The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

[coldcreation]

Looking forward to more replies and comments,

 

Durgatosh Pandey

 

Sounds like another free lunch to me.

 

Something is missing.

 

First, the plate is empty.

 

Then, all of a sudden, something is their to eat.

 

An egg? A chicken? Both? Neither?

[TheFaithfulStone]

I mean is that they are highly unstable in their properties

 

Not really true. Fundamental particles are pretty well defined in their intrinsic properties.

 

Position and speed are another matter, but those are not properties of the particle as much as they are a description of it's location.

 

TFS

[CraigD]

So, how do we resolve the contradiction between the origin of universe from zero and the impossibility of independent existence of zero? Simple. Zero exists as an infinite multitude of positives and negatives, the sum total of which is zero. Thus universe was never born, nor will it ever die: it will always remain as a dynamic and infinite multitude of things and phenomena, the sum total of which would always be zero.

 

Any mathematician out there!!! Please comment

Mathematically, any arithmatic number (numbers following the formalism of the Peano postulates, pretty much every kind of number that most non-specialists encounter) can be represented by an infinite collection of differences of arithmatic numbers. Just as 0 = 1-1 = 2-2 = 3-3 …, 1= 2-1 = 3-2 = 4-3 …, 17354 = 17355-1 = 17356-2 = …. Zero is not special in having this property – as durgotosh mentioned in post number one.

However, we do not see any object splitting spontaneously in front of our eyes

Since this involves observation, it’s not in the realm of pure math, however, changing disciplines to Physics, this claim is not supported. We do observe the creation of a kind of negative matter – matter comprised of particles different only in charge, such as electrons and positrons, protons and antiprotons (which are believed to consists of quarks and antiquarks). These splittings (eg: pair production) can involve both “non-objects” (eg: “vacuum energy”) or objects (eg: photons)

 

Big Bang theory does predict the formation of nearly identical quantities of “positive” matter (eg: electrons, quarks) and “negative” antimatter (eg: positrons, anti-quarks). On of the great problems faced by early (ca. 1950) developers of the Big Bang theory was explaining lack of evidence of equal masses of antimatter and mater in the observed universe – proposals that it antimatter and matter existed in equal quantities, but were by some mechanism separated into separate regions of space, such as separate galaxies, were troubled by observations of the presence of very diffuse dust and gas in the intergalactic medium that would react in a dramatically different and observable manner with in the presence of an ordinary galaxy vs. an “antimatter galaxy”, causing such hypotheses to be discarded.

 

In the 1960s, working in the field of quantum mechanics, Cronin and Fitch observed CP violation, a violation of a “symmetry” of quantum mechanics that required modification of that theory. Although the exact mechanism of this observed phenomenon remains unexplained, and thus so does a definitively convincing explanation of the apparent absence of large quantities of antimatter in the universe based on it, further understanding of CP violation is thought by many theorists to be the most promising path toward such an explanation.

According to this theory [“the split of zero”], there must be positive and negative mass, positive and negative energy, positive and negative space, and positive and negative time

Of the known fundamental quantities of matter and energy, only charge is observed to have a meaningful negative. Although speculation about the existence of “Exotic” matter that is gravitationally repulsive exists, no meaningful theory describes matter that is inertially negative – that is, that changes velocity as the reverse of the vector of force applied to it, nor has such matter been observed. Likewise negative energy, such as 2 massive particles (eg: an electron and a positron) that annihilate without creating one or more massless particles (eg: photons), has never been observed. Positive and negative space are just simple vector opposites (eg: north vs. south), without much cosmological significance, while negative time is just a feature of the formalism of physics that allows the state of a system to be extrapolated backward in time, in addition to forward.

 

In summary, while “the split of zero” is an esthetically pleasing philosophical idea with some similarities to features of Big Bang, Big Bang-Big Crunch, and steady state cosmology theories, I’m unable to see that it agrees with the observed physical universe.

 

Durgatosh, can you give some experimentally (even just “thought experiment”) observable examples of negative mass, energy, space, that don’t agree with my descriptions of these terms above? Otherwise, I’m unable to conceive of them as real physical attributes.

[durgatosh]

Thank you for your replies and especially to "Craig" for his mathematical explanantions. The question of experimental examples of negative space, energy, mass, time.... is an intriguing one: I had expected this question. The honest answer is "I do not know; rather it is probably not possible to give such examples." I would give a few explanantions:

 

1. If we could encounter negative space, time, energy etc, we would be annihilated. The fact that we are not, and the fact that most of the things are relatively stable, attests to the fact that probably positive and negative universes are separated by an unknown dimension. We cannot look for it because the dimension which separates it is not known. We may be living in one of the bubbles of the universe and there may well be other bubbles which are negative to us and unkown. Your examples of pair production and pair annihilation of positrons and electrons is not really an example of matter and antimatter because in the process of annihilation, an equivalent amount of energy is released (it does not simply annihilate). However, this concept of pair production and annihilation does testify the instability of such small particles (something which was disputed by "The Faithful Stone").

 

2. Another possibility may be that the different things like space, time, energy/mass, gravity, consciousness (if I may add) etc: may be such attributes that are inter-related in a way such that their sum total is zero. They co-exist, but have acquired such different characteristics that they do not react with each other in a conventional sense to annihilate everything. It is hard to explain, perhaps it would require a lot of imagination.

 

I would love to have more discussions and replies.

 

Durgatosh Pandey

[vikasatdce]

Too Good an article with amazing Intellectual observation & thoughts.

How did the huge energy mass came into picture is generally not questioned and most

of the people have accepted the Big Bang theory. Very true that there is not

much difference between saying God created Universe or God created the

huge energy mass from which the Universe emerged.

 

The split of zero is an appealing theory.

I however did not quite get the explaination of Car A being behind Car B always in

continous domain. Could you please elaborate.

 

Good Job Overall !!

Vikas

[durgatosh]

Thanks for the compliment. The problem of overtaking vehicles is actually not a difficult one to understand. I thought of the problem and its possible solution when I was contemplating about the nature of zero: if zero can split, why can't the others (eg 4=+6-2). We do not however come across things splitting and transmutating in front of us in the observational world.

 

In the example that I have given, the car A would not be able to overtake B because the moment it comes to the position where B was, B would have moved a bit further (despite its lower velocity). Now consider that space and time are discrete and not continuous (that is, beyond a limit they are not divisible). Let us assume (just for the purpose of explanantion) that the minimum quantum of distance is 1 cm and minimum quantum of time is 1 sec. When car A is 1 cm behind B (minimum quantum of distance), in the next second (minimum quantum of time), it would have travelled some distance which would make it overtake B. Simple, problem solved. This would not be possible if we consider space, time, energy etc as continuous variables.

 

The implication of his simple explanation, however, is profound. In my view, this suggests the impossibility of zero (because all entities: time, space, energy etc) are in discrete packets or quanta. This impossibility of zero, and the observations that extremely small particles are unstable (electrons and positrons annihilating each other, producing equivalent amount of energy) combine to form a hypothesis: "The instability of a thing is directly proportional to its proximity to zero". Hence, zero is infinitely unstable and cannot exist independently.

 

The next step is to reconcile these apparently contradictory theories of the "split of zero" and the "infinite instability of zero". Logical reasoning leads to the conclusion that zero cannot exist independently; it can exist as a vast multitude of positives and negatives their sum total being zero. Thus, the universe was never born, nor will it ever die; it will always remain as a vast multitude of positive and negative things and phenomena, the sum total of which would always be zero.

 

Any further comment or criticism is welcome.

 

Durgatosh Pandey

[Turtle]

The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery

 

Durgatosh Pandey

 

 

Introduction: the blind men and the elephant

 

We are all familiar with the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each of the blind men is wise. But because they cannot see the elephant as a whole, their descriptions of the animal are contradictory. We can understand this story because we can see and thus are aware of the limitations of these wise but blind men.

I have read the entire thread, but chose your initial post to reply to Durgatosh.

I posit that the descriptions in the tale of the elephant are complimentary and not contradictory. Each of the blind ones has a piece of the truth, which while not complete, is not wrong nor does it contradict the pieces of the others.

 

In science, all our theories are based on reasoning. Ultimately, they are based on some observations. These observations are then processed by our minds and machines that we have made.

This continues the idea of incomplete understanding and perception and I think this point of view is well expressed in Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

 

Is there any other means to approach the question about the origin of universe? With a regressus in infinitum approach, the issue of origin can only be resolved if we can explain the universe to come out of nothing. Let us attempt to explain this possibility.

 

This brings us to the nut of the issue. First, an understanding of the Universe is not extant and so either it lies in the future or it is unachievable. Second, I am a philosophical champion of 1 (one) for all that you give credit to 0 (zero).

We live in one Universe, not no Universe.

 

Your topic is one that I find the work of Buckminster Fuller illuminates well, in particular his work Synergetics. Here is an online copy of that work and a thread here at Hypography where I have discussed and promoted it.

 

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/toc/toc.html

 

http://hypography.com/forums/watercooler/3398-buckminster-fuller.html?highlight=Buckminster

 

I also recommend reading Gödel, Escher, and Bach by Douglas Hofstadter for a thorough and deep introduction to the ways and means of the problems you have posited. Let's have some tea. :cocktail: :wink:

[Little Bang]

I can see only one problem with the Big Bang albeit a major one. It was an explosion of pure energy and somewhere after that this pure energy condensed into the quarks that make up matter. No where in the universe have we seen pure energy converted into matter, nor have we ever converted it into matter. We can never know the events leading up to the creation of the universe but we can surmise about the first event.

I know that all of us have seen a low spot in the country sometimes fill with fog early in the morning. The temperature in that low spot has reached the dew point filling with fog. Why couldn’t something like that have produced a universe filled with the necessary quarks. A universe millions or maybe trillions of times larger than the visible universe. Something like that might help explain the percentage of hydrogen and helium in the early universe. It might also explain the accelerated expansion, and that being the galaxies are simply falling towards other clumps of galaxies.

[durgatosh]

Thanks for the reply. I will definitely go through the work on Synergistics by Buckminster Fuller. Actually, I just skimmed through and I must say it is quite complex. Anyway, the broad message from what I understood is that the universe as a whole cannot be understood by one part of it. There are many parts which act in synergy. Also, he claims the universe to be finite.

 

While I understand and appreciate his and your points of view, I have my differences. You say that you are a philosophical champion of one and I give credit to zero. I think that my concept of zero has not been fully understood.

 

The paper that I wrote in the thread shows the evolution in my thinking about the subject. I was quite convinced that one has to explain the origin of universe from nothing (otherwise one would be faced with an endless question of "where did that come from"). This I could explain with my theory of "split of zero". But I soon became uncomfortable with this theory because we do not see gross objects split spontaneously in front of us (if zero can split, so can any other number, 4=+6-2, and so on). I kept on thinking about it till I thought about the problem of overtaking vehicles (I have already explained it in the paper). This led me to the hypothesis that "the stability of a thing is inversely proportional to its proximity to zero". I could get support for this hypothesis from the quantum theory as I have mentioned in the paper.

 

This would mean that zero is infinitely unstable and cannot exist independently. Also, if the universe had an origin, it must have been from zero. The only way to combine and reconcile these two seemingly contradictory statements is to conclude that the universe never began, nor will it ever die. It would always remain as a vast multitude of things and phenomena, the sum total of which would be zero.

 

Regarding your view of "one" being opposed to my view of "zero", I must mention that zero is an all-encompassing number. As it cannot exist independently, it symbolizes and signifies the entire spectrum of positives and negatives. If I may add, zero actually is infinity: from negative infinity to positive infinity. This is my interpretation of zero.

 

Please give your comments and views on this. Anyone please!

 

Thanks,

 

Durgatosh Pandey

[Little Bang]

dur, I guess I don't understand how you can tell me that I don't have an apple but I can split the no apple into two apples.

[durgatosh]

dur, I guess I don't understand how you can tell me that I don't have an apple but I can split the no apple into two apples.[/quote

 

I do not imply that no apple will split into two apples. I started by saying that the origin of universe can be explained if nothing splits into positives and negatives. Then I have explained how nothing (zero) is an impossibility and that it can exist only as positives and negatives (their sum being zero).

 

We are dealing here with the concept of nothing (no space, no time, no energy, no mass ...) -- this has been represented mathematically by zero. Now, it has been observed that small subatomic particles are quite unstable. An electron will annihilate a positron with the release of equivalent amount of energy. Conversely, the larger a thing, the more stable it is.

 

With the risk of repetition, I would come to my hypothesis again that "the stability of a thing is inversely proportional to its proximity to zero". This would mean that zero is infinitely unstable and thus cannot exist independently. It can exist only as an infinite spectrum of positives and negatives (their sum being zero). So is the universe: an infinite spectrum of positive and negative things and phenomena, the sum total of which is zero.

 

Durgatosh Pandey

[arkain101]

I ask these questions but I still find myself asking, what reason did it come to exist in the first place? What is responsible for any single thing.

 

You cant even imagine anything not existing because the act of imagining creates something happening.

 

I dont think universes are just in existence, I think it requires purpose to have one occur.

[infamous]

dur, I guess I don't understand how you can tell me that I don't have an apple but I can split the no apple into two apples.

Math is a weak area for me so don't think I'm pretending to speak from any assumed position of any authority. Never-the-less, if I may be allowed to make a point which I feel is relevant to the topic at hand. From my understanding, infinity and the numeral zero have much in common. Both reside outside any scope of measurable certainty yet mathematicians often speak about division of infinities. With this concept in mind, I find no equitable reason why zero cannot also be treated in the same manner. Just my humble opinion for what it's worth.....................Infy

[HydrogenBond]

The before t=0, origin of the universe, is simple to explain if one alters the assumed zero reference to the speed of light. At the speed of light, using special relativity, infinite distance would contract to a point and infinite time would appear to last only an instant in that reference. Does a point lasting an instant sound familar, i.e, mass point singularity.

 

If we begin to slow from C, and look out the window, infinite distance will appear to get larger than a point and infinite time would now take longer than an instant. This is the exansion of the universe, as the universe goes from a speed of light reference to finite references.

 

At the original C reference, since infinite distance is contracted to a point and infinite time is dilated to an instant, this implies all the potential of an infinite eternal universe will appear compressed to a point that appears to last an instant. As such, even if there is almost negligable potential in empty space, if we add all this through both infinite distance for an infinite time, we accumulate enough energy potential to form a universe.

 

Here is the whole scenario. Infinite empty space over an infinite amount of time, will kick out enough potential to form the universe. The speed of light reference, compresses this potnetial to a point/instant. When a critical amount of potential is accumulated, the reference begins to become less than C. What this implies is the accumulated potential becoming mass/energy, to phase separate into the primordial atom, since only matter can go less than C. The rest is history.

[durgatosh]

arkain01

 

You cant even imagine anything not existing because the act of imagining creates something happening.

 

I dont think universes are just in existence, I think it requires purpose to have one occur.

 

We can imagine because we exist. The act of imagining requires our existence, not the other way round. Regarding the universe having a purpose to exist, well .... I have my own views on it, it will lead us to other abstract ideas of metaphysics including the "nature of consciousness". I would love to discuss it, but sometime later .... perhaps in some other thread.

 

From my understanding, infinity and the numeral zero have much in common. Both reside outside any scope of measurable certainty yet mathematicians often speak about division of infinities. With this concept in mind, I find no equitable reason why zero cannot also be treated in the same manner. Just my humble opinion for what it's worth.....................Infy

 

Thanks Infy! I think you are one of the few who really agree with and understand my concept of zero. It does not require a great degree of mathematical prowess to understand this simple concept, which to me is quite profound. Zero is an all-encompassing entity; yet it is non-existent by itself. It represents all existence, from positive infinity to negative infinity.

 

 

HydrogenBond

Here is the whole scenario. Infinite empty space over an infinite amount of time, will kick out enough potential to form the universe. The speed of light reference, compresses this potnetial to a point/instant. When a critical amount of potential is accumulated, the reference begins to become less than C. What this implies is the accumulated potential becoming mass/energy, to phase separate into the primordial atom, since only matter can go less than C. The rest is history

 

Your point of reference of speed of light indeed can explain the singularity of mass/energy/time/space. One can explain the possibility of the infinite mass/energy complex, infinite space and infinite time in a single point of singularity. The Big-Bang theory states the same thing. But, you see that the point of contention is not this.

 

The moot point is to explain the origin of this infinite potential of space, time and mass/energy. The "split of zero" is a mathematical representation of the concept of origin. Yet, as we have seen, zero cannot exist independently owing to its "infinite instability". Hence, our universe must be an ever-existing infinite multitude of positives and negatives, the sum total being zero.

 

This reinterpretation of zero is essential to understand the origin of universe. Other theories of origin like the "Big Bang", your "point of reference as C at t=0" may be able to explain many observed phenomena but will always try to escape the endless question of "where did it come from".

 

I invite more discussions on this.

 

Durgatosh Pandey

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

 

How many words does it take to say INFINITE.

 

All this positive and negative infinity and zero, half zero complicates the simple issue that the universe is infinite.

 

One more thing, singularity cannot exist.

[Jay-qu]

One more thing, singularity cannot exist.

 

care to back that up harry? It is a very valid and possible theory, but I would like to hear your reasoning behind it.