Perhaps "something" was never created from "nothing." It would be more efficient for something to exist on the fluctuation of nothing. If the universe contained no particles before creation, then it is safe to define the universe at that point of time as 0. If you were to then fluctuate the universe, in chaos, you might generate different ranges of give-or-take values ( Where as positive particles might equal +1 and negative might equal -1 ) A trade off might exist to where, when broken down and reversed, everything would equal 0. This would require a mirror universe to host "backwards" particles. Positive particles in this universe would equal negative in the other, and so on. The mirrored universe would be an anti-matter mirror of our own. Gravitational fields would naturally be created as positive particles would be drawn to the lack of space a negative particle has -- resulting in orbit.


Our Universe +1 -> -1

0 --------- ^ -------- v --------- 0

Mirror Universe -1 <- +1


As for complex/logical structures of atomic elements being formed, I will not even attempt to clarify. But, I would enjoy hearing other theories about how particles were created in the universe.

Oooooooookay...... ?????!!!!!!!

Ever since I learned of the Big Bang theory, I've always kind of chuckled at it. First of all, it doesn't make sense that everything was created from "nothing." And.... what is nothing? There is actually no such thing as nothing... The void of space, in its emptiness, is called nothing. Yet, all things are in nothing.... So, nothing must be something in order for us to be in it. So, the first step might be to define what "nothing" truly is.

I prefer the idea that God is the beginning and is also the ending, and finding the secrets of the physical universe will probably lead to that.

First, I never heard that something arose from nothing, only that
a very infintesimal, by comparison, point existed in the past.
I even heard that the original proponent of the Big Bang (not his term, BTW)
never said 'in the absolute beginning...'; but rather, that he could describe
the process starting at a certain 'point', but did not rule out further pre-history.
The theory was upgraded by a highly intelligent student of astrophysics,
years later, to include a superluminal era- inflation, which occured
for a certain span, early in the universe- say, during the first billion years...

I have heard the 'freeze' theory, that the early pre-universe state got so cold
that it froze, cracked, and released force, which led to everything else- Boom...
I heard another, the so-called Standard Model, based on Einstein's theories.

I have heard of membrane/brane/super-string theory. Only, I do not know
much about that, except that it is like ancient Indian/Hindu beliefs.
The universe cycles, bounces off another parallell universe, by drawing
closer to the near atomic scale, at some critical juncture. Gravity waves
are exchanged, and a repulsive reaction force pushes them away from
each other- but not before generating changes that induce space/time/matter.
This is a cycle that could be on the order of three trillion years.

The Hindus thought it was 8.4 billion years in the great cycles.
They deserve some credit, for even trying to describe such an idea...
However, there is an old scholl of astronomy in India that refuses to dump
astrology. Even so, the cyclic universe was more something i used
to read about, when I read some Buddist/Hindu works.
That is all under the bridge, for me, including astrology...

Eternal Universe

OMG!!! These word confuse me!! All I know is that god created the universe. The only proof I need is that the Crusification was real....

To imagine a relatively small point, (in relation to the Universe) that at one time held all things until it exploded outward to eventually form all things called the Universe doesn't make much sense. What exactly did the 'point' of all (pre-formed)matter explode out into? If there was a pre-existing 'point' where all matter was, that point would have had to have been in something for it to explode outwards. So that does not describe how all of the "nothingness" in the Universe was created. (Which it is made mostly of in volume.) Nor does it describe how the singular point of all matter was formed.






I had no idea the Hindu's had old theories like that. I'm assuming you're talking about the ancient past? Sounds interesting.

God, being the Beginning and the End, yet also Eternal, almost describes a cycle as the Hindu's thought. The Earth goes through cycles, the solar system does, and even Galaxies go through different cycles of death and rebirth. Even further, it may not be that difficult to imagine that the Universe itself goes through cycles, only over a very, very long timespan. Yet that still does not truly describe the beginning. To describe the beginning would be to describe God.

CHIN,

Your common sense is coupled with reason; and they are seemless
with your philosophic insight. Some would argue all day, but others,
like myself, have no qualms with your ideas.

As a matter of fact, I spoke those same words, Sunday evening,
to my sister, that you said in your last thought.
I told her how much I enjoyed musing on astronomy, and issues of faith.
That said, I will avoid the more hard-edged characters, here.
I am not a debator.

I used to have something I wrote for my own enlightenment,
on just what you are asking about, and what you believe.
But, it was probably lost, somewhere. And since I am more like
iron oxide than gold, I do not recall all I learned. Whatever I write
here is just impulsive.

Your thoughts need no justification. They are wholly acceptable, to me.
But even so, in an era when billions of tax dollars were left to the
wind, with the International Space Station, and a few influentials
are talking up expanding our exploration to the outer planets;
when precious monies and jobs and international presitige are on the line;
when nations must decide how to handle a bumpy future, how much
will we devote to the science and purposes of NASA regarding
our financial resources?

There are jobs, further international relations to be built, and even
decisions about whether we encourage our children to pursue
carreers in science/engineering/research, vs. business opportunities.

These sorts of issues led to a mass imbalance and job dis-location
for the United States, regarding hi-technology. What are our goals?
Are we going to abandon our interest in spiritual matters, invoking
a disregard for them, in the future?

I simply turn my attention to science, but only as a layman.
It balances out my tendency to respond to life too subjectively.
I do hold certain experiences of mine as confirming the Absolute.
But, my practical concerns include the world of science, and energy
production. I try to see both sides to 'The Coin of The Realm'.

Perhaps, I will answer in a direct way to your questions. But first,
I need some sleep...

Here is a very non-scientific, no-physics-offered in any way response.
It is meager, too broad and non-specific, but does throw a few terms
out for further consideration.

Later, I will perhaps use some illustrations.

Remember. I agree with the tone of your questions.
The subject of cosmology is almost endless. Yet, exposure to a few
key ideas can help wrap our understanding around the mysteries
and theories that seem an enigma, to some.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=21957