Beginnings-a brief story

This story is on beginnnings, i.e. original origins. The beginning always starts or opens a subject. So this is THE beginning. What would that imply? Would it be within reason of exploration to illume what there is upon which ALL other existences and natures are based. Herein, this shall be pursued.

The only beginning that most us of relate to is of something important, and very expansive-the beginnings of the universe. There are of course at this time many stories on beginning. Many tellers in science say that the universe just popped into existence and grew and that is all there was for the beginning.

More recently, some scientists want to explore what is the relation of the universe to its presence. In addition to what was implied above, some declare that prior to the universe's formation there is a sea of virtual particles from which, more or less by enormous chance, the universe we know appears and seems self sustaining. And this could be perpetual. But this would be different from just popping into existence postulate. This would have universe(s) arising from the possibility of some chance combination of virtual particles, e.g. dependent background.

There is the determination that matter is not essential to have in a universe. Matter is component and hence is subject to diminishment in relation to space, especially by volume. This would make the presence of matter inconsequential.  Indeed, it is postulated that even with no matter, a universe can form from nothing. Nothing can also produce matter even where it did not previously exist. And much of this can be found in Albert Einstein's formulas for general relativity, now 100 years ago as well as Edward Kasner and others.

For those more steeped in cosmology, the scientist who explore the existence of the universe(s), indicate that any appearance is abnormal compared to the true state, i.e. true vacuum.  The true state likely is the great, immense, vacuum.  In that there arises no disturbances, like the "big bang" or " inflation". The true state of the universe, in short, is at a constant, undisturbed state of equilibrium, timeless and perdurable. This true state would precede the presence of any "known" universe and likely is what it will be the state to which it returns. Other origin concepts imply ephemeral universes. Even with multiverses, an end will develop, probably in different time spans or references in accord with their properties and parameters.

The incalculable odds of anything arising from the true vacuum put it beyond comprehension of rational figuring. There would likely be an unlit, featureless cosmos, which may reflect what is known of our current universe where also no one knows the macro state before the "big bang" except maybe darkness. That anything would arise would be found in a false vacuum of which destabilizing  negative energy would decay it and hence send it back into the true vacuum. By some calculations, it can be said the survival of a universe in an unstable false vacuum goes down by a factor of a trillion every second starting at the very beginning. With such a nature, the odds of any coinciding or subsequential arisings would be negligible to none.

One may surmise from the above that our "known" universe is but an anomaly to the true state and is not likely to arise again, particularily if ephemeral universe(s) are subject to decay. This, in contrast to the likely "featurelessness" of the true state (true vacuum). The true, perduring state underlies everything and if any thing appears it also will return to the true state which will remain undisturbed throughout. Thusly, the true state is ongoing.

At present time of writing, it may seem there is no one specific formulation that is widely accepted about bringing about the origination of a universe, even though there can be several composites postulated.

Note: the material in this story is not necessarily a reflection of current entropy of  present societies.

Reviews

[wlkwih2]

I would argue against the notion of nothing. The energy of vacuum - although being extremely low - is still something, and quantum fluctuations - although without any baryonic matter couldn't be described like "nothing's there". Krauss would argue the opposite, but would still produce a universe out of these quantum fluctuations (which would drive it into exponential expansion in the inflationary theory).

However, I agree with your conclusion that our known universe seems like anomaly, that's the reason why the questions like the fine-tuning problem or the anthropic principle often rise, and yet seem to be easily solved either by the multiverse theory, or by simply proposing a chance (which is a lame exit :D).

This is a nice essay, but for it to be a story, I'd expect more work with the wording, so that it doesn't seem like an expose of cosmological terms.