Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 124
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: How come our universe still exists?

  1. #1 How come our universe still exists? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    6
    I am not sure where to post this thread. Sorry if it is the wrong place. If it is, please move it to the correct forum, thanks in advance


    Hey


    How come our universe still exists?

    According to what I know our universe was created from a singularity, the big bang, a so called explosion. If everything, including all matter and energy, was created at the time of the big bang, then all matter must have been squeezed together in the first nanoseconds of our universe. How come that there wasn't a black hole, when all the matter from our universe was squeezed into that small place in the first second?

    If there was a black hole, how come our universe still exists?


    According to what I know, the definition of a black hole is an object so dense, that the gravity is so powerful, that not even light can escape. That means in order for matter to escape from the event horizon created by a black hole, then the matter MUST exceed the speed of light. According to Einstein's theory of relativity; In order for matter to travel faster than the speed of light, then you must need more than an infinity amount of energy. Then how come that the matter escaped from the event horizon at the beginning?
    All matter in our universe MUST have travelled faster than the speed of light in order to escape it. Does that mean that all the matter in our universe had more than an infinity amount of energy in the beginning, in order to escape?

    Why didn't the universe collapse by its own gravity, without using an infinitive amount of energy for the matter to escape?
    If there wasn't an infinity amount of energy at that time, then our universe must have collapsed by its own gravity or what?


    How come our universe still exists?

    Did our universe collapse by it's own gravity?
    Could our universe be a black hole?




    Thanks for reading, I really hope you understand and will answer my questions

    Sincerely,
    Mark


    Have a great day!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: How come our universe still exists? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Railton2
    I am not sure where to post this thread. Sorry if it is the wrong place. If it is, please move it to the correct forum, thanks in advance


    Hey


    How come our universe still exists?

    According to what I know our universe was created from a singularity, the big bang, a so called explosion. If everything, including all matter and energy, was created at the time of the big bang, then all matter must have been squeezed together in the first nanoseconds of our universe. How come that there wasn't a black hole, when all the matter from our universe was squeezed into that small place in the first second?

    If there was a black hole, how come our universe still exists?


    According to what I know, the definition of a black hole is an object so dense, that the gravity is so powerful, that not even light can escape. That means in order for matter to escape from the event horizon created by a black hole, then the matter MUST exceed the speed of light. According to Einstein's theory of relativity; In order for matter to travel faster than the speed of light, then you must need more than an infinity amount of energy. Then how come that the matter escaped from the event horizon at the beginning?
    All matter in our universe MUST have travelled faster than the speed of light in order to escape it. Does that mean that all the matter in our universe had more than an infinity amount of energy in the beginning, in order to escape?

    Why didn't the universe collapse by its own gravity, without using an infinitive amount of energy for the matter to escape?...
    As I understand it, matter didn't "explode" in the big bang. Space itself started expanding at a tremendous rate. The matter that was imbedded in each little chunk of space just "went along for the ride".

    Although special relativity says you can't accelerate a material object to the speed of light in your local space, it doesn't place any limit on how fast space itself can expand.

    If this sounds confusing, don't worry. I have a hard time trying to understand this concept myself. All I can say is that a lot of people who are a lot smarter than me have looked at this and according to them it all works out mathematically. I'm sure one would have to spend a long time in college in order to really understand the details.

    Chris


    It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.
    Robert H. Goddard - 1904
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    107
    Regarding expanding space (as opposed to space-time):-

    Suppose that there is a metre rule in this expanding space, would the rule expand along with the space? If it did, the space wouldn't appear to expand at all as the measure of a distance between points within it would be expanding too. On the other hand, if the metre rule didn't expand along with the space then, as time went by, one would be able to fit more metre rules into the space available. In other words, everything within the space could be seen as getting smaller. In this latter case, we could interpret expansion of the universe as being a consequence of everything becoming smaller in a universe of of fixed size.

    Which of these is an appropriate explanation of expanding space?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2
    I was ponding on a similiar thought of this the other day.

    Everything is made up of energy but what caused the energy to form into mass? People say the big bang and that begs the question what caused that. Well after a little thought i can up with a rather interesting idea.

    Are universe wasnt the first to be formed. As suns die they collapse and form black holes. As time goes on all the energy gets spread further and further outwards causing life to become no excistant. Well lets say the universe is like a planet and it has way to revive its self.

    As the energy spreads away from the centre more black holes are formed but what happens if 2 of these would collide? Lets say that 2 black holes are left and so far it has all ready sucked up all the mass that has been spread out across the universe. The gravital pull of each black hole would be massive causing the 2 gigantic black holes to move faster than the speed of light towards each other. Once collision is made an explosion like event is trigger spreading the mass/energy across into a new reborn universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Fool
    Which of these is an appropriate explanation of expanding space?
    The way you explained them, both options are equivalent. It depends on whether we choose to consider our rulers as invariant, or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    107
    They can't be equivalent. In the first case, the universe would be N metres across and N wouldn't change because the unit of measurement would expand along with the space it was measuring. In the second case, N would increase as the space expands but the unit of measurement doesn't.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Fool
    They can't be equivalent. In the first case, the universe would be N metres across and N wouldn't change because the unit of measurement would expand along with the space it was measuring. In the second case, N would increase as the space expands but the unit of measurement doesn't.
    Sorry, I wasn't talking about the first case, where the ruler expands with the universe. That is not what we infer from our observations.

    I was talking about the two different ways you described the second case (which is what we infer from what we observe), which are equivalent - either the distance between galaxies is increasing (the space gets larger but the ruler does not), or everything is becoming smaller in a universe of fixed size (the ruler gets smaller but the space does not).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    107
    Yes, I accept that you could interpret the second case either way. However, there still appears to be a problem with the notion of space expanding in such a way that all distances between bodies increase but the bodies themselves do not change. If space expanded in that sense, the distance between the earth and the sun would be steadily increasing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Fool
    Yes, I accept that you could interpret the second case either way. However, there still appears to be a problem with the notion of space expanding in such a way that all distances between bodies increase but the bodies themselves do not change. If space expanded in that sense, the distance between the earth and the sun would be steadily increasing.
    I think the general scientific interpretation of this "intuitive" effect is that, yes, space expands more or less continously at all scales at a rate that works out to be about 70 km/s per Megaparsec (3.26 million light years). The forces of chemical bonding, gravitational attraction and electrostatic attraction counteract this expansion, however. All matter that interacts with other matter in these ways simply finds a point of spatial separation where the binding forces they exprience are in equilibrium with the expanding "force" of expanding space. This expanding force is almost infinitesimal on solar system or even galactic scales.

    I once calculated that the "force" of expansion would result in the orbit of the Moon being about the width of a microbe larger than it would otherwise be without factoring in the Hubble constant. I can't say that my calculation is absolutely correct but, if anything, it probably overestimates the effect of cosmic expansion.

    Chris
    It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.
    Robert H. Goddard - 1904
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Billings Montana
    Posts
    71
    The Big Bang theory is a repeat of our inability to take ourselves out of the picture. The Big Bang has zero plausible cause and effect. And there is little reason to assume that a void exists now, in the future, or in the past. Nor is there any reason to assume that space has a finite dimension. Its substanance changes in time, as time itself is a tansition. Before we accept concepts of what might have been we might try to understand what is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Billings Montana
    Posts
    71
    Our observation of space is impacted by its motion. If all matter throughout all space is in motion our observations are impacted. For a civilization that has only identified a very limited number of fields of energy to proceed to define what the observe may produce a limited level of understanding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Railton2 View Post
    How come our universe still exists?
    Its expiration date is not up until December 21st.

    PS: The phonomenon of existence is not the result of cause and effect (creation). Existence is explained by a principle, not a process. It didn't 'begin' - not with Genesis nor with a Big Bang.

    http://www.theory-of-reciprocity.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Fool View Post

    Suppose that there is a metre rule in this expanding space, would the rule expand along with the space?
    Yes it would.

    If it did, the space wouldn't appear to expand at all as the measure of a distance between points within it would be expanding too.
    Wrong. Every point moves away from every other point. That means, the larger the distance, the more noticeable the effect becomes. It is not a linear expansion between two given points, but something more complicated.
    The meter long ruler would expand, but the expansion would be so small as to be unobservable. On the other hand, the distance between us and a galaxy very far away would increase very rapidly, and this effect is indeed observable.

    In this latter case, we could interpret expansion of the universe as being a consequence of everything becoming smaller in a universe of of fixed size.
    No that's not the case. The ruler does expand also, see above, but the effect is not linear.
    Also, a universe where matter shrinks ( thus becoming denser and hotter ) would be in violation of the second law of thermodynamics, and thus not possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Fool View Post
    Yes, I accept that you could interpret the second case either way. However, there still appears to be a problem with the notion of space expanding in such a way that all distances between bodies increase but the bodies themselves do not change. If space expanded in that sense, the distance between the earth and the sun would be steadily increasing.
    And so it does ( both distance between sun and earth expands, as well as the bodies themselves ), but the effect is so small as to be non-observable, even over long periods of time. The expansion only becomes significant over much larger scales, say galaxy clusters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Sir Hanke sems deeply enamored with the fallacy that the progressive red shift of elemental markers in spectra from distant galaxies is proof that a Big Bang Universe is still spewing from the bowels of some spontaneously spawned singularity in a process not governed by the laws of physics as we know them today. It is the contemporary scientific wisdom - the parable of creation.

    Fortunately, the phenomenon of exisence is not the result of cause and effect, indeed, the case is just the reverse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    spewing from the bowels of some spontaneously spawned singularity in a process not governed by the laws of physics as we know them today
    That is what is known as a "Straw Man" fallacy: invent your own version of the position you want to attack and then ridicule it. Well done.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Sir Hanke sems deeply enamored with the fallacy that the progressive red shift of elemental markers in spectra from distant galaxies is proof that a Big Bang Universe is still spewing from the bowels of some spontaneously spawned singularity in a process not governed by the laws of physics as we know them today. It is the contemporary scientific wisdom - the parable of creation.

    Fortunately, the phenomenon of exisence is not the result of cause and effect, indeed, the case is just the reverse.
    I said no such thing. I was merely explaining the mechanics of how metric expansion works. It is in perfect agreement with the laws of physics as we understand them. You are free to believe whatever you like as regards the origin and fate of the universe. Since you don't believe in the Big Bang, well then I suppose that it means this model must be wrong, ey ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    spewing from the bowels of some spontaneously spawned singularity in a process not governed by the laws of physics as we know them today
    That is what is known as a "Straw Man" fallacy: invent your own version of the position you want to attack and then ridicule it. Well done.
    I'm afraid your "Straw Man" is Stephen Hawking from Cambridge “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist….It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” – The Grand Design (Hawking and Mlodinow 2010)

    Hawking is not the only proponent of a conjured cosmos, just one of the more famous. There are too many citations from other eggheads to list here. Next time you want to cry straw man, be sure you're not the one with the perspective from OZ.
    Last edited by THoR; February 6th, 2012 at 04:26 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Sir Hanke sems deeply enamored with the fallacy that the progressive red shift of elemental markers in spectra from distant galaxies is proof that a Big Bang Universe is still spewing from the bowels of some spontaneously spawned singularity in a process not governed by the laws of physics as we know them today. It is the contemporary scientific wisdom - the parable of creation.

    Fortunately, the phenomenon of exisence is not the result of cause and effect, indeed, the case is just the reverse.
    I said no such thing. I was merely explaining the mechanics of how metric expansion works. It is in perfect agreement with the laws of physics as we understand them. You are free to believe whatever you like as regards the origin and fate of the universe. Since you don't believe in the Big Bang, well then I suppose that it means this model must be wrong, ey ?
    ABSOLUTELY. It is one of my pet ridicules.
    Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift' of elemental absorption markers in spectra from distant galaxies being Doppler related. Strangely, it seems the more distant the galaxy, the greater the shift appears and at the very 'fringes of the Universe', the red shift indicates galaxies are moving away from us at a pace faster than the speed of light...and accelerating. This is a burdensome inconvenience to contemporary cosmologists, and they have tried to explain it away by proposing that the seemingly extra-logical phenomenon is an illusion caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they seek to substantiate. Furthermore, the cosmic expansion premise relies heavily on the presumed existence of two hypothetical elements called dark energy and matter. Their existence is pure speculation. This is sloppy science at best. The mathematical incongruities of any falsely premised theory can easily be reconciled by the use of additional false premises and calculations reverse engineered to force the correct results.

    If you drop a white cue ball into a tub of cranberry juice (or, in my case, WINE), the deeper the tub, the redder it appears - but the cue ball is NOT accelerating. If you are a disciple of cosmology, you MUST be aware of the myriad of hypotheses that counter expansion...although, like a book, I would expect 14 billion year old light to turn yellow with age, not red (lol).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    You seem to have a few misconceptions there.

    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift' of elemental absorption markers in spectra from distant galaxies being Doppler related.
    No, cosmological redshift is not thought to be Doppler related, in as much as it has nothing to do with relative motion. This is a common misconception, based on the inference that increasing distance necessarily means relative motion is involved.

    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Strangely, it seems the more distant the galaxy, the greater the shift appears and at the very 'fringes of the Universe', the red shift indicates galaxies are moving away from us at a pace faster than the speed of light...and accelerating.
    They are not moving faster than light local to them, just as we aren't. Nobody is overtaking any photons. It is just that the expansion of the universe has carried our galaxies apart such that, if we were to travel that distance through the universe, they would have had to travel faster than light during the history of the universe in order to do so. We say that galaxy has an apparent recession velocity that is superluminal, but this says nothing about its peculiar velocity.

    And that distance where the apparent recession speed reaches c (the Hubble distance) is only 1/3 of the way to the edge of the observable universe.

    With any uniform expansion, the further away something is to begin with, the faster its apparent recession velocity - it is not the fringes of the universe where the rate of expansion is accelerating, it is happening across the observable universe. It is when we measured certain relationships between groups of events (supernovae) across the range of redshifts, we found the acceleration in the unexpected relationships between the light-curves of the closer groups, relative to the more distant, rather than the other way round.

    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    This is a burdensome inconvenience to contemporary cosmologists, and they have tried to explain it away by proposing that the seemingly extra-logical phenomenon is an illusion caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they seek to substantiate.
    It is only "extra-logical" if you equate it with motion through space, which it isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Furthermore, the cosmic expansion premise relies heavily on the presumed existence of two hypothetical elements called dark energy and matter.
    Not at all. The "cosmic expansion" premise relies on no such elements, but has had to accommodate them in the light of the evidence for them, firstly by inferring their existence due to our observations and then by looking for other evidence that would corroborate their existence . (We have evidence from gravitational lensing for dark matter, for instance)


    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Their existence is pure speculation.
    Not at all. We had a problem with General Relativity as it predicted the rotation speed of galaxies would decrease faster than was found to occur - this would only work if there was unseen matter in the equation. This dark matter would add greatly to the mass of the galaxy, but is very hard to detect. Then we started finding images of gravitationally lensed galaxies where the visible "lens" galaxy didn't seem to be massive enough to generate such results, but with dark matter it all fitted nicely!

    As for dark energy, apart from it explaining the acceleration of the rate of expansion, it also happened to be make up the "missing mass" of the universe as a whole, where we were previously coming to the conclusion that most of the mass of the universe was missing.

    Pure speculation?

    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    If you drop a white cue ball into a tub of cranberry juice (or, in my case, WINE), the deeper the tub, the redder it appears - but the cue ball is NOT accelerating. If you are a disciple of cosmology, you MUST be aware of the myriad of hypotheses that counter expansion...although, like a book, I would expect 14 billion year old light to turn yellow with age, not red (lol).
    And again, increasing redshift with distance is not the reason we think the expansion is accelerating. I am a disciple of cosmology and I am aware of the myriad of hypotheses that claim to counter expansion, but there is a reason that scientists stick with the current model - it works better. When alternative theories start working better than established theories, they become the established theories.
    Dave Wilson likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    You seem to have a few misconceptions there.

    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift' of elemental absorption markers in spectra from distant galaxies being Doppler related.
    No, cosmological redshift is not thought to be Doppler related, in as much as it has nothing to do with relative motion. This is a common misconception, based on the inference that increasing distance necessarily means relative motion is involved.
    Doppler is Doppler, regardless of the causality. Somehow the wavelength is getting longer. Matters not whether you consider it a relative velocity or the expansion of space. If a train were propelled in part by the magical elongation of its cars, the pitch of its whistle would change accordingly.
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Strangely, it seems the more distant the galaxy, the greater the shift appears and at the very 'fringes of the Universe', the red shift indicates galaxies are moving away from us at a pace faster than the speed of light...and accelerating.
    They are not moving faster than light local to them, just as we aren't. Nobody is overtaking any photons. It is just that the expansion of the universe has carried our galaxies apart such that, if we were to travel that distance through the universe, they would have had to travel faster than light during the history of the universe in order to do so. We say that galaxy has an apparent recession velocity that is superluminal, but this says nothing about its peculiar velocity.

    And that distance where the apparent recession speed reaches c (the Hubble distance) is only 1/3 of the way to the edge of the observable universe.
    When we can run 4Bil year-long tests on the nature of light, let me know. I probably won't be at the same email address . As a cow trying to learn calculus (BS in math - of course), I see Photons as hypothetical particles that scientists use to try to explain the particle properties of light (we should be standing in photon dust miles thick by now). In reality, light is the simple propagation of change (energy) thru a medium. There is a simpler explanation...but that is another debate. Care to engage?

    With any uniform expansion, the further away something is to begin with, the faster its apparent recession velocity - it is not the fringes of the universe where the rate of expansion is accelerating, it is happening across the observable universe. It is when we measured certain relationships between groups of events (supernovae) across the range of redshifts, we found the acceleration in the unexpected relationships between the light-curves of the closer groups, relative to the more distant, rather than the other way round.

    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    This is a burdensome inconvenience to contemporary cosmologists, and they have tried to explain it away by proposing that the seemingly extra-logical phenomenon is an illusion caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they seek to substantiate.
    It is only "extra-logical" if you equate it with motion through space, which it isn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Furthermore, the cosmic expansion premise relies heavily on the presumed existence of two hypothetical elements called dark energy and matter.
    Not at all. The "cosmic expansion" premise relies on no such elements, but has had to accommodate them in the light of the evidence for them, firstly by inferring their existence due to our observations and then by looking for other evidence that would corroborate their existence . (We have evidence from gravitational lensing for dark matter, for instance)


    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Their existence is pure speculation.
    Not at all. We had a problem with General Relativity as it predicted the rotation speed of galaxies would decrease faster than was found to occur - this would only work if there was unseen matter in the equation. This dark matter would add greatly to the mass of the galaxy, but is very hard to detect. Then we started finding images of gravitationally lensed galaxies where the visible "lens" galaxy didn't seem to be massive enough to generate such results, but with dark matter it all fitted nicely!

    As for dark energy, apart from it explaining the acceleration of the rate of expansion, it also happened to be make up the "missing mass" of the universe as a whole, where we were previously coming to the conclusion that most of the mass of the universe was missing.

    Pure speculation?
    CERN, FNAL and SLAC all admit the speculative nature of it, but I ACTUALLY FOUND IT...the cosmos is infinite AND unbounded. There is an infinite amount of mass outside our ability to detect. What is the effect of infinite mass at a distance? BTW...is the cosmological constant the same in all quadrants of the cosmos (master's thesis anyone??)
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    If you drop a white cue ball into a tub of cranberry juice (or, in my case, WINE), the deeper the tub, the redder it appears - but the cue ball is NOT accelerating. If you are a disciple of cosmology, you MUST be aware of the myriad of hypotheses that counter expansion...although, like a book, I would expect 14 billion year old light to turn yellow with age, not red (lol).
    And again, increasing redshift with distance is not the reason we think the expansion is accelerating. I am a disciple of cosmology and I am aware of the myriad of hypotheses that claim to counter expansion, but there is a reason that scientists stick with the current model - it works better. When alternative theories start working better than established theories, they become the established theories.[/QUOTE]

    Don't think inside the box. Don't think outside the box. Think without the box. I enjoy the intellectual exchange. Unfortunately most of the other boards I post to tend to degenerate into ad hominem rebuttals when posed with simple logic that threatens their "book smarts". Guess when I was studying physics 40 years ago I might have assumed the same defensive posture.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    spewing from the bowels of some spontaneously spawned singularity in a process not governed by the laws of physics as we know them today
    That is what is known as a "Straw Man" fallacy: invent your own version of the position you want to attack and then ridicule it. Well done.
    I'm afraid your "Straw Man" is Stephen Hawking from Cambridge [I]“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist….It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” – The Grand Design (Hawking and Mlodinow 2010)
    Firstly, note how little that quote from Hawking has in common with your version. Apart from anything else, he believes that the creation of the universe was caused by the laws of physics as opposed to your "not governed by the laws of physics as we know them today".

    Secondly, this is Hawking's speculation about the creation of he universe, which has little to do with the big bang theory (which is what I assume you were attempting to critique). I don't know that many people agree with him. As far as I am concerned it has, currently, as little scientific support as Penrose's version, God, or the idea that the universe was created from unicorn droppings.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    [QUOTE=THoR;306489]

    Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift'
    No, you got that upside down. BBT is a cosmological model originating from GR, the redshift issue is taken as an indication for its validity.

    the red shift indicates galaxies are moving away from us at a pace faster than the speed of light...and accelerating. This is a burdensome inconvenience to contemporary cosmologists
    Not at all. It is perfectly in line with the proposed model of metric expansion. Since every point in space is moving away from every other point, the natural consequence is that the further an object is away from us the fast it appears to move. This motion is of course only apparent; the local velocity will never increase as a result of this expansion.

    Furthermore, the cosmic expansion premise relies heavily on the presumed existence of two hypothetical elements called dark energy and matter.
    No, the two have nothing to do with each other.

    Their existence is pure speculation.
    I agree, it is speculation in so far as they have not been observed directly. Their existence has been inferred through observation.

    you MUST be aware of the myriad of hypotheses that counter expansion
    Such as...?

    Don't think inside the box. Don't think outside the box. Think without the box. I enjoy the intellectual exchange. Unfortunately most of the other boards I post to tend to degenerate into ad hominem rebuttals when posed with simple logic that threatens their "book smarts". Guess when I was studying physics 40 years ago I might have assumed the same defensive posture.
    In a way I would agree with this, however, one must be careful to search for better alternatives, not just any old model, and any alternative must of course be able to explain all the observations made.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    spewing from the bowels of some spontaneously spawned singularity in a process not governed by the laws of physics as we know them today
    That is what is known as a "Straw Man" fallacy: invent your own version of the position you want to attack and then ridicule it. Well done.
    I'm afraid your "Straw Man" is Stephen Hawking from Cambridge [I]“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist….It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” – The Grand Design (Hawking and Mlodinow 2010)
    Firstly, note how little that quote from Hawking has in common with your version. Apart from anything else, he believes that the creation of the universe was caused by the laws of physics as opposed to your "not governed by the laws of physics as we know them today".
    In cosmological analysis, the laws of physics break down as you regressively approach the time of the big bang - at about t=10-43 - and there is no explanation for the cause the big bang itself. You should know this stuff...or are you just baiting?
    Secondly, this is Hawking's speculation about the creation of he universe, which has little to do with the big bang theory (which is what I assume you were attempting to critique). I don't know that many people agree with him. As far as I am concerned it has, currently, as little scientific support as Penrose's version, God, or the idea that the universe was created from unicorn droppings.
    Simple logic : Before something can change - act or be acted upon - it must exist. Anyone who dissents must believe in things that don't exist. This simple axiom means cause and effect is a function of the phemonenon of existence - NOT the reverse. The cosmos wasn't 'created' and it did not begin. The phenomenon of existence is explained by a principle, not a process.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    In cosmological analysis, the laws of physics break down as you regressively approach the time of the big bang - at about t=10-43 - and there is no explanation for the cause the big bang itself. You should know this stuff...or are you just baiting?
    That is exactly what I said.

    You were responding to a comment about current cosmological expansion (as predicted by general relativity and confirmed by observation) with your "spewing from the bowels" version of the creation of the universe. That is why I said it was a good example of the straw man fallacy: you argued against something different and made it sound ridiculous.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    [QUOTE=Markus Hanke;306573]
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post

    Big Bang theory depends upon the interpretation of the observed 'red shift'
    No, you got that upside down. BBT is a cosmological model originating from GR, the redshift issue is taken as an indication for its validity.
    Quite true, I misspoke. Should have said cosmological expansion instead of Big Bang. Actually the phenomenon of critical mass is quite common throughout the Universe and I admit the possibility that such could occur on an intergalactic scale, but I am not convinced. CONSIDER: Given a finite number of particles randomly vectored within a finite volume, eventually within a finite time all collisions that could occur will occur and all the particles will be MOVING AWAY FROM EACH OTHER, Some collisions may occur outside the initial volume, but still within a finite space.
    the red shift indicates galaxies are moving away from us at a pace faster than the speed of light...and accelerating. This is a burdensome inconvenience to contemporary cosmologists
    Not at all. It is perfectly in line with the proposed model of metric expansion. Since every point in space is moving away from every other point, the natural consequence is that the further an object is away from us the fast it appears to move. This motion is of course only apparent; the local velocity will never increase as a result of this expansion.
    My objection is that they are using the conclusion to prove the conclusion.
    Furthermore, the cosmic expansion premise relies heavily on the presumed existence of two hypothetical elements called dark energy and matter.
    No, the two have nothing to do with each other.

    Their existence is pure speculation.
    I agree, it is speculation in so far as they have not been observed directly. Their existence has been inferred through observation.

    you MUST be aware of the myriad of hypotheses that counter expansion
    Such as...?
    Two of my favorites that come to mind: http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/Di...ABeginning.asp and http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ .
    Don't think inside the box. Don't think outside the box. Think without the box. I enjoy the intellectual exchange. Unfortunately most of the other boards I post to tend to degenerate into ad hominem rebuttals when posed with simple logic that threatens their "book smarts". Guess when I was studying physics 40 years ago I might have assumed the same defensive posture.
    In a way I would agree with this, however, one must be careful to search for better alternatives, not just any old model, and any alternative must of course be able to explain all the observations made.
    Last edited by THoR; February 7th, 2012 at 09:48 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    In cosmological analysis, the laws of physics break down as you regressively approach the time of the big bang - at about t=10-43 - and there is no explanation for the cause the big bang itself. You should know this stuff...or are you just baiting?
    That is exactly what I said.

    You were responding to a comment about current cosmological expansion (as predicted by general relativity and confirmed by observation) with your "spewing from the bowels" version of the creation of the universe. That is why I said it was a good example of the straw man fallacy: you argued against something different and made it sound ridiculous.
    I musta missed the class that discussed that law of physics which explains the creation of things from nothing (Hawking). Did they cast the chant Abracadabra or Hocus Pocus?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    I musta missed the class that discussed that law of physics which explains the creation of things from nothing (Hawking). Did they cast the chant Abracadabra or Hocus Pocus?
    Huh? We are both saying that science does not (currently) explain the creation of the universe. On this one thing, we both seem to agree.

    However, this has got nothing to do with cosmology, expansion, red shifts, etc. against which you were using it as a straw man. I think you missed the class on reading comprehension.
    Last edited by Strange; February 7th, 2012 at 01:52 PM. Reason: cured my unfortunate movement
    MeteorWayne likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Two of my favorites that come to mind: DID THE UNIVERSE HAVE A BEGINNING?
    You do realise that Tom Van Flandern was one of the main proponents of all that "Face on Mars" and "Cydonia" nonsense, don't you? Metaresearch is NOT a reputable source.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Doppler is Doppler, regardless of the causality. Somehow the wavelength is getting longer. Matters not whether you consider it a relative velocity or the expansion of space. If a train were propelled in part by the magical elongation of its cars, the pitch of its whistle would change accordingly.

    Wrong. The wavelength of light also gets longer with gravitational redshift - so you think that is Doppler too?

    We can describe cosmological redshift as being due to the change in the gravitational density of the universe, where the light is climbing out of a universe that was gravitationally denser in the past than it is today. Cosmological redshift is not related to Doppler effect in the way you seem to imagine. Do you understand that?

    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    When we can run 4Bil year-long tests on the nature of light, let me know. I probably won't be at the same email address . As a cow trying to learn calculus (BS in math - of course), I see Photons as hypothetical particles that scientists use to try to explain the particle properties of light (we should be standing in photon dust miles thick by now). In reality, light is the simple propagation of change (energy) thru a medium. There is a simpler explanation...but that is another debate. Care to engage?

    Now that is a completely transparent tactic and is a sign that you obviously do not have enough knowledge of the theory you are arguing against.

    Want to try again?

    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    CERN, FNAL and SLAC all admit the speculative nature of it, but I ACTUALLY FOUND IT...the cosmos is infinite AND unbounded. There is an infinite amount of mass outside our ability to detect. What is the effect of infinite mass at a distance? BTW...is the cosmological constant the same in all quadrants of the cosmos (master's thesis anyone??)
    This is a pointless exchange - I point out that your arguments are based on misconceptions about the theory and your reply is to keep changing the subject. Why not address my comments? Or alternatively, why not see how you fare on the crackpot index?

    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Don't think inside the box. Don't think outside the box. Think without the box. I enjoy the intellectual exchange. Unfortunately most of the other boards I post to tend to degenerate into ad hominem rebuttals when posed with simple logic that threatens their "book smarts". Guess when I was studying physics 40 years ago I might have assumed the same defensive posture.
    You have yet to post any simple knowledge that threatens my "book smarts" - you won't even address the misconceptions I pointed out to you.

    It is good to have an open mind, but make sure you don't leave it so open that your brain falls out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    I musta missed the class that discussed that law of physics which explains the creation of things from nothing.
    I take it you haven't studied Quantum theory then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Doppler is Doppler, regardless of the causality. Somehow the wavelength is getting longer. Matters not whether you consider it a relative velocity or the expansion of space. If a train were propelled in part by the magical elongation of its cars, the pitch of its whistle would change accordingly.

    Wrong. The wavelength of light also gets longer with gravitational redshift - so you think that is Doppler too?
    Each time light is diffracted the red wavelength bends less than the violet. Over light years of distance encountering dust and celestial bodies that poor old violet wave must travel a lot farther than its red cousin.
    We can describe cosmological redshift as being due to the change in the gravitational density of the universe, where the light is climbing out of a universe that was gravitationally denser in the past than it is today. Cosmological redshift is not related to Doppler effect in the way you seem to imagine. Do you understand that?

    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    When we can run 4Bil year-long tests on the nature of light, let me know. I probably won't be at the same email address . As a cow trying to learn calculus (BS in math - of course), I see Photons as hypothetical particles that scientists use to try to explain the particle properties of light (we should be standing in photon dust miles thick by now). In reality, light is the simple propagation of change (energy) thru a medium. There is a simpler explanation...but that is another debate. Care to engage?

    Now that is a completely transparent tactic and is a sign that you obviously do not have enough knowledge of the theory you are arguing against.

    Want to try again?

    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    CERN, FNAL and SLAC all admit the speculative nature of it, but I ACTUALLY FOUND IT...the cosmos is infinite AND unbounded. There is an infinite amount of mass outside our ability to detect. What is the effect of infinite mass at a distance? BTW...is the cosmological constant the same in all quadrants of the cosmos (master's thesis anyone??)
    This is a pointless exchange - I point out that your arguments are based on misconceptions about the theory and your reply is to keep changing the subject. Why not address my comments? Or alternatively, why not see how you fare on the crackpot index?

    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Don't think inside the box. Don't think outside the box. Think without the box. I enjoy the intellectual exchange. Unfortunately most of the other boards I post to tend to degenerate into ad hominem rebuttals when posed with simple logic that threatens their "book smarts". Guess when I was studying physics 40 years ago I might have assumed the same defensive posture.
    You have yet to post any simple knowledge that threatens my "book smarts" - you won't even address the misconceptions I pointed out to you.

    It is good to have an open mind, but make sure you don't leave it so open that your brain falls out.
    I never had the branes to study String or M theory...I tend more toward reading Wells and Carroll for fantasy.

    The thread, in case you'd forgotten, was why does the universe still exist. This implies the questioner believes at some point it didn't and was created. Get ready now...simple knowledge coming at ya....

    BEFORE SOMETHING CAN CHANGE (ACT OR BE ACTED UPON) IT MUST EXIST. Simple axiom. To disagree you godda believe in things that don't exist. What this simple axiom means is that cause and effect is a function of the phenomenon of existence, NOT THE REVERSE. The questioner has obviously been misled by the scientific pundits to believe the universe began - and more specifically that 13.5 billion years ago space and time didn't exist. Hogwash. You can debate the logic of the axiom or deflect, try to save face and just keep complaining about my supposed misconceptions (bet I know which one you'll select)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Each time light is diffracted the red wavelength bends less than the violet. Over light years of distance encountering dust and celestial bodies that poor old violet wave must travel a lot farther than its red cousin.
    What on Earth has diffraction got to do with gravitational redshift, which is not Doppler based?

    Now, if you are suggesting that light encountering dust etc, might be responsible for cosmological redshift, you will find that the light will scatter and not remain coherent over such distances, and so that particular avenue has already been ruled out. You will have to find a mechanism through which might light interact with dust etc without scattering. For more information on this, your search term is "tired light".

    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    I never had the branes to study String or M theory...I tend more toward reading Wells and Carroll for fantasy.
    Who mentioned either?

    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    The thread, in case you'd forgotten, was why does the universe still exist. This implies the questioner believes at some point it didn't and was created. Get ready now...simple knowledge coming at ya....
    STOP RIGHT THERE! (and drop the attitude)

    The questioner in the OP talks of the universe as a singularity before the Big-Bang, and the question is basically why, if the universe was already within its own Schwarzschild radius, did it not behave as a black hole and remain a singularity. There is no implication here of the non-existence of the universe, only of the universe existing as a singularity, or expanding from that.

    The question itself is based on a misconception - that because the theory predicts a universal singularity when we run the model backwards far enough, that singularity represents a physical reality, rather than (as is completely accepted in the physics world) the singularity representing the point when our theory breaks.

    The theory does not say the universe came from nothing. You will not find that prediction made by any part of the theory (if you want to check, the current cosmological model is known as the Lambda-Cold Dark Matter Concordance model). The theory simply says nothing about where the universe came from. It cannot say anything, because there is a singularity in the way.

    That is the actual state of the affair, but unfortunately a lot of misguided people (who, admittedly have often been badly guided by pop-sci popularisations) seem to think the theory is actually trying to tell us that everything in the universe was once contained within a point with zero volume! Nobody really thinks that, you know.

    What we think is that we need to find a theory that links the quantum world with gravity in order to probe further into the origins of the universe. That's it.

    So, there is absolutely no need for:
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    BEFORE SOMETHING CAN CHANGE (ACT OR BE ACTED UPON) IT MUST EXIST. Simple axiom. To disagree you godda believe in things that don't exist. What this simple axiom means is that cause and effect is a function of the phenomenon of existence, NOT THE REVERSE. The questioner has obviously been misled by the scientific pundits to believe the universe began - and more specifically that 13.5 billion years ago space and time didn't exist. Hogwash. You can debate the logic of the axiom or deflect, try to save face and just keep complaining about my supposed misconceptions (bet I know which one you'll select)
    You are not arguing against what the theory says, you are arguing against your own misconceptions about it. Nobody is arguing with your axiom, not even Stephen Hawking with his recent speculations (which are, as far as I am aware, not part of the current theory). For the universe to be able to "pop into existence" due to quantum probability, the laws of quantum probability have to exist, no?
    Last edited by SpeedFreek; February 7th, 2012 at 05:53 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    SpeedFreek has covered everything I was going to say. But...

    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    The thread, in case you'd forgotten, was why does the universe still exist. This implies the questioner believes at some point it didn't and was created.
    Just as a point of simple logic (disregarding any physics), the question "why does it still exist", implies nothing about a state of non-existence or about the creation of "it" (whatever "it" refers to). It simply says, "X existed in the past, why does it still exist".

    You are so passionate to present your view of the creation (or otherwise) of the universe that you are not stopping to think.
    brane wave likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    I never had the branes to study String or M theory...
    Is this on purpose ? If not, one might infer that you don't have the brains for spelling either...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I never had the branes to study String or M theory...
    Is this on purpose ? If not, one might infer that you don't have the brains for spelling either...
    I think it was a weak attempt at humour, but was a reply to a comment I made asking whether THoR had studied Quantum theory (where we do have "something coming from nothing"). He obviously doesn't know the difference between that and Sting or M-Theory, or if he does know the difference he decided to change the subject again. Whatever...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I never had the branes to study String or M theory...
    Is this on purpose ? If not, one might infer that you don't have the brains for spelling either...
    I think it was a weak attempt at humour, but was a reply to a comment I made asking whether THoR had studied Quantum theory (where we do have "something coming from nothing"). He obviously doesn't know the difference between that and Sting or M-Theory, or if he does know the difference he decided to change the subject again. Whatever...
    Best I can tell QM and String theory all seek the same solutions but QM uses only fewer spatial dimensions.

    I understand that there are a number of cogent disciples of learning from cosmology to particle physics who don't claim all space/time and matter/energy was created in an instant of cosmic inflation called BBang. With a spectrum of scopes and particle accellerators you observe, measure and record for the benefit of the common knowledge. An admirable profession. But once that data is crunched, interpretations sprout. They vary from source to source. I have little argument over the data, but from what I observe in the scientific community, I have a major problem with the interpretation.

    From Hawking (ibid) to Michio Kaku the mantra seems to be:

    1) The existence cosmos began with a spontaneous singularity (they do NOT specify the KNOWN universe)
    2) The cosmos is 13.5 years old
    3) The cosmos (not the KNOWN universe) is finite (if it began it would have to be unless it expanded for an infinite time or rate) but unbounded (DOUBLETALK)

    I won't even get into multiverses, string brains (lol), going back in time (accellerating forward is easy), etc. There are overlooking a few simple principles that contradict these hypotheses

    If Hawking changed his mind about creation, bully for him. That fact didn't reach me until you so stated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    I have little argument over the data, but from what I observe in the scientific community, I have a major problem with the interpretation.
    I assume you mean: "but from what I observe in the popular press".

    1) The existence cosmos began with a spontaneous singularity (they do NOT specify the KNOWN universe)
    That may be what some say, particularly in popular books and articles. But it is not what the science says.

    2) The cosmos is 13.5 years old
    Give or take a few billion

    3) The cosmos (not the KNOWN universe) is finite
    It is not known (and some argue, can never be known) if it is finite or infinite. (Note, if it is infinite, then I assume it must always have been infinite)

    If Hawking changed his mind about creation, bully for him. That fact didn't reach me until you so stated.
    I am not aware that he has changed his mind. On the other hand, I am not aware of any law of nature that says he is always right.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    I have little argument over the data, but from what I observe in the scientific community, I have a major problem with the interpretation.
    I assume you mean: "but from what I observe in the popular press".

    1) The existence cosmos began with a spontaneous singularity (they do NOT specify the KNOWN universe)
    That may be what some say, particularly in popular books and articles. But it is not what the science says.
    The old post from SLAC is no longer online but I guess Fermilab could be considered fairly popular. Fermilab | Science at Fermilab | Questions for the Universe | The Birth of the Universe | How did the universe come to be? "According to current theories of cosmic evolution, the universe begins with an “initial singularity,” a point where all known laws of physics break down. This singularity produced a delicately balanced universe, like a pencil so precisely balanced on its point that it stays upright for 14 billion years. How did the universe reach such a state? How did it get to be so old? Why has it not blasted even further apart or collapsed back on itself?"



    2) The cosmos is 13.5 years old
    Give or take a few billion
    If existence is not the result of cause and effect (change) it is not a function of time. The condition of the KNOWN universe may be related to some intergalactic supercriticality, but only a few scholarly pundits acknowledge there may be more out there than we know...and then they call it MULTIVERSE. PLEEEEEEEZ ! ! Words mean things. Use them correctly. The universe is everything that exists (note I did not say all that exists, for there IS no all. Infinity is not limited or defined.)

    3) The cosmos (not the KNOWN universe) is finite
    It is not known (and some argue, can never be known) if it is finite or infinite. (Note, if it is infinite, then I assume it must always have been infinite)
    If the universe were finite then at any given instant and for every point within it there exists another point within a finite distance at which motion in any direction will not increase the distance between the two. Expand your "finite but unbounded" sphere example as fast as you want, there is no such point - you will reach a point where one of the XYZ coordinates begins to return toward the origin.
    If Hawking changed his mind about creation, bully for him. That fact didn't reach me until you so stated.
    I am not aware that he has changed his mind. On the other hand, I am not aware of any law of nature that says he is always right.
    If you concur that the phenomenon of existence is not the result of cause and effect, I'd offer a new thread to propose a totally wacko perspective that somehow seems to simultaneously solve many of the enigmas of science. Beware, it posits:

    1) The phenomenon of existence is based on a principle, not a process (creation)
    2) The cosmos wasn't created and it is infinite
    3) Time is a measurement and space is an element
    4) Anti-particles are particles in opposing condition, not opposite existences
    5) Fundamental particles have substructure

    It is all based on a fundamental principle that is the architecture of the equation itself
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    I have little argument over the data, but from what I observe in the scientific community, I have a major problem with the interpretation.
    I assume you mean: "but from what I observe in the popular press".

    1) The existence cosmos began with a spontaneous singularity (they do NOT specify the KNOWN universe)
    That may be what some say, particularly in popular books and articles. But it is not what the science says.
    The old post from SLAC is no longer online but I guess Fermilab could be considered fairly popular. Fermilab | Science at Fermilab | Questions for the Universe | The Birth of the Universe | How did the universe come to be? "According to current theories of cosmic evolution, the universe begins with an “initial singularity,” a point where all known laws of physics break down. This singularity produced a delicately balanced universe, like a pencil so precisely balanced on its point that it stays upright for 14 billion years. How did the universe reach such a state? How did it get to be so old? Why has it not blasted even further apart or collapsed back on itself?"
    And where does it say "spontaneous" as you did? Where is the implication of "nothing" "before" the singularity? How do you interpret this to mean we are saying the universe was spontaneously created from nothing?

    It explicitly states that we reach a point where the known laws of physics of physics break down - the singularity. So, the laws of physics are not telling us there was nothing before the singularity, they are telling us nothing about before the singularity.

    http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBB

    What came before the Big Bang?

    The standard Big Bang model is singular at the time of the Big Bang, t = 0. This means that one cannot even define time, since spacetime is singular. In some models like the chaotic or perpetual inflation favored by Linde, the Big Bang is just one of many inflating bubbles in a spacetime foam. But there is no possibility of getting information from outside our own one bubble. Thus I conclude that: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
    brane wave likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    I have little argument over the data, but from what I observe in the scientific community, I have a major problem with the interpretation.
    I assume you mean: "but from what I observe in the popular press".

    1) The existence cosmos began with a spontaneous singularity (they do NOT specify the KNOWN universe)
    That may be what some say, particularly in popular books and articles. But it is not what the science says.
    The old post from SLAC is no longer online but I guess Fermilab could be considered fairly popular. Fermilab | Science at Fermilab | Questions for the Universe | The Birth of the Universe | How did the universe come to be? "According to current theories of cosmic evolution, the universe begins with an “initial singularity,” a point where all known laws of physics break down. This singularity produced a delicately balanced universe, like a pencil so precisely balanced on its point that it stays upright for 14 billion years. How did the universe reach such a state? How did it get to be so old? Why has it not blasted even further apart or collapsed back on itself?"
    And where does it say "spontaneous" as you did? Where is the implication of "nothing" "before" the singularity? How do you interpret this to mean we are saying the universe was spontaneously created from nothing?
    I reiterate - Stephen Hawking “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing," The basis of my thesis (op cit) is a 40 year collection of references and I often cite from more than one source to boil what I perceive to be the conventional wisdom down to its essence. And being a writer, the phrase still spewing from the bowels of some spontaneously spawned singularity appeals to me. I often prefer alliteracy to illiteracy.

    It explicitly states that we reach a point where the known laws of physics of physics break down - the singularity. So, the laws of physics are not telling us there was nothing before the singularity, they are telling us nothing about before the singularity.
    Yeah, it's kind of strange to tout an 'after' for which there was no 'before - but then: In the Beginning Ntl Center for Supercomputing Applications - Urbana Illinois "At the instant of the Big Bang, the universe was infinitely dense and unimaginably hot. Cosmologists believe that all forms of matter and energy, as well as space and time itself, were formed at this instant. " I think I have about a dozen of these in my archive, but this quote is the shortest and most succinct.

    Scratch that (above)...too old - just reviewed it and is it 1995 vintage. I'm at work and don't have access to my archive, but this concept is still around and wide spread.

    This one is a bit more contemporary version of T=0 http://web.mit.edu/physics/people/fa...guth_alan.html Another intriguing feature of inflation is that almost all versions of inflation are eternal—once inflation starts, it never stops completely. Inflation has ended in our part of the universe, but very far away one expects that inflation is continuing, and will continue forever. Is it possible, then, that inflation is also eternal into the past? Recently Guth has worked with Alex Vilenkin (Tufts) and Arvind Borde (Southampton College) to show that the inflating region of spacetime must have a past boundary, and that some new physics, perhaps a quantum theory of creation, would be needed to understand it.
    Last edited by THoR; February 8th, 2012 at 12:29 PM. Reason: Addition
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    There are overlooking a few simple principles that contradict these hypotheses
    Do they ? News to me. Perhaps you could enlightened us ?

    "At the instant of the Big Bang, the universe was infinitely dense and unimaginably hot. Cosmologists believe that all forms of matter and energy, as well as space and time itself, were formed at this instant. "
    I don't see any statement about there not being a "before" in that sentence. All it says is that space and time itself was formed at that instant, meaning that "before" isn't defined in that context. That doesn't mean there was nothing there.
    And what is your point anyway ? Is a universe that was always there any easier to explain and comprehend ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    There are overlooking a few simple principles that contradict these hypotheses
    Do they ? News to me. Perhaps you could enlightened us ?
    Yes, perhaps.
    "At the instant of the Big Bang, the universe was infinitely dense and unimaginably hot. Cosmologists believe that all forms of matter and energy, as well as space and time itself, were formed at this instant. "
    I don't see any statement about there not being a "before" in that sentence. All it says is that space and time itself was formed at that instant, meaning that "before" isn't defined in that context. That doesn't mean there was nothing there.
    And what is your point anyway ? Is a universe that was always there any easier to explain and comprehend ?
    Vastly so.
    Once you rid yourself of the very human bias of believing existence is the result of cause and effect it all fits into place.
    And if you ponder it long enough you will discover the principle (not process) that reconciles the phenomenon of existence with the canons of logic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Once you rid yourself of the very human bias of believing existence is the result of cause and effect it all fits into place.
    And if you ponder it long enough you will discover the principle (not process) that reconciles the phenomenon of existence with the canons of logic.
    Well, perhaps then you could say that the universe was always there, just not in it's current form. Maybe the Big Bang was more like a phase transition, like bubbles forming spontaneously in boiling water ?
    I would not have an issue with such an interpretation.
    The human bias part is more philosophy and not so much science, though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Once you rid yourself of the very human bias of believing existence is the result of cause and effect it all fits into place.
    And if you ponder it long enough you will discover the principle (not process) that reconciles the phenomenon of existence with the canons of logic.
    Well, perhaps then you could say that the universe was always there, just not in it's current form. Maybe the Big Bang was more like a phase transition, like bubbles forming spontaneously in boiling water ?
    I would not have an issue with such an interpretation.
    The human bias part is more philosophy and not so much science, though.
    Thank you.

    If I were convinced of the expansion of the KNOWN universe, I might say it was analogous to a bubble in an infinite pot of boiling water...which is why I subtitled my Big Bang webpage 'Tempest in a Teapot'. I remain unconvinced because in my admittedly amateur study of inflation and big bang I find cosmologists too ready to pack their model with unproven and hypothetical elements in order to fit the data when it throws them a curve. The mathematical incongruities of any false premise can easily be reconciled by the use of additional false premises mathematically reverse-engineered to force the correct results - and the model would be stunningly accurate.

    I am not; however, a proponent of steady state as I do not adhere to the concept of a Perfect Cosmological Principle. The model I propose is more of a dynamic state universe. And the principle upon which it is founded is the same simple principle that engenders the very architecture of every mathematical equation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    I find cosmologists too ready to pack their model with unproven and hypothetical elements in order to fit the data when it throws them a curve.
    What do you call a cosmologist who does not bother to change his hypotheses to fit the data? I call them "crackpots." There are a surplus of these kind of cosmologists here on the science forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Freshman Lander_Greys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    55
    Why can't we just make this simple and theorize what happens when every star becomes a black hole and they all come together... wait....
    I've never met a man who was more intelligent then I was. Then again, I've never met one who was as ignorant as me either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    If I were convinced of the expansion of the KNOWN universe, I might say it was analogous to a bubble in an infinite pot of boiling water...
    There is a mainstream model like this. Chaotic inflation, maybe?

    Yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_Inflation_theory
    Last edited by Strange; February 8th, 2012 at 03:21 PM. Reason: added link
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Lander_Greys View Post
    Why can't we just make this simple and theorize what happens when every star becomes a black hole and they all come together... wait....
    Because not every star will become a black hole. And even if they did they wouldn't all "come together". So that doesn't make it simple because you would have to invent a load of new physics to make it work.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman Lander_Greys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    55
    How come our universe still exists?
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Because not every star will become a black hole. And even if they did they wouldn't all "come together". So that doesn't make it simple because you would have to invent a load of new physics to make it work.
    Amazing . . .
    I've never met a man who was more intelligent then I was. Then again, I've never met one who was as ignorant as me either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    I find cosmologists too ready to pack their model with unproven and hypothetical elements in order to fit the data when it throws them a curve.
    What do you call a cosmologist who does not bother to change his hypotheses to fit the data? I call them "crackpots." There are a surplus of these kind of cosmologists here on the science forum.
    In order to explain why the most distant galaxies seem to be receding faster than the speed of light we must FIRST accept the hypothesis of inflation and THEN search vigorously for the 70% of the universe (hypothetical dark energy) that HAS TO BE missing if inflation is valid.

    Using the hypothesis that inflation exists to explain why inflation violates the speed of light is using the conclusion to derive the conclusion. And the most compelling evidence that dark energy exists (other than CMB) is that the inflation hypothesis (from whence it came and is supposed to prove) REQUIRES it.

    'Scuse me...smells a bit like cod, so you may find me a smidge skeptical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    In order to explain why the most distant galaxies seem to be receding faster than the speed of light we must FIRST accept the hypothesis of inflation
    Just to be picky, you don't have accept inflation (which is still pretty debatable) just expansion, which is the only model currently that fits the evidence (red shifts, yada yada) and is predicted by general relativity.

    Your continued confusion over terms and concepts just indicates that you haven't really understood the theories you are criticizing.

    Using the hypothesis that inflation exists to explain why inflation violates the speed of light is using the conclusion to derive the conclusion.
    That makes no sense. GR predicts expansion (or contraction) we see evidence of expansion. No problem so far. Nothing is violating the speed of light. So where is the problem?

    And the most compelling evidence that dark energy exists (other than CMB) is that the inflation hypothesis (from whence it came and is supposed to prove) REQUIRES it.
    The most compelling evidence for dark energy (the only evidence, as far as I know) is the observation that the rate of expansion appears to be accelerating. This is quite separate from inflation.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    In order to explain why the most distant galaxies seem to be receding faster than the speed of light we must FIRST accept the hypothesis of inflation
    Just to be picky, you don't have accept inflation (which is still pretty debatable) just expansion, which is the only model currently that fits the evidence (red shifts, yada yada) and is predicted by general relativity.

    Your continued confusion over terms and concepts just indicates that you haven't really understood the theories you are criticizing.

    Using the hypothesis that inflation exists to explain why inflation violates the speed of light is using the conclusion to derive the conclusion.
    That makes no sense. GR predicts expansion (or contraction) we see evidence of expansion. No problem so far. Nothing is violating the speed of light. So where is the problem?

    And the most compelling evidence that dark energy exists (other than CMB) is that the inflation hypothesis (from whence it came and is supposed to prove) REQUIRES it.
    The most compelling evidence for dark energy (the only evidence, as far as I know) is the observation that the rate of expansion appears to be accelerating. This is quite separate from inflation.
    Yes, inflation preceeded expansion and implies negative pressure. I tend to use the terms interchangeably and will watch my P's & Q's in the future.

    If you drop a white cue ball into a tub of cranberry juice, the deeper the tub, the redder it appears - but the cue ball is NOT accelerating. If there exists some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum over vast distances, it would explain why the red shift seems to be intensifying at greater distances instead of being constant. When dealing with distances in the billions of light years, we have no idea what subtle nuances of nature might produce startling effects. To my knowledge, there are no 14Bln year old studies on the matter of the red shift of ancient light waves.
    Last edited by THoR; February 8th, 2012 at 08:02 PM. Reason: Addl comment
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,540
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    If you drop a white cue ball into a tub of cranberry juice, the deeper the tub, the redder it appears - but the cue ball is NOT accelerating.
    Bad analogy. That is not due to red shift but filtering of some wavelengths.

    If there exists some yet undiscovered property of space or the nature of light, itself, that incrementally shifts the wavelengths of absorption markers to the red end of the spectrum over vast distances, it would explain why the red shift seems to be intensifying at greater distances instead of being constant.
    yes, and if there were undiscovered invisible unicorns....

    We have a known property of space from GR (it must expand or contract) that explains what we see. Why invent a new mechanism that doesn't match everything we see but just explains one bit in a way you prefer.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    I am not; however, a proponent of steady state as I do not adhere to the concept of a Perfect Cosmological Principle. The model I propose is more of a dynamic state universe. And the principle upon which it is founded is the same simple principle that engenders the very architecture of every mathematical equation.
    Could you elaborate on this further ?
    I am quite conservative in my view of cosmology, which means I tend to side with the currently accepted model. However, that doesn't mean I am not interested to hear other points of view, because the dark matter and dark energy proposal appears somehow out of place to me ( which does not mean these don't exist, I am only stating that they seem out of place somehow ).
    Just to make that clear though - I have no doubt whatsoever that metric expansion of the universe actually takes place, I am just somewhat unsure as to the why and how.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Just to make that clear though - I have no doubt whatsoever that metric expansion of the universe actually takes place, I am just somewhat unsure as to the why and how.
    I fear the answer is, because the Universe says so!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Just to make that clear though - I have no doubt whatsoever that metric expansion of the universe actually takes place, I am just somewhat unsure as to the why and how.
    I fear the answer is, because the Universe says so!
    Ha ! The easy way out...
    Seriously though, I am not so sure that there isn't an underlying reason for that, which may or may not be related to dark matter/energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    This one is a bit more contemporary version of T=0 MIT Department of Physics Another intriguing feature of inflation is that almost all versions of inflation are eternal—once inflation starts, it never stops completely. Inflation has ended in our part of the universe, but very far away one expects that inflation is continuing, and will continue forever. Is it possible, then, that inflation is also eternal into the past? Recently Guth has worked with Alex Vilenkin (Tufts) and Arvind Borde (Southampton College) to show that the inflating region of spacetime must have a past boundary, and that some new physics, perhaps a quantum theory of creation, would be needed to understand it.
    You highlighted the red part - I bolded the relevant part.

    You are clinging to the part where our physical laws break down and time ceases to have any meaning within those laws, and protesting that it makes no sense, whilst the rest of us already understand that our physical laws are no good there, and that we need a better theory to able to understand the origins of the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    I am not; however, a proponent of steady state as I do not adhere to the concept of a Perfect Cosmological Principle. The model I propose is more of a dynamic state universe. And the principle upon which it is founded is the same simple principle that engenders the very architecture of every mathematical equation.
    Could you elaborate on this further ?
    I am quite conservative in my view of cosmology, which means I tend to side with the currently accepted model. However, that doesn't mean I am not interested to hear other points of view, because the dark matter and dark energy proposal appears somehow out of place to me ( which does not mean these don't exist, I am only stating that they seem out of place somehow ).
    Just to make that clear though - I have no doubt whatsoever that metric expansion of the universe actually takes place, I am just somewhat unsure as to the why and how.
    When you say Universe, do you mean -
    1) the portion of the cosmos detectable to us
    OR
    2) everything that exists

    Inflation of 1) is possible - but I am not convinced
    Inflation of 2) is not

    Infinity:
    Infinity doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean the Universe is finite. Infinity is the non-existence of a limit, and if a non-existence existed it wouldn't be a non-existence. There is obviously a finite distance between every two points in the Universe, but there is no point, however distant, where the Universe ends. Some mistakenly believe that if there is a finite distance between every pair of points then the farthest point in the cosmos must be a finite distance away. What they don't understand is that just defining two points sways the realm of their consideration from the infinite back to the finite. When dealing with infinity, there is no limit, there is no 'farthest' and there is no 'all'. The fact that no defined point of infinity exists serves only to further validate the concept.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    When you say Universe, do you mean -
    1) the portion of the cosmos detectable to us
    OR
    2) everything that exists

    Inflation of 1) is possible - but I am not convinced
    Inflation of 2) is not

    Infinity:
    Infinity doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean the Universe is finite. Infinity is the non-existence of a limit, and if a non-existence existed it wouldn't be a non-existence. There is obviously a finite distance between every two points in the Universe, but there is no point, however distant, where the Universe ends. Some mistakenly believe that if there is a finite distance between every pair of points then the farthest point in the cosmos must be a finite distance away. What they don't understand is that just defining two points sways the realm of their consideration from the infinite back to the finite. When dealing with infinity, there is no limit, there is no 'farthest' and there is no 'all'. The fact that no defined point of infinity exists serves only to further validate the concept.
    By universe I mean everything, not just the observable part.
    I really have no idea what you mean by the above. Infinity is always defined as the non-existence of a limit, not as an actual point, so this is clear already. In an infinitely large universe two given points can be an arbitrarily large distance apart, whereas in a closed and finite universe there is an upper limit as to how far two points can be apart.
    What I wanted clarification on is your concept of a "Dynamic State" universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    When you say Universe, do you mean -
    1) the portion of the cosmos detectable to us
    OR
    2) everything that exists

    Inflation of 1) is possible - but I am not convinced
    Inflation of 2) is not

    Infinity:
    Infinity doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean the Universe is finite. Infinity is the non-existence of a limit, and if a non-existence existed it wouldn't be a non-existence. There is obviously a finite distance between every two points in the Universe, but there is no point, however distant, where the Universe ends. Some mistakenly believe that if there is a finite distance between every pair of points then the farthest point in the cosmos must be a finite distance away. What they don't understand is that just defining two points sways the realm of their consideration from the infinite back to the finite. When dealing with infinity, there is no limit, there is no 'farthest' and there is no 'all'. The fact that no defined point of infinity exists serves only to further validate the concept.
    By universe I mean everything, not just the observable part.
    I really have no idea what you mean by the above. Infinity is always defined as the non-existence of a limit, not as an actual point, so this is clear already. In an infinitely large universe two given points can be an arbitrarily large distance apart, whereas in a closed and finite universe there is an upper limit as to how far two points can be apart.
    What I wanted clarification on is your concept of a "Dynamic State" universe.
    Existence is required in order for change (cause and effect) to occur. This means cause and effect (change) is a function of the phenomenon of existence - NOT the reverse. Time is the measurement of change. Change is a function of existence ergo time is a function of existence - NOT the reverse. Existence is not temporal in nature. It does not begin. It does not end. It changes, but never starts or ceases.

    Where does that leave BigBang and the expansion premise?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Existence is required in order for change (cause and effect) to occur. This means cause and effect (change) is a function of the phenomenon of existence - NOT the reverse. Time is the measurement of change. Change is a function of existence ergo time is a function of existence - NOT the reverse. Existence is not temporal in nature. It does not begin. It does not end. It changes, but never starts or ceases.

    Where does that leave BigBang and the expansion premise?
    You are saying existence needs no cause. This leaves the Big Bang and expansion premise exactly where it was - untroubled by your personal opinions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Existence is required in order for change (cause and effect) to occur. This means cause and effect (change) is a function of the phenomenon of existence - NOT the reverse. Time is the measurement of change. Change is a function of existence ergo time is a function of existence - NOT the reverse. Existence is not temporal in nature. It does not begin. It does not end. It changes, but never starts or ceases.

    Where does that leave BigBang and the expansion premise?
    You are saying existence needs no cause. This leaves the Big Bang and expansion premise exactly where it was - untroubled by your personal opinions.
    You got it half right. Not only does it need no cause, it did not begin - it is not temporal in nature and it is infinite.

    Only three independent values (XYZ coordinates) are necessary to uniquely specify any point of existence within the Universe - so there are said to be three 'dimensions' (more accurately, three axes). If the Universe were finite, then at any given instant and for any given point there must exist another point within a finite distance at which travel in any direction will not increase the distance between the two.

    The old 'balloon ploy' is often put forth as a three-dimensional example of cosmic expansion in a four-dimensional hyperverse. So long as the balloon is inflating faster than anything can traverse it, a subject can travel forever without hitting a boundary. Stroking the ego of the unwary layman for his ability to understand a hypothetical abstraction, pundits propose this as an example of a Universe that is finite but unbounded. But it doesn't hold water. At any given instant there DOES exist a point on the balloon at which motion in any given direction will not increase the distance between the two - a limit (boundary of the ability to increase distance) exists.

    If someone wants me to believe the universe is finite, then all they have to do is simply convince me that for some given instant the value of at least one of the XYZ coordinates has or had a limit. And if anyone wishes me to believe there are more than three dimensions, then show that there are locations that EXIST which cannot be specified within those coordinates.

    Saying infinity expands is trying to apply a relative term (infinity expands relative to WHAT?) to a non relative situation. To expand is to increase the value of some limit and only that which has a LIMIT can expand. And we (see above) have already defined Universe as everything that exists (not just the KNOWN universe).

    The very definition of the terms that foolishly try to explain 'finite but unbounded' are self-contradictory. Finite explicitly means a limit and either that limit exists or it does not. There is no limit that is unlimited due to some esoteric process. If a limit exists, you can point to it - it must have a specific location relative to your position.

    SO, SPEEDFREEK, SAIL YE NOT TOO FAR OUT INTO THE UNIVERSE LEST THOU FALLEST FROM THE EDGE !
    Last edited by THoR; February 18th, 2012 at 10:01 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Again, you just go on believing all that - you are not troubling the current cosmological theory at all in doing so, you are only troubling yourself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Again, you just go on believing all that - you are not troubling the current cosmological theory at all in doing so, you are only troubling yourself.
    Nice deflection. Run out of logical rebuttal?

    And why would you presume I am troubled. Try amused. Following contemporary cosmology and particle physics is like watching a dog chase its tail. Pundits who have to publish to survive are seeking answers to falsely premised questions...the size and age of the Universe, the nature of matter and anti-matter (simply substances in opposing CONDITION, not opposite EXISTENCES), etc. Data from orbiting telescopes and expensive particle accelerators are great and certainly of value to science, but interpretation is everything and it only takes a little simple logic to see the conventional interpretations are flawed.

    What is true will still be so whether or not it is ever believed by anyone.
    Last edited by THoR; February 18th, 2012 at 01:04 PM. Reason: Spelling
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Only three independent values (XYZ coordinates) are necessary to uniquely specify any point of existence within the Universe - so there are said to be three 'dimensions' (more accurately, three axes).
    That is incorrect. You need four independent variables to uniquely specify an event in spacetime. That's why we live in a 4-dimensional universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Only three independent values (XYZ coordinates) are necessary to uniquely specify any point of existence within the Universe - so there are said to be three 'dimensions' (more accurately, three axes).
    That is incorrect. You need four independent variables to uniquely specify an event in spacetime. That's why we live in a 4-dimensional universe.
    LOL. Yes, and the brane children live in a string plucked from a dozen different dimensions simultaneously.

    I'm not talking about an EVENT - a process. I am simply stating that any point of existence at any given instant can be designated by XYZ.

    I can repeatedly go visit and even occupy any coordinate within the XYZ axes because they actually designate a point of existence. Your so called fourth dimension (let us call it T for obvious reasons) is an abstract conceptualization, a mathematical shorthand to simplify the use of the statement d(X/Y/Z)/dT in mathematical equations. Space and matter/energy are substances and their location can be designated in terms of XYZ. Time is a measurement of relative rates of change. They are NOT in the same classification. And when time is considered a dimension, a reality with fabric and form, it leads to sloppy thinking and illogicality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    that would only be relevant for a fun race in space through lunch break then.
    otherwise, something that would have been at the x.y.z coords, could have been gone, or the clear path could turn out to not be so clear (hurdle race)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by curious mind View Post
    that would only be relevant for a fun race in space through lunch break then.
    otherwise, something that would have been at the x.y.z coords, could have been gone, or the clear path could turn out to not be so clear (hurdle race)
    ???? A process is different than a substance. The condition of substances change via processes, i.e. existence changes. May be inconvenient, but it seems to be the norm. Spacetime is the mismatch trying to equate substance and process...much like an imaginary number. Numbers (QUANtatative values) are often linked with QUALitative values (positive and negative). Crunching equations that do that can be a problem. What is the sqrt of red?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    lower than sqrt of blue?
    Last edited by curious mind; February 19th, 2012 at 05:24 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Only three independent values (XYZ coordinates) are necessary to uniquely specify any point of existence within the Universe - so there are said to be three 'dimensions' (more accurately, three axes).
    That is incorrect. You need four independent variables to uniquely specify an event in spacetime. That's why we live in a 4-dimensional universe.
    LOL. Yes, and the brane children live in a string plucked from a dozen different dimensions simultaneously.

    I'm not talking about an EVENT - a process. I am simply stating that any point of existence at any given instant can be designated by XYZ.

    I can repeatedly go visit and even occupy any coordinate within the XYZ axes because they actually designate a point of existence. Your so called fourth dimension (let us call it T for obvious reasons) is an abstract conceptualization, a mathematical shorthand to simplify the use of the statement d(X/Y/Z)/dT in mathematical equations. Space and matter/energy are substances and their location can be designated in terms of XYZ. Time is a measurement of relative rates of change. They are NOT in the same classification. And when time is considered a dimension, a reality with fabric and form, it leads to sloppy thinking and illogicality.
    Is it ? It seems a lot more practical to me than you might think.
    Tell me, how many pieces of information do you need to give someone to set up a meeting ? You need to tell him not only where to meet, but also when. Sure enough you can come back to that same place again later, but then that would be a different meeting !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Only three independent values (XYZ coordinates) are necessary to uniquely specify any point of existence within the Universe - so there are said to be three 'dimensions' (more accurately, three axes).
    That is incorrect. You need four independent variables to uniquely specify an event in spacetime. That's why we live in a 4-dimensional universe.
    LOL. Yes, and the brane children live in a string plucked from a dozen different dimensions simultaneously.

    I'm not talking about an EVENT - a process. I am simply stating that any point of existence at any given instant can be designated by XYZ.

    I can repeatedly go visit and even occupy any coordinate within the XYZ axes because they actually designate a point of existence. Your so called fourth dimension (let us call it T for obvious reasons) is an abstract conceptualization, a mathematical shorthand to simplify the use of the statement d(X/Y/Z)/dT in mathematical equations. Space and matter/energy are substances and their location can be designated in terms of XYZ. Time is a measurement of relative rates of change. They are NOT in the same classification. And when time is considered a dimension, a reality with fabric and form, it leads to sloppy thinking and illogicality.
    Is it ? It seems a lot more practical to me than you might think.
    Tell me, how many pieces of information do you need to give someone to set up a meeting ? You need to tell him not only where to meet, but also when. Sure enough you can come back to that same place again later, but then that would be a different meeting !
    Exactly. The PLACE is independent of the PROCESS. The place will still exist long after the process is over. The original contention was that any pont of existence can be designated by XYZ. If something occurs there the process will take a length of time T, but that will not change the fact that the referenced point of existence is still XYZ.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    [QUOTE=Markus Hanke;309684]
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Is it ? It seems a lot more practical to me than you might think.
    Tell me, how many pieces of information do you need to give someone to set up a meeting ? You need to tell him not only where to meet, but also when. Sure enough you can come back to that same place again later, but then that would be a different meeting !
    LOL, well if the time isn't specified, an hour earlier or later it will be about 60,000 miles away
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Freshman Lander_Greys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    55
    Heres a good question for you chaps: "Why is this thread still here?"
    I've never met a man who was more intelligent then I was. Then again, I've never met one who was as ignorant as me either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Because the mods here are far more patient than I ever was.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Lander_Greys View Post
    Heres a good question for you chaps: "Why is this thread still here?"
    It ISN'T. You have wandered into a spacetime wasteland of no return.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Exactly. The PLACE is independent of the PROCESS. The place will still exist long after the process is over. The original contention was that any pont of existence can be designated by XYZ. If something occurs there the process will take a length of time T, but that will not change the fact that the referenced point of existence is still XYZ.
    So then you are referencing the entire worldline of a particular place, and not a specific event.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Exactly. The PLACE is independent of the PROCESS. The place will still exist long after the process is over. The original contention was that any pont of existence can be designated by XYZ. If something occurs there the process will take a length of time T, but that will not change the fact that the referenced point of existence is still XYZ.
    So then you are referencing the entire worldline of a particular place, and not a specific event.
    Applause!!!!
    Yes. There will always be an XYZ axis and a point of existence within those parameters is not temporal in nature, it will always be there. A process IS temporal in nature. Therein is the problem with 'SPACETIME' - it is a mismatch of parameters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Applause!!!!
    Yes. There will always be an XYZ axis and a point of existence within those parameters is not temporal in nature, it will always be there. A process IS temporal in nature. Therein is the problem with 'SPACETIME' - it is a mismatch of parameters.
    Well, a worldline is static, we understand that. But to reference an event as opposed to the worldline of a place, you still need a fourth parameter.
    I don't understand where the "mismatch" is ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Applause!!!!
    Yes. There will always be an XYZ axis and a point of existence within those parameters is not temporal in nature, it will always be there. A process IS temporal in nature. Therein is the problem with 'SPACETIME' - it is a mismatch of parameters.
    Well, a worldline is static, we understand that. But to reference an event as opposed to the worldline of a place, you still need a fourth parameter.
    I don't understand where the "mismatch" is ?
    If existence is required in order for change to occur, then change is a function of existence.
    Time is the measurement of change. There would be no time in a cosmos without motion.
    The XYZ axes are not derived from each other, they are independent.
    Motion is a change of position within those axes. It does not occur outside those axes - it is DEpendent on them.
    XYZ = independent
    T = dependent
    Mismatch - calling time a dimension is like calling a derivative an integral.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Applause!!!!
    Yes. There will always be an XYZ axis and a point of existence within those parameters is not temporal in nature, it will always be there. A process IS temporal in nature. Therein is the problem with 'SPACETIME' - it is a mismatch of parameters.
    Well, a worldline is static, we understand that. But to reference an event as opposed to the worldline of a place, you still need a fourth parameter.
    I don't understand where the "mismatch" is ?

    xistence is required in order for change to occur, then change is a function of existence.
    Time is the measurement of change. There would be no time in a cosmos without motion.
    The XYZ axes are not derived from each other, they are independent.
    Motion is a change of position within those axes. It does not occur outside those axes - it is DEpendent on them.
    XYZ = independent
    T = dependent
    Mismatch - calling time a dimension is like calling a derivative an integral.
    I won't be too mathematical about this, but everything you are both are discussing is completely wrong from physics. In a nutshell, there is no such thing as a linear time, there is only a geometrical time which in GR does not imply that change equals time, because motion in GR implies no time. Motion, as I keep seeing in posts flinged between you both are being defined by change which I am assuming the usual... ie. that time is motion and the evolution of objects.

    In GR there is no such thing as an evolution. In fact, Hanke has already noted that worldlines in GR are in fact static, they have no definition of a past or a future. When you quantize the Field equations of GR, you find something even worse, a cosmological frame which views all it's constituents as not even evolving, shifting or changing. It does so happen, there may be ways out of the timesless models but that should be discussed another time in another thread.

    What should be noted that time is only a calculational tool. Physics actually subtly dictates it is not really an important or physical quantity since it is not an observable. We only make it an observable using clocks which tick away time at understandable limits.... the speed of consciousness, you might call it. There is no real universal clock ticking away events which makes events unfold. There are real physical actions taking place in our universe without the notions of time being involved, nor in any respect where worldlines have a past or future.

    Now it just so happens I agree with you however, time is not a dimension. It is an artefact of mathematics which has arisen because we personally cannot measure the entirity of things without it. If we had no sense of future or past then our mind would not observe anything outside a single frame of existence. Keep in mind also, the present time is the only time ever present. Now, I think this reminds me of a good qoute I should cite

    ''Past and future remain stubborn illusions of the mind''

    Einstein
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post

    If existence is required in order for change to occur, then change is a function of existence.
    Time is the measurement of change. There would be no time in a cosmos without motion.
    The XYZ axes are not derived from each other, they are independent.
    Motion is a change of position within those axes. It does not occur outside those axes - it is DEpendent on them.
    XYZ = independent
    T = dependent
    Mismatch - calling time a dimension is like calling a derivative an integral.
    No that is incorrect. The time coordinate is just as independent as the spatial coordinates are; you cannot express t in terms of x,y,z.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    I won't be too mathematical about this, but everything you are both are discussing is completely wrong from physics. In a nutshell, there is no such thing as a linear time, there is only a geometrical time which in GR does not imply that change equals time, because motion in GR implies no time. Motion, as I keep seeing in posts flinged between you both are being defined by change which I am assuming the usual... ie. that time is motion and the evolution of objects.
    What you are referring to are THoR's ideas, not mine. I define time in a purely geometric sense as described by GR, and as such it is not linear at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    I won't be too mathematical about this, but everything you are both are discussing is completely wrong from physics. In a nutshell, there is no such thing as a linear time, there is only a geometrical time which in GR does not imply that change equals time, because motion in GR implies no time. Motion, as I keep seeing in posts flinged between you both are being defined by change which I am assuming the usual... ie. that time is motion and the evolution of objects.
    What you are referring to are THoR's ideas, not mine. I define time in a purely geometric sense as described by GR, and as such it is not linear at all.
    Have you discussed in any sense that change defines time? If not, then this is THoR then who is faulty in his premises.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    Have you discussed in any sense that change defines time? If not, then this is THoR then who is faulty in his premises.
    I have not discussed this, that is THoR's idea. Like I said, I understand time strictly in the GR geometric sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    If Lorentz had converted all of his mass to energy, could he have escaped the light cone?

    The two most basic phenomena in the cosmos: Existence and Change
    and Change is a function of Existence
    Even if time has three axes (past, present and future) those three axes are all functions of the more basic phenomenon - existence (XYZ)
    Now I grant you, the condition of an entity CAN change without motion. Example - a true point can rotate 90 degrees. Since it has no size, no distance is traversed, hence XYZ are still the same. It may also do so instantly. If no distance is traversed it would take no time T.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    How about a photon then? It takes no time at all to reach two different points according to SR. So no, based on principles of motion alone we cannot infer that a thing moving in space must necesserily involve a passage of time. Time is so frought with misunderstanding today, it is causing physics to go down on the wrong path. The highly suspect nature of treating time as a dimension of space as well doesn't even make sense from it's own GR format - the idea that worldlines are static and that global time in fact vanishes for the WDW-equation. Much abused things like ''the flow of time'' and the ''arrow of time'' and ''the reversability'' of time don't even exist. I could go into these if you wished. When I tell people a true arrow of time does not exist, it usually catches them off with a gee-whizz moment.

    Think about what time is anyway - it is just a mathematical tool we help (ourselves) couple to moments which are chronologically-ordered, giving rise to the idea that somehow ''things'' exist in time. This is probably so far from the truth it is a disturbing feature that almost all of physicists and even the greater amount of physicists are unaware of the true implications of time both for locally gauged groups and global features. In fact, a physicists who had done work on the anyon has recently written a work on ''Time Crystals''

    When I read it I shook my head and realized that physicists take the idea of a fourth dimension of space as an imaginary time dimension all too seriously. The scientist in question (name elludes me now) considers a ground state particle which is able to loop in time acting like a perpertual motion machine. He now wants to take this further and write up a theory for imaginary time instead of real time...

    ...well that's simple. All he needs to do is make a Wick Rotation on his equations. But what is worrying is believing this ''we move physically in time'' or that somehow ''time flows through us''. Well I hate to let you in on the physics truths, but as far as time goes, there is no such thing as an arrow, no such thing as a past or future nor can time in general be describes in any global terms. What we have is essentially a possibility that the present time is the only real time in existence. Considering a time function on a particle you may catalogue events chronologically without explicitely inferring on any past or future state . So time might exist, but it has nothing to do with the definition of motion. Personally, I think time is a feature of consciousness not the external world. There is biological evidence for this as well, the suprachiasmatic nucleus which regulates genes is responsible for the primitive sense of time; the body contains several clocks determined by different gene regulations. Remove this, then we would not have any sense of time... imagine a 1-sec interval of understanding time for any object then what can you infer about time? Cut it down into smaller fragments then your interval of time will eventually quantize to a Planck Time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Hmmmm. Whilst THoR's post is a little too "philosophical" for me to want to reply...

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    How about a photon then? It takes no time at all to reach two different points according to SR.
    Probably going to be considered a nit-pick but excuse me? From whose frame of reference?
    (note: a photon does not have a valid frame of reference, it quite literally does not count!)

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    Personally, I think time is a feature of consciousness not the external world. There is biological evidence for this as well, the suprachiasmatic nucleus which regulates genes is responsible for the primitive sense of time; the body contains several clocks determined by different gene regulations.
    I wouldn't call that biological evidence that time is not a feature of the external world. If time was a feature of the external world, wouldn't we evolve a mechanism to sense it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    Remove this, then we would not have any sense of time... imagine a 1-sec interval of understanding time for any object then what can you infer about time? Cut it down into smaller fragments then your interval of time will eventually quantize to a Planck Time.
    Which is all about the perception of time, rather than time itself, isn't it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Hmmmm. Whilst THoR's post is a little too "philosophical" for me to want to reply...

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    How about a photon then? It takes no time at all to reach two different points according to SR.
    Probably going to be considered a nit-pick but excuse me? From whose frame of reference?
    (note: a photon does not have a valid frame of reference, it quite literally does not count!)

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    Personally, I think time is a feature of consciousness not the external world. There is biological evidence for this as well, the suprachiasmatic nucleus which regulates genes is responsible for the primitive sense of time; the body contains several clocks determined by different gene regulations.
    I wouldn't call that biological evidence that time is not a feature of the external world. If time was a feature of the external world, wouldn't we evolve a mechanism to sense it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    Remove this, then we would not have any sense of time... imagine a 1-sec interval of understanding time for any object then what can you infer about time? Cut it down into smaller fragments then your interval of time will eventually quantize to a Planck Time.
    Which is all about the perception of time, rather than time itself, isn't it?
    Well old relativitty books will make mention from a photon's frame of reference, but to be honest, it doesn't even have one! I always find ways to complicate a scenario

    Anyway, the fact that the flux of time appears to be ''experienced'' because of a gene regulation is an evidence it has arose to the evolutionary standards it has today to achieve consciousness. I don't think for instance the human brain could even operate without a sense of time past time yet to come, but these are not objective physical realities, the only time is the present time, so it seems time in itself is just one big fascet of consicousness ability to record the passage of time without it actually existing ''out there''. The perception of time should not be seperated from any ''idea'' of time itself since time has no meaning outside an intelligent recording device like ourselves. Which is the point you were hinting at.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    No, what I want to do is to separate our notions of the perception of time from the reality of reactions requiring time to occur.

    If we had not evolved the genetic mechanism to experience time, it would not have made any difference to the ratio between the half life of U238 and the current age of the universe.

    Time is that which stops everything from happening at once.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Freshman THoR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Southern South Texas (the Southern part)
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    How about a photon then? It takes no time at all to reach two different points according to SR. So no, based on principles of motion alone we cannot infer that a thing moving in space must necesserily involve a passage of time. Time is so frought with misunderstanding today, it is causing physics to go down on the wrong path. The highly suspect nature of treating time as a dimension of space as well doesn't even make sense from it's own GR format - the idea that worldlines are static and that global time in fact vanishes for the WDW-equation. Much abused things like ''the flow of time'' and the ''arrow of time'' and ''the reversability'' of time don't even exist. I could go into these if you wished. When I tell people a true arrow of time does not exist, it usually catches them off with a gee-whizz moment.

    Think about what time is anyway - it is just a mathematical tool we help (ourselves) couple to moments which are chronologically-ordered, giving rise to the idea that somehow ''things'' exist in time. This is probably so far from the truth it is a disturbing feature that almost all of physicists and even the greater amount of physicists are unaware of the true implications of time both for locally gauged groups and global features. In fact, a physicists who had done work on the anyon has recently written a work on ''Time Crystals''

    When I read it I shook my head and realized that physicists take the idea of a fourth dimension of space as an imaginary time dimension all too seriously. The scientist in question (name elludes me now) considers a ground state particle which is able to loop in time acting like a perpertual motion machine. He now wants to take this further and write up a theory for imaginary time instead of real time...

    ...well that's simple. All he needs to do is make a Wick Rotation on his equations. But what is worrying is believing this ''we move physically in time'' or that somehow ''time flows through us''. Well I hate to let you in on the physics truths, but as far as time goes, there is no such thing as an arrow, no such thing as a past or future nor can time in general be describes in any global terms. What we have is essentially a possibility that the present time is the only real time in existence. Considering a time function on a particle you may catalogue events chronologically without explicitely inferring on any past or future state . So time might exist, but it has nothing to do with the definition of motion. Personally, I think time is a feature of consciousness not the external world. There is biological evidence for this as well, the suprachiasmatic nucleus which regulates genes is responsible for the primitive sense of time; the body contains several clocks determined by different gene regulations. Remove this, then we would not have any sense of time... imagine a 1-sec interval of understanding time for any object then what can you infer about time? Cut it down into smaller fragments then your interval of time will eventually quantize to a Planck Time.
    Light is simply the propatation of change thru a medium in such a way that acts as a particle. else we'd be hip deep in spent photons. Flick a wet rope and watch the spray at the other end.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by THoR View Post
    Light is simply the propatation of change thru a medium in such a way that acts as a particle. else we'd be hip deep in spent photons. Flick a wet rope and watch the spray at the other end.
    Photons don't "spend" themselves. They gain and loose energy over their lifetime, but that's not the same thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    No, what I want to do is to separate our notions of the perception of time from the reality of reactions requiring time to occur.

    If we had not evolved the genetic mechanism to experience time, it would not have made any difference to the ratio between the half life of U238 and the current age of the universe.

    Time is that which stops everything from happening at once.

    That is poetic way of looking at it, but it is not generally true. For instance, quantum physicists Fred Alan Wolf has mentioned that when the big bang happened an omega point (the end of the universe) must have quickly followed. We are stuck in time it seems, that reality is one flash of existence which we are trucking through what we think is time. For sure, that just because to us the end of the universe has not transpired yet is not to say it hasn't happened. A strange reality is this we live in, that when the universe began it seems logical to think the end quickly followed. Stories are meaningless without proper beginnings and ends. In fact, science takes it very seriously that somehow the universe is sending signals from the future horizon and is shaping up the early universe, called the transactional interepretation. So I agree in some sense, that we are dragging in what we feel as time which may stop two events to us unfolding simultaneously but on the scale of things the universe generally has a beginning and end which happened almost instantly together.

    Even my mind boggles at it all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    No, what I want to do is to separate our notions of the perception of time from the reality of reactions requiring time to occur.

    If we had not evolved the genetic mechanism to experience time, it would not have made any difference to the ratio between the half life of U238 and the current age of the universe.

    Time is that which stops everything from happening at once.

    That is poetic way of looking at it, but it is not generally true.
    My "poetic" way of looking at time is a quote I borrowed from the late and great John Archibald Wheeler. You say it is not generally true as if you know that for a fact, which you don't, of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    For instance, quantum physicists Fred Alan Wolf has mentioned that when the big bang happened an omega point (the end of the universe) must have quickly followed. We are stuck in time it seems, that reality is one flash of existence which we are trucking through what we think is time. For sure, that just because to us the end of the universe has not transpired yet is not to say it hasn't happened. A strange reality is this we live in, that when the universe began it seems logical to think the end quickly followed. Stories are meaningless without proper beginnings and ends. In fact, science takes it very seriously that somehow the universe is sending signals from the future horizon and is shaping up the early universe, called the transactional interepretation. So I agree in some sense, that we are dragging in what we feel as time which may stop two events to us unfolding simultaneously but on the scale of things the universe generally has a beginning and end which happened almost instantly together.

    Even my mind boggles at it all.
    Fred Wolf is now an independent researcher and author, out on the "fringe", as it were, and with some of his wild ideas linking consciousness with quantum physics being viewed as more than a little suspect, I would take all you said above with a pinch of salt. Perhaps you could put it another way, using established quantum physics? And as for the transactional interpretation, I take issue with you saying science takes it very seriously - it is so full of holes that as it stands it cannot be taken seriously at all.

    You have done nothing to convince me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    No, what I want to do is to separate our notions of the perception of time from the reality of reactions requiring time to occur.

    If we had not evolved the genetic mechanism to experience time, it would not have made any difference to the ratio between the half life of U238 and the current age of the universe.

    Time is that which stops everything from happening at once.

    That is poetic way of looking at it, but it is not generally true.
    My "poetic" way of looking at time is a quote I borrowed from the late and great John Archibald Wheeler. You say it is not generally true as if you know that for a fact, which you don't, of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    For instance, quantum physicists Fred Alan Wolf has mentioned that when the big bang happened an omega point (the end of the universe) must have quickly followed. We are stuck in time it seems, that reality is one flash of existence which we are trucking through what we think is time. For sure, that just because to us the end of the universe has not transpired yet is not to say it hasn't happened. A strange reality is this we live in, that when the universe began it seems logical to think the end quickly followed. Stories are meaningless without proper beginnings and ends. In fact, science takes it very seriously that somehow the universe is sending signals from the future horizon and is shaping up the early universe, called the transactional interepretation. So I agree in some sense, that we are dragging in what we feel as time which may stop two events to us unfolding simultaneously but on the scale of things the universe generally has a beginning and end which happened almost instantly together.

    Even my mind boggles at it all.
    Fred Wolf is now an independent researcher and author, out on the "fringe", as it were, and with some of his wild ideas linking consciousness with quantum physics being viewed as more than a little suspect, I would take all you said above with a pinch of salt. Perhaps you could put it another way, using established quantum physics? And as for the transactional interpretation, I take issue with you saying science takes it very seriously - it is so full of holes that as it stands it cannot be taken seriously at all.

    You have done nothing to convince me.
    Ok, ok... you want me to go about this another way?

    Let me first describe what you are wanting to approach time as: the seperation of events and giving them evolution... let us say, , two points and seperated in time. This must suggest they have a ''past''. This is not true where where the past state is well defined and is connected as a worldline. Let us see why.

    Now, a poster I was speaking to on another site said this best, by the name of dinosaur and he stated

    ''Einstein made it very simple: See post 19, which is repeated below with a few added remarks.

    First: If you need a definition for before & after, you are not able to understand time & can forget about this thread.

    Einstein once wrote something like the following about time, which I think is very succinct and pretty much describes it.When an individual ponders his experiences, he can order the events in his life using the criteria of before & after. He can assign a number to each event in such a way that events assigned a lower number occurred before events assigned a higher number.

    It is convenient to use a device called a clock to provide a consistent set of numbers for use in ordering events.

    In describing the laws of physics using the language of mathematics, it is convenient (if not necessary) to use a continuous variable called time. This variable similarly orders events based on the criteria of before and after.

    There is little (if anything) more that can be said relating to time.The above is not a quote: It is a paraphrase based on my not infallible memory. I Think it is from the preface to one of his books or essays on Relativity. I have read several articles & books containing very lengthy & confusing verbiage which did not seem to describe the concept of time any better than the above.

    His view does not require a reference to motion or any physical processes: It merely uses the concept of events.

    What is missing from the above view/definition of time?

    The above is a description of proper time for a single observer in an inertial frame. It gets more complicated when it is necessary to consider multiple observers, difference inertial frames, accelerated motion, & gravity.

    It is interesting that Albert used bold or italics for before & after, implying that they should be considered primitive terms, not definable via the use of simpler terms or concepts.

    Note that an axiomatic system requires undefined primitive terms to avoid various problems associated with circular definitions.

    It is interesting that Albert did not mention the concept of the flow of time from past through the present into the future, which does seem to be a construct (illusion?) of the human mind rather than an objective process associated with reality.''
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    I am aware of how Einstein defined time, of course, but that doesn't really help us here, does it? He is also responsible for providing us with the relativity of simultaneity, which tells us that, although observers in different frames can find different intervals between events separated by space, nobody calculates that anything happens in the wrong order!

    So, is Einstein really the man to ask? After all, I thought you were talking about time at the quantum level.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Certainly, Einstein is the right person to speak about. As you will see above, time in your understanding does not work. It cannot be more simpler than admitting that the seperation of events where a definition of a past does not exist. The past and future are but illusions of the mind. There is no flow nor is there any arrow of time. Maybe only a psychological arrow which is actually well-understood.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Just a quick example but your vision of time is almost Newtonian in its aspects, not relativistic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    885
    didn't Einstein also say "time is, what your clock measures" or something like that?
    i mean, the universe doesn't need time. it's not like a star is awaiting a count-down befor blasting. we just found a way to document it by developing a natural occurance i.e. 24 hours = a day, 365 days = a year.

    just imagine Roemer's without us having a unified understanding of time. how would we be able to find out the speed of light?
    by saying:
    somewhere, sometime ago about x-distance away the light took somewhat longer to travel?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    Just a quick example but your vision of time is almost Newtonian in its aspects, not relativistic.
    I would be careful if I were you, as you do not know what my "vision of time" is, and you might have some pretty strange notions yourself!

    It is not the human mind that causes events to occur in the correct order so as to not violate causality, is it? Because I'm pretty sure the universe was getting along quite well on its own, before anything sentient had the time to evolve in it. This is no place for the participatory anthropic principle!

    So, why not indulge me, and let's leave consciousness out of this for a moment (we are talking about time, not the perception of time) and consider the interval between events, and why it is always the same in terms of proper time?

    Why does a caesium atom always "vibrate" its hyperfine state the same number of times, during the time it takes light to travel 299,792,498 metres? What mediates this relationship such that it always stays the same?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •