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

[Sheilawisz]

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]

chocolate cookies + milk = magic

 

[Steerpike]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Please check this link:

A Universe from Nothing.

 

[Devor]

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]

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]

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]

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