Archive for maio 7th, 2013

Cosmologistas e Matrix/DNA Tem Problemas Ante o Mistério da Origem, Mas os Metodos de Pesquisa Sao Diferentes

terça-feira, maio 7th, 2013

Baseado no artigo:

BBC NEWS – FUTURE

Will we ever… know what happened before the Big Bang?

Matthew Francis  –  3 May 2013

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130502-what-came-before-the-big-bang/2

Parece-nos insensato que nesta luta pela sobrevivencia num mundo complexo  tecnológico e correria consumista em que todos  caímos, alguem ainda tenha tempo para lidar com temas inuteis aqui e agora, como a questão existencial suprema: “O que somos na realidade…Qual foi a origem do Universo e da Vida…”, etc. Mas acho que no fundo todo mundo tem sua  crença inconfessável, que esta reprimida, sua teoria ultima, e quer queira quer  não, ela  é uma forca mental invisivel que sempre acaba influenciando nossas mais importantes  decisões da vida pratica e de longe dirige nossos comportamentos na vida. Afinal, um individuo sem um norte como guia, sem um plano de vida, seria como um boi disparado sem rumo. Se apenas nascemos, crescemos e morremos, e a unica coisa que fica como sinal de nossa passagem por esse mundo  é o nosso DNA que deixamos em nossos filhos, e sabendo-se que nossos filhos tambem nasceram, crescem e vão morrer, apenas deixando seu DNA… qual o sentido sensato nessa existencia… Ev mais do que sabido que a Natureza não fica parada, ela vai ser totalmente transformada, o Sol vai se acabar um dia, nosso planeta vai cada vez ficando mais inóspito para sustentar vida aqui, o que significa que a Humanidade vai desaparecer daqui, e quando isso acontecer, nenhum sinal da nossa passagem pelo Universo ficara registrado em lugar algum. Então para que estamos continuando essa insensatez… No momento somos uma boiada em disparada sendo empurrada para a frente sem ter a menor nocao do que esta atras e o que  é o futuro. E não temos como sair dessa situação. Para a maioria a unica esperança de sensatez esta no que estamos deixando, em nossos filhos, que eles avancem e consigam sair do planeta antes que as coisas aqui se tornem impossiveis e que espalhem pelo Universo, ate… Mas para nos que vamos morrer qual importancia do que vai ficar, o que vai acontecer…

Muitos afugentam de si todos estes pensamentos torturantes, se agarram numa esperança de que exista um imaginado Deus, que tenhamos uma alma imortal… mesmo que nada nem ninguem nunca provou que essas coisas possam existir. Tudo insensatez, seja não ter esperanças ou ter esperanças. Mas tambem, simplesmente continuar na correria, pagando como a maioria, o enorme sacrificio do trabalho forcado escravagista, ev obviamente insensato.

Esta é a unica situação que encontrei na Natureza onde as duas alternativas do extremo são ruins e tambem a alternativa do meio, do equilibrio é igualmente ruin. E ano vejo nenhum motivo para levantar da cama amanha cedo, ir para o trabalho, sem um norte diretor na vida. Então… chego a um passo da explosão mental. Para seria irracional, correr seria irracional, ir a media velocidade é irracional. Levantar ou não levantar… Mas nem isso posso escolher, pois as forcas que empurram não me darão tempo para escolher, elas tambem vem de dentro de mim, na forma de fome, necessidade de manter o teto para manter o corpo, etc. Então começo a abrir a mente para algo mais amplo, um horizonte tao amplo que se perde em perguntas: o que esta existindo e forcando a existencia não sou eu como humano, mas algo invisivel, desconhecido, que veio do antes mesmo da Vida aparecer aqui, algo que poderia ser chamado principio vital. Sou apenas o atual veiculo construido por este principio para continuar seu avanço, não tenho a menor ideia do porque e para onde ele quer ir.

Então aqui surge um momento de sensatez, de racionalidade. Não importa que eu esteja existindo sem um sentido logico, pois existe um motivo logico para eu levantar amanha e continuar aceitando as forcas que me empurram para a frente. Este motivo é o de que eu tenho algo sim a fazer aqui, racional, sensato: investigar o que  é esse principio vital. E posso fazer isso, apesar que as chances que eu o desmascare, o conheça de fato, antes de eu morrer, são minimas. Mas mesmo assim o motivo é tao forte que mesmo morrendo sem te-lo alcançado, morrendo sorrindo com a esperança que meus filhos vão um dia chegar nele, agarra-lo, desmascara-lo e exigir todas as explicações  Vou sim, ao invés de explodir ou suicidar-me agora, continuar a existir, porque tem um objetivo sensato, investigar quem ou o que me empurra por fora e de dentro de mim.

Por isso criei e alimento a Teoria da Matrix/DNA. Com ela eu identifiquei os tentaculos dessa forca invisivel que estão mais perto de mim, me tocando, me empurrando, e ate fui mais longe, seguindo agarrado nesses tentaculos e tentando tocar, ver, o corpo que do qual eles vem. Assim me encontro agarrado a calcanhares, seguindo pegadas, parado no momento, nas ultimas fronteiras do Universo, num evento que chamamos de Big Bang. A Matrix/DNA chega la, ela vem de la, deve vir do antes, e existem elementos reais, naturais, fisicos e concretos, onde continuar pegando, avançando  pernas e tentaculos acima… e vou teimar, pois o supremo objetivo e ver-lhe a cabeça, mesmo que essa seja maior e mais velha que o Universo inteiro. E por isso encontro tempo, faco pausas, saio da louca e disparada caravana por algumas horas, para sentar a beira do caminho e refazer meus pensamentos, vendo tambem o que estão pensando, fazendo, os outros irmãos de especie, de triste condição de existencia. No momento, vejo e penso neste belo artigo encontrado na BBC-FUTURE.

Ela começa dizendo: “If you think theories about the universe are mind-bending, rest assured that many scientists feel the same way. But the question isn’t a philosophical one: it has potentially real, testable aspects.”

Sim, pensar e teorizar sobre a totalidade da existencia, sobre o Universo, é confundir a mente, a Razão. Estes cientistas estão na mesma situação que estou. E… opa… eles tambem dizem ter algo concreto em que se apegar para continuar sua busca, apesar de terem vindo por caminho tao diferente do meu, e estar-mos pensando ver o principio ativo com tentaculos bem diferentes. Me parece que os tentaculos para eles é algo mais fisico e mecanico, enquanto para mim estão parecendo vir de algo mais vivo e consciente. Mas qual é o algo concreto que eles tem para agarrar… isso que me interessa agora.

” Nevertheless, it’s not able to answer some of the more challenging questions, including what – if anything – came before it? Despite how it might sound, this question isn’t a philosophical one: it has potentially real, testable aspects.” 

Uau… eles estão parados no mesmo ponto em que estou… no momento do Big Bang. E ambos nos perguntando… o que exista antes, o que existe alem dessa escuridão sem fim… E eles dizem que  não estão parados por causa da filosofia que se limita a perguntar e tentar responder imaginariamente, sem arregaçar as mangas e agarrar o que existe de concreto a volta para continuar a busca. Mas, por enquanto não disseram ainda o que eles tem em que pegar…

” We can’t see beyond that radius, wherever we’re located.”

Isto significa que eles ainda  não possuem um instrumento de visão suficiente para ver na escuridão… então, estão como eu no aspecto “visibilidade”.

“… the Big Bang…, it left behind a bath of photons, detectable today as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).”

Opa, eles chegaram ao mesmo ponto que cheguei agora por ultimo: a LUZ! Incrivel, como parece aqui tambem que todos caminhos levam a Roma. Mas eles estão vendo essa LUZ como o CMB e tem instrumentos para continuarem a investiga-lo. Eu estou vendo essa LUZ como uma emanação de um vortex, indecifravel, e as ondas de luz dele emanado são os bracos e as mãos do tal principio ativo. Meu foco não esta no CMB, mesmo porque nenhum instrumento tenho para agarra-lo, meu foco esta nos espectros de ondas de luz captados em telas de instrumentos medidores, os quais tambem  não tenho e por isso estou limitado a ficar esperando e buscando cada nova informacao que aqueles que os tem estao fornecendo. Parece que estão em melhor situação que eu, mantendo-se ainda dentro da realidade fisica como o CMB, enquanto eu estou extrapolando para a metafisica com as ondas da LUZ.

” As space observatories like COBE, WMAP and more recently Planck have shown, the CMB is remarkably smooth, but not quite uniform. Within this were tiny ripples that were stretched to enormous sizes during inflation, and in turn these became the seeds for large-scale objects like galaxies and galactic clusters we see today.”

(smooth significa “liso”, uma superficie sem rugas; ripples significa ondulações, pregas)

Entao o Big Bang inicialmente produziu uma banheira cheia de fotons, que compoem um facho de luz, que no espectro parece com longos trechos lisos intercalados por ondulacoes dentro das quais surgiram as galaxias. Hummm… estes espacos com ondulacoes deve ser o que entendem por vacuo contendo vibracoes que produzem materia. Acho que a imagem mental que estao formando em seu metodo de investigacao ev bem parecida com a minha, a qual, ev um oceano (luz), formando bolhas na superficie (particulas de luz chamadas fotons), as quais se juntam nas praias formando espumas (o plano material).  Para eles a s vibracoes produzem particulas vibratorias (energia) as quais ganham consitencia material atraves da massa fornecida pelos Higgs bosons, as quais vem do Higgs field, o qual ainda nao sei bem o que seria. Ok… por enquanto. Mas qual seria a constituicao dentro destas ondulacoes que foi capaz de criar a materia e ainda organizada em galaxias contendo sistemas estelares compostos de atomos… Aqui me parece que estou mais adiantado, pois a formula da Matrix/DNA seria o conteudo dentro das bolas suficiente para produzir tudo isso.

” Gravitational waves in the very early Universe churned up space-time, creating an environment that twisted light emission.”

( twisted aqui significa retorcido). Cairam no mesmo problema que eu. Esta emanação lisa de luz, ou estas flutuações  ou estas vibrações  são algo tao dificil de distinguir que nossa imagem mental dela vai se distorcendo em varias outras sub-imagens, cada qual necessaria para explicar um campo dos fenomenos. Agora apelaram para o nome ” gravitational waves”. Para mim, espaço e tempo não existem como essencias de per se, são apenas conceitos, criações humanas, Para mim, a distancia entre dois objetos – a qual chamam de espaço – esta sempre ocupada por outro objeto, então ao invés de espaço chamo essa distancia pelo nome do objeto ocupante, mesmo que  não o veja e não saiba o que  é. E tempo nada mais  é que os eventos que sucedem na longa cadeia de causas e efeitos, organizados pela mente humana cronologicamente para situar estes eventos de maneira compreensivel. Se para mim espaço e tempo não são coisas de per se, não consigo aceitar que alguma onda ou forca pode influenciar o que  não existe. E por isso de repente nos chocamos numa encruzilhada, e talvez a partir daqui escolhemos diferentes caminhos, eles indo para o norte, eu indo para o sul. Para mim a onda de luz emitida antes da origem  não pode ser torcida nem alcançada por nada dentro do Universo, pois ele é criação dela, ela que se infiltra na materia e torce, retorce, obrigando a materia a mover-se segundo os ritmos de sua orquestra, que são as diferentes frequencias de onda, que são as forcas que imprimem o ciclo vital na materia. Mas vou continuar curioso pelo que estão obtendo, já que nosso final supremo objetivo ev o mesmo. Seria melhor que eles estejam certos e cheguem la rapido, assim economizo meus sacrificios obtendo o objetivo de graça…

” A partial exception to this is a model known as eternal inflation”

Ok, mas o que quero saber ev se esse modelo da eterna inflacao/expansao tem alguma cois concreta em que agarrar agora… se nao nao vou entender porque escolheram ir para o norte…

” Finally, since we’re scientists and not philosophers, how can we tell all of these options apart: can we test them?”

Sim, ev isso que estou esperando ansiosamente: o que voces tem de concreto nesse modelo para se agarrarem e continuarem a investigacao agora…

” The cyclic universe is not a popular model among working cosmologists, but at least it could be ruled out by experimental observations: if the gravitational-wave signature of inflation is found,…”

Intweressante… meu oceano com bolhas e espumas ja me levou a modelo bem parecido e registrei isso num artigo onde duas bolhas, dois universos, existiraim, um sendo negativo e outro justo o oposto positivo, e um sendo a origem do outro, eternamente. Como analogia apelei para a agua que semove no Atalantico entre America do Sul e Polo Norte, etc. Mas afastei isso porque nao tem nada de concreto agora para pegar. E a unica coisa  concreta que eles tem ev uma negacao, ou seja, provar a inexistencia da onda gravitacional.. Por ora impossivel.

” If you think all these options are fairly mind-bending, rest assured that professional scientists feel the same way. Since the observable Universe is currently accelerating with no sign of re-collapse even in the far future, why should there be a cosmos with a beginning but no similar ending?”

Eaqui que  revela na sua maxima a diferenca entre eu e os cosmologistas do artigo. Eles nao mostram qual o profundo motivo do porque estao nessa investigacao, como eu explico que estou atras do que me empurra, que denomino de principio ou forca vital. Parece que eles estao fazendo isso apenas por fazer,  seguindo o mundo das tres alternativas insensatas, como a grande massa humana esta. Fazem-no e se acomodam nisso porque estao sendo pagos para isso, assim coneseguem onde encostar o corpo e ter conforto. Diferente da minha situacao onde eu tenho que trabalhar, produzir, economizar para pagar a investigacao. Mas isso explicaria porque veem racionalidade nos modelos cosmologicos feitos por eles, tal como este inflacionario onde o universo surge e se expande ao sabor de nada, do acaso, tal como seria a nossa existencia como humanos. Mas a propria constatada expansao ev um espinho no sapato, por esse problema: ela indica que o fim havera, mas nao sera igual ao comeco. Isso afasta a ideia de ciclos eternos, reciclagem perfeita, etc. Enquanto isso, meu modelo esta baseado justo nisso: o Universo teve um inicio, se expande e chegara a um fim diferente do inicio, sera transformado em outra coisa do que poderia ter sido antes e isto aponta numa direcao: a existencia do Universo tem um proposito. Assim bate com a sugestao do meu modelo: Universo e apenas o veiculo de um reproducao genetiva do que havia antes, e o prduto genetico tem mutacoes, evolui.

” If inflation or the Big Bang erases information of what (if anything) came before,” 

Nao pelo meu modelo. Nos processos de reproducao genetica informacoes do que existia antes sao conservadas…

” if eternal inflation or the cyclic model is correct, it pushes the question of ultimate origin into the realm of untestability.”

Raios! Corri atras, esperei ansioso, engolingo todo  o meio da argumentacao apenas para esperar a resposta que prometeste dar no inicio ao dizer “it has potentially real, testable aspects.” , e agora chegas no final sem ter apresentado o que tem de concreto para ser testado agora… Os ripples dentro da CBM… provar que existe algo dentro dos ripples produzem as galaxias do universo… mas isto nada prova para o que existiu antes do Big Bang.

” In another decade or century, the questions and the methods we use to answer these questions will most likely have evolved. But for now, it’s unclear how we can possibly know what preceded the Big Bang. (The end)

Ok. Acho que voces consideram a CBM, a irradiacao profunda fluindo pelo Universo, e as pesquisas da Ciencia na area da quantica, os objetos reais que existem agora para continuar a pesquisa. Mas tambem percebem que estas coisas existem depois do Big Bang devem aditir que nada existe de concreto em que se agarrar para pesquisar o antes. E assim vamos deixar o corpo sendo levado ao sabor do desconhecido esperando que destas areas de experiencias ao leu se desenvolvam os instrumentos, tecnicas, que mais possantes possamos apontar para a escuridao alem do Big Bang. Entao estamos na mesma situacao. Eu tambem deixo-me ser levado ao leu e procuro o maximo possivel esquecer a necessidade de saber quem ou o que esta me empurrando por tras, enquanto fico esperando que na area dos experimentos sobre a luz surja algo novo e mais potente para ver nessa escuridao atras de mim. Eu comecei pelo DNA, o meu DNA se tornou a Matrix Universal, e a Matrix se tornou uma mera onda de LUZ Natural. Esta onda se diz ser os bracos e maos de um sistema ex-machine que tem vida e consciencia e emite luz atraves de vortices quanticos… E o que a Natureza bruta da selva me sugeriu, eu nao acredito que a Natureza joga dados com suas criaturas, por isso continuarei indo ao sul… Foi bom saber como anda seu trabalho, torco para que avancem e rapido, mas infelizmente… no ponto em que estamos, tanto ao norte como ao sul… o horizonte a frente continua obscuro.

O que me interessa agora ev puxar a brasa para a minha sardinha, ou seja, convencer o publico esta pagando o caminho do norte apenas, a dividirem o investimento tambem pagando o caminho do sul. Isto significa fazer o experimentos sobre as relacoes entre a luz e a materia.

A seguir o registro aqui dos principais posts na discussao do artigo que esta ocorrendo na BBC – Facebook, e os posts da Matrix/DNA.

XXXXX

Roger Coziol Dagenais  …if there is a non zero probability (looks like quantum fluctuation) that the state would change, then the universe would simply happen. One further point I suggests is the possibility that the Big Bang may have been a thermodynamical irreversible system – that would match very well the time part (without dark energy) where the expansion is asymptotically limited at t infinity, which would also be maximum of entropy. This is of course very speculative, but difficult to resist speculation on such complicated and fascinating subject. However, one day we will know better for sure.

Johnson Boyede What do you think, which came first, the laws of Physics or the universe? If the laws came first then they ‘made’ or are responsible for the universe. If the universe came first then the laws of physics are its results- depictions of how the universe works. What suits?

Merv James How do you something out of nothing? Cosmologists and physicists talk of the big bang but remain quiet about what occurred before that. My question is, how did all the atoms and molecules get there to enable the big bang to take place. Not only are they unable to answer this, but they are unable to discuss this. In other words, notwithstanding their apparent prowess, they know as little as me !

Roger Coziol Dagenais This is very valid question. However, this is not how science work. You work from the known to the unknown, without passing the limit. What I mean is that you can (and must) push physics (step by step) to the limit in the case of a problem like the creation of the universe. For example, when Einstein proposed General Relativity (GR) the expansion was not known, but this expansion turned out to be a direct consequence of his description of gravity (the Einstein equations predict either a collapsing or expanding universe). Once we know that the universe is in expansion, then going backward we can deduce other consequences. One is that within GR the universe is too young to have includes all of its horizon, which means that at the beginning the universe was non-causal: the expansion increases the causality of the universe. Based on known physics, therefore, there is a possibility that the creation of the universe had no cause at all. Compared that with the religious description, which is causal: God (the cause) created the universe (the effect). Well, possibly we already know this is not correct

Akihiko Machida That cowardness of scientists reminds me of my college professor of philosophy, defined himself as a “professor” of philosophy, but not “philosopher”. Anyway, how would scientists (by occupational categoy or self-claim, etc.), then, explain one of the core principles of science as “objectivity”? It sounds like there’s some moral decay in the field of cosmotology, that may be preventing our mankind from advancing our level of intelligence. What happened to the cowboy spirit of cosmotologists that our giants bet their lives trying to prove the solar system?

Roger Coziol Dagenais To tell the truth, what I am trying to do is just understanding my physics. On the other hand I believe that scientists have the responsibility to explain what “reality” is to the rest of the society (as best as they can and without pretending we know everything, which I surely don’t) as this can determine how humanity choose to organize its future. This is no joke matter, this is not a game, as our vision of reality determine human living conditions which are still miserable. This is why I believe science is a duty (calling looks like a religion, and I believe religion is not the answer).

Merv James Like I said, scientists, physicists and cosmologists can’t get their brains around a universe devoid of any matter.

Akihiko Machida Correct! But scientists cannot admit that; otherwise they will lose their jobs. It’s like doctors saying “I don’t know why human bodies are formed this way, that way… but I will diagnose you anyway…”  

Akihiko Machida Yes, we will know “what happened before BB”, when we transcend beyond the dimension of theology vs. science type of repeated discourse.

Roger Coziol Dagenais Agree! You have to transcend this! As a scientist, I am in awe in front of what exists! What you can see using mathematics and physics is incredible, amazing (if only I could teach that to other). I surely understand the religious feeling. But I know the form is wrong (calling this God or anything). I hope one day humanity can invent a new way to live this amazing reality, living better life, and this, as a free thinker, as a scientist, is my only motivation

Sam Reusser For a non-Deist no matter the quantity of acceleration of light X an unlimited matter – there is no explanation for the source of Energy to create the condition for this and / or other Universes. Think about how much Energy it would take to create just this Big Bang and expand it.

Roger Coziol Dagenais If you transform all the mass of the universe in energy using E = mc^2, yes it is an extraordinary amount of energy! But even more puzzling is that this amount E is not infinite. In fact, this comes from the quantization of the energy (Planck formula: E = h nu), that makes the energy of the universe finite. And consequently the mass is finite, a fact that when you put it in Einstein’s equation for gravity makes the universe expanding to infinity. All astronomers agree today, there is not enough mass (including dark matter – if it exists) for the universe to collapse (an event called the big crunch; note that if dark energy is real – which I personally do not believe – the universe would have a different future). During the last 500 yrs, humans gained quite a lot of new information about the universe through science. Unfortunately, most of this information seems still too difficult to grasp by many of us, explaining maybe why people prefer an older vision (possibly simpler…but also arbitrary) of reality. The fact is that our knowledge about the universe as changed dramatically, but our societies are still reflecting obsolete knowledges and beliefs of thousand of years ago. The point is that there is a price to pay for keeping this ambiguity, and this price, as always, is in terms of human lives and narrowing are options for the future.

Louis Charles Morelli –  This ambiguity is due the two sides going away off the beam. You are a sample, when showing a lot of equations and quick saying that they are informations. No, they are theoretical mathematical constructs, informations are real things like particles and galaxies. You can’s see infinity, all mass of universe, energy=zero, etc. Who said to you that Math is the language of the Universe? I am a product of this Universe and Maths only is limited to describe my skeletons and its movements. Math is not applicable to most complex things like my soft overture of organs and the most yet, the thoughts produced by synapses. So, the Universe is not limited to Physics, a Theory of Everything needs Biology, Neurology, etc. Same problem with the other side, the Deists. The real informations are not enough for supposing non-natural entities. We need going back into Nature, where the real informations stopped and trying to get more. That`s what we are doing at Matrix/DNA Theory: the informations we have here and now are the best theory for experiments searching to solve the questions about the whole. Nature does not play dice with her creatures.The problem is that the public money are funding only those ideas that attracts the media, sensationalism and weird languages.

Ivan Wyrsta I personally think that the statement in the article, “this question is not a philosophical question, it potentially has real, testable…” is very flawed, since, yes, it is a philosophical one. Sciencism is a philosophy, philosophy relies on facts just as much as science does. This question shouldn’t be strictly limited to the domain of empirical testing, in my opinion. Whole multitudes of thought or visions could elaborate on this topic. However, I think the physics model is one of the best we have to figuring this out. I love the idea behind this article; it goes back to my favorite thought: Why is there anything at all instead of nothing? Keep up the good work, physicists!

Louis Charles Morelli  – They don`t know what is CMB and those fluctuations in the ripples, and does not have methods for testing, so the models are high theoretical and the question is a philosophical one. It means that the public money must be share with other theories that have real things for testing just now, like Matrix/DNA Theory

Arie Schouten wo of the most plausible answers in my opinion: 1) infinite number of pre and post Big Bangs, i.e. recurring cycles (until critical parameters are reached) of birth (expansion) and dying (contraction) of the Universe, 2) never-ending fractal structure with universes connected through wormholes.

Louis Charles Morelli –  I think you has left our natural world. Here we observes that creatures are born in sequences of Big Bangs but each Big Bang produces a more complex creature, so, evolution takes place of recurring cycles ad infinitun; the fractal structure we see here is the DNA, which seems coming from a universal fractal called Matrix, which ends here at the Big Bang, entering into a warm hole between this Universe and its creator, be it another universe or something else. Then, the fractal from here re-appears there, but a lot more complex. At least, this is what Nature is making here: my DNA came from a Big Bang of a spermatozoon after passing through a worm hole but it re-appears outside in shape of my parents.

Glenn Gawron I can’t believe I just read two pages hoping to learn something new, be it a discovery or theory, just for it to conclude with “But for now, it’s unclear how we can possibly know what preceded the Big Bang.”!! What a waste of time and space

Louis Charles Morelli Yes, but the article began saying that there are something testable just now and finishing without showing what is it. In another hand we have Matrix/DNA models suggesting that lights waves have the code for creating universes and life through Big Bangs. So, while the official academic team is focused upon CBM and quantum fluctuations, we are focused else on electric-magnetic spectrum of light, searching its sources.

PhilnConnie Wright Science is nearing the point when it must confess that it has no other plausible explanation for the beginning of the universe than has already been clearly given. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth.” Science is not quite ready to admit that nothing just ‘Happens” by itself. Despite the mountain of scientific evidence that there must be an outside force to put anything in motion and that force had to begin somewhere, most are just not ready to admit the force was God.

Louis Charles Morelli – Nope. All evidences are pointing to forces before/beyond but towards natural forces and not supernatural ones. That’s why I prefer continuing the search with naturalistic methods than metaphysical ones.

Roger Coziol Dagenais Fascinating and complicated question! But the answer is that yes we may one day have a better idea about the beginning of the universe (if science does not disappearUnfortunately the article was badly incomplete. The Big Bang in reverse yields a universe that was smaller than an atom. Which means that the seed of this universe has a quantum nature. One possibility then is that all matter was created from fluctuation of quantum vacuum. String theory suggests the multiverse universe. The advantage of this theory is that it would eliminate the fine-tuning problem: why the characteristics particle and forces have exactly the values we observe. The disadvantage of this theory however, is that you cannot very it. It violates the golden rule of more than 500 years of doing science. My favorite theory comes from Einstein: matter is made of particle and space-time is the product of their interactions. Since E = mc^2, the universe, matter+space-time may have started in a phase of pure energy. Remember there is not yet space-time, so all we need to do is determine the state of this energy seed. That is if there is a probability that

Louis Charles Morelli I can’t understand why are you separating nature into quantum nature and biological nature. Because biological seeds are quiet different from yours theoretical quantum seeds. Our seeds are not pure energy, they have potential energy but also, a program. Our seeds needs external energy for germinating. Our seeds are smaller but comes from bigger systems. So, our seeds, which are eggs also, are indicating a different theory for universes origins.

Neil Brand Didnt Stephen Hawking already sort this one out? The question itself is illogical as time itself came into existence with the big bang. There was no ‘before’ the big bang as there was no ‘time’ for anything to exist in…. If its good enough for Mr Hawking, its good enough for me.

Louis Charles Morelli Poor man. Mr Hawking is observing and touching the world through an electric-mechanic brain, which has the tentacles that brings informations from micro and macro-dimensions. A biological brain with its natural sensory instruments should see and selecting another kind of informations. I am not surprisingly that Mr.Hawkins is seeing ghosts and cannibals black holes at the same place where must have merely vortexes created by rotating stars dust. Time and space does not exists, neither today, they are mere human concepts created by human beings for putting order into this chaotic bombardment of information.

Misko Piskuric Well! Human brain is not program to deal with IT!!!

Akihiko Machida That’s what I say… But so called scientists would not want to admit that; otherwise they may lose their jobs. Then again, why can we start with that question for how or how much our brain is capable of comprehending the universe, before we speak about the universe.

Louis Charles Morelli –  The problem is that it is just the the research and effort to understand the Universe that develops brains for one day to be able for comprehend it. Monkeys are our cousin monkeys because they stopped thinking about the universe.

Aidan Squiffy It’s something that I’ve realised before, but i just had a profound moment of feeling insignificant: i simply cannot comprehend the idea of nothingness that the pre-big-bang whatever-it-was entails.

Louis Charles Morelli – Aidan, the existence of an embryo inside its egg began with the big bang of a spermatozoon. If the embryo believes that before that big-bang and beyond its egg there is nothing, he/she will be pretty wrong. And if the embryo is feeling insignificant, it is because he/she does not know the important is fore parents waiting outside.You have two alternatives: or do you believe that human Physics speaking Math has the definitive answer and nothing is real; or you listen to Nature and believe in Nature showing here and now how she does her things.

Ryan J. King To give it a more mind-boggling quality, I believe it was Stephen Hawking who said that, in his opinion, time also began at the point of the Big Bang, in which all matter was condensed into a singularity and therefore the standard laws of physics could not have applied. Thus time began at the same time as the universe, no time means no ‘before’, so the answer to what came before the Big Bang is simply nothing, because there was no ‘before’ as we conceive it. Problem solved!

Louis Charles Morelli  – Oh… my lovely lord Pink Unicorn… You began saying that is Mr Hawking opinion… and following you say that…”thus time began…” It is the same saying: it is written in Bible that God created the heavens… thus the heavens began…” My friend, Mr. Hawking does not determinate how time began…

Roger Coziol Dagenais We have not finished searching yet in our own solar system. On the other hand, only Earth has all the ideal conditions for life to develop. Also, we are physically isolated. Take a small example. In the film Prometheus the stars where they fly to is at 3.27 x 10^14 km, about 35 light years away, which is nearby. Now they claim they made the trip in 2 yrs, which is physically impossible because it is much faster than light and no massive object can reach light velocity. At 0.1 the velocity of light (very difficult but possible) it would take you about 346 yrs just to go there, and double that time to come back (if you can) and you would save a mere 2 yrs due to time dilatation, so relativity does not help (interestingly, if they had claimed they made the trip at 0.999c then it would have taken them only 34.5 yrs and the time dilatation the trip for them would have look like a 1.5 yrs trip…there is not much science in science-fiction).

Louis Charles Morelli –  Roger, you were talking about ” new chemical interactions are favored…and these systems developed”. That’s a big jump never observed in Nature. Chemical interactions are merely processes, not systems. Systems must have nucleus, interactive parts, each one performing specific functions. You said that Earth has all ideal conditions for life to develop, I agree. But we never produced living systems from chemistry at Earth, so, it means that there are hidden conditions we don’t know about. You are telling that stars makes elements, elements makes life, but not explaining how they make it. That’s the big question.

Shankar Vshankar The big bang is just the current best theory and is very much based on the idea that the speed of light is constant and the only reason stuff that’s far away looks red is because it’s moving away from us.

Louis Charles Morelli  – Big Bang and expansion are well based theories because there are strong evidences, like you mentioned. The problem is the human interpretation of universe’s Big Bang and expansion. Because these interpretations creates faith,ideology, specific world vision and drives individual and society behaviors. The problem is that most people and students does not makes their own interpretation, they accept them from adults. These adults works like sacerdotes of any religion. We are structuring a society where scientists, cosmologists, becomes the modern sacerdotes. And they are using Math for interpretations of those still theoretical phenomena. But excessive Math is intellectual masturbation going far away from reality, like sexual fantasies are far away from the single reality of muscles friction. I think the best rational interpretation of any far away natural phenomena is the one based upon natural parameters that we can see here and now. At least, the risk of fantasies is smaller. And Nature here shows big bangs creating systems, like the big bang of spermatozoon inside ovules. Nature here shows natural expansion like the grow of embryos inside wombs. But, based on Nature,interpretations are quiet different from those of Physics and Math. It creates different world view, ideology and hence, social systems, human and social behaviors. You chose one. I prefer my natural explanation because I don’t believe that Nature plays dice with her creatures.