Christopher Lord

The following is pure speculation, and should not be taken too seriously.

I consider the ‘instantaneous creation’ of the universe to be flawed. So far it seems to be a good working model for predicting things like the microwave background, but the idea of a fully formed universe popping out of the woodwork seems strange.

A fair while ago I was in a discussion here, in which we seemed to agree that the (current) universe needs a framework in which to occur. It seems reasonable then to believe that the universe actually started prior to our big bang, and the latest event simply ‘added stuff’. That triggered my imagination a bit. The latest big bang simply was the latest ‘generation’ in a long string of events, each adding perhaps nothing, or perhaps much. For instance, Quantum foam doesn’t seem to be a part of our current universe. Its math does not break down at the big bang. It seems like our universe is composed with two sets of math. That would suggest that quantum mechanics are part of the above-mentioned larger framework.

So if this is the case, there is forward-propagation of what works across a generational universe. What if the universe is evolving? Aspects that are preserved across regeneration loops are integrated, creating a slightly more evolved environment each time through.

One problem I see is that it currently looks like our universe will expand without coming back together. How can it regenerate if it is destined to fizzle out? Well perhaps the framework can manifest another big-bang event, but the difference will be that the attributes of our current one will affect it.

GunnerJ

Brian Greene talks about something like this in The Elegant Universe. He compares the initial state of the Big Bang and a black hole singularity, finds them very similar, and proposes a "natural selection" of universes. Eventually, the idea goes, black holes will "explode" all the matter in them, creating whole new universes. Tiny fluctuations of the "matter" inside the black holes cause universes that result from them to vary slightly (in terms of physical constants) from their "parent" universe like a "mutation," and universes with physical laws capable of producing more black holes and thus more universes are favorably selected.

This not only your question about how the universe can regenerate if there's to be no "Big Crunch," it alos poses interesting possibilities for anthropic/cosmological arguments. The reason the Universe has physical constants that allow life to exists is because they also allow very massive stars, and thus black holes, to exist.

Thulemanden

I don't think anyone holds the idea of a 'fully formed universe' popping up for valid. The universe was formed (according to my understanding ofcourse) or created throguh the interaction of natural forces and changed during each microsecond leaving after some few seconds (he matter we see today.

Nothing needed to be ready or planned. Just brute force. Survival of the fittest subatomic element.

Christopher Lord

True, but I dont think the entire universe formed at the big bang. For example, as stated, it seems like quantum effects where not formed at that time. (It seems that way... I may not know of evidence to indicate otherwise)

That would make sense anyway since by definition pure nothingness can not exist. thus there had to be a framework for our universe to spring from.

Christopher Lord

Just thinking about this topic a bit more, it would provide an 'out' for the creation ex nihilo problem.

Our universe need not spring out of the nothingness. A single shread of something need only appear, capable of iterating of course.

Once something has a foothold in the nothingness, itterations of something could begin and eventually a thick set of something will exist, including laws governing non-nothing, which make little-old earth possible.

Ms. Siv

I guess we need to remember that human perception is hardly important in such matters.

As Dawkins says :
" Brains function on a need -to-know basis, and the need-to-know is what you need to know in order to survive on the African plains as hunter-gathers. It's pure bonus if we manage to understand a bit about relativity and quantum theory as well. I think it's a tremendous privilege that we can understand as much as we can. "

In the world our brains evolved for ... every effect had a cause, something could not spring from nothing etc ... its probably wrong to apply the same standards to the universe !

- Sivakami.

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Sivakami S ]

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Sivakami S ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

Sivakami S makes an important point.

I think it would be inordantly strange if the origins of the universe turned out to be intuitively accessible to a meager species in a modest suburb of the galaxy. In other words, I'd find it strange if I didn't find it strange, but there's a difference between seeing a model as "strange" and deeming it flawed. What is the flaw?

I'd also caution against a teleological view of evolution - one that equates Evolution with Progress.

Ms. Siv

Thank you.

As Dawkins says, nature is a lousy role model it is a short term Darwinian profiteer.

- Sivakami.

eh

Is it not true though, that black holes are constantly leaking, and gradually die out that way? I didn't know they could reach the point where such an explosion is possible.

Christopher Lord

Sivakami S: Very true, but its still an intresting line of thought.

ReasonableDoubt: I dont know if I completely agree with you... I do expect strangeness, but there is also hope for something which we could call rational.
Definately. But if what 'works' sticks around through itterations, there is pressure towards betterment in general.

eh: I haven't read The Elegant Universe, but one potential answer is that the 'slow evaporation' appears to be an explosion relative to the internal framework. I've been meaning to pick up that book for a while now.