pariah

Well, in arguments with some Christian friends, I have come across a hard to answer question.

I will say this: the universe began with an infintely small and dense piece of matter. It is just as feasible for it to exist as a god (not the christian god, simply a creator).

They will say this: Yes but when did it begin? Who created it?

I will say this: but when did god begin?

They say: Before god created the universe, there was no such thing as time. Therefore it is irrelevant when god began.


Now...The notion that god could have existed forever b/c before the universe there was no time makes it seem feasible at least. However I had no non creator reponse to this (immediately).

I have heard that wave functions, hawking and other cosmologists theory, explains this by there being some sort of timeless thing??? I know nohting about it!!

Can someone please explain it to me and how it relates to my argument with a christian friend?? thanks!!!

Bnonn

Asking what caused the universe is a meaningless question. The universe wasn't initially an infinitely small point of matter. It was a singularity. When the singularity expanded in the big bang, space and time were created.

There was no time before the universe. Therefore, it is meaningless to ask what caused it. Cause and effect only happen inside time. So all your religious friends are doing is adding a layer of complication to an otherwise elegantly simple (albeit frustrating) mathematical construct.

The wavefunction idea you mentioned is probably that quantum mechanics predicts that sometimes, when a virtual particle pair forms, it can release energy in a way which causes an entirely new cosm of spacetime to expand. In other words, it creates a new universe with a total energy sum of zero (just like ours), from a source of zero energy, without any cause.

More info.

Bob K

pariahSS

Well, in arguments with some Christian friends, I have come across a hard to answer question.

I will say this: the universe began with an infintely small and dense piece of matter. It is just as feasible for it to exist as a god (not the christian god, simply a creator).

They will say this: Yes but when did it begin? Who created it?

I will say this: but when did god begin?

They say: Before god created the universe, there was no such thing as time. Therefore it is irrelevant when god began.


Now...The notion that god could have existed forever b/c before the universe there was no time makes it seem feasible at least. However I had no non creator reponse to this (immediately).

I have heard that wave functions, hawking and other cosmologists theory, explains this by there being some sort of timeless thing??? I know nothing about it!!

Can someone please explain it to me and how it relates to my argument with a christian friend?? thanks!!!

The universe = (1) space, the infinite void, the pure vacuum of infinite dimensions, (2) time, the use of time-intervals to measure the occurrences of events in sequences of events, and (3) physics--the matter/energy which comprises all people/things/events of reality/the universe.

Space is infinite in dimensions as described by the expression X + i in which for every finite volume of X there is an infinite volume of i which can and does encompass X.

The nature of space is a pure vacuum.

Time, using invariable time-intervals, ITIs, can be measured without mathematical limits from a timepoint of origin, T0, into the past or into the future.

Here is the continuum of time:

Past Infinity <- ... <- T-2 <- T-1 <- T0 -> T+1 -> T+2 -> ... -> Infinity Future.

Thus, time is infinite in duration; there never was a beginning to time, nor will there ever be an ending to time.

Because of the conception of time, space can be intuited to be of infinite duration in time.

The matter/energy of the universe is a closed energy system because matter/energy cannot be taken away from it (where would it go?) and matter/energy cannot be added to it (where would it come from?).

The matter/energy of the universe cannot be destroyed, only changed in form, matter into energy and energy into matter, as described by E = mc2 and m = E/c2.

Thus, the matter/energy of the universe (A) is infinite in duration and never had a beginning/first cause and will never have an ending/final effect and (B) is finite in quantity.

Causality = People/things/events comprised of matter/energy who/which are causes causing people/things/events also comprised of matter/energy who/which are effects.

The matter/energy of the universe, being infinite in duration in time but finite in existence in space, is the source of causality. Because m/e had no beginning and has no ending, and causes changes of people/things/events, there was no first cause of m/e.

Something comes from something and nothing comes from nothing.

All there was/is/ever will be was/is/will be caused by matter/energy.

Because m/e is of infinite duration and comprises all there was/is/will be that is not space or time, the gods, if they exist, are comprised of m/e, and therefore could not and did not create all there was/is/will be and therefore did not cause causality and therefore were not first causes.

People make fundamental mistakes searching for first causes when they should be searching for the source of causality.

The Source of Causality = Matter/Energy.

Therefore, the search for the source of causality is over: it is known to be matter/energy.

Bnonn

Uh...huh...

Lucky you worked that out. We'd best inform all the brilliant minds in the world currently still unable to solve that particular problem.

I'm intrigued by your statement that time can be measured infinitely into the past (that, therefore, the universe had no beginning). How do you reconcile this with the observed fact that the universe is around 13.6 billion years old, and started with the big bang?

Or did I misunderstand?

Bob K

Bnonn: Uh...huh...

Lucky you worked that out. We'd best inform all the brilliant minds in the world currently still unable to solve that particular problem.

I'm intrigued by your statement that time can be measured infinitely into the past (that, therefore, the universe had no beginning). How do you reconcile this with the observed fact that the universe is around 13.6 billion years old, and started with the big bang?

Or did I misunderstand?

Who observed the Big Bang which started the universe around 13.6 million years ago?

Did any space/time/physics (matter/energy) exist prior to the Big Bang?

Did something come from nothing in the Big Bang?

Are you absolutely certain the Big Bang happened?

Are not contemporary physicists operating from intuitions developed from gedankenexperiments (German: thought-experiments)?

Before we go any further, where I have presented an operational definition of the term 'universe' with supporting real-world observations as well as intuitions developed from gedankenexperiments, and you are apparently operating from a different definition of 'universe,' let's have you present your definition so we can compare yours with mine to determine if or not there are serious discrepancies which would either confuse or otherwise prevent effective communication.

Also, I'd like for you to explain to me how it is that my very own personal mind could not be brilliant enough to figure out what other brilliant minds have not been able to figure out? Your scoff at the beginning of your Reply implies that I could not possibly have the intellect to be able to do what others have not been able to do.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Tonto, not knowing his pal, the Lone Ranger, was disguised as a pitchfork, stepped on his prong, ...

Time is defined in Operational Physics as the use of time-intervals to measure the occurrences of events in sequences of events.

The key to understanding time is the time-interval, the TI, which is to be used for a standard of time-measurement.

The TI can be modeled arbitrarily after any periodic motion, but once chosen and set into operation, the TI is independent of the original periodic motion.

There are two types of time-intervals, TIs, (A) the variable time-interval, the VTI, and (B) the invariable time-interval, the ITI.

By either the intuition in gedankenexperiments of invariable time-interval clocks, ITICs, clocks that are not affected by changes of velocity/gravity or by the real-world construction of ITICs which are (A) motion-sensing and self-adjusting, or (B) are synchronized by radio signals from a master clock, ITICs measure time without mathematical limits in to the past or into the future from an arbitrary timepoint, T0.

Here is the continuum of time:

Past Infinity <- ... <- T-2 <- T-1 <- T0 -> T+1 -> T+2 -> ... -> Infinity Future.

Do you see any mathematical limits to the measurement of time using ITIs/ITICs?

If you cannot find any mathematical limits to the measurement of time using ITIs/ITICs, then would you not agree that time is infinite?

And that time existed prior to any Big Bang?

And will exist after any Big Crunch?

Summary: By intuition in gedankenxperiments, if ITICs were indestructible, or motion-sensing and self-adjusting or otherwise synchronized by radio signals from a master clock, then they would continue infinitely to measure ITIs/timepoints into the past or into the future.

By the operational definition of time presented and the ITICs suggested, we have a concept of time which shows us the infinity of time, the infinite duration of time, time without beginning nor ending, and we can see that time is independent of space or physics (matter/energy), thus, time could not have had a beginning in a Bang nor will it have an ending in a Crunch. While Bangs/Crunches are happening, time will 'march on' and Bangs/Crunches will happen at specific timepoints and timepoints will be measured beyond the Bangs/Crunches.

Where I have present an operational definition of time, let's have you present your definition of time, so we can compare it to mine and determine if or not differences exist which will prevent effective and useful communication.

Bnonn

But you haven't presented an operational definition of time. You've presented the idea that if time could be measured backwards and forwards into infinity, it would be infinite.

You're stating the obvious. Just because you can imagine that this is true does not mean that it is. If I say that an arrow can never reach its target because it must first travel half way, and then half way of that, and then half way of that, ad infinadum, does that make me right? Obviously not. Similar sort of principle.

There is no such thing as an invariable time interval, since time is relative to velocity, and curvature of space. The time interval will always be measured as the same at the location it is being measured, but relative to another location it will vary.

I am as certain as science can be that the big bang happened. Asking if anyone was there to observe it is merely disingenuous. Can you observe the photons in light which allow you to read this post? Does that mean they don't exist?

No, spacetime and matter-energy did not exist "prior" to the big bang; they were created with it. However, talking about an event prior to the creation of time is meaningless, and confusing since it suggests that a metatime exists.

Something may well have come from nothing in the big bang.

No, contemporary physics is not operating from intuitions developed from thought experiments. It is operating from empirical evidence and mathematics.

Jesse

Bnonn:
No, spacetime and matter-energy did not exist "prior" to the big bang; they were created with it. However, talking about an event prior to the creation of time is meaningless, and confusing since it suggests that a metatime exists.

I don't think we have a basis for being too sure that the Big Bang was really the origin of spacetime. The evidence that we have is for the idea that space has been expanding from a very hot and dense initial state according to the laws of general relativity, and this conclusion is on very firm ground; but tracing this backwards all the way to an infinitely dense singularity is just an extrapolation based on classical general relativity, but physicists have reason to suspect the theory may break down at the Planck scale. Some ideas from quantum gravity suggest ways in which the universe could be older than the Big Bang, like the ekpyrotic universe theory and chaotic inflation.

Of course, none of this validates Bob K's apparent complete rejection of general relativity, even in the macroscopic domain where physicists are very confident that it works.

Bnonn

Ta for links Jesse. Most educational.

Origian

IIRC, time DID begin with the Big Bang - it was Stephen Hawking's first major 'thing' he proved (along with that other guy, who's name escapes me right now). Basically his theorem shows that if General Relativity is true, then there was no such thing as time before the Big Bang - so the idea that time goes backwards infinitely is false.

Jesse

The other guy you're thinking of is Roger Penrose--he and Hawking proved in 1970 that if you trace the expansion of the universe back, you must get a singularity according to general relativity. However, the important thing to keep in mind is that most physicists don't think general relativity is 100% accurate--they believe it will turn out to be a classical approximation to a true quantum theory of gravity, just like classical electromagnetism is an approximation to the quantum theory of electromagnetism, QED. The infinities of general relativity (the singularities) might then turn out to be just an artifact of an imperfect theory, much like the infinities physicists got when they tried to apply classical electromagnetism to the problem of the blackbody spectrum, the so-called ultraviolet catastrophe which was eliminated when Planck realized that electromagnetic energy might be quantized. Physicists think quantum effects would start to become significant, and the quantum theory of gravity would start to diverge significantly from general relativity, at the Planck scale; so, general relativity can probably be trusted back to about 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang, but before that it may not be reliable.