Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Virgil Tibbs · 06-26-2003, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
I find the cyclic universe easier to understand than the idea of "something from nothing".

I'll grant you that "something from nothing" may be counter-intuitive, but at the same time there are observations we (as in humanity) have made that point in this direction. Besides the zero point flucuations of quantum mechanics, there is the theory (used to explain the Casimir effect) of virtual particle and anti-particle pairs that appear spontaneously and then anihilate each other.

Of course, many well established scientific theories are pretty unexected. Relative space and time is pretty wild, and for that matter until Newton came along most people believed matter had a "natural state of rest" it would reach unless acted on by an outside force.

Tibbs

Nowhere357 · 06-26-2003, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell
For the point to be able to change, something caused the change.

Something (probably the 'point') had to exist before the Big Bang, in order for the Big Bang to occur.

Then the cause existed before the bb, so something changed before the bb? Wouldn't that most likely be the end of the previous cycle?

Nowhere357 · 06-26-2003, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Virgil Tibbs
Besides the zero point flucuations of quantum mechanics, there is the theory (used to explain the Casimir effect) of virtual particle and anti-particle pairs that appear spontaneously and then anihilate each other.

I have used this to argue against the need for a Creator.

It seems to me, though, that virtual partical theory requires space/time - and if the universe doesn't exist (yet, at the point of the bb), then there is no space/time. Meaning that some sort of "meta" space/time is implied, and you know what I think about that!

eh · 06-26-2003, 02:22 PM

Some physicists have argued that no spacetime was required for the fluctuation that brought the universe into existence. That means no meta space or meta time either. Of course, this simply trades the question of the origin of the universe, for the question of the origin of the very laws of physics that allowed for the creation of the universe in the first place.

Virgil Tibbs · 06-26-2003, 08:47 PM

I had an odd thought. In order to have an "arrow" of time going from past to future, one must have at least two distinct events, much the same way one needs two points to form a line. A single event by itself would still not be "time" in this sense.

Or, another way to look at it, to have time one must have "cause and effect." That would be two events.

Therefore, one could have a single, instantaneous event before the universe yet still not have time in a certain sense. That first event could be the formation of a singularity, and the second event (where the direction of time is established) would be that singularity exploding.

Tibbs

Nowhere357 · 06-27-2003, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Virgil Tibbs
In order to have an "arrow" of time going from past to future, one must have at least two distinct events, much the same way one needs two points to form a line.
Or, another way to look at it, to have time one must have "cause and effect." That would be two events.

When I read this, I agree.

Quote:

A single event by itself would still not be "time" in this sense.

But here I think that an event means something happened, and doesn't that imply a before and after? A change?

So to have an arrow of time, as you say, we need two events, each of which is also two events. And each of those must be two events also! Ad infinitum.

Quote:

Therefore, one could have a single, instantaneous event before the universe yet still not have time in a certain sense.

But that event must have a before and an after, and so can't be instantaneous. Otherwise it's not an event, I guess it's a current state. Unchanging.

Iow, for time to get started, time must already exist! I'm not helping much, am I?

Virgil Tibbs · 06-27-2003, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowhere357
So to have an arrow of time, as you say, we need two events, each of which is also two events. And each of those must be two events also! Ad infinitum.

Dang. Guess I won't be solving the mysteries of the universe today.

Tibbs

Nowhere357 · 06-28-2003, 01:58 AM

Merriam/Webster
Main Entry: event
Pronunciation: i-'vent
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin eventus, from evenire to happen, from e- + venire to come -- more at COME
Date: 1573
1 a archaic : OUTCOME b : the final outcome or determination of a legal action c : a postulated outcome, condition, or eventuality <in the event that I am not there, call the house>
2 a : something that happens : OCCURRENCE b : a noteworthy happening c : a social occasion or activity
3 : any of the contests in a program of sports
4 : the fundamental entity of observed physical reality represented by a point designated by three coordinates of place and one of time in the space-time continuum postulated by the theory of relativity
5 : a subset of the possible outcomes of an experiment
synonym see OCCURRENCE
- event�less /-l&s/ adjective
- at all events : in any case
- in any event : in any case
- in the event British : as it turns out

-----------------------------------------------------------------

By definition 4, our understanding of time and "events" require that time is already kicking along, because a time vector requires two points.

It seems to me that our theory of time is similar to the theory of evolution - they work well explaining how things (time, life) work, but not how they got started.

paul30 · 06-30-2003, 01:30 PM

It is quite clear how the universe started.

The Giant Iguana Goddess laid the Giant First Egg, which hatched into the universe.

This is what scientists crudely label the Big Bang.

It is actually the Big Hatch.

So you may ask, Where did the Giant Iguana Goddess come from?

I don't think Iguana tell you.

thomaq · 07-01-2003, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eh
Some physicists have argued that no spacetime was required for the fluctuation that brought the universe into existence. That means no meta space or meta time either. Of course, this simply trades the question of the origin of the universe, for the question of the origin of the very laws of physics that allowed for the creation of the universe in the first place.

i have a question for those physicists. if there was no spacetime, then what fluctuated?

06-30-2003, 01:30 PM	#59
paul30 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA USA Posts: 870	The Start It is quite clear how the universe started. The Giant Iguana Goddess laid the Giant First Egg, which hatched into the universe. This is what scientists crudely label the Big Bang. It is actually the Big Hatch. So you may ask, Where did the Giant Iguana Goddess come from? I don't think Iguana tell you.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-26-2003, 02:22 PM	#54
eh Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Canada Posts: 624	Some physicists have argued that no spacetime was required for the fluctuation that brought the universe into existence. That means no meta space or meta time either. Of course, this simply trades the question of the origin of the universe, for the question of the origin of the very laws of physics that allowed for the creation of the universe in the first place.

06-26-2003, 08:47 PM	#55
Virgil Tibbs Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 120	I had an odd thought. In order to have an "arrow" of time going from past to future, one must have at least two distinct events, much the same way one needs two points to form a line. A single event by itself would still not be "time" in this sense. Or, another way to look at it, to have time one must have "cause and effect." That would be two events. Therefore, one could have a single, instantaneous event before the universe yet still not have time in a certain sense. That first event could be the formation of a singularity, and the second event (where the direction of time is established) would be that singularity exploding. Tibbs

06-28-2003, 01:58 AM	#58
Nowhere357 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Grand Junction CO Posts: 2,231	Merriam/Webster Main Entry: event Pronunciation: i-'vent Function: noun Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin eventus, from evenire to happen, from e- + venire to come -- more at COME Date: 1573 1 a archaic : OUTCOME b : the final outcome or determination of a legal action c : a postulated outcome, condition, or eventuality <in the event that I am not there, call the house> 2 a : something that happens : OCCURRENCE b : a noteworthy happening c : a social occasion or activity 3 : any of the contests in a program of sports 4 : the fundamental entity of observed physical reality represented by a point designated by three coordinates of place and one of time in the space-time continuum postulated by the theory of relativity 5 : a subset of the possible outcomes of an experiment synonym see OCCURRENCE - event�less /-l&s/ adjective - at all events : in any case - in any event : in any case - in the event British : as it turns out ----------------------------------------------------------------- By definition 4, our understanding of time and "events" require that time is already kicking along, because a time vector requires two points. It seems to me that our theory of time is similar to the theory of evolution - they work well explaining how things (time, life) work, but not how they got started.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.