|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A question concerning Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Chiroptera has given you a part of the answer to your question. From about 10 to the minus 40th of second after the big bang the physics is reasonably well understood.
If you want an explanation of what unfolded from there a pretty old (couple of decades) book is still not a bad coverage of "The First Three Minutes". It covers, of course, the first 3 minutes of the universe. Basically everything starts with an enormous amount of energy in a ver concentrated state. (A "quark soup" ?). Since energy can be transformed into matter as the whole thing spread out with the expanstion of space it cooled and single atomic particles were able to "freeze" out. As it cooled further and further atoms were able to form but only hydrogen (75%) and helium (25%) with a very slight pinch of some other elements. This still isn't enough "substance" to make the earth and us is it? Nope, over a small number of billions of years the first stars formed, went through their life cycle and some died as supernova. In a supernova heavier elements are formed. From the debris of these titanic explosions came the oxygen, iron, thorium etc. etc. that make up the earth and us. That is where the "substance" came from. Where did the original energey come from? A quantum fluctuation? A collision of "branes"? I don't know. Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
You bet!
All bizarre as hell and new speculations seem to go even further. The only ones which will survive are those which lead to something that can be tested. Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I supposed my question is a bit more on the philosophical side of the spectrum.
Generally, philosophical thoughts have to have some, occasional reference to reality before we should treat them too seriously, if we are using them to pretend to describe that reality.
That is to say, if we are bound by time and bound to a beginning, there must have been a point when there was nothing. Maybe. The current ideas in cosmology is that time and space originated with the big bang. It is the expansion of space-time that is what is "banging". An expansion from a zero sized point at zero time. But in this context what is nothing?
For if you think about it, it could not have been there always, as I said before, for that rejects the laws of time (things must have a beginning and end).
What "law" is this? Who said things can't exist without a beginning and end? Some new speculations about p-branes assume that a space of something like 11 dimensions has always exists and always will and "branes" (membranes" move through it.
It is simply incomprehensible for things to have always existed and then one day, life was born. Quite a paradox to be sure, and difficult to describe, but if you think about it, I believe you'd agree with me. Hang on! You made an odd jumpt there. First it is no more incomprehensible that "things" have always existed than that they came into being from nothing. They are both tought to grasp and tougher to do lab experiments on but they can both be comprehended by some about equally I'd say.Second, where did the "life was born" phrase pop in there. This is not particularly incomprehensible at all. While we can't do the steps yet there is lots of work that suggests pretty strongly what kind of things could have happened. It is not all that hard to comprehend at all. Certainly not as difficult as universes bashing into each other in an 11 dimensional space. So I suppose my question that is bothering me is this: can something come ex nihilo (out of nothing) unless someone or something made it, from any standpoint (scientific or philosophical)? And help on this dilemma of mine would be quite welcome. Thanks again, Soracilla. This has already been discussed. If the ex nihilo is hard to comprehend why does it get easier to comprehend someone there making it happen? And, in any case, all you've done is move the problem. Now you have to ask where did this someone or something come from? It has to have a beginning according to you. Your other choice is to use the assumtion of the "p-braners" ( ), that whatever always existed. Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Careful! You ask questions as if I'm some sort of expert on this. Be warned, I've read some but not an expert.
Prior to the Bang, was there motion in the proto-universe?
However, I do know that this question, in the conventional big bang model isn't a valid question. There was no "prior". The big bang IS time zero. In the regular view there was no proto-universe and no time. In the new, speculative brane idea there was, as I understand it, motion through a higher dimensional space. And, I think, time, an infinite amount of time. I don't think there is anything productive to be gained by speculating from our position of ignorance about an idea which is itself pretty speculative. However, you should note that the brane idea does suggest some unlikely possibility of being testible sometime. The same test as the multiple universe idea. That is, gravity might cross the boundaries. I sure don't know how likely it is to be testable and until it is it is just fun mental exercise (I was going to use another word). Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Perplexed! Yea me too.
However, the big bang didn't "create" time and space it is the intial creation of them. It is just time and space initiating that is the bang. It is perplexing but remember there is no explosion in any kind of sense we usually use the word. The other dimensions (in one view) are taken as having always been there. If they are tested in anyway and appear to be there or the model produces useful ways to think about things then someone may start to ask about the possibility of it having a beginning. Darned if I know how that question would be answered. But think back, say a couple of centuries or so. Would anyone then have guessed we could discuss the nature of the universe at 10 ** -40 of a second and look at it 13.7 billion years ago? If they speculated about such a thing having happened they would have thrown up their hands of ever having experimental verification. Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Thank you Eta, we are getting more and more in need of some real expertise rather than a number of us making up answers.
Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
I absolutely agree!
The big, long term, probably unanswerable question I have is:"Will we ever be able to understand it?" I don't mean me, of course. I mean the best and brightest of us represented here by Eta and the other researchers. If they have to dumb it down for me I'll be happy with that. But it does seem to get wierder and stranger as we keep pushing deeper. from:http://darwin.ws/...llySpeaking/rationally_speaking%20N1.htm
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
This is where we need Eta's help. H E L P !
(good question btw)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
...maybe once you find your dark energy source you can ask it if it prefers to be called GOD However utterly mad the supposed science that we get posted here, somehow the theological ideas manage to top it. Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Then I have no clue what you are talking about.
Common sense isn't
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024