(January 9, 2015 at 7:33 pm)bob96 Wrote: Imagine an alternate universe which contains a single hydrogen atom. (Lets not include dark matter or other forces in the discussion for the purpose of simplicity.) You could replace the atom with a proton, a neutron, a sub-atomic particle, or a string. The point is, it's real. It can be measured.
Now where did this hydrogen atom come from?
Was it just always there?
Did it spontaneously appear, ie. magically?
Did someone create it?
How did it come into being?
It's very simple.
Firstly we all know Einstein's famous equation
![[Image: 514_400x400_NoPeel.jpg?region=name:Front...40359,w:16]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=images.cpcache.com%2Fmerchandise%2F514_400x400_NoPeel.jpg%3Fregion%3Dname%3AFrontCenter%2Cid%3A27240359%2Cw%3A16)
This very clearly shows us that all matter in the universe is essentially energy since
energy = mass (times the speed of light squared)
So, we can comfortably get to the concept that all 'matter' in the universe is actually just a form of energy. (If you'd like to really get into this part then you need to read up on the Standard Model).
Now the only question you have to answer is where does energy come from?
You could adopt the position similar to that put forward by Lawrence Krauss (as most physicists who have expressed an opinion in this area do), which is entirely predicated on the notion of quantum vacuums, which, he points out, are inherently unstable. This gives us the idea of a universe from nothing, all be it a very qualified idea of a universe from nothing. But a QV is not 'nothing', it is teaming with quanta popping in and out of existence (as we know it). So, in effect all Krauss has really done is provide us with a new, slightly more scientific definition of 'nothing'.
More recently two physicists, Jonas Mureika and Dejan Stojovic, have proposed a more radical rethink of the early universe and proposed that rather than the super dense matter at the beginning, the Universe actually began with fewer dimensions, namely one. It then acquired another to make two and then another to make three, and so on. If this is correct then theories of spacetime as an emergent property of sub atomic systems makes more sense, and that spacetime geometry (and hence space and time) are also intrinsically linked to energy, so we don't even have to have 'time' or any kind of 'expansion' at the beginning of our Universe to make it work, just an increase in potential energy.
This would also explain why we must have the seemingly arbitrary 'speed of light', as it would be the maximum potential energy in a 3 dimensional space-time geometry. Change any of these factors and the equation is broken and the energy passes out of our perceived universe (dimensionally), leaving us with the perception that nothing travels faster than the speed of light.
It would also explain why the speed of light is part of the mass/energy equation in our 3d universe and why it appears in Einstein's equation (no, time is not a dimension before anybody mentions it).
Bingo!
All matter is potential energy. Therefore nothing is required to get the Universe started, especially not some kind of god.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)