How was "Space" created before the Universe

[sean69]

not really true, because ... well SOMETHING exists. Unless you're implying there was never a beginning, never a "nothing".

Goes back to my last question to you. I'd love to hear your ideas on it.

But if it's "I don't know", that's fine with me.

what's not really true?? I'm saying that somethng must exist for something to cause an effect. Something must come from something. You're confusing me. The concepts of causality and substance are separable and aren't inextricably linked

And yes, I believe that, in this context, there was never a beginning. And that notion is perfectly rational. In fact, the simplest description of physical reality requires this.

Science requires physical reality to be logical, sensible and simple (Occam’s razor). Metaphysics requires the existence of one active substance to explain the causal connection between the many things we experience

i've shared these ideas in past threads like this...

 

[tical]

what's not really true?? I'm saying that somethng must exist for something to cause an effect. Something must come from something. You're confusing me. The concepts of causality and substance are separable and aren't inextricably linked

And yes, I believe that, in this context, there was never a beginning. And that notion is perfectly rational. In fact, the simplest description of physical reality requires this.

Science requires physical reality to be logical, sensible and simple (Occam’s razor). Metaphysics requires the existence of one active substance to explain the causal connection between the many things we experience

i've shared these ideas in past threads like this...

Let me interject this question, What other "reality" is there?

 

[exiledking]

You know, what's been more interesting to me than the BB, but is a critical part of it's theory . . . is the concept of NOTHING.


I'm not sure what THAT is, because nothing SEEMS to be a form of something. Is it that which is absent of energy and therefore mass. Can nothing be measured? If so, it's not nothing, but a different form of something, especially IF nothing is a functioning aspect of existence.

Any thoughts?

JG

but seriously, I agree, that's the question I would rather deal with. But I haven't the foggiest. Nothing is obviously SOMETHING of some sort.

I guess that's where they start talking about matter and anti matter, black holes and such.


my head hurts.

 

[sean69]

Agreed that 'established' scientific facts have no room for opinions. Facts are cool, but a lot of the time facts are hard to come by because we can not accurately measure certain things.

We can measure them accurately enough.

The model is obviously going to be flawed. Mainly because the universe is not completely understood.

No, the model is flawed because it's flawed. Yeah there's mad shit we don't know yet but from what we do know, BBT is flawed.

The debates are cool though. At least give kats some credit for trying...

Sean is a tough person to argue against because I have a hard time following his scientific terms Dumb it down a little Sean.

lol. wtf am I typing that complicated?

 

[exiledking]

what's not really true?? I'm saying that somethng must exist for something to cause an effect. Something must come from something. You're confusing me. The concepts of causality and substance are separable and aren't inextricably linked

And yes, I believe that, in this context, there was never a beginning. And that notion is perfectly rational. In fact, the simplest description of physical reality requires this.

Science requires physical reality to be logical, sensible and simple (Occam’s razor). Metaphysics requires the existence of one active substance to explain the causal connection between the many things we experience

i've shared these ideas in past threads like this...

why are you confused. SOMETHING exists. Therefore, if you buy the notion that there was a beginning, then there had to be a process for something to come about.

Or if theres a "beginning, then SOMETHING was once NOTHING.

But if ya don't buy that, and it's a continuous state, I got no problem with that.

I just wonder if there's a name for that idea, and who else has explored it, if at all.

I find that to be rational, but if there is indeed evidence of some beginning, I assume that's where the idea of the BB theory to come about. Even if it deals in multiverses and so on.

I guess in a sense, it's far too early to even try to rationalize an origin, when we don't have the WHOLE mapped out in the first place.

I think cosmologists have an idea of the edges of THIS universe, but that may be where I'm making my mistake.

So, whats the name for the model you support the most?

 

[4 Dimensional]

We can measure them accurately enough.

Accurately enough is not accurate enough....

No, the model is flawed because it's flawed. Yeah there's mad shit we don't know yet but from what we do know, BBT is flawed.

That is all. What we don't know we can't solve.

lol. wtf am I typing that complicated?

ughh.....sometimes!

 

[Les W]

Oh the irony....STATISTICS you say? Do you really want to compare the STATS of something science predicts to that of religion? Further irony the majority of religious folks gladly take their odds with the science you mock than the ultimate "statistician" of the religion they claim!

As I said I am not here to validate religion... or debunk science... How many times do I have to say that I am agnostic

I'm too old to argue anymore if you would like to converse... cool

The concepts I have introduced and tried to express here may be poorly communicated or maybe social programming is too strong for people to consider alternate paradigms... from my pov ....all you guys see is "Republican and Democrat" or "pro-choice and pro-life" "cop and robbers"... MY objective reality is full of gray areas... and I feel very VERY comfortable analyzing each situation on it's own merit so I feel like am free of dogmatism and programming... even of those STILL found in the upper echelons... then again Maybe I am wrong

After all I am but a mere fool and as exiledking says I am full of it...


be well

 

[exiledking]

As I said I am not here to validate religion... or debunk science... How many times do I have to say that I am agnostic

I'm too old to argue anymore if you would like to converse... cool

The concepts I have introduced and tried to express here may be poorly communicated or maybe social programming is too strong for people to consider alternate paradigms... from my pov ....all you guys see is "Republican and Democrat" or "pro-choice and pro-life" "cop and robbers"... MY objective reality is full of gray areas... and I feel very VERY comfortable analyzing each situation on it's own merit so I feel like am free of dogmatism and programming... even of those STILL found in the upper echelons... then again Maybe I am wrong

After all I am but a mere fool and as exiledking says I am full of it...







be well

I just said ON THAT ONE- kinda ties into what you say about concepts- that one I totally disagree with. But I will pull back on my statement. My bad

 

[sean69]

Something had to come from nothing...

What is closer to the answer than BB cosmology though? Although I know it is flawed in theory, but do you ever eliminate the possibility that maybe the answer is beyond what we know to be our universe's physics?

Accepting that the answer is beyond our physics just impeded the peruit of knowledge imo. I'm not saying that i think everything must have a scientific explanation. As a matter of fact i think somethings frankly do not. And i'm ok with not knowing things beyond my comprehension. I might not accept them based on preconceptions and prejudices (that we ALL have) but that's just human nature...

I agree. except in here you have people giving lifetimes to a religious concept, and being "skeptical" in 10 seconds of something that requires at least as much time as they gave to a myth before you can just discount something.

I can tell you've given these ideas a chance, and you've come out on the other side. Your objections at least make me go and look at the others out there, and I honestly don't know enough to even debate with you about it at any length. I'll throw out things I see.

What I like about what I see on ideas like it, are that most guys who even buy into it, readily admit there are limitations.

And I know of no better models, so from my understanding it's not TRUTH, but one with the best set of evidence backing it.


I'm more interested in seeing HOW some of these dudes arrived at their "skepticism", when the next thing that comes out of their mouths is God, aliens, or whatever. Not a lick of skepticism about that. .

And don't get me wrong, I'm cool with those ideas to, it's just that none of the stories I know of now hold up very well at all. Mostly wishful thinking.

I wouldn't be that basic with my conclusion. I know you need to have a whole lot more "background" to "rationalize the information" particularly with topics like BBT.

cool.

oop- here comes cranky Sean


the guys who support have written papers. Foremost scholars, who deal with scrutiny about their ideas. You can just step up to the plate and say these things without the same scrutiny? wow, impressed.

Yes. And I don't respect kats based on the number of peer reviewed papers they have. I base everything on sound rational argument. I'm not an astrogeologist. I lack the background to assert things in astrogeology but as thinking person I can scrutinize two different arguments and determine which is more raional than the other. Most times you don't need to know ALL the nuance details.

If you want us to by what you're selling, you'd have to do it in the square to fully gain my respect for your arguments.

well, then. that's where we differ.

Or at least post some of your references.

references to what? what references do u want me to post up in here regarding anything i've typed so far. Let me know and if necessary, I will

And just curious- I have NO formal background in any of this, so PHD's are not necessarily what impress me, but what's your background? I'm just a person fascinated with the topics.

undergrad degree in physics and industrial chemistry double major. grad (phd) in organic chemistry currently work in specialty polymers performance materials industry.

I think the big questions people like to have answered by religion are better answered, or at least framed and dealt with by Sciences, and Philosophy, Arts and Culture.

c/s

 

[John_Gault]

Awhhh Shit, back away from the keyboard.."Nothing has become Something"

Let me interject this question, What other "reality" is there?

but seriously, I agree, that's the question I would rather deal with. But I haven't the foggiest. Nothing is obviously SOMETHING of some sort.

I guess that's where they start talking about matter and anti matter, black holes and such.


my head hurts.

I know it sounds funny, but really. WHAT THE FUCK IS NOTHING? And it's relevant because BBT states that our universe came from nothing. So what is the substance or non-substance of nothing, such that a singularity can exist in some relationship to nothing and indeed expand (BB) in some relationship to nothing.


This is high science here!!!


JG

 

[Les W]

I just said ON THAT ONE- kinda ties into what you say about concepts- that one I totally disagree with. But I will pull back on my statement. My bad

That one what? You said it a couple times so seemed like you wanted me to address it... No hard feelings

 

[Count23]

You know, what's been more interesting to me than the BB, but is a critical part of it's theory . . . is the concept of NOTHING.


I'm not sure what THAT is, because nothing SEEMS to be a form of something. Is it that which is absent of energy and therefore mass. Can nothing be measured? If so, it's not nothing, but a different form of something, especially IF nothing is a functioning aspect of existence.

Any thoughts?

JG

"nothing" for all intents and purposes, is not possible, and there prolly was never a state of nothingness.

 

[sean69]

c/s
Admitting your limitations is ok. I admit my limitations in physics, but because I have a strong background in math -I like to debate with physicist mainly because math is needed in physics.

The problem I have is that physicist eliminates variables from equations based on the physical interpretation versus mathematicians eliminating variables by setting limits-->0. That simple transition from math to physics was really hard to grasp for me.

This BB model is just a bunch of complex equations.

Nice. I never really thought of it that way but you're right!

And I blame mathematical physics for synthesizing and perpetuating irrational shit like the BTT, General Relativity and Special Relativity. "Bending" time and shit... lol

 

[Spectrum]

You know, what's been more interesting to me than the BB, but is a critical part of it's theory . . . is the concept of NOTHING.


I'm not sure what THAT is, because nothing SEEMS to be a form of something. Is it that which is absent of energy and therefore mass. Can nothing be measured? If so, it's not nothing, but a different form of something, especially IF nothing is a functioning aspect of existence.

Any thoughts?

JG

I posted this a few years back. If I remember correctly, Dr. Michio Kaku addresses this concept and I had a brain-freeze when he delivered the blow.

http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=159145

 

[4 Dimensional]

why are you confused. SOMETHING exists. Therefore, if you buy the notion that there was a beginning, then there had to be a process for something to come about.

Or if theres a "beginning, then SOMETHING was once NOTHING.

But if ya don't buy that, and it's a continuous state, I got no problem with that.

I just wonder if there's a name for that idea, and who else has explored it, if at all.

In programing its called an infinite loop

do i = 1,∞
x(i) = universe(i)
end do

There is also the idea that the universe is like a balloon. Expands until a reaching point then shrinks, then BBT starts all over again, but that idea is just another part of BB cosmology.

 

[Spectrum]

I know it sounds funny, but really. WHAT THE FUCK IS NOTHING? And it's relevant because BBT states that our universe came from nothing. So what is the substance or non-substance of nothing, such that a singularity can exist in some relationship to nothing and indeed expand (BB) in some relationship to nothing.


This is high science here!!!


JG

Like what it as the end (really the beginning) of the universe(s)? as the universe is being created as it expands so what is beyond the expansion. Meaning that there are no dimensions there, no existence...but still.. what the fuck is there? My mind cant wrap around non-existence. Shit makes my brain hurt.

 

[Les W]

"nothing" for all intents and purposes, is not possible, and there prolly was never a state of nothingness.

Didn't science say that space is a vacuum? iirc astrophysics' model of the universe relies very heavily on the fact that space is made of nothing... otherwise we have to revisit the speed of light equations and pretty much abandon everything important Einstein said

Oh... and I completely agree with you "nothing" as in no force or no matter present... is likely impossible... this isn't an attack

 

[Les W]

Like what it as the end (really the beginning) of the universe(s)? as the universe is being created as it expands so what is beyond the expansion. Meaning that there are no dimensions there, no existence...but still.. what the fuck is there? My mind cant wrap around non-existence. Shit makes my brain hurt.

That is because it is not true and your brain is fighting 'downloading' that virus of an idea lol

The whole universe is expanding nonsense comes from the idea that there was an omnipotent force that created the universe long ago... science calls it big bang ...believers call it 'god'... me, I call it nonsense...

 

[4 Dimensional]

Nice. I never really thought of it that way but you're right!

And I blame mathematical physics for synthesizing and perpetuating irrational shit like the BTT, General Relativity and Special Relativity. "Bending" time and shit... lol

Man, can you imagine studying applied math for 8 years and transitioning into physics. I took fluid mechanics and atmospheric dynamics and about lost my fucking mind. I was so pissed at the end of the semester I wanted to fight my teacher for springing that shit on me.

I agree with mathematical physics for generating stuff like the BBT. It goes back to a lot of physical theory is computationally calculated in a numerical model. Stability of these models are dependent on the equations used. For example, if you five sets of equations, then your final equation must contain at least 5 variables or the numerical model will 'blow up' (not literally). This is assuming that the universe is NOT 'chaotic'. Since we assume the universe is not chaotic we can derive variables from other variables because the arithmetic of derivation sets equations equal to each other.

 

[Spectrum]

Man, can you imagine studying applied math for 8 years and transitioning into physics. I took fluid mechanics and atmospheric dynamics and about lost my fucking mind. I was so pissed at the end of the semester I wanted to fight my teacher for springing that shit on me.

 

[John_Gault]

"nothing" for all intents and purposes, is not possible, and there prolly was never a state of nothingness.

If not nothing, which is cool, then what? It either nothing, or some kind of something.

I posted this a few years back. If I remember correctly, Dr. Michio Kaku addresses this concept and I had a brain-freeze when he delivered the blow.

http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=159145

Like what it as the end (really the beginning) of the universe(s)? as the universe is being created as it expands so what is beyond the expansion. Meaning that there are no dimensions there, no existence...but still.. what the fuck is there? My mind cant wrap around non-existence. Shit makes my brain hurt.

Thanks cool. Checking out the vid . . . yeah this 'nothing' business is some kind of mind bender!!

Awhhh Shit, back away from the keyboard.."Nothing has become Something"

Let me interject this question, What other "reality" is there?

but seriously, I agree, that's the question I would rather deal with. But I haven't the foggiest. Nothing is obviously SOMETHING of some sort.

I guess that's where they start talking about matter and anti matter, black holes and such.


my head hurts.

See, that's what I come away with but I'm obviously not in a position to know if that's correct. Looks like it's been a serious question for a number of us! That is very cool.



JG

 

[Count23]

Didn't science say that space is a vacuum? iirc astrophysics' model of the universe relies very heavily on the fact that space is made of nothing... otherwise we have to revisit the speed of light equations and pretty much abandon everything important Einstein said

Oh... and I completely agree with you "nothing" as in no force or no matter present... is likely impossible... this isn't an attack

isn't hydrogen still present in outer space? if so, then "something" is still there.

 

[tical]

As I said I am not here to validate religion... or debunk science... How many times do I have to say that I am agnostic

I'm too old to argue anymore if you would like to converse... cool

The concepts I have introduced and tried to express here may be poorly communicated or maybe social programming is too strong for people to consider alternate paradigms... from my pov ....all you guys see is "Republican and Democrat" or "pro-choice and pro-life" "cop and robbers"... MY objective reality is full of gray areas... and I feel very VERY comfortable analyzing each situation on it's own merit so I feel like am free of dogmatism and programming... even of those STILL found in the upper echelons... then again Maybe I am wrong

After all I am but a mere fool and as exiledking says I am full of it...


be well

An "Agnostic" can be said to be a deeply religious person with at-least a Rudimentary knowledge of human fallibility"
-Carl Sagan

You are most wise Les W and i share your thinking.....

 

[sean69]

the op's question, like it or not is just as mind boggling as the question as to whether of not the universe is an open infinite system, or closed system.

it's mainly a problem as well because the human brain evolved to perceive the universe a certain way, so there will always be pieces of this puzzle that will be out of our reach without (or maybe even with) the use of our tools.

however tho i still find it hard to believe that the universe was started by a being that has human genders/emotions/obsessions.

c/s on mind boggling. I tend to role with the "observable universe" concept. That the universe which we currently observe is just a finite spherical region of infinite eternal space. This solves a lot of the issues like that of the 2nd law of thermodynamics and a finite universe. The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to infinite space. Problem solved.

It would be difficult to model such a system. Modeling the earth atmosphere uses open boundaries (free flowing around the globe).

The universe is much more difficult because we honestly don't know the shape of the universe or the flow of the universe, so the boundaries can be open or closed. Kind of makes it difficult to argue.....

Cool. But infinite open systems can be mathematically modeled, no?

I asked YOU to share if you know of any. I've seen titles, such as steady state,, Quasis state, Plasma cosmology, all that- but I don't know anything about them.

What ideas do YOU think are most plausible? I defer to you on this, because you seem to be the most learned on the board.

don't know about those either but I bet...no, guarantee you that if it's described as a singularity, of any kind, the concept of continuous space breaks down. At which point all bets are off and we're off to speculationville and imagination city. All fine with me but as the basis for a sound theory, useless. This is all i'm saying.

You know, what's been more interesting to me than the BB, but is a critical part of it's theory . . . is the concept of NOTHING.


I'm not sure what THAT is, because nothing SEEMS to be a form of something. Is it that which is absent of energy and therefore mass. Can nothing be measured? If so, it's not nothing, but a different form of something, especially IF nothing is a functioning aspect of existence.

Any thoughts?

JG

sup JG. Interestiong question. I've always thought of the concept of nothing, in physics terms, as the absence of physical matter...of substance. Hence, there's nothing to measure. There are no dimensions. No metrics, which requires something (more than one thing) IN space.
How can nothing be functioning?
What do you mean by functioning aspect of existence?

 

[Les W]

isn't hydrogen still present in outer space? if so, then "something" is still there.

I don't know... as I recall... according to 'science' space was supposed to be a vacuum... an inhabitable one at that... maybe they changed their tune and realized the ignorance of their ways or maybe I am a sad sack with selective memory

An "Agnostic" can be said to be a deeply religious person with at-least a Rudimentary knowledge of human fallibility"
-Carl Sagan

You are most wise Les W and i share your thinking.....

Nah I only aspire to be wise.. as for Sagan's quote... I think he meant to say "deeply spiritual person"... which I can't speak for others but I am that... also I think due to our ignorance everyone is technically an "agnostic"

peace

 

[sean69]

Hell I don't know, but if nothing can be measured then time has speed......

It's endless! If nothing created something then where did nothing come from something? Shit is mad weird man. That's why I like to believe in a higher dimension and say that our universe is a subset of a higher dimension (greater than the 3rd dimension). Who knows?

There you go with the "time" attributes again
And I can completely understand why folks are comfy with believing in "higher" "dimensions" or "states" w/e when faced with this conundrum. The need to calibrate. It's just human. But like I said, easiest way to get past this dilemma is to accept that something just existed as a default. Not necessarily created from nothing. I chose continuous infinitely extended space as the that thing. Yeah i know, it's an abstraction. I'm ok with that.

 

[exiledking]

Now I think we're on track.

 

[4 Dimensional]

Cool. But infinite open systems can be mathematically modeled, no?

Most definitely!

The Earth and its atmosphere is an example of an infinitely open system. Free flowing atmosphere around the globe changing over time. Like the jet stream (constant wind streaks )at 60 degress N in latitude in the upper atmosphere. Travels around the globe at different rates non stop with boundaries only in the z-coordinate.

I have no idea how the universe would be handled. X, Y, and Z coordinate could all be infinite. The next question is do the universe have a shape? If it is sphere then it could be a free flowing universe.....

 

[Give Me 3ft.]

I can't wait to get back in this thread!

There are so many jewels in this thread,

One just has to extract them! Let there be light.

The people who are consistently posting in here

Are on "that" wave!

 

[tical]

Now I think we're on track.

Agreed,

So....where are we going here? Multi-Verse? The Stuff/Start of our universe is the product of another? Whats it called "Universe-Bumping"?

 

[John_Gault]

sup JG. Interestiong question. I've always thought of the concept of nothing, in physics terms, as the absence of physical matter...of substance. Hence, there's nothing to measure. There are no dimensions. No metrics, which requires something (more than one thing) IN space.
How can nothing be functioning?
What do you mean by functioning aspect of existence?

Sean69, What up,


Well, you've heard this question asked a million times, "What came before" (Big Bang, first Cause) . . . And the answer usually provided is 'nothing'.


If there was never a nothing and existence always existed, then we're talking about a nothingless always something existence. Either way it's puzzling, unless 'this' thing called existence isn't real in a material sense.


And in that link to a Michio interview breaking some stuff down, Michio is tlaks about the universe expanding, uncontrollably so. Where's the energy coming from? And if energy can neither be destroyed or created, then the expanding mass must be acquiring it's energy from the pre-existing mass volumes, making the universe more voluminous yet 'thinner' so to speak in energetic terms. OR the expansion is being powered by some other energy source. But then that creates some problems with the laws of thermo dynamics.

Anyhow, it's all ponderings for now, since I gotta run an errand. But if you have more questions or would like to add on, it'd be good to get your thoughts!


JG

 

[tical]

Sean69, What up,


Well, you've heard this question asked a million times, "What came before" (Big Bang, first Cause) . . . And the answer usually provided is 'nothing'.


If there was never a nothing and existence always existed, then we're talking about a nothingless always something existence. Either way it's puzzling, unless 'this' thing called existence isn't real in a material sense.


And in that link to a Michio interview breaking some stuff down, Michio is tlaks about the universe expanding, uncontrollably so. Where's the energy coming from? And if energy can neither be destroyed or created, then the expanding mass must be acquiring it's energy from the pre-existing mass volumes, making the universe more voluminous yet 'thinner' so to speak in energetic terms. OR the expansion is being powered by some other energy source. But then that creates some problems with the laws of thermo dynamics.

Anyhow, it's all ponderings for now, since I gotta run an errand. But if you have more questions or would like to add on, it'd be good to get your thoughts!


JG

Bro! The MultiVerse, Universe-Bumping...simple!

 

[John_Gault]

Bro! The MultiVerse, Universe-Bumping...simple!

That only begets the same questions . . . but now with more universes.

JG

 

[sean69]

Let me interject this question, What other "reality" is there?

mybad. scratch the "physical". don't wana open that can of wroms lol.

why are you confused. SOMETHING exists. Therefore, if you buy the notion that there was a beginning, then there had to be a process for something to come about.

Or if theres a "beginning, then SOMETHING was once NOTHING.

not necessarily. my brain and yours have evolved to conceptualize the world's events as deterministic,u linked by case and effect. It's our brains default mode. it's difficult, not impossible, to see the world otherwise. one can conceive of somthing ALWAYS existing.

But if ya don't buy that, and it's a continuous state, I got no problem with that.

I just wonder if there's a name for that idea, and who else has explored it, if at all.

many great philosophers and scientists have explored it: Leibniz, Aristotle, Bohm, etc. I got a gang of quotes and reference if you want. You seem to like those...

I find that to be rational, but if there is indeed evidence of some beginning, I assume that's where the idea of the BB theory to come about. Even if it deals in multiverses and so on.

there's no evidence. BBT came out of the need for man to "scientify" creationism.

I guess in a sense, it's far too early to even try to rationalize an origin, when we don't have the WHOLE mapped out in the first place.

I think cosmologists have an idea of the edges of THIS universe, but that may be where I'm making my mistake
So, whats the name for the model you support the most?

cosmology derived from the Wave Structure of Matter theory. Look it up.

 

[sean69]

I know it sounds funny, but really. WHAT THE FUCK IS NOTHING? And it's relevant because BBT states that our universe came from nothing. So what is the substance or non-substance of nothing, such that a singularity can exist in some relationship to nothing and indeed expand (BB) in some relationship to nothing.


This is high science here!!!


JG

actually, BBT doesn't say shit about the origin of the universe just its evolution after the bang. the "explosion" of the singularity and subsequent cosmic expansion/inflation. And the BBT doesn't see the singularity as nothing. How can you expand in relation to nothing? what are you expanding to? the concept of expansion requires at the very least, 2 things. the thing expanding and a reference or place holder.