The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[idav]

If a ship could warp, it doesn't move itself, it warp's spacetime around it to bend space and go from point A to point B.

NASA Scientist Says Warp Drive is Doable

[youtube]uwZt1Yh4-1U[/youtube]
NASA Scientist Says Warp Drive is Doable - YouTube

This won't be happening soon however. But maybe in the future.

Cool!

 

[Parsimony]

It's going to be a long time before we get a warp drive to work. It probably won't even be able to go faster than light.

 

[camanintx]

However you look at it.....there had to be a beginning.

Would that be one particle or two?

I say the singularity, to be truly singular....you can't have a secondary particle.
At the instant of inception of a secondary......infinity is formed.

Check Dr. Kaku's dilemma as he works an equation that ends?....
infinity plus infinity plus infinity............

He then explains, theoretical physicists have a 'problem' with 'infinity'.

Well gee....so much for equations...

Assuming there was a beginning, the question is what can we know about it? If science tells us that the universe is becoming ever more organized and complex, then would the beginning have been the least organized and least complex state possible?

 

[camanintx]

Darn....hate to point to science fiction......but.....

If you could do the warp.....you would survive?

Fact is 18g's is fairly stiff lift off leaving Earth.
You need 44g's to leave the solar system.
And to get anywhere at all.....you need to exceed the speed of light.

Your fragile little body can't do that.

Unless your body is accelerated along with the ship. Then like an astronaut orbiting Earth, you would feel any g's.

But say Star Trek can happen.
Something about the movement would be needed to keep you from going over the scale.

So much energy to move so fast.
As you move faster your mass increases.
Need more energy.
More mass results.
Ooops!

I've seen only one science documentary speak of leaving our bodies behind.
We must travel as if we are made of light.

Now THERE'S something to think about.

While relativistic mass increases with speed, the mass seen from the ship's frame of reference stays constant. So the trick is to accelerate without appearing to, which is what "warping" space does.

 

[shawn001]

Assuming there was a beginning, the question is what can we know about it? If science tells us that the universe is becoming ever more organized and complex, then would the beginning have been the least organized and least complex state possible?

camanintx, this is interesting what you say here.


"It is a matter of common experience, that things get more disordered and chaotic with time. This observation can be elevated to the status of a law, the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics. This says that the total amount of disorder, or entropy, in the universe, always increases with time. However, the Law refers only to the total amount of disorder. The order in one body can increase, provided that the amount of disorder in its surroundings increases by a greater amount. "


Life in the Universe - Stephen Hawking


It would seem if the universe started with a singularity or however and am not stating that as a fact, that that singularity would be MORE organized and complex, then the state of the universe we see today and will see in the future as it gets more disordered and chaotic with time. Thoughts?

 

[Thief]

Assuming there was a beginning, the question is what can we know about it? If science tells us that the universe is becoming ever more organized and complex, then would the beginning have been the least organized and least complex state possible?

There you go....

I suspect the initial bang was silent....
and composed of energy that did not 'gel' for quite some 'time'.

And I hear the speed of expansion is increasing.

As for moving at the speed of light....
It does appear to be a barrier.
Nothing appears to be quicker than a ray of light.

But I say all motion is relative.
It the other object is moving in the opposite direction....both at the speed of light....
then the 'constant' is not so 'constant'.

And for those who said so.....yes you would feel it.
Acceleration is the problem. Your body can't go there.

 

[camanintx]

camanintx, this is interesting what you say here.


"It is a matter of common experience, that things get more disordered and chaotic with time. This observation can be elevated to the status of a law, the so-called Second Law of Thermodynamics. This says that the total amount of disorder, or entropy, in the universe, always increases with time. However, the Law refers only to the total amount of disorder. The order in one body can increase, provided that the amount of disorder in its surroundings increases by a greater amount. "


Life in the Universe - Stephen Hawking


It would seem if the universe started with a singularity or however and am not stating that as a fact, that that singularity would be MORE organized and complex, then the state of the universe we see today and will see in the future as it gets more disordered and chaotic with time. Thoughts?

I'm not normally one to question Mr. Hawking on physics, but which of the following would "common experience" say is more disordered and chaotic?

Cosmic Background Radiation (remnant of the Big Bang):

Hubble Deep Field:

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

There you go....

I suspect the initial bang was silent....
and composed of energy that did not 'gel' for quite some 'time'.

And I hear the speed of expansion is increasing.

As for moving at the speed of light....
It does appear to be a barrier.
Nothing appears to be quicker than a ray of light.

But I say all motion is relative.
It the other object is moving in the opposite direction....both at the speed of light....
then the 'constant' is not so 'constant'.

And for those who said so.....yes you would feel it.
Acceleration is the problem. Your body can't go there.

What do you mean the initial bang was silent??

 

[ruffen]

I'm not normally one to question Mr. Hawking on physics, but which of the following would "common experience" say is more disordered and chaotic?

Cosmic Background Radiation (remnant of the Big Bang):

Hubble Deep Field:

Remember that in the CMB image the difference between the colors represents a few 1/10,000ths of a degree. It was very uniform and very close to a perfect black body. The "ripples" or "imperfections" of this then increased to coalesce into gas, stars, galaxies and us. But in total and in a technical scientific term, the Universe is more chaotic now than it was when the CMB came to be.

 

[camanintx]

Remember that in the CMB image the difference between the colors represents a few 1/10,000ths of a degree. It was very uniform and very close to a perfect black body. The "ripples" or "imperfections" of this then increased to coalesce into gas, stars, galaxies and us. But in total and in a technical scientific term, the Universe is more chaotic now than it was when the CMB came to be.

While CMB today is very uniform and very close to a perfect black body, that was not always the case. At the time of the Big Bang, temperatures were in the 10^15 K range, so those few 1/10,000ths of a degree differences in the image would have been much, much larger. And I would really like to know what technical scientific term explains how a dense, nearly featureless hot gas is less chaotic than the collection of galaxies, stars and planets we see today.

 

[idav]

I'm not normally one to question Mr. Hawking on physics, but which of the following would "common experience" say is more disordered and chaotic?

Cosmic Background Radiation (remnant of the Big Bang):

Hubble Deep Field:

Don't know what this is saying here. Since one photo can be seen with the naked eye and one cannot. It certainly was more uniform in the beginning since none of the elements existed, and our visual spectrum didn't exist either. At some point only Hydrogen existed. Now it just kept building and making matter more complex as it cooled down. The extreme heat didn't make it chaotic, now there is extreme heat and extreme cold and everything in between.

 

[1robin]

Unless your body is accelerated along with the ship. Then like an astronaut orbiting Earth, you would feel any g's.

A body is not ever accelerated independently of the ship. That is the problem. All acceleration comes with a cost associated with changing inertia. We can survive about 9 g's unaided, a falcon about 25 g's. Any kind of star trek fiction would instantly turn us into a greasy spot on the bulkhead an instant before the ship fell apart a fraction of a second after Kirk said punch it Scotty.

 

[fantome profane]

A body is not ever accelerated independently of the ship. That is the problem. All acceleration comes with a cost associated with changing inertia. We can survive about 9 g's unaided, a falcon about 25 g's. Any kind of star trek fiction would instantly turn us into a greasy spot on the bulkhead an instant before the ship fell apart a fraction of a second after Kirk said punch it Scotty.

You are failing to take into account the inertial dampeners.

 

[shawn001]

I'm not normally one to question Mr. Hawking on physics, but which of the following would "common experience" say is more disordered and chaotic?

Cosmic Background Radiation (remnant of the Big Bang):

Hubble Deep Field:

The first picture had more energy and is the entire universe in microwave, even though when it started it would have been visible light. Its been stretched into microwave as the universe has expanded.

The second is of course beautiful pictures of galaxies in visible light, but its a lot less energy then the first picture and carries less information. The picture above actually contain the lower picture really.

Its also partly perspective, I believe if you could see in microwave that might be beautiful and complex, in fact I think it is personally. That light would fill all of the night sky in every direction.

If and I am not stating this as a fact, we went back to a singularity though, that would be all the energy and all the information of the entire universe. That would be more ordered and contain all the information, including the beautiful pictures of the galaxies within it.

The universe we know today and from all our observations as it continues to expand faster would at

"The End of Everything – 10_100 years and beyond
When the last black hole evaporates, all that will remain in the Universe are photons of radiation, and elementary particles that escaped capture by black holes. The temperature of the entire Universe will reach a final temperature just above absolute zero.

The End of Everything

Birth and death and its looking right now the whole thing ends up as a bunch of "photons of radiation, and elementary particles that escaped capture by black holes."

Into black space in the end

This is one possibility of how it could have come from "nothing" though, I don't like using the word "nothing" myself.

What's the Total Energy In the Universe?

What's the Total Energy In the Universe? | LiveScience

Even empty space has virtual particles and I personally think the Quantum world is pretty spectacular as is the universe big picture.

However, even that doesn't take into account other possible universes that could have started this one, in which case its a transition, not from "nothing."

I don't think a person can really think of the concept of nothing. You might think black or white "nothingness" but that is something. Black or white.

 

[Thief]

What do you mean the initial bang was silent??

In the void of infinite stillness....nothing moves....nothing vibrates.

At that 'point' of singularity there would be only the one 'point'.
A secondary point is not allowed.

Once formed though...infinity forms with it.
Between any two points there is infinity.

Before that...not a sound...no vibration....
The 'bang' would have no volume.

"I AM!".....would be the first of 'echoes'.
"Let there be light!'...would be simultaneous.
(the second point)

 

[1robin]

You are failing to take into account the inertial dampeners.

I am failing to include any fantasy. I always get a laugh out of those space travel and even worse the time travel shows. They are an hour of pure paradox.

 

[1robin]

The first picture had more energy and is the entire universe in microwave, even though when it started it would have been visible light. Its been stretched into microwave as the universe has expanded.

The second is of course beautiful pictures of galaxies in visible light, but its a lot less energy then the first picture and carries less information. The picture above actually contain the lower picture really.

Its also partly perspective, I believe if you could see in microwave that might be beautiful and complex, in fact I think it is personally. That light would fill all of the night sky in every direction.

If and I am not stating this as a fact, we went back to a singularity though, that would be all the energy and all the information of the entire universe. That would be more ordered and contain all the information, including the beautiful pictures of the galaxies within it.

The universe we know today and from all our observations as it continues to expand faster would at

"The End of Everything – 10_100 years and beyond
When the last black hole evaporates, all that will remain in the Universe are photons of radiation, and elementary particles that escaped capture by black holes. The temperature of the entire Universe will reach a final temperature just above absolute zero.

The End of Everything

Birth and death and its looking right now the whole thing ends up as a bunch of "photons of radiation, and elementary particles that escaped capture by black holes."

Into black space in the end

This is one possibility of how it could have come from "nothing" though, I don't like using the word "nothing" myself.

What's the Total Energy In the Universe?

What's the Total Energy In the Universe? | LiveScience

Even empty space has virtual particles and I personally think the Quantum world is pretty spectacular as is the universe big picture.

However, even that doesn't take into account other possible universes that could have started this one, in which case its a transition, not from "nothing."

I don't think a person can really think of the concept of nothing. You might think black or white "nothingness" but that is something. Black or white.

Are you suggesting entropy has acted in the exact opposite manner as the law would suggest?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

In the void of infinite stillness....nothing moves....nothing vibrates.

At that 'point' of singularity there would be only the one 'point'.
A secondary point is not allowed.

Once formed though...infinity forms with it.
Between any two points there is infinity.

Before that...not a sound...no vibration....
The 'bang' would have no volume.

"I AM!".....would be the first of 'echoes'.
"Let there be light!'...would be simultaneous.
(the second point)

But it wasn't a bang though...the term Big Bang is a misnomer.

 

[Thief]

But it wasn't a bang though...the term Big Bang is a misnomer.

Exactly!

 

[1robin]

But it wasn't a bang though...the term Big Bang is a misnomer.

Whether bang, expansion, or begin to exist apply better the point in a theological discussion is that "nothing" has no causal or creative potential and all the evidence suggests we had nothing natural in existence at a point in the past. Trends are all in the certainty direction for needing a cause for the universe the universe does not contain.