The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: TWIN Universes  (Read 1426 times)

Offline sergior

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
TWIN Universes
« on: 12/02/2013 18:35:22 »
There are different theories regarding Universe theory: Big Bang, inflation, M theory, etc.
All theories proposed on the origin of the Universe, in my opinion, move the question of the origin to another plane and not resolve it.
The big bang leaves open the question of how the singularity has been created and what there was before.
It is often said that talk of "before" does not make sense, because the time still there was not. But it sounds a bit like a justification.
The M theory moves the problem on touching branes. What are the origins of P-branes? Same thing happen with Multiverse theory.
The Big Bounce does not circumvent the problem of the singularity.The cyclic universe moves the question of how this cycle is formed.
I hope that, starting from "nothing", it is possible to solve the origin problem, because "void" need of nothing then don't have an origin.
We alwais need to explain how something, particles, matter, antimatter can be formed from nothing. We don't know what "nothing" is. In my opinion, what we call "nothing"or "void" in our Universe it is just a part of the true vacuum.

You will find my proposal here:

newbielink:http://sreina.altervista.org/twin_universes.pdf [nonactive]

Click on the word "Qui" if it doesn't open properly

Sergio
« Last Edit: 13/02/2013 06:27:23 by sergior »


 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: TWIN Universes
« Reply #1 on: 14/02/2013 18:33:54 »
In my opinion, what we call "nothing"or "void" in our Universe it is just a part of the true vacuum.

I agree....................Today, cosmologists tell us that empty space is really, "not so empty". And locally, that statement is very true. Everywhere we look, energy and particles are always found. And even virtual particles, which come in and out of existence are found in abundance. However, they also tell us that empty space is not possible. That is to say, without the Big Bang, space itself would not exist. If I correctly understand the point your making, I believe you and I see things very much alike with only a few differences.

The Void you describe is just that, nothingness. And truly, nothingness need not have a beginning. For this reason, I personally believe that the Universe is infinite and not as described in the standard cosmic model presented by science today. There will be those who disagree with this view and will cite the evidence for a Big Bang as proof that it all had a beginning. And if the Big Bang was truly a singular event, they would have sound grounds upon which to base their claim. If however, the Big Bang we observe is only a local event in a vastly larger universe, we in our local neighborhood would never be aware of the infinite space we may truly be living within.

The scientific model is justified by repeatable evidence. The red shift is sound evidence for expansion. But this expansion does not disallow an infinite space. And to justify an finite space just because there is expansion ignores the possibility that this expansion is only a local event. The limit of our observational ability is determined by the speed of light and if other events like our local Big Bang are distant enough, we will never observe them.


« Last Edit: 14/02/2013 23:21:08 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline sergior

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: TWIN Universes
« Reply #2 on: 15/02/2013 21:13:59 »
I agree....................Today, cosmologists tell us that empty space is really, "not so empty". And locally, that statement is very true. Everywhere we look, energy and particles are always found. And even virtual particles, which come in and out of existence are found in abundance. However, they also tell us that empty space is not possible. That is to say, without the Big Bang, space itself would not exist. If I correctly understand the point your making, I believe you and I see things very much alike with only a few differences.

The Void you describe is just that, nothingness. And truly, nothingness need not have a beginning. For this reason, I personally believe that the Universe is infinite and not as described in the standard cosmic model presented by science today. There will be those who disagree with this view and will cite the evidence for a Big Bang as proof that it all had a beginning. And if the Big Bang was truly a singular event, they would have sound grounds upon which to base their claim. If however, the Big Bang we observe is only a local event in a vastly larger universe, we in our local neighborhood would never be aware of the infinite space we may truly be living within.

The scientific model is justified by repeatable evidence. The red shift is sound evidence for expansion. But this expansion does not disallow an infinite space. And to justify an finite space just because there is expansion ignores the possibility that this expansion is only a local event. The limit of our observational ability is determined by the speed of light and if other events like our local Big Bang are distant enough, we will never observe them.

Thanks for your reply

Sure, our vision it is not different at all. In fact, my opinion is that the BB is only an illusion due to our inability to see the "whole", that for me, this is the "nothing". If I understand correctly the only thing in which our ideas differ is on the concept of "vacuum" and "nothing". I think that in our universe is impossible to find the true vacuum because the empty space that we know is not empty, just as you have explained very well. Then I figured out that the real nothing is a mixture of real opposite and that the antimatter in our universe is not the true opposite of our matter. The annihilation of true opposite have to be nothing as in math: 1-1=0. If the antimatter was the opposite of matter then we would get zero, but instead we get energy. I believe that it is logical to think that there must exist something opposite to our matter and the same for our antimatter. Comparing matter and antimatter we notice opposite characteristics, the only common characteristic, in my opinion, is the time. This is the reason why I thought of an Universe with masses that have a time and characteristics opposite to ours. If we put together the two opposite we get the empty space. This is the reason why I say that everything (or what you call "infinite universe) is only "nothing".
If with an experiment we were able to obtain more matter that antimatter from void (that I think can exist only inside atoms), the principle of conservation of energy could be saved with my idea.                   Sergio
« Last Edit: 15/02/2013 21:18:09 by sergior »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: TWIN Universes
« Reply #2 on: 15/02/2013 21:13:59 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length