Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe
nchunz
Junior Member (Idle past 5145 days)
Posts: 6
Joined: 04-23-2009


Message 46 of 64 (506163)
04-23-2009 11:53 AM


Hello, i'm new here and i'm a foreigner
This forum is so amazing, really
Actually, i've been debating this T=0 problem with my friends.
My creationist friends were wondering if they could put the god's existence at T=0, not T<0. Is it possible?
Also, they were asking who was triggering the expanding universe from T=0 -> T = 0++. Because, according to the BB theory, T=0 is a singular state, so, if there was not "something" whom could trigger the expanding, the universe would always be at singular state, forever.
The point is, how could T=0 become T=0++? What/who was triggering the change? Was it automatically? Or am i missing something?
By the way, English is not my first language, so i'm sorry for my bad english XD
Thanks

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Rahvin, posted 04-23-2009 12:23 PM nchunz has not replied
 Message 48 by lyx2no, posted 04-23-2009 12:57 PM nchunz has not replied
 Message 51 by onifre, posted 04-23-2009 5:30 PM nchunz has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 47 of 64 (506168)
04-23-2009 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by nchunz
04-23-2009 11:53 AM


Hello, i'm new here and i'm a foreigner
This forum is so amazing, really
Welcome!
Actually, i've been debating this T=0 problem with my friends.
My creationist friends were wondering if they could put the god's existence at T=0, not T<0. Is it possible?
I'm not sure how you can determine where to put the existence of God since by all means available to us God seems to be compeltely and utterly undetectable.
Why T=0? Why not T-1? Why not T=172364?
God is a matter of faith. It would seem to me that one arbitrary point in time is as good as any other.
Also, they were asking who was triggering the expanding universe from T=0 -> T = 0++.
"Who?" Who's controlling gravity? Who keeps the strong and weak atomic forces functioning?
Your friends are anthropomorphizing a basic property of the Universe, no better than suggesting that gravity is caused by invisible angels pushing everything down.
Expansion is an inherant property of space, just as the dimensions of length, width, height, and time are inherant properties of the Universe.
Because, according to the BB theory, T=0 is a singular state, so, if there was not "something" whom could trigger the expanding, the universe would always be at singular state, forever.
The term "singularity" means "our math doesnt work here." There is no trigger.
The problem is the human experience of time. We experience time as a linear chain of events progressing in the direction of increasing entropy - but time is actually just another dimension.
Imagine if you could only experience the dimension of "width" by moving only from left to right.
The Universe exists. "Past," "present" and "future" are relative indentifiers created by human beings to comprehend coordinates of time. T=0 is simply one coordinate of time.
Picture a globe. Let the North-South axis represent Time, with the North Pole representing T-0. Let the surface of the globe represent the spacial dimensions of Length, Width, and Height.
As you move farther South, you'll notice that any two points on the globe move farther and farter apart in the spacial dimensions. This is equivalent to the expansion fo space. There is no "cause" to "start" the expansion - literally, at every coordinate of time, space is expanding. That means that space has always been expanding, right back to the very first moment.
What happened "before" T-0? Well, what's farethr North than the North Pole? The question just doesn't make sense. The concept of "before" or "past" requires a coordinate of time earlier than the present event, and there is no coordinate of time < 0.
The point is, how could T=0 become T=0++? What/who was triggering the change? Was it automatically? Or am i missing something?
How does the point three feet to your left become the point where you're sitting now?
It doesn't. T=0, T=1, T=50000 are all nothing more than coordinates. One doesn't "become" another any more than one coordinate of latitude and longitude "becomes" another.
Again, this is a misconception driven by the fact that human beings have a very specific experience of the dimension of time - quite simply, reality is counterintuitive. We exist in the so-called "middle world," too large to see the building blocks of reality and too small to see the cosmic clockwork. Simultaneously, we are bound by the way our consciousness works to the dimension of time - we can only ever experience time as a linear chain of events progressing in the direction of increasing entropy. It's very much like being forced to experience "width" by moving only left to right at a set speed.
So there's no "trigger." The Universe has always been expanding - it simply also has a minimum value for the dimension of time. Space has always been expanding, because that expansion is a basic property of space. There is no "who" driving the expansion, no indication of any "person" kicking the whole thing off. Concepts like "why didn't the Unvierse remain a singularity" are simply misunderstandings of the actual nature of teh Universe, driven mainly by our own experience of time and populist "sciencey" TV shows that try to explain science without the math (Discovery Channel, I'm looking at you).
Does this help at all?
By the way, English is not my first language, so i'm sorry for my bad english XD
So far your English is better than several native English speakers I know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by nchunz, posted 04-23-2009 11:53 AM nchunz has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 48 of 64 (506172)
04-23-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by nchunz
04-23-2009 11:53 AM


T=∅
Hello nchunz
Actually, i've been debating this T=0 problem with my friends.
Then you can tell your friends there is no T=0. You have T=∅, and T>0 to choose from.
My creationist friends were wondering if they could put the god's existence at T=0, not T<0. Is it possible?
Your creationist friends can, of course, put God anywhere they want to. (And I do believe that's the proper order of things.) I'd myself want to first establish God's existence before considering His details. But, hey, if one doesn't sweat the first step, why sweat the second? Though I'd also not find a God of the Gaps argument very satisfying regardless.
Because, according to the BB theory, T=0 is a singular state, so, if there was not "something" whom could trigger the expanding, the universe would always be at singular state, forever.
Not according to the Big Bang: that introduces the Universe at T=10-43, and says nothing at all for the time leading up to that. The theory just can't deal with it one way or the other.
Or am i missing something?
Everyone is missing this bit of something.
By the way, English is not my first language, so i'm sorry for my bad english XD
The truth be told, your English is better them most of the native English writers I know. (Not considering my peers.)
AbE: Hello, Rahvin, other ship passing in the night.
Edited by lyx2no, : Bein' sociable.
Edited by lyx2no, : Style.
Edited by lyx2no, : Rahvin's capitalized.
Edited by lyx2no, : Correct 47

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by nchunz, posted 04-23-2009 11:53 AM nchunz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Huntard, posted 04-23-2009 3:23 PM lyx2no has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 49 of 64 (506180)
04-23-2009 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by lyx2no
04-23-2009 12:57 PM


Re: T=∅
lyx2no writes:
that introduces the Universe at T=10-47
Shouldn't that be T=10-43?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by lyx2no, posted 04-23-2009 12:57 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by lyx2no, posted 04-23-2009 3:36 PM Huntard has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 50 of 64 (506181)
04-23-2009 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Huntard
04-23-2009 3:23 PM


Re: T=∅
Shouldn't that be T=10-43?
Yes, it should have been.
I have hidden my original response because I just now realized how damaging it may be to my credibility. With this apology and promise that in the future I will not intentionally introduce errors into my post because it humors some joke of my own I hope to mitigate my error in judgement some what. I would like to be taken seriously and earn the right to sit at this table with you folks.
My misstep resulted from not knowing how to respond to cavediver's splendid one-upping. I had used "then" rather than "than" intentionally, but couldn't respond that way without looking like I was being defensive of a simple error, but I was simultaneously defensive of it being thought I'd made an error. (Cavediver, if you did that knowingly, you're my daddy.)
I'm sure I'll make further errors, but from this point out they will be unintentional.
Edited by lyx2no, : Hide.
Edited by lyx2no, : Formating

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Huntard, posted 04-23-2009 3:23 PM Huntard has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 51 of 64 (506187)
04-23-2009 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by nchunz
04-23-2009 11:53 AM


Actually, i've been debating this T=0 problem with my friends.
I will just give you some pointers on how to better debate them and get to the root of their misunderstanding, since Rahvin has explained the physics part of it so well.
My creationist friends were wondering if they could put the god's existence at T=0, not T<0. Is it possible?
Yes. If they believe in god they should put him anywhere they want.
But, ask them why do they feel they should place him anywhere? God just is, right?
Also, they were asking who was triggering the expanding universe from T=0 -> T = 0++.
Did they give you any reason as to why they feel it should be "triggered" by something? When a star goes supernova do they also look for god to have triggered that too?
Seems like if you feel god is needed for one action, then you would require him for all actions, why the expansion specifically? Do they feel it is the moment of "creation"? If they do that may be their initial problem, they do not understand what they Big Bang says.
Perhaps you should start there with them.
Because, according to the BB theory, T=0 is a singular state, so, if there was not "something" whom could trigger the expanding, the universe would always be at singular state, forever.
This is incorrect. If this is what they think then they do need to learn what the Big Bang theory says first before trying to conceptualize an origin that is completely confused by their own lack of understanding and misconceptions.
The point is, how could T=0 become T=0++? What/who was triggering the change? Was it automatically?
How did yesterday become today? - this is how you should respond to them.
To be honest, if your "friends" are asking questions like "Who/what" started it, then they're already convinced that something must have started it and have already made up their minds about it.
At that point nothing short of them really getting deep into the physics behind the theory would show them anything different. Conceptually they've already convinced themselves that there was a starting point where nothing was suddenly something. This is the way it is shown on the Discovery Channel, and has become a common misconception because of it, so anyone who has faith that god exists feels compelled to place him there.
But, if they understood it properly, it would be like needing to place god at yesterday or if not how did we get to today?
It is tough to get them to change their conceptual ideas of the origin of the universe. They have faith in god and can place him anywhere they want. It's frustrating to debate them, especially in topics like the Big Bang where usually both sides debating it don't understand any of the math behind it and just talk crap about what they think they know...like I do, somtimes
Or am i missing something?
Wait, are we talking about you or your friends? They are missing something, right?
Do you also feel like god is required? Do you also believe something or someone was needed to "trigger" the expansion?
- Oni

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by nchunz, posted 04-23-2009 11:53 AM nchunz has not replied

  
nchunz
Junior Member (Idle past 5145 days)
Posts: 6
Joined: 04-23-2009


Message 52 of 64 (506209)
04-23-2009 11:18 PM


Thanks guys, you all are rocks
By the way, they mentioned about "consciousness creates reality". So, if there was no an "Observer" who has consciousness when the BB proses, there would be no reality the universe has been expanding till now. Big bang needs something whom observes the process to become reality. And they called this consciousness is God. And this "consciousness god" creates our consciousness.
They mentioned about "observer under quantum world", so this "object" has nothing to do with physic or any kind of laws. And it's existence doesn't need space-time. They believe "This observer" was triggering the reality of big bang became real.
I know, it has nothing to do with math or physics. And i believe this consciousness discussion is out of topic, isn't it? I don't understand it well, any way, lol
Plus, how can i define the singularity with the most understandable human language? I know, it was a condition where the math breaks down. But, do you have any other words to describe it? With the most understandable human language , of course
Edited by nchunz, : Add some points

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by lyx2no, posted 04-24-2009 12:57 AM nchunz has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 53 of 64 (506222)
04-24-2009 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by nchunz
04-23-2009 11:18 PM


Singularity
[T]hey mentioned about "consciousness creates reality".
Yeah, your friends are just pulling phrases out of the new age mumbo-jumbo bag that, because the phrases don't really mean anything, can't be effectively argued against unless you and they are both willing to get into the nitty-gritty of solidly defining the meaning for every word and combination of words precisely. That would reduce their argument to so much piffle but, also, their willingness to ever talk to you again.
I once heard philosophy defined as the art of breaking ones argument into parts so fine that any error will be too small to detect, then reassembling it to reach ones conclusion upon "flawless" foundations. Your friends don't seem to have to go too far to get to the "too small to detect" errors. Probably because they're looking the other way.
[H]ow can i define the singularity with the most understandable human language?
Generally, a singularity is a point in a function that is not defined. Such as f(x)=1/x, when x=0. There are many reasons that a function may fail at some point. This particular one fails because x0=0. This implies that x=0/0, which clearly makes no sense. The math breaks down at that one point giving a nonsense answer.
I couldn't begin to tell you why the maths for the Big Bang work yet alone why they fail. You'll have to catch cavediver for that.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by nchunz, posted 04-23-2009 11:18 PM nchunz has not replied

  
nchunz
Junior Member (Idle past 5145 days)
Posts: 6
Joined: 04-23-2009


Message 54 of 64 (506223)
04-24-2009 1:46 AM


okay, i'll try to quote what they said
The big bang process is true. But, when the general relativity failed to explain "anything" what happened before the big bang, they used quantum approach to describe "who/what was there".
The quantum mechanic said that reality comes true if there is an observer. The quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows. Quantum mechanics, the apparent requirement for a conscious, thinking observer who stands outside of the system and takes notes leaves many physicists cold.
the philosophical implication of quantum mechanics is that the universe cannot exist in a vacuumat the level of indivisible particles, the universe has been constructed with a built-in need for people. Or God. Or both.
Quantum theory seems to require us to step beyond the material to the metaphysical. It suggests a need for consciousness, for mind, for something that is more than just a collection of synapses in a glob of gray-matter. It seems to demand something transcendent, like intelligence or being.
Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, in a classic essay on the implications of quantum theory, wrote that quantum theory is incompatible with the idea that everything, including the mind, is made up solely of matter: "[While a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, ...materialism is not."
Perhaps the most awesome implication of quantum mechanics is the possibility that the universe only functions because it is continually observed by one who never blinks nor sleeps.
There has to be an observer - a link between mind and matter.
The observer is definite and real, not described by a wave function Psi and probability Psi Squared. Measurement is the key concept. A change in the wave function Psi represents a change in our knowledge of the system. The observer must be outside the system of quantum theory. The observer's mind is the place where the decision is made that one state actually did occur - that is where probability is changed into fact.
I think they are Stephen Barr's big fans, lol
The point is they used quantum mechanic to prove God/"intelligent being" exist before the big bang, as observer. Because "something"(big bang) needs an observer to become real.
Does it make any sense?
@lyx2no
Thanks for the explanation
Edited by nchunz, : add some points
Edited by nchunz, : No reason given.
Edited by nchunz, :

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Huntard, posted 04-24-2009 3:20 AM nchunz has not replied
 Message 57 by Rahvin, posted 04-24-2009 12:57 PM nchunz has not replied
 Message 59 by Stile, posted 04-24-2009 2:42 PM nchunz has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 55 of 64 (506224)
04-24-2009 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by nchunz
04-24-2009 1:46 AM


nchunz writes:
okay, i'll to quote what they said
Ok.
The big bang process is true. But, when the general relativity failed to explain "anything" what happened before the big bang, they used quantum approach to describe "who/what was there".
This is complete nonsense. That's not what quantum physics is about. Further, as has been said, there's no before the big bang.
The quantum mechanic said that reality comes true if there is an observer.
Nope, more nonsense.
The quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows. Quantum mechanics, the apparent requirement for a conscious, thinking observer who stands outside of the system and takes notes leaves many physicists cold.
Except of course, that it doesn't, as it's not true.
the philosophical implication of quantum mechanics is that the universe cannot exist in a vacuumat the level of indivisible particles, the universe has been constructed with a built-in need for people. Or God. Or both.
They don't really stop saying nonsense, do they?
Quantum theory seems to require us to step beyond the material to the metaphysical. It suggests a need for consciousness, for mind, for something that is more than just a collection of synapses in a glob of gray-matter. It seems to demand something transcendent, like intelligence or being.
It does no such thing.
Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, in a classic essay on the implications of quantum theory, wrote that quantum theory is incompatible with the idea that everything, including the mind, is made up solely of matter: "[While a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, ...materialism is not."
Don't know about this quote, I do however think it has been quotemined.
Perhaps the most awesome implication of quantum mechanics is the possibility that the universe only functions because it is continually observed by one who never blinks nor sleeps.
That's also wrong.
There has to be an observer - a link between mind and matter.
Not really, no.
The observer is definite and real, not described by a wave function Psi and probability Psi Squared. Measurement is the key concept. A change in the wave function Psi represents a change in our knowledge of the system. The observer must be outside the system of quantum theory. The observer's mind is the place where the decision is made that one state actually did occur - that is where probability is changed into fact.
More gobbledigook.
I think they are Stephen Barr's big fans, lol
Don't know that guy, but if this is waht he says, he's an idiot, or worse, a liar.
The point is they used quantum mechanic to prove God/"intelligent being" exist before the big bang, as observer. Because "something"(big bang) needs an observer to become real.
And quantum mechanics says no such thing.
Does it make any sense?
No, none at all, they're trying to tell you stuff that's just not true. Perhaps Cavediver could come in here and explain how it works, I'm not the person to do that, I do know however, that everything they said is complete and utter nonsense.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nchunz, posted 04-24-2009 1:46 AM nchunz has not replied

  
nchunz
Junior Member (Idle past 5145 days)
Posts: 6
Joined: 04-23-2009


Message 56 of 64 (506225)
04-24-2009 3:56 AM


yeah, they were trying to confuse me with this quantum mechanics.
Unfortunately, i'm not a physic man, so i have no idea how this quantum mechanic works and we could use it when the general relativity failed.
That's why i searched for any information about how quantum mechanic works before the big bang, and i ended up in this amazing forum, lol

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 57 of 64 (506257)
04-24-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by nchunz
04-24-2009 1:46 AM


By the way, they mentioned about "consciousness creates reality". So, if there was no an "Observer" who has consciousness when the BB proses, there would be no reality the universe has been expanding till now. Big bang needs something whom observes the process to become reality. And they called this consciousness is God. And this "consciousness god" creates our consciousness.
This is one of the most ridicuklous arguments I;ve ever heard. Your friends are quite literally arguing that objective reality doesn't exist.
Remember the old question, "if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Your friends are arguing that, not only does the falling tree make no sound, if nobody is around to observe it the tree doesn't fall, and in fact doesn't exist until a conscious entity arrives to observe it.
They're taking the word "observer" as it's used in physics (where "observer" can simply be another particle, and need not be a conscious entity) and pretending that the everyday definition of the word (necessarily a conscious entity) applies. They're conflating terminology, in the same way that creationists tend to inappropriately use the word "information" when it coenms to Information Theory.
They mentioned about "observer under quantum world", so this "object" has nothing to do with physic or any kind of laws. And it's existence doesn't need space-time. They believe "This observer" was triggering the reality of big bang became real.
And they're speculating. Demand that they show evidence to support this bare assertion. If they can't, they're pulling this nonsense fromt their own imaginations.
I know, it has nothing to do with math or physics. And i believe this consciousness discussion is out of topic, isn't it? I don't understand it well, any way, lol
You know how kids argue about superheroes in comic books? "Superman can do this, so he'd totally beat the Hulk in a fight!" None of it is based on actual numbers, and it's all bare speculation with no substance backing up any of the arguments. This is how your friends are approaching physics.
They're engaging in something called "apologetics." Where science begins with observation, progresses to hypothesis, then prediction > experiment > data > conclusion, apologetics begins with a conclusion and searches for evidence to support that conclusion, typically ignoring any evidence to the contrary and almost always "bending" the evidence used in ways an unbiased scientist never would. Your friends believe in God, and they're coming up with comic-book-level silly apologetic claims to support their pre-existing conclusion.
Plus, how can i define the singularity with the most understandable human language? I know, it was a condition where the math breaks down. But, do you have any other words to describe it? With the most understandable human language , of course
As others have said, the easiest way to explain a singularity is simply "current mathematical models stop working under these conditions, so we need to learn more before we can accurately describe this." The heart of a black hole has a singularity because the warping of spacetime is so intense that we have no way to describe it in mathematical terms. T=0 results in a singularity because it requires that the entirety of the Universe exist as a single dimensionless point - try calculating speed when both distance and time are 0, or density when all the mass in teh Universe is condensed into a single dimensionless point of volume. Clearly, "normal" math doesn't work - we need more information about such exotic conditions before we can accurately describe them. Incidentally, that's one of the primary reasons the Large Hadron Collider was built - to duplicate on a smaller scale the conditions of the early Universe.
okay, i'll try to quote what they said
The big bang process is true. But, when the general relativity failed to explain "anything" what happened before the big bang, they used quantum approach to describe "who/what was there".
Every time your friends use the word "before" when referring to the Big Bang, they're not understanding.
The Big Bang is not explicitly an event - T=0 is not the Big Bang. neither is the Big Bang an explosion in the conventional sense.
The term "Big Bang" was coined by a dissenter - a man who thought a competing theory was more accurate and was trying to ridicule the notion that the Universe is expanding. Unfortunately, the name stuck, despite its inherant inaccuracy.
Big Bang theory posits that teh Universe is expanding - this means that as you approach T=0, the Universe is hotter, more dense, and "smaller." As you move away from T=0, any two points in space will grow farther and farther apart, not because of any motion but because literally the spacial dimensions are getting larger. This is somewhat like ants on a balloon - even if the ants do not actually move, they'll grow farther and farther apart as the balloon expands.
T=0 itself is unique int hat you can't have a "before." Time is a property of the Universe, just like length and width and height, much in the same way that North and South are properties of a globe - outside of their intended context, they simply don't make sense. Concepts like "before" and "after" require respectively lower and higher values of time than the present. At T=0, there is no lower value, and so "before" doesn't have any meaning. Similarly, you can't go farther North than the North Pole - asking what's farther North just doesn't make sense.
Imagine a ray:
*----------------->
A ray begins at a discrete point and progresses infinitely in a single direction.
*A---------------B-------C------->
Point A is the beginning of the ray, and points B and C lie along it.
Let's say that point B is the present. C lies in the future, and A lies in the past.
What if A is the present? B and C lie int he future...but there is no point on the ray prior to A, and so there is no "past," no "before" relative to point A.
Point A is like T=0. "Before" T=0 just doesn't have any meaning, and betrays a lack of understanding of the concept of time.
Your friends are trating time like a line, where both directions extend infinitely, and T=0 is simply one point. That doesn't reflect reality, but it does fit into their pre-existing conclusion that "God is eternal, and has always existed, and had to exist before the Unvierse so that He could create it." They're choosing a model based not on any math or objective evidence, but rather they choose a model based on their already-existing belief system. That's faulty reasoning.
The quantum mechanic said that reality comes true if there is an observer. The quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires somebody who knows. Quantum mechanics, the apparent requirement for a conscious, thinking observer who stands outside of the system and takes notes leaves many physicists cold.
I think cavediver and Son Goku (our resident real-life physicists) would get a kick out of that idea. Your friends are insisting that "observer" means "person." In physics, it means no such thing.
the philosophical implication of quantum mechanics is that the universe cannot exist in a vacuumat the level of indivisible particles, the universe has been constructed with a built-in need for people. Or God. Or both.
This is only true if "observer" means "conscious entity." In physics, it does not. An atom can be an observer - an observer is simply that which interacts with the subject. I'll let cavediver or Son Goku explain the collapse of a wave function, as I'm not likely to do so accurately.
Quantum theory seems to require us to step beyond the material to the metaphysical. It suggests a need for consciousness, for mind, for something that is more than just a collection of synapses in a glob of gray-matter. It seems to demand something transcendent, like intelligence or being.
No, it doesn't. That's an unsupported leap in logic - which is why you had to use the word "seems." Thats a personal subjective interpreation of the data, not something supported by objective evidence.
Think of it this way: a bloody knife can "seem" to require us to consider that a murder has taken place.
But that's not true. I could have simply cut myself by accident while chopping vegetables. Assuming "murder," or even considering murder as a more probable explanation for the bloody knife than any other possible explanation without additional evidence (a body, the amount of blood, etc) is an unfounded leap in logic - just like the assertion that quantum theory "suggests a need for itnelligence." This on top of the fact that such a conclusion requires using the word "observer" to inappropriately mean "cosscious mind," when that is flatly incorrect in physics.
Eugene Wigner, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, in a classic essay on the implications of quantum theory, wrote that quantum theory is incompatible with the idea that everything, including the mind, is made up solely of matter: "[While a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, ...materialism is not."
First, this is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
Second, to paraphrase The Princess Bride, I do not think Mr. Wigner means what your friends think that he means. Quantum theory suggests some extremely counterintuitive implications as to the reality of matter and energy, space and time - all are simply perterbations in the quantum field. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any kind of "spiritual reality" or other sort of religious flim-flam.
Perhaps the most awesome implication of quantum mechanics is the possibility that the universe only functions because it is continually observed by one who never blinks nor sleeps.
There has to be an observer - a link between mind and matter.
The observer is definite and real, not described by a wave function Psi and probability Psi Squared. Measurement is the key concept. A change in the wave function Psi represents a change in our knowledge of the system. The observer must be outside the system of quantum theory. The observer's mind is the place where the decision is made that one state actually did occur - that is where probability is changed into fact.
I think they are Stephen Barr's big fans, lol
They just don't understand what an "observer" is in physics. They're anthropomorphising the concept and then running with it, leading them to wild, false conclusions.
The point is they used quantum mechanic to prove God/"intelligent being" exist before the big bang, as observer. Because "something"(big bang) needs an observer to become real.
Does it make any sense?
It makes perfect sense, in much the same way that Star Wars makes sense. Unfortunately for your friends, they've constructed a model that does not accurately represent reality. The only thing they've proven is that they lack any significant understanding about quantum mechanics, Big bang cosmology, time, or basically anything else in physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nchunz, posted 04-24-2009 1:46 AM nchunz has not replied

  
nchunz
Junior Member (Idle past 5145 days)
Posts: 6
Joined: 04-23-2009


Message 58 of 64 (506259)
04-24-2009 2:34 PM


Thanks for the detail explanation Rahvin
I think the key of their model is this "observer". I appreciate If i could get more information about this observer in quantum world. The new thing is the observer doesn't have to be a conscious entity, is it true?
If it's true, then their model will fail
One more thing,
I know universe has a singular condition at T=0 before expanding. At singular state, the temperature is so hot and more dense, their value are infinite according to general relativity.
How come the condition with infinite value become finite?
All of universe's properties are in exact value. The speed of light, gravity, etc, they are in exact value.
I think that's the only reason the creationists have, to prove there was an intelligent being whom determined the value of each universe's properties to become as it is. Infinite become finite, chaos become normal, undeterministic become deterministic.
I'm Sorry if you don't get it. It's difficult for me to find best words to describe it, lol

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Rahvin, posted 04-24-2009 3:11 PM nchunz has not replied
 Message 62 by onifre, posted 04-24-2009 3:32 PM nchunz has not replied
 Message 63 by Huntard, posted 04-24-2009 3:43 PM nchunz has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 59 of 64 (506260)
04-24-2009 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by nchunz
04-24-2009 1:46 AM


A bit more clarity
It pains me to add anything to Rahvin's very well put together and extremely educational posts here, but I think this is a good note to add:
When listening to all this talk of T=0, people always say that "before" T=0 doesn't make sense. And that's the end of the point.
They'll describe how "North of the North pole also doesn't make sense" and that's the end of the point.
They'll describe other analogies where things no longer make sense, and that's the end of the point.
It always leaves me wondering... am I just not fully understanding the rest of the connections? Is there some more information they're just not actually saying and perhaps I wouldn't even understand anyway?
These feelings of expecting something more are exactly the same feelings that are forcing your friends to extrapolate into their imaginary ideas that do not match with reality.
It is important to note that just because we want or think "there should be more," doesn't necessarily mean that there actually is more.
That's the whole point.
There might not be any more to it at all.
We can't say for absolutely certain yet (I think?), but all evidence is leading us to believe that there is no "more."
T=0, with no such thing as "before."
That's it, and no amount of us wanting there to be more to this description of our universe is going to force reality to actually be a certain way. At some point we just have to accept that there is no "more" to this description. That's all we can say about it because that's all there is. There may be no explanation as to why there is no more, it's just simply the way it is.
A square has 4 sides.
There's no "why" to that, some may find it dissatisfying but most of us are used to the situation... it's just a description of what a square is.
There is no "before" T=0.
There's no "why" to that, some may find it dissatisfying since most of us are not used to the situation... but it's still just a description of what a universe is. (Or, at least, our universe)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by nchunz, posted 04-24-2009 1:46 AM nchunz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Rahvin, posted 04-24-2009 3:14 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 60 of 64 (506263)
04-24-2009 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by nchunz
04-24-2009 2:34 PM


Thanks for the detail explanation Rahvin
Glad you found it helpful.
I think the key of their model is this "observer". I appreciate If i could get more information about this observer in quantum world. The new thing is the observer doesn't have to be a conscious entity, is it true?
If it's true, then their model will fail
Well, let's use an example from General Relativity.
Relativity states that, as you approach the speed of light, time slows down relative to a stationary observer.
In this case, "observer" has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a "coscious entity." The "observer" can be a person, a dog, a tree, a rock, an atom, an electron, or simply a "frame of reference" - a conceptual observer that doesn't have to actually exist.
Do you see what I mean? As you approach the speed of light, time for you will slow down relative to anyone or anything that is stationary. It doesnt matter whether the traveller is a conscious entity, or whether the observer is a conscious entity - if one is stationary and the other approaches the speed of light, time will move more slowly for the traveller relative to the stationary observer.
Similarly, if a tree falls down in a forest and nobody is around, the fall will still make the pressure waves that our ears interpret as "sound." No human observer is requried.
One more thing,
I know universe has a singular condition at T=0 before expanding.
Problem: "before expanding" is incorrect. At every point in time, the Universe is expanding.
At singular state, the temperature is so hot and more dense, their value are infinite according to general relativity.
How come the condition with infinite value become finite?
That would be why we call the early Unvierse a singularity: it doesn't make any sense. Our current mathematical models are unable to accurately represent those types of conditions. The word "singularity" in this case means "this is really weird, and we don't know much about what's going on here. We'll get back to you when we learn more."
All of universe's properties are in exact value. The speed of light, gravity, etc, they are in exact value.
Well, not everything is a constant. c is a constant, but that simply happens to be the speed of light in a vaccuum; light travels more slowly when passing through a medium like air or glass.
But I catch your meaning: the Universe has discrete values. Unfortunately, this stops being the case at the quantum level - quantum wave functions are not discrete values, but are rather expressions of probability taken from all possible states.
I think that's the only reason the creationists have, to prove there was an intelligent being whom determined the value of each universe's properties to become as it is. Infinite become finite, chaos become normal, undeterministic become deterministic.
And yet this is also an unfounded assertion: why is an intelligent entity required to bring order from chaos? It happens all the time - snowflakes are extremely ordered structures that form spontaneously from a chaotic droplet of water, and yet no intelligence is required for them to form. Why then does the rest of the Universe require an intelligence to bring order from chaos? Is the Universe even progressing from chaos into order?
Does anything infinite really become finite, or do we simply not understand enough yet about the early Universe?
If you're asking "why are the universal constants like the speed of light set the way they are," I'd have to ask "why not?" If a pebble drops off of a mountain, do you look at where it landed and assume that an intelligent entity had to supernaturally make it land in that exact spot, simply because of the infinite number of other spots it could have landed? Or do you acknowledge that, if a pebble falls, it's going to land somewhere, and while landing in any specific spot is immensely improbable, neither is any individual spot is more or less probable for it to land on?
The fact that we have universal constants and the fact that they are set the way they are does not necessarily require an intelligent force to "create" or "set" them. Your friends are simply making an unfounded logical leap to support what they already believe to be true.
I'm Sorry if you don't get it. It's difficult for me to find best words to describe it, lol
I think I understand what you're getting at. Does my response make sense?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by nchunz, posted 04-24-2009 2:34 PM nchunz 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