Abandoned Forum

[Bomadeno]

In the beginning was a photon of light. Just one. It had nothing about it to gague it's speed upon, so was in an unstable state. It started of at one extreme, not moving. It then flipped it's state, and moved at an infinte speed.

Whilst in the latter state, the photon randomly decayed, and spat out an infinite number of particles and other globs of stuff that happen in such decay. These 'particles' all moved away from each other at just less than an inifinite speed. They decayed and spewed out just less than an infinite number of particles.

The energy for all this came from the fact that the original photon was mving at an ininite speed, and therfore had an inifinite amount of energy.

There are a few other bits I've thought about and forgotten, tub I wonder, will maths and other laws support my theory...

[nowhere man]

I'm not going to answr this until i have more time to think about it serously.

[Pimienta]

that almost sounds like the big bang theory
but it sounds alot better than the big bang theory

[Cherokee_girl]

I'm not going to answr this until i have more time to think about it serously.

me either

[Math_nerd]

that almost sounds like the big bang theory
but it sounds alot better than the big bang theory

You are right, that is what it sounds like. Ecccept whan you pring in things like string theory and the laws of thermodinamics, you run into a few problems. And were did the Photon come from?

Thats definately not enough light to read a good book by...

[nil]

The photon has been there all along, so long that no one ever question it where it came from.

You see, we all assume at the beginning, there's nothing. So why is nothing more probable then something? We all assume the beginning means "out of nothing comes something". But if the something had eternally existed in this Universe, even before, at and after the beginning, then we won't bother to ask those silly questions again. Don't you think so?

[Math_nerd]

After reading nil's post, I think that it is our definicion of the beginig of the universe that is our problem.

[nowhere man]

maybe there never was a begining. Maybe everything was always here. Theres no proof that isnt true is there?

[Bomadeno]

The problem where the photon came from is a considerable one...

And and - it isn't the same thing is the big bang is it? The big bang says everything just blew up outta nowhere right? (I don't know it's fairly confusing)

Another idea which would contradict this idea of mine is that before 'this universe' instead of nothing, there was everything, and a lot of it has disappeared. I wonder. Tub I am too tired to wonder to much, and I still am struggling to get my head fully round string theory. I grasp it's principles, tub I need to read more books on it.

[nil]

Another idea which would contradict this idea of mine is that before 'this universe' instead of nothing, there was everything, and a lot of it has disappeared.

The truth is: nothing has ever disappeared, and nothing has ever been created since the "beginning" (if there's such a thing) of the Universe.

The cause of such misunderstanding is because of the way we label things, which help us to get through everyday life but is largely untrue. We call things "disappeared or died", when they should be called "transformed".

The lake dries up, but it turns into rain; the iceberg melts but it becomes part of the ocean; dead people was eaten up by worms or birds, but they are just becoming birds or worms. Even E=MC^2 says that mass changes into energy, it never changes to nothing (energy is still something).

Nothing materialistic ever disappeared or created in our entire history. They just transform into a happy state, which is so heavenly that they no longer bother to transform anymore. So the question is not who created the Universe, but who make the Universe so unhappy at the "beginning" that everything becomes so unstable that they wants to transform into something else... That's the question.

P.S. There's only ONE single thing that's created and disappeared out of nowhere. But it's not materialistic so it doesn't violate our physical law. But that is an entirely different topic.

[Guest]

What about things like virtual photons and other exchange particles? They appear, they break the laws of conservation don't they? The theories that explain they don't aren't very good either. Yet. *prepares to eat words*

[nil]

I don't eat words, they don't taste good...

There's no such thing as virtual photons, but there are a bunch of particles, that--according to some quantum physicists--are kind of quarky (as of mesons and baryons). Those are usually a result of too much beer, physic has never been harmed (except by beer or other alcoholic drinks).

[Bomadeno]

Tub tub tub... I thought that when things like, say, electrons collided and reppeled they created a virtual photon which forced them apart.

I think things would be much easier if we could find the smallest particle. Something that all other particle, no matter what, are made up of.

[nil]

"Virtual photons" are created when two electrons got drunk and collide head to head because they can't figure out which is which. They both lose their money (energy) to produce the bogus photon, so nothing is upset.

here is a physical diagram to help you understand

+

[Bomadeno]

<<This guy looks like Thomas the Tank Engine.

And I found out where they *ahem* realley come from. They don't destroy or create, they just suck the required amount of energy from somewhere else in space/time.