Questions on the big bang expanding universe.

[Ben Dhyan]

Why? It's a long way from being established science. The fact is that we simply don't know what happened at the big bang. We can extrapolate back to the first fractions of a second but the further we go the less certain we can be.

Because you said in response to my saying I do not accept the something from nothing bb, "Why? There's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that suggests that it's possible to quantum mechanically tunnel from a dimensionless point ('nothing') to an expanding space-time." way back in post #502. I hope gnostic and Subduction Zone take note of this post and accept that I was always on about the something from nothing bb, and not about other hypotheses such as an oscillating universe etc..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh, you are back to your own personal version of the Big Bang. The one that no one else seems to follow. Have fun with that.

It is not personal, it came from ratiocinator, see my post #561 to ratiocinator where I show he provided what he called a perfectly reasonable hypothesis for a something for nothing bb.

 

[ratiocinator]

Because you said in response to my saying I do not accept the something from nothing bb, "Why? There's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that suggests that it's possible to quantum mechanically tunnel from a dimensionless point ('nothing') to an expanding space-time."

That was in response you you suggesting that science should dismiss the idea out of hand. I never suggested that it was part of the main BB model or that it was anything more than a hypothetical possibility. I immediately went on to more 'standard' GR view of a space-time manifold, that doesn't have something from nothing even with a finite past.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Simply not the case. There many possibilities. As I've already said, time having a finite past does not mean something from nothing. There are also possibilities in which time extends infinitely into the past or even changes direction at the BB, so if you go backwards through it, you'd end up going forwards again into another bubble of space-time.

Gods simply don't explain anything, it's effectively giving up on the problem and saying "I dunno, it must be magic".

There is no problem, you create one by insisting on the need to have a beginning to existence.. There was no beginning, eternity is all there ever is, was, or ever will be. This is not about religion, this is logic. It is only the mortal mind's limited perception being projected onto the whole of existence that is not logical.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That was in response you you suggesting that science should dismiss the idea out of hand. I never suggested that it was part of the main BB model or that it was anything more than a hypothetical possibility. I immediately went on to more 'standard' GR view of a space-time manifold, that doesn't have something from nothing even with a finite past.

Yes, and I was specifically referring to the something from nothing bb hypothesis, not any other hypothesis. So all my exchanges with you after this point were consistent with this context.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no problem, you create one by insisting on the need to have a beginning to existence..

I've never insisted on any such thing. I keep on saying that there are multiple hypotheses, some of which have a finite past and some don't.

There was no beginning, eternity is all there ever is, was, or ever will be.

How do you know?

This is not about religion, this is logic.

Where is the logic? It looks like you're just clinging to an outdated, Newtonian, intuitive view of time (that has been falsified by the evidence), rather than using any actual logic.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I've never insisted on any such thing. I keep on saying that there are multiple hypotheses, some of which have a finite past and some don't.

How do you know?


Where is the logic? It looks like you're just clinging to an outdated, Newtonian, intuitive view of time (that has been falsified by the evidence), rather than using any actual logic.

Because if there were no eternity, there would have to be a beginning from nothing, and I certainly did not come from nothing, you can take that to the bank!

 

[ratiocinator]

Because if there were no eternity, there would have to be a beginning from nothing, and I certainly did not come from nothing, you can take that to the bank!

No logic, then. As I've explained multiple times now, it is firstly (at least hyperthetically) not impossible to come from 'nothing' (at least as close as it's possible to get to nothing) and secondly, a finite past doesn't necessarily imply coming from nothing because general relativity tells us time doesn't work like that (no matter what your intuition says about it).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No logic, then. As I've explained multiple times now, it is firstly (at least hyperthetically) not impossible to come from 'nothing' (at least as close as it's possible to get to nothing) and secondly, a finite past doesn't necessarily imply coming from nothing because general relativity tells us time doesn't work like that (no matter what your intuition says about it).

I trust my actual intuition over any hypothetical possibility of something can come from nothing.

 

[ratiocinator]

I trust my intuition over any hypothetical possibility of something can come from nothing.

Why? We already know that human intuition is wrong about time, and is dead wrong about how things behave in the quantum realm. Why would you even expect intuition to work outside of the normal human environment?

 

[gnostic]

What did I say that indicates to you I don't think antimatter exists?

Because you think matter and antimatter annihilation will result in nothing.

It doesn’t. I think you are misunderstanding the annihilation bit.

Annihilation doesn’t cause nothing: it will always cause something: eg radiation, heat, energy.

There are still the matter of conservation, where mass or energy are neither can be created, nor destroyed, BUT transformation can occur with one or the other...meaning mass can convert to energy, and vice versa, energy can convert into mass.

And this would still apply to annihilation. So, something will turn into something else, or something don’t completely cease to exist, but changes will occur.

For instance, the electron-positron annihilation will either produce and release as...

(A) W bosons or Z bosons
or (B) as gamma ray photons.​

The electron and positron may not exist as the same particles before the annihilation, they will turn into one of the above particles (eg A or B)

And it is the same with every other particle-antiparticle annihilations, they will all produce different particle and energy.

The release of these particles are not “nothing”, so your claim only demonstrated that your understanding of the particle physics is seriously lacking.

What I don’t understand is why you would make claim that are not true when you don’t actually know what you are talking.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why? We already know that human intuition is wrong about time, and is dead wrong about how things behave in the quantum realm. Why would you even expect intuition to work outside of the normal human environment?

My intuition says that you don't understand time, nor does anyone who treats time as an entity.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Because you think matter and antimatter annihilation will result in nothing.

It doesn’t. I think you are misunderstanding the annihilation bit.

Annihilation doesn’t cause nothing: it will always cause something: eg radiation, heat, energy.

There are still the matter of conservation, where mass or energy are neither can be created, nor destroyed, BUT transformation can occur with one or the other...meaning mass can convert to energy, and vice versa, energy can convert into mass.

And this would still apply to annihilation. So, something will turn into something else, or something don’t completely cease to exist, but changes will occur.

For instance, the electron-positron annihilation will either produce and release as...

(A) W bosons or Z bosons
or (B) as gamma ray photons.​

The electron and positron may not exist as the same particles before the annihilation, they will turn into one of the above particles (eg A or B)

And it is the same with every other particle-antiparticle annihilations, they will all produce different particle and energy.

The release of these particles are not “nothing”, so your claim only demonstrated that your understanding of the particle physics is seriously lacking.

What I don’t understand is why you would make claim that are not true when you don’t actually know what you are talking.

You are so far wrong in understanding what I am conveying clearly in English language that my jaw drops. If you do not understand my English, then there can be no meaningful exchange with you on this subject. If you want to reread and reflect and try again to engage me in a meaningful way, please do. Otherwise please do not waste my time! Don't take this as my not wanting the best for you, I say it because you are better than this!

 

[ratiocinator]

My intuition says that you don't understand time, nor does anyone who treats time as an entity.

Human intuition can't make GPS systems work - we need relativity. Human intuition cannot tell us how to design semiconductors and a whole host of other technologies - we need quantum mechanics.

Your intuition is worthless in the face of a theories that make accurate predictions and enable technologies, sorry.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Human intuition can't make GPS systems work - we need relativity. Human intuition cannot tell us how to design semiconductors and a whole host of other technologies - we need quantum mechanics.

Your intuition is worthless in the face of a theories that make accurate predictions and enable technologies, sorry.

So what has my intuition got to do with the GPS technical workings of applied science which I endorse as beneficial to humanity?

 

[ratiocinator]

So what has my intuition got to do with the GPS technical workings of applied science which I endorse as beneficial to humanity?

Not a lot, that's my point. You're trying to apply your intuition to the basic functioning of the universe, when we know, from the things I mentioned, that it doesn't apply. Specifically, we know that space and time do not function according to human intuition (and we use that fact to make the GPS system work).

 

[Native]

Most people have entirely the wrong idea about energy. Firstly, it isn't 'stuff', it's always a property of things or systems of things.

I agree in this and my most natural and simple definition would be: "Latent energy which cosmologically transforms matter or physically moves things".

Secondly, it is conserved (to the extent that it is) entirely because of the fact that the laws of physics don't change over time.

Which time scales do you consider here? And are you sure that the standing perception of physical laws in cosmology cannot change?

Fourthly, it is not well defined in general relativity except is specific cases, so whether energy conservation applies to the universe as a whole is an open question.

This isn´t very consistent as a law of physics, is it? Scientific cosmological laws should apply everywhere, right?

Basically energy and its conservation (to the extent it applies) only make sense within a universe that has unchanging laws. If the universe had a start, it makes no sense to ask where the energy came from because it can only be defined after it started.

I don´t agree in this. If the Universe is thought to have a beginning, real science shoiuld be able to explain causally and dynamically where the energy came from and which fundamental forces that were in play.

From: Conservation of energy - Wikipedia:
The conservation of energy is a common feature in many physical theories.

In order to conserve my natural mind energy I choose to jump over "these many physical theories" which IMO are unnatural speculations in most cases.

 

[Native]

Specifically, we know that space and time do not function according to human intuition . . .

How do you define "intuition"?

 

[Native]

Where is the logic? It looks like you're just clinging to an outdated, Newtonian, intuitive view of time (that has been falsified by the evidence), rather than using any actual logic.

The "intuitive view of time" don´t concern Newton specifically. The intuitive logics of an Eternal Universe was already at stage several thousands of years ago in ancient cultural Myths of Creation in where the modern human concept of "time" wasn´t an issue at all as the Universe intuitively is percieved to be eternal in nature. (A REAL and natural law of energy conservation )

 

[ratiocinator]

Which time scales do you consider here? And are you sure that the standing perception of physical laws in cosmology cannot change?

I didn't say anything about whether the laws change or not, my point was that the conservation of energy only works (to the extent that it does) so long as the laws don't change. If you postulate changing laws over some timescale, then you have to throw out energy conservation over the same timescale.

This isn´t very consistent as a law of physics, is it? Scientific cosmological laws should apply everywhere, right?

Again, that's my point. Energy conservation isn't as fundamental as people think. General relativity appears to be more fundamental.

If the Universe is thought to have a beginning, real science shoiuld be able to explain causally and dynamically where the energy came from and which fundamental forces that were in play.

No. You can't even define energy without a universe that has constant laws.