|
|
|
|
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/16/2008 8:57:27 AM | The fish is seeing all that a fish can ever see, in the way fish see. The triangle has a three sided god. It doesn't matter because as humans we need never concern ourselves with anything beyond us, even if we could, unless we seek to transform ourselves or transcend ourselves. The fish bowl analogy is better if it's an aquarium because then there is enough room for the fish to swim oblivious of the limits, for a while. Within what is humanly possible and knowable we have plenty of room to swim. It will be up ahead when we violate our limitations by changing ourselves that we could use the additional knowledge, unless of course we become omniscient or oblivious. From the fish bowl to the aquarium to the sea and then back into our drop of water we go.
The wish to explain better what intuition senses is what is behind all of science in the first place. Language rewards us for increasing its dominion. We are laboring under the false belief that in a grand scheme we do better by knowing ever more, which holds true only in small situations. In the grand scheme we discover only the means to end ourselves and with us goes our habit of incessant curiosity. Then by gum we will truly know what came before the universe because we will be there ourselves, again. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/16/2008 11:13:25 AM | This is an interesting discussion.
Some scientists have speculated that the universe has existed many times...that it expands, implodes, then expands again.
I have my own spiritual beliefs and one of my own thoughts on this is that the universe chose the be. A sentient being or brings that didn't exist, can exist by choosing to do so. If you believe in science, what's beyond the universe? if you believe in god, what's beyond that? the paradox will remain a mystery the physical creatures for eternity, but when you think about such things you want an answer. That's why philosophers and scientists do what they do. They want an answer. Some of us think we know the answer and some of us know the answer. So far the universe is what it is and it exists with a very simple system. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/16/2008 11:49:04 AM | Opusvoid, I read about the universe theory where it inflates like a balloon and deflates and then back again like before. I also like the idea of many universes, many worlds, parallels etc etc.
One thing I find that keeps coming back and to which I am interested in is where did it ALL start? Now I know that is an impossible question to answer, but like I said before, Opusvoid, and like you I have my own spiritual beliefs etc, how did the being(s) come into.... well, being? How can/did universe/beings choose to 'be' in the first place? See what I am trying to get at? Paradoxes, as you put it, yes. But nevertheless, still an interesting discussion. Of course, we will go round and round, like we have done since we were first able to think of these things. But these discussions, for me at least, still help push the envelope of our 'understanding. I am interested in Mr. Internets views amongst others. I guess its his way with words, how he puts them across. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/16/2008 7:11:32 PM | adamf73, You have a very broad and open mind and you like the kind of person I'd love to have these such conversations with.
Lets look at it this way...conceive if you will, that thought isn't matter, nor is thinking or knowing. Say that consciousness is its own entity. A lifeform that doesn't need to be physical in order to exist. Then this living entity decides to be physical in one matter or another, then other entities just like it decide to do the same. Pretty soon everything around them becomes physical and thus we have the physical universe. An interesting way of looking at it, but it depends what you believe. Science is a tool, but it can't observe and know everything. A sad, but true reality. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/16/2008 7:18:52 PM | | The fabric of space and time was indeed created by the big bang but not energy and matter! Before the big bang energy and matter existed as a singularality. A point so small it cannot even be represented by a dot. And yet in that space lay all the energy that is contained within our universe. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/16/2008 8:34:07 PM | | asking why there is something rather than nothing is kind of pointless because we know there is something. if there was nothing we wouldnt be asking the question. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/16/2008 8:35:16 PM |
Sorry Beau but several physicists are not comfortable with that one. The comfort level of physicists isn't really relevant; the day they become comfortable is the day they become useless.
Space existed before the Big Bang. How many dimensions it has or whatnot is immaterial. It is a geometrical concept, not an existentialist one. However, three-dimensional space is one of the very few geometrical figures that has not way of not existing, even if we subtract perception of it by anything or anybody. Actually, Space needs Time, Energy, and Matter to exist. They aren't independent quantities or substances, they are inherently intertwined and interdependent manifestations of what amounts to the same thing- actually, more like a bank statement than a wall calendar.
It's not sure wheather time existed before the Big Bang. But then again we're not sure whether time exists now. We measure time with motion, but we cannot directly sense it. We don't know if time exists, and if it does then we have no clue whether it a primary thing or a composite of things. Simple test for whether time is "real": show up late for work.
Actually, it's tied together with Space, Matter, and Energy. Can't have any without all of them. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/16/2008 8:38:58 PM |
A point so small it cannot even be represented by a dot. Not even a dot smaller than a singularity? They have those. They keep them behind the counter. You have to ask. | |
|
| |
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/17/2008 3:54:32 AM | A singularity, a singular point in space, however in the case of 'before' the universe this is just a fancy way of covering up for the fact they they don't know.
Big bang proposes to solve the question of where did everything come from if not from nothing by a singularity of un-imaginable mass. But then it came from a point of equal mass to what we have now. It is a funny way to cover up where did it all come from with the equivalent of, something else, really tiny. Almost like a joke.
That's why I never buy into big bang theory, it says exactly what it was out to disproved, that all mass in the universe is different from what was the mass of no universe (no mass at all, not even the concept of it).
Nothingness is really a complex idea grasp, the only other being on our world that even comes close to grasping it is a parrot, and it takes them 3 years of their lives to come close. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/17/2008 6:16:11 AM | "Actually, Space needs Time, Energy, and Matter to exist."
Can you somehow prove this or show any evidence for its truth? I am incapable of accepting this, on the grounds of using my sensible mind. Matter cannot exist without space, but space cannot not exist, and yes, space can easily exist without matter. Whether time is in the equation is not a concern, as we don't know what time is; how can we say something must exist if we haven't a clue what it is? And what's the dif between matter and energy?
No, we've both been saying the same thing as if we were in a grade five tissing contest. My argument is that I can imagine space to exists without anything in it, and my other argument is that three dimensional space is a geometrical figure which is necessarily real. In order to be able to see your point of view with more clearness and to accept the validity of it, I would like to ask you please to say something in support of "Actually, Space needs Time, Energy, and Matter to exist", other than just repeating that statement. You don't have to give me full proof, but I need to have some ideas that may start to lead me down the path of accepting this statement. Please provide them in your next post, if I may ask. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/17/2008 6:21:47 AM | "haha yes dot is bad word choice just something infinitesimally small"
I suggest that nothign "infinitesimally small" exists in the real world; if it is made of any substance, it cannot be infinitesimally small. The proof is that yes, let's imagine that there IS something three-dimensional that is the smallest thing. But then you just cut it in size along any one or more of the dimensions that it occupies, and then there is an even smaller object.
The other part of the proof is that someone might say that it's so small that it does not take up any dimensions. But then the object is not real, it's not a thing that exists in space; and a non-existent thing cannot be called small or big or green or loving. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/17/2008 3:03:29 PM | This is a good start-
from http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/spacetime.html
Relativity supersedes Aristotle and Newton. What are the philosophical consequences of Einstein's Relativity Theory? Around 350 BC, Aristotle put forward the view that mechanical objects prefer the state of rest. This proposition was derived from the observation that mechanical systems come to rest if there is no external force sustaining motion. Relativity proves this wrong. The motion of all objects is relative to each other, and it is really a matter of convention to define one reference frame as being at rest. Though this insight comes from Galilean relativity alone, Einstein added that the same applies to the time dimension. Therefore, commonsense notions of congruity and simultaneity do not apply to the processes and events taking place in the large-scale structure of the universe. A lifespan on Earth may be just one second in another galaxy and vice versa. There is a multitude of spacetime reference frames, and a multitude of realities throughout the universe. Does relativity disprove empiricism? The four-dimensional, non-Euclidean spacetime used in relativistic computations defies visualisation and lies beyond human perception. We cannot imagine three-dimensional space being curved, or moving around in a four-dimensional coordinate system. In fact, contemporary physics is only intelligible with the help of mathematics. It cannot be visualised, and it looks as if we have to accept the limitations of our own mind in this regard. This raises an interesting question in epistemology. How do the findings of Relativity fit with David Hume's (1711-1776) famous proposition that all contents of mind, all ideas, concepts, and thoughts are derived from sense experiences? Would Hume be able to uphold his radical empiricism? Perhaps not. The notion of spacetime in Special and General Relativity is obviously not derived from sense experience. One would also be hard-pressed to explain the making of Relativity merely in terms of derived and recombined sense impressions and associations. Relativity cannot be deduced from empirical judgements, but it is derived from mathematical propositions, or respectively from what Kant had coined "synthetic a priori judgements". Relativity marks a turn in science away from practical laboratory and field study towards purely theoretical fields. Heraclitus prevails. Finally, the findings of Einstein may also have put an end to classical controversy between the Greek schools of Heraclitus and Parmenides. The latter philosopher held that all is One and that motion is an illusion, while Heraclitus stated just the opposite, namely that motionlessness is an illusion and that everything is always in a permanent state of motion and change. While the Parmenidean argument may be given some credit for using clever metaphors (from an arrow's perspective the archer is moving away), it is now firmly established that the physical world looks much more Heraclitean than Parmenidean. Even if an object appears to be at rest in a designated reference frame, it still travels through time.
Eleven years after On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, Einstein published his second groundbreaking work on General Relativity, which continues and expands the original theory. A preeminent feature of General Relativity is its view of gravitation. Einstein held that the forces of acceleration and gravity are equivalent. Again, the single premise that General Relativity is based on is surprisingly simple. It states that all physical laws can be formulated so as to be valid for any observer, regardless of the observer's motion. Consequently, due to the equivalence of acceleration and gravitation, in an accelerated reference frame, observations are equivalent to those in a uniform gravitational field. This led Einstein to redefine the concept of space itself. In contrast to the Euclidean space in which Newton’s laws apply, he proposed that space itself might be curved. The curvature of space, or better spacetime, is due to massive objects in it, such as the sun, which warp space around their gravitational centre. In such a space, the motion of objects can be described in terms of geometry rather than in terms of external forces. For example, a planet orbiting the Sun can be thought of as moving along a "straight" trajectory in a curved space that is bent around the Sun.
Is the universe infinite in space and time? The question of whether the universe has boundaries in time and space has captivated the imagination of mankind since early times. Some would say the universe had existed forever, while others would say that the universe was created and thus had a beginning in time and space. The second thesis immediately raises the question what exists beyond its temporal and spatial bounds. Could it be nothingness? But then, what is nothingness? The absence of matter, or the absence of space and time itself? The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) dealt intensively with this question. In his book Critique of Pure Reason he came to the conclusion that the question cannot be answered reliably within the limits of human knowledge, since thesis and antithesis are equally valid. Kant thought instead of time and space as fundamental aspects of human perception. Big Bang - the birth of our universe. Fast forward: Despite Kant's doubts thereto, it appears that modern cosmology has answered the above question. The universe we can observe is finite. It has a beginning in space and time, before which the concept of space and time has no meaning, because spacetime itself is a property of the universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe began about twelve to fifteen billion years ago in a violent explosion. For an incomprehensibly small fraction of a second, the universe was an infinitely dense and infinitely hot fireball. A peculiar form of energy that we don't know yet, suddenly pushed out the fabric of spacetime in a process called "inflation", which lasted for only one millionth of a second. Thereafter, the universe continued to expand but not nearly as quickly. The process of phase transition formed out the most basic forces in nature: first gravity, then the strong nuclear force, followed by the weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces. After the first second, the universe was made up of fundamental energy and particles like quarks, electrons, photons, neutrinos and other less familiar particles.
About 3 seconds after the Big Bang, nucleosynthesis set in with protons and neutrons beginning to form the nuclei of simple elements, predominantly hydrogen and helium, yet for the first 100,000 years after the initial hot explosion there was no matter of the form we know today. Instead, radiation (light, X rays, and radio waves) dominated the early universe. Following the radiation era, atoms were formed by nuclei linking up with free electrons and thus matter slowly became dominant over energy. It took 200 million years until irregularities in the primordial gas began to form galaxies and early stars out of pockets of gas condensing by virtue of gravity. The Sun of our solar system was formed out of such a pocket of gas in a spiral arm of the Milky Way galaxy roughly five billion years ago. A vast disk of gas and debris swirling around the early Sun gave birth to the planets, including Earth, which is between 4.6 and 4.5 billion years old. This is -in short- the history of our universe according to the Big Bang theory, which constitutes today's most widely accepted cosmological viewpoint. What speaks in favor of the Big Bang theory? A number of different observations corroborate the Big Bang theory. Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) discovered that galaxies are receding from us in all directions. He observed shifts in the spectra of light from different galaxies, which are proportional to their distance from us. The farther away the galaxy, the more its spectrum is shifted towards the low (red) end of the spectrum, which is in some way comparable to the Doppler effect. This redshift indicates recession of objects in space, or better: the ballooning of space itself. Today, there is convincing evidence for Hubble's observations. Projecting galaxy trajectories backward in time means that they converge to a high-density state, i.e. the initial fireball. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/18/2008 2:07:18 PM |
There was no "before the Big Bang." Time didn't exist until after. Neither did Space, Matter, or Energy.
I wholeheartedly disagree... Before there was the "Big" bang, there was the potential for it... Potential energy is still a form of energy... It just hasn't been realized yet... I refer you to the way of the vacuum.
What we refer to as "time" is just the measure of "change"... I believe the potential for change existed before the big bang.
The Big Bang is the starting point for Everything.
How could the big bang itself be the cause of the big bang? If there was no cause for the effect, the big bang contradicts how this universe works... There is absolutely nothing found in this universe which could exist without the potential for it to exist first... Why would the universe/multiverse be any different?
Just because we can't see what caused the universe to be doesn't mean it had no cause.
How could the beginning of all things go against the way of all things? | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/18/2008 2:29:38 PM | "How could the big bang itself be the cause of the big bang? If there was no cause for the effect, the big bang contradicts how this universe works."
Well, maybe the universe was on an extended lunch hour and it wasn't working. Or it called in sick.
Seriously, this space not existing is really what bugs me. I can see how matter and energy did not exist. They were pressed into our three dimensional world through a tiny hole in the fabric of space. This is not joking, I sincerely believe it's possible that the energy got sqeezed in into our space. It's also possible, of course, that the matter we see now expand, was not squeezed into our space, but it had been existing in a state of extremely tiny volume for an indeterminate amount of time before the explosion.
But space? Can you visualize space? Of course you can. Can you visualize no space? Of course you cannot. No space is not even a paradox; it's an impossibility.
Whoa. I just gave myself an idea. Perhaps the squeezing of huge amounts of matter from one space into another is happening because our universe is four dimensional or even manier-dimensional; the squeezing occurs at times when the formation of three dimensional spaces constrict a universe-full of matter into a small amount, due to the space being bent into a cone or something, and the matter is pushed to the end of the cone. In this case sometimes the original cone cannot contain the matter any more, and therefore the matter escapes into the space or spaces immediately surrounding the tip of the cone in th first space. If this happens, the surrounding spaces have lots of room around the tip of the cone of the original space, and therefore the matter quickly expands, much like when you squeeze a balloon, it gets smaller in volume, but when the balloon bursts (the conical space cannot contain the matter that's in it any longer) the gas inside the balloon expands until it comes into equilibrium with the pressure of the surrounding gas (and the squeezed matter expands in the new space if it's not similarly constricted as the first space with its conical constriction.)
Quick! Someone please call the Nobel Prize commission! | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/18/2008 2:37:20 PM | ^^^ That's sort of what I mean by the way of the vacuum... By trying to create an "empty" space, we actually force potential particles into existance.
We know we don't "create" them because matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed... Thus, "empty" space is not empty at all... It is full of potential energy just waiting for it's time to be realized... Or its "big bang" to happen.
I believe potential energy existed before time or physical change and is the great constant we seek. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/18/2008 2:58:31 PM | Indeed, our experiments show that matter cannot be created, but we only need to see one experiment which shows that yes, it can be created, and if that experiment holds water (commonly replicable and showing consistent results) then we have to revise this truth we formed about matter and energy.
However, I meant it a bit differently. Imagine a three dimensional space; it contains an infinite number of two-dimensional spaces, which we call planes.
If a point is on Plane A, and we remove it from there and move the point to Plane B, then we can easily do it, as we have a three-dimensional space that allows us to effect such movement. The point then will not be created or destroyed, but moved from Plane A to Plane B.
Now imagine a three-dimensional space and matter in it. If reality consists of one four-dimensional space and an infinite number of three-dimensional spaces, then you can move matter from one three-dimensional space to another quite possibly, since the four-dimensional space that contains all three-dimensional spaces allows the movement because it provides interconnectedness between the three dimensional spaces.
The beauty of this model is that nobody is forced to be able to imagine a or visualize of conceptualize a four-dimensional space in order to see how the model works. All we need to do to understand this is to move the analogy of a three-dimensional space containing inifinite two-dimensional spaces, to another level, where a four-dimensional space contains an infinite amount of three-dimensional spaces. Once you establish that an N+1 dimensional space provides continuity between the N dimensional infinite number of spaces it contains, then you just need to see that and N+2 dimensional space provides continuity between N+1 dimensional spaces. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/18/2008 3:16:02 PM | The 4th dimension is time, or space time.
The single point has to exist in the context of time in the sense that it still does exist. It persists, which is to say, time has something that can happen. That persistence creates a time vector, then to now. Then, the infinite other nows were its potential. Once this now becomes its existence, a new potential of next nows comes into being. When you first went from the single point's original potential to its existence you simultaneously created both the plane in which its time vector exists and the infinite set of potential future planes, which compose the potential universe. Then onwards your infinite potential is realized as the resulting coincidence of observation and potential. Existence is therefor the path along intersecting probabilities, along the threshold of potential brought into existence by its inevitability. That is to say, things happen. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/18/2008 3:17:33 PM | Indeed, our experiments show that matter cannot be created, but we only need to see one experiment which shows that yes, it can be created, and if that experiment holds water (commonly replicable and showing consistent results) then we have to revise this truth we formed about matter and energy.
I agree... And I'm not saying that will never happen, just that the energy which near vacuums brings to light could be one kind of energy transforming itself into another... In this case, potential energy into realized energy.
Could have something to do with the paradox of running out of options in an infinite cycle of change.
However, I meant it a bit differently. Imagine a three dimensional space; it contains an infinite number of two-dimensional spaces, which we call planes.
If a point is on Plane A, and we remove it from there and move the point to Plane B, then we can easily do it, as we have a three-dimensional space that allows us to effect such movement. The point then will not be created or destroyed, but moved from Plane A to Plane B.
Not sure if I'm following, but this sounds how I justify energy leaving our universe without being destroyed... I believe in a multiverse so energy could move from one universe to another and conservation laws are still observed because it doesn't leave the multiverse.
Now imagine a three-dimensional space and matter in it. If reality consists of one four-dimensional space and an infinite number of three-dimensional spaces, then you can move matter from one three-dimensional space to another quite possibly, since the four-dimensional space that contains all three-dimensional spaces allows the movement because it provides interconnectedness between the three dimensional spaces.
The beauty of this model is that nobody is forced to be able to imagine a or visualize of conceptualize a four-dimensional space in order to see how the model works. All we need to do to understand this is to move the analogy of a three-dimensional space containing inifinite two-dimensional spaces, to another level, where a four-dimensional space contains an infinite amount of three-dimensional spaces. Once you establish that an N+1 dimensional space provides continuity between the N dimensional infinite number of spaces it contains, then you just need to see that and N+2 dimensional space provides continuity between N+1 dimensional spaces.
Very cool... Reading that makes me envision something like a fractal made out of magnetic polarities.
Of course, I often find myself envisioning fractals made out of magnetic polarities.
Existence is therefor the path along intersecting probabilities, along the threshold of potential brought into existence by its inevitability. That is to say, things happen.
I am often of the notion that "Potential" is what some would call the Tao. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/18/2008 3:31:00 PM | "The 4th dimension is time, or space time."
Dear Mr. Internet,
My point is exactly that our three-distance-dimensional space is surrounded by a four-distance-dimensional space, on top of which we can implant the time-space dimension on your insistence, the time. But for the illustrative purposes of the theory, I need not use time at all, and by four-dimensional space I literally mean space that has four distance dimensions.
That's the crux of my theory. Thus, if you insist on using time as a dimension, then a plane is three dimensional, a three-dimensional space is four dimensional. In my system there is a four-dimensional space which is five dimensional, using the analogy that encompasses time as yet another dimension. | |
|
| |
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/19/2008 7:48:41 PM | If you really feel the need to disagree with Relativity (as I indicated in my last post, a concept that dates back to the Ancient Greeks, predating Christianity and medieval concepts of cosmology by centuries) you should probably read Einstein's own words on the subject for yourself:
Relativity: The Special and General Theory
Albert Einstein
"The physicist and humanitarian took his place beside the great teachers with the publication of Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Einstein’s own popular translation of the physics that shaped our “truths” of space and time."
http://www.bartleby.com/173/
Here I find it was available for free online, and after I paid $20 for a copy from Amazon... | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/20/2008 2:42:48 PM | If you really feel the need to disagree with Relativity (as I indicated in my last post, a concept that dates back to the Ancient Greeks, predating Christianity and medieval concepts of cosmology by centuries) you should probably read Einstein's own words on the subject for yourself:
Not sure if this was directed at me but I don't disagree with relativity at all... I just think it overlooked potential energy as being infinite.
Potential energy doesn't exist in space-time until something causes it to actualize... The only way we have seen this happen so far (as far as I know) is when we try to create a vacuum... But it happens every time we try.
No space can be empty. | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/20/2008 3:16:52 PM | The universe 'came from nothing' and is STILL nothing. At the smallest level every aspect in this universe has an exact opposite, thus the nature of duality. Think of it like opposing sound waves that should they meet again would combine to cancel each other out. Once they cancel out all that is left is the external energy that was available before the 'big bang'. The universe is 'nothing' and yet here we are...
As for time as an illusion... imagine if every aspect of this universe was set to exactly the state they were in 1 week ago and we recognized that fact would it be 1 week ago... or would it be today? What if you changed something from the way you did it last time... would you have changed the past or changed the present. Time only exists due to our perception of movement... if nothing ever moved, what time would it be?
Also, everyone seems to believe the universe is expanding, however, if all matter in the universe were 'shrinking' proportionally how would we ever know the difference? | |
|
| Universe came from nothing
Posted: 5/23/2008 10:20:50 AM | Youll never hear a physicist say this becuase theyre still busy trying to prove the 'multiverse' had to have been created, came from nothing/SOMETHING like the big bang 'theory' WHICH is still pretty much JUST a theory by the way.
BUT
Id like to know where the IDEA of a big bang theory actually came from in the first place.
Who says the multiverse actually had to COME FROM ANYTHING?!
Who wrote this ' law ' that the entire multiverse had to have come from a speck of nothing and mushroomed to infinity?
What if the multiverse just ALWAYS WAS. There was no big bang, there was NO SUCH THING AS "NOTHING"!?
What if the multiverse was always just there, always existed, there was no beginning to which there IS no end?
WHY does there need to be the 'creation of' or the VERY BEGGINING OF a multiverse? big bang , WHATEVER!
Who says it just wasnt there in the first place?
What if it just ALWAYS WAS? Always existed...
I dont see anyone clammering to prove THAT theory.
THATS what I'd like to know. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
