Why does the universe exist?

[AlexSharpe]

#messagetoeveryone

Okay, I always have looked up to Stephen Hawking, a lot of people do, he has a brilliant mind, but what I just read has lead me to say that he is just as stupid and dumb as everyone else.

In fact I could say I have lost all respect for him now.

Someone with such knowledge of the universe and of the power and awesomeness it has, you would think he of all people is smart enough to believe in a higher power. Read the picture, go online read the article if you want even, then read the rest of this.

(Please Look at the photo attachments)

If you cannot, here is the website, please go to the link ( http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-creator )

His absurd, 19th Century opinion on the creation of the universe is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Yes, you cannot believe in Jesus, that's fine - you could even believe that aliens created us, okay, but that still leaves the question, who or what created them? Who created everything? I can go even further and say, maybe like in science-fiction movies, our universe and our whole existence as we know it is just a part of another bigger universe, maybe we are just a seed of pollen in a bigger places. So, that still leaves the question of what created any of that? What created God? Why are we here to question this? No matter what you think, there is a God. Something had to of created all of this, it doesn't just happen because of "Gravity", what created that gravity and allowed all of it to form then, huh? Maybe it is nothing some might say, okay but still why and what created that nothing even? You can't answer this, no one can, and it is likely that no person ever will in life, but anyone that believes in no god or creator at all, you are the stupidest of all people, no words can even describe how moronic and mentally challenged you have to be to not believe in any god at all.

I can understand if he has a hate for God for his disability, but still, that is extremely pathetic in any form no excuse, for someone with as bright of a mind as him.

I can state a theory or my own about why the universe exists. I never went to college, I never deeply studied space for hours and hours like Hawking probably has, but I know enough to know that my theory is a good plausible theory, for many reasons. Am I going go be great like Stephen Hawking, probably not, but he is probably no better than me if he truly thinks like that. In fact I might actually be smarter than him in forms.

To start, and this is my theory, I think that Black Holes do exist. It is pretty obvious that they do, and it is pretty obvious that humans are right about there being a supermassive Black Hole in the center of almost every universe. That is how planets, stars, elements and matter is formed and thrown together to create things, by spinning around and orbiting the black hole. That is most likely what keeps our universe and everything in it rotating and moving. Even our sun rotates around an even bigger object that itself. Now, something is holding our universe and everything in it together, isn't it? It can't just be nothing. That is where the theory of dark matter comes into play. It is theorized that dark matter is what holds the universe together. Where my theory comes in, is that everything is formed from dark matter, everything. Black holes take in and basically eat light and matter, as well as anything around it, right? (At least that's what we think, truly no one in history has ever even truly positively seen a black hole, and we definitely know nothing about them for a fact) Well, I believe that black holes take in these elements, and I believe that they spit out dark matter in return. This would explain the expansion of the universe over time. Black holes create dark matter. They create everything. But, as with all deep-minded scientific theories, it does have a plot hole. Because this leaves the question, wait, then if they took in elements and light and spit them out as dark matter, how did they also form the light and elements that it is taking in? That is a hard question to answer, and the only thing that truly comes to mind is reproduction or teleportation. But we can think about that deeper at another time.

Here is what I think, I believe that in the beginning God created a plan. God designed us (as well as probably countless other of beings and creations just like us), God designed the universe. Then, I also believe in the big bang theory as well, and I believe that God let the universe expand and create life and everything over time just as he planned it, and it is still expanding today. This explains almost every creation and universal expansion theory there is in one. I believe that these black holes, are the reason behind our universe expanding and generating more life and satellites, stars, matter, elements, planets, etc.

There are so many theories of what black holes are and what they do, but this is just one theory that really just makes since.

You can think what you want, there are stubborn people out there that believes strictly in religion, there are some people that believe strictly in science, that is okay, but to say that a god or something did not create nothing, is just the stupidest thing one can ever think.

- Blake Matthew Tompkins

[Vanamonde]

Religious matters such as the nature and probability of a god are beyond the scope of this forum, and inevitably lead to acrimonious arguments. Please restrict discussions here to space science, and take the religious aspects to other fora.

[Camacha]

Why does the universe exist?

- Because we would not be asking that if it did not.

- Because eating cake would become rather hard.

- Because the chicken wanted to cross the road.

Pick one or more.

[windows_x_seven]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPpIjhtgGj0

Why not have an universe? Why shouldn't it exist?

[NuclearNut]

42

Or you know, there could be no higher reason for it other than it is possible.

[YNM]

Because I exist, the Universe exist, and I observe it. Whatever it is, I think, therefore I am thinking. I live, therefore I'm living. I exist, therefore I'm existing. I do belive in higher power just because I want to believe it.

[PB666]

Why does the universe exist?

- Because we would not be asking that if it did not.

- Because eating cake would become rather hard.

- Because the chicken wanted to cross the road.

Pick one or more.

But the dolphins told me it was a very bad idea.

You are nothing but a bunch of osscillating fields, why should i belive you, :^).

[rtxoff]

The universe is a lab experiment that went wrong done by some superdimensional beings.

[windows_x_seven]

The universe is a lab experiment that went wrong done by some superdimensional beings.

Hmm... this got me thinking.

What if each time you open up KSP, a kerbal universe is created (for the kerbals, of course), like in TRON or something?

Spooky.

[Randazzo]

Hmm... this got me thinking.

What if each time you open up KSP, a kerbal universe is created (for the kerbals, of course), like in TRON or something?

Spooky.

In a sense, that's precisely what happens.

But not like in TRON.

[PB666]

In a sense, that's precisely what happens.

But not like in TRON.

I think on a computer, techically an un launched game would be a class, and once an instance of a class is created it becomes a new object, once the objects parameters are saved then it becomes a permanent object. A universe would be for instance all the PCs ever made, individual PCs would be galaxies, The programs they run would be like classes of stars, and individual instances would be like star systems. System objects would be defined object variables in the object, each representing instances of a lower level class, and sprites on each would be objects also represting even lower level variables of a Sprite class.

So basically each time you spawn a new game you are spawning a system, not a universe.

Sorry to pop everyones bubble.

[Randazzo]

Sorry to pop everyones bubble.

Pretty sure you didn't.

[Beowolf]

There's exactly zero data to support any of these proposed reasons. Even the anthropomorphic ones about the odds against being in a universe that allows atoms are meaningless. With zero evidence, we have no clue what the odds were, nor whether the Big Bang produced one universe, or an infinity of them. An infinity of varied universes means a (smaller) infinity of universes that produce atoms, after all.

So all we're doing is projecting our inner beliefs outward, which is fine. Mine tell me that, if the universe has a purpose, it most likely has nothing to do with normal matter, much less humanity. If a being were creating a universe specifically to produce matter/stars/planets/people, why would the creator put over 90% of the effort into dark matter and dark energy? Those things are only necessary for galaxies and galactic clusters. Everything else (that we know of today) would form just fine without them. Looks to me like the few percent of stuff we can interact with is more like a side-effect than a reason.

I picture my gut bacteria trying to understand the universe. Clearly, it was all created for their benefit, since it was designed so food keeps magically appearing every few hours. Plus the occasional natural disasters when I eat at Taco Bell are obviously punishments aimed at those bacteria who don't worship Me properly.

[PB666]

Plus the occasional natural disasters when I eat at Taco Bell are obviously punishments aimed at those bacteria who don't worship Me properly.

Taking anti-biotics would be a natural disaster, exploited by the nemesis clostridium dificilus, the universe bomb.

[problemecium]

I intend to post a more thought-through article on this topic later, but here's a teaser:

Perhaps the universe evolved. Eons ago, there may have been simpler ancestral universes with perhaps only a few laws of physics and no complex matter. If by some means they could produce more universes, and those universes could inherit their properties imperfectly, over time they might evolve to have sophisticated features like our own.

P.S. I also feel like Monkeh might be on to something, as I've been pondering the idea for some time now myself.

Edited September 17, 2015 by parameciumkid

[longbyte1]

If we could answer this question right here right now 100% correct, the study of cosmology would not exist. In fact a big portion of science wouldn't exist.

[PB666]

If we could answer this question right here right now 100% correct, the study of cosmology would not exist. In fact a big portion of science wouldn't exist.

Ah a challenge. The universe is the dynamic consevation between all that we can perceive exists and that which we cannot perceive exists. We can't see how the pie is created because we either exist in the filling or the crust, but not both.

[WestAir]

Let me ask a counter question...

Would it seem right if nothing existed? If "the universe" was a zero dimensional, timeless "lack of somethingness" with 0 energy/mass/information. Somehow that just doesn't "feel" right. Like there should be something, even if that something is drastically different from the observable we see.

[baggers]

Let me ask a counter question...

Would it seem right if nothing existed? If "the universe" was a zero dimensional, timeless "lack of somethingness" with 0 energy/mass/information. Somehow that just doesn't "feel" right. Like there should be something, even if that something is drastically different from the observable we see.

But if the "somethingless" let "something" to be "born" (like an universe) it's because it have a set of "somethingless" rules that allow it and rules how a universe is born.

Who came first: the rules, or the somethingless?

At a side note, I think it exist 2 set of "rules" for an universe:

- The rules of physics: the one we start to know well, that rules how the things in the universe interacts.

- The rules of "born by somethingless", that we don't know well: rules how the univers "is". or "born"

The vaccum expansion of our universe is an observation of the second set of rules, I believe. Like a gaz expand itself in vacuum is a rule of physic, the vacuum expanding itself in (???) is a "somethingless" rule.

The "big-bang" is an indirect observation of a somethingless rule too, in that case.

That the sort of observation that let me think our universe is not the "only thing that exist": We observe theses indirect signs of "somethingless rules" of how an universe "must born and expand", so theses rules at least exist, and seem to exist "elsewhere" in the "somethingless".

Edited September 18, 2015 by baggers

[longbyte1]

Let me ask a counter question...

Would it seem right if nothing existed? If "the universe" was a zero dimensional, timeless "lack of somethingness" with 0 energy/mass/information. Somehow that just doesn't "feel" right. Like there should be something, even if that something is drastically different from the observable we see.

When you sleep, what do you feel? What do you think? Is it easy to be aware that you are dreaming? It's admittedly very difficult to describe "nothing" with "something".

[WestAir]

When you sleep, what do you feel? What do you think? Is it easy to be aware that you are dreaming? It's admittedly very difficult to describe "nothing" with "something".

I don't see the correlation with your argument. I can easily conceptualize myself (or all life) having never existed. What I can't conceptualize is existence not existing. I feel like there should be something, even if that something is one quanta of information smaller than the Planck scale with time-space nonexistent. I can conceptualize that. I cannot conceptualize the absence of information and space-time. Even if I could, my point was that such a dramatized universe doesn't "feel" natural.

I realize this is just my opinion.

[PB666]

But if the "somethingless" let "something" to be "born" (like an universe) it's because it have a set of "somethingless" rules that allow it and rules how a universe is born.

Who came first: the rules, or the somethingless?

At a side note, I think it exist 2 set of "rules" for an universe:

- The rules of physics: the one we start to know well, that rules how the things in the universe interacts.

- The rules of "born by somethingless", that we don't know well: rules how the univers "is". or "born"

The vaccum expansion of our universe is an observation of the second set of rules, I believe. Like a gaz expand itself in vacuum is a rule of physic, the vacuum expanding itself in (???) is a "somethingless" rule.

The "big-bang" is an indirect observation of a somethingless rule too, in that case.

That the sort of observation that let me think our universe is not the "only thing that exist": We observe theses indirect signs of "somethingless rules" of how an universe "must born and expand", so theses rules at least exist, and seem to exist "elsewhere" in the "somethingless".

With quantum physics inside a singularity its not a valid question. I think the bigger question is why a state that could have been stable for a inifity becaume unstable. Between the initial state and inifinity i think the models have it that the universe coukd have not inflated, or inflated somewhere else at a diiferent times as suggested by multiverse model. Some even go so far as to say our space-time physics may only be situational and that under different circumstances the physics might be very different. The universe exists, we call it everything and we guess at how long it lasted. For the most part the question is an invalid one because it entails a discuusion of situational states.

I think the best question is how can we in an openminded way percieve a wider scope of the universe with all the possibilitiese of what it is and where it came form. I think the best tools we have are the space telescopes, maybe if we look hard enough we can see a figment coming from so other oddity from beyond.

[baggers]

I think the best question is how can we in an openminded way percieve a wider scope of the universe with all the possibilitiese of what it is and where it came form. I think the best tools we have are the space telescopes, maybe if we look hard enough we can see a figment coming from so other oddity from beyond.

The alternative way is naturally the microscopes ^^

From telescopes to microscopes, which one will see the oddity first?

[PB666]

The alternative way is naturally the microscopes ^^

From telescopes to microscopes, which one will see the oddity first?

The detectors in the LHC will see oddities on the small scale first. On The QM scale we are off by a power of 12.

The basic problem with QM is that we can have some preetyy good brawls about what is happening, we cannot ever hope to see them, just effects. The are models to explain what happens but thats about it. I imagine that if we wanted to see the QM scale first we would have to slow time itself, and even so the quantum physics in a very cold hydrogen atom would be very very messy, full of things appearing and disappearing. And of course because of conservation thungs that appear could be completely unknown to us. That is of course a fantasy world.

[meve12]

Good question.

The answer delves deep within and beyond theoretical physics, of which I know very little. Go ask a physicist.