Was our Universe Created in a Laboratory?

The linked article discusses this theory.

It's quite interesting, gives a little history of past and current thinking on the Universe's origin story and goes on to discuss this not-so-new idea in some detail.

Dr. Loeb delves into the hows and whys, offers an alternative to the Kardashev Scale and embraces a somewhat humbling view of humanity.

All in all, a good read. Check it out.

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

A less explored possibility is that our universe was created in the laboratory of an advanced technological civilization.

How or who created the universe that the " advanced technological civilization " lived in ?

It all had to begin somewhere, and also before life itself actually existed i would assume.

a reply to: alldaylong

Above my pay grade but, yes, one would assume it had to start somewhere/somewhen.

A "chicken/egg" type of question, I suppose.

But, this theory seeks to better explain our universe, not the "advanced technological civilization['s]."

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

Was reading this same article the morning (4 hours ago) when I couldn't sleep - interesting premise. Thanks for sharing on ATS!

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

A less explored possibility is that our universe was created in the laboratory of an advanced technological civilization.

How or who created the universe that the " advanced technological civilization " lived in ?

It all had to begin somewhere, and also before life itself actually existed i would assume.

I think the point of this science fiction is to explain our universe's origins from a singularity. The "big bang" is an unsatisfying theory because it begs the question of what existed before the "big bang" .... unfortunately it is also considered the theory that best describes our observable universe.

Assuming for a moment that there is a parent universe; there is no reason to assume its composition would suggest that it began from a singularity. With out having to explain origins from a singularity you don't need to concoct the idea of baby universes being developed in a lab.

In otherwords the first habitable universe capable of sustaining class A lifeforms might not be expanding like ours is; and so might not have started from a single point.

a reply to: alldaylong

Created by Rick Sanchez C-137 to power his car battery.

a reply to: alldaylong

We created this place, as far as what I know.

It's the when and the how, that get complicated.

BEN

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

Creating a Universe is not that difficult. You just need a black hole. To create a black hole, you just need matter. To create matter, you just need photons. To create photons, you just need a vacuum. To create a vacuum you just need nothing. And plenty of nothing is exactly what you have when you start creating your Universe.

The problem is how to devise a Universe with specific and particular conditions. That's the crux of the question. And for you to be able to create a specific Universe with specific properties, you need to first create ten to the power of 127 universes in order for you to have a chance to create the Universe you wish. But bear in mind that your universes only last ten to the ten to the 100 years, and that you will need the energy of at least ten to the power of two universes, which makes the entire experiment a waste of time, energy, and space.

Here, how to create matter from photons:

Making matter out of photons

But your experiment will show something really interesting: it is easier to create a Universe than to destroy it.

Does it matter, other than as an intellectual exercise? Whether an experiment, an accident, or a "creation." So what? It is what it is and it will be so for long after you (and this planet) will exist.

Various religions have various "just so" tales. Science has various hypotheses. How ever it happened (or didn't), it happened a very long time ago.

Me, I'm glad it did. Don't care much how, or "why."

Yes, it may have been. Does that mean we are worth less somehow?... prolly. Whoever is the first is the best imo.

originally posted by: 35Foxtrot
The linked article discusses this theory.

It's quite interesting, gives a little history of past and current thinking on the Universe's origin story and goes on to discuss this not-so-new idea in some detail.

Dr. Loeb delves into the hows and whys, offers an alternative to the Kardashev Scale and embraces a somewhat humbling view of humanity.

All in all, a good read. Check it out.

No Man’s Sky writ large.

This was the theory I used to believe when I was a child

"We are an alien experiment
If we ever get out of control, or pose a danger, they will destroy us"

As I've grown older and come to understand more about how the world works, I've also come to realise that the simplest explanations I had for things as a child, are often the most accurate

Our experiment in particular, I believe they have turned the physical conscious within a persons body, inside out, using some type of technology

And we are currently living in a outward projection of the insides of that persons body

I've had some pretty vivid dreams and visions relating to how this is done, and the concept seems fairly plausible

It would be the most likely way to create a full, stable and populated world, based on the parameters of the existing physical world you create it within

a reply to: Compendium

"We are an alien experiment If we ever get out of control, or pose a danger, they will destroy us"

But this isn't about "us", it is about the entire Universe. The whole of reality.

And remember, Dr. Frankenstein never did destroy his creation.

a reply to: Phage

"Us" is the whole Universe

There is no division between the planets and stars and this world. It is only your perception which sees it as such

And of course they would destroy us. The farmer may not want to destroy one of the animals they care for, but they will do it where necessary

You prune diseased branches, to save the tree

a reply to: Compendium

There is no division between the planets and stars and this world.

Incorrect. There are very great divisions, indeed.

I could not live on Mars without a large amount of technological support. I could not live on the Sun at all.

That's perspective, again

They are part of the same larger organism

There is a difference between the heart, the lungs and the brain. But they all exist within the same body

Likewise, there is no division between the planets, stars and this world

There is only the perspective of division that we see, because we sit within a particular spectrum of the larger body

Exactly the same way we would only be able to view trees, if we lived in a valley

We are an offset of a centre of influence (gravitational centre)

But our centre, and all macrocosm and microcosm centres exist within the same "torus" vector exchange equilibrium system

We perceive a division relative to our position inside of this exchange, but in reality, if there were division between the parts, none of them would exist

Life would not exist

The sun in the sky is that exact same thing as the conscious in your head, you are just looking outwards, at an external version of what is internal in your body

The planets are perceivable layers that work the same way as white light being broken down into individual colours through a prism

They are all actually one body

a reply to: Compendium

Groovy man.

a reply to: Compendium

Well that explains Life, The Universe, and Everything.

And I thought it was 42. Silly me.

Don't you mean created in a universe city? Haw haw haw

I personally like the "cosm" there was nothing wrong with the cosm on both ends; It has micro and macro and the "laws" governing them about same just differences in names... then just cosm as a middle ground... like the mandelbrot sets show as math proofs making it sound or ordered no matter how deep or how shallow in the cosm that first appears as chaos or no order there is nothing but order.

In chaos theory the butterfly is almost always mentioned... when a better description is; Each individual is seeking order in the chaos that surrounds them and in their own ideal of what would cease chaos paradoxically becomes the very cause of it in nearly if not all other individuals. When individuals identify as a group no matter how macro or micro the group with the same ideal in mind as a goal? The only difference is the size of the waveform created... However the creation or cause of chaos as an effect is the same as if it were just an individual.