Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[RestlessSoul]

This is insane. Was there a beginning to the universe and if so, was that beginning needed for the universe to exist as it does today, that is all?

No one knows.

 

[shunyadragon]

Back we go to Star Wars. c'mon, let's play...!

I consider Star Wars a parody on science fiction. This is not serious science fiction.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem is that you're starting from some sort of intuitive ideas of your own instead of looking at the theory that has been produced from, and tested against, the evidence.

I'm not making this stuff up. It's standard general relativity and the resulting cosmological model.

First, throw your intuition in the bin. Now, GR treats the space-time as a single, 4-dimensional manifold. Time is a direction through it - actually an observer specific direction because different observers will see different directions as their time axes. The manifold is a geometrical 'object'. This is how all the calculations are done in relativity, how all the predictions are made. Time has no other meaning than the observer dependent directions through the manifold.

So, talking about the manifold itself coming into existence is meaningless. One would have to postulate another time dimension and, presumably, some meta-space-time manifold to embed ours in, then you'd be asking for a meta-meta-manifold and quickly disappear into an infinite regress.

Ok, the single 4D spacetime universe I understand, and agree with. But I can not relate to the concept of the time aspect of spacetime as being observer dependent in the context of understanding the bigger picture of reality, except only as a subjective personal observation.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No one knows

I do, there was no beginning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The vertical lines on the paper, each with their own starting point, were meant, I understood, to represent different universes?

You are changing your story, you said clearly that some universes may not have time, but those that did would not be our time. I quote you, "Time is a trait of our universe. We do not even know if other universes would have it, but if they had time their time would not be our time."

How am I changing? I think the problem is your reading comprehension. You want time to be the same across the universes. You do not seem to understand that time would not exist outside of a universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, the single 4D spacetime universe I understand, and agree with. But I can not relate to the concept of the time aspect of spacetime as being observer dependent in the context of understanding the bigger picture of reality, except only as a subjective personal observation.

So your nonduality claims were all BS.

 

[ratiocinator]

But I can not relate to the concept of the time aspect of spacetime as being observer dependent in the context of understanding the bigger picture of reality, except only as a subjective personal observation.

I do understand that this can be difficult to understand or 'relate' to but that doesn't actually change the fact that it is the model that matches the evidence.

In special relativity ('flat' space-time) the idea that your time direction changes with relative motion, is what leads directly to time dilation and length contraction and also to them being symmetrical, i.e. each observer sees the other's time dilate and length contract. Relative motion is a kind of 'rotation' of the two sets of (space-time) coordinates.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How am I changing? I think the problem is your reading comprehension. You want time to be the same across the universes. You do not seem to understand that time would not exist outside of a universe.

You have changed your tune, there has never been disagreement about there being no synchronicity of time across universes, you claimed that some universes may have no time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have changed your tune, there has never been disagreement about there being no synchronicity of time across universes, you claimed that some universes may have no time.

That is not a change. Think about it.

 

[shunyadragon]

Eh? You seem to be losing the plot. I didn't say anything about "Christian nothingness". I've just done a search in case of typo, but no, this is the first time this phrase has appeared over the last few pages of this topic. FYI I'm an atheist. I'm interested in science and it's your claims about science that I'm trying to get to the bottom of.


Yet again: I know about the quantum vacuum (this was not news to me) that the article talks about. That is not what I'm asking you to justify. I'm asking about:

1. A "quantum matrix" beyond space-time.
2. That space and time are not continuous at the "quantum scale".

These are both your claims for which you have given no reference.

This reflects your ignorance of the difference between space/tome in our universe and Quantum time. Do your own homework. I do not spoon feed idiots. IT has become a real bore dealing with you end of story.

 

[Polymath257]

I know Richard Feynman gave lectures. I had some of them. You've heard of him, haven't you?

And have you actually read the Feynman lectures? I highly doubt it. They are a brilliant introduction to physics.

 

[Polymath257]

And it follows logically that there is nothing that is not of the universe of spacetime.

It is not I, but you who theorize a beginning of the BB spacetime universe.

Good so far.

If there was a beginning, looking back in spacetime, there is a point at which there is no spacetime.

And that is where you go wrong. There was no point at which there is no spacetime. Why do you think there would have to be such?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, I think it does offer great insight. You are misunderstanding the use of the word hang. And no, you cannot see with or without telescopes any strings or poles that the earth hangs on. Anyway, have a great night.

Correct. I never said you could. But hanging is quite different from moving. And the Earth moves. It does not hang.

The old, geocentric view was that the Earth is fixed at the center of the universe. In that model, the Earth 'hangs' on nothing. But we know that model is wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, we may in fact be more than human, but are not aware of it. Whatever the source of existence, we are its expression. The question is, can the expression be aware of its origins, not in the dualistic sense of knowing, but in the non-dual state of being?

Why do you think that existence needs a source? Or that it is even possible for existence to have a source?

 

[ratiocinator]

This reflects your ignorance of the difference between space/tome in our universe and Quantum time.

Look, either you can supply some reference for your views or you can't. It's entirely up to you, of course, but I'm not just going to accept something you can't back up.

Do your own homework. I do not spoon feed idiots. IT has become a real bore dealing with you end of story.

Resorting to insults doesn't help your case. Really.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I do understand that this can be difficult to understand or 'relate' to but that doesn't actually change the fact that it is the model that matches the evidence.

In special relativity ('flat' space-time) the idea that your time direction changes with relative motion, is what leads directly to time dilation and length contraction and also to them being symmetrical, i.e. each observer sees the other's time dilate and length contract. Relative motion is a kind of 'rotation' of the two sets of (space-time) coordinates.

Yes, I can understand that in the general gist, not the math, but in the context of the big picture, like a theoretical BB beginning, no. But then I really don't intuitively accept BBT. However I accept your position as a learned one, even as my intuition does not accept it.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok SZ, a thought experiment, given that this timespace universe had a beginning, about which we do not know how or why, hypothetically there is no reason why there are not other timespace universes in existence that began the same way. So the question arises, what separates these different timespace universes.

So, you have extended the model. You are hypothesizing something outside of the universe (another universe). And that is a possibility. But it isn't the one we have been discussing (the BB model).

And furthermore, hypothetically let's say one of these other timespace universes is 20 billion years old, how would you refer to them in terms of one beginning (forgive me but for the moment I willl use the only word I can think of that I can think of to make sense) 'before' the other, is it older and earlier?

No, the time in another universe need not correspond to time in ours in any way. They are just different. And, it is quite possible some other universe doesn't have time at all, so its 'age' may literally be a meaningless concept.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So your nonduality claims were all BS.

I beg your pardon SZ, are you trying to distract from your claim that some universes have no time?

 

[Polymath257]

What do you mean, if other universes would have time, do you not know what time is? Time and space are aspects of a timespace universe?

It may be the other universe doens't have time at all. It may be that its version of time has nothing to do with ours. You are thinking of time as something in which the universe is embedded. And that is almost certainly wrong. Time is part of the universe, not the other way around.

Ok so what is between the separate number lines in this hypothetical universe of universes, eg, nothing, or what?

Huh?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Good so far.


And that is where you go wrong. There was no point at which there is no spacetime. Why do you think there would have to be such?

I get it, but you know what I mean. T=0.