[suhail jalbout (OP)]

                                                               Origin of Our Universe
                                                                  By Suhail Jalbout

The greatest mystery that provokes thought in mankind is the origin of our universe.  For thousands of years philosophers and scientists have tried to find an answer to this conundrum but without unanimity of opinions. The most prevailing cosmological description for the origin of our universe is the Big Bang theory. However, it not clear as to how the Big Bang black hole (BBBH) came about initially nor the origin of its contents. Matter and energy must have existed prior to the formation of the BBBH otherwise it could not exist.

I believe that the initial step to understanding the origin of our universe commences by answering this question: does void exist?  The answer is mandatory to figure out what existed before the universe was there.  If space (where a universe forms) was empty, then where did matter and energy come from?  How can nothingness produce a universe? On the other hand, if matter and energy existed in the space, then it is possible for a universe to be created.

Man created vacuum.  This was performed in laboratories, in the production of equipment used in different applications, and in manufactured consumable items such as incandescent light bulbs.  He was able to perform these tasks only because matter (material) existed.  However, he is unable to reverse the process and create matter from void.  Thus, we conclude that the application of matter can produce void but void cannot produce matter.

Since void is the absence of matter and energy, we cannot study void but we can study matter and energy.  There is no available method by which we can measure how much void is in a certain space, while we can perform all the possible calculations on matter and energy.  Consequently, void is only a term coined by man to describe what happens when there is no matter and energy present in space. Since void does not exist without the presence of matter, this implies that matter and energy always existed; it exists at the present time, and will continue to exist for ever.

From this line of logic, it is possible to understand how our universe or any other universe was formed.  Interaction between the elements of matter can create galaxies, stars, and planets simply by application of the laws of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, gravitational forces etc.  They are the “universe DNA” which performs the process of creating a universe.

It seems everything that exists in our universe has a life span.  It ranges from few seconds to billions of years.  Man experiences the birth and death of living forms on Earth every day.  He also has evidence from satellites revealing the death of stars and galaxies and the birth of new stars and galaxies.  This is taking place while our universe is still in existence.  The first thinking man appeared on planet Earth after the solar system was in existence for 4.6 billion years.  When our Sun dies and disintegrates, modern man will no longer exist on planet Earth.  It is quite possible that a new star will be born with intelligent life on one of its planets who will wonder where this universe came from.  This may happen while our universe is still in existence.

If we assume that whatever applies at the micro level also applies at the macro, then our universe itself has a limited life span.  As matter and energy always existed in the infinite spaces, these spaces contain billions of universes.  Some are disintegrating while others are born (why our universe should be a special case?)   As energy connects everything that exists in our universe (stars to stars, stars to galactic cores, galaxies to galaxies, and black holes to black holes), logic dictates that all exiting universes are also interconnected by energy.  If a universe supplies more energy to neighboring universes than it receives, this universe will expand and ultimately it will join other universes overloading them with energy.  I believe this is what is happening to our present universe because it is expanding. This does not mean that an expanding universe will not receive within its boundaries stars from other neighboring expanding universes.

  However, if a universe receives more energy from neighboring universes than it transmits, this universe will be overloaded beyond its physical limits and it will close on itself.   Black holes will start the process of consuming their respective galaxy and then consuming each other until all the matter of the universe will end up in either one or many unstable huge black holes with gigantic amounts of energy and matter.  These Big Bang black holes, because they cannot maintain their equilibrium and stability, will explode releasing matter and energy back into their space.  The released elements will recombine to form new universes and the cycle goes on. This process constitutes a complete closed loop.  It is to be noted that when a Big Bang black hole explodes, it will create its own space to form its own universe. This implies that the space which a universe occupies is finite while the void in which all the universes exist is infinite.

In conclusion, I believe that our universe was created from the matter and energy that always existed in space. It is possible that this hypothesis may unify different opinions with regards to the origin of our universe especially if there are stars older than our own Big Bang universe.1 Their origin could be from an older neighboring expanding universe.

REFERENCE

1.Google: “The greatest cosmic puzzle: astronomers find stars that appear older than the universe.”  Ethan Siegel senior contributor

[Bored chemist]

In conclusion, I believe that our universe was created from the matter and energy that always existed in space.

To be useful, your explanation needs to say where that "matter and energy that always existed in space" came from- or it  simply isn't an explanation of the origin of the Universe.
What you have posted is a long winded way of saying "it was always here".

[tehghost]

I think the post is good, it has merit. Pls allow me to maybe chip in an idea or two. Maybe point in the right direction of the big bang and the creation of the universe.
The thing I do not know, and probably which none of use does, Is where matter comes from to begin with.
First off, I would think of the splitting of atoms and what happens when they do split, the residual radiation of the cosmos.

That being said, using your imagination and putting all the matter in the universe back to where it started. In which I am guessing it would be in sphere in the center.

With the heavier elements being in the center of the sphere, specifically the radioactive ones. With all the gravity pushing in. Splits an atom causing a chain reaction and thus you have a big bang.

This seems very logical and makes sense.

Ghost

[Kryptid]

That being said, using your imagination and putting all the matter in the universe back to where it started. In which I am guessing it would be in sphere in the center.

As far as we can tell, the Universe as a whole doesn't have a center. Alternatively, you could argue that every point in space everywhere is the "center". The Big Bang was not an explosion, contrary to popular belief. It was a rapid expansion of space itself, with matter and energy simply carried along for the ride. All points in space were at the same place in the beginning: the singularity.

With the heavier elements being in the center of the sphere, specifically the radioactive ones. With all the gravity pushing in. Splits an atom causing a chain reaction and thus you have a big bang.

Unfortunately, that doesn't work. Cramming that much mass into one place would heat the center up so much that nuclei would no longer be stable. Even protons and neutrons would break down into a "quark-gluon plasma". There would no longer be any elements at all. You would just have a soup of ultra-hot, fundamental particles. At least you would until the whole thing collapsed into a black hole, that is.

[puppypower]

One conceptual way to create the universe, from nothing, is to start before the existence of space-time. In this scenario, space and time existence, but not in a way that is connected into what we know as space-time. If space and time were not connected, this would be a point in the origin of the universe before even energy, since space and time are connected as wavelength(space) and frequency (time) within photons. Energy, as we know it, would not exist if space and time were separated. .

Theoretically, in a universe where space and time are not connected as space-time, one could move in space without the constraint of time, and/or move in time without the constraint of space. There would be potential in distance that existed apart from time, and potential in time that would exist apart from distance.

In traditional  terms being able to move in space without the constraint of time is called omnipresence. This is scenario is not about God. I used  a common and useful term that describes the type of affect. While being able to move in time apart from the constraints of space is traditionally called omniscience, since all the universe variables, at any give instant of time would be known, since there is no distance variable to add any time delay. A worm hole can move in time, apart from space, and exit anywhere in space. 

These two origin variable still appear to be in affect, in our universe, where space and time have combined as space-time. For example, the probability functions, such as wave functions, used to describe the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for the moving of electrons in  an atom; orbitals, describe a tiny thing occupying a volume. This could only occur apart from time. If time was in strict affect, it could only be in one place, its size, at a time. However, if we overlapped distance potential from the origin reference, onto space-time (d,t,D), we would get a miniature omnipresent affect that we call a probability function.   

Theoretically, if separated distance and time potential were to overlap, the universe would come to a focus in space and time. Omnipresence and Omniscience would come to a focus. Omega would become contained within alpha; singularity that is all encompassing. While the formation of a finite universe implies that the origin reference remains, adding separated potentials in space and time  to the universe via spacetime.

In terms of time potential apart from space-time, spiral galaxies can be a half million light years across. If we assume the speed of light is a limitation in space-time, the question is how do spiral galaxies remain integrated for so long considering the time delay? All you need to add is some time potential so things can coordinate in time independent of distance.

[Kryptid]

one could move in space without the constraint of time

Speed is defined as distance divided by time. Without time, there is no speed and therefore no movement.

[tehghost]

As far as we can tell, the Universe as a whole doesn't have a center.

It had to start somewhere. So the start would be the center, as it is spiraling away from it.

Unfortunately, that doesn't work. Cramming that much mass into one place would heat the center up so much that nuclei would no longer be stable.

yea and unstable explosion. It does work, You just refuse to see it.

[Kryptid]

It had to start somewhere.

Yes, at the singularity (where all points of space were the same point in space).

it is spiraling away from it.

Evidence?

yea and unstable explosion. It does work, You just refuse to see it.

So what's causing it to explode? What prevents it from collapsing into a black hole like physicists would expect it to (it's inside of its own Schwarzschild radius)?

[tehghost]

Not everyone see's your universe Krypt. Just because you say doesn't mean its true or correct.

Yes, at the singularity (where all points of space were the same point in space).

Yea lets see the proof.

Evidence?

Try looking through a telescope.  Everything seems to be moving away from the "center" or where whatever it is that happend. SO maybe not a spiral but were surely traveling through space. But sure looks like a spiral in some photographs from hubble.

So what's causing it to explode?

Atoms being splitt. Alot of them with that much matter. IF you look at the detonator for the original H-Bomb its a sphere.
Charges are set all around the sphere and its imploded from explosives to split 1 atom..
For the big bang and we're talking big. The same effect could be achieved possibly by the pressure of matter. But just one to go off with that much matter would cause a chain reaction and you get. a really. Big bang.

Ghost

[tehghost]

Well since we cant see the entire universe. Have to use galaxy as a template instead. But who's to say it isn't a spiral.

Cant post external links. You'll have to work for it.
//www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2019/hubble-spots-a-stunning-spiral

here is something else everyone should be aware of. of course you'll have to work for it again.
add the h t t p : to the beginning of the links.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU
Spirals and vortex

Ghost
If you could, please re-post those in working links after you check them. Thx

[Kryptid]

Not everyone see's your universe Krypt.

My Universe? It isn't "my" Universe.

Just because you say doesn't mean its true or correct.

Of course not. It's the evidence that says so. At least so far as we can currently tell.

Yea lets see the proof.

Science is not about proof. It is about evidence. There may not have been a true singularity (quantum physics suggests there wasn't), but the observable evidence does support the notion of all matter and energy having been squeezed together into a tiny speck just before the Big Bang happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence

Everything seems to be moving away from the "center"

This, in particular, is the claim that I was asking you to support. In general, everything is moving away from everything else. There is no one particular, unique location that all objects are receding away from that could be called a center.

Atoms being splitt. Alot of them with that much matter. IF you look at the detonator for the original H-Bomb its a sphere

The amount of fissile material in the Universe is massively dwarfed by the non-fissile material. Have you done the math that demonstrates that the total fissile material in the Universe can provide enough energy to make a sphere that is overwhelmingly non-fissile explode? More importantly, you didn't answer my question about what's keeping this enormous sphere from collapsing into a black hole. It's inside of its own Schwarzschild radius. No explosion can be large enough to make matter travel out of an event horizon.

[tehghost]

The amount of fissile material in the Universe is massively dwarfed by the non-fissile material.

This is true.
Are you going by atomic weights? seems there would be heavier elements in the center according to their weight, and the material would not have to be be fissile possibly for the atoms to be split if it was all the matter in the entire universe. The background radiation has to come from somewhere. So hypothetically if it were all the matter in the universe there would be fissile material present.

Good stuff

Yes, at the singularity (where all points of space were the same point in space).

So are you saying it's a singularity and not a big bang? Or a singularity that exploded to a big bang? I am not sure a singularity produces background radiation, which support's the big bang theory.

Everything seems to be moving away from the "center"

This, in particular, is the claim that I was asking you to support.

The center of the universe, where it all began. you said it yourself.

In general, everything is moving away from everything else. There is no one particular, unique location that all objects are receding away from that could be called a center.

That would be the starting point, yes, everything is moving away from each other. So if everything is moving away from each other. My next question would be is everything going away in the same direction. For instance, is it possible of multiple big bangs from different points? or is it from one point that everything is moving away from?

Great post Suhail Jalbout. ty

Ghost

[Kryptid]

Are you going by atomic weights?

I'm going by fissile vs. non-fissile. Fissile materials are not always heavier than non-fissile. Uranium-238 is heavier than uranium-235. 235 is fissile, but 238 is not.

the material would not have to be be fissile

It would if you wanted a chain reaction that could support an explosion. Which is irrelevant because no explosion could get out of the black hole produced by clumping so much matter in one spot in the first place.

The background radiation has to come from somewhere.

Yes, and the Big Bang theory explains where it came from (no nuclear fission needed).

Or a singularity that exploded to a big bang?

No. The Big Bang was not an explosion.

I am not sure a singularity produces background radiation, which support's the big bang theory.

The singularity itself isn't what made the radiation. It was the sufficient cooling of the matter in the early Universe that allowed electrons to be captured by protons. That act caused photons to be released, which were then redshifted by the metric expansion of the Universe to the microwaves we see today.

The center of the universe, where it all began. you said it yourself.

I said that there is no center.

My next question would be is everything going away in the same direction.

Nope.

For instance, is it possible of multiple big bangs from different points?

No need for multiple Big Bangs. One will do.

or is it from one point that everything is moving away from?

Nope.

[suhail jalbout (OP)]

Thank you Ghost. I am humbled by your kind words

[puppypower]

one could move in space without the constraint of time

Speed is defined as distance divided by time. Without time, there is no speed and therefore no movement.

If you were traveling near the speed of light and looked out your window, the universe would appear contracted. At the speed of light, the universe would appear as a point. With a point universe perspective, one can be everywhere in that universe, at the same time, since all points in the original universal space appear to overlap as a single point; omnipresent. I am thinking from the POV of a speed of light reference, since this is the ground state.

As proof that the speed of light reference is the grind state, matter and antimatter only appear at the upper limits of energy. Photons will split into these particle pairs. Matter is at higher potential end of energy, and since matter is connected to inertial reference, inertial reference is at higher potential than the speed of light reference. The traditions do this backwards since backwards makes more sense at Newtonian conditions.

Inertial reference and the concept of space-time, both end when V=C, since division by zero in SR, creates a mathematical discontinuity, relative to inertial reference. I am approaching the creation of the universe before space-time, or at the discontinuity in space time, where space time no longer applies; discontinuous, and the universal potential is lowest. The speed of light reference is the ground state of the universe. Inertial sets a potential with this ground state.

[Kryptid]

If you were traveling near the speed of light and looked out your window, the universe would appear contracted. At the speed of light, the universe would appear as a point. With a point universe perspective, one can be everywhere in that universe, at the same time, since all points in the original universal space appear to overlap as a single point; omnipresent. I am thinking from the POV of a speed of light reference, since this is the ground state.

What I said is still true. To a photon, neither time nor movement exist. It does not "move in space without the constraint of time" because it doesn't even move.

[Origin]

The center of the universe, where it all began. you said it yourself.

You keep talking about this nonexistent center.  If there is a center it would be easy to detect, we would see all observable galaxies moving away from that center point, which we do not see.

[puppypower]

If you were traveling near the speed of light and looked out your window, the universe would appear contracted. At the speed of light, the universe would appear as a point. With a point universe perspective, one can be everywhere in that universe, at the same time, since all points in the original universal space appear to overlap as a single point; omnipresent. I am thinking from the POV of a speed of light reference, since this is the ground state.

What I said is still true. To a photon, neither time nor movement exist. It does not "move in space without the constraint of time" because it doesn't even move.

There is a work around for this. Say we were traveling at the speed of light and the universe appears as a point-instant. This allows us to be omnipresent. Everything in the universe appears to overlap as a point so we see everywhere at the same time.

What I am going to do now, is take out my trusty microscope and magnify that point so it now appears 1 meter in diameter. I am still traveling at the speed of the light, so the point-instant and omnipresent still applies.

My microscope is not changing the point-instant affect that took a lot of propulsion energy to achieve.  All the microscope is doing is giving me a different view of the point-instant in terms of distance, Microscopes do not impact time, and therefore has no impact on the instant.

The affect is similar to looking through a telescope outward toward distance galaxies. On the one hand, we see things that are very far away. But on the other hand, what we really are seeing is energy, that is up close, that once came from far away. We can imagine being there, a million light years away, while never leaving here, so only an instant passes.

This is different than if we apply the brakes to our space-ship and cause our velocity to decrease to below C. Besides the brake heat, that meter size universe is now attached to a finite amount of time. Now space-time is in affect.

[Daxiazun]

What if all we see is the expanding of the universe at this point? We could never know what was before , we don't even know what is really happening now. For all we know , it could be a constant cycle of rinse and repeat . Maybe this isn't the first time . Might just expand so far then come back in on itself. Nature loves to recycle .Maybe that's your answer , we have been and always will be , there fore the big bang will happen over and over again . If that's the answer ...my next question would be , does it follow the same course over and over or is it new every time it renews?

[Kryptid]

This allows us to be omnipresent. Everything in the universe appears to overlap as a point so we see everywhere at the same time.

That's not true. The Universe's length according to that particular axis may be zero, but its other dimensions will still be non-zero. A photon travelling from the Sun to Vega isn't going to be at Alpha Centauri. Not even in its own reference frame.

What I am going to do now, is take out my trusty microscope and magnify that point so it now appears 1 meter in diameter. I am still traveling at the speed of the light, so the point-instant and omnipresent still applies.

That makes no mathematical sense. Magnifying a point of zero size will never give you an object 1 meter across. Zero is zero regardless of the magnification.

What if all we see is the expanding of the universe at this point? We could never know what was before , we don't even know what is really happening now. For all we know , it could be a constant cycle of rinse and repeat . Maybe this isn't the first time . Might just expand so far then come back in on itself. Nature loves to recycle .Maybe that's your answer , we have been and always will be , there fore the big bang will happen over and over again . If that's the answer ...my next question would be , does it follow the same course over and over or is it new every time it renews?

That has indeed been proposed before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model