The Rapid Building Theory / The Big Bang

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Good Morning ATS,


I'd like to run an idea past you about how it all began...

I won't go into any greater detail yet until we've figured out whether or not it's total waft.

Here is an image of how I think, logically, it could have all began - semi-understanding how photons work.

Excuse my artwork it's 05:30



files.abovetopsecret.com...

If someone can tell me how to make a particle/wave of energy into physical matter then the biggest mystery ever has just been solved...
edit on 16-4-2013 by crzayfool because: Added Pic
edit on 16-4-2013 by crzayfool because: Bigger picture link




posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
edit on 16-4-2013 by crzayfool because: Answered my own question



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by crzayfool
Good Morning ATS,


I'd like to run an idea past you about how it all began...

I won't go into any greater detail yet until we've figured out whether or not it's total waft.

Here is an image of how I think, logically, it could have all began - semi-understanding how photons work.

Excuse my artwork it's 05:30



files.abovetopsecret.com...

If someone can tell me how to make a particle/wave of energy into physical matter then the biggest mystery ever has just been solved...
edit on 16-4-2013 by crzayfool because: Added Pic
edit on 16-4-2013 by crzayfool because: Bigger picture link


focusing on the particle aspect of the function = matter



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by crzayfool
 


Well, I kinda see what you did there by bringing quantum physics or namely the observer effect into play.

But that still does not answer the question where the first photon came from, or where the energy for the big bang came from.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Nightaudit
 


I think you're missing the point of the 'bang' and the amount of energy being released.

With this theory there is no actual explosion - by which everything forces itself to rapidly expand.
What is happening is the original photon is simply being next to itself at the speed of light trillions of times a second...

You'd go from 1 single photon to filling up a 186,000 square mile space in 1 second. That would appear to be one hell of an expansion - but with no physical boom. There is no need for everything to force itself apart at the begining because there is no gravity to begin with.

The way I see it, if everything in our current observable universe was at a singularity at some point there would be no force strong enough to force it apart due to the immense gravity (and I'm talking way more powerful than your average super-massive black hole).

The only sensible option, to me, is to take away the gravity and physical forces involved and take a different route - building photons. There is no mass or gravity until such time a time where the particles/waves have been influenced so many times they become something else...


I cannot explain where or why that first single photon came from by the way but at least I've narrowed it down to 1 photon for now.



~CrzayFool



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
And that's what Science has never been able to state. Why does matter manifest the way it does. Why does the matter that make up a tree, manifest that way. Theory sounds good on paper.... That final why is the clincher.

Like a child asking Why, why, why, why why, why..... The world may never know but I look forward to seeing where this thread goes~
SnF



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
You have to take that picture I drew with a pinch of salt and also expand the entire thing up to one second with your imagination for now. Realistically speaking even after just 5 nanoseconds there would be too many photons to draw... Maybe if we used hundreds of them at a time and built them evenly it would make it more easily understandable?

For example;

The very first photon pops into existence at 1 nano second.
At 2 nanoseconds that 1 photon is now 100 photons.
At 3 nanoseconds those 100 photons are now 10,000 photons (100x100)
At 4 nanoseconds those 10,000 photons are now 100,000,000 (10,000x10,000)
At 5 nanoseconds those 100,000,000 are now too big for me to know what the number actually is, other than a lot of zeros (100,000,000x100,000,000)

Going from 1 to '1e+16' on my calculator in 5 nanoseconds is just immense - and that's under a relitively slower and controlled simplification of the real thing.

Trying to work out what would actually happen in real time will simply blow your mind. It's too big to fathom. Just understanding that from one photon "replicating" itself in millions of different places at the same time and all of those millions doing the same is difficult enough.

Maybe there is someone on ATS who has the Math skills do so...



~CrzayFool



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sulaw
 


Indeed that one 'how/why' would solve so much for our kind. I've run over it countless times in my head but never get any closer to an answer - I can't just pluck something out of nowhere, other than just accepting that it did and not question it.

I'm looking forward to how people may be able to expand on this theory - if not blow it out of the water instantly.


~CrzayFool



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by crzayfool
 


I see a lot unexplained things you made allowance for that I wouldn't agree with, but instead of mentioning those, I would just like to ask: What were you thinking of when you conceived that? Observer effect was point A, superposition was point B, etc?

eta: Never mind. I see what you were going for now: Trying to explain the big bang through quantum physics. You answered my above question while I was reading the non-updated page responses.
edit on 4/17/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by crzayfool
 


I had this idea/thought that this universe was made by a sun going SUPERNOVA in another universe,
and every sun that goes SUPERNOVA another universe

wait for it


ITS ALL FRACTAL (EVERYTHING)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by crzayfool
if not blow it out of the water instantly.


Your model doesn't allow for gravity and vacuum - both of which seem to play their part in energy reaction.



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


Come on... all those "normal" things go without saying. Think of it logically - why would I leave out the fundamentals just to make my theory work?

Initially there is no such thing as gravity as there is only a mass-less wave of energy.

How could there not be a vacuum if there is only a photon in the first nanosecond and nothing else?

We're not talking about making a "Big Bang" here on Earth surrounded by an Atmosphere...

Both of those things you have pointed out can be easily incorporated if you just think.

I did say at the beginning of this thread that I was not going to go into further 'Details' for the time being.
The main focus is - Can a single photon even achieve what I am proposing it can do?



~CrzayFool



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by crzayfool
 


So go into detail? It could be said that a unicorn was the cause of the movement/vibration in the first photon - that caused it to be "it is now next to itself", and a spaghetti monster causes the photon to stay within 30 cm of its point of origin.

Without saying what the cause and effect is, you're not really saying much. And because you went on to say, this all happened before gravity - I assumed you meant all of the fundamental forces as well.


There is no need for everything to force itself apart at the begining because there is no gravity to begin with.



The only sensible option, to me, is to take away the gravity and physical forces involved and take a different route - building photons.


edit on 4/17/2013 by Bleeeeep because: added no gravity to begin with quote


add for clarity: You're saying observer effect causes photons to alter their state which thereby caused the fundamental forces and the big bang – but that is baseless without details. Gimme details or you aint saying nothing.
edit on 4/17/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)


another thought: If photons are observers, what causes the particle/wave duality and why is there even a wave if all particles observe? What is it to observe? Details needed.

Did the first waves argue over who collapses who? "You no collapse me - I collapse you!"
edit on 4/17/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   
In reply to Bleeeeep
(darned thing won't quote or reply to you - keeps timing out the request)


1. You are quite difficult to understand when you talk in unicorns and monsters... Let's try stay on track shall we. I'll give answers to sensible questions only. It's not currently known how or why photons move the way they do it's a mystery - go and read some quantum physics and you'll know that. I'm not just missing a big chunk of my story for the sake of it! However I can tell you that it travels only up to 30cm because that's how far it could get in 1 nanosecond at 186,000 miles per second.

2. What causes and effects are you referring to? Please be more specific if you are requiring I do the same.

3. I am saying that the observer effect exists in the quantum world and it effects photons and the way they act. I am also asking anyone who might know - "Can a photon be its own observer?".
I am not stating that the act of a photon being its own observer creates the fundamentals instantly...

What I am trying to explain is as follows;

If we had a single photon in a vacuum with no external/internal interference from any gravitational or magnetic or electric or ...(list every known and unknown force) and you could also pinpoint it so it did not move into another location... there is simply 1 of them for as long as we want to say there is only 1 of them with nothing effecting it.

It is currently stationary and does what a photon wants to under these conditions - whatever that may be (have a cup of tea for all I care) - the only thing we cannot stop it doing is existing.

Then.... we let it move to a second position, but only once! So we now have 2 photons which are actually the same photon - just in two different places simultaneously. The second one to appear is now the first photons observer and vice versa...

They both "decide" to start oscillating - because, who knows, that's what they just did.

We now let both of them move to another position again (each). So we end up with 4 photons.
Each of these is now each others 'observer' so all will act differently again.

If we keep letting these photons relocate and also stay where they are what would happen?
We would end up with lots of them all doing different things - some of them probably the same thing.

So what happens when one of them malfunctions or mutates or acts irrationally or thinks "screw this I'm outta here" or by random accident bumps into another one - pushing that off course and having a huge knock-on effect. Our lovely little calm and controlled scene just got out of control.
There are photons flying about all over the place spinning and flipping and wobbling in every-which direction.. the mutated/malfunctioned & AWOL ones have changed so much now that they could no longer be considered just a photon and are now something entirely different, losing their mass-less properties, and in turn clump together through their newly discovered attracting gravities making bigger "things" which clump together to make bigger things and so on...

We end up with some dirty great big mash-up where everything is out of control smashing into each-other and reacting - constantly growing bigger and bigger - creating differently elements and coincidentally stumbling accross the fundamentals... as they get bigger and clump together & gaining mass - gravity just is.
It eventually gets so immense that the 'Clumps' start to form dust and the dust forms clouds and if the right element was made (Helium or Hydrogen) we would maybe see the birth of a star after a few million years...

4. I honestly don't know how to answer this question other than - Why can't they do both like they already do?

5. Where did the 'Collapsing' come from? I don't get what you're asking here.
I can only comment - they just did. Someone had to win. That's nature.


~ CrzayFool
edit on 17-4-2013 by crzayfool because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-4-2013 by crzayfool because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by crzayfool
 


Not trying to be mean, but if your photon* existed, something must interact with it to make it react. Forces are made by [something], and you're asking that [something] be granted to you without even naming the [something].

Lets say that vacuum is the reason your photon* moves, therefor you want me to grant you that one of the controlling factors is vacuum. Well, okay, but vacuum is an effect of [something], and in your OP you completely left out [something] AND vacuum both - that's all I was pointing out.

In effect, you're just filling a big gap, with a bunch of other gaps.

more

Maybe it will help you to break down your theory into effect questions like so:
Q: what causes photon* to move
A: it popped into existence with a trajectory
or
A: vacuum makes it move

Q: what causes observer effect
A: all photons come with this feature built-in - duuuuuh

Q: what causes photon* to become another photon when it is observed by itself
A: when photons observe themselves they go through photonic* mitosis* - duuh

Q: what causes photon* to clump together without gravity
A: built-in awesomeness
or
A: observer effect creates photon-gravity - duh

Q: why aren't new photons constantly popping into existence today
A: photonic* mitosis* ended when big bang happened

You get me?



posted on Apr, 18 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by crzayfool
 


Well, accepted, although I do not think that your thoughts comply with what science already knows about the early stages (split seconds) after the big bang.

I have to admit that my knowledge of astrophysics is limited and I can´t really judge if what you´re saying is theoretically even possible or just a neat idea with a neat drawing that you totally weren´t fishing for compliments for


In any case, you offer a different view of the mechanics of the big bang (or very rapid expansion if you like) and that is great.

It doesn´t really affect the big question of WHY though, although I admit that you didn´t try to answer that.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 04:06 AM
link   
I'm not sure if we will ever solve the "something out of nothing" puzzle of the universe.
It's just one of those things that will be argued about for eons to come.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


Are you're saying the universe isn't creating any more - at all?

- That there is a definitive end to how far the ENTIRE contents of the universe have spread into (known & unknown) and it is indeed not infinite?
- Nothing new will ever be made and everything will either just slowly drift apart or smash together over the next few trillion years or more to be recycled?
- And that there are 100% no more "big bangs" happening?

Or is it just that the "OUTSIDE" of the original big bang, where the entire contents of the universe is still expanding into is so far away that we just can't see the photons jumping into it?


Photons don't move anymore/ perform 'photonic osmosis'?
This may sound crazy but - that's how the quantum world is;
I thought the photons we see now are fixed in place because they are witnessed by "consciousness" not just observed. They are basically "remembered" in the positions of which they make up objects, but in the beginning when there was no intelligent life/consciousness - because life hadn't yet malfunctioned/mutated out of the same 'mash-up' process that the photons went through - they were free to jump about making every manner of combination they wanted.

Why don't photons move anymore?
Why did the big bang stop them?


~ CrzayFool



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by crzayfool
 


Man, you are all over the place, but I don't want to discourage you since there are so few free thinkers around here, and I really enjoy reading these types of threads.

So...

I was only stating that your hypothesis lacked a rule set lineage. You striped away everything, but photons*, superposition, and observer effect, and then implied that observer effect causes a magical metamorphosis to occur within photons*; but that doesn't really say anything, except observer effect is magic and causes magical things to happen. Later, you allowed for vacuum, but I'm not sure which definition you want to give it: vacuum, vacuum, or vacuum.

Could you maybe make a new lineage that goes into more detail about observer effects' magical effects? Maybe you could work in that the white photons*, create blue photons* but blue photons* do not create white photons*. Then you can slow down blue photons* somehow, and make them result in the creation of dark energy/dark matter that causes the expansion of the universe, expanding earth, etc; and then you can add in more colors to explain other things like: yellow photons are light, green photons are gravity, etc, etc, etc.

When I said “why aren't new photons constantly popping into existence today”, I meant the rapid manner in which you've described, that should result in new matter constantly being formed all around us. If they acted only as you have described, so far, then you left too much out, or you do not see the fallacy in every photon* having an observer effect that creates new photons that creates new matter at a rapid rate.

Hope you understand now.



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


I'll just keep adding and You can explain it to everyone as you have already been doing so.

You are doing a much better job the I


I understand where you're coming from now... Looks like I clearly need to go away and dig deeper into this and write a more defined article, instead of writing a snippet in the early hours of the morning.

Thanks for your replies!


~ CrzayFool





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join