Big Bang or Big Dud? A study of Cosmology and Cosmogony - Origins

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I am aware of this postulate, I read a basic model out of David Walkinson's God Time & Stephen Hawking. This sertainly seems plausable, as if an equal amount of anti-matter and matter coming out of nothing, but I think the problem consists of the cause of such a thing happening.

​

---

'cept its not matter/anti-matter. Its matter/gravity. Matter/anti-matter is a very different thing. Just being pickie.... http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/antistat.htmTake care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

Well, I'll comment on what I can until mark gets back to the thread.

quote:

---

How can energy exist without matter?

---

This one is easy. You can have one without the other. The two are interchangable.

quote:

---

How can friction occur in the absence of matter?

---

I don't like the analogy with friction. Think of it as cooling. As the universe expands, the energy is spread thin. Until that energy level gets low enough the various sub-atomic particles are moving too fast to stick to one another.

quote:

---

What do you postulate to be the density of the universe at this point?

---

I can't find a number, but at this point the density is still very very high. Sorry

quote:

---

Do these infinite number of universes have any effect on our own universe?

---

No.

quote:

---

Why did the virtual particles have to become real particles?

---

Try a mathematical analogy. You start with zero and derive 1 and -1. So far, no change. Same energy. These are the particle anti-particle pairs. If the expansion of the universe seperates the two quickly enough they don't rejoin and annihilate one another. You still have the same total energy, it just looks different.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Matter: (a) Something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses. (b) An entity displaying inertia and gravitation when at rest as well as when in motion.

​

Energy: The work a physical system is capable of doing in changing from its actual state to a specified reference state, with the total generally including contributions of potential energy, kinetic energy, and rest energy.

​

Obviously, the definitions differ far too greatly for the two words to be synonymous. Why then are they often expressed as such?

---

These definitions are colloquial. They won't do you any good in physics.Try reading this about energy and this about mass

quote:

---

The idea that energy and matter are the same thing in different forms is based on an improper application of the uncertainty principle.

---

No, this is way off base. The matter/energy equivalency has nothing to do with the quantum uncertainty principle. Einstein's famous e=mc² is the formula for this equivalancy.

quote:

---

How does energy cool? Isn’t cooling the lessening of heat? Isn’t heat a form of energy? So does the energy cool by loosing energy?

---

The size of the universe is expanding rapidly, thus the energy is spread over greater and greater areas, so the temperatures drop locally.

quote:

---

If the net energy remains the same, would the density of the universe immediately after inflation be the same as the density before?

---

I am not completely sure what you asking or why. But the answer is probably no. The universe continues expanding even after inflation stops therefore the same energy/mass is spread over more and more area. The density must go down.

quote:

---

If they have no effect on our universe, we cannot measure them. Thus Mark’s argument that we are only one of many universes is made without any evidence to prove it.

---

This is an area of physics at the very edge of our knowledge. Much of it is still theoretical. So proof is hard to come by. Mark's argument is however well supported by theory.

quote:

---

However, if the net energy is still the same, why should there be any change at all?

---

The net energy is the same but it is spread over a large area. Think about liquid iron in a bucket. And imagine it in a perfectly sealed building--- nothing can get in or out. This building is impossible to build of course, but imagine it. Now pour that iron out on the floor of the room. It will spread and cool, changing to solid metal. The temperature of the air goes up, the temperature of the floor goes up but the total energy stays to same its just spread over a greater area.

quote:

---

You might want to read the April 2002 issue of Popular Science. It discusses some of the problems with this theory.

---

I'll look it up.

quote:

---

I noticed that you didn’t answer my final set of questions. Did you run out of time or perhaps not notice them?

---

You final few questions require some research and thought on my part. I will revisit you earlier post and see what I can do, if someone doesn't beat me too it.Take care.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Most of the fundamental ideas of science are essentially simple, and may, as a rule, be expressed in a language comprehensible to everyone. —Albert Einstein, The Evolution of Physics.

---

Sure, but this doesn't mean that you can play willy nilly with the definitions. It is one thing to describe an event or theory in common parlance and quite another to turn around and reason from that language. The problem is called equivocation, and it leads to error. It also has to do with something called linguistic determinism, which describes the way language influences how people think.

quote:

---

Please note that I did not mention mass in my post. I provided a definition of matter but said nothing about mass.

---

If you look up 'matter' at Matter -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics
you will find a one line definition with the word matter in quotes no less. Look up 'mass' at the same site. This should give you some idea about the relative importance of the concepts. "Matter" is a fuzzy concept loaded with philosphical baggage.

quote:

---

In Einstein’s formula e=mc, the E stands for energy, the m represents mass and c equals the speed of light. This formula does not demand an equivalency between energy and matter.

---

Yeah, it does. Note that Einstein used 'mass' not matter in the formula. This is the bit that allowed the construction of nuclear devices-- the transformation of part of the mass of an atom into energy.

quote:

---

It demands that the energy and the mass of a system be proportional.

---

You are mis-representing the equation. It isn't the energy and mass of a system. It is the amount of energy needed to create mass or the amount of energy released when mass is destroyed. Yes, there is a proportion involved, but not the way you think.

quote:

---

You have provided a definition of mass as, the quantity of matter contained in an object.

---

I did? [quote]Combining this definition with Einstein’s formula we find that an increase in the energy of a system results in a directly proportional increase in the amount of matter contained within that system./quoteOk. You almost have it here. Note, proportional increase in mass -- NOT MATTER.

quote:

---

One can infer from this that the extra matter is created by the increase of energy

---

Got it.

quote:

---

but the equation does not definitely state that such is the case.

---

Yes it does. Note the equal sign in the equation instead of a maybe-sometimes sign.

quote:

---

It merely explains that the result of an increase in energy is an increase in the amount of matter within the system.

---

Did you get dizzy writing this?

quote:

---

Regardless of whether or not the said inference is correct, Einstein’s equation does not negate the fact that energy cannot exist independently of matter.

---

Energy can exist independently of matter. This isn't a fact. You are back to talking about energy in the colloquial sense.

quote:

---

The next logical question would be, how does pure energy increase in size?

---

The universe is increasing in size.

quote:

---

the concept of energy existing independently of matter is an invalid concept. Therefore, unless you wish to debate the statements above, I will skip over this part of our discussion.

---

I do indeed wish to debate it.

quote:

---

If we are imagining that liquid iron as a closed system, not effected anything outside of the sealed building or even the building itself, then it would not be subject to any gravity other than its own. In which case, it would not spread out on the floor but would submit to its own gravity by condensing into a sphere in the center of the building.

---

You took the analogy further than it was meant to go. It was an illustration, not a formula. Remember up top where I was talking about the danger of turning around and reasoning from colloquial analogy?

quote:

---

As for my final set of questions, gravity is a form of energy and thus is subject to the explanation provided at the beginning of this post.

---

Is is now? Thought it was the curvature of space-time.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Perhaps you could explain how the definitions I provided are inapplicable to a study of physics.

---

It isn't so much inapplicable as limited, especially the definition of 'energy' What you've got is a definition that works for everyday life-- bowling balls hitting pins and such, but doesn't work at the extremes-- nuclear explosions for example. The analogy would be Newton's mechanics vs. Einstein's general theory. Newtonian mechanics work most of the time, but not at the extremes. Close to home as example would be that Newton's formulas can't describe the orbit of Mercury. It is too close to the Sun. Einstein's formulas can. Hence, Einstein trumps Newton. The thing is, Newton's formulas are still used and used frequently becasue they work almost all the time. Because Einstien's formulas are more complicated, they are not used unless necessary.What you are doing is equivalent to taking Newton's (your almost-always definitions) and arguing against Einstein. Using the easier but less accurate definition the argue against the more complicated but also more accurate.

quote:

---

Interestingthe definition found on the page referenced bears a great similarity to the definition which I have already provided. Is this definition equally invalid in physics?

---

You've missed the point. 'Matter' occupies ONE LINE. There are no formulas, equations, variables, whatever. The point was to illustrate the importance of the concept.

quote:

---

By the way, the link you previously provided as an explanation of energy did not contain a definition of energy.

---

hmmm...... I rechecked the link I provided. I see a full page of defining and more than a dozen equations.

quote:

---

Please explain why matter is a fuzzy concept, and what philosophical baggage it carries.

---

I say matter is 'fuzzy' because there are no equations that deal with it. The equations all deal with 'mass'As for the philosophical baggage, maybe I am taking this part too seriously. Unless you want to get into the history of meta-physics, I probably should just leave this alone. If you want, start it in a new thread.

quote:

---

Apparently you are replying to my postings without thoroughly reading them first. May I suggest that you take the time to fully read and digest my statements before you begin your response?

---

I do not believe I am so guilty.

quote:

---

Would you not agree that, according to Einstein’s formula, the presence of energy is all that is needed to generate mass?

---

Yes, under the right conditions.

quote:

---

Is there a lower limit to the amount of mass that can be generated?

---

Very interesting question. By Einstein's formula, no. But the formula doesn't work at sub-atomic levels. Quantum mechanics takes over. And no one has yet to reconcile the two. Quantum mechanics limit the size.

quote:

---

According to the formula, how much energy is needed to generate a nearly infinitesimal amount of mass?

---

Well, we can't have infinitesimal amounts. See above. But for one unit of mass you need the speed of light squared worth of energy.

quote:

---

If only a slightly more than infinitesimal amount of energy is needed, then the very existence of energy demands the existence of mass.

---

This doesn't follow, or I am not understanding. Can you explain?

quote:

---

The equal sign is given in reference to an increase in mass not to a creation of matter.

---

OK.Mass is a measure of matter, yes? (I'd say mass is matter but forget that for now) How can you have an increase in mass without an increase in matter?

quote:

---

Please explain how this equation allows energy to exist independently of matter.

---

Energy that isn't bound up in an object is existing independently of matter. The equation describes the transformation of one to the other.
May I suggest a book called "E=MC2" by David Bodanis?

quote:

---

How does pure energy increase in size?

---

We are talking about the creation of space-time. It is the process of energy transforming into the universe as we know it. I don't see that energy would have to increase in size, just transform.

quote:

---

The analogy was the only answer you provided for my question, if the net energy is still the same, why should there be any change at all? If the analogy is flawed in its application to that question, please provide another answer.

---

Then put the pot of metal in a vacuum in empty space. It will still cool by radiation. This is just nit-picky.

quote:

---

If gravity is the curvature of space-time, please answer my questions in accordance with that definition.

---

I am not sure what questions I am supposed to address.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"are talking about the creation of space-time."
--The questions seemingly are more pertaining to the creation of matter, and energy <--> Matter transforming fluctuations rather than the creation of space-time. The latter is an interesting question indeed.

​

---

There is a small portion of the discussion which concerns the expansion of space. That part has all but vanished in light of other elements of the debate. Still, I think the energymatter transformations are in some way related to the creation of space-time, though I am not yet sure how so I can't really debate it.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Not really, energy <--> matter fluctuations have little to nothing to do with the initial question for BB explanation. This conversion happens either by radiation creating particles and anti-particles or particles and anti-particles annihilating, thusly creating radiation. Of course this still begs the question of where space-time came about. It has in my experience gone unanswered without playing heavily with semantics.

---

Which means that you don't know any more than I, so why are you correcting my admittedly speculative, and undemonstrated suspicion?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Which means that you don't know any more than I, so why are you correcting my admittedly speculative, and undemonstrated suspicion?"
--I just had the impression you had a very strong reason for being so anti-theistic, and what a better reason than an answer for the origin of the universe.

​

---

It isn't that I have a strong reason for being anti-theistic, it is that I have no reason for being theistic.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"It isn't that I have a strong reason for being anti-theistic, it is that I have no reason for being theistic."
--Then you are in a perdicament there. I will not fail to remember in the future your rationalization in # 35. You will find by it that you and the majority of the evo's on this board that there is over-criticism.

​

---

What?I was speculating that the creation of space-time is somehow related to the mass/energy equivalancies and I admitted up front that I don't know how and so can't argue the point. I don't think I've based anything on this suspicion-- it was a side thought as wrote the post.I could understand your ire if I were using this unproven idea to support another idea; but I'm not. It's just a feeling. I need to think about it awhile. Probably will throw it away or cannibalize it latter. But why post to tell me nothing but that you don't know where space-time came from but I am wrong anyway. Read your reply to me. There is a few lines of jargon and then, effectively, but I don't know either. Please, disagree with me, but give me something to bite into when you do.Oh, and what does this have to do with theism?And... glad you're back.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
[B][QUOTE]This further validates my claim that energy cannot exist independently of matter.[/b][/quote]Good grief!!! Then explain how it is that photons are considered mass-less particles. No webpage found at provided URL: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

quote:

---

This assumption is also based on an improper application of the uncertainty principle.

---

Exactly where did I invoke the uncertainty principle? I thought I was refering to quantized energy states, and the fact that particles break at specific energies not haphazardly along the spectrum.

quote:

---

Einstein’s formula is a method by which we can make predictions regarding future measurements based on current measurements. Therefore if we are unable to obtain accurate measurements, we will be unable to apply this formula and accurately predict future measurements. However, it is not the equation that fails at sub-atomic levels; it is our measurements that fail.

---

Wrong. Einstein's formulas work on the large scale because quantum effects are not noticable at large scales. It is not about poor measurement, nor is it about the uncertainty principle. At very small scales you see the quantification of energy/matter. The models of atoms with electrons orbitting them? These are quantum models. Atoms do not crash into themselves because electrons can only jump from specific energies to other specific energies-- ie, there are no inbetweens! Quantum mechanics is jumpy, relativity is smooth-- there are inbetweens. Hence the two are not compatible. [quote][b]Thus an increase in mass would also be an increase in the amount of matter within that space.[quote][b]Yes indeed.

quote:

---

An increase in mass could be the result of an addition of matter to the given volume from an outside source.

---

Such as?What you are missing is that that extra mass comes from ENERGY. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www-ed.fnal.gov/samplers/hsphys/activities/graphics/collisions_emc2.gif------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
unless we use make believe numbers...

---

Make-believe numbers? You mean imaginary numbers. It is a valid number system, not a child's game of pretend.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
whew!! joz objects to imaginary numbers, preferring make believe, you object to make believe, preferring imaginary... sheesh...

---

I don't care what we call them, though the term 'imaginary' is the traditional term. Call them candy-stripe numbers, or alice-in-wumbers. Don't really care.What I care about is that you posted a message indicating that imaginary numbers are unsatisfactory and thereby implying that you object to their use in building mathematical models of the early universe.And then equivocate on that, like so: [quote][b]yes, the use of i as the square root of -1 has applications, i don't deny that...[quote][b]Then flip flop back the other way, like so:

quote:

---

but in the actually existing universe, the one in which we find ourselves, we'd never be here if that universe is *actually* infinite, and it can be shown that it is actually infinite only by using make believe time resulting from make believe numbers...

---

It is very confusing. I can't get a bead on what you are actually arguing. My best guess at the moment, taken from the above paragraph, is that you do not like the use of imaginary numbers because it leads to a description of the universe as an actual infinite, which is impossible in your view?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
yes, impossible since we're here and now and we've obviously traversed time events by subsequent addition...

---

Move your arm an inch to the right. It just traversed an infinite number of points, or moved though an infinite number of moments of time. However hard you wish to argue that you can't get from point a to point b because you'd have to traverse an infinite number of points, the fact is that you do it all the time-- at least, according to how I understand your logic.I've got to check up on Hawking's arguments before preceeding.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
you're pretty much right on p.e. except i wasn't anywhere near anything past (1)...'

---

I'm researching my 'rythmatic but chew on this in the meantime. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.qsmithwmu.com/infinity_and_the_past.htm------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:
translating that to the argument smith is making re: time, craig and others have put it simply... if the universe is actually infinite, time itself is actually infinite... if time is actually infinite, the set of past events is actually infinite... however, subsequent subtraction of past events is impossible in an actual infinite

​

to go from the signing of the declaration of independence, backwards, traversing every noteworthy occurance in past history, and arriving at the signing of the magna carta, would prove that past events *can* be traversed... if that can be shown, it follows that actual infinity has no place in the real world, else we'd never have arrived at *this* place in *this* time

---

This seems to be based on the idea that every subset of an infinite set is also infinite. It is possible to have finite subsets of infinite sets. Take the infinite set of books. It is possible to traverse the subset of {book1,book2,book3}There also appears to me a contradiction in the argument. It assumes that time itself is infinite. This means that we have an infinite amount of time to traverse infinite time. I'm sticking my neck out here but, ∞ / ∞ = 1. One isn't all that hard to traverse. It seems in fact to be right now. As the man said, Be Here Now.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com