Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the matter and energy come from?
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 8 of 357 (542769)
01-12-2010 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Aware Wolf
01-12-2010 12:36 PM


Devoid of even a void
Aware Wolf writes:
You read folks saying that time/space/matter/energy did not exist prior to the big bang as though that is a settled fact, or at least there is some preponderance of evidence pointing to this. Do we really "know" that? Or, as I suspect in my admitted ignorance, are the possibilities pretty much endless?
When you say that we believe "time/space/matter/energy did not exist prior to the big bang", I think the time and space part is accurate. As I understand it, time and space (as we know them) expanded from the singularity of the big bang. If our cosmological model is true - if everything in the universe was in the distant past compressed into a singularity - then there would at that point be neither time nor space by our definitions of those words. All matter and energy (one and the same as Einstein taught us) that we see today is conjectured to have been within that singularity if I understand the model correctly. I sincerely hope someone will point out my error if this is not an accurate statement.
Asking what came "before" the expansion of this singularity might possibly be beyond the reach of science (apart from theoretical). I hope not, but it seems to me a bit of a daunting task. It would be analagous to asking someone to describe what they saw on the day before they were born. Of course they didn't see anything... they couldn't have. But that certainly doesn't mean there was nothing there to be seen.
If I am right that the big bang model posits that ALL matter/energy in existence was present in the singularity, then the question of "where" it came from is less important (in my view) than the question of why it expanded.
I have an admitted ignorance in this regard similar to yourself, and I hope further posts will help clarify somewhat, but I fear that evidence of anything "prior" to the big bang (which would include the "where did it come from" and the "what happened to cause expansion" questions) may forever be beyond our grasp. I too eagerly await Cavediver's input, and any others with a better grasp of this intriguing topic.
Edited by Briterican, : Had to remove "at that time" when referring to a point where time didn't exist. My head hurts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Aware Wolf, posted 01-12-2010 12:36 PM Aware Wolf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Aware Wolf, posted 01-12-2010 2:16 PM Briterican has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 11 of 357 (542779)
01-12-2010 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Taq
01-12-2010 2:31 PM


Re: In a metal box with glowing walls
Taq writes:
The Universe is defined as everything we can observe which is a sphere about 13.7 billion years in radius around us, at least according to my layman's understanding and reading in the area.
You sound like you're probably on a similar level of understanding about this stuff as I am (possibly a bit presumptious on my part, as I don't really know jack), but I hope you'll forgive me for pointing out one discrepancy in the above.
The idea that the universe is a "sphere" is incorrect. If the universe is finite but boundless (as most believe), then it would probably be more aptly described as a hypersphere - I'm not even going to try to explain that one as it's beyond my capacity - but it basically involves curvature in unobserved dimensions.
For a good article on "the shape of the universe" - click here.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/1998/02/980217001924.htm
... however, don't expect to come away from it with any solid answer.
Meanwhile, as always, I hope that if anyone spots errors in my statements they will point them out, and, like Taq and Aware Wolf and most of the rest of us, we will listen and learn.
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Taq, posted 01-12-2010 2:31 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Taq, posted 01-12-2010 3:22 PM Briterican has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 14 of 357 (542787)
01-12-2010 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Taq
01-12-2010 3:22 PM


Re: In a metal box with glowing walls
Taq writes:
What I am trying to convey is that the universe is defined by what we can observe. This observable area is 13.7 billion light years in all directions from where you are right now. The observable area is best described as a sphere.
That makes good sense.
Taq writes:
As for the curvature of space time, due to super-luminal inflation it exists outside of our observable universe. Visually, the observable universe may (as in I think this is how it is) best be described as a marble within a toroid. At least, this is how I picture it.
Did I try to equate our levels of understanding earlier? A mistake. I'm about to spend the next half hour deciphering this. Thanks
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Taq, posted 01-12-2010 3:22 PM Taq has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 22 of 357 (542795)
01-12-2010 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by cavediver
01-12-2010 4:03 PM


Re: Matter and Energy
cavediver writes:
Let's get it right from the start: matter is not energy; matter is not made of energy; matter is not frozen energy.
In the last hour of digging around I've discovered this and it just makes me want to cry that I have such large gaps in understanding, but I'll give myself a break on this one as I suspect others suffer the same misunderstanding. Thanks for clearing that up right at the start. As a side note, did Einstein have this misunderstanding, or were his comments about "frozen energy" a sort of analogy of the proposed relationships between matter and energy?
cavediver writes:
Our current understanding sees that existence is made up of fields. Each field fills space-time, and they overlap each other perfectly. At each point in space-time, there is a value (set of numbers) associated with each field.
Let me be clear, any questions I ask are not out of incredulity, but rather in an attempt to clarify. I realise we are talking about a model, but in this model there would need to be a method of storing these values. How is that addressed in the model? It might not be a valid question given my low level of comprehension here, but I'll never know if I don't ask.
cavediver writes:
These fields are believed to be different facets of one master unified field, and we see this in Supergravity, string theory, and related extended models.
So it sounds like the model based on fields as you've described has the potential to provide a single explanatory framework that could unify quantum mechanics and relativity. Are there those who think it already does? Are there any theories out there now that purport to provide unification?
cavediver writes:
Energy - what about energy? - energy is merely an accounting system, reflecting conservation of excitations between the fields. Energy is simply quantification of the field excitations - given a particular configuration of excitations at time T1, this limits those configurations at time T2. Does this concept sound like the sort of thing that stuff is made of??? NO!!!
This coincides with things I'm reading about energy conservation and energy transfer. You guys are forcing me to perfect my google search skills, but it is worthwhile.
Thanks for the logical route of your overall explanation, i.e. the individual fields interacting to result in varying degrees of "solidity".
cavediver writes:
Existence is made of the fields - or better, existence IS the fields - is the one master unified field.
So to go back to part of the OP:
Larni writes:
So, where did all the matter and energy contained in the big bang come from or, what form did the matter and energy (for want of more accurate labels) have at that point?
Let me try to rephrase this in light of the model you've described. Firstly, "where did the fields come from" is a premature question. If the model did provide any glimpse into this question, maybe you can save it for later (perhaps an example of the extended meanings of "before" and "outside" you mentioned earlier).
How about the second part though: What form did these fields have at the point of the big bang? Would they have been in any way different than the fields that interact today? What I'm trying to grasp here is, that if the fields fill space-time, then by what mechanism would they continue to fill an expanding space-time?
cavediver writes:
Any clearer? What do you mean, "no!"????
Actually, yeah, it is clearer Thanks for the description of the model and I hope the thread continues to expand on the details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by cavediver, posted 01-12-2010 4:03 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Iblis, posted 01-12-2010 5:20 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 37 of 357 (543008)
01-14-2010 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Buzsaw
01-13-2010 5:39 PM


Re: Existence
Hi Buzsaw
Buzsaw writes:
All energy and matter has been eterna in some form or anotherl and eternally managed via work of the supreme creator.
Evidence please Buz. A large amount of evidence exists that supports the big bang theory, and the fact that the theory doesn't address the ultimate origin question (in the same way that the ToE doesn't address abiogenesis) doesn't suddenly mean all that evidence is flawed somehow. We simply have no way of knowing what did or didn't exist or occur outside of our universe, and quite possibly never will. We talk about the big bang theory and the expanding universe because of a preponderance of evidence supporting it.
Positing "the supreme creator" doesn't get us any closer to understanding things on a rational basis, and since this is the science forums, I think it is important that we discuss things on a rational basis.
(PS - as a side note thanks for your civil reply to my somewhat uncivilsed rant against you on the Jesus thread. Apologies for having forgotten my manners.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Buzsaw, posted 01-13-2010 5:39 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Buzsaw, posted 01-15-2010 12:58 PM Briterican has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 38 of 357 (543009)
01-14-2010 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Larni
01-13-2010 1:14 PM


Are the fields eternal, or are they multiplying?
Hi Larni
Where did all that existence that is made up of fields came from?
That's the topic of this thread so stay tuned.
My guess is that the model described by cavediver doesn't really get any closer to answering this question than anything we haven't already heard. It seems more of a philosophical question.
I DO however hope that cavediver or others can address a query I made earlier that has gone unanswered...
How does this model account for the expansion of space in relation to the fields? Does each field expand along with space? Do the "gaps" made by expansion get filled in with new fields?
I think it is safe to say the fields must be incredibly tiny, at least as tiny as a quark I would guess. So... does the model say anything about the continuous existence of all the fields since the beginning of time, or does it suggest that new fields come into existence? Or are these questions not addressed by the model?
Edited by Briterican, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Larni, posted 01-13-2010 1:14 PM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2010 3:39 PM Briterican has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 41 of 357 (543022)
01-14-2010 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by cavediver
01-14-2010 3:39 PM


Re: Are the fields eternal, or are they multiplying?
cavediver writes:
There is only one electron field, and every electron in existence is just a little bump, excitation, or wavelet in that field. Similarly for the photon field, and all of the others.
Thanks for that, it is a distinction I hadn't appreciated.
cavediver writes:
Although the values in the graviton field will affect the dynamics in the other fields, it would be a mistake to think of the fields as "expanding" - expansion is something we perceive with our coarse high-level emergent persepctive.
That is a further helpful way of thinking about it.
The idea of the "values" is still perplexing me. I'm unclear about how the values would be stored, although someone did mention something earlier about a value being analagous to pit or bulge of varying depth/height.
It must be difficult to explain the details in layman's terms, and I thank you for taking the time to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2010 3:39 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2010 5:16 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 54 of 357 (543131)
01-15-2010 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Buzsaw
01-15-2010 12:58 PM


Re: Existence
Buzsaw writes:
Briterican, in short, BB theory, reminds me of when mommy asks sonny where the cookies went. Sonny, instead of answering with a few rational words, articulates a lengthy irrational alibi.
In order to have that opinion though, there has to be some point along the logical evidence chain where you disconnect, but where many generations of scientists before you slowly developed their clearer, evidenced position.
Everything observed in the universe is moving away from everything else, so it stands to reason that it must have all been packed together at a very distant point in the past. The cosmic background radiation, a remnant of this distant point in the past was predicted in 1948 by George Gamow, Ralph Alpher, and Robert Herman, and finally observed in 1964.
Somewhere along there... in that last paragraph, you must say "nope, not true, I can't accept that", probably in the first half of the first sentence. A chain could be made all the way down to very basic science like spectroscopy, and at some point you must (in order to hold your opinion) say "nope, I'm not having that, I don't believe that, I don't care what the evidence says".
So I'm just curious... at what point do evidenced, rational explanations get disregarded in favour of your particular flavour of religion? Clearly I understand that you don't believe in evolution, but just in terms of pure physics, where is the disconnect? Do you "believe" in the cosmic background radiation? Do you "believe" in radio waves? Light waves? Magnetism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Buzsaw, posted 01-15-2010 12:58 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 01-15-2010 11:01 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024