Why are things in space the shape that they are?

Question: Is a proton physical matter or a pre-physical mathematical value, a potential?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, virtual particles are NOT physical matter. They are mathematical "values" possessing different quantum potentials.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

deleted for duplication

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

With no creator?

I looked everywhere in the eternal universe and could not find the "initial" and am pretty sure we did not have one.
I do not see how a small imbalance or the alleged butterfly effect could work.
Conservation of energy must rule it out.
However leave it in if you like I think the concept of something from nothing is a human need to find creation and a creator.
In any event it is speculation but then so is the theory of inflation..in my view..
Thanks for an informative post...my I point out something...you like your maths and that is nice and you treat it as infallible and on that point I could agree but it is a tool and like all tools it is used by a human to construct a description of reality, actually even to describe the abstract and unfortunately although math is somewhat infalible the human invariably is not...for example GR is geometry and can be employed to build a big bang universe or a eternal universe the final model is somewhat predetermined by the human and what he choses to include.
If we set out to find creation GR can take us there...as it did.
Anyways what I am on about is not science so I will not continue.
Alex

 

If creation was an intentional act as described in the bible then yes, creation would by definition require a sentient motivated creator.

That's how I know creation was NOT a motivated intentional act but a self-ordering result of mathematical probabilities, based on prevailing inherent mathematical potentials

As mathematics are quasi intelligent (logical) self-ordering functions with an appearance of intentional order, it is no wonder that primitive man would assign (imagine) an actual motivated creative intelligence, a god.

But scientific observation has shown that creation of physical shapes (mathematical patterns) can also occur as emergent mathematically ordered patterns from disorder, and evolutionary processes by natural selection (all mathematical functions). And by Occam's razor the simplest functional solution is always the preferred one.

The initial causal singularity? After 13.5 billion years how do you expect to see the initial causality which must have happened the quantum instant before creation and be beyond the observable event horizon.

By magic of mathematics. Is this not precisely what chaos theory explains?

Yeah, that's a tricky question. But if our proposed singularity contains all the universal energy, then any inflationary process might well be within the limits of the laws of thermodynamics.

I agree, that's how we invented gods.
But the "hard fact" is that we are here and we all agree that what we can observe today is a result of evolutionary mechanics (a mathematical function).

I agree, but the theory does address the observed universal self-ordering behaviors.

Sincere thanks.

I absolutely agree that human mathematics as an analytical tool of universal values and functions is incomplete.

The inventor of the "mathematical universe" (Tegmark) clearly stipulates to the current shortcoming of "human mathematics", but he believes we are on the right track if we follow the mathematics of natural phenomena. He proposes that, if and when we get the maths right, we can explain and form a TOE, just by using 32 mathematical relational values and maybe a dozen or so fundamental equations.

But human maths are only symbolic descriptions of observed behaviors between natural
relational values and mathematical functions and as such are limited to what we have been able to observe or mathematically extrapolate from secondary effects.

General Relativity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

Thanks for your contribution. You are actually an observer of the Universe at various stages of evolution and I, for one, value your input.......

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't care that a human can enlist maths to support a particular notion but would like you to recognise that is the way of it...look when I say eternal universe I mean absolutely no start ..ever...none of your permissive conditions are required in my universe..sorry..and I understand what you say.


Certainly my thin is Entirely speculative but from here we have our axe to grind...it is now we bring in our math to support and prove we are right. And build a model into which we can fit observations as they come in...and a frame work that we can adjust as we go along but remember the basic premise is right so all observations and adjustments need to take that into account.

Well I can't agree here at all..well I agree that the preference for the simplest exists but these words are merely words, from a man, and do not deserve to be followed as if there is no alternative...these words are as convenient as many other sayings..like stuff you find on a date pad..a saying for today stuff.

I hate those things..sounds smart everyone says how clever and now have a saying to avoid the need to think...oh we have a situation...what's the simplest answer..great let's go for coffee.

Why roll it out as if it provides authority to fit a situation you have determined to be the simple explanation.

Can I overturn your claim to simplicity and there by refute your arguement..I think the use of Occams razor is mostly inappropriate and may not stand tests offered by reality.

The simplest explanation is " God did it" so being the simplest explanation would you accept it?

Big Bang is cosmology and cosmology is what it is..I don't think it is seen as science except in one particular case..the big bang..all other cosmology is most clearly religion..creation myths..we see our cosmology as above all those primitive cultures of course because we employ science..employing science however does not make our cosmology science..does it?
That is a curley one for you.. what are your thoughts?
Alex

 

So you are of the opinion

Stuff + Mathematics came together [] ie appeared at the same moment?

Even though Stuff (physical reality), quarks and photons, appeared to begin to lump together

*****

Extract

Rapid cooling allowed for matter as we know it to form in the universe, although physicists are still trying to figure out exactly how this happened. About one ten-thousandth of a second after the Big Bang, protons and neutrons formed, and within a few minutes these particles stuck together to form atomic nuclei, mostly hydrogen and helium. Hundreds of thousands of years later, electrons stuck to the nuclei to make complete atoms.

https://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html

*****

No mention of any mathematicians being formed. ALL done with inbuilt PHYSICS

AGAIN maths is a INVENTED LANGUAGE used to described PHYSICS. Maths is NOT a DISCOVERED feature of the Universe

Hence we have a PHYSICAL Universe, NOT a MATHEMATICAL Universe

And physics rule why stuff in space form the shape they do, as well as the way they move (interact) between themselves forming such patterns as they do

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

And what are the qualities of the "patterns" that are being formed?
When I look at this I see ONLY mathematics!

https://physics.info/equations/

 

Qualities of the patterns, ummm look nice, but that's only my subjective opinion

Neat equations, but mathematics foreign language to me but I'm sure the equations describe how all the tiny bits of reality fit together to make big bits of reality

If you are seeing ONLY mathematics you really are missing out the beauty of the patterns of reality, the REAL stuff

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I must protest.
The OP question reads "Why are things in space the shape that they are"?

The keyword here is "shape". no? What is a physical shape? Are there physical shapes? Or is a shape a mathematical pattern.

OK, the definition of "shape"

IOW. a shape is a mathematical pattern. How else are we going to discuss "shapes" or "patterns" in physics except via mathematics?

But in the spirit of goodwill, I'll shall start a new thread. And with your permission, I'll start it in Physics & Math.

The "Language Of Physics".

 

I'm sorry Michael, but you have this backwards. Mathematical shapes and patterns make the art and beauty of Nature explicit.

Mathematical beauty

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

An example of "beauty in method"—a simple and elegant proof of the Pythagorean theorem.

Contents
1 Beauty in method
2 Beauty in results
3 Beauty in experience
4 Beauty and philosophy
5 Beauty and mathematical information theory
6 Mathematics and the arts
6.1Music'
6.2Visual arts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_beauty

 

That can only mean that if someone is ignorant of maths then they can not appreciate art ... is that what you mean?
Alex

 

I saw a fractal in that illustration. (post #72)

In your illustration I saw a incorrect mathematical arrangement of the triangles, which created the mismatch.
That's the difference between a random physical arrangement and a mathematically correct arrangement. Must have the maths to get it right.

 

No, what that means is that we recognize symmetry whether we know it or not. We are ourselves mathematical patterns and as such respond to mathematical objects.

But it is absolutely true that if you study the mathematics of composition, arrangement, balance, perspective, focal point, etc. your appreciation of art forms will increase tremendously.
Same as in music. Can't play music without studying the mathematics of music.

It is the same things as a Lemur being able to cognize the difference between "more" from "less" just as fast as humans. The Lemur doesn't count 1, 2, 3, 4., it just "cognizes" the difference in quantity distribution pattern of the objects being counted.
Note that Lemurs precede monkeys and apes and have the intelligence of tree dwellers living some 75,000,000 years ago.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I much prefer

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Cheers

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Er, would that be because the composite figure is in fact not a triangle? There is a kink in the "pseudo-hypotenuse", where the blue and red triangles touch, isn't there?

 

Yes.

I think James R's point is simply refuting post 72, wherein W4U infers a proof from a diagram.

A figure looking like it all adds up doesn't mean it does all add up - a diagram is not a proof.