Ye Olde Blah

What  do you believe created the universe? Was it god or a huge explosion or somthing else?

If I had to pick one, it would be the 11th dimention theory, that a big bang is when 2 parallel universes collide, somehow forming a new one. Course then theres the question on what made the 11th dimention.

Yeh that's the thing with the big bang theory...if there was nothing around b4 the bang that made matter, what made the bang?

Try trying to think of what came first it drives you crazy. Because then you gotta think of what made the thing that created this that created that etc

It's that darn chicken and egg thing...it always pops up  :evil:

Someone laid some nasty turds called planets :P

Did you guys remember Men in Black? The part about the Orion's belt. The orion's belt is a small contained universe in itself in a small glass object (can't remember what object :P)

Its so weird. What if we were a small contained universe hung around a dog's collar?

hehe.. i quite like that idea!

i find it amaising that the solar system has the same essential structure as a molecule; ie - with the electrons orbiting a nucleus.

maybe we are all little atoms in the finger nail of some wierdo lol

The 11th dimention theory has nothing to do with the creation of the universe, it's just an advancement of relitivity. When two parellel universes collide is the second law of thermodynamics in which the entropy from one enviroment combines with the other to form (total entropy) + (total entropy * 2.7 * 10^-27).

The most logical physics theory of how the universe was created is that matter can be created from a vacuum through a long process(This is the study of quantum physics) which is one of the most difficult studies of physics/chemistry. I'm not going to write an explination of it but if anyone is intrested there are many physics courses offered in America/Canada that will teach this theory at the pre-college/university level.



This was disproven by Fritz Haber, 1906.

I originally thought that was Elminster, but now I know that it isn't :P

Personally, I don't believe the purpose of life has anything to do with physics whatsoever. In fact, forget sciences, they've got nothing to do with anything and can only ever offer a feeble amount of knowledge. Everyone should unite under the banner of peace, music and Prosody :P

Newts The new age retro hippy (i think only seany will get that :P)

Now that you mention Gustav could be elminsters brother or somthing :P They post alike :)

I just realised that I stuck that in the wrong topic, it should really be in the "meaning of life" thread. Anyway, I suppose what I said holds up here too - we'll never fully understand anything about the Universe, let alone how it was created. We might as well appreciate that we're very fortunate to be blessed with life and opportunity, and enjoy life in the spirit of nature [is that hippy enough for you? :P]

Meh, I'm 16, I dont even need to know more than 4 dimentions in order to pass my exams. I only know bits of string theory from those science programs on at 4am when channel 4 have nothing better to put on.

Acebloke:
I'm just trying to sound like a smart-ass. :-) But physics really is my area of expertie so in my physics class we do quite basic equations but I do a lot of reading on this stuff aswell.

Newtz:
You'd be suprised how much we really know about the universe. I personally find the study of anti-matter and anti-universes quite astounding. If you read a couple dozen books you'll see the progress from Aristotil to Hawking and if you choose to take this in university like me you'll see how much of it is theory and how much has been proven. :-)

to be honest, i try not to think about it - whenever i do i end up getting really confused!

i doubt we will ever know how the universe was created...

the big bang theory doesn't appeal to me. i mean, the concept of a big bang implies that there was no thought involved.. everything *after* the big band happened as if by chance. did we happen be chance? am i sitting here typing this post by chance??????

The question is one of mister Hawking who said, "How or why were the laws and inital state of the universe chosen?"

Einstein has a famous quote, "God does not play dice!" but he himself had a hard time accepting this as his studies disproved this quote mathematically.

The answers are out there, but you're right in the fact we as an unevolved race cannot intrepret such powerful thoughts. Hawking also said, "Our goal is to achieve a complete understanding of our surroundings." which could be the purpose of evolution in which the meaning of life will become comprehendable as we evolve. Lets see if anyone can argue this with sources. :-D

I don't think its humanly possible to understand the universe. I dont feel like find sources lol so ill quote myself "Humans will never understand everything because we're just oo damn stupid" :D

I think one of the reasons we have so much trouble in identifying how the universe works or how it was created is because we aren't always completely aware of how the human body perceives things.
It's like the question of whether "nothingness" can really exist. I might say that even vaccum isn't really "nothing" because it's black and it can have dimensions. But this is because the human body perceives absence of matter/energy as being black, implying that it is something, when, at a physical level, it really is nothing.

I really don't understand what physicists mean when they speak of space as being something, or being bentable, or tearable, or when they consider a 4th, 5th...11th dimension.

Thats because the people who usually talk about it are morons, but the dimensions are comprehendable.

"nothingness" was disproven by Einstein, space is filled with a substance called "ether" which allows the travel of light particles.

I wouldn't say that Einstein disproved "nothingness", i would say instead that he produced a theory that conveniently eliminates the possibility of "nothingness". What about the absence of ether? What is ether composed of? Is it composed of particles? What about the gaps between these particles, what are they composed of? Is the existence of ether verifiable in lab? I don't know, it seems like we're running a loop here.
I think physicists would save themselves alot of trouble if they adopted the view that vaccum really is nothing, and that the body perceives nothing as something.

Eliminates the possibility and disproving are the same thing in my mind. If you have a line 10cm long no matter how accurate the measurement weather its 7cm or 7 * 10^-1000000 its still on the line. "Ether" works much the same way in the fact no matter how much you break it down its still "Ether". The only way to answer your question is to read a book by Hawking on it.

You know, there's a problem with irrefutable theories. The theory of ether is irrefutable, in the sense that i can't come up with a situation, hypothetical or not,  where ether is not present. These theories, i won't say they're incorrect, but they are usually meaningless, since they can't be tested.
Eliminating the possibility and disproving is not the same thing. I think proving requires actual testing, and since ether can't be tested, it doesn't disprove anything. It's just a theory that elminates the possibility of nothingness, but unless the theory is itself proven, nothing that follows from the theory is proven either.
A good example of irrefutable theories are religions. Since they rely on the existence of god, which we can't disprove.
The theory of "ether" borders on "religiondom"... :P

Actually, the whole ether theory has been overthrown over 50 years ago, if I recall correctly :).

The "Ether" theory was not overthrown its still widely accepted. And Job, I'm not trying to start a flam here so unless you have sources you're just repeating yourself...