Lighten up.
Are the laws of physics based on magic?
- Thread starter Mazulu
- Start date
- Status
You are speculating that there was no time before the big bang event. The existence of time appears to be tied to the existence of a space-time continuum. Our big bang might have been an event in a pre-existing space-time.
Your point is a subtle one, so subtle that I'm not even sure it counts.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
I used the word rather flippantly, hypothesizing (with no evidence) that little pockets of "stuff" pop up occasionally but since their version of the laws of nature don't work, they simply don't acquire physical substance and remain only conjectures. This is hardly the way scientists talk about cosmology.
In any case, to continue with my own stupid model, what determines the stability of a universe is whether or not it is capable of existing. Now don't you dare go around saying that Fraggle Rocker gave you this nifty new model of the cosmos.
To drag this discussion back into proper science after my own foolish digression, these universes are nowhere because they never existed. It's like asking me where my children are. They're nowhere because I never had any.
When I was a little baby fraggle, scientists said that the universe existed within the space-time continuum, and was expanding to fill more and more of it. Today they tell us that the space-time continuum is part of the universe. If that isn't unsettling enough, they say that the laws of nature are too. The universe is quite a package deal.
This is a place of science. The position of scientists is that pretty much nothing is beyond the scope of natural science; only beyond the scope of today's science. What the scientists who come after them discover will make it possible to increase the scope of science so there is less and less that is beyond it.
As I note further down, the fundamental premise that underlies the scientific method and is the basis of all science is: The natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical and experimental observation of its present and past behavior. Note that there's nothing in there saying that some day the people who come after us will run into a brick wall and have to stop without completely understanding its behavior. Ockham, Newton and Faraday would be pleased to find that we've discovered the Big Bang, relativity, the Heisenberg Principle and the expanding universe--but not surprised.
As I noted above, there was a time when the space-time continuum was regarded as a more-or-less real, uh, "thing," but for eons it was empty. Then the Big Bang happened and suddenly the space-time continuum contains a universe. (They rarely talk about the possibility that this has happened before so perhaps it contains more than one universe.) But today, the space-time continuum is part of the universe.
In neither model is the space-time continuum equal to the universe. One contains the other. Which contains which depends on whether this is 1953 or 2013.
No. The word "universe" means precisely:
That includes spirits, gods, the Tooth Fairy, and all the other folderol, if indeed any of it actually exists.dictionary.com said:
As I have noted before, there are two kinds of faith.
The first is rational faith: My dog has been loyal, loving and kind for eight years. Therefore I have faith that he will continue to be so.
The second is irrational faith: Even though the scientific method has been tested intensively (and often with great hostility) for half a millennium, and has never come close to being falsified, I nonetheless have faith that it is incorrect. It is based on the premise that the natural universe is a closed system, whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical and experimental observation of its past and present behavior. I believe that an invisible, illogical supernatural universe exists, from which fantastic creatures and incredible forces emerge at random intervals, for no purpose other than to screw up the behavior of the natural universe in order to confuse us--even though there is precisely zero evidence of this.
As I've noted, the current generation of cosmologists has discarded this model. According to the new model, the Big Bang created the space-time continuum, and all the quarks, bosons and leptons that make up matter and energy, and all the laws of nature such as f=ma, pV=nRT, and 1+1=2.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
Causality requires only a single quantum event (a single instant). There needs not be a passage of time to build a causality. IMO, universal creation happened by a single mega quantum event by which universal space and time were created. Just look at the inflationary epoch (at superluminal speed) which appears to break all our notions of space and time, because it was expanding into a nothingness. But to me that proves there was nothing (no physical laws) to inhibit the inflation, IOW "outside" the universe there are no physical laws (or time), but "inside" our physical universe all things must follow physical laws and are measurable by time.
IMO, before the BB, there existed a "timeless" zero state condition and time began along with the creation of space. As I understand Einstein one cannot exist without the other. If there was space outside the universe, yes, then there would also be time. But space was created during the BB and therefore time (universal time) was created at the "same time as space".
We can assume that infinite time exists independently, but in relation to what? The universe (space) did not yet exist.
We can also assume that our universe is a "bubble" inside a larger universe (with its own time), but that logic can be extended ad infinitum and there would be no beginning to the Wholeness at all. This gets rather complicated.
I prefer a initial state of pure Potential (a non-physical condition) existing, collapsing into a singularity and releasing our universal potential into the physical universe in a single mega quantum event (The Beginning)
Um, er... the scientific paradigm is becoming unsteady and changing (as I expected it would). My opinion is that this is what's happening. The quantum vacuum existed before the big bang, and has always existed. The big bang was a "quantum fluctuation" that created space-time geometry. All the energy from the big bang came from the fact that the space-time continuum was rolled up into a singularity. The energy released was the result of the singularity unfolding. The space-time continuum carries with it the property of "the speed of light". There are probably other space-times with different speeds of light. The rules of mathematics only work when things are distinct and countable, and in this universe, they are. The rules of logic also only work when premises are solid, however, quantum mechanics is about probabilities, and solid certain premises break down; when this happens, logic breaks down.
The quantum vacuum is the great veil of mystery, like the waves on the ocean sea, below which we can't see. If there is paranormal, supernatural, occult phenomena that occurs, it doesn't do so with reliable laws of physics. Such things are the exception to the rule, just like the big bang was the exception to the rule. If a singularity/big bang can come into existence due to a quantum fluctuation, then I am sure that quantum mechanics is magic (in the supernatural sense). For all I know, a quantum fluctuation is the hand of God.
To the issue of consciousness, it is my opinion that we can't see beyond the veil of our universe. In the practical sense, you are encouraged to believe whatever gives you peace. May denziens beyond the veil, from the quantum vacuum, visit you in your dreams.
Mazulu, Guess your "in your face" comment was "Light". like humor then?
Okay, ergo...may I respond to"Lighten up"...with humor also?
Brighten up.
Lol I like that. There's some on here that seem wound a wee bit tight.
At the end of the day, I'm all for healthy exchanges. Differences of views and opinions.
That's what makes life interesting, right? But if someone starts insulting me for no reason? Putting words in my mouth? Meh...I'm out. I nor you need to prove anything to anyone.
I respect others' views and never see the need to insult someone's intelligence or beliefs.
Anyway...
You've maintained a nice balance, Mazulu.
Stay classy.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I guess I am trying to set it apart from our common use of the word potential. We use this word (when applicable) in everyday life, but I believe the noun Potential is an inescapable property of the Wholeness. At par with the concept of Cause and Effect, a logical philosophical existence independent of the physical world. It is both latent and causal (Bohm speaks of "implicate potentials arising from pure potential, a plenum within another greater plenum "pure potential" (infinite possibility) from which a specific implied potential emerges, which Bohm calls the Implicate of what will become Explicate in reality (change).
I interpret this to mean Potential is a meta-physical latent excellence of the singular Wholeness (timeless zero state), in which the creation of our universe (and possible other universes) was not only possible, but inevitable.
If I could edit the OT I would begin with this statement. "Before the beginning was the word Potential and in the beginning was the word "Now".
As to my overuse of caps is probably from my European upbringing and schooling... :shrug:
dmoe's cool though lol ...I wasn't speaking of you, dmoe.
...so...wiink...wiink...
...but for the sake of being completely honest...Nurse Wratchett checked about 45 minutes ago and said my temperature was still over 101..so... not so currently really ...cool...but...meh!...
Still though...wiink...wiink...
I thought you were trying to be funny. :shrug:
You're awesome!Lol I like that. There's some on here that seem wound a wee bit tight.
At the end of the day, I'm all for healthy exchanges. Differences of views and opinions.
That's what makes life interesting, right? But if someone starts insulting me for no reason? Putting words in my mouth? Meh...I'm out. I nor you need to prove anything to anyone.
I respect others' views and never see the need to insult someone's intelligence or beliefs.
Anyway...
You've maintained a nice balance, Mazulu.
Well, there you go. This statement completely demonstrates the problem at hand. Human language is not useful in describing the "creation" of the universe. The words "causality", "event" and "instant" all involve time. And yet there was no time. (<-- even that last sentence "there was no time" is completely muddled.) Any attempt to talk about the problem of the creation of the universe becomes a snake swallowing its tail.
Causation, or more exactly cause and effect, refers to a chain of events, or if you would prefer a series of configuration states in a space and time scenario. There is nothing you can do to change that. It is definition. So all anyone can do is twist the meaning of words until the whole thing is completely confused. Even when you state that the universe is expanding into nothingness, you have twisted the science. The universe is expanding, but the "into nothingness" part is obviously wrong. That makes no sense. The snake is just continuing to chew on its tail.
You can take almost every statement in that last quote and by parsing it, find that it contains inconsistencies, misstatements, confused definitions and circularities of logic. Every statement about no time is described in terms that insinuate time. Every sentence contains a verb and in that verb, sometimes explicit and sometimes not, is the concept of time. The best hope anyone has of cracking this problem is mathematics, but even that is questionable.
Supposing there is a "larger universe" that contains ours is also problematic. What ever space and time that it has, is not our space and time. It has no dimensions you can point in, and multiple time dimensions are very very problematic.
On this subject, speculating is all we can do. Extrapolating measured data points into the past infers a singularity with no space and no time. It does not infer a pre-existing universe.
I think the point does count because I know where you want to go with it. You want to somehow use Hubble expansion to design some new anti-gravity drive with which to travel to the stars. But that is not going to work because Hubble expansion only is significant at great distances. So a spaceship in Earth orbit could never use it to move away from the Earth. You could only use it to move away from things incredibly distant already. Not very useful.
I take it your gravity beam experiments were not very successful. Some of the statements you have made in the last couple of weeks imply that you have abandoned the idea completely. Maybe next time you will question the true origin of the telepathic thoughts the space aliens are sending you.
At the singularity there was no time in this space-time, but there appear to be missing pieces of physics (or perhaps missing pieces beyond physics). At this point, call it God or call it nature, it makes no difference, the physics constants and the physics laws still have to be implemented somehow. It is entirely possible that measurable things only began to exist at the birth of this space-time. Before that, there has to be stuff that would lead up to the big bang, but it doesn't have to be established physics laws or established physics constants.
I did everything I was supposed to. I am disappointed that we probably won't get an anti-gravity drive in my life-time, by that's not my fault. I think that anyone who is dissuaded by nay-Sayers is weak minded. I fought for what I believed in, even if I couldn't overcome the laws of nature.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
Today's cosmologists insist that the phrase "before the Big Bang" is meaningless. It's similar to "colder than absolute zero." To say that one thing happened before another is to imply that time existed, and they insist that time only exists as an attribute of the universe. No universe = no time.
The Big Bang (according to this model) brought everything into existence in an instant. Not just matter and energy, but also the space-time continuum and the laws of nature.
This is why I suggest graphing time on a logarithmic scale. That puts the Big Bang at minus infinity.
It sounds like cosmologist dogma. It's a way to sweep under the carpet the necessary lead up to the birth of the universe. It's like ignoring the existence of the mother when the baby is born. Using cosmologist logic, "a hole just opened up, and a baby fell out."
But I will entertain the idea that "measureables", did not exist before the big bang. May be there was no space-time geometry before the bb.
Mazulu, you state that you can entertain idea(s). Is it at all possible that maybe you can entertain the idea that it just may be that "The Big Bang Theory" is just that - a Theory!
Mazulu, it is not called "The Big Bang Fact"!
You are able to state metaphorically, your perceived "cosmologist dogma" - how is possible that you cannot "entertain the idea" that the BB theory just may be "religious dogma" dressed up as Science.
Scientists had to do a lot of "fudging or adjusting of fundamentals" to get the theory to fit the observed data or vice versa to be able to represent the current model. Including a "built in ignorance or blindness of anything PRIOR or BEFORE"!
Mazulu, does that in any way remind you of another "story" that people are more or less told and expected to believe without questioning any PRIOR or BEFORE?
I only ask Mazulu, because you seemed to say that you could entertain ideas...
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I agree it is hard to express those things which are outside our scope of our observation and experience. All propositions (in that context) are speculative, but that does not mean they are necessarily false.
(bolded by me)
I do not disagree with that. Time is an accounting of the chronology and duration of events.
However, in the bolded excerpt you changed the noun causality into a action of change i.e."cause and effect" and is not a more accurate description of the word causality.
A causality itself is not change (it is an implication of change before the event has occurred) and therefore outside the definition of duration of time.
(bolded by me)
Perhaps my narratives sound confused when parsing individual statements. But the intent is to read the narrative in its entirety in order to understand the concept of what I am trying to say.
If you could list those inconsistencies, misstatements, confused definitions and circularities of logic, I may be able to clarify.
I made that very point before.
But (as I indicated) that is not my supposition. It was an example of what other (some very qualified physicists) have proposed. String Theory involves may separate plenums, as does the proposition of a "multiverse". But I agree, all of them are problematic as they all rest on inference rather than direct observation or measurement.
But allow me an example of parsing in context of the thread title..
If you disagree with my (or anyone else) speculations, does that mean you believe the laws of nature are based on magic?
- Status