(Strange Universe Series) How can order emerge out of chaos?

You may find these interviews interesting.
Guy is called John Duffield.
http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=7&part=1
http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=8&part=1

When you have natural laws and forces, as well as a massive amount of energy to draw from, order out of disorder is an inevitability.

@Pazza Thanks for the links. @ragingloli Understood, but it never ceases to amaze me watching it happen. Half the reason I ask this question was to give me a reason to post its links.

Without there first being a mind to define an order, then order cannot exist. We’ve got this all backwards.

Chaos did not create order. Mind did.

Planets forming and bouncing around is no different than the particles that make them forming and bouncing around. And our realm may be the very atomic particles that are forming and bouncing around to support another mucho grande realm so large we cannot detect it.

But without a mind to first call it round, heavy, small, dense…, then order does not, and cannot exist.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I follow what you are saying, but how do we know that? How do we prove it?

Demonstrate order without a mind.

This is why I have a major problem with the Big Bang Theory (which ironically got it’s name from one of the theories greatest opponents). I believe that person was Fred Hoyle who I think was a staunch supporter of the Steady State Theory. I’m not a steady state supporter myself (though I was at one time until reviewing further evidence. I will try to lump the basics about this theory in as small detail as I can here since there is alot more to it then I’m posting here.

There is a theory that is called the Big Breed Theory. In this theory everything started from nothing or a zero energy state known as the “void”. It is assumed that the zero state could have two components emerge that sum to zero ( such as +1 -1=0). These components in the nothing are referred to as negative and positive primaries. This void or zero state has an intrinsic tendency to become unstable and that this instability would naturally fluctuate and increase occasionally to the point at which these two, or indeed more, components could actually seperate and emerge from out of nothing, or the void.

The very center of the Big Breed Theory is the concept that these two types of primary must have emerged with opposite properties. The biggest difference here is the momentum of these two different properties. The positive primary has its momentum going in the same direction of travel while the negative primary has its momentum going in the opposite direction of travel. When two primaries of similar type collide (say two positives) the effect is equivelent to that of two billiard balls colliding with each other (at least according to this graph that is in front of me) while when two primaries of opposite types (a positive & negative) a different result emerges and using the same analogy the two would instead move off in an odd pattern to the same side (again from looking at this magenta & cyan chart but trying to word this somehow).

After these continuous collisions between these two different types of primeries emerging from the zero state larger sized primaries begin to scatter into several smaller versions until their numbers keep growing – as if the primaries kept “breeding” newer primeries from these collisions, hence the reason for the name of this theory “The Big Breed”.

When many of these primaries collide from all directions mutual annihilation is favoured. Primaries now seem to vanish as if they went back into the void. On mathematical analysis, all these collisions produce a net result of a slowly increasing growth rate with more and more primaries arising from this breeding effect. This expansion gets faster and faster rather like the old Big Bang Theory, but unlike in the Big Bang Theory where there is no mechanism that can control this growth of expansion, the Big Breed Theory does go on to devolope one. This result is a necessary control that will allow creation to go on to produce what we see today. I will post more tomorrow on this (there is alot more I didn’t even come close to posting so far) but I’m tired right now.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I’ve read alot of your older posts. This Big Breed Theory goes perfectly in line with your “intelligent evolution” theory. This order which allowed evolution and life as we know it to exist today was created by an intelligent background medium called “i-ther”.

The Greeks called it Ether. Is that what you mean by “i-ther”? I’m not familiar with that term.

One problem I have with Big Bang Theory (and it’s a big problem), is that it requires the theory to arise out of that which supposedly created it. Again, it requires a blind, deaf, dumb, mute cosmos to evolve to a point where it can express an idea about itself. That’s odd to me.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I-ther is a more modern term for what was usually labeled as “aether”. No I-ther is the correct term here but they are close to being the same thing. This theory I’ve mentioned really does go on to describe alot of concepts the Big Bang religion can’t. There are some extremely intelligent physicists and engineers who support this theory.

If you are interested in some book recommendations I can give them to you on this theory. Yes very few people are aware of this theory, I guess wherever the special interests are that’s who will recieve the money and popularity. We can’t be ruining reputations by proving certain individuals wrong. Well I’m off to sleep soon good night.

Agreed… Words like Singularity or Random Mutation are non-answer placeholder words that mean nothing more than “We don’t have a freaking clue. But if we make you think that we do, then we’ll get lots of grant money next year to keep the department going”

Book Recommendations welcome.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Demonstrate order without a mind. We have the chicken-or-egg problem, don’t we? I suppose there are minds without order, but they are certainly far too deranged to have designed and delivered the Universe. So Demonstrate a mind without order. works no better for the sort of mind we’d be looking for. Where would a disembodied mind have come from, or how could it have existed eternally? None of these alternatives makes sense to my finite perception.

@Paradox If this is stuff you are finding online, please post a link, or if in a book, a reference. I second @RealEyesRealizeRealLies endorsement of book recommendations.

Surely ‘mind’ could be considered order in chaos, yet ‘mind’ did not need a mind to observe it as ordered? (did that make any sense?)

@paradox Could those +1 -1’s be described as pressure or density variations in the background field?

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Cool-Astronomy/2010/1025/Is-the-universe-a-big-hologram-This-device-could-find-out.

Could these pressure/density variations/waves be what the GEO600 detector is detecting as described in the link above?

Can’t get there from here. Just the word “order” implies “meaning”.

If there is an “order”, then it must be meaningful.

If it’s not meaningful, then it’s chaos.

If it’s chaos then it’s not “order”.

See what I mean? Once again science (cosmologists/physicists) have shanghi’d a word (order) to mean absolutely nothing. It’s a non answer.

We must consider this in the light of Information Theory and the tool of Code. I know ju guys are sick and tired of me harping on this… but really, there can’t be order unless there is a code to order it upon. That’s what code is… an ordered symbolic representation of thought. If it wasn’t ordered, then it wouldn’t be anything more than white noise… chaos.

Code is the only TOOL that MIND can use to CREATE “order” out of chaos. Any random particle can be used as a physical medium to construct a syntactical alphabet. But when this happens, it is no longer random. It is ordered. This process is called Information… the process of manifesting thought in-to-form

Order is impossible without a mind to order it meaningfully.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Actually, even chaos has meaning. Their are actual mathematics that underlay chaos. A great deal can be learned by studying the bifurcation diagrams of dynamical systems pushed very far out of equilibrium, and the strange attractors that control the crisis points of bifurcation.

The Logistic Map, or Bifurcation Diagram, is usually a graphical representation of the formula p1 = r * p * (1 – p)...
emphasis mine

The medium is not the message. There is no math in the universe except for that which humans have invented to describe the universe.

True enough, but it comes amazingly close to doing just that. What truly amazes me is that the Universe obviously self calculates all these things on the fly. The point I wanted to make is that even chaos has a certain order in it.

I don’t believe that a blind, deaf, dumb, mute cosmos can calculate anything.

It does follow laws. Some of them act at the speed of light. Others act instantaneously over significant distances. In human experience, there is never a law without a law giver. But the Universe defies human experience on so many planes that it would be ridiculous to apply our perceptions of reality on it.

The laws of the universe were written by humans to describe observable phenomenon. The laws did not exist until a human mind observed and describe the phenomenon. But the phenomenon is not a law. Nor is it capable of communicating a law for humans to translate into English or Math.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Let’s not get into dicing words again. I think you know what I mean. The Universe works by a set of inbuilt laws. What we observe is just describing them in human terms, and often imprecise ones at that. But the underlaying laws are there, nonetheless.

@ETpro No, unfortunately you can’t find anything about what I’ve been talking about on the internet (believe me I tried). I guess the physicalists and religionists have truely hi-jacked the net with their own propaganda. I had to really dig around to even find the few books I’ve ordered to get any information on the subject I’ve been mentioning.

I thought I would give you a brief summary/analysis of the Big Breed Theory (essentially a more modern upgraded version of the original Theory of the Aether) before giving out any book references. I didn’t want to refer any books to someone if there seems nothing plausible about the theory. I’m trying to feel my way on this site while trying to avoid cynics as well. If anything sounds interesting enough I will gladly pm a book reference to those who are interested. I have several books on these subjects and I didn’t read every book out there in this series myself so in a sense I’m just learning myself.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies This theory supports your mind bringing order to chaos hypothesis and seems to support many other issues you brought up but I’m still not 100% sure even on that.

Sorry ET, I know talking with me about this can be frustrating. I’m really sorry about that. And yes, I do “know what you mean”. But look buddy, I’m not sure you know what I mean. Thus, my comments may sound needling and offensive. You’re the last person on this forum I want to offend. You’re probably the last person on this forum who I can speak upon these great questions of yours with the precise detail and thoughtfulness they deserve.

Perhaps our new friend @Paradox will join us where others have left. We barely hear from @idler any more. @mattbrown stops in less and less. @rarebear must have gotten a girlfriend or something cause we rarely see him. @shuttle128 has practically vanished (I’d really enjoy hearing his comments to your threads), and @ragingloli just plain doesn’t like me. @Axemusica, @FireMadeFlesh, @Ivan… Where are they?

This forum used to adore Questions of the Cosmos. But there are very few of us left that pursue it with a passion.

Dicing words? By now you know what a hard linguist I am. You know there is no offense intended. You know how extremely critical that I believe our use of words is to the questions you propose. You know how I feel about the Sphota Theory of Language, and how paramount it is to moving these discussions forward, rather than circling around the same old dead horse expecting nourishment from that which has been discussed, debated, and distorted for centuries.

We need a new perspective if we are to expect fruitful answers.

I offer that with a strict adherence to words, and the definitions we place upon them.
__________________________

Will you deny there are new paradigms upon us? Our human minds are long past due for a heavy dose of philosophical evolution/revolution. The old paradigms are breaking down all around us. We are soon to demand new thinkers. Your continued questioning of the bigger issues suggests that you are one of them. If you were satisfied with the old answers, then you wouldn’t be questioning with such veracity. This is a good thing. Where others would have us just leave well enough alone… you continue to press the issue.

I will do the same.

I propose, in humility, and respect to your perspective, that there are NO “underlaying laws” to be found anywhere in the known universe. There is only white noise… entropy… that’s it… that’s all.

It can become anything an observer describes it to become! The slit experiment is beginning to demonstrate this and the importance of the observer in the quantum realm. Our descriptions, be them vague or precise, are built by the words we use, be them vague or precise. And our physical reality is manifest upon us in this way.

What was once demon possession, is now epilepsy. What was once Atlas holding our Earth on his shoulders is now called Gravity. It’s hot for you, but it’s cold for me. It’s hard for me, but it’s easy for you. It’s justice for her, but it’s injustice for him… We define reality… plain and simple.

It takes a mind to make sense out of entropy. We can make any sense out of it that we choose to. But if left alone, without a mind, it is senseless, and will decay any sense made of it given enough time (read Egyptian Pyramid mysteries)... “time” being a tool of entropy. Chaos being the other, it eats reason for lunch… the universal constant enemy of mindful consideration. Here-in-lies the heart of truth between good and evil, right and wrong, God and Satan, truth and lies, Information and Entropy.

@Paradox I do find info on the Big Breed Theory. Do you happen to know from your reading whether any of Ron Pearson’s 6 proposed tests for the theory have been completed?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Chalk up the curt response to the late hour and my desire to be done for the night and off to bed. I hope you know I would be heartbroken if such a comment soured our exchanges about the Cosmos and beyond.

Are you suggesting that when man explained the Earth’s stability in terms of Atlas’ shoulders being so strong, Atlas really was there holding it up? I can conceive of the Universe itself being the intelligence, but not abiding foolishness.

@Pazza 1+/1— mean to stand for subquantum particles that came out of an unstable point zero energy state called the void. There are three levels of existence according to this theory, the first is the observable physical particles, the second is the subatomic quantum particles that make up atoms and it is at this level that electrical and nuclear forces exist. There is one more smaller level of reality that is really nothing more than the self-organising primaries that make up the i-ther, which is short for intelligent ether. It is just as mathematically sound for negative energy to exist as it is for positive energy and since opposites attract this is what is responsible for the “breeding effect” of more primaries that is responsible for the expansion of the Universe.

@ETpro I the Big Breed Theory the expansion of the Universe is anticipated unlike in the Big Bang Theory where this violates the cosmic constant so certain false phenomenom has to get made up to try to explain this strange faster expansion of the Universe which is called “dark energy”. Dark energy does not exist. There is no mysterious force with special repelling properties.

The expansion in the Big Breed Theory is predicted because of the constant collisions and breeding of new subquantum particles known as the i-ther. As intelligent as this i-ther has grown one thing it can’t do is shut it’s own acceleration down because if that happened all matter/energy that exists would collapse back into the zero energy state known as the void. The Universe has to keep growing in order for anything to exist.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I will pm both of you the books I’ve been reading.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Actually my number one passion is electricity since I work with it for a living while getting to work with engineers and technicians of which some have degrees in physics themselves. My number one interest is working on invention ideas for electrical devices and free electrical power.

I’m not a scientist but since the death of most of my family not too long ago I will admit I’ve been super obsessed with learning more about the Universe so I will try to add what I can. I do not have any theories right now I absolutely support but to me the Big Bang has many holes itself which havn’t been explained nor proven. I havn’t studied as much about the plasma current theory of the Universe too much yet. I’m not a creationist. The Big Breed Theory seems to at least try to explain the unexplainable in the Big Bang Theory.

There are two options:

1) Our universe is the only one that exists

2) Our universe is part of a multiverse which includes other universes with different natural laws

If 1 is true, the questions arises why our natural laws are just so perfect for life to develop or why there are such laws in the first place.

If 2 is true, the question about a super law arises, which might be capable of creating a high or infinite amount of universes with different natural laws (most of which would probably lead to boring chaotic universes without a lot of order). Our big bang is a consequence of the laws of the multiverse.

In any case, we don’t know about the ultimate origin of the natural laws.

They are either self explanatory (the super law can explain its own existence) or some other force is behind all this. Theists believe that the latter is the case without being able to scientifically prove it. Atheists believe in the first explanation without being able to scientifically prove this.

We should respect both world views without making fun about the one we do not believe in.

@mattbrowne Are there only two options?

@ETpro “Atlas really was there holding it up?”

Well in a sense… yes. You must understand that the ancients used Atlas to depict the very same force that we depict as Gravity. They called it Atlas. We call it Gravity. But it is the exact same phenomenon now as it was then.

Neither of our descriptions is the actual force. We can only describe the force with the available terminology at hand. And with our descriptions, be them vague or precise, the force becomes what we say it is, to us, subjectively. But objectively, the force is a constant universal phenomenon. But that phenomenon is not a law. Laws are written by humans to describe phenomenon.

@mattbrowne “the super law can explain its own existence”

How may we claim a law exists without first discovering a code which defines it?

@Paradox Thanks for the further details.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies That seems a bit generous to the ancients. I have seen the drawings they did of Atlas. I have not seen any similar drawings of Gravity. This is a second century Roman copy of an original Greek sculpture of Atlas holding up the world.

Well in a sense… yes.

That’s the best description they had to embody the essence of meaning underlying the force they were attempting to describe. Imagine the laughter of our future generations when they sit and mock our current depictions of the universe. We will most certainly seem quite absurd to them.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Words like Singularity or Random Mutation are non-answer placeholder words that mean nothing more than “We don’t have a freaking clue. I will add the term “dark matter” and “dark energy” to that list.

@ETpro So funny I forgot to laugh. Ron’s not a creationist. At least the Big Breed Theory tries to cover the ridiculously flawed gaps in the Big Bang religion. I guess it’s safe to make assumptions of unknowns when it fits into supporting the status quote. There are a growing number of extremely intelligent scientists, physicists, engineers, astrophysicists among others that are starting to give the Big Breed Theory more support.

@Pazza Welcome to “Flutherland” where only materialist atheists and theists who support a deist type of God are welcome to discuss their issues and be given proper “respect”. You are not allowed to talk about that “middle ground” on here. Hey I forgot we know everything there is to know about physics in the year 2010 here so let’s fight to keep the status quote that we are comfortable with rather than using the true scientific method to find the real truth.

@Paradox

I find the Big Breed theory intriguing. It’ the best kept secret since McKenna’s Novelty theory. Not the novice theory, but the in depth theory of the Great Attractor. In fact, they are striking harmonious chords, at least upon certain riffs.

We are being pulled into finality, not pushed.

@Paradox I have pondered many a night wondering if DE & DM were the first scientific admissions of Aether (I-ther). Alas, that pondering has subsided, as I realize it was not.

I truly believe that the ancient Aether is the very same agent as the Information of modernity.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies No i-ther is different than the old “aether” from that old discarded theory. I-ther is really the smallest level of existence, even smaller than the particles from the quantum world where all the laws of nuclear physics and electromagnetism come to life.

Maybe best kept secrets should be kept that way, especially on a website full of cynics rather than open-minded skeptics. Physics has hit the buffers but who am I to say so we will keep making things up that make us feel comfy. Linguistics and orating are definitely not my specialties but I’m not stupid or an average street person either and my job requires me to have a decent knowledge of physics and electricity and I’ve practically given up my entire social life researching these topics as well as working on my own projects.

The books truely are brilliant, if you read them I think you would be amazed. Believe me I’m a tough person to amaze. Maybe I will stay out of these discussions for now on and leave the others battle among themselves since I don’t have a shot on Fluther anyway. I guess this topic will be for another Q & A website.

But how is it different? The ancient Aether was simply depicted as The Binding Essence, and not really much more than that. Though it was thought to be non-intelligent, and more of a force of nature. A missing link so to speak.

And really… what’s with all this “cynic” talk? You’re in good company here. I don’t doubt the “brilliance” of the books referred… but there is no need to keep your guard up here. Just share your perspective and know that some might challenge, while others will give it thoughtful consideration.

@Pazza – The statement ‘There is exactly one universe’ can be either true or false in first-order logic. So there are three options, no universe, one universe, more than one universe. We are here, so no universe does not makes sense. This leaves two options. Do you want to apply fuzzy logic?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies – Infinite regress is indeed a problem for the super law approach. But so is the idea of the uncreated creator. There is no easy answer.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I fully agree that one who truly understood the Universe would find most of our perceptions of it quaint and rather silly.

@Paradox I’m not sure what I said that wasn’t funny, but since I wasn’t trying to be funny, it is funny that it should come out that way.

@mattbrowne Nice succinst statement of the problem.

“There is no easy answer”

Not until we acknowledge the third ingredient to reality. Energy, Matter, and Information. And by acknowledging Information as an immaterial non-physical agent which transcends both space and time, we are then free to consider agents of IS-ness beyond the confines of materialistic infinite regression conceptualizations.

Materialists ask a loaded question. For it is their very hard Marxists Dialectic Materialism which prevents these questions from being answered.

@mattbrowne I’ll take option 3 then, which one was that again lol.

Maybe there is no universe, and only the mind, since we can only know phenomenon and not the noumenon. Or maybe the mind is the universe, if particles are expressions of the universal background field and the mind arises from the order and interaction of the particles, then the mind is the field.

The one thing I think science seems to overlook in the search for the source of conciousness is the posibility that the field is concious. Thats probably heading into the realms of the esoteric or religion, but hey, open mind.

My origional comment by the way was not meant to cause offense and was refering to the latter part of yours where you mention Theists and Atheists, it just seemed a little dicotomous (if thats a word) and fixed “its either this!, or its that!”. Why I just didn’t say that, you’ll have to ask the Aether.

Another thought, doesn’t quantum theory dictate that the universe must both exist and not exist simultaniously until observed?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I don’t mind a challenge as long as the opposing point of view really went out of their way to fully investigate a topic including looking at information from both the pros and cons. Many on here do not do that. No different than any other site I’ve been on I guess. I even challenge my own beliefs but many do not even attempt to do as much or a fraction of that.

There is a very big difference between an open-minded skeptic with an opposing viewpoint and a cynical defender of the status quote. You know where I’m getting at so I will leave it at that.

I agree with your above post. The materialistic dogma will hold us back in the end from learning the truth. I guess i-ther could be considered that same fine grained substance that aether is (suppositively). We might differ on one point here for the theory I’ve mentioned also requires random order emerging out of chaos. Experiments have shown that when energy of any type is applied to a chaotic situation natural order is inevitable. However, in order for life itself to emerge yes this theory does claim an intelligence (in the form of a self-organizing medium known as i-ther) had to be involved in organizing the genetic code required not only for life but the conditions for life itself to even exist. This is very complicated and I’m speaking in layman here but the books do a better job than I at explaining things.

@ETpro Nothing personal, but no they are two different people. You knew that.

You see I do not mind an interesting discussion among people with opposing veiwpoints from mine when the name calling and arrogance are left out. There are many people out there who are so cynical with their beliefs that even investigation is not warranted because to them the opposing opinion is outright absurd. I don’t mind a debate with you or realeyes even though our viewpoints are likely different because we do so respectfully. Sometimes my dry sense of humor is mistaken for anger so forgive me.

@Paradox I did not knwo that. I listened to several tapes from Mr. Pearson the comedian, and got the distinct Impression he was the individual who wrote the works you meantin. There were so many connective clues, I find to harf to eblieve they are two separete people.

I don’t know what level of immediate acceptance you need to proceed. You can trust me to give ideas a fair review. You can also trust me to often look up the objectify and author independently and form my own conclusion. I am not one, any longer, to simply fall in step with some drummer simply because he provides a distinctive new beat,. But I won’t reject his rhythm simply because it is new to me, either.

@ETpro I’m sorry I really thought you knew and were kidding around. Ironically I never heard of the comedian. The guy I’m talking about was the inventor of the gas wave turbine engine before he decided to pursue other interests and as an engineer work with other engineers and physicists on topics related to astronomy.

I’m not sure where you found your information about this mystery “Ron Pearson” and the Big Breed Theory. The only things I’ve managed to scrape up (on the net) are just very brief articles on this subject but nothing major. I’ve actually been able to find more information on another fringe theory known as the Plasma Theory of the Universe. All my info has been coming from the books I’ve read about it. My mind isn’t made up to any theory but I like to keep myself open to all possiblities.

I don’t paste my info so expect some spelling mistakes. I only type what I’ve memorized through reading and research. I’m a slow typer as well, something like 10 words per minute :-)

@Paradox No, I definitely wasn’t kidding around. When I first found a reference to the Big Breed Theory, I cam upon the name, Ron Pearson. Searching Google for him, I found numerous references to a very multifaceted and brilliant guy who is a master juggler, comedian, actor, producer and was at one time a born-again Christian. This I gleaned from some rather fascinating video clips on YouTube, worth watching for their own right.
The Answers To Life
Ron Pearson on Bananas
I think you will see how I might have concluded this guy is clever enough to produce a new Theory of Life, The Universe and Everything—one even more interesting than 42.

@ETpro Unfortunately comedians are not really my thing. Usually I laugh when I’m not suppose to.

@Pazza – Are you referring to the many worlds interpretation?

@mattbrowne – possibly, but I can’t understand even the simplest of the maths boffins equations, so I have to try and visualise any phenomena, so the ‘many worlds’ theory to me simply translates to many frequencies, or probably infinite frequencies. That is to say that to me now, an atom is a tornado in the aether of space, but since the field is infinitely variable then two vorticies of the field can propagate in exactly the same place without interfering with each other, giving rise to what you could consider ‘many worlds’.

Max Tegmark calls this a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_III:_Many-worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

A Level IV multiverse would have completely different physical laws.

Only from chaos can order emerge.

And if order is still disorderly then it is still within chaos.

The universe is Order from chaos.

That’s a nice poem @kess. Would you mind putting some reasoning behind your comments?

Truth is not hard to understand only hard to accept and those who will not accept will never understand, exactly like the nature of order and chaos.

Is it possible for order and chaos to exist as a single unit?
If they did then order will be the same as chaos and both unrecognisable or without order.
So therefore only because of order we can recognise chaos and without order there is only chaos.

Now chaos can only be nothing-0 because there is no order to it.

And since order cannot be chaos it must be separate from it and it cannot be nothing- 0 but One-1.

If therefore you ask of the origin of Order, you can only say it is chaos.
Unless ofcourse Order’s origin is its ownself.

Both are true.

@ETpro I’m not great at using the Internet to find information but maybe this book would be a good read for you on experiments showing how order seems to arise from chaos when energy is fed to a chaotic situation.

I still believe there had to be a background medium that always existed in some form for consciousness or life to evolve. The ‘Big Bang’ Theory is currently accepted as providing an adequate explanation for the creation of the universe.

Here is a brief summary of the ‘Big Bang’ Theory (correct me if I’m wrong): All matter and energy of which the universe consists is said to have arisen in a gigantic creative explosion that was complete within a split second and this happened some 13.7 billion years ago. The explosive creation needed to cut off after a split second so that ever-after energy was conserved with no more creation taking place. The resulting fireball then expanded under its own inertia, being pulled back all the time by the mutual force of gravity. If I stated everything correctly here so far then what turned off this creative explosion? Why is the universe expanding many times more faster than predicted?

I will add more here, correct me if I’m wrong on anything. I’m trying to learn not debate by being skeptical of my own position as well as other ones here. More on what I think I know about the ‘Big Bang’ Theory: I will start with someone named Dr. Alan Guth who back in 1980 conceived the idea of an initial creative explosion known as ‘inflation’. This ‘inflation’ depends on (correct me if I’m wrong) established phenomena of quantum theory, the mechanics of the atom. Furthermore, ‘space’, far from being the void of nothing, is represented as a seething mass of ‘virtual particles’. Each arises from nothing, has a brief life and then vanishes again back to nothing. There is an apparent violation of the conservation of energy, otherwise known as the ‘First law of thermodynamics’, which states, ‘Energy can be neither created nor destroyed’. However, violation for a brief instant is permitted by ‘Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle’: part of quantum theory. From what I understand about this hypothesis is despite the first law of thermodynamics, energy can arise and exist for a short time whose duration is inversely proportional to the ‘borrowed’ energy level of the virtual particle. However, since lives of many billions of such virtual particles overlap one another, the result is a huge energy density of space: its energy per unit of volume. Space is also known as the ‘quantum vacuum’ to suggest no matter is there, yet despite arising from the void of zero energy, space has a high energy density. Is this inconsistent? Again correct me if I’m wrong.

The origin of the universe was considered to have started from a huge ‘quantum fluctuation’ that produced an energy spike of infinite density that would rapidly decay to nothing, just as do virtual particles, unless something else happened to stop this. The decay was arrested by the onset of the inflation that drew the energy needed to build space by a cancelling pressure called, ‘The intrinsic negative pressure of the vacuum’. There is a major fault with this but that will be for later but back to the topic I’ve been mentioning. The big bang theory permitted all the energy, later to condense into the universe, to appear from the void. This produced a ball of only 1 metre radius but at an unimaginably high density, since it contained all the energy existing in the universe today. Then this energy creation, that had only taken a minute fraction of a second to complete, suddenly had to cut out.

I’ve posted all of this because I want to be sure on what I know about the ‘Big Bang Theory’ so far to be correct, if not then correct me where I’m wrong. If I’m correct so far then I will continue. You’ve asked several questions about the universe. I’m posting this stuff not to be off topic but maybe point out potential flaws in the big bang theory. The answers to some of your many questions may come from another theory/s.

If there are any flaws in anything I’ve posted so far I’d appreciate being corrected here. I wanted to fill the gaps with an alternate hypothesis to see if these sound like viable answers. Again I’m not here to be a pro or con of any theory but to just find the truth. I try to be skeptical of my own position as well as others.

@Paradox Thanks for the book recommendation. It does look interesting. I have added it to my reading list.

I am but a lowly student of this. I am not an astro-physicist. I am not qualified to defend the Big Bang. I do know that acceleration appears to be increasing, and that if that is so, obviously it isn’t the inertial effect of the Big Bang expansion some 13.72 billion years age. There is work underway, I know, with the LHC, to establish if the model you note of space as a seething sea of virtual particles flashing in and out of reality is accurate. If it is, then that may be a clue to the source of Dark Energy and Dark Matter so far just postulated as possible explanations of the increase in acceleration. But so far, Dark Energy and Dark Matter haven’t been proven to exist. So yeah, they are sort of a fudge factor to make the Standard Model work.

I don’t think cosmologists are a bunch of conspirators, though. If their model is wrong, they will keep pushing till they find out it is wrong and correct it. Einstein did this with his special relativity. He thought the Universe was constant, and so he threw in a fudge factor into E = MC^2 to make the Universe constant. When it emerged that the Universe is expanding, he was quick to recognize his error and remove the fudge factor.

@ETpro I have an interesting hypothesis about what “dark matter” and “dark energy” may really be since kinetic energy may really be the only real form of energy in the universe. Everything else that exists seems to be only wave-particle duality where the majority of space inside of atoms is actually empty.

I know very much about the grid theory but if you’ve ordered the books than maybe it’s best you read them (there are several you have to read to fully understand where I’m getting at here) and see if you can find any flaws yourself and compare them to the big bang theory. I think I sent you info on the books I was reading. I’m tired from a long day but I will hope we can continue to update each other.

Pleasant dreams. I did grab a copy of Pearson’s book but have not had a chance to read it yet. Will let you know what I think of it after studying it and the supporting work.

Yeah you have to read several of the books by Ron Pearson very thoroughly and even read over things several times if something is not understood. He does an excellent job of explaining everything. The Big Breed Theory or for what I will term it as for now on (the grid theory) seems very strong to me compared to the big bang theory. I’m also somewhat skeptical of Eric Learner’s Plasma Theory, Learner does make some good points but there are several holes in his theory as well. I’m also skeptical of Brian Josephson (though I have great respect for this physicist) when he mentions his own theory of time reversal.

I would recommend reading “Creation Solved” first. Then I would recommend reading “The Big Breed Theory of Energy Creation” right after that one. You can go with his book called “Quantum Gravity” which is very technical and very mathematical. I’ve read several other books about many other theories and I can’t say I’ve found any holes or flaws in anything Ron talks about but you have to thoroughly read the books. I would have directly posted the links for you but I’m seeming to have a hard time with posting more than one link without losing my Fluther homepage.

Well thanks for the recommendations. I hope you get the link trouble resolved. But I can search easily enough for book titles.