Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[Polymath257]

Of course, but most scientists believe otherwise.

Not true if you include any potential multiverse.

 

[Polymath257]

How convenient .. and what is "the very start" ?

We don't know. The data isn't known that would make that determination. Once again, we need a tested theory of quantum gravity to say more about the very early universe and what, if anything, was before.

 

[ratiocinator]

You appear to have a mental block.

I've got a block!?

I did try to make sense of it, but you started off asserting the existence of something called "philosophical time" yet again, but this time it seemed to have morphed from being some absolute background to being about the psychological perception of the passing of time.

You then moved on to the Einstein misquote again (no idea how that was supposed to connect), then you started talking rubbish about Einstein's most famous equation, apparently thinking it was about dimensions, then off we trot to something about infinity and eternity how 'mankind' thinks they know it all (who does?) and rounding it all off with "human comprehension has its limits".

It certainly does. I have no idea at all what point you were trying to make.....

 

[Pogo]

Very few will positively claim that time starts at the BB. Instead, they point out that the best descriptions we currently have predict that and that it is thereby a strong possibility. But, as I have pointed out numerous times, quantum corrections might change that evaluation.

Eeah, the claim is often made by those who do not actually understand the limitations of the math that leads us to the understanding.

 

[Polymath257]

Look at our star system. Take a point above the Earth and draw a line through the north pole along the spin axis so it comes out the south pole to below the globe. Now this line can be extended in both directions north and south respectively. Fwiw, in the north direction, the North Star would sit almost directly on this line, but it won't always stay north.

No, that axis does NOT point in the direction of north. It points in the direction of *up* at the north pole.

If you have a place in the sky, the direction of 'north' is towards that axis. It is not possible to go further north if you are on that axis.

This also ignores the fact that you are choosing the Earth's rotation as the standard. if you chose the sun, the axis would be in a different direction. mars would give yet a third. And, in each case, while on the axis, it would not be possible to go further north (or south if below the plane).

 

[Polymath257]

Ok. I will rephrase it. What or who caused the BB, and why?

What makes you think there was a cause at all?

 

[Polymath257]

Well, what did cause the BB if anything or is that not a relevant question?

I think it fundamentally misunderstands the notion of 'cause'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think it fundamentally misunderstands the notion of 'cause'.

Well, you might be right. But I don't know if anything caused or not caused the universe. Those debate are as meaningful to me as theology is. Or rather not at all.

As a skeptic I doubt we will ever know one way or another.

 

[Polymath257]

No .. we are all individuals with our own thoughts and experiences.

And can thoughts be wrong and experiences misinterpreted? if so, how do you guard against such?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I've got a block!?

Yes!

I did try to make sense of it, but you started off asserting the existence of something called "philosophical time" yet again..

You claim that science has 'outdated' any other notion of time other than its own definition,
but wiki suggests otherwise.. there are scores of articles about it .. they are not archived,
as 'in the past' .

 

[muhammad_isa]

And can thoughts be wrong and experiences misinterpreted?

Of course..

if so, how do you guard against such?

We learn by experience .. not just science books.

 

[Pogo]

Look at our star system. Take a point above the Earth and draw a line through the north pole along the spin axis so it comes out the south pole to below the globe. Now this line can be extended in both directions north and south respectively. Fwiw, in the north direction, the North Star would sit almost directly on this line, but it won't always stay north.

a reasonable summary from Chat GPT
What are the differences between spherical and Cartesian directions?

ChatGPT said:​

Spherical and Cartesian coordinate systems are two different ways to describe positions in space, and they have different methods for specifying directions.

Cartesian Coordinates​

• Description: Cartesian coordinates use three perpendicular axes (usually labeled xxx, yyy, and zzz) to define a point in space.
• Components:
  • xxx: Position along the horizontal axis.
  • yyy: Position along the vertical axis.
  • zzz: Position along the depth axis.
• Direction: Directions in Cartesian coordinates are described using vector components along these axes. For example, a direction can be given by a vector v⃗=(vx,vy,vz)\vec{v} = (v_x, v_y, v_z)v=(vx,vy,vz), where vxv_xvx, vyv_yvy, and vzv_zvz are the components along the xxx, yyy, and zzz axes, respectively.

Spherical Coordinates​

• Description: Spherical coordinates describe a point in space using three values: the radial distance, the polar angle, and the azimuthal angle.
• Components:
  • rrr: Radial distance from the origin.
  • θ\thetaθ (or sometimes ϕ\phiϕ): Polar angle, measured from the positive zzz-axis.
  • ϕ\phiϕ (or sometimes θ\thetaθ): Azimuthal angle, measured in the xyxyxy-plane from the positive xxx-axis.
• Direction: Directions in spherical coordinates are described using these three values. A direction is given as a vector with magnitude rrr and orientation determined by angles θ\thetaθ and ϕ\phiϕ. The Cartesian coordinates (x,y,z)(x, y, z)(x,y,z) can be derived from spherical coordinates using: x=rsin⁡(θ)cos⁡(ϕ)x = r \sin(\theta) \cos(\phi)x=rsin(θ)cos(ϕ) y=rsin⁡(θ)sin⁡(ϕ)y = r \sin(\theta) \sin(\phi)y=rsin(θ)sin(ϕ) z=rcos⁡(θ)z = r \cos(\theta)z=rcos(θ)

Key Differences​

1. Reference Axes:
   • Cartesian: Uses perpendicular axes (x, y, z).
   • Spherical: Uses radial distance and angles.
2. Description of Position:
   • Cartesian: Describes a position with three orthogonal distances.
   • Spherical: Describes a position with a distance from the origin and two angles.
3. Use Cases:
   • Cartesian: Often used for problems where the relationships between orthogonal directions are simpler (e.g., many engineering and physics problems).
   • Spherical: Useful for problems involving spheres or circular symmetry (e.g., problems involving planetary motion or electromagnetic fields).

Understanding these differences helps in choosing the right coordinate system for a given problem and making the appropriate conversions between them.

You said:​

What does north of the north pole mean in spherical coordinates?

ChatGPT said:​

In spherical coordinates, "north of the North Pole" is a bit of a misnomer since the concept of "north" doesn't directly translate to spherical coordinates in the way it does in geographical terms. However, we can interpret this phrase within the context of spherical coordinates and discuss what happens in the vicinity of the North Pole.

Spherical Coordinates Refresher​

In spherical coordinates, a point in space is defined by:

• rrr: Radial distance from the origin.
• θ\thetaθ: Polar angle (also known as the colatitude), measured from the positive zzz-axis.
• ϕ\phiϕ: Azimuthal angle, measured in the xyxyxy-plane from the positive xxx-axis.

The North Pole in Spherical Coordinates​

In spherical coordinates, the North Pole is represented by:

• rrr: Radial distance from the origin.
• θ=0\theta = 0θ=0: The polar angle (measured from the positive zzz-axis) is zero, meaning you are at the very top of the sphere.
• ϕ\phiϕ can be any value from 000 to 2π2\pi2π because the azimuthal angle doesn't change the fact that you're at the topmost point.

"North of the North Pole"​

Since the North Pole is the highest point on the sphere (where θ=0\theta = 0θ=0), moving "north" of the North Pole in the context of spherical coordinates doesn't really make sense because there are no coordinates above θ=0\theta = 0θ=0.
In Summary:

• In spherical coordinates, you can only be at the North Pole when θ=0\theta = 0θ=0.
• There is no concept of being "north" of the North Pole; θ=0\theta = 0θ=0 is the limit for the polar angle.

The idea of moving "north" of the North Pole might be more relevant in geographical terms (like moving into space above the Earth's North Pole), but in the mathematical context of spherical coordinates, you can't go beyond θ=0\theta = 0θ=0.

 

[ratiocinator]

You claim that science has 'outdated' any other notion of time other than its own definition,
but wiki suggests otherwise.. there are scores of articles about it .. they are not archived,
as 'in the past' .

I said that we can now study time scientifically (because it's now practical to do that), so just musing about the abstract possibilities (as in the various philosophical versions, like presentism or eternalism) is obsolete because they can be addressing with direct evidence.

The only thing you quoted from Wiki was about the Hawking no boundary conjecture, which is a scientific conjecture that postulates that time close to the BB could become imaginary (in the mathematical sense) and hence behave like another dimension of space.

Nobody is saying we can't discover more about time, just that it is now in the realm of science because we have direct evidence of how it works.

Other conjectures suggest that space-time is not fundamental and is built from more basic elements.

 

[ratiocinator]

We learn by experience .. not just science books.

What experience can guard against errors if actual evidence is not available and you can provide no supporting sound logic?

 

[muhammad_isa]

..it is now in the realm of science because we have direct evidence of how it works.

You are 'lost in space'

 

[muhammad_isa]

What experience...?

Anything and everything .. you may limit yourself, but I don't.

 

[Sargonski]

Why didn't the universe always exist? Because since God is supposed to be outside of time and is supposed to have always existed, then how could God have used a point in time to start creation? Any thoughts on this?

It did .. you just did not realize that it did .. there can never have been nothing ... if there is something. If you look out and there is something then something has always been there .. and that something was never nothing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, that axis does NOT point in the direction of north. It points in the direction of *up* at the north pole.

If you have a place in the sky, the direction of 'north' is towards that axis. It is not possible to go further north if you are on that axis.

This also ignores the fact that you are choosing the Earth's rotation as the standard. if you chose the sun, the axis would be in a different direction. mars would give yet a third. And, in each case, while on the axis, it would not be possible to go further north (or south if below the plane).

You are talking to yourself, no one is talking about physically going north of the North Pole, it is about direction. It is clear that all you are doing is obfuscating.

Look are the language from astronomical science, What is the North Star? Is the North Star always north?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What makes you think there was a cause at all?

There may not even have been a BB as far as I see it, but yes, in the pantheistic position, God is a word that represents all that exists, and is an indivisible one and eternal, only physical creation has beginnings and endings.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

a reasonable summary from Chat GPT
What are the differences between spherical and Cartesian directions?

ChatGPT said:​

Spherical and Cartesian coordinate systems are two different ways to describe positions in space, and they have different methods for specifying directions.

Cartesian Coordinates​

• Description: Cartesian coordinates use three perpendicular axes (usually labeled xxx, yyy, and zzz) to define a point in space.
• Components:
  • xxx: Position along the horizontal axis.
  • yyy: Position along the vertical axis.
  • zzz: Position along the depth axis.
• Direction: Directions in Cartesian coordinates are described using vector components along these axes. For example, a direction can be given by a vector v⃗=(vx,vy,vz)\vec{v} = (v_x, v_y, v_z)v=(vx,vy,vz), where vxv_xvx, vyv_yvy, and vzv_zvz are the components along the xxx, yyy, and zzz axes, respectively.

Spherical Coordinates​

• Description: Spherical coordinates describe a point in space using three values: the radial distance, the polar angle, and the azimuthal angle.
• Components:
  • rrr: Radial distance from the origin.
  • θ\thetaθ (or sometimes ϕ\phiϕ): Polar angle, measured from the positive zzz-axis.
  • ϕ\phiϕ (or sometimes θ\thetaθ): Azimuthal angle, measured in the xyxyxy-plane from the positive xxx-axis.
• Direction: Directions in spherical coordinates are described using these three values. A direction is given as a vector with magnitude rrr and orientation determined by angles θ\thetaθ and ϕ\phiϕ. The Cartesian coordinates (x,y,z)(x, y, z)(x,y,z) can be derived from spherical coordinates using: x=rsin⁡(θ)cos⁡(ϕ)x = r \sin(\theta) \cos(\phi)x=rsin(θ)cos(ϕ) y=rsin⁡(θ)sin⁡(ϕ)y = r \sin(\theta) \sin(\phi)y=rsin(θ)sin(ϕ) z=rcos⁡(θ)z = r \cos(\theta)z=rcos(θ)

Key Differences​

1. Reference Axes:
   • Cartesian: Uses perpendicular axes (x, y, z).
   • Spherical: Uses radial distance and angles.
2. Description of Position:
   • Cartesian: Describes a position with three orthogonal distances.
   • Spherical: Describes a position with a distance from the origin and two angles.
3. Use Cases:
   • Cartesian: Often used for problems where the relationships between orthogonal directions are simpler (e.g., many engineering and physics problems).
   • Spherical: Useful for problems involving spheres or circular symmetry (e.g., problems involving planetary motion or electromagnetic fields).

Understanding these differences helps in choosing the right coordinate system for a given problem and making the appropriate conversions between them.

You said:​

What does north of the north pole mean in spherical coordinates?

ChatGPT said:​

In spherical coordinates, "north of the North Pole" is a bit of a misnomer since the concept of "north" doesn't directly translate to spherical coordinates in the way it does in geographical terms. However, we can interpret this phrase within the context of spherical coordinates and discuss what happens in the vicinity of the North Pole.

Spherical Coordinates Refresher​

In spherical coordinates, a point in space is defined by:

• rrr: Radial distance from the origin.
• θ\thetaθ: Polar angle (also known as the colatitude), measured from the positive zzz-axis.
• ϕ\phiϕ: Azimuthal angle, measured in the xyxyxy-plane from the positive xxx-axis.

The North Pole in Spherical Coordinates​

In spherical coordinates, the North Pole is represented by:

• rrr: Radial distance from the origin.
• θ=0\theta = 0θ=0: The polar angle (measured from the positive zzz-axis) is zero, meaning you are at the very top of the sphere.
• ϕ\phiϕ can be any value from 000 to 2π2\pi2π because the azimuthal angle doesn't change the fact that you're at the topmost point.

"North of the North Pole"​

Since the North Pole is the highest point on the sphere (where θ=0\theta = 0θ=0), moving "north" of the North Pole in the context of spherical coordinates doesn't really make sense because there are no coordinates above θ=0\theta = 0θ=0.
In Summary:

• In spherical coordinates, you can only be at the North Pole when θ=0\theta = 0θ=0.
• There is no concept of being "north" of the North Pole; θ=0\theta = 0θ=0 is the limit for the polar angle.

The idea of moving "north" of the North Pole might be more relevant in geographical terms (like moving into space above the Earth's North Pole), but in the mathematical context of spherical coordinates, you can't go beyond θ=0\theta = 0θ=0.

AS I point out to Polymath above, it is the direction north, not movement. What is the North Star? Is the North Star always north?