LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksHow do you think space came into existance?
January 18th, 2010, 02:57 PM
How do you think space came into existance?
Questions such as this lie at the outer boundary of modern science and are driving the search for a theory of quantum gravity - the long sought unification of Einstein's general theory of relativity with quantum theory.
Originally Posted by You
Would quantum gravity provide a solution to where space came from?
A theory of quantum gravity aims to describe the nature of spacetime on the very smallest scales - the voids in between the smallest known elementary particles - by quantum laws and possibly explain it in terms of some fundamental constituents.
I know this has nothing to do with what you said. Do you think if a state existed before space/time it could be measured with time?
January 19th, 2010, 01:44 AM
By attributing all things to Creation. I'm sceptical of creation theories, personally, in any form. If you grant one finite, you must grant them all:
"Smallest scales" Geo..? :?
Try grasping without pincers.
Euclidean quantum gravity places space and time on the same footing.
Euclidean universes have no distinct notion of time. They have no structure to put events into a specific order. Time is imaginary in a mathmatical and colloquial sense.
Space has an observed number of dimensions of 4.02 +/- 0.1. This number depends on scale - spacetime can have a different number of dimensions. At smaller scales spacetime can have just 2 dimensions.
January 19th, 2010, 02:06 AM
Classical notions of geometry break down at the smallest scales. The geometry of spacetime obeys nonstandard and nonclassical rules but the concept of distance still applies.By attributing all things to Creation. I'm sceptical of creation theories, personally, in any form. If you grant one finite, you must grant them all:
"Smallest scales" Geo..? :?
Try grasping without pincers.
How do you know "time is imaginary" in an euclidean universe?
This is all make believe, correct?
What makes you say spacetime can have different dimensions?
Im confused. do you believe in intelligent design?
What do you mean "grant one finite, grant them all"?
There are other theories of quantum gravity.
String theory.
Loop quantum gravity.
Euclidean.
Causal Dynamical Triangulations.
There are many more ideas than that about the origin of the universe and they all have just as much evidence as the ones you listed. Why subscribe to quantum gravity at all?
Buddhism
African Traditional & Diasporic
Sikhism
Juche
Spiritism
Judaism
Baha'i
Jainism
Shinto
Cao Dai
Zoroastrianism
Tenrikyo
Neo-Paganism
Unitarian-Universalism
Rastafarianism
Scientology
I don't believe the universe was created, so intelligent design is a moot question.Im confused. do you believe in intelligent design?
What do you mean "grant one finite, grant them all"?
"Grant them all" because the conceptual limitation that has people unable to grasp no beginning is a failure to grasp infinity. These same minds must also designate a "smallest scale" for example. Maybe they do fathom infinity but grant it exclusive to God or Buddha or something, I dunno. Anyway the pincers-not-fractal way of grasping things has long embarrassing history. Ironically like fractals themselves it builds to historic highs of increasingly convoluted explanatory theory (AKA wealth of corroborating literature), before collapsing when observation expands the envelope. Then the pincer-people establish a new quantum limit or heaven location or age of universe or whatever. They could keep repeating this forever, imho, because they are fractally wrong.
The OP question invites creationists of all kinds religious and scientific to compare necessarily finite visions of creation. Whose creator is bigger?
The only alternative to creation is a natural explanation. Do you believe the universe had a begining? Why?
[Mod Note]
Let us please keep superstitious explanations for the cosmos out of the discussion. This is a science forum, therefore superstitious explanations would be off-topic.
That's correct. Empirical explanations of the beginning then.
I say it wasn't the God of Genesis 6,000 years ago. It was a natural force 15 billion years older that created the universe. The proof is in the plainly observable expansion of the universe.
Does the rate of expansion stay the same?
How large is the universe? Wouldnt the answer to this question be necessary in understanding how much it has expanded?
The expansion rate depends on observation i.e. light. This is counteracted by adjusting dark matter and dark energy saturations. You can't directly observe dark forces because the dimensions go up to 11.
Wouldnt the size of the universe be needed in order to estimate how old it is?
It's great. These are the most profound questions in the history of humanity - and they can now be cleared up in a couple of forum threads! :P
Just a couple of points. The big bang theory for the creation of space and time remains a theory. It is not a fact. Whatever big bang may have happened is still disputed. I also agree that a natural force must have created the universe. However that natural force is still mysterious. Can a universe create itself from natural laws? As Stephen Hawking said, why does the universe bother to exist?
January 20th, 2010, 11:36 AM
Space comes into existence because virtual particles arise from fluctuations in the zero point energy field. These 'particles' annhilate each other almost immediately after coming into being. Space and the BBT throws up a curious result; everywhere is the centre of the universe from the point of view of an observer. From any point in the universe there extends a similar ocean of quantum vibrations, providing evidence that the universe is a one vast interconnected quantum field.
Why do so many persons, including those who should know better - as is the case here - conflate and confuse eternity with infinity. Or will you try to be a smart ass and say that since time and space are part of a continuum there is no valid distinction between the two terms?
Not if the universe has always existed, which seemed to the point Pong was making until he declared his belief in an origin 15 (sic) billion years ago.
I guess in my perspective, all 4 dimensions are equally valid. I could hardly imagine a universe that was infinite in space, but not time, or time but not space.Why do so many persons, including those who should know better - as is the case here - conflate and confuse eternity with infinity. Or will you try to be a smart ass and say that since time and space are part of a continuum there is no valid distinction between the two terms?
Of course, BB theorists can always get around the problem by saying that time itself had a beginning, which seems about as nonsensical as saying length has a beginning. The only sensible way I can see that a dimension could be said to have a beginning is if we should decide to artificially impose one upon it. We just say we're only going to measure from a certain point. So.... I guess if you decide to start measuring from the moment of the Big Bang, then that becomes your starting point. .... but you could just as easily start measuring from January 20, 2010, and call that the starting point of all time. Why not?
Eternity is a specific term for infinite time, more often future tense, sometimes as alternate plane of existence. Why should I say mandarin oranges when I mean fruit?
Ophiolite, do you hold distinct concepts of infinite time vs. eternity? Maybe you think "infinity" in the sense of "undefinable" or even "undefined"...?
BTW I'm runnin' with 15bya creation since the moderator rightly chided me for superstitious belief in ...eternity... of which no evidence remains or is predicted to appear.
You didn't say infinite time you said infinity, when you apparently meant infinite time.
You have said vegetable when you meant mandarin oranges. Infinity is not the same as eternity. All indications are that you meant eternity, so why say infinity. At the very least, by your own arguments, you should have said infinite time.
I do not use the term infinite time because the word eternity is more precise and concise.
"I certainly do not think of it that way. Why would I?
Why fifteen billion years when the currently agree age of the universe is about 13 billion?
Which ever moderator chided you for a reference to eternity needs to have their knuckles rapped.
Just re-read the paragraph you first quoted from and decide if it's about eternity or the parent concept infinity.
We could compromise at 14. I'm thinking more time necessary to explain the unbalanced background radiation (dark flow) which, since it can't possibly come from outside the universe must be remnant of early activity. That, or the Bang was bunched-up at one end.
I have done so. Here it is -
"Grant them all" because the conceptual limitation that has people unable to grasp no beginning is a failure to grasp infinity.
Beginning is a time related concept. Therefore in this paragraph you are talking about eternity. Eternity relates to time, infinity relates to space. Infinity is not, as you claim, the parent concept of eternity. Eternity and infinity are related concepts, but neither is the parent of the other.
Eternity relates to endless time.
Infinity relates to endless space.
It seems evident from your response that you are unaware of, or do not understand this distinction.
One bolded word encapsulates a paragraph?
Stop.
Get real man. That is the word that sets the direction of the paragraph. You are talking about time. Do you actually deny this?
I see you have written STOP. It seems you are unable to accept that you are wrong. So be it. Simmer in your own imprecision and illogic. Don't bother to reply - I'm putting you on Ignore.
no ... there are other methods to estimate the age ...
however, an estimated age of the universe was needed to determine the minimum size of the universe ...
| « Planets and "Free-floaters" | If Venus was placed in Mars' orbit? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
