|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 25, 2010 8:41:15 GMT 1
Well not exactly, but STA has outlined on this forum how the universe was formed - in summary there was all this stuff hanging around together because it had nowhere to go. It had nowhere to go because there wasn't anywhere else but this super-dense accumulation of stuff. There was no singularity because singularities gather at extreme distortion of space time and there simply was no space time. There was no gravity because gravity is curved space time, and space-time was at a premium - there was none.
Then all this stuff expanded - the big bang and space-time was created
OK, well, I am a bit suspicious of all that, but that's STA's take on Creationism and I won't argue with STA for fear of being labelled stupid
But up pops Penrose this morning who says the universe has always been there and is re-creating itself in 'aeons' whereby parts of our current universe coalesce into super black holes and then disappear to form another universe - another aeon, and this has been happening forever, so there was never a time when space-time did not exist
Penrose has cleared this with the Catholic Church and they are cool about it - that is cool like relaxed.
So sorry STA, Penrose thinks you are talking tommy rot I don't because I am not stupid
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 25, 2010 9:10:23 GMT 1
STA is a bit slippery, of course. What she seems to do is take two positions at the same time. On the one hand, she argues from a 'classical' point of view while maintaining that we have unresolved quantum theory to consider. This is why she is so hard to pin down so be warned naymissus....
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 25, 2010 9:18:12 GMT 1
"so there was never a time when space-time did not exist"
I was listening with half an ear this morning and I thought that the speaker (I did not know it was Roger, with whom I claim a personal connection because one of his relatives, his mother I believe, was once cared by someone I with whom I am distantly acquainted - a mere TWO degrees of separation, therefore, between myself and the great man!) specifically, in the closing moments of the interview, eschewed the concept of "infinity". This, I perhaps mistakenly, associated with your idea of "never", nay.
SOOO, what do you have to say about THAT, anyone! Is "never" a subset of "infinity"?
If you would rather discuss "degrees of separation", on the other hand, or care of the elderly in their own home, feel free.
(I am NOT attempting to derail this thread, it is FAR too fascinating!)
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Sept 25, 2010 9:23:24 GMT 1
I don't suppose there is the slightest chance of any references for any of this? Because, for a start, your description of what STA said is, errr..... less than accurate. Then But up pops Penrose this morning who says the universe has always been there and is re-creating itself in 'aeons' whereby parts of our current universe coalesce into super black holes and then disappear to form another universe - another aeon, and this has been happening forever, so there was never a time when space-time did not exist sounds more like Smolin than Penrose (or perhaps some strange and confused mixture of both). I've yet to read Penrose's latest tome (it's just been delivered) but, unless he's changed his mind in the last couple of years, he thinks the whole universe 're-scales' after all black holes have evaporated and all massive particles have decayed. It is also the case that in Smolin's view (that you almost describe above), there are actually multiple space-times, rather than multiple aeons of one. In short, I have little confidence in your ability to report accurately on what people have said (you obviously can't with STA), so a reference to what they really said would help a lot. The exact nature of the very earliest universe - the part at which General Relativity predicts a singularity (not of the black hole type, but a singularity - I'm sure that is part of your confusion) and of any 'before', is still the subject of hypothesis. There is, as yet, no definitive answer.
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Sept 25, 2010 9:27:21 GMT 1
...so there was never a time when space-time did not exist LOL - I missed this little gem! Of course there was never a time when space- time did not exist! It's what we call a 'truism'.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 25, 2010 10:03:58 GMT 1
I think the whole concept of time not existing is problematic, myself.
It may be "convenient" to think so and it may help solve some equations, but, like CO2 being the main driver of climate change, maybe we are just MISSING something?
Olmy's "truism" is just what someone else might call a "trick".
|
|
|
Post by olmy on Sept 25, 2010 10:23:38 GMT 1
I think the whole concept of time not existing is problematic, myself. It may be "convenient" to think so and it may help solve some equations, but, like CO2 being the main driver of climate change, maybe we are just MISSING something? Olmy's "truism" is just what someone else might call a "trick". Please can we stay on topic here and give the CO2 thing a miss? The point with fundamental questions like this is that people's intuitive notions count for precisely nothing. We already know that the universe does not operate (at a basic level) in accordance with human intuition and there is really absolutely no reason why we should expect it to. Our intuition evolved to help us deal with a very limited experience of the universe. All we can do is look at the evidence and build our hypotheses and theories on that. It could be that our time dimension is finite in the past direction and it could be that it isn't. Whether you or me or anybody else may like it or not is quite irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 25, 2010 11:25:32 GMT 1
"Look at the evidence"?
Ever heard of the social construction of reality, Olmy?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 25, 2010 11:26:56 GMT 1
I think the fundamental point is things like 'infinity' and other dimensions are simply not measurable in any real sense and possibly may never be by Homo-Sapiens. I'm not sure how helpful the concept of 'infinity' is because it is not something that can be measured, in the final analysis, and may never be knowable. The multiverse, if it does exist, needs much more work and it may be that our species is simply not evolved enough to experience such realms, despite our science conceptualizing such an idea. Perhaps it is beyond our current level of consciousness to really come to terms with such grandiose ideas and it might be for future developments of the human animal or, perhaps, very unimaginably advanced artificial intelligences such as, what today, we call 'computers' to carry on what science is identifying today as more subtle aspects of reality. The 'scientific method', despite having achieved spectacular results in terms of alleviating human suffering and increasing the comfort and prosperity of many people, seems to neglect the more 'spiritual' aspects of the human spirit which may be as legitimate part of experiencing life and the universe as science itself. The trouble is, especially in western culture, the importance of the spiritual side of life has been woefully neglected and in many cases completely rejected as simple 'superstition.' We should perhaps, remember that science itself is based on a particular philosophical approach which has yielded many benefits, as mentioned, but the big question is, is such a philosophical approach 'all-powerful' and the one and only approach to experiencing reality? Personally, I have my doubts in view of the inability of the scientific approach to extend our current understanding beyond the more 'materialistic' aspects of life which are invariably based on the fundamental principle of 'I' and 'not I.' I think we are an intrinsic component of any experiment and, therefore, when we attempt to gain knowledge from the 'environment' we are really obtaining knowledge about our relationships with it. I have a distinct feeling that we will not progress very much further until we have realized that there is more to the universe than the utilitarian, and perhaps it is time that we looked more inward to find enlightenment.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 25, 2010 12:04:34 GMT 1
I think the whole concept of time not existing is problematic, myself. It may be "convenient" to think so and it may help solve some equations, but, like CO2 being the main driver of climate change, maybe we are just MISSING something? Olmy's "truism" is just what someone else might call a "trick". The truism was just Olmy being smart-arsed, but he does have a point, the phrase is badly worded and should read something like in the history of time, time does not terminate at a point t=0. And yes, the concept of time not existing is very odd and is simply a scientific construction based upon the fact that gravity dilates time, so that so-called 'infinite gravity' of a black hole will dilate time so much that it effectively stops. Where STA has problem is that he STATES (yes , no mere supposition here - he somehow knows [and I agree with him because I do not want to be called stupid]) that the Big Bang 'singularity' had no space-time curvature, or no gravity, therefore there was nothing to stop time running its gay little way. This is also at odds with what a few physicists said on a TV programme on this subject recently. They freely admitted they had no idea what was going on in the Big Bang singularity at time t=0, and they were confounded by the mass of infinities that crop up. Pehaps they should ask STA?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 25, 2010 12:12:09 GMT 1
I think the fundamental point is things like 'infinity' and other dimensions are simply not measurable in any real sense and possibly may never be by Homo-Sapiens. I'm not sure how helpful the concept of 'infinity' is because it is not something that is helpful, in the final analysis, and may never be knowable. I agree and many prominent physicists agree that when infinity crops up we are lost. I have read that much of the mathematics underlying modern cosmology (which judging from some on thiis board should probably be re-named dogmalogy) comes up with embarrassing 'infinities' that have to be 'normalised' (or eliminated)in order for the mathematics to make sense
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 25, 2010 12:29:33 GMT 1
There are two choices: Space and time arose as a consequence of the big bang; this is tantamount to asserting that all existence was defined by the big bang or...
the big bang arose as a consequence of something else.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 25, 2010 12:36:54 GMT 1
Here's a thought.
Can a dead person, or a piece of rock experience the concept of infinity?
If the answer is no, then does not this clearly demonstrate that ideas like 'infinity' and 'multiverses' and so on, are no more or less than our mind's way of organizing experience and that, therefore, concepts have no meaning outside of the brain's way of functioning?
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Sept 27, 2010 12:52:17 GMT 1
I NEVER said this at all, I never said that was no spacetime, just that spacetime originated at the big bang, which was also the origin of matter, and at infinite density IF you take the classical result seriously.
No, I don't know why I should bother trying to defend myself against a pack of idiots who obviously don't understand even the simplest concepts in physics, and will come up with their own little just-so story, no matter what the actual science says.
And I'm not a he either................But you are all idiots (yes, you know who you are).
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 27, 2010 13:16:17 GMT 1
STA, doesn't it get a little monotonous being right all the time?
|
|