I think its impossible that man created the universe because we evolved around 75 million years ago and I don't think the universe is that young (in star and space terms).

_________________
Astronomer from a small planet near Betelguise.
Has come to study Earth with small portable 114mm telescope.

I read in New Scientist (I know on its own it can't be taken for definite proof, but this is an interesting idea nonetheless) that man did in fact create the conditions of the early universe by observing it. Due to closed time curves in quantum mechanics, mankinds actions of observing the universe in its early stages caused the quantum fluctuations of the past to settle as they have done. Whilst we observed them very recently, it made them settle as such nearly 14 billion years ago . Quantum Mechanics makes my brain itch

I'm not sure that's right. Don't many astrophysicists consider the Big Bang as something that happened within an already existing universe?


Do you mean the Big Bang or the universe? If you mean the Big Bang event then I've read many things, from quantum fluctuations of the vacuum or the aforementioned colliding branes to collapsing stars/black holes and I more or less support Big_Kev's answer.

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.

Good point Joe. The theory is that the big band expanded an existing universe rather than created one. I can't see an answer to the origin of the universe coming in my lifetime!

Jack

_________________
250px dob
127mm mak
8x42 Celestron
10x50 Helios
15x70 Celestron

Dear Joe

I mean what created the Big Bang event.

_________________
Astronomer from a small planet near Betelguise.
Has come to study Earth with small portable 114mm telescope.

B14vin5,

Personally, I have no idea but there are many ideas about what could have started the Big Bang, a few of which have been mentioned.

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.

Dear Big-Kev et al(L)
I'll come to Mike's defence ?
Surely in science it is generally accepted that there is "rarely" absolute proof that something is proven.
I am personally not religious.
Surely religion is a matter of "belief" not of being proved or disproved.
My own philosophy is that there is no need for religion.
I am not convinced being a Christian is more likely to send me to heaven than following any other religion, or being an aetheist - although I like to edge my bets and consider myself to be an agnostic.
I might be inclined to towards thinking that there is some "force\energy" that accounts for everything and that could be described as god, God. GOd or GOD ! but at the end of the day one could go along with what Mike said in effect - just get on with it.
Of course I have to admit, I personally don't just do that.
I do sometimes wonder ????
But I am convinced I will never know and like to think that no one else ever will either !
Best of luck from Cliff

Physicist Frank Tipler thinks that it is possible that humans could have created the Big Bang.

_________________
200mm Newtonian, OMC140, ETX90, 15x70 Binoculars.

That's a good question. I have an idea that there was a build-up of matter before the big bang (BBBB). These helical mega-structures attracted one another like springs and finally crashed into one another when the attraction overcame their force of creation.

And this matter came from where ?

Another good question. It's the same question which goes to any theory of course. It is the unanswerable, the higher dimension, the whatever.

Dear Dave B14vin5
I think that pretty well everyone agrees that the "gas" in any of its usually accepted forms was not a big factor in the Big Bang process- if such a thing actually happened ?
Up until fairly recently I was a very big fan of the Big Bang but in recent years I have become less enthusiastic about it.
I am very pleased that cosmology is not of burning importance to me generally , nor with respect to my specific interest in wider astronomy. Were I to be an ardent Big Bang cosmolgist I might now be thinking that it might not be long before I would be sticking my head in the gas oven, or jumping in the canal.
Being something of an agnostic myself, I do not completely rule out the possibility of god, God, GOd or GOD or anything else creating the Universe.
However, very recently I have come round to wondering if something which I think is called Quantum Loop Gravity might be involved.
Let me say straight away, I do not understand this QLG at all. But apparently QLG does fit with the possibility of our current "universe" having resulted from the rebound of a previously shrinking universe.
That said, please do not ask me what might have created the earlier universe or universes that might have resulted in the the "recent event or events ( say 13.7 billion years ago) that created our current muddle.
As far as I am concerned we ain't got a cat in hells chance of ever knowing the whole truth of it.
The very best we (humans) will ever achieve is a vague approximation.
If some body does come up with the answer in my lifetime, I hope to meet the GOD.
Best of luck from Cliff
PS All that said I will still be happy if the Big Bang theory does eventually come up trumps, but I seem to be increasingly thinking that unlikely ?

I'm with jb1970's opinion:

Dear Smugfish
I suppose in a way the supposed Quantum Loop Gravity theory I referred to (which I confirm I do not understand myself) apparently allows for the possibility of there having been a previous (collapsed universe -rather than another idea of colliding universes before).
As I hope I suggested before, I try to keep an open mind about these matters myself.
However, the problem as I see it with all these ideas is what started it all.
Having a previous universe or previous universes avoids the problem unless we accept the possibility of the universe having existed in the past for ever.
However, what I did not know until recently is that the so-called Quantum Loop Gravity theory which has mathematical basis seems to offer a number of possibilities how the universe began.
I am inclined to think that your conjectures seem to rely on relatively flimsy serious observatonal evidence but no really plausible theoretical\mathematical theory at all.
As I said I am trying to keep an open mind about these issues but of them all your ideas have a long way to go before I could take them seriously.
Best wishes from Cliff

I appreciate you keeping an open mind. My ideas may seem flimsy since they are intuitively based, with the enthasis being on the development of a simulation model that can be seen on a computer screen. Fractal helix formations are a dynamic geometric theory of creation and are simple for me to imagine, its just the modelling that is the tricky bit. The origin of structure is a mystery and it must be assumed that this came into existence within our universe at some time and somehow IMHO. I'll give the QLG theory a look. Thanks for that.