Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

Energy is a property of particles. It is not a separate substance. it is more like momentum and charge than a separate stuff.

All is one, it is only the primitive dualistic mind that makes distinctions.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

OK, look at the universe we can see right now. Since the universe is expanding, the size of what we can see right now was smaller in the past. At the point when it was the size of a golf ball, the rest of the universe (which we cannot see now) was still outside of that golf ball.

There was no 'who' at that point, but anyone living beyond our observable universe would be able to see parts of the universe we cannot see (and also would not be able to see us).

Again, ambiguous. Do you mean the observable universe when it was golf ball sized? Then there was an outside which consists of everything that would expand to be outside of what we can see now.

if you mean the *whole* universe, then there was no outside.

That is still not determined, but it is likely. The gravitational energy (from curvature of space) balances the energy of particles and the total is 0. Thi sis certainly true for a finite universe. For a spatially infinite universe, there are issues even defining the total energy.

Especially if you refuse to learn about it.

Tbh, BBT does not pass the smell test, but all is unfolding as it should. In time, science will evolve to better understand the eternal infinite nature of existence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

NO cosmologist has the SSU in play these days. it is now a crank viewpoint.

'These days' are a flash in the light of eternity, only a crank would believe that contemporary science has a handle on the big picture of existence.

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you, but it does not make sense to me.

What specific part does not make sense to you? Is it is that nothing goes faster than light, so in a universe of finite age, there are parts we don't yet see?

Or is it that you can have a curved 3D space with finite volume and no boundaries/edges?

In either case, it might be a good idea to think about it a bit. They are both very basic ideas for modern cosmology.

 

[Polymath257]

Hold on, this is me, an expression of the universe, I have no other goal in life except to establish what and who I am in the context of the absolute. Telling me that there was no before my beginning is a lie.

Huh? There was clearly a 'before your beginning'.

 

[Polymath257]

'These days' are a flash in the light of eternity, only a crank would believe that contemporary science has a handle on the big picture of existence.

And only a crank believes a theory discarded because it doesn't fit the evidence. It is on par with a flat earth or a geocentric view.

 

[Polymath257]

Tbh, BBT does not pass the smell test, but all is unfolding as it should. In time, science will evolve to better understand the eternal infinite nature of existence.

Or not, depending on which way the evidence goes.

 

[Polymath257]

All is one, it is only the primitive dualistic mind that makes distinctions.

Sorry, but your mysticism has nothing to do with the science of cosmology.

 

[gnostic]

@Ben Dhyan

I know that you don’t accept the Big Bang theory.

You are not a qualified astronomer, astrophysicist or cosmologist, so you are only expressing your opinions or beliefs, on the subject, because of your own personal belief and whatever religion you follow...which as it should be - everyone are entitled to believe & follow whatever religions they want.

But the Big Bang theory as well as the other theoretical cosmologies are not religions.

What I do know is that you follow your religion where you would accept only eternal universe.

My questions are these:

If you already believe in eternal universe, why would saddle some of theoretical cosmological models?​

​

Do your belief really need to align with models, when you don’t need to?​

​

Aren’t you satisfied with your religion?​

First, I noticed that you seemed to spend time with the Multiverse model. But now it would seem to wasting your time on already-twice-debunked Steady-State models. Why the switch?

 

[shunyadragon]

So do the universes in a multiverse share the same spatial environment in the way that separate galaxies in this universe share the same universal spatial environment?

Not likely that uniform. Uniformity in my view is that the underlying Laws of Nature uniformly apply to all of our physical existence.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok, we will go with your wording, what existed at T=0 the instant the expansion of the singularity began.

The singularity within a greater Quantum matrix.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The singularity within a greater Quantum matrix.

Well, how did the greater Quantum matrix come about? Never mind, I know we are in theoretical physics now and at best you can give a valid model.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh? Back up your sentences with quotes also about "Quantum Physics is based on objective verifiable evidence by many years of research in this and the past century."

You need to start doing your own homework and not expect others to 'spoon feed you.'
Summary of Quantum Mechanics and numerous references on the actual research.

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles.[2]: 1.1  It is the foundation of all quantum physics including quantum chemistry, quantum field theory, quantum technology, and quantum information science.

Classical physics, the collection of theories that existed before the advent of quantum mechanics, describes many aspects of nature at an ordinary (macroscopic) scale, but is not sufficient for describing them at small (atomic and subatomic) scales. Most theories in classical physics can be derived from quantum mechanics as an approximation valid at large (macroscopic) scale.[3]

Quantum mechanics differs from classical physics in that energy, momentum, angular momentum, and other quantities of a bound system are restricted to discrete values (quantization); objects have characteristics of both particles and waves (wave–particle duality); and there are limits to how accurately the value of a physical quantity can be predicted prior to its measurement, given a complete set of initial conditions (the uncertainty principle) . . .

Read on further on your own . . . it is a bit long with references that describe the relationship to classic physics,

Included in this article are over 100 research articles, general background references on different reading levels, books and more detailed references that cover the math and science behind Quantum Mechanics and also the industrial and commercial applications in the real world..

​

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, how did the greater Quantum matrix come about? Never mind, I know we are in theoretical physics now and at best you can give a valid model.

Actually you are asking a philosophical/theological question of how? and why? from the theological perspective simply Created by God. From the philosophical naturalist perspective like Hawking out physical existence has always existed.

 

[shunyadragon]

The BBT has flaws too, and so I keep an open mind. An eternal infinite SS universe makes sense to me whereas the BB expanding universe theory does not. The JWST may be the instrument that end the BBT, we will see.

Yes, the BBT has problems, but at present in variations it offers the best explanations. The steady state theories have the greatest problems, and explains less of the observational evidence. I consider the underlying Quantum Matrix concept having steady state and uniformity properties, but also dynamic in the formation of universes.

 

[YoursTrue]

You need to start doing your own homework and not expect others to 'spoon feed you.'
Summary of Quantum Mechanics and numerous references on the actual research.

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics that provides a description of the physical properties of nature at the scale of atoms and subatomic particles.[2]: 1.1  It is the foundation of all quantum physics including quantum chemistry, quantum field theory, quantum technology, and quantum information science.

Classical physics, the collection of theories that existed before the advent of quantum mechanics, describes many aspects of nature at an ordinary (macroscopic) scale, but is not sufficient for describing them at small (atomic and subatomic) scales. Most theories in classical physics can be derived from quantum mechanics as an approximation valid at large (macroscopic) scale.[3]

Quantum mechanics differs from classical physics in that energy, momentum, angular momentum, and other quantities of a bound system are restricted to discrete values (quantization); objects have characteristics of both particles and waves (wave–particle duality); and there are limits to how accurately the value of a physical quantity can be predicted prior to its measurement, given a complete set of initial conditions (the uncertainty principle) . . .

Read on further on your own . . . it is a bit long with references that describe the relationship to classic physics,

Included in this article are over 100 research articles, general background references on different reading levels, books and more detailed references that cover the math and science behind Quantum Mechanics and also the industrial and commercial applications in the real world..

​

Not a matter of spoon feeding someone. Since you ask for backup of others' statements, why not put backup for your own statements? That's all I'm asking. Anyway, have a nice day.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not a matter of spoon feeding someone. Since you ask for backup of others' statements, why not put backup for your own statements? That's all I'm asking. Anyway, have a nice day.

This is a problem with you that has been addressed many times in the past concerning topics like evolution. You have never been willing to take incentive to understand yourself the hundreds of years of research and discovery behind these subjects and just make meaningless requests for evidence, but have never been wiling to study the subject on your own.

I posted backup for my statements in spades!

 

[YoursTrue]

This is a problem with you that has been addressed many times in the past concerning topics like evolution. You have never been willing to take incentive to understand yourself the hundreds of years of research and discovery behind these subjects and just make meaningless requests for evidence, but have never been wiling to study the subject on your own.

I posted backup for my statements in spades!

No, you do not. You may post links, but that's about it. Sometimes you use phrases that are above the ordinary knowledge, like mine, and you do not want to explain them. Then you tell me to get an education. So talk to the crowd...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What specific part does not make sense to you? Is it is that nothing goes faster than light, so in a universe of finite age, there are parts we don't yet see?

Or is it that you can have a curved 3D space with finite volume and no boundaries/edges?

In either case, it might be a good idea to think about it a bit. They are both very basic ideas for modern cosmology.

My understanding is that the universe at the macro level has omnipresent awareness, all that is happening in the universe in the micro quantum level is a due process maintaining integrity of the macro oneness. So where human science on planet Earth is at in their present state of evolution, is trying to understand the 'trees' of the forrest, the forrest remains outside their research and it is religion that persues understanding of the 'forrest'.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Huh? There was clearly a 'before your beginning'.

I am an expression of the universe, when I ponder the source of my being it is the universe. The BBers tell me that I/source had a beginning, and I/source knows that to be a misunderstanding because I/source is eternal and mankind science uses time to compute, whereas I/source is timeless.