Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Answerer · 08-30-2002, 08:34 AM

Tachyons is the particle that 'resist' causality if it was found in real existence. I supposed that you can say tachyons was created before big bang since theoretically they always popped out of nowhere before the events that created them start.

NialScorva · 08-30-2002, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Answerer:
Tachyons is the particle that 'resist' causality if it was found in real existence. I supposed that you can say tachyons was created before big bang since theoretically they always popped out of nowhere before the events that created them start.

I was thinking about radio-active decay and sponaneous generation of electron/positron pairs.

NialScorva · 08-30-2002, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by demrald:
NialScorva

I agree, and thanks for your comments. I only mentioned Hume's problem of induction (or abduction, as you have said) to make clear that causality in normal circumstances was being assumed for the argument.

Aye, but I don't think that normal notions of causality are applicable to such situations. It's like asking "How would you handle a 7-10 split of bowling was played with rifles?". You can't change the rules without changing the game in unexpected ways.

Ron Singh · 08-30-2002, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Answerer:
Tachyons is the particle that 'resist' causality if it was found in real existence. I supposed that you can say tachyons was created before big bang since theoretically they always popped out of nowhere before the events that created them start.

But, all particles are created AFTER the cooling down of the energy at the beginning of the Big Bang. So if there is to be a particle that exists, it must happen after the universe has cooled down to allow such a particle to exist.

Answerer · 08-30-2002, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ron Singh:


But, all particles are created AFTER the cooling down of the energy at the beginning of the Big Bang. So if there is to be a particle that exists, it must happen after the universe has cooled down to allow such a particle to exist.

Well, tachyons is a particle that carries complex or negative mass and according to relativity, it moves backwards in time immediately after its creation. So even if it was created a few pico seconds after big bang, one(if there is this possibility) could discover its existence before the big bang. Sound bizarre right?

eh · 08-31-2002, 06:58 AM

Relativity predicts tachyons?

tergiversant · 09-06-2002, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by demrald:
I agree. I've just had theists throw "That violates the laws of thermodynamics!" in my face so many times on this issue that I thought I would seek some collaboration on the matter...

Best of luck. How do you explain to such folk that the laws of thermo only apply under certain conditions (e.g. closed, macroscopic systems within time and space)? I doubt it can be done.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

echidna · 09-09-2002, 02:21 AM

The Big Bang can be a causeless event, but in no way does that remove the problems of contingency.

For the Big Bang to have occurred in the way it did, to result in the world we see today, certain concepts must be in place, the ability to create or maintain time-space just for starters. Unless someone can deduce ex-nihilo why time-space is logically necessary � (you can have logic as a given if you like).

I still fail to understand how materialism can ever epistemologically explain materialism. As such it seems clear that something must transcend materialism.

Keith Russell · 09-09-2002, 08:12 AM

Greetings:

I have heard rumours that scientists have been able to recreate the events which occurred a few nanoseconds before the Big Bang.

I have yet to find any documentation of this.

However, if we don't know what happened before the Big Bang, how can we say that nothing happened before? Wouldn't that be claiming to know what happened before?

And, if we don't know, we can't make any such claim.

I believe that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Given that, it follows that the Big Bang did not 'create' reality, but only redistributed existing energy according to the new patterns that were formed.

There is thus no 'nothing'; nor does there need to be any 'something' which 'transcends' existence/reality.

Keith.

demrald · 09-09-2002, 07:21 PM

echidna

Quote:

For the Big Bang to have occurred in the way it did, to result in the world we see today, certain concepts must be in place, the ability to create or maintain time-space just for starters.

This is just saying that the big bang must have been possible to have been possible, which is true, if simply tautologous.

Quote:

Unless someone can deduce ex-nihilo why time-space is logically necessary

How does this apply?

Quote:

I still fail to understand how materialism can ever epistemologically explain materialism.

I fail to understand how your feelings about materialism relate to whether or not the big bang was caused.

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

08-30-2002, 08:34 AM	#11
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	Tachyons is the particle that 'resist' causality if it was found in real existence. I supposed that you can say tachyons was created before big bang since theoretically they always popped out of nowhere before the events that created them start.

08-31-2002, 06:58 AM	#16
eh Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Canada Posts: 624	Relativity predicts tachyons?

09-09-2002, 02:21 AM	#18
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	The Big Bang can be a causeless event, but in no way does that remove the problems of contingency. For the Big Bang to have occurred in the way it did, to result in the world we see today, certain concepts must be in place, the ability to create or maintain time-space just for starters. Unless someone can deduce ex-nihilo why time-space is logically necessary � (you can have logic as a given if you like). I still fail to understand how materialism can ever epistemologically explain materialism. As such it seems clear that something must transcend materialism.

09-09-2002, 08:12 AM	#19
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: I have heard rumours that scientists have been able to recreate the events which occurred a few nanoseconds before the Big Bang. I have yet to find any documentation of this. However, if we don't know what happened before the Big Bang, how can we say that nothing happened before? Wouldn't that be claiming to know what happened before? And, if we don't know, we can't make any such claim. I believe that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Given that, it follows that the Big Bang did not 'create' reality, but only redistributed existing energy according to the new patterns that were formed. There is thus no 'nothing'; nor does there need to be any 'something' which 'transcends' existence/reality. Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.