• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Universe from Nothing?

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
godnotgod

But this event had to have occurred within some matrix, and if physics is correct, it cannot have been within Space-Time. Therefore, the BB was an event in no-Space-Time.

Or, perhaps it was an event in another spacetime, a bursting out and severance from that other.

(Our present understanding of the singularity makes such things impossible to know ... but we can dream, oops, hypothesize.)
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
godnotgod

But this event had to have occurred within some matrix, and if physics is correct, it cannot have been within Space-Time. Therefore, the BB was an event in no-Space-Time.

Or, perhaps it was an event in another spacetime, a bursting out and severance from that other.

So what would that mean? Assuming another space-time 'bursting' into ....what? No-space-time, and then becoming space-time? How's that?

It appears you are describing two different realities, but I see only one. What you have described is an interconnectivity one with the other.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I have in mind the speculation that outside our universe are other universes, collectively referred to as the 'metaverse'.

And separately, the speculation (it's been around for a while but I last read of it in a Lee Smolin book) that black holes in other universes so distort the fabric of their universe that they break off and become new universes of themselves.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Please read my preceding posts or ask the question of ben. My position is that prior to the Planck epoch, nothing is known about the bb.

I do know of 28 different theories, many by the leading cosmologists so i don't agree physics says that pre bb was timeless and spaceless, but it is a possibility that some physicist's consider that state.
Yes, and as far as evidences go, all of these various models are more or less, highly theoretical, and untestable hypotheses.

Until we have more reliable and conclusive data, I don't think any of these pre-BB to be true...yet.
 

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
Pertaining to the bb...and the timeless entity of nothingness...
what did the 'singularity' exist in ?
What was the 'container' that held it ?
What was the point of origin, where the 'space' began ?
Ahhhhh....pre bb !!
Nothingness within nothingness...timelessness within timelessness !
Everything from nothingness !
........
Find the container that contains everything....
and from what is it made ?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
As I understand it, the concept of Space-Time as proposed by General Relativity, is just that: a concept.


Space-time is a concept that integrates space (which is real) and time (also real).
It's real in a mathematical sense, it allows predictions to be made about the motion of space.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Yes, and as far as evidences go, all of these various models are more or less, highly theoretical, and untestable hypotheses.

Until we have more reliable and conclusive data, I don't think any of these pre-BB to be true...yet.

Mostly theoretical although they are only accepted by cosmology if they are mathematically sound and can reasonably explain our universe.

The theory of Laura Mersini-Houghton makes no supposition of pre bb, it relies on what is known of string theory and that could give rise to today's universe. It also has the advantage of explaining reasonable cause for the unusual blotches on the CMB and the areas of the universe moving contrary to general universal motion.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
No one is denying that mass can not be created or destroyed, this is the very basis of the law of conservation of matter which states that matter can not be created or destroyed.

Now when it said that the law of conservation of matter or principle of matter conservation states ....what follows is what it is that determines one knows that matter can not be created or destroyed...and it is that the mass of the elements of object or collection of objects never changes over time no matter how the original parts rearrange themselves.

You are mistaking change in material form as a creation and destruction of material elements of the material form, but in fact there is no new material elements or loss of old material elements, just a rearrangement of the matter elements involved. So you see there is a distinction between the mass of the matter elements and the particular forms of matter involved in any transformation. The mass of the elements of the matter remains the same regardless of the nature of the change, chemical, physical, etc., and thus it is the principle of matter conservation.

Here, read what education teaches wrt the basics of the Law of Conservation of Matter

http://www.doe.virginia.gov/testing...son_plans/physical_sci/matter/sess_PS-5ab.pdf

"Matter may undergo physical and chemical changes. In a physical change, matter changes shape or form but not chemical composition. A phase change, such as melting or boiling, indicates a physical change. In a chemical change, bonding patterns change and new substances form. All chemical reactions are chemical changes. The Law of Conservation of Matter states that matter can not be created or destroyed. In a physical change, substances can change form, but the total mass remains the same. In a chemical change, the total mass of the reactants always equals the total mass of the products."

Ok, I hope you get it, this is not about choosing mass over matter or vice versa as to which can not be created or destroyed, but understanding the nuance between an actual matter element, eg Iron Fe, and the quantitative measurable aspect of the said Fe element, mass, which happens to be 55.845 u ± 0.002 u. So can the matter Iron be be created or destroyed?

You are taking the "create" and "destroy" far too literal.

And while you presented a quote about chemical reaction, which is largely correct, the nucleosynthesis is a process unlike any typical chemical reaction.

Now, I am not chemistry expert, but I do recall that a molecule like water, consist of 2 different atoms, oxygen and hydrogen.

Oxygen by themselves, as a element, is a gas with two oxygen atoms (O2), is itself, a matter.

Likewise, hydrogen by themselves, is an element of gas comprising of two hydrogen atoms (H2), is itself a different matter to oxygen.

Both gases, are different matters with different structures and different properties.

Water molecule (H2O) at room temperature, is a new matter, which have different structure and properties to that of hydrogen gas and to that of oxygen gas.

My point is that water molecule is a chemical reaction, where they bonded 3 atoms together, due to these 3 atoms are missing missing 2 electrons. By bonding together the molecule becomes stable, and electrically neutral.

HOWEVER, chemical composition of the water molecule, can still be recognised as 3 atoms (2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms).

Chemical reaction occurred because one atom is missing one or more electrons, which make atom positive-charged, and therefore receptive in bonding with another negative-charged atom or two, to balance out the charged atoms.

But the nucleosynthesis process is very different from chemical reaction of molecule, because in a chemical reaction the number of proton and neutron particles remained the same inside each individual atoms within molecule or compound.

The thing to remember in ordinary chemical reaction, is that it doesn't change the the contents (eg the number of protons and neutrons) inside the nucleus.

For instance, each hydrogen atom within a water molecule will still have only one proton and no neutron, while the oxygen atom will still have 8 protons and 8 neutrons. The nuclei of 3 atoms that make water, are unchanged.

For instance, the mass spectrometry machine can break down material of any compound into smaller molecules or elements.

Nucleosynthesis work very differently, because it is about changing the nuclei of lighter atoms into a single new and heavier nucleus. It is about building a new atom from pre-existing lighter atoms, by joining 2 (or more) nuclei together into a single heavier nucleus, through nuclear fusion.

In a main sequence stars, like our yellow dwarf star - the Sun - the most abundant element in the star is hydrogen, and helium being the 2nd most abundant.

As you know, hydrogen atom only have one proton, but no neutron particles within its nucleus, while helium atom is comprised of 2 protons and 2 neutrons within the helium nucleus (so relative mass of 4).

In a Stellar Nucleosynthesis, the star's temperature would fuse a bunch of hydrogen (6 of them) together to make the extra proton and 2 neutrons, within a single helium nucleus.

Since hydrogen has no neutron particle, the making of helium nucleus involved 3 steps of fusion of hydrogen atoms.

When 2 hydrogen atoms collided and are fused together into one nucleus, one proton will remain intact, but the 2nd proton will become neutron as so hydrogen will have 2 particles, thereby become hydrogen-2 (or 2H). The collision will cause positron and neutrino to be released.

A second pair of hydrogen atoms would fuse together into another hydrogen-2, in the same way that I've described above.

Another hydrogen atom would collide with each hydrogen-2 atom, causing release of gamma ray, and each hydrogen-2 will inherit extra proton, so that it become helium-3 (2 protons, 1 neutron = 3He).

When the two helium-3 atoms collided and fused, it become a single nucleus of 2 protons and 2 neutrons, hence helium-4; the extra protons will be knocked out as normal hydrogen atoms.

A diagram of hydrogen fusion can be seen in Wikipedia article on Stellar Nucleosynthesis:

1347px-FusionintheSun.svg.png



The helium atom was produced from hydrogen atoms, during the process of Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

When our Sun run out of hydrogen to fuse at the star's core, it will start to fuse helium atoms, to form heavier elements, like carbon or oxygen atoms.

When that (helium fusion) start, the sun will start to die, and our sun will become hotter, larger in volume and more massive, turning into a red giant star. Outer layers of the sun, will expel debris in every direction until it can no longer fuse, and all that left of the sun is a white core, hence our sun will become a white dwarf.

What you have to remember is that nucleosynthesis involved production of new atomic nuclei from lighter elements, and chemical reaction don't make any new nuclei.

So basically helium as a matter get created from completely different matters, hydrogen.
 
Last edited:

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
You are taking the "create" and "destroy" far too literal.

And while you presented a quote about chemical reaction, which is largely correct, the nucleosynthesis is a process unlike any typical chemical reaction.

Now, I am not chemistry expert, but I do recall that a molecule like water, consist of 2 different atoms, oxygen and hydrogen.

Oxygen by themselves, as a element, is a gas with two oxygen atoms (O2), is itself, a matter.

Likewise, hydrogen by themselves, is an element of gas comprising of two hydrogen atoms (H2), is itself a different matter to oxygen.

Both gases, are different matters with different structures and different properties.

Water molecule (H2O) at room temperature, is a new matter, which have different structure and properties to that of hydrogen gas and to that of oxygen gas.

My point is that water molecule is a chemical reaction, where they bonded 3 atoms together, due to these 3 atoms are missing missing 2 electrons. By bonding together the molecule becomes stable, and electrically neutral.

HOWEVER, chemical composition of the water molecule, can still be recognised as 3 atoms (2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms).

Chemical reaction occurred because one atom is missing one or more electrons, which make atom positive-charged, and therefore receptive in bonding with another negative-charged atom or two, to balance out the charged atoms.

But the nucleosynthesis process is very different from chemical reaction of molecule, because in a chemical reaction the number of proton and neutron particles remained the same inside each individual atoms within molecule or compound.

The thing to remember in ordinary chemical reaction, is that it doesn't change the the contents (eg the number of protons and neutrons) inside the nucleus.

For instance, each hydrogen atom within a water molecule will still have only one proton and no neutron, while the oxygen atom will still have 8 protons and 8 neutrons. The nuclei of 3 atoms that make water, are unchanged.

For instance, the mass spectrometry machine can break down material of any compound into smaller molecules or elements.

Nucleosynthesis work very differently, because it is about changing the nuclei of lighter atoms into a single new and heavier nucleus. It is about building a new atom from pre-existing lighter atoms, by joining 2 (or more) nuclei together into a single heavier nucleus, through nuclear fusion.

In a main sequence stars, like our yellow dwarf star - the Sun - the most abundant element in the star is hydrogen, and helium being the 2nd most abundant.

As you know, hydrogen atom only have one proton, but no neutron particles within its nucleus, while helium atom is comprised of 2 protons and 2 neutrons within the helium nucleus (so relative mass of 4).

In a Stellar Nucleosynthesis, the star's temperature would fuse a bunch of hydrogen (6 of them) together to make the extra proton and 2 neutrons, within a single helium nucleus.

Since hydrogen has no neutron particle, the making of helium nucleus involved 3 steps of fusion of hydrogen atoms.

When 2 hydrogen atoms collided and are fused together into one nucleus, one proton will remain intact, but the 2nd proton will become neutron as so hydrogen will have 2 particles, thereby become hydrogen-2 (or 2H). The collision will cause positron and neutrino to be released.

A second pair of hydrogen atoms would fuse together into another hydrogen-2, in the same way that I've described above.

Another hydrogen atom would collide with each hydrogen-2 atom, causing release of gamma ray, and each hydrogen-2 will inherit extra proton, so that it become helium-3 (2 protons, 1 neutron = 3He).

When the two helium-3 atoms collided and fused, it become a single nucleus of 2 protons and 2 neutrons, hence helium-4; the extra protons will be knocked out as normal hydrogen atoms.

A diagram of hydrogen fusion can be seen in Wikipedia article on Stellar Nucleosynthesis:

1347px-FusionintheSun.svg.png



The helium atom was produced from hydrogen atoms, during the process of Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

When our Sun run out of hydrogen to fuse at the star's core, it will start to fuse helium atoms, to form heavier elements, like carbon or oxygen atoms.

When that (helium fusion) start, the sun will start to die, and our sun will become hotter, larger in volume and more massive, turning into a red giant star. Outer layers of the sun, will expel debris in every direction until it can no longer fuse, and all that left of the sun is a white core, hence our sun will become a white dwarf.

What you have to remember is that nucleosynthesis involved production of new atomic nuclei from lighter elements, and chemical reaction don't make any new nuclei.

So basically helium as a matter get created from completely different matters, hydrogen.
^^^ Totally irrelevant, read the links and see what the Law says.....it says...."The law of conservation of matter states that the mass of an object or collection of objects never changes over time, no matter how the constituent parts rearrange themselves. The mass can never be created or destroyed.

The law requires that during any nuclear reaction, radioactive decay or chemical reaction in an isolated system, the total mass of the reactants or starting materials must be equal to the mass of the products." Law of Conservation of Matter

Take it up with the the world's education departments if you think the Law of Conservation of Matter is wrongly worded.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Pertaining to the bb...and the timeless entity of nothingness...
what did the 'singularity' exist in ?
What was the 'container' that held it ?
What was the point of origin, where the 'space' began ?
Ahhhhh....pre bb !!
Nothingness within nothingness...timelessness within timelessness !
Everything from nothingness !
........
Find the container that contains everything....
and from what is it made ?

Pure Abstract Intelligence, that is Unborn, Unconditioned, Uncreated, and Empty of any and all inherent self-nature, and You are none other than That.

There is no container; That is Infinite and without boundary, and therefore cannot be contained within that which is finite.

The Universe is not a container filled with things; those very 'things' are none other than what comprisesThe Universe itself.
 
Last edited:

godnotgod

Thou art That
I have in mind the speculation that outside our universe are other universes, collectively referred to as the 'metaverse'.

And separately, the speculation (it's been around for a while but I last read of it in a Lee Smolin book) that black holes in other universes so distort the fabric of their universe that they break off and become new universes of themselves.

I should have noted that I am using the word 'Universe' in the same sense that you are using the word 'Metaverse'. There are no separations; there is but one reality.
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
Space-time is a concept that integrates space (which is real) and time (also real).
It's real in a mathematical sense, it allows predictions to be made about the motion of space.

What is the reference we use, for example, to establish as real what we call 'space'? For example, we use black and white as references for each other. IOW, we are talking about something that has a relative value.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
What is the reference we use, for example, to establish as real what we call 'space'? For example, we use black and white as references for each other. IOW, we are talking about something that has a relative value.

At any instant the frame of reference is 4 fold, length, height, width, time. An absolute 4 dimensional field. Its a bit intricate to explain by comments in a thread. Here is a link with a similar question answered by several contributors.

Is spacetime absolute?
 

godnotgod

Thou art That
At any instant the frame of reference is 4 fold, length, height, width, time. An absolute 4 dimensional field. Its a bit intricate to explain by comments in a thread. Here is a link with a similar question answered by several contributors.

Is spacetime absolute?

What you are saying, in actuality, is that what space is, is determined via measurement, a mathematical concept superimposed over reality, and then mistaken for reality itself. That has been the problem with how we see time for a very long time: we have come to see time as something actual, rather than for the gridwork superimposed over nature, a view which sees the tick of the clock as the linear passing of something real we then call 'time'. So what has occurred is that the concepts of space and time come to be seen as something that actually exist in nature.

What I was trying to refer to as the reference by which we determine the existence of space, are solids. Solids are to space, as full is to empty; 'solids' in this case referring to any object seen to exist within space. IOW, the two are inseparable. Remove all solids from 'space', and you have no way of ascertaining the existence of so-called 'space', 'space', then, being a relative value.
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
What you are saying, in actuality, is that what space is, is determined via measurement, a mathematical concept superimposed over reality, and then mistaken for reality itself. That has been the problem with how we see time for a very long time: we have come to see time as something actual, rather than for the gridwork superimposed over nature, a view which sees the tick of the clock as the linear passing of something real we then call 'time'. So what has occurred is that the concepts of space and time come to be seen as something that actually exist in nature.

What I was trying to refer to as the reference by which we determine the existence of space, are solids. Solids are to space, as full is to empty; 'solids' in this case referring to any object seen to exist within space. IOW, the two are inseparable. Remove all solids from 'space', and you have no way of ascertaining the existence of so-called 'space', 'space', then, being a relative value.


You are seeing time as a human concept, i see it as a marker of entropy. Dimensions (space) and the arrow of time do exist in nature.

Perhaps you are confusing space with vacuum. Space is far from empty.
 

Corvus

Feathered eyeball connoisseur
So your concept of time is not a human concept whereas gng's concept of time is. Does that make you an alien?

Time does exist. It is a measurable phenomenon. Time dilation effects as shown by the Lorentz equations and experimental confirmation, reveals time to be relative, they show it is a dimensional component of reality, when objects move very fast, the speed of light has to remain constant, so time slows for that fast object relative to an observer, to ensure that the speed of light is constant. The same effect applies in massive gravitational fields This may not make sense, but it is true. As ChristineM said, it boils down to entropy. For very interesting reasons.
 

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Time does exist. It is a measurable phenomenon. Time dilation effects as shown by the Lorentz equations and experimental confirmation, reveals time to be relative, they show it is a dimensional component of reality, when objects move very fast, the speed of light has to remain constant, so time slows for that fast object relative to an observer, to ensure that the speed of light is constant. The same effect applies in massive gravitational fields This may not make sense, but it is true. As ChristineM said, it boils down to entropy. For very interesting reasons.
Sorry, time does not exist outside of the human mind. The concept of time represents the continuation of existence or part thereof, and/or the proxy measurement via a mechanical or electronic clock device of the continuation of existence or part thereof.

"Einstein and Besso discussed this—what two quantities we compare in order to measure time. All our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events,” Einstein realized. “If, for instance, I say, ‘That train arrives here at 7 o’clock,’ I mean something like this: ‘The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.” Albert Einstein, Michele Besso, and Ernst Mach Were All Vital to the Theory of General Relativity
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Depends on how one defines "time". In science, we tend to use the term to denote transition, like first A then B.
 
Top