Origin of the universe

Aqueous post 118: I disagree that once the object is eternal, it ceases being eternal. I am forced instead to consider the scenario that it never ceases to be eternal, but it also splits off into a second reality in which it is not eternal, but an exploding equivalent of the eternal form, latched onto the arrow of time as disintegrates into the form we call the universe.

Nice thinking . . . . . might overlap into spirituality threads?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's easy: while "A" exists under certain conditions it may be timeless (i.e. time does not pass for that "object"), but something may happen to it to cause it to become time-ful? time-like? time-ish?

But you're doing exactly the same here: claiming, on the one hand that it's "eternal and unchanging" and ALSO claiming that it stops being unchanging when it "splits into two (one remaining "eternal & unchanging and the other not)".
All you're doing is hand-waving.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wasn't at all thinking spiritually, I only used "eternity" instead of "infinity" because I wanted to specifically refer to infinite time. It sounds like a word borrowed from spirituality, but I wasn't even going there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

. . . I understand . . . but still . . . implications are there, depending upon the reader's orientation . . .

 

That would be a surefire way of getting this thread Cesspooled.

 

How can something that is eternal and unchanging split? Once it splits, it's no longer unchanging, and once changed, it's not eternal. And if there is any point at which it can cease to be eternal, then it's never been eternal.

 

OK but there is no "while" for the timeless object, since it spans all instances of time.

I am trying to apply some form of rudimentary logic to a very basic concept. I wasn't trying to be formal or precise, because the question of this thread is purely academic. It's the perennial unsolved problem: what came first?

I was trying to just scratch at the surface, nothing more. I sense that you know a lot more than you put forward, for whatever reasons, so I was pinging you on this thinking you would fall into thinking that either this logic is correct, or there is a gaping hole, which I still don't see:

(a) the object that creates time is necessarily outside of time
(b) outside of time means timeless, also meaning eternal
(c) the eternal object "sees" space as a block
(d) it never begins or ends (always was and always will be)
(e) "it" therefore does not explode
(f) but an explosion occurs, because we are assuming the BB model (highly simplified and idealized)
(g) therefore.... what? A divergent parallel reality? I don't know, who does? It's all speculation, nothing more. Except that it requires a somewhat rigid placement of the BBS in an eternal state, plus this paradoxical splitting of into the temporal state.

I guess hand waving is all there is, other than to try to dissect the state at 1 Planck time, which doesn't address the OP anyway as far as I can tell.

 

That is the question. Does the BBS ever exist outside of time? If so, is it not entrenched in that state forever?

But, knowing (or assuming) it exploded, how do you reconcile this? I was merely offering as a scenario that you might wonder if there are two parallel realities. It is eternally integrated, because it once was (therefore still is) and yet it exploded and is disintegrating, tied to the arrow of time.

Two states? Otherwise, I can't understand t-zero.

 

These are questions that go back through history in philosophy and religion. My concept of Eternity has time involved, OK I don't know how eternal time could be sectioned or measured but I just comprehend time and eternity as being about the same thing. So what we measure as "time" against (seconds weeks years) are things which didn't exist from the beginning of the Big Bang (which is thought of as "the Universe".) But to me there is the Infinite Void into which the Space and Matter of the Universe expand into. So the boundary between the void and space seems to be fuzzy at best as individual photons extend out into it. (if they are doing work, maybe they can't go on forever, or they could for there is no limit to the void.)
So a defined amount of Energy was "Put in". So this Energy I imagine is like the strings, and they have a very high frequency. The expansion of these created the mass and the "negative energy store". The energy is stored as mass in the gravitational field. The more mass is stored the lesser is the kinetic energy, and as it cools matter forms into molecules of Hydrogen.
So unlike Hawking I think the net energy in the Universe is not Zero but a starting amount, but the energy has been converted to matter and motion heat and light etc.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I agree with your last paragraph . . . more or less, coincides with EEMU Hypothesis

 

I was thinking you could measure the Infinite Void in light years. So Eternal time in light years equals the time it takes for a photon to travel from the Universe to the furtherest limit of the Infinite void (times 2). On the assumption the Universe is roughly in the geometric centre of the Infinite void.

 

Yet something happened during that "timeless state" to make a change. Therefore the timelessness came to an end.
Therefore "outside of time" is NOT eternal and unchanging.

Back to word games again.

Er, fail.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Or: The void is the absence of spacetime, "occupied" by the singularity. It is dimensionless (zero volume) and eternal (timeless).

Your statement that eternity can be measured in light years makes me think I made a poor choice in terms. Certainly, eternity seems to have meaning to us as we are dragged though time, but what does it mean to be in a state of timelessness where there is no metric?

This was my reasoning for saying the envelope of the universe impinges on the dimensionless timeless realm which you call the void. At the each point at which space (or the asymptote at which space converges) impinges on the void, each such point must lie in superposition with every other such point. This is necessary because nothing larger than a point can exist in the dimensionless void. This is also interestingly compatible with the idea of an infintely dense singularity at the BB. I inferred from this that every other singularity (black hole, supermassive hole, quantum hole) is forced into the same superposition.

Dywyddyr and AlexG raise valid objections concerning the nature of timelessness and the necessary explosion at t-zero. I was left to offer a scenario that there are two coexistent realities - the eternal integrated singularity, and the temporally-chained disintegrating universe.

On thinking about "the void", I am inclined to think that coexistence of the two implied realities (eternal/integrated and temporal/disintegrating) can be satisfied as follows:

(1) outside the envelope ("in" the void) the universe is infinitely dense and integrated, i.e., a singularity; and
(2) inside the envelope, it is expansive, strapped to time and disintegrating.

So that would appear to return us to my original premise: that the universe is created ex nihilo, and at the same time it is infinite.

Of course this use of ex nihilo has nothing to do with creationism, because it arises by itself, without any help.

To review the hypotheses/assumptions of the model:

(1) the outer envelope of the universe impinges on the dimensionless void. No time or space exists "there". Thus, each point on the envelope converges to one single point - or, all points are in mutual superposition, since they all lie in the dimensionless void.
(2) just inside the envelope, spacetime is created, not as a discontinuity, but as the smooth divergence from an event horizon.
(3) the eternal unchanging singularity remains in stasis, stranded in the void...
(4) ...while -inside the envelope- an expanding disintegration is underway, chained to the arrow of time.
(5) the two realities coexist, despite the apparent paradox, for the same reason that it is paradoxical to fit the universe into a dimensionless void (eternal dimensionless singularity).

Corollary:
Every singularity (and event horizon), where time is stopped and space is compressed to a point, whether associated with a black hole, supermassive hole or quantum hole, necessarily coexists in the void, in mutual superposition with every other point on every other singularity or event horizon, including the envelope of the universe itself.

Corollary:
There is merely one singularity in the void, which, projected into the envelope, diverges into the largest possible number of instances of singularities, i.e., the total number of cosmic and quantum singularities that ever were and ever will be. (i.e., double summation/integration over all space and all time)

Corollary:
The paradox of mutual existence of an eternal integrated BBS, with the second state - an exploded, disintegrating BBS chained to the arrow of time, arises out of the paradoxical nature of event horizon itself, which negotiates between the two realities by gently collapsing the laws of physics upon approach, ie., forming a buffer zone of convergence wherever spacetime would otherwise impinge on the void.

 

I am saying that there is no "during" for the timeless state.
If "outside of time is NOT eternal and unchanging" then I would need to find a word within your lexicon that means eternal, which to me means outside of time and unchanging. That would be the extent of the word game from my point of view - a hunt for your definitions.

What happens at the event horizon, or when v=c, or at the envelope of the universe? What does it mean to say time stops? And how can any object that falls into the timeless state ever extricate itself? By definition, eternal means forever.

I feel like you have a lot to say but are holding back. Maybe not, maybe it's just a bogus hunch

 

Just realised I made an error for Light years is a measure of distance not time.
"So Eternal time in years equals the time it takes for a photon to travel from the Universe to the furtherest limit of the Infinite void (times 2)." I thought it might test your imagination, for infinity is something that is hard to fathom. And then to multiply by 2 for good measure!

 

But the eternal unchanging object stranded in the void can measure nothing - neither time nor space, because there is nothing to measure. And there is no tick or yardstick that operates "there".

 

Have you ever thought of taking up economics and showing that there is no deficit at all! Just kidding, but you certainly have a way with words that just about convince me, of the opposite of what I thought was fact.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

First there was no universe.
Then there was.
THEREFORE your "eternal and unchanging" changed.
How much simpler can I get?

 

@Robbitybob

I assure you my treatment of economics would be a trip to the void! (A one way trip for me, wearing concrete shoes!)

I wasn't do much trying to convince you as to analyze the idea of what it must mean to be outside of time, "in the void". It's little more than speculation, for an idealized simplified model of the BB.

 

Right. I'm not disagreeing that this is the model.

I was trying to get you to speak to the other aspect:
(1) Is it necessary that the object that creates time exists in a timeless state?
(2) (I assumed it was, so I then asked) Does timelessness imply eternity?
(3) (I said yes, by definition) So does the BBS continue to exist in a timeless state?
(4) (I said, yes, it would necessarily always exist, because there is by definition no escape from timelessness) So how can the BBS explode if it is eternal?
(5) And I speculated that they could mutually exist, the pure singularity, suspended in time, and the fireball that evolves into the universe.

It's OK, I'll drop it. Good night.