origin of Universe

[sergior]

Introduction

 

My idea has its origin from the need to exclude the existence of other
Universes or some "Creator" or "singularity" from the description of the birth of our
Universe.

“Everything must start from nothing”

otherwise, we would have to assume that something exists outside of our
Universe.

Actually I believe in God, but I think, also, that He has done
everything from nothing.

 

In attachment it is shown an attempt to explain some aspects of our Universe using only the void. Without moving the origin of everything to other reality "completely" inaccessible to us, as singularity, multi-universes, something outside of our universe, from which it originated the space-time.

I hope that my reasonings are not stupid and they can be useful. I also hope to receive constructive criticism and experienced.

 

Thanks

 

Sergio
http://sreina.altervista.org/origin_of_the_universe.doc

sergiorei_theory (2).doc

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

If you want anybody to read it, attach PDF, or TXT.. DOC is not good choice.

[michel123456]

The link looks safe. Click the yellow "qui" in the first page and that's it.

[sergior]

thanks:

 

sreina.altervista.org/origin_of_the_universe.pdf

 

I'm waiting for any criticism and advice

 

ciao everybody

[michel123456]

thanks:

 

sreina.altervista.org/origin_of_the_universe.pdf

 

I'm waiting for any criticism and advice

 

ciao everybody

My first thought is that if you are correct then there is no need for origin.

[sergior]

My first thought is that if you are correct then there is no need for origin.

Yes, obviously

The origin comes from the fact that we only see half of the "nothing", going back in time we find a point of origin, that does not exist in reality.

 

thank you for your answer

 

regards

 

Sergio

 

My first thought is that if you are correct then there is no need for origin.

Sorry michel123456,

may I ask you if you have suggestions on what I wrote and on as it is written.

Did you find parts not very legible, badly written or confused?

Do you think that the choice of colors to explain the concept is correct? Or you suggest an alternative way to explain my reasoning?

 

thank you in advance

 

Sergio

[michel123456]

Yes, obviously

The origin comes from the fact that we only see half of the "nothing", going back in time we find a point of origin, that does not exist in reality.

 

thank you for your answer

 

regards

 

Sergio

 

Sorry michel123456,

may I ask you if you have suggestions on what I wrote and on as it is written.

Did you find parts not very legible, badly written or confused?

Do you think that the choice of colors to explain the concept is correct? Or you suggest an alternative way to explain my reasoning?

 

thank you in advance

 

Sergio

I think it is perfectly clear. The problem is not about the choice of colors.

There is an obvious influence from the graphism of the infinite sign (or the mobius strip maybe). I find the title "origin of Universe" totally misleading but

I like the concept.

I prefer to wait for other more knowledgeable members.

[sergior]

I think it is perfectly clear. The problem is not about the choice of colors.

There is an obvious influence from the graphism of the infinite sign (or the mobius strip maybe). I find the title "origin of Universe" totally misleading but

I like the concept.

I prefer to wait for other more knowledgeable members.

Sure, you are right. I also am waiting for, I've put it in this forum for this reason but does not seem to be of interest.

[michel123456]

Patience.

 

or maybe posting some part of your pdf. to begin discussion

Members often don't waste their time on the links.

[sergior]

Universe ¥

Introduction

 

 

My idea has its origin from the need to exclude the existence of other Universes or some "Creator" from the

description of the birth of our Universe.

“Everything must start from nothing”

 

otherwise, we would have to assume that something exists outside of our Universe.

Actually I believe in God, but I think, also, that He has done everything from nothing.

Discussion

We know, from a wide range of experiments, that it is impossible to create the matter without the same amount

of antimatter. In order to do this, we need of energy and we can borrow this energy from nothing (The

Heisenberg Principle) using "a very short time":

ΔE^.Δt ≈h

 

Using the nothing as the main ingredient, however, arise at least two problems:

1) When a proton and an antiproton collide such as an electron and a positron we get Energy and not the

zero (nothing). Then, starting from nothing, in order to get matter + antimatter is not the inverse process.

2) In our universe seems to exist less antimatter than matter. (The symmetry is broken).

 

I believe that to solve these two points is possible to use only empty space, restoring the symmetry lost.

 

To try to simplify my reasoning I refer to our Universe as the " Green Universe " and to another type of Universe,

where the entropy and the time are opposite to our, as the " Red Universe".

 

THERE IS NOT A "BEGINNING" AND THE "NOTHING" HAS ONLY THE FOLLOWING STRUCTURE:

 

 

From nothing originate two types of universes. It is better to say that “nothing” is made of two opposite Universes.

 

The part shown on the right side of figure 1 is our Universe (Green Universe), the left part is an universe that we cannot see because time flows in the opposite respect to our, THE TIME IS NEGATIVE. We live and we can see

only the green part of the whole.

 

In the centre of the figure, which represents the time zero or the origin and end of everything, is shown an equal

production of antimatter and Matter.

 

amount antimatter = amount matter

The same happens for the other two counterparts:

matter = antimatter

 

is also shown that matter and antimatter ( in our Universe) are not produced in the same amount. The same thing happens in the other Universe.

matter ≠ antimatter

matter ≠ antimatter

 

When matter and antimatter collide we don’t get a true annihilation (zero, the nonexistence), but energy (as it is known in our Universe).

Since, at the point of origin, the matter in our Universe was present in greater quantities than the antimatter, as well as the antimatter respect to matter in the Universe, in both cases, the Universes are in expansion (due to the loss of mass or anti-mass after matter and antimatter or matter and antimatter annihilation).

From the annihilation will remain a "residue", consisting of energy and matter.

matter + antimatter => matter + Energy

 

The same happen in the other universe:

 

matter + antimatter => antimatter + Energy

In fact, this time, is the antimatter to be present in largest amount.

From the point of view of the gravitational interactions we have that:

 

The antimatter attracts matter and rejects matter mutually

The matter attracts antimatter and rejects antimatter mutually

 

The evolution of the two Universes will proceed equally also if they are opposite. This apparent contradiction can

be resolved if it is thought that also the time goes in opposite direction.

If a movie was back projected, by reversing also the time, no one can see any difference.

In the Universe any sentient being made of antimatter, opposite to our matter, would perceive the flow of time in

our own way.

Consequently, in both Universes, everything will go toward the formation of structures as black holes and

formations of worm holes.

These "tunnel" are points of contact between the two Universes that allow to return to nothing, at the origin.

When a red tunnel touches a green tunnel they annihilate each other.

Matter + Antimatter => true vacuum

Energy + Energy => true vacuumIt is possible to use an algebraic and complex numbers approach to represent what has heretofore described.

 

 

Our matter will be indicated as: (m + it).

m represents the spatial component and is related to the amount of matter

+it is the temporal portion and it is related to energy.

The antimatter will have only the spatial part with opposite sign, while the time will goes as for the matter, so will

be represented by the binomial:

 

(- n + it) with m > n > 0The antimatter of the other Universe will be, instead, exactly opposite to our matter, time included, then will be

represented by the binomial: (- m - it)

- it is related to the energy.

The matter therefore will be: (n - it), always with m > n > 0.

A possible interaction between matter and antimatter is set out below:

(m + it) + (– n + it) = [(m – n) + 2it]

(m – n) represents the residue of matter currently present in our Universe.

+2it represents a time dilation that has an effect on the expansion of space-time and energy produced by the annihilation.

The same as for the other part:

(– m – it) + (n – it) = [(– m + n) – 2it]

When through the worm holes these two entities come into contact again, there is the true “nothing”:

[(m-n) + 2it] + [(– m + n) – 2it] = true vacuum

The addition of the adjective "true" need to distinguish it from the “nothing” present in our Universe that, actually,

contains a residue of energy and it is full of evanescent virtual particles (i.e. e+e- pair).

From Energy (vacuum of our Universe) one always gets an equivalent amount of matter and antimatter, as well

as by the Energy (of the other Universe), the same amount of matter and antimatter.

From the “true” vacuum the equivalence is maintained only to the ratio between matter and antimatter, namely:

matter = antimatter = R ≠ 1

antimatter matter

These ratios can have any value greater than zero.

If R >1, it is possible to have two universes that will contain, at the end, an equal quantity of matter and antimatter.

If 0 < R < 1, two Universes with equal amounts of antimatter and matter.

When the two universes "touch" each other, the result is zero, the “true” nothing.

[(m-n) + 2it] + [(– m + n) – 2it] = zero

 

This process is cyclical and always active. Can exist therefore infinite universes and continue to form

incessantly, probably with different ratios matter/antimatter.

The value of R must stay within a certain range around 1. If R was too larger than 1 or close to 0, the black holes

formation will increase and quickly the two Universes collapse and will return to nothing. If R was very close to 1

or just 1 the residue matter or antimatter would be too little and the universes produced would be "sterile". This is

correlated to the observation of a flatted Universe (W = 1).

Conclusion

As Popper said “Every theory must be falsifiable" and, actually, it would be enough to see the formation of matter

and antimatter from the “true” vacuum with a ratio different from 1.

The problem is finding a true vacuum in our Universe.

Probably, the "true" vacuum should be "frozen" in some bags present in our Universe, as fossil residue.

Since the space in which we find ourselves is full of energy and matter, perhaps one should seek inside of

atoms, between the subatomic particles where it should be more likely to find of the residues of “true” nothing or

maybe the bags, these empty globe with no space-time inside, are really extensive and dominate the scene in

our universe as “dark energy” and “matter”.

 

Sergio Reina

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

colors are lost

[Ophiolite]

I find it useful to examine the underlying premises of an idea. If these are faulty then the idea itself may be redundant.

 

You say: "My idea has its origin from the need to exclude the existence of other Universes or some "Creator" from the description of the birth of our Universe."

 

So, I deny your assertion that there is any need for that exclusion. Please justify it.

 

 

You further say: " “Everything must start from nothing” otherwise, we would have to assume that something exists outside of our Universe."

 

Is this the justification of your first assertion? If so it is inadequate, if not it is simply wrong.

[sergior]

I find it useful to examine the underlying premises of an idea. If these are faulty then the idea itself may be redundant.

 

You say: "My idea has its origin from the need to exclude the existence of other Universes or some "Creator" from the description of the birth of our Universe."

 

So, I deny your assertion that there is any need for that exclusion. Please justify it.

 

 

You further say: " “Everything must start from nothing” otherwise, we would have to assume that something exists outside of our Universe."

 

Is this the justification of your first assertion? If so it is inadequate, if not it is simply wrong.

 

 

 

Thank you for your involvement, I do appreciate.

 

I think that faith must regardless of Science. In my opinion, no one can say to a human being that God does not exist.

I simply say that the universe, as we know, it is different from zero only because we see a part.

 

For example, if I write 1 – 1, I can observe only 1, only -1 or the entire 1 - 1 = 0

 

What I wanted to let it be understood and that, perhaps, has created your justified perplexity is that say: “it is not necessary the existence of God to create the Universe” does not mean that you don't need.

 

A person will always be able to say that we need a God to do what I described, just as another will always be able to say that it is not needs of God; so, from a scientific point of view, is not necessary His existence, but everyone is free to believe the same, as I do.

I said: “Everything must start from nothing” otherwise, we would have to assume that something exists outside of our Universe."

because all the theories proposed on the origin of the Universe, in my opinion, move the question of the origin to an other plane and not resolve it.

The big bang leaves open the question of how the singularity has been created and what there was before.

It is often said that talk of "before" does not make sense, because the time still there was not. But it sounds a bit like a justification.

The theory M moves the problem on touching branes, what are the origins of P-branes? Same thing for Multiverse theory.

The big bounce does not circumvent the problem of the singularity.

 

I hope to have responded in a pertinent way. Thank you very much and I wish the discussion continues.

 

ciao