Thread: Non-Physical

I don't have a belief in this subject, nor am I a dualist, I'm just putting it out there.

Instead of a state of nothingness, is it within the realm of possibilities that the physical state (universe) was once non-physical? I'm not talking about Gods, shangri-las or thoughts, but an actual time when everything we know did not have any physicality attached to it. Could a transition from non-physical to physical take place and could there be evidence that might suggest such a thing did occur?

Another thing, take those scientists trying to determine if the universe is a computer simulation. If they ever find evidence that suggests we are in a simulation then the universe wouldn't be real for the simulators but would be for the simulated. How in hell could that happen?

I suppose the answer to whether the universe was once non-physical depends on how we perceive and measure 'physical'. I would not be surprised learn that the majority of space is actually a physical domain that is beyond the range of our physical senses to perceive and that we have yet to design the technolgy to reveal. Space is not 'empty' IMO, we just tend to think of it as lacking in physical properties.

As for the computer simulation theory, each of us models our own simulation and then there is the collective simulation experienced by all of us. As for the whole universe being a simulation, that once again takes us into the realm of 'who designed the computer that designed the universe?'

It seems more like a recycling system to me, but that may be due to the limits of what I can perceive.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I don't have a belief in this subject, nor am I a dualist, I'm just putting it out there.

Instead of a state of nothingness, is it within the realm of possibilities that the physical state (universe) was once non-physical? I'm not talking about Gods, shangri-las or thoughts, but an actual time when everything we know did not have any physicality attached to it. Could a transition from non-physical to physical take place and could there be evidence that might suggest such a thing did occur?

Another thing, take those scientists trying to determine if the universe is a computer simulation. If they ever find evidence that suggests we are in a simulation then the universe wouldn't be real for the simulators but would be for the simulated. How in hell could that happen?

What i would be more interested if this is a simulator, is the capacity of this simulator that is not only extremely accurate at producing minute details as well as being able to process the universe of this magnitude. Not that i am skeptical of it happening, but rather interested on whether can we recreate these simulations under the same conditions as well. Since this simulation's size keeps expanding without ever going into a "maintenance phase" it must be either able to have an ever increasing in processing power or it has one that is extremely big but still at a limit, both which i too want to find out on for personal curiosity.

Would you define what you mean by physical and non-physical. I presume you don't mean particles, since clearly in the early stages of this universe there were none. But if you exclude particles and energy, and the fabric of space-time, then what are you left with? Clarity please.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Another thing, take those scientists trying to determine if the universe is a computer simulation. If they ever find evidence that suggests we are in a simulation then the universe wouldn't be real for the simulators but would be for the simulated. How in hell could that happen?

You mean like Inception, but we're all in God's (super-duper-mega-computer's) mind?

Also like some clarification about what is meant with "non-physical". To me that means the same as "non-real".

Originally Posted by scheherazade

I suppose the answer to whether the universe was once non-physical depends on how we perceive and measure 'physical'. I would not be surprised learn that the majority of space is actually a physical domain that is beyond the range of our physical senses to perceive and that we have yet to design the technolgy to reveal. Space is not 'empty' IMO, we just tend to think of it as lacking in physical properties.

As for the computer simulation theory, each of us models our own simulation and then there is the collective simulation experienced by all of us. As for the whole universe being a simulation, that once again takes us into the realm of 'who designed the computer that designed the universe?'

It seems more like a recycling system to me, but that may be due to the limits of what I can perceive.

So do you think we are all recycled?

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by scheherazade

I suppose the answer to whether the universe was once non-physical depends on how we perceive and measure 'physical'. I would not be surprised learn that the majority of space is actually a physical domain that is beyond the range of our physical senses to perceive and that we have yet to design the technolgy to reveal. Space is not 'empty' IMO, we just tend to think of it as lacking in physical properties.

As for the computer simulation theory, each of us models our own simulation and then there is the collective simulation experienced by all of us. As for the whole universe being a simulation, that once again takes us into the realm of 'who designed the computer that designed the universe?'

It seems more like a recycling system to me, but that may be due to the limits of what I can perceive.

So do you think we are all recycled?

Our physical bits, obviously so.

The energy that becomes consciousness and enables the physical form to experience this awareness also must dissipate back into the sustaining medium.

It too gets utilized at some future time but there remains no discreet sense of self. That energy may never have biological form or self-awareness again. I am not proposing that each of us is a continuum of successive lives that we can recall through regression. I am suggesting that we are manifest energy embedded within a field of sustaining energy, 'something' from 'nothing' which returns to 'nothing' at the most elemental state of measure, a state which we are still trying to measure in the hopes of being able to influence same for commercial gain.

May we never succeed for we have not got the maturity as a species to manage such power responsibly. We do not even do a good job with our present set of skills. Bloody barbarians....that's us....

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Another thing, take those scientists trying to determine if the universe is a computer simulation. If they ever find evidence that suggests we are in a simulation then the universe wouldn't be real for the simulators but would be for the simulated. How in hell could that happen?

You mean like Inception, but we're all in God's (super-duper-mega-computer's) mind?

Zack Hemsey - "Mind Heist" - YouTube

Originally Posted by John Galt

Would you define what you mean by physical and non-physical. I presume you don't mean particles, since clearly in the early stages of this universe there were none. But if you exclude particles and energy, and the fabric of space-time, then what are you left with? Clarity please.

It's late for me and if I sound incoherent it's because I had long tough day. My mind works like a god, in mysterious ways. It just jumps around like it has an attention disorder.

I was going to title the thread 'Certain Conditions'. This is a term I hear or read about on quite a consistent basis. I was looking at the Periodic Table and every time I do I can't help wondering why the Elements all have certain conditions. Then I started thinking about the times I read about the universe only being able to exist because of 'certain conditions'. Then my mind tells me that a 'certain condition' is something that exists out of a myriad of conditions. It must be this way else the term would not be used, by itself one condition implies that there are a lot of other conditions.

But I thought that using the 'certain condition' term in this thread would be boring as hell for most of us so I threw in (non) physical to try and make it interesting on the assumption that we all have an idea on what's real (physical) or not. This would include the dualists, I'm mean this is the philosophy subforum and as such everyone has an idea spinning around in their head about what's physically real. Since it is a science forum I figured punctuating philosophy with some scientific input would be more in line. Thus I decided to include the word physical in the title. I was hoping the community could provide some interesting morsels to chew on.

So, am I a physical being because of certain conditions? Without those certain conditions what is there? See what I mean, now it sounds too scientific for philosophy. Good night.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by John Galt

Would you define what you mean by physical and non-physical. I presume you don't mean particles, since clearly in the early stages of this universe there were none. But if you exclude particles and energy, and the fabric of space-time, then what are you left with? Clarity please.

It's late for me and if I sound incoherent it's because I had long tough day. My mind works like a god, in mysterious ways. It just jumps around like it has an attention disorder.

I was going to title the thread 'Certain Conditions'. This is a term I hear or read about on quite a consistent basis. I was looking at the Periodic Table and every time I do I can't help wondering why the Elements all have certain conditions. Then I started thinking about the times I read about the universe only being able to exist because of 'certain conditions'. Then my mind tells me that a 'certain condition' is something that exists out of a myriad of conditions. It must be this way else the term would not be used, by itself one condition implies that there are a lot of other conditions.

But I thought that using the 'certain condition' term in this thread would be boring as hell for most of us so I threw in (non) physical to try and make it interesting on the assumption that we all have an idea on what's real (physical) or not. This would include the dualists, I'm mean this is the philosophy subforum and as such everyone has an idea spinning around in their head about what's physically real. Since it is a science forum I figured punctuating philosophy with some scientific input would be more in line. Thus I decided to include the word physical in the title. I was hoping the community could provide some interesting morsels to chew on.

So, am I a physical being because of certain conditions? Without those certain conditions what is there? See what I mean, now it sounds too scientific for philosophy. Good night.

Your post reminds of the antrophic principle, often put forward by theists.
I am not certain if the term "certain conditions" refers to the values that physical constants have. If that is the case, then it might be reasonable to state that there is also a likely possibility that there are other universes, governed by the same physical constants but with a different value.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Your post reminds of the antrophic principle, often put forward by theists.
I am not certain if the term "certain conditions" refers to the values that physical constants have. If that is the case, then it might be reasonable to state that there is also a likely possibility that there are other universes, governed by the same physical constants but with a different value.

Well I'm no theist, I can assure you that.

Just reading a news story regarding the Nobel prize for physics going to Higgs boson researchers. Good stuff. In it they mention the elementary particle. When they say elementary are they talking about the basic building blocks for all other particles?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Your post reminds of the antrophic principle, often put forward by theists.
I am not certain if the term "certain conditions" refers to the values that physical constants have. If that is the case, then it might be reasonable to state that there is also a likely possibility that there are other universes, governed by the same physical constants but with a different value.

Well I'm no theist, I can assure you that.

Just reading a news story regarding the Nobel prize for physics going to Higgs boson researchers. Good stuff. In it they mention the elementary particle. When they say elementary are they talking about the basic building blocks for all other particles?

I have no idea. Particle physics is beyond my understanding.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Your post reminds of the antrophic principle, often put forward by theists.
I am not certain if the term "certain conditions" refers to the values that physical constants have. If that is the case, then it might be reasonable to state that there is also a likely possibility that there are other universes, governed by the same physical constants but with a different value.

Well I'm no theist, I can assure you that.

Just reading a news story regarding the Nobel prize for physics going to Higgs boson researchers. Good stuff. In it they mention the elementary particle. When they say elementary are they talking about the basic building blocks for all other particles?

I have no idea. Particle physics is beyond my understanding.

I was just chuckling to myself....what if there's a physical field a particle (to be) must pass through in order to become one?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Your post reminds of the antrophic principle, often put forward by theists.
I am not certain if the term "certain conditions" refers to the values that physical constants have. If that is the case, then it might be reasonable to state that there is also a likely possibility that there are other universes, governed by the same physical constants but with a different value.

Well I'm no theist, I can assure you that.

Just reading a news story regarding the Nobel prize for physics going to Higgs boson researchers. Good stuff. In it they mention the elementary particle. When they say elementary are they talking about the basic building blocks for all other particles?

I have no idea. Particle physics is beyond my understanding.

I was just chuckling to myself....what if there's a physical field a particle (to be) must pass through in order to become one?

But would this physical field not be caused by another particle?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Your post reminds of the antrophic principle, often put forward by theists.
I am not certain if the term "certain conditions" refers to the values that physical constants have. If that is the case, then it might be reasonable to state that there is also a likely possibility that there are other universes, governed by the same physical constants but with a different value.

Well I'm no theist, I can assure you that.

Just reading a news story regarding the Nobel prize for physics going to Higgs boson researchers. Good stuff. In it they mention the elementary particle. When they say elementary are they talking about the basic building blocks for all other particles?

I have no idea. Particle physics is beyond my understanding.

I was just chuckling to myself....what if there's a physical field a particle (to be) must pass through in order to become one?

But would this physical field not be caused by another particle?

Ahhh.....I see your point. Nice. Time to fire up the Hadron Collider.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Your post reminds of the antrophic principle, often put forward by theists.
I am not certain if the term "certain conditions" refers to the values that physical constants have. If that is the case, then it might be reasonable to state that there is also a likely possibility that there are other universes, governed by the same physical constants but with a different value.

Well I'm no theist, I can assure you that.

Just reading a news story regarding the Nobel prize for physics going to Higgs boson researchers. Good stuff. In it they mention the elementary particle. When they say elementary are they talking about the basic building blocks for all other particles?

I have no idea. Particle physics is beyond my understanding.

I was just chuckling to myself....what if there's a physical field a particle (to be) must pass through in order to become one?

But would this physical field not be caused by another particle?

Ahhh.....I see your point. Nice. Time to fire up the Hadron Collider.

Should we not first name and define which particle we are looking for?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Your post reminds of the antrophic principle, often put forward by theists.
I am not certain if the term "certain conditions" refers to the values that physical constants have. If that is the case, then it might be reasonable to state that there is also a likely possibility that there are other universes, governed by the same physical constants but with a different value.

Well I'm no theist, I can assure you that.

Just reading a news story regarding the Nobel prize for physics going to Higgs boson researchers. Good stuff. In it they mention the elementary particle. When they say elementary are they talking about the basic building blocks for all other particles?

I have no idea. Particle physics is beyond my understanding.

I was just chuckling to myself....what if there's a physical field a particle (to be) must pass through in order to become one?

But would this physical field not be caused by another particle?

Ahhh.....I see your point. Nice. Time to fire up the Hadron Collider.

Should we not first name and define which particle we are looking for?

A particle of great importance should be named the 'God particle'(higgs) but if discovery shows is not higgs then we might consider the 'Grand particle' a short form of the 'father of the God particle(higgs)'

Originally Posted by merumario

A particle of great importance should be named the 'God particle'(higgs) but if discovery shows is not higgs then we might consider the 'Grand particle' a short form of the 'father of the God particle(higgs)'

No, we should not consider that.
The nickname of the Higgs Boson has caused enough misunderstandings and misrepresentations among the laymen.

(on ether alert)

Who said anything about ether? This is philosophy, not going to change the science world with what's said here. Jeezuz, science has been wrong enough times to earn a permanent ban from its own forum. Why would a scientist be sensitive to philosophy? Not like philosophers are out there dispelling scientific discovery. If the forum is going to react like it's been violated then to be fair, the next guy who speculates on what happened prior to the Big Bang should be banned for life. I find this reaction to a philosophy thread somewhat lame.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Instead of a state of nothingness, is it within the realm of possibilities that the physical state (universe) was once non-physical?

My understanding of non-physical things is that they are mental. Fictional characters, like Captain Ahab; social constructs such as law, justice, and politics; conceptual entities such as math and science.

Plato was the first to notice this ... we have dogs; and we have the idea of dogness. The latter is abstract and non-physical.

With this meaning of non-physical, you need a conscious entity to exist physically before anything non-physical can exist. Melville had to exist physically before Captain Ahab could exist fictionally.

So the answer is no. Before the physical existed, nothing non-physical could possibly exist. That would be my understanding of this question.

Originally Posted by someguy1

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Instead of a state of nothingness, is it within the realm of possibilities that the physical state (universe) was once non-physical?

My understanding of non-physical things is that they are mental. Fictional characters, like Captain Ahab; social constructs such as law, justice, and politics; conceptual entities such as math and science.

Plato was the first to notice this ... we have dogs; and we have the idea of dogness. The latter is abstract and non-physical.

With this meaning of non-physical, you need a conscious entity to exist physically before anything non-physical can exist. Melville had to exist physically before Captain Ahab could exist fictionally.

So the answer is no. Before the physical existed, nothing non-physical could possibly exist. That would be my understanding of this question.

An understanding I ℓιкє and appreciate. Just that am unable to give a 'ℓιкє' and I still don't know why#.........Moderators helppPpppp#

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Who said anything about ether? This is philosophy, not going to change the science world with what's said here. Jeezuz, science has been wrong enough times to earn a permanent ban from its own forum. Why would a scientist be sensitive to philosophy? Not like philosophers are out there dispelling scientific discovery. If the forum is going to react like it's been violated then to be fair, the next guy who speculates on what happened prior to the Big Bang should be banned for life. I find this reaction to a philosophy thread somewhat lame.

The ether comment wasn't directed at you. It was a preemptive strike to discourage the various quacks that visit these forums and superimpose ether to explain a wide range of various well understood and not-so well known phenomena and suppositions such as what existed before the big bang. The trash can is a grave yard of ether threads banded members.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

When they say elementary are they talking about the basic building blocks for all other particles?

"Elementary" in the context of particle physics means that it is itself not composed of other particles ( i.e. not "composite" ). Example - a proton is made up of three quarks, hence it is a composite particle. An electron is not made up of any other particles ( to the best of our current knowledge ), so it is considered elementary.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

When they say elementary are they talking about the basic building blocks for all other particles?

"Elementary" in the context of particle physics means that it is itself not composed of other particles ( i.e. not "composite" ). Example - a proton is made up of three quarks, hence it is a composite particle. An electron is not made up of any other particles ( to the best of our current knowledge ), so it is considered elementary.

What does that make a quark then?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

What does that make a quark then?

Quarks are also considered elementary, as they are not thought to be made up of any other constituents.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

What does that make a quark then?

Quarks are also considered elementary, as they are not thought to be made up of any other constituents.

I guess the next obvious question would be: How many different types of elementary particles are known to exist and what form of matter are they?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I guess the next obvious question would be: How many different types of elementary particles are known to exist and what form of matter are they?

What this thread establishes beyond all reasonable doubt is that everything we see around us is made of cheese. For a deeper explanation, please see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(dairy_product)

Originally Posted by JonG

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I guess the next obvious question would be: How many different types of elementary particles are known to exist and what form of matter are they?

What this thread establishes beyond all reasonable doubt is that everything we see around us is made of cheese. For a deeper explanation, please see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(dairy_product)

Brain.exe has stopped working.
Press any key to reboot.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

How many different types of elementary particles are known to exist and what form of matter are they?

There are three known groups of elementary particles :

QUARKS - These come in six different "flavours", and they make up other composite particles such as baryons ( three quarks ), and mesons ( quark + antiquark )
LEPTONS - Comprising of the electron, the muon, and the tau; also includes their neutrino counterparts, i.e. the electron-neutrino, the muon-neutrino, and the tau-neutrino
BOSONS - These are the "mediators" of the fundamental interactions. This group comprises of the photon, the gluon, the three "weakons" ( 2x W + 1x Z boson ), and the Higgs. The hypothetical graviton would also belong here.

I am not sure what you mean by "forms of matter"; I think it is safer and more appropriate to think of these as pure energy.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

I am not sure what you mean by "forms of matter"; I think it is safer and more appropriate to think of these as pure energy.

That's what I was getting at. I didn't want to say it because I usually get it wrong. So let me get this straight, pure energy in the form of a particle is in a physical state. I going to assume that energy itself is a physical state or a property of it. Therefore there is no real change taking place when pure energy takes the form of a particle, it's still a physical thing. We say physical because energy can be measured, is that the consensus?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

That's what I was getting at. I didn't want to say it because I usually get it wrong. So let me get this straight, pure energy in the form of a particle is in a physical state. I going to assume that energy itself is a physical state or a property of it. Therefore there is no real change taking place when pure energy takes the form of a particle, it's still a physical thing. We say physical because energy can be measured, is that the consensus?

I think what you are getting at is what the true nature of an elementary particle really is - that's a very good question, and there is no accepted consensus as to the answer. Currently particles are thought of as point-like, but we can be reasonably sure that this isn't their true nature. There are several models which attempt to address this, such as String theory, geons, LQG etc, but none of them has gained widespread acceptance. I think we will have to put this down as an unresolved question.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

I think what you are getting at is what the true nature of an elementary particle really is - that's a very good question, and there is no accepted consensus as to the answer. Currently particles are thought of as point-like, but we can be reasonably sure that this isn't their true nature. There are several models which attempt to address this, such as String theory, geons, LQG etc, but none of them has gained widespread acceptance. I think we will have to put this down as an unresolved question.

True nature is what I was getting at.

I hope I word this right.....They say we live in a 3 dimensional plus time universe. Is it described as such because there are physical properties at work in it? Could a 3D+1 universe exist and be devoid of physical properties?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

They say we live in a 3 dimensional plus time universe. Is it described as such because there are physical properties at work in it? Could a 3D+1 universe exist and be devoid of physical properties?

What exactly do you mean by "physical properties" ? Can you give an example ?

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

They say we live in a 3 dimensional plus time universe. Is it described as such because there are physical properties at work in it? Could a 3D+1 universe exist and be devoid of physical properties?

What exactly do you mean by "physical properties" ? Can you give an example ?

Anything that characterizes matter and energy and their interactions.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether or not a 3D universe could exist prior to there being anything physical in it? Sort of a what came first, matter or the 3d universe?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Anything that characterizes matter and energy and their interactions.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether or not a 3D universe could exist prior to there being anything physical in it? Sort of a what came first, matter or the 3d universe?

I am still not entirely sure what you are getting it. Do you mean if to ask if space-time could exist in isolation from matter-energy, i.e. if a universe completely devoid of matter and energy could exist ?

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

[
Do you mean if to ask if space-time could exist in isolation from matter-energy, i.e. if a universe completely devoid of matter and energy could exist ?

Something like that.

I've also read books that say the 3rd dimension opened up while other dimensions remained closed, I'm not sure what that really means.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Something like that.

In that case the answer is that in principle I see no objection to there being space-time without momentum-energy. Such a universe would be completely flat, and really boring.

I've also read books that say the 3rd dimension opened up while other dimensions remained closed, I'm not sure what that really means.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, so I would need to see the original source before answering.

This article goes on to say that a 4D universe will open up as the universe expands. I remember reading a different article that said a 4D black hole will start spewing matter and energy into the 3rd dimension.(wish I could find that one again). One sounds like dimensions appear as the universe gets bigger and the other seems to say dimensions appear as it gets smaller.

I guess I could refine my questions to say 'why can't we see more than the 3 dimensions if other dimensions exist'?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I guess I could refine my questions to say 'why can't we see more than the 3 dimensions if other dimensions exist'?

I would venture because we have only evolved with three dimensional visual capacity?
Interesting, though, that we have a brain that can contemplate the concepts of non-existence and infinity as a continuum. There is likely room within those possibilities for any number of dimensions.
Beeing able to see or experience them is the problematical part...

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

This article

I must admit that I had not heard of that hypothesis before, and even though I have only briefly skimmed through the paper I'd have to say this is most interesting. The basic idea is that the early universe started with just one spatial dimension, and then opened up much like a flower, adding the other two as you go along; in other words - space-time may be lower dimensional at microscopic ( i.e. high energy ) scales. This ties in quite nicely with recent developments in Causal Dynamical Triangulations, which predict something of a similar nature.
I can't comment on the merits ( or lack thereof ) at this point, but this certainly would explain a lot of things. I'll have to study this in more detail when I have the time.

I guess I could refine my questions to say 'why can't we see more than the 3 dimensions if other dimensions exist'?

Well, we do have a perception of time, so one could argue that we do perceive 4 dimensions; it is just that our time perception is not of a visual nature.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I remember reading a different article that said a 4D black hole will start spewing matter and energy into the 3rd dimension.(wish I could find that one again).

Might be a long-shot, but was it this that you read: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe? : Nature News & Comment ?

Originally Posted by Zwirko

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I remember reading a different article that said a 4D black hole will start spewing matter and energy into the 3rd dimension.(wish I could find that one again).

Might be a long-shot, but was it this that you read: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe? : Nature News & Comment ?

guess some ppl are just too good at word tracking#

Originally Posted by Zwirko

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I remember reading a different article that said a 4D black hole will start spewing matter and energy into the 3rd dimension.(wish I could find that one again).

Might be a long-shot, but was it this that you read: Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe? : Nature News & Comment ?

Very similar, I remember distinctly the word 'spewing' but in essence this article is the same.

Funny, I know precious little when it comes to cosmology yet I find it fascinating because there's no real answer for the universe's beginning. More than any other science, I think it tests our thinking abilities. I can honestly remember when I first started reading this stuff actually thinking that the universe progressed/morphed/evolved from one dimension to our present day and much to my surprise I see real cosmologists thinking along the same lines. It's just a fluke, I'm not that smart.

OK, back on topic. I hope nobody minds but I'd like to give a layman's perspective on what I think is happening from what I read and see. You can laugh at it or be critical, it doesn't matter to me.

At the beginning of the universe, probably in the first nanoseconds there is a lot of heat, the most heat the universe is ever going to experience. It's so hot that things occur that we may or may not ever be able to repeat in any experiment. Energy at this point is being converted to matter (this could be my first big mistake) and as such some matter, the likes of which we may never see, is being created. Now I can only assume that the newly formed elementary particles are massless because as they pass through a field generated by a certain particle (Higgs I believe) they gain mass although I have no idea where the Higgs got its mass, whether it even has any or how it generates this field. I'm not sure if gravity is a result of this mass transfer or whether it was always present. Anyway it appears that energy to particle to particle mass to gravity(maybe) is a key process in the universe's formation.

Don't know how I did with that paragraph so I hope someone can straighten out my gaffes. Regardless, I need to ask a couple questions: Does energy in the form of energy have mass? Is mass a requirement for a physical thing?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Now I can only assume that the newly formed elementary particles are massless

This was certainly true up to a certain stage of the early universe, before the Higgs mechanism kicked in.

I have no idea where the Higgs got its mass

The Higgs field is self-interacting.

I'm not sure if gravity is a result of this mass transfer or whether it was always present.

In the absence of a full theory of quantum gravity we can't really answer this question conclusively.

Does energy in the form of energy have mass?

Bearing in mind that "mass" should mean "rest mass", the answer is no. Energy does have a gravitational effect, though.

Is mass a requirement for a physical thing?

No. Photons and gluons do not have rest mass, yet they mediate physically measurable interactions.

Markus: Thanks for the help. Hey, I'm trying. Next I'm going to check up on rest mass & self-interacting and see what I can conjure up image-wise.

Off topic.....I get a feeling that when scientists gaze closely at the quantum world and all its fuzziness, all its weird and wonderful stuff, that they're looking at some type of transitional boundary between two dimensions or realities. However I don't want people to think I'm one of the Grimm Brothers or a biblical scribe.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Markus: Thanks for the help. Hey, I'm trying. Next I'm going to check up on rest mass & self-interacting and see what I can conjure up image-wise.

Off topic.....I get a feeling that when scientists gaze closely at the quantum world and all its fuzziness, all its weird and wonderful stuff, that they're looking at some type of transitional boundary between two dimensions or realities. However I don't want people to think I'm one of the Grimm Brothers or a biblical scribe.

2d?

If I had a dollar for every 'something from nothing' thread that I have read across many forums in the last five years, it would be a rather tidy sum.

Personally, I'm still stuck with the problem of where the actual 'space' came from that the universe apparently occupies. The whole expanding universe thing is the tail on this conceptual dog, for once again, what space is 'space' expanding into?

For all my reading, I have not come across any certainties on the topic and I am reminded of Friedrich Nietzsche's comment, "It is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations…"

The various interpretations do make for some interesting reading, though.

Originally Posted by scheherazade

Personally, I'm still stuck with the problem of where the actual 'space' came from that the universe apparently occupies. The whole expanding universe thing is the tail on this conceptual dog, for once again, what space is 'space' expanding into?

I think they use the balloon analogy for that one, no? I could be wrong but a deflated balloon doesn't stay deflated too long once you start filling it with a gas. Does that mean the universe is bounded by some membrane, the likes we've never encountered before?

Edit: I could have said condom but the thought of the universe being some ejaculate at the business end of a prophylactic didn't sit well with me.

The various interpretations do make for some interesting reading, though.

It is what seems to drive us, I think it's great.

Originally Posted by scheherazade

Personally, I'm still stuck with the problem of where the actual 'space' came from that the universe apparently occupies. The whole expanding universe thing is the tail on this conceptual dog, for once again, what space is 'space' expanding into?

The universe is not currently thought to be embedded in any higher dimensional space; the entire geometry of metric expansion is purely intrinsic. Hence, there is no "outside", and the universe it not expanding into anything.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Does that mean the universe is bounded by some membrane, the likes we've never encountered before?

No, the universe is not thought to possess a boundary; in the balloon analogy two dimensions are omitted. Bear in mind that even in the analogy, the surface of the balloon ( which is what represents the universe ) does not have a boundary.

Edit: I could have said condom but the thought of the universe being some ejaculate at the business end of a prophylactic didn't sit well with me.

Hm...I think I'll stick with the balloon

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Markus: Thanks for the help. Hey, I'm trying.

I know you are, which is why I'll always endeavour to answer the questions as well as I can...

Edit: I could have said condom but the thought of the universe being some ejaculate at the business end of a prophylactic didn't sit well with me.

Damn this made me laugh!!

Photons and gluons do not have rest mass, yet they mediate physically measurable interactions.

Did these two particles somehow avoid the Higgs field, or are they not conducive to mass, or did they come into being later? I take it that the Higgs bosons broke apart at some early stage.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Did these two particles somehow avoid the Higgs field, or are they not conducive to mass, or did they come into being later? I take it that the Higgs bosons broke apart at some early stage.

The simplest answer here is that they don't have mass because they don't interact with the Higgs field. All other particles interact with the Higgs to varying degrees, giving them their various rest masses.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Did these two particles somehow avoid the Higgs field, or are they not conducive to mass, or did they come into being later? I take it that the Higgs bosons broke apart at some early stage.

The simplest answer here is that they don't have mass because they don't interact with the Higgs field. All other particles interact with the Higgs to varying degrees, giving them their various rest masses.

So I guess it's safe to say that elementary particles are not all cut from the same cloth? I would tend to think that the most elementary of particles be of one origin, yet it appears like they are different from one another. If were talking the most basic of building blocks then it seems strange that there so many kinds? Do any of these particles share a common property? I assume that it would be impossible to collect, let's say a pound of each particle in separate containers?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

So I guess it's safe to say that elementary particles are not all cut from the same cloth?

We don't know this yet, as we do not yet have a theory which can unify all fundamental interactions; there are candidates though, such as String Theory.

Do any of these particles share the same property?

Yes. For one thing there are spin and electric charge; for example all fermions have half-integer spin, whereas all bosons have integer spin. Much more fundamental however are the ways the various particles interact, which is encapsulated in the symmetry groups of the underlying quantum field theories used to describe them. If you map these on a chart it turns out that there are various "generations" of particles, classed by how they interact with the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. See Standard Model of Particle Physics. This is an intricate network of symmetries and interdependencies, the details of which are really quite complicated.

I assume that it would be impossible to collect, let's say a pound of each particle in separate containers?

It's not impossible, but generally very difficult. Under certain extreme conditions nature does this for us to marvel at - for example in neutron stars, which consists almost entirely of neutrons held in a stable equilibrium due to quantum degeneracy pressure. I don't see how this could be done in a laboratory setting though.

Originally Posted by scheherazade

I suppose the answer to whether the universe was once non-physical depends on how we perceive and measure 'physical'. I would not be surprised learn that the majority of space is actually a physical domain that is beyond the range of our physical senses to perceive and that we have yet to design the technolgy to reveal. Space is not 'empty' IMO, we just tend to think of it as lacking in physical properties.

As for the computer simulation theory, each of us models our own simulation and then there is the collective simulation experienced by all of us. As for the whole universe being a simulation, that once again takes us into the realm of 'who designed the computer that designed the universe?'

It seems more like a recycling system to me, but that may be due to the limits of what I can perceive.

I really like your idea of what we can perceive. I know there is a limit to everything on one side and the reverse on the other. I am an intelligent design, so I guess the universe was created by both intelligence and ignorance since I am both.

Originally Posted by scheherazade

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by scheherazade

I suppose the answer to whether the universe was once non-physical depends on how we perceive and measure 'physical'. I would not be surprised learn that the majority of space is actually a physical domain that is beyond the range of our physical senses to perceive and that we have yet to design the technolgy to reveal. Space is not 'empty' IMO, we just tend to think of it as lacking in physical properties.

As for the computer simulation theory, each of us models our own simulation and then there is the collective simulation experienced by all of us. As for the whole universe being a simulation, that once again takes us into the realm of 'who designed the computer that designed the universe?'

It seems more like a recycling system to me, but that may be due to the limits of what I can perceive.

So do you think we are all recycled?

Our physical bits, obviously so.

The energy that becomes consciousness and enables the physical form to experience this awareness also must dissipate back into the sustaining medium.

It too gets utilized at some future time but there remains no discreet sense of self. That energy may never have biological form or self-awareness again. I am not proposing that each of us is a continuum of successive lives that we can recall through regression. I am suggesting that we are manifest energy embedded within a field of sustaining energy, 'something' from 'nothing' which returns to 'nothing' at the most elemental state of measure, a state which we are still trying to measure in the hopes of being able to influence same for commercial gain.

May we never succeed for we have not got the maturity as a species to manage such power responsibly. We do not even do a good job with our present set of skills. Bloody barbarians....that's us....

Wow!! So true.

Originally Posted by scheherazade

If I had a dollar for every 'something from nothing' thread that I have read across many forums in the last five years, it would be a rather tidy sum.

Personally, I'm still stuck with the problem of where the actual 'space' came from that the universe apparently occupies. The whole expanding universe thing is the tail on this conceptual dog, for once again, what space is 'space' expanding into?

For all my reading, I have not come across any certainties on the topic and I am reminded of Friedrich Nietzsche's comment, "It is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations…"

The various interpretations do make for some interesting reading, though.

There are so many I don't know that it is quite difficult to agree on anything pertaining to the beginning of the universe. I ask myself many time what’s the use, and to be honest I do not go into some of the do not know anymore. However, for what it’s worth, some esoteric knowledge says the following but does not explain why it was so. It mentions that before the two forces were divided there was no void, for some reason the force divided itself and created the void with space. The space made a buffer zone between the two forces and they attracted each other and created everything else. I guess most would have a lot of questions as I do. For me there is a gap in the manifestation of something out of nothing, so I have accepted that something did appear out of nothing.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Does that mean the universe is bounded by some membrane, the likes we've never encountered before?

No, the universe is not thought to possess a boundary; in the balloon analogy two dimensions are omitted. Bear in mind that even in the analogy, the surface of the balloon ( which is what represents the universe ) does not have a boundary.

In the balloon analogy, are we more likely to be on the inside or outside surface?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Does that mean the universe is bounded by some membrane, the likes we've never encountered before?

No, the universe is not thought to possess a boundary; in the balloon analogy two dimensions are omitted. Bear in mind that even in the analogy, the surface of the balloon ( which is what represents the universe ) does not have a boundary.

In the balloon analogy, are we more likely to be on the inside or outside surface?

How can it be a universe when it does not have a boundary? Not quite sure I understand that. Surely the balloon is in a space within the boundaries of the universe, that space outside the boundary of the universe is the space defining the space of both. Hope I am making some sense.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

In the balloon analogy, are we more likely to be on the inside or outside surface?

Remember that the balloon is only an analogy - the "inside" or "outside" of the surface has no physical meaning. One must always be careful to realise where the limits of a given analogy are.

How can it be a universe when it does not have a boundary?

Again, be careful not to over-extend the balloon analogy, which is simply a conceptual device to enable us to visualise what happens during metric expansion; it is otherwise not a suitable model for the universe. In the analogy the universe would correspond to the surface of the balloon ( not the balloon itself - there's a difference ! ), so it is immediately clear that this surface ( i.e. the universe ) does not have a boundary. In cosmology we also do not assume that the universe is embedded in a higher dimensional manifold, so there is no "outside".

Surely the balloon is in a space within the boundaries of the universe

Yes - but the balloon is only an analogy. We use it only to visualise expansion, not to give an accurate model of the geometry of the universe as a whole.

@ Stargate...

I appreciate your replies to my comments. The challenge with cosmology is that we are attempting to gain a perspective on something that we arose within and are an integral part of. We have evolved the concepts of 'nothing' and also of 'infinity' yet we cannot prove that either of these defined situations exist and therein lies the irony. We experience 'life' through our senses and as our senses and location are unique to each person, no two set of 'measurements' will ever be identical although there will be many commonalities that most will 'agree' to.

The sheer beauty of it all, in my opinion, is that we do not need to understand the mechanisms in order to appreciate the sensory input.

I have no desire to derail this thread, just wanted to let yourself and others know that I am actively following it as time allows.

Originally Posted by scheherazade

@ Stargate...

I appreciate your replies to my comments. The challenge with cosmology is that we are attempting to gain a perspective on something that we arose within and are an integral part of. We have evolved the concepts of 'nothing' and also of 'infinity' yet we cannot prove that either of these defined situations exist and therein lies the irony. We experience 'life' through our senses and as our senses and location are unique to each person, no two set of 'measurements' will ever be identical although there will be many commonalities that most will 'agree' to.

The sheer beauty of it all, in my opinion, is that we do not need to understand the mechanisms in order to appreciate the sensory input.

I have no desire to derail this thread, just wanted to let yourself and others know that I am actively following it as time allows.

I too look at cosmology with an understanding that no matter how I would like all my questions to be answered, some logically cannot be answered. Perfection cannot be because all would be perfect and there would be no room for improvement. I am quite satisfied with both states of not knowing and knowing, I get a real feeling of balance and humility that I am infinitely small and big at the same time. Like you, I appreciate what is, I do not find it necessary to have an answer to everything. Not that I am not interested in the cosmos and the share vastness and complexity of our universe, I am more tuned to people and the harmonious development of our planet.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

In the balloon analogy, are we more likely to be on the inside or outside surface?

Remember that the balloon is only an analogy - the "inside" or "outside" of the surface has no physical meaning. One must always be careful to realise where the limits of a given analogy are.

I didn't think I could trip you up on that one

Let's use another analogy..... There's a fish that can jump out of the water. When it does, it jumps from one environment to another. The water's surface is the end of one universe and the beginning of another so to speak. There's no membrane but there's a passable boundary. Now this fish can really jump and it just so happens it is powerful enough to leap all the way through Earth's atmosphere into space. Again it traverses one environment to get to another. There is no real membrane but there is a line or boundary to where it is 100% in space . Now before everybody starts thinking that I'm advocating a membrane-less boundary exists at the far reaches of the universe, well I'm not. It's just my turn to wax philosophic

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

In the balloon analogy, are we more likely to be on the inside or outside surface?

Remember that the balloon is only an analogy - the "inside" or "outside" of the surface has no physical meaning. One must always be careful to realise where the limits of a given analogy are.

I didn't think I could trip you up on that one

Let's use another analogy..... There's a fish that can jump out of the water. When it does, it jumps from one environment to another. The water's surface is the end of one universe and the beginning of another so to speak. There's no membrane but there's a passable boundary. Now this fish can really jump and it just so happens it is powerful enough to leap all the way through Earth's atmosphere into space. Again it traverses one environment to get to another. There is no real membrane but there is a line or boundary to where it is 100% in space . Now before everybody starts thinking that I'm advocating a membrane-less boundary exists at the far reaches of the universe, well I'm not. It's just my turn to wax philosophic

LOL...

Therein lies the problem.

My mind (or thought processes, whatever you wish to name such...) is capable of journeys that my skull (boundary) and body (limitations) are incapable of participating in.

It rather makes one contemplate how we could have evolved in such a manner as to extrapolate circumstances beyond that which we are capable of experiencing.

Originally Posted by scheherazade

LOL...

Therein lies the problem.

My mind (or thought processes, whatever you wish to name such...) is capable of journeys that my skull (boundary) and body (limitations) are incapable of participating in.

It rather makes one contemplate how we could have evolved in such a manner as to extrapolate circumstances beyond that which we are capable of experiencing.

I made that analogy in my mind, I don't think I've ever heard of something similar before but I stand corrected. I amazed myself because I'm really not philosophically inclined although I do possess the attributes of imagination like everyone else. To imagine something that you can't physically do or perceive requires some knowledge of things. I'm not saying that I'm a savant and believe me, I don't dream up analogies every day. My analogy is allowed in a philosophy subforum but I would need to prove a few things or write up a few equations if I wished to move it into the science arena.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

membrane-less boundary exists at the far reaches of the universe

Such a boundary would be a discontinuity in space-time, a place where world lines terminate. This would effectively amount to a singularity. I am not particularly comfortable with the notion of being surrounded by a shell-like singularity, and 4-dimensional geometry also does not lend itself to a universe with a boundary of this type.

Note - the honour of my 5000th post goes to you, it would seem

Originally Posted by scheherazade

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

In the balloon analogy, are we more likely to be on the inside or outside surface?

Remember that the balloon is only an analogy - the "inside" or "outside" of the surface has no physical meaning. One must always be careful to realise where the limits of a given analogy are.

I didn't think I could trip you up on that one

Let's use another analogy..... There's a fish that can jump out of the water. When it does, it jumps from one environment to another. The water's surface is the end of one universe and the beginning of another so to speak. There's no membrane but there's a passable boundary. Now this fish can really jump and it just so happens it is powerful enough to leap all the way through Earth's atmosphere into space. Again it traverses one environment to get to another. There is no real membrane but there is a line or boundary to where it is 100% in space . Now before everybody starts thinking that I'm advocating a membrane-less boundary exists at the far reaches of the universe, well I'm not. It's just my turn to wax philosophic

LOL...

Therein lies the problem.

My mind (or thought processes, whatever you wish to name such...) is capable of journeys that my skull (boundary) and body (limitations) are incapable of participating in.

It rather makes one contemplate how we could have evolved in such a manner as to extrapolate circumstances beyond that which we are capable of experiencing.

Agreed..and sometimes I think my body can take that journey and then it and my mind (pain) remind me that isn't so. I don't think we have finished evolving by far!

Is there such a thing as non-physical energy? I don't want to hear about the paranormal or consciousness, I'd like to know if science can tell me yes or no. Is there any real evidence for the non physical? Anything that could generally withstand scientific scrutiny and at least be labelled as having the possibility of evidence?

Let me switch for a moment to potential energy, is it a real physical thing? Is it the same as stored energy? I hear people say that if you have a nothing state then there is potential for something, yet I can't see how this is the same as potential or stored energy. In order for the known universe to be played out wouldn't there have been a lot of stored energy somewhere? Gravity for instance would have had to have been like a coiled spring ready to be unleashed, no?

Where the hell is somewhere? If it took a release of potential energy to jump start the universe would it have had to originate from somewhere? Once this energy was allowed to leave what became of somewhere? Is somewhere now a non physical realm spent of all its energy? An empty space with potential of being a somewhere once again? My head hurts.

does this count?

does this count?

Maybe, because in this case there is always a potential for an encore. Something I never considered.

I'm a sucker for french horns and kettle drums

my beloved spouse was playing the kettle drums the day I met her

and the finn
takes me where I want to go

Originally Posted by sculptor

does this count?

absolutely!! though in many ways it is more physical than it appears. *S*

Originally Posted by sculptor

I'm a sucker for french horns and kettle drums

my beloved spouse was playing the kettle drums the day I met her

and the finn
takes me where I want to go

Lesson in life...NEVER date a French Horn Player or a Drummer!!

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Is there such a thing as non-physical energy? I don't want to hear about the paranormal or consciousness, I'd like to know if science can tell me yes or no.

I would have to say no here.

Is there any real evidence for the non physical? Anything that could generally withstand scientific scrutiny and at least be labelled as having the possibility of evidence?

Non-physical as in paranormal, i.e. not explainable or testable ? Not to the best of my knowledge.

Let me switch for a moment to potential energy, is it a real physical thing?

It is real in the sense that - at least in classical physics - you can convert it to other types of energy. For example, if you let a snowball roll off a mountain, its potential energy gets converted to kinetic energy. Potential energy is not directly measurable, but its effects are.

Gravity for instance would have had to have been like a coiled spring ready to be unleashed, no?

I am not sure how I can answer this. To me gravity is strictly the manifestation of the geometry of space-time, so I wouldn't use any notion of potential energy to explain it. In fact, in General Relativity, gravitational potential energy is not well defined in the first place.

Where the hell is somewhere? If it took a release of potential energy to jump start the universe would it have had to originate from somewhere? Once this energy was allowed to leave what became of somewhere? Is somewhere now a non physical realm spent of all its energy? An empty space with potential of being a somewhere once again?

Ok, I think you need to be careful here - there is no reason to assume that the laws of classical physics can be extended to the BB event, so the above has probably little meaning.

If there is or was a 2d universe, could it expand forever? I'm thinking maybe yes but in only 2 directions or is there a limit? If I was a 2d creature living in that universe would I be able to sense a third dimension, like we sense time? My feeling is that 2d creatures would also sense time but not a 3rd dimension. In fact I think time would be sensed in any dimension.

Again this is my imagination on overdrive, not something I'm postulating. Going away for a few days, continue with more imagination at a later date.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

If there is or was a 2d universe, could it expand forever? I'm thinking maybe yes but in only 2 directions or is there a limit? If I was a 2d creature living in that universe would I be able to sense a third dimension, like we sense time? My feeling is that 2d creatures would also sense time but not a 3rd dimension. In fact I think time would be sensed in any dimension.

Not sure how to answer that without doing some maths first. Please note that a 2-D universe technically means one dimension of space and one dimension of time; I think there is very little you could be doing in that kind of setup.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Not sure how to answer that without doing some maths first. Please note that a 2-D universe technically means one dimension of space and one dimension of time; I think there is very little you could be doing in that kind of setup.

Change things up a bit. If the universe is infinite then how can it have spatial dimensions? What can you possibly measure spatially for something that never ends? As far as I understand, which isn't saying much, dimensions refer to moving particles/objects. Maybe objects is a bad choice of words but length, width, depth and time are co-ordinates for a moving particle's position in space time, as far as I know. Yet space time itself appears to be beyond measurement. Is space time on the move? Is space time dimensionless as in having no position?

Time is a dimension, this has been pretty well accepted. Space is not. Yet they say the two are entwined. Still, it's like I know time is there yet space is the thing I have to sense. According to many texts, the universe is 3D + 1, why can't it be 1D + 3?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Not sure how to answer that without doing some maths first. Please note that a 2-D universe technically means one dimension of space and one dimension of time; I think there is very little you could be doing in that kind of setup.

Change things up a bit. If the universe is infinite then how can it have spatial dimensions? What can you possibly measure spatially for something that never ends? As far as I understand, which isn't saying much, dimensions refer to moving particles/objects. Maybe objects is a bad choice of words but length, width, depth and time are co-ordinates for a moving particle's position in space time, as far as I know. Yet space time itself appears to be beyond measurement. Is space time on the move? Is space time dimensionless as in having no position?

Time is a dimension, this has been pretty well accepted. Space is not. Yet they say the two are entwined. Still, it's like I know time is there yet space is the thing I have to sense. According to many texts, the universe is 3D + 1, why can't it be 1D + 3?

,

Time is a dimension, this has been pretty well accepted. Space is not.

My question is probably not properly posed but I am doing my best. If time is accepted as a dimension and space is not, how can one dimension (time) be identified in space when they are intertwined. If space is not measurable can the size of the universe, be measurable?

Originally Posted by Stargate

My question is probably not properly posed but I am doing my best.

It's philosophy, just write what you feel. Everybody is allowed to think. It's all good except that when we make statements that go against the scientific norm or are just considered woo then I think it's a pretty good bet we'll be corrected. That's OK, helps to understand things. However there are still plenty of things science hasn't figured out yet, so using the imagination doesn't hurt any.

My problem and maybe yours is that I am just not wired correctly. To people like myself it seems as if there are gaps where none may exist. I form a picture from what science tells us. Forming an image is a clear indication to me that I don't quite understand what's being said. We'd all like to believe the images in our heads are profound, never before thought of, but in the reality of the scientific world they are but previously discarded thoughts lobbed into the waste basket of junk science. Then I'll go and think something like : how many dimensions do the thoughts in my head have? That's where our learned colleagues come in, they do their best to straighten us layman out. It isn't easy. I think it's the best way to learn, by asking questions. The guys here are pretty patient and will help out as long as you don't try to interject anything that hasn't scientifically been proven. Trick is not to take yourself seriously.

I don't think the universe is measurable in any direction.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I don't think the universe is measurable in any direction.

We are apparently able to ascertain that there are star formations 13 billion light years away so we are able to 'measure' within the universe. We have not yet been able to decide if we are within a universe that has boundaries or whether the concept of an infinite system is actually physically possible, though by definition it would not be provable.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

If the universe is infinite then how can it have spatial dimensions? What can you possibly measure spatially for something that never ends?

Dimensions aren't measurements as such - the number of dimensions tells you how many independent coordinates you need to uniquely specify a point in space-time. In our universe this happens to be three dimensions of space and one dimension of time. It doesn't tell you anything about whether that space-time is infinite in extent or not.

Maybe objects is a bad choice of words but length, width, depth and time are co-ordinates for a moving particle's position in space time, as far as I know.

Yes, that is pretty much the idea.

Yet space time itself appears to be beyond measurement.

Not necessarily. Just because the observable part of the universe appears flat does not mean that the universe as a whole is not finite.

Is space time on the move?

No, space-time is static.

Is space time dimensionless as in having no position?

Space-time is not a "thing" that exists embedded in some other structure, so no, it doesn't have a coordinate description itself. It can be thought of as the stage on which all other processes of the universe play themselves out.

Time is a dimension, this has been pretty well accepted. Space is not.

Not sure where you got that idea, but space is represented by three dimensions, so yes, it is a dimension too, just like time.

According to many texts, the universe is 3D + 1, why can't it be 1D + 3?

Science can't answer why the universe did not come into existence with some other mix of spatial and temporal dimensions, but we can analyse what such an alternative universe would be like. Consider this :



Surprisingly, a (1+3) universe turns out to be a stable construct - the only problem is that "normal" matter could not exist there, instead such a world would consist entirely of tachyons. It would be a very strange universe indeed !

Originally Posted by Stargate

My question is probably not properly posed but I am doing my best. If time is accepted as a dimension and space is not, how can one dimension (time) be identified in space when they are intertwined.

Both space and time are geometric dimensions, and they are intertwined on a manifold termed space-time.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Stargate

My question is probably not properly posed but I am doing my best.

It's philosophy, just write what you feel. Everybody is allowed to think. It's all good except that when we make statements that go against the scientific norm or are just considered woo then I think it's a pretty good bet we'll be corrected. That's OK, helps to understand things. However there are still plenty of things science hasn't figured out yet, so using the imagination doesn't hurt any.

My problem and maybe yours is that I am just not wired correctly. To people like myself it seems as if there are gaps where none may exist. I form a picture from what science tells us. Forming an image is a clear indication to me that I don't quite understand what's being said. We'd all like to believe the images in our heads are profound, never before thought of, but in the reality of the scientific world they are but previously discarded thoughts lobbed into the waste basket of junk science. Then I'll go and think something like : how many dimensions do the thoughts in my head have? That's where our learned colleagues come in, they do their best to straighten us layman out. It isn't easy. I think it's the best way to learn, by asking questions. The guys here are pretty patient and will help out as long as you don't try to interject anything that hasn't scientifically been proven. Trick is not to take yourself seriously.

I don't think the universe is measurable in any direction.

I have to tell you, this is the most strait forward post except for a few that I have read. It is not pretentious and arrogant and makes me feel not alone. Thank you.
To tell you the truth, I have so many questions left over from the stance that science takes at times. Sometimes I find it difficult to structure them and even make sense to myself. However, I do overcome the doubt most times and go ahead and ask them anyway to see what happens. I love science, but I did not study science as such, I am more a traveler, I go places and check things out for myself. The forum gives me a chance to talk to other people and see what they think about what I think.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Surprisingly, a (1+3) universe turns out to be a stable construct - the only problem is that "normal" matter could not exist there, instead such a world would consist entirely of tachyons. It would be a very strange universe indeed !

When did the first 'normal matter' come into existence? I know that the first few nanoseconds of the universe are a mystery but do we know exactly when the first particle was born? At the very beginning, time zero, does science think or know if matter existed? Was the BB actually an energy to matter event? We don't know what or if anything precluded the BB, however if energy was converted to matter then I would tend to think that there was no matter at the beginning, only energy.

Correct me if I'm wrong but can't matter form simply from energy itself, it doesn't need particles to collide with other particles to do so? I would think collisions would be minimal if everything at the BB dispersed outward from a point. Unless, and this is my imagination, the first particles to gain mass slow and the massless particles hit them from behind. Did something like that happen?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

I know that the first few nanoseconds of the universe are a mystery but do we know exactly when the first particle was born?

No, we don't know that with any degree of certainty; we don't even know if the question in itself is meaningful. What we can establish with some confidence is only that, at the end of the inflationary period, the universe was filled with something called a quark-gluon plasma, from which then the first baryons formed ( baryogenesis ).

At the very beginning, time zero, does science think or know if matter existed?

There is no way to answer this; anything that might have gone on at that stage is merely hypothesis. Personally I doubt very much that there is any meaning to this question, as our traditional notion of "space-time" cannot be applied here.

Was the BB actually an energy to matter event?

There is indeed an argument to be made to regard the BB event in this way.

Correct me if I'm wrong but can't matter form simply from energy itself, it doesn't need particles to collide with other particles to do so?

One possible such process would be quantum vacuum fluctuations, where a virtual particle-antiparticle pair forms from random energy fluctuations. The effects of these particles are measurable.

Did something like that happen?

I am not sure what exactly you have in mind here.

At the very beginning, time zero,

No matter how I try I cannot wrap time zero around my brain. I am used to time based on an observer. How can I see this as the begining with no time from my subjective perspective?

Originally Posted by Stargate

At the very beginning, time zero,

No matter how I try I cannot wrap time zero around my brain. I am used to time based on an observer. How can I see this as the begining with no time from my subjective perspective?

I think of it as any timed event...e.g. 100 metre dash, it starts at zero. I was thinking more the beginning of the universe and leaving it up to the individual to decide if time itself actually began at the same moment, makes no difference to me.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Stargate

At the very beginning, time zero,

No matter how I try I cannot wrap time zero around my brain. I am used to time based on an observer. How can I see this as the begining with no time from my subjective perspective?

I think of it as any timed event...e.g. 100 metre dash, it starts at zero. I was thinking more the beginning of the universe and leaving it up to the individual to decide if time itself actually began at the same time, makes no difference to me.

Where I am having the problem is, no track for even, no planet, no universe, no nothing, no observer, no time. Boom, observer, time.

Is the end of the universe easier or harder to contemplate? The Big Crunch scenario..... can science determine what would happen in the last few minutes of the universe if that were to occur? I guess since no one knows, our universe may have been born from the collapse of some other universe, part of an endless cycle that may have occurred any number of times.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Is the end of the universe easier or harder to contemplate? The Big Crunch scenario..... can science determine what would happen in the last few minutes of the universe if that were to occur? I guess since no one knows, our universe may have been born from the collapse of some other universe, part of an endless cycle that may have occurred any number of times.

Ok, I get your point.

There is no point. Even if our universe began when another one ended, it still doesn't help determine what occurred when the very first universe was born. We could be part of the trillionth universe that's ever come about but no further ahead in discovering what exactly brought the first one into existence. I'm thinking if our universe is the most recent in a cycle of universes then it may make that task even more difficult

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

There is no point. Even if our universe began when another one ended, it still doesn't help determine what occurred when the very first universe was born. We could be part of the trillionth universe that's ever come about but no further ahead in discovering what exactly brought the first one into existence. I'm thinking if our universe is the most recent in a cycle of universes then it may make that task even more difficult

So the question can never end and we will never stop asking it. Maybe in order for us to move to the next question, we have to know more about who we are?

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

There is no point. Even if our universe began when another one ended, it still doesn't help determine what occurred when the very first universe was born. We could be part of the trillionth universe that's ever come about but no further ahead in discovering what exactly brought the first one into existence. I'm thinking if our universe is the most recent in a cycle of universes then it may make that task even more difficult

So the question can never end and we will never stop asking it. Maybe in order for us to move to the next question, we have to know more about who we are?

Actually, if the universe is cyclical then it makes no difference if we figure out how it all started. Discovering who we are would also have little meaning.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

can science determine what would happen in the last few minutes of the universe if that were to occur?

Not yet, for the same reasons we cannot yet tell what happened immediately after the BB event.

I guess since no one knows, our universe may have been born from the collapse of some other universe, part of an endless cycle that may have occurred any number of times.

Yes, that is indeed a scientifically valid possibility.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

There is no point. Even if our universe began when another one ended, it still doesn't help determine what occurred when the very first universe was born. We could be part of the trillionth universe that's ever come about but no further ahead in discovering what exactly brought the first one into existence. I'm thinking if our universe is the most recent in a cycle of universes then it may make that task even more difficult

So the question can never end and we will never stop asking it. Maybe in order for us to move to the next question, we have to know more about who we are?

Actually, if the universe is cyclical then it makes no difference if we figure out how it all started. Discovering who we are would also have little meaning.

If we go back to the ancient Egyptians, they knew more about themselves and more about the universe than we seem to know. Using telescopes and other gadgets can never totally lead to the answers we seek. I do agree with you in that, what does it matter if we know that the universe is recycling, we already have evidence that it is. The question is though; would it help us to be more creative if we knew more about who we are? There is so much in our environment to study and grasp such as social behavior, health, and so on, yet we chase the answers to black holes, exploding stars, and the reason we think it all started with a big bang. It interests me to find out what would we do if we found out how the universe started. Obviously there would still be questions.

Originally Posted by Stargate

The question is though; would it help us to be more creative if we knew more about who we are?

I think the question I might ask, and remember this is only philosophical questioning, is whether each time the universe recycles it evolves? Would each successive universe be more upscale than its predecessor? Perhaps it might last longer, open up more dimensions, I don't know.