Have you ever thought about the beginning? I mean, what was really here first, at the beginning of time? There are two simple possibilities. The first theory is that in the beginning there was Nothing. Absolutely Nothing. The second theory says that in the beginning there was Something. You and I know that only one of these theories can be correct, but which one is it? Which one is true?

The first theory says that in the beginning there was Nothing. Well, let’s take a look and see if this is possible, see if this is reasonable. An illustration may help us out here. Let's say you have a very large closed box. This box is locked, permanently, and has no openings or holes of any kind in its walls. Excluding the walls of the box itself there is Nothing, Absolutely Nothing inside our box. Not a particle of anything. No air at all. No dust at all. No light at all. It's a sealed box that's pitch black inside. OK, let's say your goal is to get Something--anything at all--into the box. But the rules are: you can't use anything from outside the box to do that. So what do you do?

Well, what if you try to create a spark inside the box? Then the box would have light in it, even for just a moment. That would qualify as Something wouldn’t it? Yes, but you are outside the box. So that is not allowed.

But, what if you could teleport Something into the box, like in Star Trek? Again, that's not allowed, because you'd be using things from outside the box. Here again is the dilemma: you have to get Something inside the box using only what's in the box. And, in this case, what's in the box is Nothing.

Well, maybe a tiny particle of Something will just show up inside our box if given enough time and chance. Maybe it will just “spontaneously generate.” That sounds possible, doesn’t it? After all, can’t virtually anything happen if given enough time?

That brings up the First real problem with our theory: Time. Time by itself doesn't do anything. Things happen over time, but it's not time that makes them happen. For example, if you wait 15 minutes for cookies to bake, it's not the 15 minutes that bakes them, it's the heat in the oven. If you set them on the counter for 15 minutes, they're not going to bake. In our analogy, we've got a fully enclosed box with absolutely Nothing in it. Waiting 15 minutes will not, in and of itself, change the situation. Well, you say, what if we wait eons? An eon is merely a bunch of 15-minute segments all pressed together. If you waited an eon with your cookies on the counter, would the eon bake them?

The Second problem is chance. Is there really any possibility that chance could make something appear in our box? Well, if we are thinking of chance as a supposed agent or cause of change, then absolutely not. Chance has no power to do anything or change anything in any way because it simply is not anything. To be more precise, it is nothing. Nothing cannot do something. Nothing is not. Chance has no power because it has no being. It has no existence. It has no more chance of doing something than Nothing has of doing something. There is absolutely no possibility that chance could ever make anything appear in our box. And even if we combine chance and time wouldn’t we still only have Nothing doing Nothing over a very long period of time?

The Third problem is this: why would anything just "show up" in the empty box without a cause? Remember, there is no cause of any kind inside our box. There is Nothing inside the box at all. So what's to stop that from remaining the case? There is Nothing inside the box to cause Something to "show up." But wait a minute, couldn't Something just create itself? Absolutely not! Self-creation is a logical and rational impossibility. For Something to actually create itself it would have to be before it is. That is scientifically impossible. It is impossible for solids, liquids, and gasses. It is impossible for atoms and subatomic particles. It is impossible for any form of energy, light, or heat. It is impossible for any form of life, simple or complex. Nothing anywhere, anytime, can create itself.

But, what about a tiny particle of Something, say an atom? Wouldn't that have a greater chance of materializing in our empty box than Something gigantic like the earth? That brings up the Fourth problem: Size. We need to remember here that size is relative. Something is only “tiny” or “gigantic” in relation to something else. An atom is indeed tiny compared to the earth, but the earth is also tiny when compared to the entire universe. Does that really make it any easier for the earth to materialize out of nothing? Even an atom would appear to be gigantic when compared to one of its own subatomic particles? And wouldn’t any subatomic particle, no matter how small, be gigantic when compared to Nothing which has no size at all? Now if you don’t think that the earth could just pop into existence from nothing then you must conclude the very same thing for a single atom. For size really is not the issue. The question is not whether something large or small in relation to something else could “show up”, but whether or not any thing of any size could just "show up" in our sealed, empty box. The real likelihood of any tiny particle materializing without a cause is no different than the earth itself materializing out of nothing without a cause! For neither is possible.

Now let's stretch our analogy a little further, literally. Let's take our box of Nothing and remove its walls. And let's extend the box so it goes on infinitely in all directions. Now an infinity of Nothing is all there is, period. This infinity has no light, no dust, no particles of any kind, no air, no elements, no molecules. It is absolute Nothingness. This Nothingness has no nature, no causal powers, no time, no space, no change of any kind, or tendencies toward anything whatsoever. In fact, we can truly call it Absolutely Nothing.

So here's the big question: if originally--bazillions of years ago--there was Absolutely Nothing, wouldn't there be Absolutely Nothing right now? For Something--no matter how small--cannot come from Absolutely Nothing. However, something does exist. Actually, many things exist. You, for example, are something that exists, a very important something. Therefore, the very fact that you exist is proof that Absolutely Nothing never existed. Now, if Absolutely Nothing never existed, then Something has always existed, and could never have not been. Something is eternal.

Whether or not we can wrap our mind around it, Something is eternal. The “Big Bang” theory rules out the material universe because it had a definite beginning in space and time. If there was ever a point in time when the universe did not exist then it is not eternal. Something outside the material universe must be eternal or else you and I don’t really exist.

"I think , therefore I am."

Most Awesome Other Dude:

If you exist then Something else other than you is eternal for you are part of the universe and the universe is not eternal.

There are a couple of problems with your hypothesis:

1. As far as we can tell, energy and the primary forces of physics are eternal. Energy is never created nor is it lost, it can only change form. Energy is 'something' that is eternal.

2. Something can come from nothing; in fact it happens all the time, everywhere. They are known as virtual particles because these pairs of particles come from nothing and typically annihilate each other very shortly after their creation. We can, however, measure the existence of these particles; they create a pressure known as the Casimir Effect.

Virtual Particles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

Casimir Effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

~Raithere

P.S. Welcome to SciForums!

I am Muslim, therefore I am.

Most Awesome Raithere Techno Dude,

There is no proof that energy or any other primary force of physics is eternal, in the sense that it had no beginning. We can say that energy exists now and that it changes in form and is never lost in this current material universe of ours. We cannot say for sure that there was or was not ever a time when energy did not exist. How do you know, as a non eternal being, that energy has always existed, without beginning? To know that energy is eternal you would have to be eternal yourself and have been a witness to it for all eternity.

Also, Virtual Particles have a very real and tangible cause. They do not come from nothing as you and others may suggest. They are caused by the very experiment that scientists use to create them. It takes a massive amount of energy, machinery, and intelligence to create them. I would hardly say that, under these circumstances, they come from nothing. As an additional note, they are obviously not eternal either.

Best Wishes! Thanks for the Welcome Dude!

There is no proof that energy or any other primary force of physics is eternal, in the sense that it had no beginning. We can say that energy exists now and that it changes in form and is never lost in this current material universe of ours. We cannot say for sure that there was or was not ever a time when energy did not exist.Nor can we say there was a time when energy and force did not exist. Either statement regarded absolutely is assumed.

What we can say is that in every observed case the 1st law of thermodynamics is correct and energy is conserved. Thus the principle of conservation is a law or a hypothesis that has never been demonstrated to be incorrect and explains all available evidence. Whereas the hypothesis that at some point there was nothing (non-conservation of energy) is purely hypothetical with not a stitch of evidence to support it.

Your hypothesis therefore, is based purely in an assumed premise while there is evidential support for an eternal Universe. Personally, I give more credence to that which has some evidence to support it.

Further, we might take into account quantum indeterminacy which suggests that existence might not be an 'either or' condition. This makes the all or nothing conditions of your thought experiment erroneous as a false dilemma.

Also, Virtual Particles have a very real and tangible cause. They do not come from nothing as you and others may suggest. They are caused by the very experiment that scientists use to create them. It takes a massive amount of energy, machinery, and intelligence to create them.Absolutely not. The Casimir Effect can be observed simply by placing two plates very close to each other in a vacuum. No high energy experiment is needed. In fact, Casimir discovered the effect while studying colloidal solutions.

~Raithere

Thank you for your input on this Raithere. I really appreciate your opinion on this!

I will have to get back to you later on the energy thing. You make some very excellent points. Energy may be eternal. My initial thread statement above never said that it wasn't. I am still in the learning process on this topic and always will be.

I still have to discount the idea that Virtual Particles come from nothing. They have a real cause. According to what you said, they occur when placing two plates very close to each other in a vacuum. That is still not from nothing. There are two plates involved in this observation. Could you say the same thing occurs with one plate or without any plate at all? There is a real cause there involving real material objects. If Virtual Particles have any cause, material or not, or any kind of energy, then they do not truly come from nothing.

Regards!

If we can imagine a waveform of light where the E and H fields alternate then
both the e and h fields are zero at some point in their cycle, at that point we can essentially say they do not exist and yet the waveforms reappear, expand to some maximum and again collapse to zero. So how does that apply to the universe? If we assume a cyclic universe there’s no need to wonder about the emergence of a universe out of nothing.

"I think , therefore I am."

That should be: "I think, therefore I think I am"


Do we exist?

Existence is only an abstraction of perception, your perception, or an electrons perception. On the absolute level, nothing exists, yet in duality, exists many folds of realities. We exist in duality with all other realities, yet ultimately we are the imagination of the absolute.

However, it is when we become conscious, that we trully don't exist. We attest to an existence that is subset from actual reality, when we have, are, and will always be in reality - so our existence is only an illusion.

One weekend while I was in college a bunch of us were going to drive from Southern Illinois University to Southeast Missouri State University for a "walk out" weekend -- go to the football game, hang out at our sorority's house at that campus, meet new and different guys we could scam for beer.

We were supposed to leave at 1:00 p.m. Arnold was going to drive (my three best friends in college were named Kim, so I just always used their last names). Omelson (another Kim) and I were in the car with her, waiting for the others to get ready and join the caravan. Naturally, no one was ready to go. Chicks would stop by the car, say they'd "just be a minute," they were going to grab lunch, they had to run to the store.... By the time everyone was finally ready to go, it was closer to 5:00 p.m.

The weekend was one of the strangest I've ever had. I lost my voice early in the evening (had to use a translator for the drinking games), lost a couple of the Kims at one point, and far too many other things to mention here. The semester that followed was similarly weird. In fact, my life from that point forward has been absolutely bizarre.

Omelson and I came up with a theory to explain the incredible string of events in our lives that have followed what was supposed to be a typical college weekend: during that four hour wait, we fell asleep in the car, and everything that has happened since has been a dream.

If that is the case, I exist, and everything that has happened since Labor Day weekend 1991, including me writing this post now, is merely a figment of my disturbed subconscious. This post does not exist, neither do Pentium processors, AIM, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the second Gulf War, Dubya as president, Hugh Grant and Divine Brown, Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch, or Buffy the Vampire Slayer (only the last makes me a little sniffly...the rest I can't even explain). I exist, but no one I've encountered since fall 1991 does. I suppose that would include my boyfriend, but since he's gorgeous, smart, sweet, funny as hell and really talented, it only stands to reason that he would have to be a figment of my imagination.

More important then knowing or not knowing that we do exist is what we chose not to know, in this case I chose not to know that we dont exist.

I understand that sentiment. We TRY to create our own existence, and our own values, and purposes in life in constant struggle with the social paradigms - only to have them erased in the end.

What purpose is there to this life, other than chasing winds, and grazing fields. If you look at it objectively, our life is no different from a herd of sheep.

Thank you for your input on this Raithere. I really appreciate your opinion on this!No problem, it's an extremely interesting discussion.

Energy may be eternal. My initial thread statement above never said that it wasn't. I am still in the learning process on this topic and always will be.We all are.

I still have to discount the idea that Virtual Particles come from nothing. They have a real cause. According to what you said, they occur when placing two plates very close to each other in a vacuum. That is still not from nothing. There are two plates involved in this observation. Could you say the same thing occurs with one plate or without any plate at all?Well, there must be something for us to be able to make any observation at all but the effect does not seem to be dependent upon the materials of the experiment. As I mentioned, Casimir discovered the effect while studying colloidal solutions. This was because the observations could not be explained by the known forces and effects; there was something 'extra' in the equation that could not be explained.

This is explained in quantum physics in by the uncertainty principle. There is a level of indeterminacy that is not merely a practical limitation but an actual function of how space-time works. In other words, you can never quite reach a zero energy state because indeterminacy causes a fluctuation, sometimes enough to cause particles to come from nowhere.

There is a real cause there involving real material objects.No, it seems to be a innate quality of space-time. Now we might ask what happens 'outside' or 'before' space-time but realize that you'll have to throw out all your preconceptions of causality. Without time how can you measure 'cause' and 'effect'?

~Raithere

That should be: "I think, therefore I think I am"I think, therefore I am works fine. For if I am not, who is asking the question?

However, it is when we become conscious, that we trully don't exist. We attest to an existence that is subset from actual reality, when we have, are, and will always be in reality - so our existence is only an illusion.No, if there is an 'actual reality' of which our perception of existence is a subset then existence is actual. Unless you can explain a non-existent 'actual reality'.

If that is the case, I exist, and everything that has happened since Labor Day weekend 1991, including me writing this post now, is merely a figment of my disturbed subconscious.What's the difference? Awake or asleep what you perceive is a function of your mind. Unless you have some basis from which to compare relative states you have no choice but to operate as if what you experience is real. Congruence is the only real measure of reality we have and that is assumed.

More important then knowing or not knowing that we do exist is what we chose not to know, in this case I chose not to know that we dont exist.You can't know that you don't exist, it's impossible. If you don't exist then there's nothing to do the knowing.

~Raithere

"I think , therefore I am."

Mind and mind's laws lay hid in night.
God said:"Let Descartes be", and there was light.
It did not last. The devil shouted, "Ho!
Here's Schrödinger's cat! Restore the status quo".

;)

I choose, therefore I am.

[QUOTE=crazymikey]I understand that sentiment. We TRY to create our own existence, and our own values, and purposes in life in constant struggle with the social paradigms - only to have them erased in the end.

What purpose is there to this life, other than chasing winds, and grazing fields. If you look at it objectively, our life is no different from a herd of sheep.
*************
M*W: Life is relative to all creation. Our spirit is constantly in the process of creating us where we are. We exist with each other, but do ants know we exist?

The only purpose of our life is to be the physical vessel for our spiritual creator. Humanity is the face of god on Earth, and we are destined to become god on Earth.

We are different than a herd of sheep. Each level of existence has its place in creation.

You can't know that you don't exist, it's impossible. If you don't exist then there's nothing to do the knowing.

True enough. Perhaps, then, we fool ourselves into thinking that everything else around us exists ;-). Not unlike the brain being fooled into believing that the amputated limb is still there.

Welcome to the phantom reality syndrome ;)

If you think you are a cabbage, are you a cabbage? Nope, you only think you are a cabbage. However, to you this is a reality.

No, if there is an 'actual reality' of which our perception of existence is a subset then existence is actual. Unless you can explain a non-existent 'actual reality'.

Ah, you see the "actual reality", is not real. It is only a conceptual duality of non-existence. Electrons, atoms, cells do not have consciousness, the concept of existence only arises when consciousness arises due to the aggregation of cells. In retrospect nothing existed, and when you arose, you fabricated existence.

In fact, the concept of duality means you can "exist" in a virtual world, or a "real" world, and there would be no difference.

We are different than a herd of sheep. Each level of existence has its place in creation.

Technically, we are not. We just have more activities, which we repeat over and over again, in various permutations - as do sheep.

Most Awesome Raithere Dude,

Again, I Thank You for your discussion!

According to the site you gave me, “The Casimir effect is caused by the fact that space is filled with vacuum fluctuations, virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that continually form out of nothing and then vanish back into nothing an instant later.” From my ignorance (and I emphasize that) of the subject I would still have to make some very basic conclusions.

1. “The Casimir effect is caused…” Still looks a lot like cause and effect at work not something from absolute nothingness. What you apparently are calling nothing I would have to call something. That Something is as stated above “space is filled with vacuum fluctuations, virtual particle-antiparticle pairs”. That is something not nothing. Can you tell me what causes the cause of this effect?

2. The net result of the Casimir effect appears to be nothing, they “form out of nothing and then vanish back into nothing an instant later.”. How does this account for the formation of anything eternal or anything else for that matter? Something that self anialates in an instant is really the same as nothing happening or being created at all. What lasting outcome is there? How do we get to a physical universe from here? How does this help explain anything about the existance of this material universe?

3. You seem to be a little free with your use of the word “Absolutely…” , as if there is no alternative or possibility of error. I am sure you do not really intend that, but there it is, just thought I’d mention it.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration!

Hi 1 dude,

It is not really the singularity that is the causality. Even that is caused. Vacuum fluctuations are also manifestations. It is the absolute, that is the cause, or rather the mind that has imagined us, and the virtual quanta. It doesn't exist, yet it does, it's complex, beyond anyones comprehension.

Have you ever thought about the beginning?
yes,I came to conclusion that there wasnt any.BB is just a part of endles changes the universe is going thru.

I mean, what was really here first, at the beginning of time? There are two simple possibilities. The first theory is that in the beginning there was Nothing. Absolutely Nothing. The second theory says that in the beginning there was Something. You and I know that only one of these theories can be correct, but which one is it? Which one is true?
since you cant make something out of nothing,I guess there must have always been something.

Something outside the material universe must be eternal or else you and I don’t really exist.
not really
,you know you exist,the universe exists,and it had no begining and no end.
at least that theory makes the most sense imo.

I dont remember my early childhood, does that mean that I wasn't aware or dint exist? As I grew older I became more aware of my environment. Does that mean awareness is gained by knowledge or by hormonal changes that makes one more aware? As I recall after puberty I was more aware of my environment then any other time. If we assume that it takes knowledge to become aware does that mean that the more we know the more aware we are? Or is it a combination of brain development and knowledge that makes one more aware?

Does that mean that a person who knows more is more aware then another that knows less? Are there different levels of awareness that limits us as to how much we can know? I'm sure that awareness and existance are interactive, the more we are aware of, the more we think we exist.

“The Casimir effect is caused…” Still looks a lot like cause and effect at work not something from absolute nothingness. What you apparently are calling nothing I would have to call something. That Something is as stated above “space is filled with vacuum fluctuations, virtual particle-antiparticle pairs”. That is something not nothing. Can you tell me what causes the cause of this effect? It depends upon what you mean by nothing. If by nothing you mean no particles, no matter or energy in the form of even electrons or photons, then you may consider the virtual particles to come from nothing. But what we seem to have found is that there isn’t really such a thing as empty space. Instead there is energy (called ‘vacuum energy’ or ‘zero point energy’ ZPE) just waiting to become something. I’m not even sure the term ‘energy’ really fits because it’s not really existent until it becomes something.

(If someone has a better handle on this please correct me.)

The net result of the Casimir effect appears to be nothing, they “form out of nothing and then vanish back into nothing an instant later.”. This is why I love this forum and people like you. This is an excellent question that forces me to learn more. I’ve been trying to clarify where the consensus lies on this matter which is why it’s taken me so long to reply. So far I haven’t been able to come up with a clear answer but here are my thoughts:

Since the Casimir Effect is detectable there must be a net loss of energy somewhere. Two particles are created out of ZPE, they exert a force upon something and then collide annihilating each other. So does that mean there is a net loss in the ZPE? Is the ZPE energy infinite or will it run out at some point? Could this cause a net gain in the total energy in the Universe (and maybe the cause of the acceleration in the rate of expansion of the Universe) or do other pairs gain energy during their brief lives returning to ZPE with more energy than they had to start?

Clearly I’m going to have to study ZPE further.

How does this account for the formation of anything eternal or anything else for that matter?Well, one theory is that the entire Universe could have been caused by such a background fluctuation. Aside from the issue of energy I refer to above the idea is that the Universe as a whole has a zero sum of energy. That is, when matter and energy are summed against the negative effect of gravity it balances out. This would allow for it to simply occur spontaneously from a background fluctuation and as strange as it sounds this is compatible with the known laws of physics.

You seem to be a little free with your use of the word “Absolutely…” , as if there is no alternative or possibility of error. I am sure you do not really intend that, but there it is, just thought I’d mention it.Well, I’m familiar with the concept and experiment and know that a high energy input is not required in the formation of virtual particles.

But I do need to explain myself every so often particularly to people who are new here like you. I tend to come off much more assured and aggressive in my writing than I actually am. This is deliberate. I’ve found that sounding meek, unsure, or reasonable is a wonderful way to be ignored in forums like this. I’m here to discuss ideas and get feedback on my thoughts not to just wank-off into the ether. I tend to assert my positions quite strongly and come off a bit egotistical because people react strongly in reply. I try not to get carried away with it because I’m not really looking for an emotional response but unless you make people a little uncomfortable they tend to ignore what you’re saying or at least refrain from really critiquing your posts. So on a personal level, I apologize if I sometime come off sounding like an arrogant ass but please have a go at my ideas there’s nothing I like better that a intelligently thorough rebuttal.

~Raithere

the original problem, of nothing being in the box, or being able to enter the box is flawed. It doesnt acount for time travel. If a being from the year 3000 goes back to the dawn of time, into the box and starts some variety of life there, then there will be life inside the box.
i know there is the argument that nothing was there in the first place, but with time travel, no-one can understand it, so time travel is a possible answer.

Although this discussion is way out of my practical knowledge radar, I'd like to throw a theoretical coin in the wishing well...

Well, one theory is that the entire Universe could have been caused by such a background fluctuation. Aside from the issue of energy I refer to above the idea is that the Universe as a whole has a zero sum of energy. That is, when matter and energy are summed against the negative effect of gravity it balances out. This would allow for it to simply occur spontaneously from a background fluctuation and as strange as it sounds this is compatible with the known laws of physics.
Since we really know very little of how the universe is constructed (although we know a bit of what it is constructed with), it's fair to say that what we call "universe" is really just the presence of information. "Nothing" would be the absence of any information, and I think that's what most people mean with "before the beginning". My point is that if there was anything that could fluctuate, even if just in the background, a "-verse" already existed. Even if we let "nothing"=static ZPE, then there is no precedent for it to fluctuate a universe of this magnitude in and out of existence. It needs some kind of equation (=information) to describe its state.

"I think , therefore I am."

Well, matter is matter, and it doesnt necessary need to think or be conscious to actually exist.

We dont create existence, we just discover it after born.

Most Awesome Raithere Dude,

What do You think about this gentleman's thought? This seams to make sense to me. If the universe is eternal then it basically would have burned up an eternity ago. There would be no light or usable energy now. Again, I am still learning about such things.

Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics Prove the Existence of God?

- by John M. Cimbala
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
The Pennsylvania State University

In this short article, I summarize my ideas about the second law of thermodynamics, and why I believe it points to a creator God.

A formal definition of the second law of thermodynamics is "In any closed system, a process proceeds in a direction such that the unavailable energy (the entropy) increases." In other words, in any closed system, the amount of disorder always increases with time. Things progress naturally from order to disorder, or from an available energy state to one where energy is more unavailable. A good example: a hot cup of coffee cools off in an insulated room. The total amount energy in the room remains the same (which satisfies the first law of thermodynamics). Energy is not lost, it is simply transferred (in the form of heat) from the hot coffee to the cool air, warming up the air slightly. When the coffee is hot, there is available energy because of the temperature difference between the coffee and the air. As the coffee cools down, the available energy is slowly turned to unavailable energy. At last, when the coffee is room temperature, there is no temperature difference between the coffee and the air, i.e. the energy is all in an unavailable state. The closed system (consisting of the room and the coffee) has suffered what is technically called a "heat death." The system is "dead" because no further work can be done since there is no more available energy. The second law says that the reverse cannot happen! Room temperature coffee will not get hot all by itself, because this would require turning unavailable energy into available energy.

Now consider the entire universe as one giant closed system. Stars are hot, just like the cup of coffee, and are cooling down, losing energy into space. The hot stars in cooler space represent a state of available energy, just like the hot coffee in the room. However, the second law of thermodynamics requires that this available energy is constantly changing to unavailable energy. In another analogy, the entire universe is winding down like a giant wind-up clock, ticking down and losing available energy. Since energy is continually changing from available to unavailable energy, someone had to give it available energy in the beginning! (I.e. someone had to wind up the clock of the universe at the beginning.) Who or what could have produced energy in an available state in the first place? Only someone or something not bound by the second law of thermodynamics. Only the creator of the second law of thermodynamics could violate the second law of thermodynamics, and create energy in a state of availability in the first place.

As time goes forward (assuming things continue as they are), the available energy in the universe will eventually turn into unavailable energy. At this point, the universe will be said to have suffered a heat death, just like the coffee in the room. The present universe, as we know it, cannot last forever. Furthermore, imagine going backwards in time. Since the energy of the universe is constantly changing from a state of availability to one of less availability, the further back in time one goes, the more available the energy of the universe. Using the clock analogy again, the further back in time, the more wound up the clock. Far enough back in time, the clock was completely wound up. The universe therefore cannot be infinitely old. One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics.

It is not really the singularity that is the causality. Even that is caused. Vacuum fluctuations are also manifestations. It is the absolute, that is the cause, or rather the mind that has imagined us, and the virtual quanta. It doesn't exist, yet it does, it's complex, beyond anyones comprehension.

You actually kinda make sense to me! Thanks for adding your input!

Since we really know very little of how the universe is constructed (although we know a bit of what it is constructed with), it's fair to say that what we call "universe" is really just the presence of information.I'm not quite sure how to interpret 'how the universe constructed' as opposed to 'what it is constructed with' in context. I tend to think of the primary laws of physics as depictive of the Universe's 'construction' in terms of functional mechanisms but certainly there is much left unknown.

I also have a bit of a problem with 'information' as well (I find it problematic in the definition of DNA too). While in a particular sense we can regard existence as data or information there is a qualitative difference between 'existence' and 'information'. Particularly that information has no active principle.

"Nothing" would be the absence of any information, and I think that's what most people mean with "before the beginning". My point is that if there was anything that could fluctuate, even if just in the background, a "-verse" already existed. Even if we let "nothing"=static ZPE, then there is no precedent for it to fluctuate a universe of this magnitude in and out of existence. It needs some kind of equation (=information) to describe its state.I follow you but the problem is that this would leave no room for God or anything else. At some point in reduction we're faced with either an eternal 'something' or spontaneous existence from nothing.

~Raithere

What do You think about this gentleman's thought? This seams to make sense to me. If the universe is eternal then it basically would have burned up an eternity ago. There would be no light or usable energy now. Again, I am still learning about such things.It is an interesting argument but it falls short of necessitating God. There are a number of other possibilities:

1. Spontaneous existence. In which the Universe is of a finite age and it will either continue to expand until there is no more usable energy left or it will at some point contract again. If it contracts energy will once again become available. Perhaps the Universe will condense again to a point and explode in another Big Bang, over and over.

2. A Universe of infinite space. Our popular perception of the Universe as an expanding sphere may simply be incorrect. The Universe could be infinite in size and the observable 'universe' is merely an explosion of matter within this infinity (perhaps one of an infinite number of 'universes'). All kind of strange things could happen with an infinite Universe because the second law of thermodynamics would really only be a local phenomena in such a Universe.

3. Our Universe exists within some undefined meta-Universe (Metaverse). The conditions of this Metaverse allow for the occurrence of universes.

4. The Universe does not have a temporal 'edge'. The theory here (ref. Hawking and Brane theory) as well as I understand it is that time, as well as causation, is wrapped up in a singular Universe. In this case the concept of 'what happened before the Universe' have no context, time actually an effect of entropy. Hawking also postulated the 5d Brane 'collisions' that cause the expansion of our 3d universe might occur periodically resulting in periodic 'Big Bangs' within an ever expanding Universe.

The sum of it is that while the entropy argument is a consideration it is definitely not the last word.

~Raithere

1. Spontaneous existence. In which the Universe is of a finite age and it will either continue to expand until there is no more usable energy left or it will at some point contract again. If it contracts energy will once again become available. Perhaps the Universe will condense again to a point and explode in another Big Bang, over and over.


Coolest Raithere,

I thought I read that the calculated mass of the universe indicated that the universe is incapable of contracting back on itself again. There is apparently not enough mass existing in the universe to counter the momentum of the planitary bodies as they spread ever farther away from each other. There does not seam to be enough gravity or anything else to do this. Also, for what it's worth, the cycling universe theory, expanding and contracting forever and ever without end, has always reminded me of the perpetual motion machine problem. How is it not the same thing? Are perpetual motion machines now possible after all?

Thank You!

I thought I read that the calculated mass of the universe indicated that the universe is incapable of contracting back on itself again. There is apparently not enough mass existing in the universe to counter the momentum of the planitary bodies as they spread ever farther away from each other. There does not seam to be enough gravity or anything else to do this.The jury is still out on this one. You’re right in that there is not enough quite enough visible matter in the Universe to pull it back again. The problem is that there is not enough visible matter to keep the galaxies from flying apart, yet they remain which indicates that there’s something there that we cannot see. Thus ‘dark matter’ has been hypothesized formed of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) which are predicted by Super Symmetry theory and would help to explain the galaxies (there are some other theories as well that I’m less familiar with). It might also indicate that there is enough matter to collapse the Universe.

However, there is a new twist in the plot. Not only is the Universe expanding but the expansion seems to be accelerating, which brings up all sorts of new questions.

Also, for what it's worth, the cycling universe theory, expanding and contracting forever and ever without end, has always reminded me of the perpetual motion machine problem. How is it not the same thing? Are perpetual motion machines now possible after all?Don’t forget that we’re supposed to be dealing with a closed system in this scenario. Entropy does not state that energy disappears; only that it diffuses out till it reaches the lowest possible level. No energy can be lost as the Universe expands and contracts and expands again because there is no place else for the energy to go.

~Raithere

Yo,

Are we the dream, or are we the dreamer?

Allcare.

Most Awesome Coolest Raithere,

Thanks again for your interesting input! What then could possibly account for an accelerating universe? That blows my mind just a bit. Is this really something that has actually been observed in the universe?

Most Cool Raithere Dude,

Please let me take a minute and revise and greatly simplify my original statement for your consideration.

Definition:
Absolute Nothingness is the complete absence of the existence of all things whether in the form of matter, energy, space, or anything else known or unknown. It is the total absence of existence.

Revised Hypothesis:

No real and actual thing can come from Absolute Nothingness for it has no existence, no energy, no matter, no space, or anything else known or unknown from which to create it. No real and actual thing can really and actually “spontaneously generate” or create itself from Absolute Nothingness. To do this it would have to either pre-exist itself or be created by something else. If it pre-exists itself then “it” actually exists and we do not have Absolute Nothingness. If something else created it then that “something else” actually exists and we do not have Absolute Nothingness. If a first cause of any kind exists then that “first cause” actually exists and again we do not have Absolute Nothingness. If there are fluctuations of space or energy, or the pre-existence of particles, or the pre-existence of anything of any kind whatsoever then it is not Absolute Nothingness.

Now, if Absolute Nothingness ever existed, then there would be Absolute Nothingness right now. For Something cannot come from Absolute Nothingness. However, Something does exist. In fact You exist. Therefore, the very fact that You exist is proof that Absolute Nothingness never existed. Now, if Absolute Nothingness never existed, then Something has always existed, and could never have not been. Something is eternal.

What Do You Think?

Do You Really Exist?
No.
Which of us does that make psychotic?

Honestly, I quickly read through the first post and thought it was pretty thorough, well thought out and impressive.
I look forward to giving it real time and attention and replying to it.

Thanks again for your interesting input! What then could possibly account for an accelerating universe? That blows my mind just a bit. Is this really something that has actually been observed in the universe?It's based upon some educated hypotheses, but yes:

"Ever since two teams of astronomers announced in 1998 that the expansion of the universe appeared to accelerating with time, other teams of astronomers have been double-checking their conclusions with data from other sources. Although some astronomers still have doubts about the accelerating universe, evidence in its favour continues to grow. The latest comes from studies of the deviation of galaxy velocities from a smooth universal expansion (I Zehavi and A Dekel 1999 Nature 401 252)."

http://physicsweb.org/article/news/3/9/6/1

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/accelerating.html

Please let me take a minute and revise and greatly simplify my original statement for your consideration.The sign of an open mind and true intelligence. I hope I don't sound patronizing it's just a fairly rare occurrence to find someone who really wants to explore.

What Do You Think?I think it's great. There's only one additional consideration I can think of. We don't really know the extent of the principle of causation. That is, is there some state where the rules just simply don't apply and phenomena can just occur spontaneously, without cause? And could absolute nothingness be such a state (primal chaos?)? In support, Hawking tied causality and time to entropy which would indicate that causality is dependent upon existence. The question of what caused the Universe winds up making no sense, there is no 'before' to consider.

Hawking:
http://webhome.idirect.com/~cronos/rycanada/enpsyche/hawkover.html

"The Day Time Began"
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/daybegan.html

~Raithere

If you stress about questions which have NO possible answer at all then you're gonna live a miserable life. Better you stress over questions with a million answers, coz then you can have a fight over which is the best. At least thats fun ;)

But then, you seldom know in advance which questions have no possible answer at all, do you?

No.
Which of us does that make psychotic?

I hope you do exist!

Honestly, I quickly read through the first post and thought it was pretty thorough, well thought out and impressive.
I look forward to giving it real time and attention and replying to it.
I am looking forward to your reply!

Most Cool Raithere Dude,

There's only one additional consideration I can think of.

Can you rewrite this thing so it accounts for every consideration you are aware of?

Q25,


since you cant make something out of nothing,I guess there must have always been something.

ANS: There is a problem with this line of thought. You are making absolute statements and claim things as fact when you should be a bit more flexiable and simply state we do not know how something could come from nothing.

My personal view is N------------->(+s)+(-s) where "N" is "Nothingness" described as absence of time-space. " +/- s " are equal but opposite "Somethings". This expression would mean that we exist as a birufcation of "Nothing" and mathematically it violates no known physics. Do we understand how it works, no, at least not yet.

Is this far fetched. Hardly. Edward P. Tryon,, Professor of Physics of the City University of New York, calculated that the net balance of energy in the observable universe is ZERO.

That would mean we exist as a bifurcation of "Nothing", so why would it be unreasonable to conclude that we came into existance from "Nothing"?

not really, you know you exist,the universe exists,and it had no begining and no end. at least that theory makes the most sense imo.

ANS: Same problem here. To claim the universe (or anything) has always existed (being eternal) and had no begining is in my opinion flawed logic that feels good since it on the surface removes the question (BUT DOES NOT ANSWER IT).

To be eternal and have no beginning means it must have had an infinite duration. Time while not physical in the sense that one can touch it, is broken down into "Time Intervals". We count such intervals and say there are 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour, etc. That leads us to days, years, centuries, etc.

But to reach eternal we must accumulate an infinite quantity of any time interval. Nothing counted can be or become infinite. To hold the status of being infinite requires by definition it has existed longer than any finite number of time intervals. That is it must have existed longer than time itself. That is to claim something physical must become larger than itself, which is ludricrus.

Not to mention that two minutes of actual thought takes away that comfort of claiming "No Begining". Please explain how somethings exists if it "Never" came into existance" i.e. - had no begining?

Statements like "Energy cannot be created not destroyed" are simply to arrogant. They over reach our knowledge and try to make laws out of mere ideas. This one based on our "lack of knowledge", not knowledge itself.

Spontaneous existence. In which the Universe is of a finite age and it will either continue to expand until there is no more usable energy left or it will at some point contract again. If it contracts energy will once again become available. Perhaps the Universe will condense again to a point and explode in another Big Bang, over and over.

I'm curious Raithere why the universal cycle is always described as a sinosoidal? Why cant the universal cycle be one of many pulses such as a variety of square waves or a variety of sawtooth ramps with slow rise times and fast discharge times?

That would mean we exist as a bifurcation of "Nothing", so why would it be unreasonable to conclude that we came into existance from "Nothing"?Since you’re being a bit picky, I’ll return the favor… ;) “That might mean we exist as a bifurcation of “Nothing”. You’re still assuming properties for ‘Nothing’. Why only a bifurcation, for instance, why not an infinite number?

We also need to further analyze what you mean be nothing. The +s/-s zero sum hypothesis you present seems related to virtual particles and ZPE but theoretically these phenomena require space/time, which is ‘something’ not nothing.

But to reach eternal we must accumulate an infinite quantity of any time interval. Nothing counted can be or become infinite. Where did you get this idea from?


To hold the status of being infinite requires by definition it has existed longer than any finite number of time intervals. That is it must have existed longer than time itself. That is to claim something physical must become larger than itself, which is ludricrus.If time is infinite, that is the Universe has been around for an infinite amount of time, then it is larger than any sum of finite amounts.

Not to mention that two minutes of actual thought takes away that comfort of claiming "No Begining". Please explain how somethings exists if it "Never" came into existance" i.e. - had no begining?You’ve already dropped the notion of causality in regards to something from nothing, why hold on to it now? But as to some of the theorizing in the above posts it has been proposed that time does not have a definable edge, that the terms ‘before’, ‘after’, ‘beginning’, and ‘end’ are as meaningless as the question, “What is North of the North Pole?”

Statements like "Energy cannot be created not destroyed" are simply to arrogant. They over reach our knowledge and try to make laws out of mere ideas. This one based on our "lack of knowledge", not knowledge itself.We already addressed the notion that it may be incorrect. But it is just as reasonable to assume it is true as it is to assume it is false. In fact, I would tend to weigh the positive assumption as more reasonable since we have at least some supporting evidence. I would definitely say that it’s more that a ‘mere idea’. It may be incorrect but we have discovered nothing to indicate that so far.

~Raithere

I'm curious Raithere why the universal cycle is always described as a sinosoidal? Why cant the universal cycle be one of many pulses such as a variety of square waves or a variety of sawtooth ramps with slow rise times and fast discharge times?I think that’s just the common perception of it because it’s easy to conceive. I believe it was Hawking that proposed that the ‘Big Bang’ might have occurred everywhere rather than being an explosion of the kind we’re familiar with. Technically, if we keep in mind that energy is quantized it must take on some sort of digital or stepped curve rather than an analogue form.

But I imagine that the overall form of the periodic cycle (if there is one) is largely dependent upon the physics of the Universe we are describing. I don’t think ours really comes out sinusoidal. At the very beginning there was a sharp increase in size and it then quickly flattened out, or perhaps not depending upon how great the continued acceleration is… perhaps it’s simply spiking off towards infinity at an ever increasing rate.

~Raithere

Raithere,

Since you’re being a bit picky, I’ll return the favor… “That might mean we exist as a bifurcation of “Nothing”. You’re still assuming properties for ‘Nothing’.

ANS: I don't see where you say it is being picky. One either came into existance or has always existed. I can't imagine the latter.

Why only a bifurcation, for instance, why not an infinite number?

ANS: I agree, infact I originally formulated the expression as N--->(+1)+(-1). But in other discussions your point came up "Why not (+5)+(-5), etc. that is why it is now (+s)+(-s) in that each "Something" can be any number of somethings as long as they balance in the end.

We also need to further analyze what you mean be nothing. The +s/-s zero sum hypothesis you present seems related to virtual particles and ZPE but theoretically these phenomena require space/time, which is ‘something’ not nothing.

ANS: I gave the definition for nothing as "Absence of Time-Space". That may not be correct but then it is up to others to improve upon the definition. I agree "matter and anti-matter" are not +/- components, ZPE or virtual particles are such material. They are both (+).

[b]Posted by MacM: But to reach eternal we must accumulate an infinite quantity of any time intervals. Nothing counted can be or become infinite.

Posted by Raithere: Where did you get this idea from?"

[color=red]ANS: Better yet give us an example where "Infinitity" has a quantitative number. Or do you disagree with the definition of infinity as being larger than any finite number.?

If time is infinite, that is the Universe has been around for an infinite amount of time, then it is larger than any sum of finite amounts.

ANS: Precisely. What that translates to is it has existed in time for longer than there has been time, since it requires an infinite number of time intervals to be eternal. Something cannot exist for longer than it has existed. Infinity isn't defined as being larger than any number we have ever written. It is defined as larger than any possible finite number. Infinity therefore is prohibited from being applied to any physical reality. It is merely a mathematical tool - a concept.

You’ve already dropped the notion of causality in regards to something from nothing, why hold on to it now? But as to some of the theorizing in the above posts it has been proposed that time does not have a definable edge, that the terms ‘before’, ‘after’, ‘beginning’, and ‘end’ are as meaningless as the question, “What is North of the North Pole?”

ANS: I don't accept that but it doesn't matter. If time is an undefinable enity then so is eternity and we are no longer dealing with physical realities but philosphy.

We already addressed the notion that it may be incorrect. But it is just as reasonable to assume it is true as it is to assume it is false. In fact, I would tend to weigh the positive assumption as more reasonable since we have at least some supporting evidence. I would definitely say that it’s more that a ‘mere idea’. It may be incorrect but we have discovered nothing to indicate that so far.

ANS: I suggest the issue being discussed is very strong evidence that it is wrong and it is bolstered by mathematical evidence both in my formulation and the calculations of Professor Tryon.

http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/chapter5.html

ANS: I don't see where you say it is being picky.Only in that we were speaking in rather general terms about various hypothesis not really committing to absolutes. Don't worry about it.

One either came into existance or has always existed. I can't imagine the latter.Dualities are notoriously fragile and typically dependant upon presupposition and categorical error, I don't usually trust them. Taking into account certain aspects of quantum indeterminacy I think you'd be hard pressed to make such an assertion. An electron does not exist in the same state as we think of a rock or a person as existing.

that is why it is now (+s)+(-s) in that each "Something" can be any number of somethings as long as they balance in the end.
...
I agree "matter and anti-matter" are not +/- components, ZPE or virtual particles are such material. They are both (+).But we don't know if they balance in the end, which was the point of addressing several different hypotheses. What would be your definition of -s though? What is anti-existence and where is it?

ANS: Better yet give us an example where "Infinitity" has a quantitative number. Or do you disagree with the definition of infinity as being larger than any finite number.?It's not just larger, it's unbound.

ANS: Precisely. What that translates to is it has existed in time for longer than there has been time, since it requires an infinite number of time intervals to be eternal. Something cannot exist for longer than it has existed.How do you know how long time has been around? This requires that that ST began with the "Big Bang" but this assumption is not included in all of the hypotheses we are dealing with. An alternative is that ST did not begin at all, that it is indeed infinite. The "Big Bang" is then only the occurrence of energy within an eternal ST.

Infinity therefore is prohibited from being applied to any physical reality.Unfortunately, you cannot escape infinity that easily. Your rule is arbitrary as far as I can tell.

ANS: I don't accept that but it doesn't matter. If time is an undefinable enity then so is eternity and we are no longer dealing with physical realities but philosphy.Ah, but that's the fun of cosmology; physics and philosophy collide, it's unavoidable. From what we do know we can form various hypotheses that have far reaching philosophical ramifications. Indeed we are forced into philosophical arguments and conclusions before we can even attempt to conceive what it is we're dealing with.

What does quantum uncertainty tell you about epistemology? Do you prefer the carrier wave theory that tells us that time is illusory and the Universe is a unified object or do you prefer the Copenhagen interpretation that states that nothing actually exists until it is observed? If the latter how do you get around the obvious paradox that the observer must exist before he can exist?

ANS: I suggest the issue being discussed is very strong evidence that it is wrong and it is bolstered by mathematical evidence both in my formulation and the calculations of Professor Tryon. The theory presupposes the existence of the laws of conservation and the fundamental forces, as 1Dude said this is not absolute nothingness. Further, Tryon's values are questionable. There is now evidence that the Universe contains more mass than originally supposed and there is also evidence that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. These have drastic consequences for the zero sum theory.

~Raithere

Can you rewrite this thing so it accounts for every consideration you are aware of?I thought about this for a while but no, not really. You did an excellent job of summarizing what I wanted you to consider but it's still based upon some very fundamental assumptions and the thing is we just don't know. To pull it back to your topic heading, can we really define what existence is? The closer we look the more uncertain it seems to be.

~Raithere

Raithere,

But we don't know if they balance in the end, which was the point of addressing several different hypotheses. What would be your definition of -s though? What is anti-existence and where is it?

ANS: True we don't know they balance in the end but we do know they appear to balance withing the observable univefrse. So it is a matter of guilty until proven innocent. Until it is shown otherwise we can only rely upon what is observable. It isn't a matter of existance and anti-existence. It is a matter of +'s and -'s in existance vs "Nothingness".

It's not just larger, it's unbound.

ANS: "Unbound" it is. But being unbound makes it larger than any bound (finite) number. Your answer is a dodge, not an answer.

How do you know how long time has been around? This requires that that ST began with the "Big Bang" but this assumption is not included in all of the hypotheses we are dealing with. An alternative is that ST did not begin at all, that it is indeed infinite. The "Big Bang" is then only the occurrence of energy within an eternal ST.

ANS: I don't agree but perhaps that is a matter of choice. You put the issue beyond science and make it philosophical. Science cannot resolve philospohy but it can suggest flaw is such thought and science would suggest that TS are physical and hence must conform to scientific principles\

Unfortunately, you cannot escape infinity that easily. Your rule is arbitrary as far as I can tell.

ANS: Unfortunately it is not my rule. It is a simple established fact. Infinity is relagated to mathematics and not physical realities. This is easy. I suggest you give us an example of something being larger than itself.

Ah, but that's the fun of cosmology; physics and philosophy collide, it's unavoidable. From what we do know we can form various hypotheses that have far reaching philosophical ramifications. Indeed we are forced into philosophical arguments and conclusions before we can even attempt to conceive what it is we're dealing with.

ANS: I am inclined to view philosophy as being thoughts before science. There may be issues that science hasn'tresolved but scientific principles and logic may still be applied to them. Declaring time and existance as eternal is just such a case.

What does quantum uncertainty tell you about epistemology? Do you prefer the carrier wave theory that tells us that time is illusory and the Universe is a unified object or do you prefer the Copenhagen interpretation that states that nothing actually exists until it is observed? If the latter how do you get around the obvious paradox that the observer must exist before he can exist?

The latter sounds more like it belongs in philosophy as in the age old question "If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there does it make noise". I don't find anything of value is such question.

The theory presupposes the existence of the laws of conservation and the fundamental forces, as 1Dude said this is not absolute nothingness. Further, Tryon's values are questionable. There is now evidence that the Universe contains more mass than originally supposed and there is also evidence that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. These have drastic consequences for the zero sum theory.

ANS: No consequence for "Net Zero" what-so-ever the ongoing creation remains balanced. The creation is N---->(+s)+(-s).

True we don't know they balance in the end but we do know they appear to balance withing the observable univefrse. So it is a matter of guilty until proven innocent. Until it is shown otherwise we can only rely upon what is observable."One of the most surprising recent results from observational cosmology is the evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. If gravity were the only force acting to alter the expansion rate, then the universe would be expected to be decelerating or, in the extreme case of a universe with essentially zero mass, expanding at a constant rate. Acceleration implies that the cosmological constant postulated and then discarded by Einstein is in fact not zero."
http://www.physicstoday.com/pt/vol-53/iss-12/p68.html

It isn't a matter of existance and anti-existence. It is a matter of +'s and -'s in existance vs "Nothingness".Why are you avoiding an explanation? If -s is not antimatter and -s is not anti-existence what is -s? Whatever it is you are arguing here it's not Tyron's theory, which was the formation of the Universe from a vacuum fluctuation (matter/antimatter) in preexisting empty space. Even that has largely been given up for the "No Boundary" or "Quantum Tunneling" hypotheses.

"Unbound" it is. But being unbound makes it larger than any bound (finite) number. Your answer is a dodge, not an answer.It's not a dodge, it's a clarification. Just saying it's larger doesn't suffice, for any number there exists a larger number. Infinity is altogether different it's not just larger it's unbound.

I don't agree but perhaps that is a matter of choice. You put the issue beyond science and make it philosophical.You're welcome to disagree but it doesn't change the fact that you're already discussing philosophy. You're speculating upon the nature of nothing. Unless you have an empirical measurement of nothingness you'd like to share you're in the realm of philosophy.

Unfortunately it is not my rule. It is a simple established fact. Infinity is relagated to mathematics and not physical realities. This is easy. I suggest you give us an example of something being larger than itself.Where did you get this definition of infinity as something that's larger than itself? That's not what it means.

I am inclined to view philosophy as being thoughts before science. There may be issues that science hasn'tresolved but scientific principles and logic may still be applied to them. Declaring time and existance as eternal is just such a case. Then you'll need to leave all cosmological hypotheses aside until we are able to verify the origin of the Universe empirically. You can't arbitrarily state that one is valid and another isn't.

The latter sounds more like it belongs in philosophy as in the age old questionDon't worry about the latter question, worry about the former one. You cannot escape the philosophical nature of these problems.

No consequence for "Net Zero" what-so-ever the ongoing creation remains balanced. The creation is N---->(+s)+(-s).Again, I must request that you define -s. At this point I have no idea what you are talking about.

~Raithere

Raithere,

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacM
True we don't know they balance in the end but we do know they appear to balance withing the observable univefrse. So it is a matter of guilty until proven innocent. Until it is shown otherwise we can only rely upon what is observable.

"One of the most surprising recent results from observational cosmology is the evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. If gravity were the only force acting to alter the expansion rate, then the universe would be expected to be decelerating or, in the extreme case of a universe with essentially zero mass, expanding at a constant rate. Acceleration implies that the cosmological constant postulated and then discarded by Einstein is in fact not zero."
http://www.physicstoday.com/pt/vol-53/iss-12/p68.html

ANS: I'll not discuss it here but it is funny you posted this. I happen to have an explanation for this and the simple fact is the cause of gravity also causes the expansion of the universe. See topic "UniKEF Analysis" under the Math and Physics. Page 24, 13 MArch at 10:35AM.
Quote:
It isn't a matter of existance and anti-existence. It is a matter of +'s and -'s in existance vs "Nothingness".

Why are you avoiding an explanation? If -s is not antimatter and -s is not anti-existence what is -s? Whatever it is you are arguing here it's not Tyron's theory, which was the formation of the Universe from a vacuum fluctuation (matter/antimatter) in preexisting empty space. Even that has largely been given up for the "No Boundary" or "Quantum Tunneling" hypotheses.

ANS: LOL. The following is an extract from the 5th paragraph of the paper I cited about Tryon's "Net Zero Universe" calculation.

Tryon theorized that the total energy of the universe is zero. He said that the positive energy of everything that exists is balanced by negative gravitational energy.

Now just where do you see matter and anti-matter as the basis of Tryons claims? The paper gives a lot greater detail on what is + and what is -. It has nothing to do with matter and anti-matter. You can't just go around making up your own version of somebody else's paper.
Quote:
"Unbound" it is. But being unbound makes it larger than any bound (finite) number. Your answer is a dodge, not an answer.

It's not a dodge, it's a clarification. Just saying it's larger doesn't suffice, for any number there exists a larger number. Infinity is altogether different it's not just larger it's unbound.

ANS: I certainly agree that infinity is also defined as being "Unbound" But that is moot to the issue and definition with respect that it is larger than any finite number. Your claiming that part of definitions of infinity gains you nothing in that respect. Infinity is defined as being larger than any finite number.
Quote:
I don't agree but perhaps that is a matter of choice. You put the issue beyond science and make it philosophical.

You're welcome to disagree but it doesn't change the fact that you're already discussing philosophy. You're speculating upon the nature of nothing. Unless you have an empirical measurement of nothingness you'd like to share you're in the realm of philosophy.

ANS: The issue of "Nothingness" may not be mainstream but Tryon's work is not philopsophy. Your response attempts to avoid answering the point being made. I prefer to meet such issue head on.
Quote:
Unfortunately it is not my rule. It is a simple established fact. Infinity is relagated to mathematics and not physical realities. This is easy. I suggest you give us an example of something being larger than itself.

Where did you get this definition of infinity as something that's larger than itself? That's not what it means.

ANS: Well maybe we should start with this from Mathematics, University of Toronto. I really don't understand why you would attempt to argue anythingelse.

http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/infnotnumber.html

http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/existence.html

Numbers are used to measure and/or count physical things. Therefore nothing physical can be infinite.
Quote:
I am inclined to view philosophy as being thoughts before science. There may be issues that science hasn'tresolved but scientific principles and logic may still be applied to them. Declaring time and existance as eternal is just such a case.

Then you'll need to leave all cosmological hypotheses aside until we are able to verify the origin of the Universe empirically. You can't arbitrarily state that one is valid and another isn't.

ANS: One cannot prove that there is or is not a God but we already know that "Eternity" and "Infinitity" are not physical attributes, that is "Exist" in physical reality. Cosmology may be very nebulus but unless you are prepared to argue against all science which is based on mathematics you must accept that nothing physical can be infinite. Because infinity is larger than any finite number.
Quote:
The latter sounds more like it belongs in philosophy as in the age old question

Don't worry about the latter question, worry about the former one. You cannot escape the philosophical nature of these problems.

ANS: Perhaps some questions like the one I asked above but not this one. The fact that Infinity is merely a mathematical concept and does not exist in physical reality is accepted world wide.
Quote:
No consequence for "Net Zero" what-so-ever the ongoing creation remains balanced. The creation is N---->(+s)+(-s).

Again, I must request that you define -s. At this point I have no idea what you are talking about.

ANS: Sorry you seem to have trouble conceptualizing. I can only suggest you actually read and understand Tryon's paper. Since it is 7 pages I have no intention of repeating it here.

I happen to have an explanation for this and the simple fact is the cause of gravity also causes the expansion of the universe. See topic "UniKEF AnalysisLooks interesting, I'll give it a deeper look when I have more time. How does it relate to the theory that virtual particles are responsible for both gravity and accelerating expansion?

Now just where do you see matter and anti-matter as the basis of Tryons claims? The paper gives a lot greater detail on what is + and what is -. It has nothing to do with matter and anti-matter. You can't just go around making up your own version of somebody else's paper.I wasn't trying to rewrite Tyron, I was trying to understand what you were saying. You could have the whole discussion a lot simpler by simply stating that –s was gravity or, if you have an alternative, whatever is the source of gravity.

I am familiar with several theories of origin deriving from quantum effects, including Tyron’s. Although to be honest, I didn’t recall his name immediately. Tyron's hypothesis was that the Universe originated as a quantum fluctuation, the energy is ‘borrowed’ from ZPE and is balanced by gravity. The thing is that in order to occur as he described this fluctuation would have occurred within preexisting space-time. Such fluctuations create pairs of particles, one matter the other antimatter.

Since Tyron there have been several alternate versions of the original concept which provide for origin from zero state quantum fields but even these presuppose the existence of quantum fields.

" In 1973 physicist Edward Tryon made a startling proposal in a two-page paper titled "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?" (Nature, Vol. 246, pp. 396-97). He suggested that a vacuum fluctuation may have triggered the big bang! As he put it, "Our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time." This implies that space and time existed before the bang. Other physicists have since proposed slightly different ways a quantum fluctuation in a vacuum devoid of space and time could create a runaway universe, though how something could fluctuate without space and time is unclear. Of course our universe could not emerge from absolutely nothing. There would have to be quantum fields to fluctuate, leaving unanswered the ultimate question of where quantum fields and their laws came from, or why there is something rather than nothing."
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2843/n3_v22/20615406/p4/article.jhtml?term=

The issue of "Nothingness" may not be mainstream but Tryon's work is not philopsophy. Your response attempts to avoid answering the point being made. I prefer to meet such issue head on.As I said above, Tyron’s ‘nothing’ is not absolutely nothing. This is getting silly. I'm not attempting to avoid the theory of origin from a quantum fluctuation; I accept it as a possible solution. I did, in fact, refer to quantum fluctuations in my first post in this thread. My point here stands; all cosmological theories of origin presuppose certain conditions or constraints that are not empirically derived. They are logical (read philosophical) premises. If you wish to perceive them as scientific hypotheses, so be it, at this point it’s a matter of semantics; I see no actual difference.

Well maybe we should start with this from Mathematics, University of Toronto. I really don't understand why you would attempt to argue anythingelse.That's funny, but I couldn't find a single reference in either of those articles or in the links from them that I followed any reference to infinity 'being larger than itself', they discuss the 'existence' of infinity "within the context of any number system". Further, if you bothered following the links from the pages you sited you would have come across this:

"1. In the context of a number system, in which "infinity" would mean something one can treat like a number.

In this context, infinity does not exist.

2. In the context of a topological space, in which "infinity" would mean something that certain sequences of numbers converge to.

In this context, infinity does exist.

3. In the context of measureing sizes of sets, in which "infinity" means a measurement of the size of an infinite set.

In this context, such "infinity" concepts do exist but there are more than one of them, since not all infinite sets have the same size. So there does not exist any one single "infinity" concept; instead, there exists a whole collection of things called "infinite cardinal numbers". "
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/infinity.html

Clearly, whether infinity 'exists' even in mathematics is dependent upon the context within which we are considering it.

Finally, mathematics is a formal system, a symbolic language we use to model reality, it is not reality itself. It is also incomplete and therefore contains questions that cannot be resolved within the system.

Numbers are used to measure and/or count physical things. Therefore nothing physical can be infinite.
…
we already know that "Eternity" and "Infinitity" are not physical attributes, that is "Exist" in physical reality.Physical things are not absolutely defined, not on a quantum level. You cannot count an electron or a photon the way you count apples. Its energy level may be quantized but its structure and behavior is not. The interrelationships definitely are not, unless you’d like to take a poke at super symmetry, quantum entanglement, and indeterminacy too.

But we’re not taking purely about things that exist within the Universe we’re talking about the nature of reality itself. We’re considering the boundaries of existence and if there are boundaries at all. It’s okay to presume there are boundaries, but it remains a presumption. And I believe that no matter which route you take you wind up with certain infinites in the equation. For instance, if the Universe collapses we must face the infinites involved in a singularity. Even if we look at origin from a zero state hypothesis we are assuming the preexistence of quantum fields and I believe time as well.

Cosmology may be very nebulus but unless you are prepared to argue against all science which is based on mathematics you must accept that nothing physical can be infinite.Science is not based upon mathematics, science is based upon empirical evidence. Science uses mathematics to model that evidence into a larger explicatory theory.

Because infinity is larger than any finite number.So what?

ANS: Perhaps some questions like the one I asked above but not this one. The fact that Infinity is merely a mathematical concept and does not exist in physical reality is accepted world wide.Really? Why don’t we “Ask an MIT Cosmologist”?

"We don't actually know what the shape of the universe is, but there are three shapes, the Robertson-Walker models, that scientists usually consider to be serious possibilities (though other more complicated shapes such as a doughnut shape are possible). They are:
1. positively curved and finite (curved like a ball and does not go on forever)
2. negatively curved and infinite (curved like a saddle and goes on forever in all directions)
3. flat and infinite (flat like a table and goes on forever in all directions)"

http://arcturus.mit.edu/ask/universe.html#q3
http://arcturus.mit.edu/ask/universe.html

Or perhaps you'd prefer someone more notable... Hawking and Penrose developed the no boundary proposal, in part, to deal with some of the problematic infinities in previous cosmologies:

"We have no reason to believe the universe is asymptotically Euclidean, or anti de Sitter. Even if it were, we are not concerned about measurements at infinity, but in a finite region in the interior. For such measurements, there will be a contribution from metrics that are compact, without boundary. The action of a compact metric is given by integrating the Lagrangian. Thus its contribution to the path integral is well defined. By contrast, the action of a non-compact or singular metric involves a surface term at infinity, or at the singularity. One can add an arbitrary quantity to this surface term. It therefore seems more natural to adopt what Jim Hartle and I called the no boundary proposal. The quantum state of the universe is defined by a Euclidean path integral over compact metrics. In other words, the boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary."

Sorry you seem to have trouble conceptualizing. I can only suggest you actually read and understand Tryon's paper. Since it is 7 pages I have no intention of repeating it here.I’ve no trouble conceptualizing at all, I was just trying to understand what you were saying with your “N-> (+s) + (-s)” hypothesis. I have some problems with your definition of N in the context of Tryon and I’m not sure that the definition of gravity as -s makes sense either but perhaps you have something else in mind. If so, I’ll ask you again to explain what -s is because thus far you haven’t.

~Raithere

Raithere,

quote]Looks interesting, I'll give it a deeper look when I have more time. How does it relate to the theory that virtual particles are responsible for both gravity and accelerating expansion?[/quote]

It is a long thread with a lot of hot air and meaningless objections and name calling. But if you do decide to have a look let me direct you to page 24, 3/13 at 11:27AM where I have posted a series of summary attachments for the gravity concept.

UniKEF is not based on Prof. Tryon's work and isn't about virtual particles but an actual "Nothingness" (being absence of time-space) bifurcating into +/-s. The actual existance of such a field is not yet known but by merely assuming it the entire spectrum of grvity comes into alignment from inverse square, MOND and accelerating expansion of the universe.

That's funny, but I couldn't find a single reference in either of those articles or in the links from them that I followed any reference to infinity 'being larger than itself',

ANS: Those are my words to reduce the fact to somethin less than several pages. The following are titles from those links and from the 2nd link the first few lines.

More Information on Why "Infinity" Does Not Exist in the Context of Any Number System.


What Does "Existence" Mean in Mathematics?

Understanding what existence means in mathematics is the key to understanding what it means for concepts like "infinity" or "imaginary
numbers" to exist--something that puzzles a lot of people when they first encounter these weird ideas!

Mathematical objects do not exist in the same sense that a physical object exists; nobody has ever bumped their elbow on a number, for instance.

Instead, mathematical objects are abstract concepts (often abstracted from a real world situation, by isolating just the part of the situation that is relevant for a particular discussion).

When we ask whether or not a mathematical object exists, we must have in mind an appropriate context: a particular, precisely defined collection of concepts. Then we ask, "among these concepts, is there one which matches the object we are looking for?" If so, we say that the object exists; if not, it doesn't exist.

It would seem impossible to claim that physical objects can exist in an infinite quantity or size since "Infinity" is not within any number system and anything physical can be counted and/or measured. If it were infinite hence it is not physical since it can't be measured, weighed or counted.

we already know that "Eternity" and "Infinitity" are not physical attributes, that is "Exist" in physical reality.

We agree.

Physical things are not absolutely defined, not on a quantum level. You cannot count an electron or a photon the way you count apples. Its energy level may be quantized but its structure and behavior is not. The interrelationships definitely are not, unless you’d like to take a poke at super symmetry, quantum entanglement, and indeterminacy too.

I best not go there it is beyond my area. :D

But we’re not taking purely about things that exist within the Universe we’re talking about the nature of reality itself. We’re considering the boundaries of existence and if there are boundaries at all. It’s okay to presume there are boundaries, but it remains a presumption. And I believe that no matter which route you take you wind up with certain infinites in the equation. For instance, if the Universe collapses we must face the infinites involved in a singularity.

I have no credentials to justify my opinion but I personally do not believe in "Singularities", primarily because they result in infinities. I believe there are natural boundries which such mathematical theories circumvent. That is in all likelyhood the 1E-35 planck length prohibits a singularity.

Even if we look at origin from a zero state hypothesis we are assuming the preexistence of quantum fields and I believe time as well.

I believe time is an illusion of change induced by energy and not a 4th dimension or tangiable enity in-of-itself. That is energy flow creates space (unbound energy) mass is bound energy, the flow of such energy produces gravity (and expansion) as well as the state changes that we mark as an instant in time. If there were no changes then time would cease to exist.

Science is not based upon mathematics, science is based upon empirical evidence. Science uses mathematics to model that evidence into a larger explicatory theory.

That would be ideal, however, my complaint with current sttus of science is that they tend to try and predict or create reality via pure mathematics. To wit "String Theory".

Posted by MacM: Because infinity is larger than any finite number.

Posted by Raithere: So what?

If you agree that infinity is larger than any finite number, then explain how something jphysical canbe or become infinite, since it is measurable. That is has a finite dimension.

Really? Why don’t we “Ask an MIT Cosmologist”?

I should have qualified my statement with a "generally". There are those that would indeed argue for infinity in the physical realm but I am convienced they are mistaken. But that is only my ojpinion.

Or perhaps you'd prefer someone more notable... Hawking and Penrose developed the no boundary proposal, in part, to deal with some of the problematic infinities in previous cosmologies:

Actually from what I've seen most "infinite" universes merely are based on curved space and coming back to where you started,etc., which to me are not infinite at all but are finite loops.

In other words, the boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary."

PERFECT! We are in complete agreement. I have claimed that the universe is finite but has no boundry in the general meaning of the term. I see the universe as having a limit but there is no beyond it consists of no time-space.

I’ve no trouble conceptualizing at all, I was just trying to understand what you were saying with your “N-> (+s) + (-s)” hypothesis. I have some problems with your definition of N in the context of Tryon and I’m not sure that the definition of gravity as -s makes sense either but perhaps you have something else in mind. If so, I’ll ask you again to explain what -s is because thus far you haven’t.

I think we have come much closer to agreement in our overall thinking. I want to emphasize that UniKEF is not based on Tryon and virtual particles. As I have stated both matter and anti-matter are +'s. Mine is slightly different than Tryon in that I define "Nothingness" as the absence of time space. Tryon as you say is working from "Net Zero" and quantum fluctation which involves time-space.

UniKEF is not based on Prof. Tryon's work and isn't about virtual particles but an actual "Nothingness" (being absence of time-space) bifurcating into +/-s. The actual existance of such a field is not yet known but by merely assuming it the entire spectrum of grvity comes into alignment from inverse square, MOND and accelerating expansion of the universe.I'm still not following on what -s is actually supposed to be but the gravity/expansion concept sounds very much like the highly speculative* hypothesis that gravity is pressure caused by the interaction of the 'vacuum field' with matter.

*I'm being kind here, Puthoff seems to be a bit of a crackpot and I haven't been able to find much more on the topic. This doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong but I'm not putting any money on it until I see some real science get behind it.

It would seem impossible to claim that physical objects can exist in an infinite quantity or size since "Infinity" is not within any number system and anything physical can be counted and/or measured. If it were infinite hence it is not physical since it can't be measured, weighed or counted.I would agree that no material object can be infinite... or at least there is no such object within our reality but that does not preclude the Universe itself from being infinite. That's like saying the box can be no bigger than that which is inside of it.

We agree.Those were your words, not mine. We're closer to agreeing but not quite there.

I best not go there it is beyond my area.Well, at some point UniKEF is going to have to deal with it. It is specifically at the quantum level that gravity causes so many problems (particularly if you don't like infinities) and why we get bizarre results like the 11 dimensional space of string theory (essentially an effort to unify gravity with the other forces).

I have no credentials to justify my opinion but I personally do not believe in "Singularities", primarily because they result in infinities. I believe there are natural boundries which such mathematical theories circumvent. That is in all likelyhood the 1E-35 planck length prohibits a singularity.We run into trouble long before we ever get to the scale of a Planck length or a naked singularity. Time, space, and general relativity all break down at the event horizon.

I believe time is an illusion of change induced by energy and not a 4th dimension or tangiable enity in-of-itself. That is energy flow creates space (unbound energy) mass is bound energy, the flow of such energy produces gravity (and expansion) as well as the state changes that we mark as an instant in time. If there were no changes then time would cease to exist.This just seems like another way of looking at General Relativity only Einstein used matter in his description instead of energy.

That would be ideal, however, my complaint with current sttus of science is that they tend to try and predict or create reality via pure mathematics. To wit "String Theory".Those are the theorists and any decent theorist knows that it don't mean jack until the evidence is in. I believe Hawking's statement went something like, "If I could prove it I'd win the Nobel Prize".

If you agree that infinity is larger than any finite number, then explain how something jphysical canbe or become infinite, since it is measurable. That is has a finite dimension.Define physical, because I personally wouldn't term the Universe itself as physical. It contains space, time, matter, energy, and force which are physical but the Universe is that which 'contains' existence.

I should have qualified my statement with a "generally". There are those that would indeed argue for infinity in the physical realm but I am convienced they are mistaken. But that is only my ojpinion.I have no problem with you personally disagreeing or point to others who disagree, but from my reading infinity is still a major player in the areas of physics and cosmology. It can't simply be dismissed.

Actually from what I've seen most "infinite" universes merely are based on curved space and coming back to where you started,etc., which to me are not infinite at all but are finite loops.That would indeed be a finite universe and it is a popular one as per Hawking but it's is certainly not the only serious theory out there.

PERFECT! We are in complete agreement. I have claimed that the universe is finite but has no boundry in the general meaning of the term. I see the universe as having a limit but there is no beyond it consists of no time-space.Well, I don't think Hawking is conclusive but he does do a good job. His take on the matter is that questions regarding before, after, or beyond the Universe are nonsensical, that the Universe is finite but unbound due to uncertainties at the quantum level.

I think we have come much closer to agreement in our overall thinking. I want to emphasize that UniKEF is not based on Tryon and virtual particles. As I have stated both matter and anti-matter are +'s. Mine is slightly different than Tryon in that I define "Nothingness" as the absence of time space.I agree, but I still want to know what -s is. :)

~Raithere

Raithere,

I agree, but I still want to know what -s is.

Yea, me too. :D . I have been around long enough to know that no theory is "THE" answer. There is always something new learned that changes things but it is a matter of continuous upgrade.

However, it does seem to me that a theory that predicts, and mathematically is supported, the entire range of observed gravity from inverse square, MOND regime, and accelerated expansion, as one simple process vs Dark Matter, MOND, and Dark Energy or three regimes being driven by three different hypothetical processes, has to be the superior of theories.

Neither Newton, nor GR yield such all inclusive results. I am not into the quantum area and it will be interesting to see if it will continue to fit. It does infact "Suggest" the Strong Nuclear Force may be just an enhanced form of gravity at the local level due to high spin of the nuclides.

That would be (4) regimes under one concept at least. Or until the next discovery that blows it all out of the water. :o

However, it does seem to me that a theory that predicts, and mathematically is supported, the entire range of observed gravity from inverse square, MOND regime, and accelerated expansion, as one simple process vs Dark Matter, MOND, and Dark Energy or three regimes being driven by three different hypothetical processes, has to be the superior of theories.It's not. At this point we have the fundamental forces (EM, Strong, Weak) which are unified under quantum theory and then we have gravity. Only gravity refuses to merge successfully in 'normal' space without generating some nasty infinities (actually an infinite number of infinities :eek: ). Thus we have the 11 dimensional string theories which attempt to explain quantum gravity. The problem is that no one has been able to prove quantum gravity at this point. Without verification it remains speculative and I have to say the same about UniKEF. It's fine to speculate about unknown forces that resolve various problems but just playing around with the numbers doesn't really mean anything in itself.

~Raithere

Raithere,

Without verification it remains speculative and I have to say the same about UniKEF. It's fine to speculate about unknown forces that resolve various problems but just playing around with the numbers doesn't really mean anything in itself.

I agree, noting however, that Newton and MOND are mere numbers also and DON't cover the three ranges. Where QM has not been successful with gravity, Newton, GR., etc have only been quasi successful.

Newton infact is based on an "assumed" local property of matter. So in that regard I have to say UniKEF Gravity is competitive at least, if not indeed better because it covers the full range.

I agree, noting however, that Newton and MOND are mere numbers also and DON't cover the three ranges. Where QM has not been successful with gravity, Newton, GR., etc have only been quasi successful.I have to question that. Where in any classical frame has GR been only quasi successful?

~Raithere

Raither,

I wasn't attacking GR, just noting that as far as I know it doesn't predict or account for MOND, nor the accelerating expansion of the universe.

I wasn't attacking GR, just noting that as far as I know it doesn't predict or account for MOND, nor the accelerating expansion of the universe.I believe that MOND is beginning to fall into disfavor as evidence of dark matter begins to accrue but you're right in that GR has some limitations. Neither dark matter nor the acceleration actually contradicts GR however, depending upon the cause they might fit quite nicely. Obviously there's more we need to know.

~Raithere

But then, you seldom know in advance which questions have no possible answer at all, do you?
Oh yes I realise that, but when you HAVE heard the question, if it obviously has no answer, eg. "Why do Americans claim apple pie as their own?", well THEN there is no point worrying about it.

Raithere,

First let me clarify that I am not as much anti-Relativity as it might appear at first glance. I do object to many of the conclusions they have reached regarding data and observation. That is there may well be many explanations for some of the attributes of Relativity other than those currently popular.

So the math may work well in general but they are branching off into blind alleys following incorrect conclusions or assumptions about the signifigance of the mathematics.

There are many, many purely mathematical concepts around today. Each seems to have an edge and yet each ultimately conflicts with the other.

This in my estimation is as a consequence of physics stopping it historical practice of trying to develope physical models as well as mathematical models.

The physical models place constraints on the mathematics which currently are not there.

As an example the attachment from a link ( http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0207065 ) provided by Lethe in the Math & Physics Forum shows a variance between 2 Brane theory and GR of an "Order of 16"! Yet both are popular in their respective areas of study.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2727

Most Awesome Raithere Techno Dude,

There is no proof that energy or any other primary force of physics is eternal, in the sense that it had no beginning. We can say that energy exists now and that it changes in form and is never lost in this current material universe of ours. We cannot say for sure that there was or was not ever a time when energy did not exist. How do you know, as a non eternal being, that energy has always existed, without beginning? To know that energy is eternal you would have to be eternal yourself and have been a witness to it for all eternity.

Also, Virtual Particles have a very real and tangible cause. They do not come from nothing as you and others may suggest. They are caused by the very experiment that scientists use to create them. It takes a massive amount of energy, machinery, and intelligence to create them. I would hardly say that, under these circumstances, they come from nothing. As an additional note, they are obviously not eternal either.

Best Wishes! Thanks for the Welcome Dude!

The energy and the nature are eternal,but all other things are not eternal.

Gravage,

The energy and the nature are eternal....

I for one would be very interested in your "proof" of your absolute statements.

Gravage,



I for one would be very interested in your "proof" of your absolute statements.

Let's suppose you have table.You had to do the work to make that table,but the problem is table doesn't have work-however the atomic structure between the atoms have energy,othwise this atomic structure would collapse-that form of energy that holds atoms of table together is called cohesia.However,it is made made of matter and has mass-these are 2 different forms of energy.Therefore the definition of energy is wrong as being the ability to work.
It's like you have a boat that uses waves to move. The water in the waves is what moves the boat. Those waves get smaller and smaller till they don't exist any more and the boat is on a perfectly smooth body of water.
The waves are gone,but the water is still there. The energy is still there, it is just so spread even that there is no way to transfer it from high to low.
We're are all forms of energy,therefore we have beginning and the end.Everything in the universe,including this observable,known universe itself(at least according to the Big Bang theory).If that so,than the entire universe is an form of energy.My thoughts that this universe,if it was created,was the product of biochemical chain reaction.Again,you need energy,for everything to work,move or exist you need energy,but the law of nature says,energy simply transforms from one form into another.If the energy was destroyed,there wouldn't be even nothing(nothing in this context means,that it's without known existence,no existence that we can know of).Nature is eternal,but it depends how you interprete it.To me,natural processes are everywhere and represent everything that exist,that has existed or it will exist in the future,nothing more nothing less.I have to go now.I'll explain it to you next week.

Gravage,

Let's suppose you have table.You had to do the work to make that table,but the problem is table doesn't have work-however the atomic structure between the atoms have energy,othwise this atomic structure would collapse-that form of energy that holds atoms of table together is called cohesia.However,it is made made of matter and has mass-these are 2 different forms of energy.Therefore the definition of energy is wrong as being the ability to work.

Nothing personal but I have mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering. Your presentation not only lacks any proofs but seems to be a series of conjectures based on an actual lack of knowledge on the subject.

Gentlemen, MacM and Raithere

Based on your discussions together so far (which I really appreciate) I would have to conclude one simple thing:

Intelligent men like both of you are who have studied many different theories about the origin and existence of the universe can really and substantially disagree about a great many of them. There appear to be about as many theories about the origin and existence of the universe as there are scientists and people who study their theories. You both know a great deal more about this topic than me. You both appear to me to be very honorable and honest men. With that in mind, I have one honest and simple question for both of you.

When it really gets down to it, is there anything that we can know for sure about this universe? Know without question? If so, what is it? If not, is science = to faith?

1Dude,

When it really gets down to it, is there anything that we can know for sure about this universe? Know without question? If so, what is it? If not, is science = to faith?



1 - I would have to say there is nothing we know with absolute certainty. However, there is a great deal we know within reason or in general.

2 - No science isn't faith. It is based on the best understanding as of any given time but is continuously changing as we learn more. What we believe today is based on physical principles which are observed or tested and for which data and evidence support the conclusions.

Faith is mere faith without any basis (except lack of knowledge) and generally opposes evidence if it disagrees with the preconcieved idea, again without or in disregard of logic and evidence.

Faith is mere faith without any basis (except lack of knowledge) and generally opposes evidence if it disagrees with the preconcieved idea, again without or in disregard of logic and evidence.
Faith is an act of trust based on the examination of available evidence and the choice to accept the conclusions.
There may be many people who blindly stick to what they want to, but that is not faith.
I would have to say that science is a type of faith. We put our trust into it and accept the conclusions we come to.

Gravage,



Nothing personal but I have mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering. Your presentation not only lacks any proofs but seems to be a series of conjectures based on an actual lack of knowledge on the subject.

Than correct me,please,it isn't I who told I only told this from another message board,it was on website:
www.armageddononline.org/forums/

Gravage,



I for one would be very interested in your "proof" of your absolute statements.

Simply,it really depends how do you interprete nature.For me nature is all that has ever existed or not,or that will ever exist or not.Nature=all.
If the universe was created than it means it will have the end,it doesn't matter how will end it.However,if the universe was created it couldn't be without energy,as well as the big bang couldn't be without energy.

Q25,




ANS: There is a problem with this line of thought. You are making absolute statements and claim things as fact when you should be a bit more flexiable and simply state we do not know how something could come from nothing.

My personal view is N------------->(+s)+(-s) where "N" is "Nothingness" described as absence of time-space. " +/- s " are equal but opposite "Somethings". This expression would mean that we exist as a birufcation of "Nothing" and mathematically it violates no known physics. Do we understand how it works, no, at least not yet.

Is this far fetched. Hardly. Edward P. Tryon,, Professor of Physics of the City University of New York, calculated that the net balance of energy in the observable universe is ZERO.

That would mean we exist as a bifurcation of "Nothing", so why would it be unreasonable to conclude that we came into existance from "Nothing"?



ANS: Same problem here. To claim the universe (or anything) has always existed (being eternal) and had no begining is in my opinion flawed logic that feels good since it on the surface removes the question (BUT DOES NOT ANSWER IT).

To be eternal and have no beginning means it must have had an infinite duration. Time while not physical in the sense that one can touch it, is broken down into "Time Intervals". We count such intervals and say there are 60 seconds in a minute and 60 minutes in an hour, etc. That leads us to days, years, centuries, etc.

But to reach eternal we must accumulate an infinite quantity of any time interval. Nothing counted can be or become infinite. To hold the status of being infinite requires by definition it has existed longer than any finite number of time intervals. That is it must have existed longer than time itself. That is to claim something physical must become larger than itself, which is ludricrus.

Not to mention that two minutes of actual thought takes away that comfort of claiming "No Begining". Please explain how somethings exists if it "Never" came into existance" i.e. - had no begining?

Statements like "Energy cannot be created not destroyed" are simply to arrogant. They over reach our knowledge and try to make laws out of mere ideas. This one based on our "lack of knowledge", not knowledge itself.

Yes,but than if there was no energy there wouldn't be anything that would make the universe.

Gravage,

Than correct me,please,it isn't I who told I only told this from another message board,it was on website:
www.armageddononline.org/forums/

Sorry but I really don't know what the above means. I looked at the web site posted but unless you can say what you are referring to, I'm ot going to dig to find it.

Also, I hope you don't believe that everything that is posted on such sites is absolute truth.

Gravage,

Simply,it really depends how do you interprete nature.For me nature is all that has ever existed or not,or that will ever exist or not.Nature=all.

If the universe was created than it means it will have the end,it doesn't matter how will end it.However,if the universe was created it couldn't be without energy,as well as the big bang couldn't be without energy.