In a Pre-eternal Universe, what part of it is pre-eternal? How can energy be pre-eternal without...
How can energy be pre-eternal without elementary sub-atomic particles such as electrons and quarks? The standard modle posits these particles split seconds after the Big Bang. What supplied the spark for the Big Bang, without electrons or quarks?
In my opinion, there is no such thing as 'pre-eternal,' as eternal, by definition, means 'has, is, and always will be there.'
Atoms, then sub-atomic particles (protons,neutrons, electrons), and finally sub-sub-atomic particles (quarks and the like), are all physical matter, i.e. part of the time-space matrix. However, the sub-sub-atomic particles themselves, are not made of matter - but of energy.
The way I understand it, is that the only true essence of the Universe is energy. In order to create the time-space matrix, to crystallize energy into matter, God (or the Universal consciousness) stretches itself into tiny coiled strings, which then vibrate synchronously. Think of it as a spiritual guitar. You string it, you clip the strings with your fingers in a certain way, strike the string-board - and you hear a chord.
A sub-sub-atomic particle is, in effect, such a chord. That is why you can never tell a particle's true position by taking a single wavelength for the calculation. That would be like trying to define the harmony of a chord by only listening to one string. There is more than one string that's 'harmonizing' the particle into existence, and each one has its own position probability distribution (more strings - greater probability smear).
So to answer your question... 'Pre-eternal' = impossible by definition. And since particles and matter are all made of energy, all you need is the energy to start with. And it needs to be but 'eternal' - no more (but definitely no less, either).
Feel free to check out some of my hubs, I address these issues at length in several of them.
There is much to say about this! But I am constantly bemused by the Scholars who state that theorising on existence before the Big Bang, is a pointless exercise prior to the existence of time. And there are many opposing theories as well.
I think that if we are ever going to understand the laws of the great machine that our perspective reality exists within, and thus all other dimensional perspectives, to extend ourselves from a Law of General Relativity, to one of a Unified Theory of Perspective Relative Reality, our limited comprehension of the deeper areas of physics will remain unobtainable to us.
At the point you feel you are going mad picking through the geometries and maths of eleven dimensions, and their relating models, you need to step back.
TIME ITSELF IS ONLY AN OBSERVATION OF PERSPECTIVE EXPECTATION, WE HAVE CREATED, RELATIVE AS WE SEE IT ONLY TO OUR REALITY.
The fact is this `machine` is moving and we appear to exist, so to try and find peace in the answering of the `before the before` question we may have to consider that our concept of time ( an therefore space ) is fundamentaly flawed, and proving how we exist within our reality at all is surprisingly hard!
Understanding what this means on a Quantum level is still confused from a Quantum point of view ( no surprise there! ) But Time pre Big Bang, as we observe it, was probably preceeded by an altered state of the same process of progression and regression. Little consideration is givin to what our universe expanded into, or to the possibility that we are a Universe within a Universe.......? Our inability to feel Time as anything other than non linear is a genetic `hard-wired curse`, backed by information supplied via limited senses.
In terms of the Universe on a level of its Quantum Energy State that all matter is made from, the past present and future all occupy the same space in space/time.
Enough said! I`ve tried to be general, and keep the tech to a minimum otherwise it becomes an impossibly large subject. I do not have the answer, but we need better theories in physics there is a shortage!
My answer endeavours to encourage you to look wider, sometimes where there is no rational answer, just because it does not appear to be the way, it does not mean it can`t happen.
A theory to predate the measurable is not testable, so not a scientific theory. Wild speculation. Thats o.k. You can use it on your way to defining a testable theory by eliminating it. A lot of people asking about the pre-eternal universe in religious or philosophy forums would plug god into this slot, (many people think creation / the-big-bang happened less than ten thousand years ago. Measurements we can do, show it was some time earlier.)
I think we are limited to looking at what is inside the bottle with us. The boundary between the unknowable and the testable. What you are positing is moving energy and time beyond this boundary. I think this sounds like you need something other than a standard model, ideas abound, many after emptying a completely different kind of bottle.
http://mattforte.hubpages.com/hub/Strin … mple-Terms
Look into String Theory. electrons and quarks are not necessarily fundamental.
All you have to do is understand that the universe as we know it is simply...as we know it. Not "as it is."
If you can understand that, then you can understand that the universe may well have come from somewhere else, such as a multiverse. There are a million and one different ways the universe may have come into being, we just don't have the ability to do anything beyond scientific guesses.
by andrew savage 5 years ago
Does the human brain interact with sub atomic particles?
by frogtalk 18 months ago
How do you explain the origins of the universe? And what proof do you have about its origins?
by SpanStar 5 years ago
Isn't it interesting that we don't know all the species on the earth that become extinct certainly by man's encroaching upon their environment but according to some so-called experts they know every single thing that took place during the so-called Big Bang. In the void between planets, star...
by Uplifterx 5 years ago
"Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (French: [ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Louvain. He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely...
by Scienceofuniverse 2 years ago
What are atoms made of?They say everything is made of atoms even our bodies but what are the things which make an atom and differ different atoms on the basis of electrons
by Debra Allen 9 years ago
When god or the creator of the universe made humans, why was He a He? What happened to the other's that we were made into their image? Why doesn't the Bible ever speak of these things?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|