Thread: Origins

What is the origin of matter, energy, spacetime and the fundamental forces that form the universe / multiverse?

Discuss! :-D

>What is the origin of matter, energy, spacetime and
>the fundamental forces that form the universe / multiverse?

There is no "origin" at all, these are emergent phenomenon. You may construct an infinite number of formalisms (bounded by Godel limits) where you may derive all these notions from. In fact, the "natural selection", in more general term, is an exactly such kind of self-driven process where the mind<->"reality" is rising out.

If there were no origin for energy and matter, then would they exist. :wink:

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

What is the origin of matter, energy, spacetime and the fundamental forces that form the universe / multiverse?

Discuss! :-D

That's probably the most difficult question one could ever ask- the world's brightest scientists and mathematicians are working on this right now. If you were to ask for my opinion, then I would have no answer as I don't want to make a sweeping assumption which would most likely be wrong!

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

What is the origin of matter, energy, spacetime and the fundamental forces that form the universe / multiverse?

Discuss! :-D

chaos

>chaos

I would narrow it down to "superposition of all axiomatics", the selective factor for "natural selection" is an "existence" - in less metaphorical forms means "consistency". Simply speaking, "non existence" is the Recycle-Bin where all inconsistent axiomatics go, while survived samples manifest some of realities (for a while).

>If there were no origin for energy and matter, then would they exist?

Why not? Sure they would and in fact they do exist as axioms/postulates in some of models and in others they may be emergent abstracts.

Originally Posted by granpa

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

What is the origin of matter, energy, spacetime and the fundamental forces that form the universe / multiverse?

Discuss! :-D

chaos

rubbish

There are very few completely idiotic responses to the question posed, but you found one.

Originally Posted by stefanbanev

>chaos

I would narrow it down to "superposition of all axiomatics", the selective factor for "natural selection" is an "existence" - in less metaphorical forms means "consistency". Simply speaking, "non existence" is the Recycle-Bin where all inconsistent axiomatics go, while survived samples manifest some of realities (for a while).

More rubbish. Complete nonsense.

Originally Posted by stefanbanev

>If there were no origin for energy and matter, then would they exist?

Why not? Sure they would and in fact they do exist as axioms/postulates in some of models and in others they may be emergent abstracts.

Still more rubbish. gibberish

>Complete nonsense.

The irony is that you are apparently right, it is a "complete nonsense" as soon as you make no sense out of it. In some respect it goes along the same logic of existence/non-existence: whatever you may not comprehend/perceive does not exist. So, my advice just ignore it to keep it out of your cozy existence ;o)

I encourage readers who don't care so much for the random brain farts being posted in this thread, but who wish to explore the topic more, to spend some time with the link below.


http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/cosmology

>rubbish. gibberish
>Complete nonsense.
> brain farts

It is quite a pattern... it has its own merits anyway ;o)

>http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/cosmology

No doubts this is a good recommendation for 6 years old to start from, while the original post has asked about the origin of matter/energy what is beyond the scope of modern physics and getting into "metaphysics" frontier. To get the taste of what this frontier is about I would recommend to read:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...105.3796v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0407/0407213v3.pdf

Originally Posted by stefanbanev

No doubts this is a good recommendation for 6 years old to start from,

I'd be very interested to meet the 6 year old who can handle that information.

Originally Posted by stefanbanev

while the original post has asked about the origin of matter/energy what is beyond the scope of modern physics and getting into "metaphysics" frontier.

Then, why did you choose to post in the Astronomy & Cosmology section of this site instead of the Philosophy section?

>I'd be very interested to meet the 6 year old who can handle that information.

Too late ;o)

>Then, why did you choose to post in the Astronomy & Cosmology
>section of this site instead of the Philosophy section?

Philosophy is so behind, their hand-waving method is unnecessary anymore once math is taking over...

I postulate that the universe of stefanbanev begins with a fool and a thesaurus.

As to the real universe, it might could have come, maybe possibly but I'm not sure, from nothing.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

I postulate that the universe of stefanbanev begins with a fool and a thesaurus.

As to the real universe, it might could have come, maybe possibly but I'm not sure, from nothing.

>begins with a fool and a thesaurus

I'm really sorry my post invokes such negative feelings; even the reason is apparent still it is quite frustrating; nevertheless the analogy "~0=-E+E" is a good one to illustrate the point.

@stefanbanev.
Do you honestly have a personality (not cognitive) disorder, or are you just playing?

Originally Posted by stefanbanev

To get the taste of what this frontier is about I would recommend to read:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...105.3796v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0407/0407213v3.pdf

What a bunch of crap. Neither Smolin nor Susskind have been able to do anything meaningful for years, so they write trash based on wild speculation treated as fact. These papers are not physics, but philosophy, and poor philosophy at that.

Fact: Nobopdy has yet been able to define what string theory actually is, let alone show that it is consistent or that it describes nature.

Fact: The AdS/CFT correspondence is an unproved conjecture of Maldecena dating to 1997. Susskind's reliance on it in his arguments renders those arguments invalid, and reduces them to mere speculation.

Fact: The "measure problem' is totally unresolved and Susskinds "probability" arguments are therefore nonsensical.

Fact: Multiverse theories are not only not falsifiable and therefore not scientific theories at all, but they are irrelevant even if they were to be true since any "pocket universe is causally disconnected from us and will likely remain so forever.

Fact: Smolin is a long time advocate of quantum loop gravity on the basis that it is "background independent", but neither he nor anyone can define what "background independent" means. His arguments include equally fuzzy reliance on "results" having been "proved" based on a non-existent theory of quantum loop gravity.

>Fact: The "measure problem' is totally unresolved and Susskinds
>"probability" arguments are therefore nonsensical.

Well, I've got an exactly opposite impression, this probably the most persuasive work to address the probabilities in MWI (from my point of view); while the measurement is not a problem at all once there is no collapse; indeed it is a complicated matter from point view of "specific observer" in the same way as "observer" itself is a complex mess.

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

@stefanbanev.
Do you honestly have a personality (not cognitive) disorder, or are you just playing?

If I do, how I may answer your question honestly?
I'm curious, why you got such impression about personality disorder. It would be great if you may combine you response with insight relevant to this thread.

Originally Posted by stefanbanev

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

@stefanbanev.
Do you honestly have a personality (not cognitive) disorder, or are you just playing?

If I do, how I may answer your question honestly?
I'm curious, why you got such impression about personality disorder. It would be great if you may combine you response with inside relevant to this thread.

Okay, scratch the personality disorder question. I was running off on a tangent and ignoring the obvious.
What is your native language?

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

Originally Posted by stefanbanev

Originally Posted by GiantEvil

@stefanbanev.
Do you honestly have a personality (not cognitive) disorder, or are you just playing?

If I do, how I may answer your question honestly?
I'm curious, why you got such impression about personality disorder. It would be great if you may combine you response with inside relevant to this thread.

Okay, scratch the personality disorder question. I was running off on a tangent and ignoring the obvious.
What is your native language?

Well, it's such a cliche; apparently you continue "to run off on a tangent".... Just get back to the thread substance if you may ;o)

Originally Posted by stefanbanev

>chaos

I would narrow it down to "superposition of all axiomatics", the selective factor for "natural selection" is an "existence" - in less metaphorical forms means "consistency". Simply speaking, "non existence" is the Recycle-Bin where all inconsistent axiomatics go, while survived samples manifest some of realities (for a while).

I see english words but completely miss the implied meaning. Could you please rephrase what you are trying to say? Is this somehow related to Gödel?

I'm glad at the response to this post. But, as many may have concluded already personally, this is one of the hardest and most fundamental questions ever.

If you know the answer, then you are probably God.

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

I'm glad at the response to this post. But, as many may have concluded already personally, this is one of the hardest and most fundamental questions ever.

If you know the answer, then you are probably God.

There is no and can not be a single and definitive answer, it is not just a technical issue it is a fundamental limitation. It does not mean the constructive theories/models are not possible, quite contrarily, but they are arbitrary constructs as soon as they are consistent with observations.

We dance round in a circle and suppose.
But the secret sits in the center and knows.
~Robert Frost~

My own poor guess is that , or more abstractly .

Depending on what one supposes about the zero there, this could be construed as origin, or transformation.

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

What is the origin of matter, energy, spacetime and the fundamental forces that form the universe / multiverse?

Discuss! :-D

here is my proposal for how it all began:
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/3...without-space/

Originally Posted by Dishmaster

Originally Posted by stefanbanev

>chaos

I would narrow it down to "superposition of all axiomatics", the selective factor for "natural selection" is an "existence" - in less metaphorical forms means "consistency". Simply speaking, "non existence" is the Recycle-Bin where all inconsistent axiomatics go, while survived samples manifest some of realities (for a while).

I see english words but completely miss the implied meaning. Could you please rephrase what you are trying to say? Is this somehow related to Gödel?

It is not just related, the "Godel theorems" establish the "environment" for natural selection of axiomatics. Admittedly such generalization is way too speculative and may be put in the folder "not even wrong" yet it makes sense for me to explain the "zoo" of reality.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by stefanbanev

To get the taste of what this frontier is about I would recommend to read:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...105.3796v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0407/0407213v3.pdf

What a bunch of crap. Neither Smolin nor Susskind have been able to do anything meaningful for years, so they write trash based on wild speculation treated as fact. These papers are not physics, but philosophy, and poor philosophy at that.

Fact: Nobopdy has yet been able to define what string theory actually is, let alone show that it is consistent or that it describes nature.

Fact: The AdS/CFT correspondence is an unproved conjecture of Maldecena dating to 1997. Susskind's reliance on it in his arguments renders those arguments invalid, and reduces them to mere speculation.

Fact: The "measure problem' is totally unresolved and Susskinds "probability" arguments are therefore nonsensical.

Fact: Multiverse theories are not only not falsifiable and therefore not scientific theories at all, but they are irrelevant even if they were to be true since any "pocket universe is causally disconnected from us and will likely remain so forever.

Fact: Smolin is a long time advocate of quantum loop gravity on the basis that it is "background independent", but neither he nor anyone can define what "background independent" means. His arguments include equally fuzzy reliance on "results" having been "proved" based on a non-existent theory of quantum loop gravity.

Just to immortalize your opus...