time big bang

@vectorcube,

Guys at the moment that the singularity came into existence do you believe it was "EVERYTHING"?

And if the universe is by extrapolation "everything" how the heck can it expand?

1 Reply

@validity,

validity;99709 wrote:

We must be careful here in order to preserve a critical difference. Yes it can be said that the universe appeared from nowhere, but that does not mean the universe came from nothing.

The critical difference is being blurred here. Above you say the universe appeared from nowhere, which is concieveable, in a sense that space appeared along with matter and energy. Nothing is stronger than nowhere. No thing can come from nothing, as nothing includes no possibility. What ever the reason for the universe, there was the possibility of it occuring. A state of nothing would of excluded the universe from ever occuring.

What philosophy or science states that the universe came from nothing?

you are presuming from events since the BB that everything must have cause, as it was the first visible event you cant presume anything, except what is observed. I ask again if something appears from nothing, what is nothing what is something?

---------- Post added 10-25-2009 at 02:32 PM ----------

Alan McDougall;99711 wrote:

Guys at the moment that the singularity came into existence do you believe it was "EVERYTHING"?

And if the universe is by extrapolation "everything" how the heck can it expand?

I have no idea Alan. It concludes that it came from something or it came from nothing. As we observe nothing is forever and is never ever why can it not be just the begining? If I was religious I would be tempted to say god was the word and the word was the BB.

Infinite gravity either stops time or makes it so damned slow it could be not measured so why did the universe expand so quickly with the mass it contained. Why did it stay constantly hidden forever ..but i forget there is no forever. We come back to the only conclusion it came from nothing.

2 Replies

@xris,

xris;99737 wrote:

I ask again if something appears from nothing, what is nothing what is something?

I don't understand how you can assert that the universe came from nothing if you are not sure what you mean by the term "nothing". Surely one must attach a meaning to a word before using it. Can you please clarify what you mean by your question "What is nothing?"

1 Reply

@ACB,

This is interesting stuff. The tiny bit I know about it is that the Big Bang is still an unfinished theory, unless they figured it all out since I learned about it. One unfinished aspect is the suspicion that the early universe had as much matter as it did antimatter, and with all the swirling energy, it all should have disappeared.. which is apparently what happens when matter and antimatter meet.

So there would have to be some way of explaining what happened there. Was there more matter than antimatter? Did some aspect of the situation favor matter? So it might be premature for us to get stretched out of shape over it, when it's still half-baked. What we actually observe is that the universe appears to be expanding.

As for time... we'd have to ask the dude in the wheelchair. Is he still alive?

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;99737 wrote:

you are presuming from events since the BB that everything must have cause, as it was the first visible event you cant presume anything, except what is observed. I ask again if something appears from nothing, what is nothing what is something?

I do not intend to presume such an idea, so I need you to show me where this presumption is in my post, so that I may correct it.

I answer again, something can not appear from nothing. A state of nothing would include no possibility of anything happening or changing or popping into existence.

I ask again what philosophy or science states that the universe came from nothing?

1 Reply

@validity,

validity;99774 wrote:

I ask again what philosophy or science states that the universe came from nothing?

Interrupting this train of reasoning, I've postulated in my CA (Causal Argument) thread that Kant's presumption in formulating his first antinomy was/is based on the common definition of nothing that can be found in a household dictionary. Nothing has a practical definition, for our everyday use. Kant also insisted that we throw out the magic wand of so-called common sense in our reasoning about matters that reach beyond the scope of our possible experience (in metaphysics, that is). When we're talking about nothing and the big bang, we have to define the terms; so if the bb was preceded by a zero state like a singularity (with infinite density) the question really should be: Where did this infinite density come from?

It could not have come from nothing.

The Planck time is 10 to the minus 43 seconds. That's the shortest measurement of time in relation to the speed of light that can be measured by the known laws of physics. No smaller measurement is possible. If a zero state of spacetime, which is really oxymoronic, preceded the Planck time, then this infinite density had to have some equal or greater force compelling it to expand; otherwise, it would have just contined to remain what it was.

The argument I've formulated and posted in a separate thread is the only way I can reason out a logical process of cause and effect that accounts for all of this. Physics can't help. The only tool left to us is pure reason (metaphysics). In this regard, Kant's thinking was right, and with his critical philosophy he showed the way towards the only possible solution to such questions.

There's no point in asking Stephen Hawking (the guy in the wheelchair) for the answers. He's an astrophysicist, not a philosopher, and the answers can only come from philosophy. Kant understood this in the 18th century, and he would have known better than to ask Hawking for any advice where this is concerned.

As far as I know, Leibniz is the only mathematician Kant mentions by name, and he didn't have anything positive to say about Leibniz poking his nose around in philosophical matters. Kant denounced Leibniz's philosophical ramblings. Had Leibniz spent more of his time pursuing mathematics, his specialty, and not philosophy, maybe he would have beaten Newton to the punch, and we'd now know that it was Leibniz, not Newton, who invented calculus.

Actually, I've heard from a CAL Tech physicist that Newton beat Leibniz to the publishers by some underhanded maneuvering.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;99711 wrote:

Guys at the moment that the singularity came into existence do you believe it was "EVERYTHING"?

I do not know of any reason to think either way. I am becoming more in favour of the brane cosmology description so my preference is that it was not EVERYTHING. What are your thoughts?

Alan McDougall;99711 wrote:

And if the universe is by extrapolation "everything" how the heck can it expand?

Dark energy has my vote as it can gravitationally repel.

2 Replies

@validity,

[QUOTE=validity;99787]I do not know of any reason to think either way. I am becoming more in favour of the brane cosmology description so my preference is that it was not EVERYTHING. What are your thoughts?

Dark energy has my vote as it can gravitationally repel.[/QUOTE]
To add a bit more:_

Reversing time the Earth de-form into clouds of stellar materials produced from exploded stars which themselves de-explode and then de-coalesce toward becoming a dense uniform opaque plasma

As time accelerates backwards space itself collapses inward, as if it is being vacuumed away, moving all the material in the universe ever nearer, with all finally crashing into a beginning point. As the universe crashes inward it seems obvious that we must be closing in on some sort of birth. We seem to be moving backward toward what must inevitably be a distinct creation event, where the somethingness of matter arises from a primordial nothing.

At this moment an act of omnificent magic, a fortunate accident, or something completely inexplicable, considering the universe is expanding it appears evident that somehow all that we know, has been, and everything that shall follow in the wake of the present, came to be all at once at one moment of time in our past. It seems evident that somehow something impossibly erupted to create a beginning, even if all the laws of nature as they are known today in science forbid such an event. The first law states that energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Furthermore, every ounce of logic be it intuitive or mathematical, demands that something cannot be created out of absolutely nothing. A zillion zeros still add up to zero. And logically, if something comes from nothing, then it wasn't really anything to begin with then was it? And yet the universe is here, and all is expanding away from one single place and one single time, before which there is no possibility of time as we perceive time.

Every bone in a reasonable person's body screams that this sudden creation event could not have happened by itself. A universe cannot just pop into existence.

The existence of a universe and our own existence require a cause. And so we ask, does this impossibility of 'something coming from nothing' mean that the universe absolutely had to have been created? Did a powerful being of some kind (usually assumed to be named God) create the first moment of our universe?

It is almost a relief to consider this possibility in the face of such a paradoxical dilemma, except we actually know that this solution only suspends and relocates the mystery.

All the same questions we ask about how the universe came to be, must then be diverted to this being called God. The inference of some seems to be that God is so powerful that God is beyond needing an explanation, yet realistically the same old questions apply.

How long has this being existed?

How did God begin from nothing? If it has existed forever, then how can it just exist? Why does God exist rather than nothing at all?
???

Alan

0 Replies

@validity,

validity;99787 wrote:

I do not know of any reason to think either way. I am becoming more in favour of the brane cosmology description so my preference is that it was not EVERYTHING. What are your thoughts?

Dark energy has my vote as it can gravitationally repel.

so this dark matter has it a history similar to the matter we can see, can it be traced back before the BB or does it become apparent with the BB?

If it had an effect, why at that point, why not before. It still leaves you with the question that we had before, where did the dark matter come from. It may well be the force that compelled matter to expand but it fails to answer from where.

1 Reply

@xris,

Alan McDougall;99711 wrote:

Guys at the moment that the singularity came into existence do you believe it was "EVERYTHING"?

And if the universe is by extrapolation "everything" how the heck can it expand?

I have made a mistake, I read your question as why does the expansion accelerate, which my answer is still dark energy. Why did the singularity expand - for me this singularity may not be a thing but rather a consequence of the model used to extrapolate backwards not working i.e. GR. We made not need to answer the question because this singularity may not be an actual thing with physical existence.

xris;99899 wrote:

so this dark matter has it a history similar to the matter we can see, can it be traced back before the BB or does it become apparent with the BB?

If it had an effect, why at that point, why not before. It still leaves you with the question that we had before, where did the dark matter come from. It may well be the force that compelled matter to expand but it fails to answer from where.

NOTE: Dark energy is different to dark matter. There are various speculative answers, as at present no theory can go 'behind' the big bang. Staying with brane cosmology, colliding branes provides kinetic energy that can be transformed into dark energy, dark matter, ordinary energy and ordinary matter.

At this point I remind you of the comment I made about there will always be the question of why or from whence. No matter what the explanation, those questions can be asked. At some point the question of "questioning the fundamentals" becomes interesting. In the regress, there is a fundamental from which all else is drawn. If the fundamental is everything from nothing, then you have no way to bridge the gap between nothing and something. At some point therefore your fundamental will have to be something.

1 Reply

@validity,

To say how it came from nothing is another question. My only question is that if it appears, it has a beginning that has no visible cause then from that nothing what is something, can we distinguish between the two. Other poster claim a creator, I would not be so bold.

My question about dark matter, its my ignorance, does it appear at the same time as visible matter, at the BB. I'm not dismissive of your opinions but I'm never convinced of any theories on the proposed causes. They all fail to impress me with their imagined scenarios.

I'm not truly convinced but the torus universe appears to hold a clue to so many anomalies with our view of the universe. I'm not that educated to understand the mathematics of the theory to be able to make a critical comment on its possibility. It may explain why certain distant galaxies appear to be accelerating and why the bb is so difficult to explain. Our place in this torus universe could be why we have a distorted view and why we make many assumption that fail our scientific logic. Its the best on the block for an alternative to the BB.

0 Replies

@vectorcube,

Xris a Torus universe does not exist in isolation, and an infinite number of zeroes (nothingnesses) still add up to nothing.

So in my opinion the "something" we have all around of us must have originated from elsewhere

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;100058 wrote:

Xris a Torus universe does not exist in isolation, and an infinite number of zeroes (nothingnesses) still add up to nothing.

So in my opinion the "something" we have all around of us must have originated from elsewhere

Alan im not in a position to argue for or against it because the maths is beyond me. They claim , i believe,is that the universe is like a torus , a massive tube wrapped around itself, a bit like that paper trick i dont know the name of, where you always end up where you started. It is then claimed that dark matter is surrounding the visible universe and they are expanding in unison. The dark energy influences the visible universe because of it is an antigravity influence. Its bit beyond me but i cant fault its logic, yet.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;100071 wrote:

Alan im not in a position to argue for or against it because the maths is beyond me. They claim , i believe,is that the universe is like a torus , a massive tube wrapped around itself, a bit like that paper trick i dont know the name of, where you always end up where you started. It is then claimed that dark matter is surrounding the visible universe and they are expanding in unison. The dark energy influences the visible universe because of it is an antigravity influence. Its bit beyond me but i cant fault its logic, yet.

Ah!! I know that paper trick it is called a mobius strip a one sided object as below, make one yourself by taking a strip of paper twist it by 180% and glue the two ends then cut it in half for a great surprise!!

http://api.ning.com/files/CTj5Cl*FeSJObUsXnQaM01dMjjrv0dSjO6PQUHY4-xped7ReP7JNQ3lyxuXSUlpToMeGNwhRtTf5MYAKjdh0NDge5z7Z182V/MobiusStrip.jpg

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;100080 wrote:

Ah!! I know that paper trick it is called a mobius strip a one sided object as below, make one yourself by taking a strip of paper twist it by 180% and glue the two ends then cut it in half for a great surprise!!

http://api.ning.com/files/CTj5Cl*FeSJObUsXnQaM01dMjjrv0dSjO6PQUHY4-xped7ReP7JNQ3lyxuXSUlpToMeGNwhRtTf5MYAKjdh0NDge5z7Z182V/MobiusStrip.jpg

yes it was always used as a explaination of the fourth dimension, i never understood why.

2 Replies

@xris,

vectorcube;79261 wrote:

there is nothing "before", because there is no time.

That can be considered as one interpretation of the singularity found in the backward extrapolation of GR. This interpretation may be an assumption.

xris;100035 wrote:

To say how it came from nothing is another question. My only question is that if it appears, it has a beginning that has no visible cause then from that nothing what is something, can we distinguish between the two. Other poster claim a creator, I would not be so bold.

If there is a means, mechanism etc then there can be no nothing i.e. something must hold that means, mechanism etc.

xris;100035 wrote:

My question about dark matter, its my ignorance, does it appear at the same time as visible matter, at the BB. I'm not dismissive of your opinions but I'm never convinced of any theories on the proposed causes. They all fail to impress me with their imagined scenarios.

Ordinary matter did not appear at the BB. Timeline of the Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Since dark matter has different properties to ordinary matter I would not say it appeared at the same time as ordinary matter. More information on the nature of dark matter is needed to answer this.

1 Reply

@validity,

Why is it essential that we need a cause to find the first event ? We are trapped in a mind set of a causal universe ? This might just be it, the first event without cause that gives rise to every other event.

I appreciate your defining when matter first appeared but my remark was that matter was formed from the the BB. I can find no information on and if dark matter appeared at the same time. Can its expansion be seen?

It may well give a clue to what precede the BB if dark matter existed before the BB.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;100147 wrote:

yes it was always used as a explaination of the fourth dimension, i never understood why.

Did you make one xris?, a mobius strip has "only one side" so if you cut it in half it does not leave two separate equal length strips as expected, but forms a "longer interlinked chain of two strips twice as long" as the original, against all logic I might add

New Theory Nixes "Dark Energy": Says Time is Disappearing from the Universe

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/09/is-time-slowly-disappearin.html

Though radical and in many way unprecedented, these ideas are not without support. Gary Gibbons, a cosmologist at Cambridge University, say the concept has merit. "We believe that time emerged during the Big Bang, and if time can emerge, it can also disappear - that's just the reverse effect."

Posted by Rebecca Sato.
Related Galaxy posts:

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;100269 wrote:

Did you make one xris?, a mobius strip has "only one side" so if you cut it in half it does not leave two separate equal length strips as expected, but forms a "longer interlinked chain of two strips twice as long" as the original, against all logic I might add

Some time ago in the distant passed Alan , it is and was a strange amusement. Funny how you forget these things and then it all comes flooding back.

0 Replies

@xris,

xris;100259 wrote:

Why is it essential that we need a cause to find the first event ? We are trapped in a mind set of a causal universe ? This might just be it, the first event without cause that gives rise to every other event.

There is theoretical evidence that it may not be the first event. This theoretical evidence is convincing enough to warrant experimental investigation. I think, at this stage, it is justified to hold onto that mind set. It is possible that time is a closed loop and in which case the universe can be its own cause. This would have an interesting effect on the definition of causality.

xris;100259 wrote:

I appreciate your defining when matter first appeared but my remark was that matter was formed from the the BB. I can find no information on and if dark matter appeared at the same time. Can its expansion be seen?

It may well give a clue to what precede the BB if dark matter existed before the BB.

In the current state, the BB is the origin of all matter and energy. I prefer the idea that dark matter formed after the BB but before ordinary matter. This can explain why ordinary matter is clumped inside clumps of dark matter i.e. dark matter halos . Dark matter does not expand in any way different to ordinary matter.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know