Why is the Universe the way it is?

[lemit]

Nobody here or anywhere has a perfect and provable answer for this question.

 

Sir,

 

You were probably right not to respond to me earlier. I'm not smart enough to fully participate in this thread. I think, though, that I might not be alone.

 

Do you think any of us really knows the answer to your question? You have to remember that right now nobody can find 96% of the universe. Instead of asking us, why don't you look at the universe, look at how it seems to work, and try to figure out the answer for yourself? When you find the answer, please tell the rest of us, because we don't know. We just don't know.

 

Do you understand that? You are smart enough to get the answer on your own. Instead of asking other people, you need to find out for yourself.

 

I wish you all the success in the world in that endeavor. I wish I were young enough to think I would still be here when you succeed.

 

--lemit

[Time_Travel]

Sir,

 

You were probably right not to respond to me earlier. I'm not smart enough to fully participate in this thread. .............

Sir,

I am not smart enough to get an answer. Even today i can't do multiple table above 10. I need calculator for that. Do you think i am smart enough.

I have a mind of a 5th Grader.

 

.......I'm not smart enough to fully participate in this thread.

I think, though, that I might not be alone........

 

I am the dumbest person on this forum "i think" because the question is most silliest. And Silly questions don't have answers.

 

....Do you think any of us really knows the answer to your question? You have to remember that right now nobody can find 96% of the universe. Instead of asking us, why don't you look at the universe, look at how it seems to work, and try to figure out the answer for yourself? When you find the answer, please tell the rest of us, because we don't know. We just don't know......

 

I don't know much of the technical stuff. Sir, Like you said nobody still don't know how the 96% of the universe works. I wanted peoples views on how they think about this. I don't have any answer for my primitive mind in Astrophysics.

 

 

 

Do you understand that? You are smart enough to get the answer on your own. Instead of asking other people, you need to find out for yourself.

 

I perfectly understand. I am not smart enough to get the answers on my own.

I need to ask people since many times they have better answers than mine.

 

 

 

I wish you all the success in the world in that endeavor. I wish I were young enough to think I would still be here when you succeed.

 

--lemit

 

I am not some sort of scientist or a PhD. holder in Astrophysics. I am just a graduate student , and very very curious about the Cosmology.

I also wish to live thousands of years more to see what our great Scientists will find out.

You shouldn't wish me but instead wish those Great Scientists and thinkers who always try to find out the truth of the Universe and will one day find out the truth of everything.

 

 

PS:: I didn't mean to disrespect you by not responding to your earlier question.By arguing we got so many answers. The PROBABILITY THEORY, MULTIVERSE THEORY and some people telling me to hang my question in a frame :) .

Yours i didn't know how to argue with.

[lemit]

What university are you at, sir?

 

--lemit

[Time_Travel]

I think its the University you have not heard of, coz its in India, VTU University

(Vishweshwariah Technological University).

[mhatch]

I think its the University you have not heard of, coz its in India, VTU University

(Vishweshwariah Technological University).

 

Namaste Time_Travel! (I have many good friends and co-workers from India at Microsoft)

[Time_Travel]

Namaste Time_Travel! (I have many good friends and co-workers from India at Microsoft)

 

Namaste mhatch,

 

Welcome to Hypography.

I saw the link you gave me and the Author makes some sense, i still have to see most part of it.

[Southtown]

I have my own theory, as does everyone I imagine.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophers-weightroom/21538-theory-eventuality.html

[Time_Travel]

Scientists say "Universe didn't Exist forever". But strangely they say that "Our Universe had a beginning".

According to Laws of Physics " Nothing can be created , it can only change forms".

How can the Universe have a beginning when it didn't exist before?

 

 

This question should have been posted in a new topic , but it still means the same thing "why is the Universe the way it is".

[lemit]

I think it's an excellent question and I think this is precisely the place for it. In fact it helps me make sense of this thread, which some of my earlier posts show I hadn't done very well.

 

I hope somebody can answer.

 

--lemit

[modest]

Scientists say "Universe didn't Exist forever". But strangely they say that "Our Universe had a beginning".

According to Laws of Physics " Nothing can be created , it can only change forms".

How can the Universe have a beginning when it didn't exist before?

 

The issue with possible answers are discussed here

 

What happened before the Big Bang?

 

The Big Bang model gives no answers past the beginning of the big bang, so the question of what the universe existed as or if it existed at all is open.

 

~modest

[Time_Travel]

WOW,

 

Science is strange . It says Universe has beginning but doesn't knows whether it existed before that.

 

 

If we assume that it didn't existed before the beginning then everything is created out of nothing, which must be true even now and we must be able to create something out of nothing as the big rule will apply to smaller things. But we can't create anything new , but can just transform the energy or matter.

 

If we assume that Universe was there before BB then it solves some problems.But some problems still remain though, but if it had a beginning, then something must have created it or else why would it have a beginning?

 

Einstein proposed that our Universe existed for ever. This will solve everything related to our Universe, But late research strongly suggests that our Universe had a beginning.

 

If we try to assume one theory it will be contradicted by known physics laws and recent data. The puzzle of Universe may continue for few more centuries or even a couple of millennium.

Either new physics laws have to be added so that it will explain the current laws as well as accommodate the recent findings or the recent findings are all false( which is highly unlikely).

[freeztar]

WOW,

 

Science is strange . It says Universe has beginning but doesn't knows whether it existed before that.

There's a good reason for that. At such tiny scales as the planck time, our theories break down and are no longer useful for determining states of the system. For example, we have no way to model a universe that has no gravity. Since everywhere in the universe is gravity, how would we extrapolate backwards from now to the distant past (just moments after the BB) when gravity had not yet come into existence and mass was at near infinite density?

 

As science advances, we might unravel some of the mysteries, but there is no guarantee.

 

If we assume that it didn't existed before the beginning then everything is created out of nothing

 

Well, not necessarily. The tree in my yard grew from something, but it wasn't a tree. So perhaps the universe bloomed from a type of "universal seed". And then there's Brane Theory...

 

which must be true even now and we must be able to create something out of nothing as the big rule will apply to smaller things. But we can't create anything new , but can just transform the energy or matter.

 

At the time of the big bang, the universe didn't have the laws that it does now. If we could go back to a time where the rules of conservation of energy do not apply, then we could theoretically create something from nothing. But any time after the universe was established with the laws we currently know, they hold.

If we assume that Universe was there before BB then it solves some problems.But some problems still remain though, but if it had a beginning, then something must have created it or else why would it have a beginning?

In the cyclical universe theory, this problem is solved. The universe is imagined to go through an infinite series of big bangs and big crunches. From what we know of cosmology currently, this theory does not seem scientifically viable, though I still love it for its philosophical eloquence.

[DaddyUnit]

Do we yet know "the way it is" though?

 

Being an under-educated layman who tries to watch science shows on the TV now and again (and even more rarely skims the occasional article in Scientific American) one would think that phenomena like the Big Bang have been all worked out and agreed upon...a done deal if you will. But I wonder if that's really the case as I keep seeing what seem to be a lot of credible thought to the contrary.

 

My friend Jerry (who just posted his second blog on the subject of observed phenomena that seem to fit his theory better than some conventional theories C-R Theory Blog if you're interested in checking it out) would give you a different interpretation of "the way it is" than conventional science, and who's to say that he doesn't have it right (or at least have a claim to a way of understanding the universe that's every bit as valid as those of conventional experts who can't seem to yet agree on these things).

 

Anyway, Time_Travel, I'd be interested in hearing what you think about Jerry's theory which can be found at Comedy-Recycling Theory of the Entire Known Universe. Do you think he's on to something?

[CraigD]

Anyway, Time_Travel, I'd be interested in hearing what you think about Jerry's theory which can be found at Comedy-Recycling Theory of the Entire Known Universe. Do you think he's on to something?

Though I’m not Time_Travel, I think the same thing of the CRTorEKN as I thought of it 3 months ago, and expressed in this post: as performance art, it’s vaguely funny, but as physics, it’s simply and obviously wrong.

who's to say that he doesn't have it right (or at least have a claim to a way of understanding the universe that's every bit as valid as those of conventional experts who can't seem to yet agree on these things).

I believe nearly anyone with a reasonable science education – not that of a professional scientist, but merely that of any well-rounded bachelor-level educated person would say Jerry doesn’t have it – it being the ability to accurately describe the physical universe – right, or that his way of understanding the universe is as valid as someone who’s simply tried fitting simple equations to the accurately measured behavior of everyday objects.

[Time_Travel]

 

Anyway, Time_Travel, I'd be interested in hearing what you think about Jerry's theory which can be found at Comedy-Recycling Theory of the Entire Known Universe. Do you think he's on to something?

 

Hello DadyyUnit,

 

I am here looking for those answers. Any possible theory that makes real Sense should always be considered. Sense here means it should be obeying the currently observed laws.

Everybody obeys Einsteins Relativity. But before he found out this theory, Physicists showed that Light travels at a constant c (3 x 10^8 m/sec). Based on this observation Eisntein later invented theory of relativity.

 

The only thing from Jerry's Video i liked is the curvature part. It made me wonder why all stars,planets are curve( actually spherical ball, but still contains the curve) in nature, but why not the free moving spcae debris like asteroid , space rocks etc are somewhat not curved.

[CraigD]

It made me wonder why all stars,planets are curve( actually spherical ball, but still contains the curve) in nature, but why not the free moving spcae debris like asteroid , space rocks etc are somewhat not curved.

This question, at least, has an easy answer. :)

 

With any collection of particles of matter, the particles are attracted to one another by gravity. If the adhesive, frictional, and electrostatic force between them is less than the gravitational force, they’ll form a spheroid. If, as is usual, the collection is rotating, it won’t form a near perfect sphere, but will have a bulge at its equator, and flattening at the poles.

 

This concept is called hydrostatic equilibrium – meaning loosely “fluid stationary balance”, where “fluid” describes the state of mater where particles don’t adhere to one another. It’s an important one in planetary astronomy, because it explains why small objects, like asteroids, have irregular shapes, while large ones, like planets, don’t.

 

The IAU definition of a planet states this nicely in its:

(B) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape

criterion.

why not the free moving spcae debris like asteroid , space rocks etc are somewhat not curved.

Whether a body is nearly round or not don’t depend on whether it's free moving (ie: not in a regular orbit) or not. It depends on it having enough mass, and also being made of weakly connected particles, though as all planets were formed from similar matter from the protostellar cloud, their composition is similar enough that having a round shape depends almost entirely on having enough mass.

[Time_Travel]

It made me wonder why all stars,planets are curve( actually spherical ball, but still contains the curve) in nature, but why not the free moving spcae debris like asteroid , space rocks etc are somewhat not curved.

 

 

With any collection of particles of matter, the particles are attracted to one another by gravity. If the adhesive, frictional, and electrostatic force between them is less than the gravitational force, they’ll form a spheroid. If, as is usual, the collection is rotating, it won’t form a near perfect sphere, but will have a bulge at its equator, and flattening at the poles.

 

It made me wonder why all stars,planets are curve( actually spherical ball, but still contains the curve) in nature, but why not the free moving spcae debris like asteroid , space rocks etc are somewhat not curved.

 

This i understand now only after understanding THEORY of RELATIVITY(Einstein's gravity i.e bending of space time).

 

If there is lot of mass it means more gravity and because of Einstein's explanation of gravity, as bending of space, which states that gravity exerts equal force on all directions and so that its effect is always to attract matter towards the center of that body and when the gravity is strong enough it shapes the body to a sphere. That is why almost all planets are almost perfect spheres which have very strong gravity and all asteroids have irregular shapes as they have less gravity.