Thread: Thoughts on the Origins of the Universe

Hi guys, this is my first post here after discovering this place through a targeted facebook ad. Anyways, I wrote by thoughts about the origins to the universe the other night on my blog here: Socoeito: The Theory of Everything Explained.

If you end up reading any more in my blog, you'll discover that its just made up of my raw, usually late night thoughts. Sometimes they aren't always correct, but you can certainly see the questions that develop in my mind. I hope you enjoy, and I look forward to getting to know this place a little better!

Can you summerize your thoughts here so we can discuss without having to refer to the external site?

Originally Posted by Doug McMurray

Hi guys, this is my first post here after discovering this place through a targeted facebook ad. Anyways, I wrote by thoughts about the origins to the universe the other night on my blog here: Socoeito: The Theory of Everything Explained.

If you end up reading any more in my blog, you'll discover that its just made up of my raw, usually late night thoughts. Sometimes they aren't always correct, but you can certainly see the questions that develop in my mind. I hope you enjoy, and I look forward to getting to know this place a little better!

Tom, in the interest of discussion of my thoughts, over directing traffic to my blog site, I've created my own blog post about it on this site. http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.c...-universe.html

Originally Posted by Doug McMurray

Tom, in the interest of discussion of my thoughts, over directing traffic to my blog site, I've created my own blog post about it on this site. http://www.spacetimeandtheuniverse.c...-universe.html

Wouldnt your particle need to tend to go backwards in time more than forwards? if it would go backwards in time it could meet itself unless the other version of itself was forwards in time. Also are you saying that there is just one particle in the universe?

Originally Posted by tom

Wouldnt your particle need to tend to go backwards in time more than forwards? if it would go backwards in time it could meet itself unless the other version of itself was forwards in time. Also are you saying that there is just one particle in the universe?

That's a good thought. You could say that it has equal chances of going backwards or forwards through time. If you assumed that time itself has no beginning or end it could theoretically have gone backwards, prior to its existence, at which point its existence would have been recorded at earlier times (travel into negative time). This would suggest that there could be two universes based off of this, one in "positive time" and the other in "negative time".

The alternative way to look at this, is that there isn't a "negative" time. And that nothing, including time itself, could not have existed until this particle did.

In either case, the former seeming more likely in my mind than the latter, this assumes that for a moment the particle is somewhat stable enough to statistically come back on to itself. Now, as this process continued, it would have created enough copies of itself that it would have began to create a critical stage to where newer particles, let's call them "second particles" were formed based off of the original one (by clumping or interacting together.) It would have been this interaction that would have "slowed" it down and prevented the "second particles" from going back in time, thus creating a net gain.

For your final question, yes, I'm suggesting that everything you see is derived from just one particle, as weird as it seems.

One more question .... if the particle can go backwards or forwards in time and just kind of looped ... then wouldnt the universe throughout all of time end up 100 percent filled up with particles

Originally Posted by Doug McMurray

That's a good thought. You could say that it has equal chances of going backwards or forwards through time. If you assumed that time itself has no beginning or end it could theoretically have gone backwards, prior to its existence, at which point its existence would have been recorded at earlier times (travel into negative time). This would suggest that there could be two universes based off of this, one in "positive time" and the other in "negative time".

The alternative way to look at this, is that there isn't a "negative" time. And that nothing, including time itself, could not have existed until this particle did.

In either case, the former seeming more likely in my mind than the latter, this assumes that for a moment the particle is somewhat stable enough to statistically come back on to itself. Now, as this process continued, it would have created enough copies of itself that it would have began to create a critical stage to where newer particles, let's call them "second particles" were formed based off of the original one (by clumping or interacting together.) It would have been this interaction that would have "slowed" it down and prevented the "second particles" from going back in time, thus creating a net gain.

For your final question, yes, I'm suggesting that everything you see is derived from just one particle, as weird as it seems.

Originally Posted by tom

One more question .... if the particle can go backwards or forwards in time and just kind of looped ... then wouldnt the universe throughout all of time end up 100 percent filled up with particles

Hmm... not sure what happened to my answer.... I'll explain it again.

First, the questions you're asking are exactly the same as the ones that I asked myself after having considered my own thoughts. The second phase, where the second particles (or mass) form (and where the subsequent evolution of particles develop) prevents the universe from becoming one filled with nothing but these particles. This is due to the changing forces that acted upon the original setup. Over time these particles would have been spread out, and the newer acting forces would begin to prevent it from proceeding at the same rate of duplication (in other words, it would have slowed dramatically). Having said that, that does not rule out the idea that this elementary particle doesn't "rule" the universe. Without giving away too many details here, my next blog entry will, address these questions.

First off, I would PLEASE ask that you re-word your entire blog.
Using terms that are already used for an entirely different meaning is extremely confusing to a reader.
Using "Theory of Everything" and "God particle" entirely out of how they are ordinarily used can mislead a person easily, not necessarily by your intent but simply in how they are used to thinking about those labels.

Just call it the "Genesis Particle" from the get-go.

So, moving along:

The Genesis Particle vibrating back and forth through time- What? This concept is very inconsistent with Relativity and QM, right off the bat. You would need to demonstrate some rigorous proofs for that concept to hold sway- and somehow also demonstrate how those proofs support observation better than Relativity.
That's a helluva task and I have a sinking suspicion that you've based the rest of your hypothesis on the assumption of this Genesis particle and it's properties...

Oh wow...

umm....
From the Blog:

Now that initial step would repeat itself until the amount of matter grows to a critical point to where things start to interact with each other and perhaps some of those particles begin to clump together. The strangeness of this idea is that although all of the matter is really just the same particle, they begin to interact as if they are unique particles. Some continue to "duplicate" while other "rogue" particles clump together and form groups

So, something from Nothing, eh? Somehow, that doesn't seem like much of an improvement...
A time traveling particle replicating itself and interacting with its replicants. We're inbred- heavily.
Obviously, there's a LOT of flaws, here- to the point where I'm embarrassed about posting a response to this thread.

... In fact...

[Exit, stage right]

Hahaha well played. Don't make our new friend feel bad about his ideas, though. Keep it up Doug!

As to my thoughts on the origin of the universe... I don't think it matters. This is life, it doesn't matter what you think- only what you can prove matters! Besides, who says our universe is the only one?