Since I see the universe as an entity where connections are rampant, and there is no true end... At the "end," I will revert to the beginning. Hence -

Five Questions About Astronomy

1. If the Sun is just another star, why is the Sun so close to us (comparatively), and all the other stars so far away? Why aren't there more stars closer to our solar system/galaxy? Do all stars have solar systems?

2. If all the matter from a great area is slowly condensed by a neutron star and eventually a black hole, is it possible that the "worm holes" within black holes are really that somehow that matter "explodes" to form a "Big Bang" and another universe is formed, but because of our limited powers of perception, we only see the black hole and the one universe? (What gravity might a theory that black holes are the breeding grounds for new galaxies, and worm holes are the birthplace of those new galaxies, hold?)

3. If physicists are using particle accelerators to try to make "something out of nothing" and discover the formation of particles like the Higgs boson... what if their attempts to replicate the Big Bang actually prove successful? Would they end up creating a new universe within the depths of a particle accelerator?

4. I still have a problem with the concept of "something out of nothing" - the disparity between "there is no sssuch thing as empty space" and the theory that there was a Big Bang that began the formation of our universe... Even if there is a point where our powers of perception were too limited to determine the nothing, there still must have been a start of nothing. So then, it seems time is merely a figment of the human imagination. If this is the case, then, how can so many people consider it the fourth dimension?

5.  I pretty much agree with the theory that our lack of complete knowledge about the universe is what makes us able to have time and free will - and it seems that just as space is infinite, so too would even the strings, because wouldn't strings have to really be made of something? If they weren't made up of anything, then how would they exist? Thus we are left with the concept that everything is completely defined, or that it's all a product of our perception, and nothing exists at all. [1] In that case, I don't think that string theory should ever be anything more than theory, since it would utterly destroy human nature.

[1] If there is truly nothing that exists, isn't this completely like Arcadia? Quantum Mechanics is definitely like my perception of Arcadia, which is that it is at the same time nothing and everything, hence, its beauty. That's rather like what I just described string theory as, but find it odd that I find Arcadia the salvation for humanity and string theory its destruction. Hmm.