A theory on The Big Bang, infinity and all after and before it. Thoughts?

Life is one huge metaphor, or one huge fractal. On the smallest scale of atoms that make up us, everything around us and everything inside of us to the large scale of galaxies comprised of stars, planets, and life; everything is a metaphor for one another. To explain it more thoroughly lets take the example of humans on earth to the red blood cells in our body. WE are the red blood cells of this earth. Each red blood cell is a thinking independent entity with its own life quest within its own space and within the infinity of our universe.

“Every soul has a want to be one within the Universe.”

Okay so first I think I need to start with the idea of the big bang. The big bang is explained as all of life contained into a single point and it became so dense that it exploded into a ‘big bang’ and it grew less and less dense until it began to cool down and the Universe started to expand. From this expansion, life was created within galaxies. Stars began to create from the tiny life matter of the big bang. As time went on, stars exploded, died, and meteors and ‘star bits’ we’re created all around. The Universe grew and grew and is still believed to be expanding to this day. As modern science would put it, ‘the universe will be expanding infinitely.’

Alright sure, there was a big bang where everything was contained into a single point and exploded. All of this, as in well, EVERYTHING, exploded and was extremely hot. As everything cooled down, the universe as we know it began to be created. That is all fine and dandy; the real question here is what happened before the big bang theory. It isn’t like all of these things at that single point in that single moment appeared out of nothing. Notice the paradox of that last statement? For anything to appear out of nothing well there needs to be Something for it to appear out of. Imagine the simple fact of Nothing. Its absolutely impossible because there is no such thing as ‘Nothing.’ Within that Nothing there has to be a plane or a dimension of Something for this Nothingness to be perceived. Therefore, all of life as we know it now in this very current moment has trillions and trillions of years before it will be involved in its next big bang theory. All of life is becoming less and less dense and the galaxies are being created and evolving. All of life including all of the universes, galaxies, stars, moons, planets, me and you are in its own form of infiniteness in its current state: rotating, changing and evolving until ‘The Universe’ reaches its peak and begins to shift from expanding to shrinking or reducing. In more technical terms, everything as we know it that came from the big bang and grew less and less dense will begin to get denser and denser again until everything is put into a single moment and explodes again! All of this will obviously happen over an amount of time that brains the size of humans would never be able to understand.

I would love some criticism/thoughts/help on my idea please.

November 12, 2014 at 1:56 am
Alex (551) (@hollowinfinity) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

I don’t think you have a good grasp on the concept of Nothing.
There’s quite a few ways to look at that paradox, and the way you presented is only one of them.

You can easily say Nothing is an infinite dimension plane. Or no dimension plane. It makes no difference. It has infinite potential either way. Which is exactly why we have Something. It’s like a blank piece of paper. I get that a piece of paper is something but just do your best to imagine that this paper is nothingness. (although it wouldnt have color or size, etc)

What limitations do we have to create art on it? None. None whatsoever.

People just cannot grasp the idea that Nothingness is probable. Like, we explain dimensions with lines. Is it so hard to believe that before that line was drawn, there was no line there?

[Hidden]
Filip (2,818)M (@filipek) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

1) Time does not exist, it is merely a human made concept
2) Everything is the same thing as nothing
3) Infinitely big is the same as infinitely small
4) There is no beginning and there is no end (see #1)

[Hidden]
Alex (551) (@hollowinfinity) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

So space doesn’t exist either? I can dig it, but we need to be consistent here

[Hidden]
Alex (551) (@hollowinfinity) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

Nevermind- I see how you wrapped that up in there with number 3. How would you explain motion though? Or gravity?

[Hidden]
Filip (2,818)M (@filipek) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

Both motion and gravity are relative concept and only measurable if you have a point of reference. So in my opinion these are also only human made concepts or laws.

[Hidden]
John (25) (@jzic123) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

I basically agree with @filipek. The state of being, in this moment, always was, is, and always will be. The universe exists in this state of being; thus always was, is, and always will be. Through, the paradigm of time we can put an ‘age’ on our Universe, but I think of Universal expansion like a long 40+ trillion year deep breath out (current phase) and then likely a similar 40+ trillion deep breath in. And then it repeats.

[Hidden]
Alex (551) (@hollowinfinity) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

Time must exist if the Universe is to expand at all. Time and space =same thing.
A bunch of other things stop working when we abandon the concept of time.

Gravity goes out the window. Motion itself goes out the window. We already covered space. Speed goes out the window. Location goes out the window.

See this is flawed, because at least in the quantum world, location and speed are two of the most important things- and its also the most accurate science we have discovered, so I’m led to believe that time must be a part of this Universe- although not in the linear progression we are used to.

[Hidden]
John (25) (@jzic123) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

I agree that time=space. But, then why not just call it ‘space’ and forget the time component.

My issue with time, is the idea that once something is in the ‘past’…it doesn’t exist anymore…granted this opens up an entirely different debate.

For instance, if you were to have a (ridiculously powerful) telescope pointed at an event (let’s say a natural disaster…Tsunami) while simultaneously launching from Earth in a rocket travelling at the speed of light (that also matched the rotation of Earth)…you could watch that one moment in time infinitely.

And ‘the future’ also must exist in this moment as well. Using the same example from above, let’s say that the space ship we are on then does some Quantum tunneling and reaches 10x the speed of light. The light from the Tsunami now cannot catch up to us so we begin to see more and more past events flickering by backwards like a slide show…then we slow back down to just beneath light speed…and re-watch all of the past events…but we know the future…in fact, we’ve already ‘experienced’ it…a Tsunami is coming.

For these reasons, I say that everything that ‘was’, ‘is’, and ‘will be’ is all happening simultaneously, based upon your point of observation.

[Hidden]
John (25) (@jzic123) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

And…if you have the capability of universal observation (like for instance an omnipotent, omnipresent being)…then, truthfully, time does not exist. However, being omnipotent…you can choose were you focus your consciousness. Similar to when you look at a beautiful painting, you can observer the whole thing in it’s full and total greatness…or walk really close to it and observe the subtle, small brush strokes in one corner of it (choosing to disregard the whole, to achieve a new ‘experience’)

[Hidden]
Alex (551) (@hollowinfinity) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

Actually, Its been shown that future influences the past like the past influences the future. But the simple fact that when you point your telescope out, you see into the past kinda shows that time exists. We call it spacetime. Not time, not space. Spacetime. Also, the space ship would not tunnel anywhere 10x faster than light.

[Hidden]
John (25) (@jzic123) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

Fair point. Spacetime of course exists in our current ‘situation’.

But, spacetime still may be an illusion. It’s just damn hard to imagine time-lessness….

[Hidden]
Alex (551) (@hollowinfinity) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

Indeed. Just like its hard to picture nothingness (actually impossible) But it doesn’t ‘negate’ it’s plausibility. Zeno’s paradoxes kinda infer that motion is an illusion. If motion itself is an illusion, you are completely correct about time.
I mean, it really could be a huge illusion. We are one thing, but it looks like this 1 thing is constantly moving, at least from this very limited perspective.

[Hidden]
Zykanthos (4,757)M (@chodebalm) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

The answer is here: http://everythingforever.com/ywexist

There never was a “before the Big Bang.”

[Hidden]
Alex (551) (@hollowinfinity) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

except one of the inherent qualities nothing would ‘have’ is, well nothing. Logically, you shouldn’t be able to imagine it, and since we can’t that’s nearly an indication that it’s ‘there’ or not there. depends how you look at that.

[Hidden]
Zykanthos (4,757)M (@chodebalm) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

Right but that’s exactly what the article addresses – you shouldn’t be able to imagine nothingness, and in fact if you had a visualization of it at all, then the reader missed the point. That is why nothingness can’t exist, because if it did, that would indicate that SOMETHING exists, because in this case, nothingness is actually something. That is why existence always has been, and always will be. It just is. The “something” that exists is what we are experiencing right now, and can’t be any other way. As the article says, “Existence is the default setting of reality.”

[Hidden]
Alex (551) (@hollowinfinity) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

But my point is that, just because nothing doesn’t exist right now (its natural state anyways) why does that imply that something has ALWAYS existed? Further, why can’t something and nothing exist together, yet separate? For example- there’s this theory called null physics, which implies that something is actually the internal structure of nothing itself. Which is an interesting idea.

Here’s a really good debate on Nothing- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLz6uUuMp8

Now, I assume we are contemplating absolute nothingness here too, right? Because there are few different types of nothing. It’s apparent to me, regardless of if there is something now, that humans derive usefulness and meaning out of the concept of nothingness.

[Hidden]
Zykanthos (4,757)M (@chodebalm) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

Yeah I do believe you’re onto something there as well. In fact the idea of a “nothing/something” duality is entirely possible and I don’t doubt that myself. I have many theories as to what reality is. Everything in reality is symmetrical, so it would make sense to say that for what we experience (something), there is also a nothing. It would also make sense to say we do not exist at all. It’s a total mindfuck.

The problem with nothing is that it gets confused with nothingness, because those are 2 totally different concepts.

[Hidden]
Alex (551) (@hollowinfinity) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

Indeed! The nothing in atoms is completely different (at least I think) from the absolute nothing people debate about. I tended to lean toward the idea of a co-existence/co-non-existence of something and nothing rather than them being two separate things- simply because I figure when I see a dichotomy, it’s usually some sort of an illusion. It’s true that there is black and white, but it’s part of a larger spectrum, so to say.

If we wanted any sort of real truth about the nature of reality- it would have to apply to basically ever sort of dimension conceivable right? So this leads us humans to contemplate absolutes a lot, which is useful but limiting too. We imagine an absolute high dimension, and an absolute low dimension, and then an absolute no dimension. Can we really grasp this? I don’t know. We are 3 dimensional beings with 2 dimensional minds living in a seemingly infinite dimensional Universe. That’s quite a load to understand, which is why I believe the East had a better approach to the whole thing.
Just experience it.

Like, Imagine if we had to interpret every aspect of a movie when we watched it. Every little piece of information. We would miss the movie completely and be lost. We just experience it..watch it. But, how can we define movies and art and make them meaningful? By placing parameters over it. Like in music for example- the ultimate parameters for any song ever made is silence. It starts with silence, and ends with silence. We literally used ‘nothing’ to give something parameters. We use nothigness everyday..but is it the same thing? Idk. What is absolute silence?

I think that’s a better way to address the topic..look at what silence is. Conceive of nothingness in a completely different way, rather than a spacial thing.

[Hidden]
MrTeatime (0) (@Mrteatime) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

The “parable of the Little Soul and the Sun” provides an interesting spin on this Big Bang topic (by author Neale Donald Walsch). You can find it easily on google. Let me know what you guys think. I considered copying and pasting the whole text but I didn’t want to hog the page as it’s a fair bit.

[Hidden]
MrTeatime (0) (@Mrteatime) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

Perhaps that nothing that existed prior to the big bang can be simply identified as pure consciousness, the divine mind. Consider the likelihood that beyond the physical world, time and space do not exist. Everything can be observed to be unfolding in the present moment and this is the absolute truth in comparison to the relative truth that time can most definitely be said to exist as we observe it to from our current standpoint.

[Hidden]
Jesse (0) (@saint01) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

It’s obvious if you are speaking in term of the soul/spirit, you are simply consciousness, nothing is everything because you aren’t apart of anything….

[Hidden]
Jesse (0) (@saint01) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

Ever watched that episode of DBZ where Gohan teaches Videl how to fly? The main thing she first had to do was sit down put her hands to her chest and basically extract her soul, meaning being aware of her spirit and manipulating it. Then can one take flight and control energy and do avatar and dragonball z shit

[Hidden]
Cosmic012 (0) (@Cosmic012) 7 years, 2 months ago ago

hello :)
great write up and post by the way, enjoyable read..
ok, where to start…… hmmm, Lawrence Krauss has been the fore-runner on the ‘Something from Nothing’ theory and has foregone amplitudes of reasoning and understandings in this field of Science – notably ‘Cosmology’, with a host of particle physicist’s to come to the conclusion that before the Big Bang….. or before the before the before…….etc, becomes redundant asking based on there being ‘Nothing’ so no timespace… no 10^32 magnitudes of any high energy states by Plank measures that would be yielding anywhere to produce anything in existence… not even a CMB or radiation and it simple does require a completely counter intuitive thinking, and more so acceptance of there being ‘Nothing’. Similar to ‘In the beginning was God’…… so if their is an almighty intelligent creature…..who designed this God?..and before the Designer…? and before that etc etc…. the cut of point of these Q?’s are simply noted by the measurements of ‘energy states’ being reversed in time back to 13.7 billion yrs to the point of the Big Bang whereby no high yielding energy of bubbling brewing distortions in Space itself (as space is never ’empty’ as is always creating pin-point sub-atomic particles into existence (leptons/bosons/quarks) from these high magnitude energy states) believed to pop out via the Higgs Field found in 2008 by Quantum physicist Peter Higgs. However Roger Penrose (Roger Penrose/Steven Hawking) proposed this theory back in the early 70’s. It has also been proposed that there can not be a Big Crunch as the energy states are now going to be too high…. here’s why…… The Universe has an Entropy measure that has at least 100 Million times too high to make it possible for the Universe to have any rebounding or restarting mechanism….. this postulates there are no other Universes and thus flaws the Big Bang to Big Crunch to Big Bang again ‘Multiverse(s)’ theory.

This shows that the ‘multiverse’ theory would also violate the 1st law of thermo-dynamics… in as much to say that Energy converts to mass/matter… but the Entropy level would be too high for energy to convert in the first place…!
G_{\mu \nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu \nu}= {8\pi G\over c^4} T_{\mu \nu}

Please understand that I am not however, stating that a multiverse from the beginning was not created….. so we still could have many universes in that way born out of the Big Bang ….. then comes ‘String Theory’ (open and closed looped systems and super-symmetry. which purely states that high energy ‘vibrations’ yielded the particles into existence including ‘quantum tunnelling’ and suggesting ‘quantum entanglement’ (spooky action at a distance) as Einstein said! (where each particle has a partner particle ‘linked’ elsewhere somewhere/anywhere within the Universe) professed by Neils Bohr…..So back to the Q?, Did ‘something exist before anything’ or has ‘Something arrived out of Nothing’…… I would certainly consider the acceptance of the latter … but it’s your decision to speculate? Scientists look for the mysterious…. when considering it they use empirical data/experiments/conclusions to apply. If wrong, they throw it out and start over. Here’s a link for you to ponder on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U follow anything else up you wish to from this link. Enjoy :)

[Hidden]
Viewing 6 reply threads
load more