Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the matter and energy come from?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 46 of 357 (543029)
01-14-2010 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Briterican
01-14-2010 4:26 PM


Re: Are the fields eternal, or are they multiplying?
The idea of the "values" is still perplexing me. I'm unclear about how the values would be stored
The values are not stored - they are. That is no more (and no less!) perplexing than the idea of geometry just being there, or "stuff" as most think of reality. Most fundemental concepts are reduced to just a set of numbers with no requirement whatsoever for some kind of "physical" substrate on which these numbers are "stored" or associated.
But this is (sort of) another topic and not really relevant (just yet)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Briterican, posted 01-14-2010 4:26 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by MatterWave, posted 01-15-2010 4:36 AM cavediver has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 357 (543032)
01-14-2010 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by cavediver
01-14-2010 5:11 PM


Re: Are the fields eternal, or are they multiplying?
There is no dimension for them to layer "through" - they overlap perfectly - but we often picture them as layers, and use the analogy.
Okay. That makes sense... maybe its like an embeded overlay, or something

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2010 5:11 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 48 of 357 (543059)
01-15-2010 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Buzsaw
01-13-2010 6:29 PM


Re: Skeptic's Dilemma
Very good! You seem to be grasping much of what I'm trying to communicate to you. I'm still going to whack at you pretty hard, but note that I think your attacks / analyses are moving away from a "not even wrong" position in an encouraging way.
So relativity, relative to the aleged singularity begins in the mind of humans who observe a current expansion in the observable cosmos. Assuming relative (I say relative) uniformity,
Yep. It's very good that you see that it is only relative uniformity. Uniformity in science isn't a total blinders-on law, just a remarkably reliable starting position. We see the "speed of light" c as a seriously uniform number; not because it would overthrow all our theories, but rather because we have tested it and tested it every which way we could come up with and new ways every year. Last I heard people were working on ways to test alpha, the underlying dimensionless constant, to see if it could be changeable in ways we might not notice by testing c directly. And so far, no way it is changing over time or space.
Nevertheless, in this discussion it is going to appear to be changing or being broken or screwed with in several different ways. The fact that these are just appearances actually upholds the math; nevertheless, uniformity is certainly in the eye of the beholder, yes? In the same sense, the expansion of the universe seemed to be pretty uniform when this math started. We can see back more than 12 billion years, we can see expansions at each time-period and check our figures, we can be pretty confident of uniformity where we see it. But as we look closely, about 4 or 5 billion years back, we see something funny. We see closer stuff, expanding faster, than farther / older views. This is that "Dark Energy" bit, we don't see those areas / periods crashing into the ones beyond / behind them, so it looks like things got faster all over.
Think about that for a minute, there. Something happened all through the spacetime. That certainly sounds like a c violation, doesn't it? We will come back to this.
a hypothesis is advanced to become peered theory, calculating back billions of years when the calculations arrive at T=0, beyond which point the theory fails,
Minor corrections here. Relativity (macro physics) actually stops well short of T=0, except in simple calculation. The theory can't well describe anything very close, it pretty much isn't valid until at least a few seconds afterward. And in reality, in terms of what is observable, it stops millions of years later, when it gets to a point before the quasars when there are no radiant bodies. Without light, relativity can't observe anything, you follow?
It also doesn't know it's that close, less than a billion years. Just using the expansion figures, it thinks it's whatever, 3 to 6 billion years after the alleged t=0. It can only work its way back from there in theory, and guess what? No one really likes what the theory says at this point. As we proceed on back, well short of t=0, we arrive at a point where everything is densely packed, at least down to raw neutronium level. This stuff ought to be collapsing into a black hole, a singularity, yes. But it ought to be doing it going forwards, not backwards. Any further back, any more like a black hole, there's no way we know of that anything is coming out of it. Except maybe some info for Steve Hawking, little note from Cthulhu or something, but we don't know even that at the time.
Beyond this, there are all sorts of other things we don't like about a straight relativity Big Bang, it just doesn't make sense, it seriously needs work. But this is because relativity physics works best at the macro level, and we are really getting too small for it. This is where quantum mechanics becomes useful.
Key Point: The Big Bang, doesn't tell us anything, about the origin of the universe. This is part of why Einstein didn't like it. It looks like it does, but it doesn't. This is annoying. Einstein, like you, feels a lot more comfortable living in an eternal universe, with absolute conservation of matter and energy. And maybe he does, maybe we do. But if so, it is a much larger universe than the little spacetime we can observe, which appears to come to a point there in the distant past. Maybe.
So qm feels comfortable quite a bit closer to the supposed t=0 than relativity does. But in terms of the units they use, they still start a long time afterward. 10-35 to -34 seconds, is many many chronons, basic time units; call it well over a gizillionth of a second, it's a long time for people who think in planck units however you slice it. And they don't start with the singularity, they can't, they don't have any math and would rather not have any singularity anyway, as if they do they have to get us out of it somehow. Spacetime coming to a point isn't such a problem if there's no matter, you see?
So they start with something they do have, which bears a reasonably strong resemblance to what we would have to have after t=0 at some point in order to get to what we have now; which is the false vacuum, a particular condition of potentially densely packed "virtual particles" in which they could tip over out of the quantum fog into relatively real reality. When they do this, start there, they find that the energy involved can step up their expansion figure at an inordinate rate. Cavediver hinted that he could explain about this "free lunch" better than I can, so let's see how that works out. In the meantime note that expansion speed in reality, and c at least in appearance, both are getting their uniform ripped off by drunken sailors here in the wee dark moments of the cosmic morning.
Key Point: Inflation may be telling us something about where all the matter came from. It may be telling us it came from a stepped-up version of gravity or anti-gravity. It may not. But it still isn't telling us anything about where the actual spacetime itself, unmediated by the expansion, the alleged t=0, ever came from. It may imply that there is no t=0, that there was some other kind of spacetime going on before inflation, that we can't describe using the current math in any effective way. But it knows, that we will do better, when we get smarter.
This is where string theory starts to come in. I don't understand it properly, so anything I say is really just a speculative hint for cavediver and Son Goku to come crop my ears for me. Basic string theory seems to be talking about our universe as a higher-dimensional manifestation of a flat 2-d process. I don't know, but recent comments give me hope, that it may give us determinism back. In normal qm, what appear to be single units appear to act in a statistical manner that is really only appropriate for groups of things. String theory, may, explain what the real items are, grouped together, that are being expressed in our microverse as apparent single units. Cross your fingers!
But the point where it really starts applying to this discussion, is when we go to understand how this manifestation process actually works, that is to say superstring, the current best guess of which is M-theory. Maybe. M-theory gives us other spacetimes, places outside the observable universe, other dimensions to move through to interact with our spacetime directly without being stuck standing nowhere and having no time to do things. You follow? It may tell us, what was before, the point that we in our limited view would think of t as = 0.
This is exactly the sort of thing you have been asking for in your recent explorations of what could be "outside the universe". Not the real universe, of course, which is everything, however deep and wide and far and long and uhm, 6 or 7 other things too. But this alleged reality, our little limited bit of space and time and observability-thus-far, this it could yank around and know from beginning to end and shape to suit itself. Maybe.
String! Theory! What is it good for ?!?
Edited by Iblis, : beware of greeks bearing letters

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Buzsaw, posted 01-13-2010 6:29 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Buzsaw, posted 01-15-2010 1:13 PM Iblis has not replied
 Message 53 by thingamabob, posted 01-15-2010 2:17 PM Iblis has not replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5030 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


Message 49 of 357 (543064)
01-15-2010 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by cavediver
01-14-2010 5:16 PM


Re: Are the fields eternal, or are they multiplying?
The values are not stored - they are. That is no more (and no less!) perplexing than the idea of geometry just being there, or "stuff" as most think of reality. Most fundemental concepts are reduced to just a set of numbers with no requirement whatsoever for some kind of "physical" substrate on which these numbers are "stored" or associated.
But this is (sort of) another topic and not really relevant (just yet)
When you think of "stuff" and fields as simply ideas of information/mathematical nature, the paradoxes disappear. It's just that it's mind-bending.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2010 5:16 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 50 of 357 (543090)
01-15-2010 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by cavediver
01-14-2010 5:03 PM


Re: Are the fields eternal, or are they multiplying?
Am I right in thinking that there is something special about the graviton field?
I saw a program years ago about M theroy that said gravity was so weak becuse it was a field that was not 'on' our brane but it leaked in from aonther 'adjacent' one.
Am I miss remebering this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by cavediver, posted 01-14-2010 5:03 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 357 (543115)
01-15-2010 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Briterican
01-14-2010 2:50 PM


Re: Existence
Briterican writes:
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.
Hi Briterican.
1. But the alleged preponderance of evidence supportive of it emphatically alleged that there is no outside of the universe. Thus your theory alleges to know as per alleged evidence.
2. Actually creation as per the Biblical Buzsaw hypothesis is more rational than yours. (Buzsaw unique as discussed in archive search or Buzsaw profile history)
A. Unlike yours, there is no outside of problem
B. Unlike yours, there is no singularity problem, the universe being eternally managed by the supreme majesty/creator.
C. Unlike yours there is no thermodynamics problem as per origin and management of energy and entropy etc.
D. Unlike yours, design is explained more rationally in that, as with all human designed things, the product has a pre-planned design.
E. Unlike yours, the problem relative to the properties of space's edge/border, apace being allegedly finite.
BB theory has no explanation as to how atoms, molecules, particles or forces, comlex systems necessary for expansion and advancement of observed cosmos design, came into existence, nor precisely what property of space allegedly caused it to expand.
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.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Briterican, posted 01-14-2010 2:50 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Briterican, posted 01-15-2010 3:51 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 55 by Taq, posted 01-15-2010 3:55 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 357 (543118)
01-15-2010 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Iblis
01-15-2010 1:18 AM


Re: Skeptic's Dilemma
Iblis, thanks very much for kindly taking the time to respond in terms that can be understood. I'm pondering your points an hope to get back to you.
I'm intrigued by the 2D thingy. These 2d models relative to a 3D universe appear to be the only ultimate alibi for BB theory. As per my understanding, lleged space curvature appears to be the ultimate (I say ultimate) driving factor for the 2D model.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Iblis, posted 01-15-2010 1:18 AM Iblis has not replied

  
thingamabob
Junior Member (Idle past 2616 days)
Posts: 23
From: New Jerusalem
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 53 of 357 (543123)
01-15-2010 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Iblis
01-15-2010 1:18 AM


Re: Skeptic's Dilemma
Iblis writes:
So they start with something they do have, which bears a reasonably strong resemblance to what we would have to have after t=0 at some point in order to get to what we have now; which is the false vacuum, a particular condition of potentially densely packed "virtual particles"
Where did they get this false vacuum they do have?
Where did or does it exist?
thing,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Iblis, posted 01-15-2010 1:18 AM Iblis has 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

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 55 of 357 (543132)
01-15-2010 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Buzsaw
01-15-2010 12:58 PM


Re: Existence
1. But the alleged preponderance of evidence supportive of it emphatically alleged that there is no outside of the universe.
Next you will tell us that Columbus should have fell off the edge of the Earth.
2. Actually creation as per the Biblical Buzsaw hypothesis is more rational than yours. (Buzsaw unique as discussed in archive search or Buzsaw profile history)
Then please show us how your hypothesis predicted the slight differences in the cosmic microwave background.

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 56 by Buzsaw, posted 01-15-2010 10:15 PM Taq has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 357 (543181)
01-15-2010 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Taq
01-15-2010 3:55 PM


Re: Existence
Tag writes:
Then please show us how your hypothesis predicted the slight differences in the cosmic microwave background.
Hi Tag. I once had a dear friend named Tag when I lived in Ca. His wife's name was Corky. I lost track of them over the years.
The Biblical record alleges that God is aware of everything going on in the universe It also alleges that he is the source of all light. His multipresent Holy Spirit is the agent which provided the light before the sun and moon were created, i.e. days one through 3. This light had enough energy to separate/evaporate sufficient waters on the earth to form the atmosphere (likely canopy) over the planet. God via his spirit is operative throughout the cosmos. There is also much other life in the cosmos, invisible to man's eyes, much as various forces and waves known to man but not seen with the naked eye.
The Biblical record depicts God as light. In the new Jerusalem to come where the alleged streets of transparent gold and the pearly gates there will be no sun or moon. God will be the light of it. Perhaps the CMB particles have a connection with the multipresent characteristic of God's spirit throughout the universe.
I understand that all matter produces some CMB. Likely the aggragate (I say aggragate) amount of CMB in the universe has always been relatively constant, as per my eternal universe model. The science of all of this, of course, is beyond my knowledge. The Buzsaw Hypothesis alleges that Goddidit, but what he did satisfies the observable laws of science.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Taq, posted 01-15-2010 3:55 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by anglagard, posted 01-15-2010 10:24 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 57 of 357 (543182)
01-15-2010 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Buzsaw
01-15-2010 10:15 PM


Re: Existence
Buzsaw writes:
The Buzsaw Hypothesis alleges that Goddidit, but what he did satisfies the observable laws of science.
Always nice to agree, however rare the occasion.
ABE - Now has to the details?
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Buzsaw, posted 01-15-2010 10:15 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 357 (543184)
01-15-2010 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Briterican
01-15-2010 3:51 PM


Re: Existence
Briterican writes:
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.
The moving away is, according to BB theory, due to expanding space. The BH (Buzsaw Hypothesis) says no. The only property of space is area in which all matter, antimater, forces, gravity, energy, particles, i.e. everything exists. any appearance of separation is things occupying static unbounded space moving apart.
Imo, the observed expansion is not necessarily uniform to eternity past. Logically the area of the universe visible to us may be pulsating, having periods of expansion and periods of contraction.
Briterican writes:
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?
The Goddidit Buzsaw Hypothesis explains the mystery of atoms, particles, molecules, light waves, microwaves, magnetism, and other forces and matter whereas BB theory fails. How so?
Where when and how did atoms come to be? How about gravity, light waves, microwaves, particles, photons, molecules, all of which have a degree of complexity and most, if not all, being necessarily effectual and in place for the alleged expansion to have happened, allegedly progressing into what is observed today?
Imo, progressing from the alleged singularity to the magnitude of complexity observed today would require an illogical and phenomenal aggregate decrease of entropy; impossible, even.
Goddidit, I tell you!

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Briterican, posted 01-15-2010 3:51 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by anglagard, posted 01-15-2010 11:12 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 62 by Meldinoor, posted 01-18-2010 12:17 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 59 of 357 (543186)
01-15-2010 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Buzsaw
01-15-2010 11:01 PM


Re: Existence
Buzsaw writes:
Goddidit, I tell you!
Ultimately, that is a personal viewpoint, it is only when the goddidit position interferes with attempts to answer such questions that it becomes a major problem for all humanity. Given your lack of understanding on how science and the US government works, I hope you can spend more time learning and less time pronouncing.

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 01-15-2010 11:01 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 60 of 357 (543257)
01-16-2010 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by cavediver
01-12-2010 3:17 PM


Free Lunch ?!?
We paid for our two drinks, now where's the buffet? Message 25
I think this is worth a thread of its own as I've probably been far too vague in the past on this subject. It will also help with "something from nothing" bullshit...
You have laid the groundwork at least, for understanding that the fields extend throughout spacetime and that energy is just a quality of the fields, though a conserved one. What else do we need before we can discuss where "matter and energy" came from in the first place?
Guth has investigated the conditions for how a universe could be created in a laboratory, consistent with the laws of physics. Traditionally, one would need the energy of several galaxies, but inflation theory showed it is actually much easier to create a universe. All one needs is one ounce and false vacuum. Once false vacuum exists, the evolution of the universe is independent of what came before. Physicist Roger Penrose once stated that one would need negative energy to create a new universe, but Guth showed that it could also be made by quantum tunneling.
The birth of a new universe also does not affect the old one. It would take about 10−37 seconds to disconnect from its parent. However, all an observer would see is the formation of a black hole, which would disappear very quickly. Creating a new universe actually would be quite dangerous since it would result in the release of energy similar to that of a 500 kiloton explosion.
Alan Guth - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by cavediver, posted 01-12-2010 3:17 PM cavediver has 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