In a Pre-eternal Universe, what part of it is pre-eternal? How can energy be pre

1. 60
Joseph041167posted 7 years ago

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?

2. 58
RighterOneposted 7 years ago

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.

3. 61
Authordentposted 7 years ago

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.

4. 61
Agantumposted 7 years ago

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.

5. 93
mattforteposted 7 years ago

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.

working