The Big Bang: All this from nothing? How? What does it mean?
69Whether you accept the Biblical description of the creation of the Earth and heavens, or the scientific explanation that everything was all created with one BIG BANG, the sequence of events are pretty much the same. It is difficult to conceive how everything in the universe was created from nothing, but it was. So, how is it possible?
The first step in understanding this is to think about holes differently. We cannot see holes. We can only see that which surrounds a hole. We can see examples of this on Earth, and, when considered a bit differently, we can apply the knowledge on a much larger scale.
A pebble one cubic inch in mass is rather small. The Grand Canyon is rather huge. Most people would consider the Grand Canyon as more massive than the pebble, but the Grand Canyon is a hole. The pebble is actually so much more massive that it isn't even worth calculating how much more massive. If we were to toss the pebble into the Grand Canyon, we would actually shrink the Grand Canyon by one cubic inch. The pebble, however, would be consumed fully, and would become insignificant to the point of losing its singular identity.
What this demonstrates is that gravity works both ways. Since the time that Einstein theorized something so massive that it had tremendous gravity, but so small that it had not been detected, mankind has discovered black holes. The top physicists in the world argue about how much mass something would need to create a bend in space-time without the mass being visible. I believe they should consider the gravitational aspects of sub-mass, but I have no credentials to warrant that consideration.
However, just as we cannot truly see the Grand Canyon, but rather we see the walls and the basin, we also cannot see black holes. We can only see the swirling matter draining into the hole. If it is truly a hole being filled with the matter draining into it, then we can conclude that there are both physical and sub-physical elements in the universe. If Hermann Bondi was correct, then it all equals out, and the universe adds up to nothing, which is what we began with in the BIG BANG theory.
So, let's take another human concept, and add a third element to it. If you have no money, you can still obtain a car by also obtaining a debt. One is mass, and the other is a hole, but they essentially balance out to zero. As the value of the car and the amount of the debt fluctuate, the difference is balanced out as equity. Equity can be positive or negative depending on whether the mass (value of the car) is larger than the hole (amount of the debt), or smaller than the hole. We can measure the equity, but, like the hole, we cannot see it.
The equity would be similar to space. We have been told that it is dark in space. However, since we can see the sun and stars, it is illogical that there is no light in space. Light is simply a particle that quantifies through interaction with the electrons in atomic structures to produce a photon. If there are no atoms, the light cannot be seen because no photons are created.
However, we might consider that our eyes filter light that is visible on the negative cycle of the light particle. If it were possible for us to see what exists on the positive cycle of a light particle, we would likely see a cool, glowing light similar to how Heaven is described in the Bible, or the light described by those who have had near-death experiences. This, too, would coincide with Bondi's theory that physical laws would apply inversely on sub-mass. In that theory, the light particle would interact with whatever would be a sub-proton to create a sub-photon.
Unlike the physical world in which we live where negatives and positives attract, positives would attract positives and repel negatives in the sub-physical realm. It may sound a little bit like Heaven and hell.
As a caution, though, if the objective in the negative world is to defy gravity to obtain success, then, in the positive world, success would be achieved by defying levity. So don't get too worked up about Heaven being all fun, or you might end up back here taking another shot to avoid hell.
CommentsLoading...
They reckon it was almost a nuclear explosion like what happens on the sun, something to do with hydrogen and helium
Thanks Candie! I like the description of your brain as a hole, but it wouldn't apply only to you! I'm going to ponder that concept a bit. It may end up as another Hub when my brain gets overactive again!
It may have been something like that Cindy, but then the universe actually balances out to one atom! It would likely have been hydrogen since helium is relatively stable and more complex.
I'll be here to read what ever you type, my friend!
This was intense! What a fascinating way to look at the Grand Canyon (holes). I imagine that people are few and far between that can grasp such a concept.
I once read an incredible book by Christopher Uhl in which he suggests that when we lie in ontop of the world in an open field staring up into the sky, consider that we may be stuck to the bottom of the earth staring down into the sky.
I have actually seen people tweak a little bit when trying to picture this. It is intriguing and entertaining.
Thanks for the great read.
You're an inspiration, Candie! Thank you!
Thank you for the comment, C.F. I doubt that few can grasp the concept, but it is few that think about such things. I guess I'm weird!
Thanks also for the reference to Christopher Uhl, and his insightful thought. Consider that if you lied there long enough, the Earth would eventually consume you, and you would not see the sky at all as you fossilized beneath the ground becoming part of it! Admittedly, it would take a while unless other forces sped up the process!
Great hub and wonderful analogies! I like your theory though it is mind boggling. I'm hoping that when the large hadron collider gets going we will be able to learn a whole lot more about our universe, how it got here and what it's made of.
My own special interest at the moment relating to physics is the nature of time - I wish someone could work that out!
I'll look forward to reading more of your hubs!
Thank you for the comment, Susana! I'll try to do a Hub or two on time if I can find some of it to do it in!
The more I read, the greater your mass must become, because I always feel a greater lateral gravitational pull. If the matter flowing into the black hole is like the river flowing through the Grand Canyon, where would it flow to? Another point in our universe; another point in time; or another dimension outside of the 3 we see. Silly maybe, but just a question that occupies my mind at times.
I certainly hope that you reading my words isn't fattening to me! Just kidding! Gravity is actually a fairly mild force compared to magnetism, which is attractive, and better describes how I feel about you!
What makes the most sense to me is a combination of the three possibilities you suggest. I see the universe as somewhat of a wave in which we live in a "ripple of time."
If you were to drop a rock into water, you can see the ripples expanding from the point of impact. If you look closely with an open mind, you can also see ripples in the air that floats on top of the water. What we don't see, but what must happen, is that it creates an undercurrent that brings both water and air back to the center lest a hole would remain where the rock entered the water. The overcompensation creates the next ripple, which began, apparently, from nothing.
Each ripple is distinct, but also is similar. Each goes on until, eventually, they compress into one another, bringing back only the lightest matters to fill the void.
Robert Nozick suggested that if universes were created from universes, then they would be similar as sort of a "universal DNA." Taking that a bit further, they would be similar, but also would be distinct in the way children are distinct entities similar to parents, but are not identical to parents.
That which remains in the ripple, then, eventually would be compressed in the "outer limits," which would likely be hotter than hellfire. That which is light, and can ride the wave into the subsequent "ripple of time," would become matter in the next wave.
Ergo, it would flow to another point in our universe (or a subsequent universe), which will be at another point in time, by way of another dimension (sub-physical) outside of the three we see.
And you thought you were being silly!
Tom, Silly me! That is an extremely intriguing explanation. I will need to think on this.
Hey! what's up Tom
That is indeed some interesting stuff. You never seem to amaze me, I have learned from you on this site. You explained so well, even an illiterate like me can begin to understand how the hole can become noticeable. From your explanation, it seems to me, in order for a hole to exist, it must be in relativity with something else. In another word, there are no existing holes that are by themselves in space without some sort of relativity. Otherwise, it would just be empty space, the only way to know that a hole is a hole, its must become relative with something else.
What have they discovered from the quarks - the sub particles of matter - since there are six different types of quarks could it be at least one type the positive electrons attract and repel the negative ones.
Although your examples are great, it is somewhat of a challenge to explain them without a lab. Without the lab, the mind has no other way but to exercise its imagination to fully grasp the concept - which can be hard depending on the complexity of the theory or experiment that is being explained.
Hey Cool! I hope all is well with you!
You are anything but illiterate, my friend. Though you may not communicate in English as well as you do in your primary language, the fact that you are becoming more fluent in a difficult language is a testament to your brilliance! That will help me get past what I think was a compliment, but really wasn't!
We are gaining knowledge by seeing and understanding things that are smaller than we have ever been able to detect before, such as quarks. However, we also are gaining knowledge by seeing and understanding things that are larger, such as Earth. An example would be that we know that Wyoming is a super-volcano now that we have seen Earth from space. Prior to that discovery, there were many theories on why there are so many geothermic anomolies in the region. By seeing the "big picture," we now know why there are so many geothermic anomolies.
Quarks do, apparently, have electrical charges. We have never actually seen quarks, though, so we don't know what they are except in theory. Since they are sub-atomic, they are classified as particles.
Part of your statement confuses me as to what you mean. Quarks have not, to my knowledge, been determined to exist in electrons. Also to my knowledge, electrons, by nature, are not positively charged. Quarks have been detected in protons and neutrons. They seem to be integral, which means the dissection of any of these destroys the quarks integral to them.
The relativity of holes to masses that exist is that they will equal each other, or, as Cindy alluded to, will equal one atom. A hole that is substantial in its sub-massive attributes would create a kind of gravity that we would feel as a vacuum in that we would feel we are being sucked into it. It really is not sucking us into it, much the same as a vacuum does not really suck dirt into it. It actually creates an imbalance in pressure by removing air from the bag, and the dirt is pushed into it by the greater pressure of the atmosphere behind it. The more air that is removed, the greater its capacity to create what we feel as suction. Add a beater bar to it to knock dust and dirt into the air, and the less suction it will need to capture those heavier matters.
When we consider submass, it is the same, but opposite, as considering mass. One factor is how large something is, but another factor is how dense it is. I presume there are holes in space that are rather undetectable because they take up a lot of space, but are not very dense. Matter would likely pass through it through velocity, though it would have a very slight effect on the course of that matter. Since the matter is not captured, and does not substantially change its course, the small hole would not be detectable, and would fill rather quickly with small matter until it no longer existed.
On the other hand, we can see the event horizon of black holes because they are very dense relative to their size. Therefore, it appears that matter is sucked into the hole in a spiral manner, though it would likely be more true to say that matter is pushing itself into the hole because of the gravity that is created by the vacuum.
I don't know if that is anywhere near answering your questions. I do trust, however, that you will let me know!
HI! Tom
well, things could be better, but people like me who will fight for injustice at any cost, can't expect too much in life.
Thanks for your explanation about the quarks – it is really a science I don’t know too much about. As far as I understand, since Quarks are classified as sub – atomic particles, not having a good understanding of their functionality kind of leave us expose for potential threat, because if we do not know how their effect matter than we don’t know how they effect us and everything else around us.
We have come up with mathematical laws that have completely excluded sub – particles, especially Quarks. As a consequence of that, could it be that some of our prior knowledge about proton and neutron maybe misinterpreted.
And by prior knowledge I mean knowledge that can be described as the understanding that derives from prior experiences or knowledge resulting from awareness which is necessary for ones interpretation and comprehension of current events.
If Quarks exist than they must serve a purpose, what purpose they serve is as important as the air we breathe. We can not say that their purpose is not that significant if we don’t know what that purpose is. Although we are gaining knowledge through observation and understanding everyday, no one can say that the knowledge one learned has no relative to prior knowledge. And since we have failed to fully comprehend information that is as minuscule as Quarks, no one can truthfully say that any computation that involves sub – particles are as accurate as it should be.
My proposition is that if matter can not be completely understood, than any laws that derived from matter cannot be totally accurate. Having the full understanding of Quarks, we may derived to the understanding that E= mc2 has fault in it.
I must first warn you, since you understand that the premise of this argument relied on my proposition that all truths are relative to prior knowledge. Thus, an order for you to accept the argument, you would have to agree with the premise. Before responding back, I would like first that you read my article on all truths are relative to prior knowledge.
By the way, I honored your explanation of the Big Bang. It is only those who knows a subject well enough who can give examples in laymen term to facilitate others comprehension. Once again thanks for sharing.
I agree with you that quarks are important, though we do not fully know why or what their purpose is.
Let's go a little further: Einstein proved nothing can exceed the speed of light. That seems to be a universal speed limit. However, if something were smaller than a light particle, it is likely it could not be seen or could be misinterpreted in its progress. We also know that the phenomenon known as the "quantum leap" is true. Something that moves at the speed of light can be detectable in one place at one moment, and at another place in the next moment.
For the sake of this argument, let's call this particle that is smaller than a light particle a "life particle." Let us also presume that Einstein's universal speed limit only applies to matter that is equal to, or greater than, the size of a light particle. If there were a "life particle" that could move faster than the speed of light, then it opens up two possibilities: (1) it could appear to be in different places at the same time, and (2) it could move forward or backward in time. A single particle that could give the appearance of being several particles, while it defies time by moving in reverse or forward in time faster than light may be what is missing from the equation.
Perhaps one day scientists will have discovered that the speed of light is exceeded by the speed of life, which is the basis for human thought.
That's just one possibility among the infinite number of possibilities.
Great hub Tom! But wasn't it Stephen Hawking who first came up with the idea of a black hole, before it was confirmed by observed data?
Really good read regardless!
Edit: Actually, it may in fact have been a man called John Michell who first described black holes. I'll have to read on...
Hi Dg! I don't know who came up with the theory of the black hole, nor do I know who first discovered them. I know Hawking has devoted much of his life to better understanding them. He originally thought, and even bet, that matter entering black holes became singular, but later admitted that his thought was incorrect.
It would seem, though, that it would lose its individuality, much the same as the pebble tossed into the Grand Canyon remains a rock, but also becomes part of the basin. We can also see that when a meteorite hits Earth. It becomes part of the Earth inasmuch as its gravity, albeit minute, becomes part of Earth's gravity. It becomes a rock, but its origin as a meteorite is still determinable.
I wrote this to try to explain how the universe could be created from nothing. For all the mass in the universe, there are holes that total the same amount.
Loved it!
We are the hole..(whole?)
The idea of using the Grand Canyon is billiant, but at the same time they don't see stuff going into a black hole. Scientist detect them by the radiation the hole gives off once it has consumed something.
Thanks Pieter! Sorry for not saying so sooner.
Hi Erin! You are correct that they can't see anything once it enters a hole, but another way they detect them is by looking for event horizons as the things swirl into it like a drain. If I remember correctly, Hawking thought the radiation eventually spelled the doom of the hole. It makes more sense to me that the stuff going in fills it up, especially since smaller holes disappear more quickly than larger holes.
...the big bang theory - isn't it obvious?
...everytime his intrepid readers lay their lucky eyes on one of Tom's righteous hubs - bangggggggggggggg!!!!!
...and then the magic happens ......
Thank you for the kind words, epi!
Candie V Level 4 Commenter 3 years ago
Wow, great hub Tom, my first thought was "this hub is mass, substance, my brain is the hole" But then it is early. I will come back later and revisit this and hopefully have a deeper epiphany! Hugs, and I will get ahold of you in the next week or so..!