True origin of our universe will be resolved soon

Frank2005 · Post by **Frank2005** » Sat May 14, 2005 1:08 pm

Was our universe created by God or spontaneously popped out from vacuum? This has been a great debate for thousands of years. The truth will be known in a few years.

The key is the "dark energy" which is a mysterious stuff that causes the expansion of our universe to accelerate. Scientists are actively investigating the true nature of the dark energy. Currently, there are two leading candidates: vacuum energy and quintessence. The vacuum energy is the virtual particles generated spontaneously from the vacuum by quantum fluctuation. The quintessence is some "exotic" tiny particles that interact with each other by repulsive gravitational force. Which one is correct will be resolved by further cosmological observations in the near future (possibly within five years).

The result will have profound implications for the origin of Big Bang that started our universe. If the vacuum energy model is proved wrong, the Big Bang was unlikely to originate spontaneously from vacuum. This will greatly support the intelligent design by God.

Related Links:

Dark energy and the origin of Big Bang
Dark energy
Why can't we see God? - A scientific explanation

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sun May 15, 2005 10:25 am

repulsive gravitational force

The gravitational force doesn't have positive and negative that can repulse and attract like the electromagnetic force....not unless there's something really big that I don't know yet.

the Big Bang was unlikely to originate spontaneously from vacuum

Common sense already disproves that...everything can't come from nothing.

jerickson314 · Post by **jerickson314** » Sun May 15, 2005 7:27 pm

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Common sense already disproves that...everything can't come from nothing.

Unless God makes everything come from nothing, of course! I believe that the Big Bang theory is not only true, but is a powerful defense of theism. For instance, take the Kalam cosmological argument used by apologists such as William Lane Craig:

1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (Law of causuality)
2.) The universe began to exist (Big Bang Theory)
3.) Therefore, the universe has a cause. (a.k.a. God)

Also note that a theistic Big Bang theory has no collision with OEC views at all, unlike theistic evolution for example.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Mon May 16, 2005 9:10 pm

jerickson314 wrote:
AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Common sense already disproves that...everything can't come from nothing.
Unless God makes everything come from nothing, of course! I believe that the Big Bang theory is not only true, but is a powerful defense of theism. For instance, take the Kalam cosmological argument used by apologists such as William Lane Craig:

1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (Law of causuality)
2.) The universe began to exist (Big Bang Theory)
3.) Therefore, the universe has a cause. (a.k.a. God)

Also note that a theistic Big Bang theory has no collision with OEC views at all, unlike theistic evolution for example.

My argument was valid-God is something.

Tash · Post by **Tash** » Tue May 17, 2005 2:40 am

big bang wins easy, it was our creation as well as everything elses, all the atoms were created in the big bang, and what they were for was predetermined,

LittleShepherd · Post by **LittleShepherd** » Thu May 19, 2005 7:20 pm

The gravitational force doesn't have positive and negative that can repulse and attract like the electromagnetic force....not unless there's something really big that I don't know yet.

It's actually a different force altogether. It's the one from which we get the "cosmological constant," a number representing the increasing speed at which the universe expands. So yes, there is a "repulsive" force that keeps cosmological bodies moving apart. I'm not sure exactly how it's not just antigravity. My guess is that it's a lot stronger than that. I only know the very basics -- that it exists, and that it's the basis for the cosmological constant.

Frank2005 · Post by **Frank2005** » Thu May 19, 2005 8:41 pm

LittleShepherd wrote:It's the one from which we get the "cosmological constant"

The cosmological constant originates from the vacuum energy. The mysterious dark energy which causes the expansion of our universe to accelerate could be either the cosmological constant (vacuum energy) or quintessence. If it is the cosmological constant, there would be nothing new. If it is the quintessence (some "exotic" tiny particles that interact with each other by repulsive gravitational force), that is indeed "something really big".

Forge · Post by **Forge** » Thu May 19, 2005 9:56 pm

jerickson314 wrote:1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause. (Law of causuality)
2.) The universe began to exist (Big Bang Theory)
3.) Therefore, the universe has a cause. (a.k.a. God)

Logical and all, except for the conclusion. All that can follow from the premises is "therefore, the universe has a cause" without "aka God."

Not saying I disagree with a creationist theory... just make sure you add more premises to come to the conclusion of "God."

Speaking of the Kalam argument, has anyone heard of the temporal infinity variant? That one's a fun one to think about.

jerickson314 · Post by **jerickson314** » Fri May 20, 2005 3:55 pm

Forge wrote:Logical and all, except for the conclusion. All that can follow from the premises is "therefore, the universe has a cause" without "aka God."

Not saying I disagree with a creationist theory... just make sure you add more premises to come to the conclusion of "God."

The part in parentheses was intended to be informal (just as there may be some theory besides Big Bang Theory stating that the universe began to exist). I guess I didn't make that very clear. Thanks for pointing that out.

j316 · Post by **j316** » Fri Jun 03, 2005 9:40 am

Just for curiousity, why does everyone assume that nothing existed prior to the big bang?

sandy_mcd · Post by **sandy_mcd** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 6:12 pm

j316 wrote:Just for curiousity, why does everyone assume that nothing existed prior to the big bang?

The whole subject is quite complex and non-intuitive. Many sources state that "time" is a property of "the universe". If so, the concept of "prior" in your question has no meaning. [Similarly, "the universe" is said to be "expanding" (which at first seems easier to comprehend), but it does not "expand" into empty "space" but creates "space" as it "expands". ]

sandy

Frank2005 · Post by **Frank2005** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:20 am

sandy_mcd wrote:the universe is said to be expanding

This statement is either right or questionable depending on what you mean by "the universe". According to the string theory, the whole universe (called the "bulk universe") has 11 dimensions - one dimension of time and ten dimensions of space. We are confined in a sub-universe (called a "braneworld") which has one dimension of time and three dimensions of space. Before the discovery of the string theory, "the universe" means our braneworld which started with a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. After the discovery of the string theory, "the universe" may mean the bulk universe whose properties are not clear. No one knows when it started or whether it is expandng or not.

From the standpoint of the bulk universe, there is of course time "prior" to the Big Bang of our braneworld. For further information please see an article published in Scientific American entitled "The Myth of the Beginning of Time".

http://www.ufoarea.com/physics_cosmolog ... nning.html

j316 · Post by **j316** » Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:25 pm

Frank2005 wrote:
sandy_mcd wrote:the universe is said to be expanding
This statement is either right or questionable depending on what you mean by "the universe". According to the string theory, the whole universe (called the "bulk universe") has 11 dimensions - one dimension of time and ten dimensions of space. We are confined in a sub-universe (called a "braneworld") which has one dimension of time and three dimensions of space. Before the discovery of the string theory, "the universe" means our braneworld which started with a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. After the discovery of the string theory, "the universe" may mean the bulk universe whose properties are not clear. No one knows when it started or whether it is expandng or not.

From the standpoint of the bulk universe, there is of course time "prior" to the Big Bang of our braneworld. For further information please see an article published in Scientific American entitled "The Myth of the Beginning of Time".

http://www.ufoarea.com/physics_cosmolog ... nning.html

I read that link, wow. Back in the sixties when I was studying nuclear physics in the navy I came to the conclusion that it was magic, I've seen nothing in the past 40 years that has changed my mind.

I feel that in the life to come all our questions will be answered and I am content to wait.

It is interesting to note that the multi-dimensional universe simply provides a similar context for ours that God does. If we exist in God's universe or a bigger one the effect is essentially the same.