Binary Universe Theory

[Vindictive]

Lets include cosmology into my little thought experiment and see if anyone follows where I’m going.

The reason I’m approaching this from the angle that I am is simplicity. It makes more sense to me to use Occam’s Razor as a predictive model and see what sort of universe it produces than to assume a complicated set of principles that we can’t nail down accurately because the act of observing alters the results… which is obviously the case when dealing with micro-quantum distances and sizes. In order to make an observation you need to cause an interaction. Therefore, even the best observation will be flawed unless you can consider all of the elements of the system… including effects that we, as a species, are not necessarily aware of.

So assuming the most elementary design for the universe we exist in, we accept that space is capable of existing independently of matter or energy. We also assume that energy is capable of existing independently of space.

One could alternately assume that space and matter are codependent and exist infinitely, but there is no more rational argument for that than for the collision of previously existing universes or the existence of god who inserted energy into time/space creating reality. Any claim of absolute certainty would be ridiculous unless I could provide substantive evidence to support my claim.

So my view of the primordial universe is that it was two or more separate entities which collided. One proto-universe made up of time and space, and a second universe made of pure energy. When the two intersected… for whatever reason… quanta (energy) entered into space/time in a quantity greater than the volume of space that it initially occupied could contain.

During this generative moment of intersection, quanta trapped inside the newly formed “bubble” of energy were repeatedly forced together through purely mechanical processes as gravity and the law of conservation of matter warred with the limits of the new environment of “space/time.” Energy was compressed into matter because of the enormous mass and minute distances involved with that initial bubble of energy.

I think thats all my little brain can handle for the moment. Keep in mind, I’m not reading this somewhere… I’m working from scratch on this. I’ve just been thinking about it for a while.

 

[inocente]

Inocente… I believe their is an intrinsic value in choosing the light. Beyond that, there really isn’t much difference.

Thanks.

From what I remember of comparative religion, this is not quite yin yang because neither yin nor yang are intrinsically good or evil, but order/good is established by maintaining a balance.

It brings to mind an old movie that I’ve mentioned before on the forum (you can watch it on YouTube). The movie contrasts modern life with the Hopi and its name is Koyaanisqatsi, the Hopi word for a state of life that calls for another way of living, a life out of balance.

They believe that everything is sacred, not just humans but absolutely everything. They would not drill for oil or carve and mine the land, and while there would be fewer of us, there is something to be said for that way of life.

So I’d suggest the central issue with your philosophy as stated is in deciding what is intended in Gods’ design. These issues of what life is about and who has a hotline to God are matters of faith, and ultimately we can only act in humility.

One proto-universe made up of time and space, and a second universe made of pure energy.

This may disillusion you but it appears that the universe overall is “flat” and has zero energy – the energy in visible and dark matter equals the (dark) energy of space, implying strongly that space and matter are interdependent, an underlying unity to everything physical.

 

[Vindictive]

Modern Quantum Physics has become quasi-religious in nature at this point. Much of what theorists propose is irrelevant because we have no means of measuring the truth behind their propositions. They are theories that are elevated to the status of dogma because no-one has anything better.

Dark matter has been an ongoing problem for physicists for years because the math doesn’t work out the way the theory implies it should. Check out the movie “What the Bleep do we know” and you’ll see what I mean about the quasi-religious pursuit of physics as god.

 

[greylorn]

Don’t forget, at the beginning of the universe (less than nanoseconds after the beginning) temeratures were very very high, so energies would have been enough for pair production.
here are some web sites:
here’s one (primarily talking about pair production near black holes):
zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/cosmo/lectures/lec20.html
here’s another pertaining to early universe:
astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro101/herter/lectures/lec32.htm
and another pertaining to early universe:
ph.surrey.ac.uk/astrophysics/files/earlyphysics.html
I was wrong about one thing; in order to maintain conservation of momentum, one needs a collision of two photons to produce two particles. The other point is that there is a selection rule that leaves a slight preponderance of matter (one part in 10 ^20 ??); otherwise the particle/antiparticles would have eventually annhilated each other.
here’s a reference:
findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_13_177/ai_n54223901/
Hope these are helpful.

No problem. Thanks for the references, but they point to stuff that I already know about. I was mainly interested in the possibility that an ultra high energy photon could spontaneously split into matter/antimatter pairs. Thank you for correcting your assertion! That hardly ever happens here.

Incidentally, I regard Big Bang theory as quasi-scientific bunk, for several reasons:

1. Too many fudge factors are required to make the math work. E.g: inflation, or a change in “c”, which both amount to the same thing.
2. The rule to which you allude which declares that slightly more matter survives annihilation that anti-matter— where does that come from?
3. The absence of a definition for the cosmic micro-pea (“singularity”).
4. No cause for its blow up.

Your conversation brought up a question about the possibility for an upper limit on e/m frequency. I’m going to put that out on the Physics Forum and see what happens.

 

[JDaniel]

So I’ve been having a rough few weeks of it. I’ve recently spent a great deal of time thinking about the nature of the universe, the purpose of existence and my own relationship with eternity and I need to vent it somewhere someone can reality check me. So, to you dear reader, falls the consequence. I was raised Catholic, so I think most of the consequences of that are born out in my thought processes as I worked through my dilemma.

Welcome, Vind. Sorry for your “weeks.”

God created the universe in a dualistic manner. Reality, both physically and existentially are divided into two fundamental elements: light and dark.

Considering the BB most likely emitted only light, to begin with - no matter at all.

In the physical realm, this is born out somewhat by quantum theory. All of the universe is fundamentally either “space/time” or “light”/ Biblically, this is born out in the scripture as what happened in the beginning.

I think this is a good idea.

The very essence of the physical creation of the universe was the mechanical result of nothingess colliding with god’s will.

Great metaphor!

In that first eternal moment after the big bang, all was vacuum and light. Light literally became matter by the mechanical processes of gravity. Gravity is the ONLY force in the universe other than the will of god and the will of man. The rest of the universe is essentially light, molded into a physical form that we call matter.

Interesting. I can’t disagree.

God created the universe for a purpose that is only expressible as love. God’s love for us and our love for god is the only purpose for existence. If individuals accept god’s love and recognize their own relationships are all reflections of that love everything else… literally… will become irrelevant. Choosing to share love with god or withhold it is the only decision you will make, both on earth, and in heaven and every action you take reflects that.

Apparently so.

The more people who recognize this truth, the more people will be able to join with god in love both during their life and after it.

Yes, but, considering that many, many won’t - that’s the dilemma.

Any person who does not dedicate themselves fully to making others aware of this ultimate responsibility to god is decreasing the number of souls available to share god’s love.

Emphatically true!

The most fundamental truth of god’s law is to love the neighbor as thyself and love god above all others.

I can’t disagree.

In the end, there is only yes or no. Do you want love or not? Hell is knowing that you did not do everything you could to bring everyone you love with you into the eternal bliss of shared existence in heaven. Heaven is absolute rapture.

It is that simple. Completely.

If you are not saving souls with your actions every day, you are allowing more souls to say no to joining with god and with yourself in eternal bliss. Failure to commit to that goal with every action is abandoning the fundamental purpose of existence and is denial of the very nature of god.

OK, now you’ve made me feel badly.

The question is simple… Yes or No? Darkness or light? Now or never?

Bravo, Vind!

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Lets include cosmology into my little thought experiment and see if anyone follows where I’m going.

The reason I’m approaching this from the angle that I am is simplicity. It makes more sense to me to use Occam’s Razor as a predictive model and see what sort of universe it produces than to assume a complicated set of principles that we can’t nail down accurately because the act of observing alters the results… which is obviously the case when dealing with micro-quantum distances and sizes. In order to make an observation you need to cause an interaction. Therefore, even the best observation will be flawed unless you can consider all of the elements of the system… including effects that we, as a species, are not necessarily aware of.

So assuming the most elementary design for the universe we exist in, we accept that space is capable of existing independently of matter or energy. We also assume that energy is capable of existing independently of space.

One could alternately assume that space and matter are codependent and exist infinitely, but there is no more rational argument for that than for the collision of previously existing universes or the existence of god who inserted energy into time/space creating reality. Any claim of absolute certainty would be ridiculous unless I could provide substantive evidence to support my claim.

So my view of the primordial universe is that it was two or more separate entities which collided. One proto-universe made up of time and space, and a second universe made of pure energy. When the two intersected… for whatever reason… quanta (energy) entered into space/time in a quantity greater than the volume of space that it initially occupied could contain.

During this generative moment of intersection, quanta trapped inside the newly formed “bubble” of energy were repeatedly forced together through purely mechanical processes as gravity and the law of conservation of matter warred with the limits of the new environment of “space/time.” Energy was compressed into matter because of the enormous mass and minute distances involved with that initial bubble of energy.

I think thats all my little brain can handle for the moment. Keep in mind, I’m not reading this somewhere… I’m working from scratch on this. I’ve just been thinking about it for a while.

One problem, that I see, is that your mechanical theory presupposes the existence of space/time and energy before the big bang. How do you account for that?

God bless,
jd

 

[Vindictive]

My point in referring to it in that fashion rather than as simply “God put light into space” was that the idea of creation being spontaneously generated by the mind of god in the moment he introduced light to time and space sounded… plebeian If I followed the process forwards and backwards, I still come up with god at both ends… I just needed a physical description that captured what a massive act of pure will creation was… smashing to universes together before breakfast sounds more impressive than “God spoke and it was”

 

[JDaniel]

My point in referring to it in that fashion rather than as simply “God put light into space” was that the idea of creation being spontaneously generated by the mind of god in the moment he introduced light to time and space sounded… plebeian If I followed the process forwards and backwards, I still come up with god at both ends… I just needed a physical description that captured what a massive act of pure will creation was… smashing to universes together before breakfast sounds more impressive than “God spoke and it was”

OK. Now I’ve gotcha. I still like that metaphor!

God bless,
jd