Common sense tells us that the universe either had a beginning or it always existed. There can only be two possibilities. I think both possibilities are impossible because they seem to create a paradox. It seems impossible for the universe to have a beginning because to have a beginning something has to pop into existance out of absolute nothing. That is impossible.

The universe can not have a beginning because matter and energy can not pop into existance out of absolute nothing and by nothing I don't mean the empty vaccuum of space. Absolute nothing means there is absolutely nothing, not even empty space void of matter and energy where a universe could be created.

Now you could argue that there is a possibility of multiple dimensions or universes and for some reason they could create a new universe, the universe that we exist in. That is impossible as well. Matter and energy can only exist in the universe or dimension they are from. Matter and energy could never leave a universe or dimension as the laws that govern that matter and energy cease to exist outside of its originating universe or dimension.

Imagine the earth and its atmosphere as the known universe. Beyond the atmosphere of our planet is absolute nothing. If you were in a jet you could never escape from our atmosphere as there is nothing to escape into. If you were to hit the edge of our atmosphere where our known universe ends you would come to a complete halt. It would be like you hit an invisible barrier although you are hitting absolutely nothing. The only reason your jet would stop is because there is nothing beyond that point. You didn't hit anything its just there is nothing there and the matter and energy that form the jet you are sitting in are incapable of existing anywhere else other than the universe it knows and understands. Such a thing can only occur in a closed universe and for all we know the universe could be open and infinite.

So if the universe can not have a beginning then the universe must have existed forever you would think. Problem is the universe can not exist forever either. In a universe that has existed forever you have to ask the question "Well what was first?" Something had to be first because from what we see around us is that all matter and energy comes from other matter and energy. For example our solar system will eventually cease to exist and a new solar system will take form. This process happens over and over again throughout our universe. So what was first? If you travelled forward in time you would see the universe constantly changing and old matter and energy of galaxies giving birth to new galaxies. Travel backwards and the opposit would happen. But where did the matter and energy come from in the first place if the universe can not have a beginning?

To me it seems impoossible for the universe to have a beginning or for it to have always existed. What if there is a third possibility? A third possibility is impossible because there are only two possibilities but what if there is a concept that human conciousness created that prevents us from seeing what that third possibility is?

To me it seems the only way the universe could exist forever is if time did not exist. Then you no longer can ask the question "What came first?" Nothing came first and the universe has always existed but if our universe has always existed and time does not exist then you can no longer say it has always existed because that refers to the passage of time. Instead all you can say is the universe exists.

Now if time doesn't exist then why do we age? Yes we age but it is not because the cells in our bodies have clocks and know that when they get very old they have to die. They are not magically tied into some fourth dimension that tells them when to do so either. Cell division stops when the markers that control them tells them to stop dividing and because of that we change and our bodies no longer heal.

We have clocks and watches and they are not linked to a fourth dimension of time either. They do not actually measure time. They perform a mechanical function. That is why clocks are not very accurate. They are not measuring anything. The most accurate clocks we have are atomic clocks and even they are not completely accurate because they are not measuring time.

Human conciousness created time so we could make sense of the changes that occur around us. We didn't one day in our past stumble upon a corridor leading to time. We noticed that things around us don't happen all at once and we created devices that could measure change and from that we created the idea of the passage of time.

Even if time did not exist it will always exist as long as their is human conciousness because we need it to make sense of the changes that take place around us. Now you could say what? How can time not exist. If time does not exist how come when I drop a ball it doesn't hit the ground immediately? The answer is because it takes time but not because that ball is looking at the fourth dimension to see how fastly it can fall.

The ball has no knowledge of time. It is not obeying any laws of time. It is obeying the law of physics such as gravity and resistance. The fourth dimension of time if it were to exist is also not monitoring the ball deciding how fast it can fall. Space is bent and the ball is following the bend in space.
Not by choice.

You could also say what about Einsteins theory which as far as I know proves that time exists. E=MC2. According to his theory the faster you travel the slower time passes and that this has been observed and proven and even done with atomic clocks. I don't think it would mean his equation is wrong just that is has to be reworded. What if it is not time that is slowing down but instead it is matter and energy that slow down and we perceive it as time slowing down. Wouldn't the theory still be correct?

There was a show where this guy was talking about how there is this particle and how it existed in two places at once. He said look here is one particle but it is in two places at the same time. He said people wouldn't believe you.
Its not that they don't believe you its just they are not sure you know what you are talking about. Something along those lines. Now what if time didn't exist? Wouldn't that solve a lot of problems with quantum mechanics? If time doesn't exist then why couldn't a particle exist in two places at once?
Maybe it would create new problems?

So am I completely insane or did any of this make any sense? I can't see how the universe could have a beginning or how it could have existed forever. Only way I can get it to make sense is if time is not involved. Even if time did not exist I still have too many questions that don't seem to make sense.

Dare i say this but there indeed is a 3 explanations. However i have seen the consequencies about bringing the 3rd up on these forums...

Here is the culprit. You can't possibly "Know" this is impossible!

Since our universe is evolving (Galaxies are growing in number of stars and aging from younger to older), it must have had a beginning. The process that started off 'our' universe is just a process in nature, so the conception of our universe almost surely has to come out of the process of another universe.

Just like we now now the basics of how our solar system was born out of a supernova event some 4.5 to 5 billion years ago, so too will we know how our universe began, once all the pieces of the puzzle from many theories finally fit well enough to see it.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

LOL! That is a very good point. I should have worded what I wanted to say better. What I mean is it seems impossible to me

It may be helpful to assume this particular configuration of the observable portion of the universe had a beginning as opposed to the universe.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

Yes, Impossible is a very heady concept!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

I'd say you should start out with a meaningful, or workable, definition of the word "exist". Whether or not time "exists" is a crucial part of your thinking, but you have offered no workable definition of this word. When you do, I think you'll find that no concepts of the human mind, nor any of the words we use to describe our universe, correspond to something that "exists". Given this, we do the best we can, and one shouldn't get too worried about paradoxes.

The point isn't if I or others are worried about paradoxes. Being worried has nothing to do with it. The point is the universe doesn't seem to make sense or conform to our way of thinking. Not that it has to or should. The point is trying to figure out why things are the way they are is mind boggling. The world would be a very different place without mystery.

It is hard to give a definition to the word exists. What exists is based upon our perception which can be flawed. As far as I know quantum mechanics says that a particle can exist in many places at once. It doesn't pop into existance till we as observe it. Like bouncing a ball. It can exist in many places at once but once you observe it well that is when it comes into existance. That is the gist of what I got from the show. Not that I agree with it or that it makes any sense to me at all. The way I look at it if I bounce the ball it is going to react exactly the same way if I bounce it in the same manner every time. Me obersving the ball should have no effect on which of the many places it can exist in. If I bounce the ball it should rebound and head upwards back towards my hand. From what I remember the show suggested that is only one possibility and the ball could behave much differently and appear and behave in a manner contrary to the forces I put on it. I would say that is impossible or at least does not make sense to me

Welcome to BAUT, Unknown User! What if 'common sense' is totally wrong? After all, the quantum world is full of very, very non-common sense things, isn't it? Nevertheless, thousands of experiments strongly suggest that 'common sense' is wrong (and quantum theory is right).Why?Why? Because you think it's impossible?

I think quantum tunnelling is impossible; I think that entangled states are impossible; ... however, good experimental results seem to say that what I think is wrong. Maybe your idea of impossibility is wrong too?Why not? Why does the universe have to obey Unknown User's preconceptions of how it should (and should not) work?But isn't this philosophy? What does it have to do with the universe?

I think I'll stop here ... it seems to me that you have built far, far too many of your own, personal demands of the universe (which is under no obligation to conform to your common sense).

Common sense could be totally wrong and it is often flawed but you have to start somewhere and the best place to do that is with what does and does not make sense to you. Am I correct when I say that quantum theory says that an object exists in many places at once untill we observe it? What if there is more than one observer? If both observers observe the object at the exact same time which observer does it obey?

How can matter and energy pop into existance out of absolute nothing? How can you get something from nothing? Is there a theory or equation that shows that this is possible?

It has everything to do with the universe. These are some of the biggest questions facing mankind. Did the universe always exist or did it have a beginning? It is all tied together. You can not hope to understand anything without asking questions. I have not built any demands. I am using what I know of the universe and trying to figure out how can this be? As far as we know the universe has to obey it's own laws that came into existance with the creation of the universe, if the universe was created and did not always exist.

Also quantum theory does not seem to apply its rules to the general theory of relativity. As far as I know we are looking for a way to merge the theories and have a unified theory. Which may or may not be possible. How do we know that different theories can be combined into one? Maybe they can not. Maybe they obey different laws? Maybe they do not. I don't think we have enough information to say one way or the other. But I don't think it is possible to pull something out of absolute nothing

You can think that it is impossible, based on your experience with the world around you, and perhaps you are right, but I think you'd have to agree that very little about our current laws of physics as we understand them today has to have been valid at the moment that the universe started.

It could well be the case that in the first yoctosecond, that the speed of light was not a limit, and that there was no conservation of energy, momentum, or even lepton number. The universe was pretty different back then. The things you know, based on seeing large sparse clumps of cold solidified matter just don't apply.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Yes I can understand that and have heard similar things said in shows I have seen. At the moment the universe started all our theories break down. I am not at the level of writing or understanding equations at all. I was looking at some other areas of this forum and it was interesting to read but have no idea what they are talking about when they start using equations and theories I know nothing of. I am just interested in the topic.

Ok, let's set up a (false) dichotomy.

Whatever you can think up, in a darkened cave, through pure thought, we'll call 'philosophy'.

Whatever you can work out, through observation and experiment (plus some inspired math), we'll call 'science'.

In the OP we have words (and the concepts behind them) like 'paradox', 'exist', 'impossible', 'nothing', ...

We also have words like 'matter', 'energy', 'vacuum', 'space', ...

The former are 'philosophy'; the latter 'science'.

Science has delivered PCs, jetliners, vitamin supplements, ... and the three consistencies*

Science also served up the dish called 'quantum theory', with mind-bending weirdness and astonishing precision (the most accurate theory in science, to date).

Five thousand years (or more) of philosophy produced nothing even remotely as weird as quantum theory.

You want to go beyond what can be tested in the lab, or via observations (for example, into the Planck era), using philosophy? No problems, go right ahead! However, when experiments and observations finally get around to giving a handle on the realms you explore with philosophy, don't be surprised if "impossible!" in your philosophy turns out the be "once again, the universe is not only weirder than we can see, but weirder than we can possibly imagine" (with apologies to Haldane,for monkeying with his words).

*Internal consistency, consistency with other theories whose domains of applicability overlap, and consistency with (all) good observational and experimental results within the domain of applicability. Roughly, theories, the engine of science. Note the explicit self-limits.

I see what you are getting and for a long time I have agreed with the statement that the universe is weirder than we can imagine. If it wasn't so extremely bizarre for us to understand we would have all the answers. Even if we had all the answers or a lot of them I don't think the universe would lose its mystery.

or any sleep.
You pose an interesting case. If time does not actualy exist. The universe dident have to begin. It just was, . .
Weirder than we can amagine, no. I can imagine.
A long long time ago in a place that was everywhere. Matter got to big for itself and BOOM! and here we are. , and whats wrong with that?

Not a thing. Some say, "god is," and now on a scientific discussion board, it is being suggested that "the universe is." Interesting, Spock would say....

Not quite. Quantum theory say an object has a "possibility of existing" in many different places at once. It doesn't actually "exist" in any of them until observation "collapses the wavefront".

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

I blame the media for the universe's existence.

That's what I always figured QM to mean... Since it's all just waveforms and such right, where the particle is the quantization of the waveform it depends entirely on where in the waveform the particle happens to be at the time of observation, correct?


Something like this, except not as simplistic..right?

Yes, that's the idea-- existence is seen as the results of observations, whether or not the observation is technically perceived by a conscious being. It has more to do with coupling to systems that contain a lot of noise and smooth over the quantum coherences, so you end up with a statistical distribution of alive or dead cats, but never both at once.

So why does there seem to be so much confusion over this topic? I mean this explanation seems painfully obvious, yet people continue to think that Quantum Mechanics allows for that darn cat.

Kaptain K said: [quote] It doesn't actually "exist" in any of them until observation "collapses the wavefront". [\quote]

I thought that the fact that particles passing through two slits gave an interference pattern meant that they *did* exist in two places at the same time. So single photons could still produce interference patterns, indicating wave-like behaviour rather than particle-like.

__________________
Spike
:)

Beats me, I don't know why that cat is seen as anything profound. Perhaps if it was Shroedinger's penguin, people would see it as more of a joke...

while commonsense tells us a lot of things it doesn't mean its the truth

what bothers me is

why the universe should go to the bother of existing at all !

i find it so easy to believe in nothing for all eternity..that would make so much sense

apart from the fact im here !....surely all i am and all i see is a something ?


the best answer to your questions is this

1 for every nothing there is an anti nothing (its why something exists)
2 the rules of the universe probably compell it to exist for all eternity & or infinty (time/space)
3 i find it almost impossible to belive all we see is all there is (a universe so tiny & so young...thats just plain daft)

lookup brane theory and u will see our observable universe in an insignificant spec in time and space compared to the ocean of the Ultimaverse..lol that gave birth to us and we are swimming around in

Right, apart from that fact, it would "make sense." But of course we cannot escape that "apart" because it would not make sense-- how can something make sense if there is nothing there to make sense of it?
The universe we can describe is contingent on our ability to see it in some way, for how do we describe what we have no knowledge of? So we simply define "universe" to mean what we can gain knowledge about, and the issue of "is there anything we can gain no knowledge of" disappears in a flash of careful word usage. This does leave the philosophical question of, what is the ontological status of things we need to postulate to understand what we do see? That one has been debated for eons.

Quite a few people have argued that time doesn't exist. Or at least not as we perceive it; the apparent forward flow of time only being a side effect of things like entropy. Or something. I'm not sure it makes much sense to me.

On the other hand, if you consider that time itself started (was created) at the big bang, then there was no "before" to worry about. And so, in a sense, the universe has existed forever - since the beginning of time.

But as Nereid says, this is more philosphy than science...