# The Big Bang: Was the Universe created by Magic??



## Sheilawisz (Feb 12, 2012)

I have been thinking these days about that theory of the Big Bang about the creation of the Universe, and after watching a documentary about it I came to a very strange and funny conclusion that I wanted to share with you all here at Mythic Scribes- First, the Big Bang theory says something like this:

1- There was something like a void of non existance where there was no time, no space, no matter, no energy, no laws of the physics and nothing else- This sounds familiar to me, because the same concept is part of my Fantasy stories and it is mentioned in several different ways.

2- Then, an unimaginable amount of energy just comes out of _nowhere_ (are they reading my Fantasy stories or what?) and it expands with some impossible speed because the laws of the physics were being created too.

3- _Poof!_ The Universe has been created!!

That is what Science is telling us these days, so... in a nutshell: The Universe was created by _Magic!!_ What do you think about this??

I find this very funny because in my stories my Mages can leave a Reality, enter a void of non existance and create an entire endless new Reality out of nowhere, but I do not believe in the Big Bang at all: My personal theory about the Universe where we live is that it's infinitely old, it extends endlessly in all directions and it will never be destroyed.

Science now supports the belief in Magic or _what??_


----------



## Graham Irwin (Feb 12, 2012)

chocolate cookies + milk = magic


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 12, 2012)

I don't think that is an accurate statement of the Big Bang Theory. The theory postulates nothing before the Planck Time, because our ability to postulate and/or model what happened prior to the Planck Time is nonexistent. What we know of science breaks down prior to that. At the Planck Time, the universe already had mass (and thus energy). There is nothing scientifically to suggest that any of it came into existence out of nothing.


----------



## Devor (Feb 12, 2012)

I dunno.  They used to think Cosmology was going to be the first science to be completed discovered until some of these concepts, like anti-matter, started to emerge in the 80s.  The last I read, which was years ago, there were still a few models competing to explain the Big-Bang and the origins of the universe, and I think a lot of them involve a never-ending cycle of exploding and collapsing universes.  But we do know that the universe is expanding - we can watch distant stars moving away from each other in a way that's consistent with a central explosion.

I don't believe the universe continues backwards indefinitely.  I believe there was a finite beginning.  But that's a belief.  Much of the evidence seems to suggest as much, but it's my understanding that it's still somewhat inconclusive.

((edit))

@Steerpike, I'm fairly sure the universe coming out of nothing is actually one of those competing theories and that it is generally well-respected as such (i.e., not a fringe group).  I wish I could cite sources, but I read too many things.  I'm sure someone else knows more about it.


----------



## Black Dragon (Feb 12, 2012)

Hey guys,

This is definitely an interesting topic to discuss.  Because it touches upon deeply held beliefs, I'm going to ask that the special guidelines for discussing religion be followed in this thread.  You will find them here:

http://mythicscribes.com/forums/news-announcements/2101-guidelines-discussing-religion.html

Thanks in advance.


----------



## sashamerideth (Feb 12, 2012)

I can't remember were I read it but if I remember rightly...

Due to special relativity, there was no time before the universe started to expand. No time, no before. As a tie in, a theory said that when a universe had reached maximum entropy, it would occasionally split off a new universe, a new arrow of time, a new big bang. I really need to find the article, it was a few years back. A bit over my head.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Feb 12, 2012)

Steerpike's right; the Big Bang theory does not postulate anything about what existed or didn't exist before the moment of the Big Bang. Basically it says, "13.7 billion years ago, the universe began to expand from a single point. We have no idea what existed before that. For all practical purposes, the moment of the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe."

Science isn't saying "The universe was created by magic"; science is saying "We have no idea how the universe was created."


----------



## sashamerideth (Feb 12, 2012)

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/02/what-is-time/

Found it. Sure it is a watered down presentation of a theory, but it is a theory. Maybe someone with more brains than me can comment on the ideas in the linked article.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 12, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Steerpike's right; the Big Bang theory does not postulate anything about what existed or didn't exist before the moment of the Big Bang. Basically it says, "13.7 billion years ago, the universe began to expand from a single point. We have no idea what existed before that. For all practical purposes, the moment of the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe."
> 
> Science isn't saying "The universe was created by magic"; science is saying "We have no idea how the universe was created."



Well said. 

I've seen some ideas about the oscillating universe and other speculations about what might have come before the Planck Time, but I think these are just that - speculations - with the realization that science cannot currently illuminate them.


----------



## JCFarnham (Feb 12, 2012)

One thing is more or less fact, the stars and galaxies and almost everything seems to be measureably expanding outwards. Our current understanding of physics and mathematics confirms this. Therefore a one point in the distant past what we call the universe must have been much much smaller.

That much might as well be fact.

Oh but what is driving expansion? That is the billion dollar question. Magic? Maybe.

Although let us not forget that one adage about the nature of science and magic


----------



## San Cidolfus (Feb 12, 2012)

Science charts likelihoods and probabilities up until the point where such deductions fail: i.e. the Planck time.  The laws of the universe as we understand them hold firm up until that moment, before which everything is speculation, mathematically based or otherwise.  Science is the practical understanding of the observable world, and the measuring of causes and effects which can be recorded.

Magic, however categorized, is the opposite of these things.  Magic is the answer to the inexplicable.  Magic is another word for faith.  Science can say that 14 billion years there existed an infinite expanse of emptiness and a pinprick with unimaginable potential, but it can only guess at how it got there.  If you want to say magic created that spark, that's not so dissimilar from saying that the divine created it.  If you want to say the divine created it, or the divine guided the foundations of matter on which science is based, that's fine, too.  Personal beliefs are irrelevant; reality IS, whether or not we understand it or even acknowledge it.

So if you want to say that magic created the universe, okay.  If you want to say science can only theorize about the origins of the universe, that's fine too.  God might have done it, but Bill Murray could have done it, too.  We plainly don't know, and what we choose to see when we look at an unknown reflects the bones of our personal beliefs.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 12, 2012)

sashamerideth said:


> What Is Time? One Physicist Hunts for the Ultimate Theory | Wired Science | Wired.com
> 
> Found it. Sure it is a watered down presentation of a theory, but it is a theory. Maybe someone with more brains than me can comment on the ideas in the linked article.



That is interesting, Sasha. The question I always have when it comes to multiverse theories is whether they are subject to empirical evidence. Even if our universe is one of numerous multiverses, it seems likely that our ability to observe is constrained by the laws (and boundaries) of our universe, and that we may be prevented from aquiring direct evidence of other universes. If that is true, it leaves the theory in limbo. But who knows - we do not know that our observations would be limited, it just seems to me to be a possiblity when you consider the nature of space/time and the universe we can see.


----------



## sashamerideth (Feb 12, 2012)

Steerpike said:
			
		

> That is interesting, Sasha. The question I always have when it comes to multiverse theories is whether they are subject to empirical evidence. Even if our universe is one of numerous multiverses, it seems likely that our ability to observe is constrained by the laws (and boundaries) of our universe, and that we may be prevented from aquiring direct evidence of other universes. If that is true, it leaves the theory in limbo. But who knows - we do not know that our observations would be limited, it just seems to me to be a possiblity when you consider the nature of space/time and the universe we can see.



Computer modelling is the closest I think we can come, our species probably won't last long enough to see this universe at maximum entropy. To my knowledge what we know of the origins of the universe comes from theoretical modeling and things measured that we believe to be something that fits in with expectations and is noncontradictory.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Feb 12, 2012)

San Cidolfus said:


> Magic, however categorized, is the opposite of these things.  Magic is the answer to the inexplicable.  Magic is another word for faith.



To put it another way: Magic is a way of saying "I don't know" without having to admit that you don't know.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Feb 12, 2012)

Well, I do not know all the theories that have been postulated about these matters- I came up with the idea to start this thread after watching a documentary where Stephen Hawking explained his views that there was _nothing_, and then this unimaginable energy came out of that non existance and expanded, creating the Universe.

Then, I thought: "What, just like _that?_" and then Magic came to my mind, especially the style of Magic that appears in my stories!!

I think that if some scientists start supporting such a theory, it's just matter of time for Science to support Magical ideas like energy coming out of nowhere or Reality Warping itself... That would be great!!


----------



## Sheilawisz (Feb 12, 2012)

Please check this link:

A Universe from Nothing.


----------



## Devor (Feb 12, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> That is interesting, Sasha. The question I always have when it comes to multiverse theories is whether they are subject to empirical evidence. Even if our universe is one of numerous multiverses, it seems likely that our ability to observe is constrained by the laws (and boundaries) of our universe, and that we may be prevented from aquiring direct evidence of other universes. If that is true, it leaves the theory in limbo. But who knows - we do not know that our observations would be limited, it just seems to me to be a possiblity when you consider the nature of space/time and the universe we can see.



The only evidence for some of these concepts is _math_. That's what they often mean by theoretical. The math supports ideas that cannot yet be tested and concepts that are difficult just to understand, like the possibility that there are not four dimensions but about a dozen, and that they can collapse, including time. But that's a big part of why things are so much in the air.

I'll see if I can find a source of some kind later, but I no longer subscribe to the Economist, the magazine I remember reading most of this in.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Feb 12, 2012)

Apparently, there is a theory that says that in the Universe the positive energy (matter) is cancelled out exactly by the negative energy (gravity) which means that the Universe has Zero Energy and so it's possible that it came out of nowhere- The same theory says that the Universe would be a flat shape, and some astronomical observations have provided data that suggests that the Universe is indeed flat and not spherical or hyperbolic =)

So then, was the Universe created by Magic??


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Feb 12, 2012)

Sheilawisz said:


> So then, was the Universe created by Magic??


Magic.

That was me saying "I don't know."

The idea that *"there is no beginning"* is as implausible as *"something began without a cause,"* yet one of these bold statements must be true. No matter how much we explore the creation of the Universe, we'll never end up with a definitive answer which can be proven or persuasive.

I do think the concept is fascinating, and the exploration of it can certainly benefit us as fantasy writers!


----------



## Kenny Smith (Feb 12, 2012)

There are many possibilities, most of which would make for amazing story plots.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Feb 13, 2012)

@Legendary Sidekick and Kenny Smith: I also think that many great ideas and plots for stories can come from this stuff, and I already have an idea for a TV series about a Fantasy/Starships story that I want to describe in the Brainstorming and Planning forum =)

Well, even though the idea that the Universe was created by Magic is very fascinating and romantic to me, I still believe that this Universe is infinitely old, there was no creation, it's endless in all directions and it will never be destroyed.


----------



## Reaver (Feb 13, 2012)

Kenny Smith said:


> There are many possibilities, most of which would make for amazing story plots.



An excellent point indeed!  Well said, Kenny!


----------



## Reaver (Feb 13, 2012)

Legendary Sidekick said:


> "I don't know."



Legendary Sidekick's answer when I asked: *"If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?"   

*After this, I thought it best not to ask the *"Chicken or the Egg"* question.

Soon afterward, the Legendary One pulled me aside and said: "You know, Reaver, I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition."


----------



## JCFarnham (Feb 13, 2012)

Reason for edit ... I mean, dude.


----------



## Reaver (Feb 13, 2012)

Ah...there's _one_ person who gets me...


----------



## Ravana (Feb 14, 2012)

Well, two.…


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Feb 14, 2012)

If you include me... still two.


----------



## JCFarnham (Feb 14, 2012)

Sometimes you just kind of have to be British


----------



## Sheilawisz (Feb 14, 2012)

Anyone here shares my theory that the Universe is infinitely old, it extends endlessly in all directions and it will never be destroyed?? You Know, Legendary Sidekick: you were so right when you said that either something came to be with no cause, or there was no beginning and one of these statements must be true =)


----------



## sashamerideth (Feb 14, 2012)

Sheilawisz said:
			
		

> Anyone here shares my theory that the Universe is infinitely old, it extends endlessly in all directions and it will never be destroyed?? You Know, Legendary Sidekick: you were so right when you said that either something came to be with no cause, or there was no beginning and one of these statements must be true =)



That theory doesn't fit with what we know from studies and observations of the universe. It is expanding and did have a beginning, we just don't know what happened before.


----------



## San Cidolfus (Feb 14, 2012)

Our concepts of beginning and end are relative to our perspectives.  Human beings have an inherent disadvantage to understanding the universe simply because it is infinite.  We like to break things down, categorize, stuff it all into boxes and put labels on it.  Infinity defies that process.  When we try to wrap our minds around the infinite, we either fail or hurt our brains.

Not to say there isn't something to be gained from the attempt.  Far from it.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Feb 14, 2012)

@Sashamerideth: Well, we have observed the expansion of the Universe, but what if this expansion is more like the beating of a heart, something normal in the Universe instead of being the result of the Big Bang?? Anyway, if something happened _before_ it would mean that there was no beginning...


----------



## San Cidolfus (Feb 14, 2012)

It's been a while since I did my physics reading, but there was a theory that suggested a state of continual expansions and contractions.  We're living in a time when the universe is expanding, but it was hypothesized that at some point the fabric of space would reach the point of its ultimate extension and begin to contract.  Once it reached the ultimate state of contraction, the universe would enter a Big Crush.  The end result of this was another Big Bang, and the cycle repeats, although its dozens of billions of years between each nadir and apex, respectively.

This is just a theory, and I think it was proposed in the 80s, so it's probably been torn apart since then...


----------



## sashamerideth (Feb 14, 2012)

Sheilawisz said:
			
		

> @Sashamerideth: Well, we have observed the expansion of the Universe, but what if this expansion is more like the beating of a heart, something normal in the Universe instead of being the result of the Big Bang?? Anyway, if something happened before it would mean that there was no beginning...



Nothing in the observable universe or any models that suggest a cyclical behavior like that. Entropy would have to decrease for that to happen, and that can't happen inside a closed system. Admittedly cosmology is not my academic major, merely a hobby so I can write good science fiction and understand the universe as best I can with current accepted knowledge, not pet theories with no foundation. I am open to being wrong, but I want to be as right as I can be.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Feb 14, 2012)

Well said, but what if the Universe is not a closed system after all? What if it's endless in all directions instead of being a flat shape, spherical, hyperbolic or something else?? I think that if you believe that the Universe was created, it means that it will eventually end as a perpetually frozen darkness, nothing more, forever... That's a very sad idea for me =(

@Cidolfus: I do not believe in a cycle of Big Bang and Big Crush, I think that the Universe just _exists_ without a beginning and without an end =)


----------



## Reaver (Feb 15, 2012)

Legendary Sidekick said:


> If you include me... still two.



Know what I mean? A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, eh?


----------



## JCFarnham (Feb 15, 2012)

Reaver said:


> Know what I mean? A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, eh?



Are you insinuating something?



If the universe is expanding (an observable motion at that) it stands to reason that it is in fact finite, from there it is a simple logical leap to say that in must have been smaller than it is today, possibly infinitely more dense. An interesting question is that if the above is true and we exist in an expanding finite universe then what is it expanding into?

This is completely ignoring those holographic universe theories of course...

A theory goes that, as the universe expands all matter will become further and further apart from all other matter, breaking away from the two nuclear forces until everything breaks down to its component particals and energy. At which point its the energetic soup scenario again (kind of like what scientists believe the universe was like moments after the big bang).

Although it will likely never be observable or measurable to any amount of science ever (who knows though), I've often wondered whether it is this final "soup" of expanded-matter-come-pure-energy that the universe began from. We already observe such cycles of life and death in stars (old star dies, spawns nebula, new stars form from the debris... well, more or less), supposing that could be the case with what we observe as the universe? in this Super-superstructure of sorts wouldn't it then follow there then may be many other universes going through this same process of expansion and death? 

Aaaaaand we come to multiuniverse theories ..

Anyway, that was pretty much just me rambling. I'm not an astro, theoretical or quantum scientist. I barely scraped a D in A Level physics and numbers larger than ten confuse me  I have no idea what theoretical mathematical modeling says about my rambles, but I likely wouldn't understand it with out some kind of visual.

But there we go! Interesting stuff!


----------



## Reaver (Feb 15, 2012)

JCFarnham said:


> Are you insinuating something?



Oh...no...no...Yes.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Feb 15, 2012)

@JCFarnham: Very good point, we have observed the cycle of life and death of stars by which new stars are created from the debris of old stars!! I think that Carl Sagan once said that _"we all are made of stardust"_ so, what if the entire Universe, whether it's endless or not, follows a similar cycle of creation and destruction??

Would this cycle mean that the Universe is indeed infinitely old, or maybe the cycle came into existance at some point??

I still think that we have two options: Either the Universe came out of nowhere just like that, or it's infinitely old and there never was a point of creation.

I want to call the theory of the Magical creation: _The Sheilawisz Magicallism_ =)


----------



## Reaver (Feb 15, 2012)

Sheilawisz said:


> I want to call the theory of the Magical creation: _The Sheilawisz Magicallism_ =)



Hey! I like this concept!


----------



## myrddin173 (Feb 15, 2012)

So I have two videos for all of you today.  This one which actually has to do with the Universe and stuff and expansion and other stuff that makes my brain kind of hurt.  :spin:

And this one which pops into my head whenever "Spanish Inquisition" and "Britain/England" show up sort of close to each other...


----------



## Sheilawisz (Feb 16, 2012)

Hey Myrddin, fun videos!! =) Yeah thinking about all this stuff makes our brains kind of hurt, but it's fun- I have other two theories that I will describe in this thread, other day...

@Reaver: Thank you!!


----------



## Fnord (Feb 19, 2012)

JCFarnham said:


> This is completely ignoring those holographic universe theories of course...



I haven't read it in a long time and this might be what you're referencing, but have you read the Michael Talbot book?  There were a lot of interesting philosophical angles in his book that certainly makes for good fiction fodder.


----------



## JCFarnham (Feb 19, 2012)

I saw it on a Horizon program I think.. but I don't remember any specifics of it. It was however a very persuasive theory I seem to remember 

I'll take a look into Michael Talbot!

EDIT: Ah yes! He's exactly the bloke I was on about.


----------



## Fnord (Feb 19, 2012)

JCFarnham said:


> I saw it on a Horizon program I think.. but I don't remember any specifics of it. It was however a very persuasive theory I seem to remember
> 
> I'll take a look into Michael Talbot!
> 
> EDIT: Ah yes! He's exactly the bloke I was on about.



Ahh, not familiar with the program, but if his ideas intrigued you, you should definitely pick up the book _The Holographic Universe_.


----------



## zizban (Feb 19, 2012)

Bah, it was because elves set off fireworks.


----------



## Steerpike (Feb 19, 2012)

If magic is supernatural in nature, then no matter how the universe formed won't it have been non-magical by definition?


----------



## S.T. Ockenner (Oct 27, 2020)

Steerpike said:


> If magic is supernatural in nature, then no matter how the universe formed won't it have been non-magical by definition?


Unless it was created by fifteen crazy wizards that wanted nature to be a thing.


----------

