantum fluctuation, or what it means.
And all these concepts are always crammed into the tail-end of any talk.. so never really gets clarified.

Now there are those who say - just take it as true, and see what can happen. The way Bohr did with his quantum theory.

But imho we are way beyond that stage now of taking scientific theories as best-fit answers. This is supposed to be a definitive answer now, not speculation.

It just doesn't parse!!!!

Well... If we base our analysis on logical reasoning and the common definitions only, could we say:

(1) the body of atomic particles (nucleus, electrons... etc) moving in the atomic space is formed by matter or energy?
(2) the body of our universe particles (stars, planets... etc) moving in our universe space is formed by matter or energy?

To me in the least, I see both of them made of matter in their actual state.

But we found out that the matter in our universe is actually an atomic universe (atomic space) in which the special motion of its atomic particles gives what we may see as one piece of matter (if solid for example).

So I wonder, what prevent us thinking that the atomic matter in turn is actually a sub-atomic universe (sub-atomic space) in which the motion of the sub-atomic particles gives what we may call the nucleus matter, for example.

I am not sure if my idea is clear enough since it is very simple

But I am afraid that it has no limit downwards, and upwards as well. I mean our whole universe could look as a tiny atomic universe of a small piece of matter in an upper huge universe.

For instance, this explains the one way black holes in our universe. For example, if, in our universe, an atomic particle leaves its piece of matter (the atomic universe forming this piece) what is the possibility for it to return back into its orignial space?

Kerim