Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Ben Dhyan]

While periodic activity is important for counting, it is NOT required for measuring time.

I gave an example in a previous post: the length of a particle track determines the time of decay if we know the velocity. Thi sis a typical way to measure the very short durations in particle decays.

Ok, so what is the instrument that measures the velocity of a particle, and what is the significance of determining the time of decay in the context of time being a concept to represent the continuity of existence?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Does space have an entity on the other side of the concept?

Space!
Space is 3D existence that is never empty.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Time is an entity that is full of matter and energy, etc. There are vibrations throughout. Time is an entity that is full and real.

Space is just time continuing to exist with a change of position. It is real time continuing to be real time.

You claim there is a space entity that is real. Point it out to me.

Both are concepts to represent the geometry of the real.

Time is the continuity of entity that is full and real, not the actual entity that is full and real. I suspect you are thinking of the concept of spacetime.

Time is not an entity, it is a concept to represent the continuity of an entity.

The 3D space of the room you are in, which includes everything in it, from the zpe through to the physical objects.

In reality there is no two entities, there is only one, spacetime. You can't have a space entity that does not continues to exist, and there is no continuity of existence without a space entity existing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And that reality is time. Time is real.

Spacetime is real. There is no entity called time existing independent of space, nor any space existing independent of time.

 

[We Never Know]

That's a bold claim - how do you know? The classical model based on General Relativity suggests that there wasn't and time started at the BB. It may be modified by some future theory that combines GR with Quantum Field Theory, but we haven't got that yet. There are hypotheses and some of them suggest a pre-BB and some not. There are even stranger suggestions like time going forward in both directions from the BB.

It wasn't then it was.
-Either something always existed(even before the BB)
-Or it all just poofed into existence.

 

[YoursTrue]

It wasn't then it was.
-Either something always existed(even before the BB)
-Or it all just poofed into existence.

Nah...that's too logical for many.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nah...that's too logical for many.

No, not logical. Some people cannot understand the simple concept of the greater than zero line of real numbers.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, not logical. Some people cannot understand the simple concept of the greater than zero line of real numbers.

It's beyond the ken of some to understand, know, or conjecture that something can come from -- nothing. But then some people are so bright and intelligent that they figured it out. Maybe. So they say.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's beyond the ken of some to understand, know, or conjecture that something can come from -- nothing. But then some people are so bright and intelligent that they figured it out. Maybe. So they say.

The only one's claiming that something came from nothing are those that do not understand the Big Bang Theory.

 

[Zwing]

It wasn't then it was.
-Either something always existed(even before the BB)
-Or it all just poofed into existence.

Which is the same as saying that creation was a natural event or a supernatural event; to believe in creation by fiat (the “poof” option) you have to believe in supernatural events.

 

[We Never Know]

Which is the same as saying that creation was a natural event or a supernatural event; to believe in creation by fiat (the “poof” option) you have to believe in supernatural events.

I don't give a rats butt about creation.
If it didn't always exist, then It poofed into existence

 

[shunyadragon]

You started off by saying that "...time is not a thing that physically exists." (#2,806). Now you seem to have moved the goalposts to it not being continuous, which isn't the same thing at all.

Probably not quoting me properly. There are not the same thing. I consider time an attribute of our physical existence like gravity, and NOT a physical thing. I do believe that continuous time/space is the nature of our universe and all possible universes on the large scale, but not at the quantisized smallest scale of the Quantum World.

I also didn't think even this claim stands up as current physics. Certainly standard quantum mechanics is formulated against a classical continuous space and time background, and, as far as I know, quantum field theory uses special relativity. I think you only get actually quantised space-time in hypotheses like loop quantum gravity.

I am not sure we disagree. There needs to be clarification. I only consider the continuous time/space and gravity to be attributes of the large scale of our universe, and any other possible universe. By 'background' I assume you are referring the smallest scale where Quantum Mechanics applies. Yes on the smallest scale you only get quantisized time and space and not continuous time/space.

I do believe the boundless Quantum Matrix is the nature of our physical existence at the smallest scale in our universe and beyond, Of course, this is an open question and likely can never be verified.

 

[shunyadragon]

As I said, and I agree with the statement in National Geographic that astronauts feel "awed and overwhelmed when seeing the beauty and fragility of our planet from the inhospitable reaches of space."

Overview Effect: Quotes from Astronauts

The Overview Effect is a shift in awareness by astronauts seeing Earth from outer space as a “tiny, fragile ball of life.”

www.geographyrealm.com

Jim Lovell​

“The vast loneliness up here of the Moon is awe inspiring, and it makes you realize just what you have back there on Earth. The Earth from here is a grand oasis to the big vastness of space.” — Apollo 8 astronaut Jim Lovell.

Michael Collins​

“The thing that really surprised me was that it [Earth] projected an air of fragility. And why, I don’t know. I don’t know to this day. I had a feeling it’s tiny, it’s shiny, it’s beautiful, it’s home, and it’s fragile.” Michael Collins — Apollo 11

Neil Armstrong​

“It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth. I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth. I didn’t feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.” – Neil Armstrong, Apollo 11

 

[Zwing]

I don't give a rats butt about creation.
If it didn't always exist, then It poofed into existence

Same thing I said, man.

 

[ratiocinator]

It wasn't then it was.
-Either something always existed(even before the BB)
-Or it all just poofed into existence.

No.

In order for something to poof into existance it had to not exist before. If there was no before, there wasn't any 'poofing into existence'. The universe has existed at all times (this is a truism really, as time is part of the universe).

If it didn't always exist, then It poofed into existence

See above. It has always existed regardless of whether time started at the BB. There are no points in time at which it didn't exist.

 

[Zwing]

The universe has existed at all times (this is a truism really, as time is part of the universe).

…but is not expected to always exist, in this view ?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No.

In order for something to poof into existance it had to not exist before. If there was no before, there wasn't any 'poofing into existence'. The universe has existed at all times (this is a truism really, as time is part of the universe).


See above. It has always existed regardless of whether time started at the BB. There are no points in time at which it didn't exist.

That is philosophy. But I am not allowed to say that as you hold the Truth and I am really pointless to the point of ontological non-existence as really unreal. The joke is that it is all in your mind as your thinking, but it is none the less true of the universe, right and not philosophy?

 

[joelr]

National Geographic just had a description of reactions by astronauts, saying that they were astounded at the inhospitality of the universe towards life. Only the earth was awesome insofar as the majesty and beauty of life in their observation. And -- it's true.

This doesn't answer the question in any way, shape or form?
Astronauts are not cosmologists or astro-physicists. They have been......to the moon. Yes outer space is not hospitable to life. Life evolved on our planet, not in space.

But, I'm not sure how you missed this, life most likely happens on planets at a certain length from the sun and other conditions that make it probable. Space doesn't have those conditions. No one ever expects life to form in space?
The point is there are billions of stars in this galaxy, each with planets. Billions of OTHER galaxies with billions more stars each and each having planets.
Like Earth there are probably thousands or millions of planets that could produce life. The astronauts and every one else know how harsh space is. And gas giants and planets close and far from the sun. But the size of the universe and the countless galaxies with so many stars, each having planets makes it pretty likely there are other planets like Earth, many of them.

The quote isn't saying life should only happen on Earth? It doesn't imply that and scientists and astronauts all agree there is probably life all around the universe.

 

[ratiocinator]

Probably not quoting me properly.

I copied and pasted it directly.

I consider time an attribute of our physical existence like gravity, and NOT a physical thing.

Gravity is space-time curvature (according to current science; general relativity). In what way is that not physical?

I do believe that continuous time/space is the nature of our universe and all possible universes on the large scale, but not at the quantisized smallest scale of the Quantum World.

Which brings us back to what current scientific theories (not hypotheses of conjecture, which aren't current physics) you are getting this from?

There needs to be clarification. I only consider the continuous time/space and gravity to be attributes of the large scale of our universe, and any other possible universe. By 'background' I assume you are referring the smallest scale where Quantum Mechanics applies. Yes on the smallest scale you only get quantisized time and space and not continuous time/space.

I mean that continuous space and time are assumed and appear in the equations. There is no quantisation of space and time in standard QM or (to the best of my knowledge) in QFT, which uses special relativity.

I do believe the boundless Quantum Matrix is the nature of our physical existence at the smallest scale in our universe and beyond, Of course, this is an open question and likely can never be verified.

I guess you can believe whatever you want but I'm not seeing this in any current physical theories. You really shouldn't be presenting your beliefs as if it was accepted science.

 

[joelr]

As I said, and I agree with the statement in National Geographic that astronauts feel "awed and overwhelmed when seeing the beauty and fragility of our planet from the inhospitable reaches of space."

Again, I'm sure I can find clips of all astronauts also saying they believe life is abundant across the universe. The perspective you are talking about is a thing that happens to astronauts. It's true, space is very harsh and the planet has a fragile ecosystem and all that.
This isn't speaking to the idea that there are not millions of other planets similar to Earth? This is a perspective about how everyone on Earth is one species and we should take care of the planet and so on.
It does not mean Earth is the only life in the universe. Not at all.

Leroy Chiao, NASA astronaut and ISS commander, "I believe there is a LOT of life out there (in the universe)...it would be the height of arrogance to think we are the only life"

Dyane Carey, NASA shuttle astronaut - "when you do the math you can say there are millions and millions of planets that can support life in the universe..."