A question about "nothing"

[Scott1972]

Why is "nothing" considered a natural state who's absence needs to be explained?

How is nothing defined? The absence of matter? If there is no matter does space and time still exist?

If such a thing cannot be created, why is it assumed to have ever existed?

[alfaniner]

Who says it has to be explained?

[fuelair]

Scientists who want an explanation for nothing, mass, energy, etc. And it is more data.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Why is "nothing" considered a natural state who's absence needs to be explained?

How is nothing defined? The absence of matter? If there is no matter does space and time still exist?

If such a thing cannot be created, why is it assumed to have ever existed?


See also "Homeopathy".

The best example of actual nothing represented as something

[T'ai Chi]

It is easier to say 'nothing existed prior' than to have a nagging incomplete theory.

[jmercer]

It is easier to say 'nothing existed prior' than to have a nagging incomplete theory.

Much better an incomplete-but-accurate-as-possible theory than a complete one based on utter nonsense.

[T'ai Chi]

Much better an incomplete-but-accurate-as-possible theory than a complete one based on utter nonsense.

Seems like if you propose 'nothing' to exist, you have both.

[athon]

Why is "nothing" considered a natural state who's absence needs to be explained?

Is this a philosophical question or an empirical one?

How is nothing defined? The absence of matter? If there is no matter does space and time still exist?Again, it depends on your context. 'Nothing' can be a void - an absence of matter, an absence of quantities (I have no possessions, therefore I have 'nothing'), or an absolute absence of observable nature (no time or space).

Being more precise with your definitions means getting more precision out of your answers.

If such a thing cannot be created, why is it assumed to have ever existed?
Who says it ever existed in the context of something that can't be created?

Athon

[BenBurch]

The hard part for most people is when you tell them that the question "what came before the Universe" is absolutely meaningless as time begins then, and there can be no "before."

[T'ai Chi]

Yeah Ben, so it all must have spontaneously generated.

[CFLarsen]

Yeah Ben, so it all must have spontaneously generated.

Yes, your old Creationist argument against Evolution.

Change the record, T'ai Chi. Come up with something new.

[BenBurch]

Yeah Ben, so it all must have spontaneously generated.

No, there was no act of generation.

It just is.

Time is finite.

Stop thinking about causes.

Causes happen only in time.

[T'ai Chi]

No, there was no act of generation.

It just is.

Time is finite.

Stop thinking about causes.

Causes happen only in time.

Yes, it is magic. I get it.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

See also "Homeopathy".

The best example of actual nothing represented as something

:D :D :D

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Why is "nothing" considered a natural state who's absence needs to be explained?

How is nothing defined? The absence of matter? If there is no matter does space and time still exist?

If such a thing cannot be created, why is it assumed to have ever existed?



Nothing does not and can not exist.

:boxedin:

There is no nothing. There can not be nothing. Nothing can not be.


Interesting to think about. Thanks for the thought.

[BenBurch]

Yes, it is magic. I get it.

No, if you got it you would know there is no magic involved.

There are no sequences of events without time.

The question is meaningless in this domain.

It is like asking what is beyond space if space is finite. The fact itself renders the question meaningless.

[Scott1972]

Is this a philosophical question or an empirical one?

Again, it depends on your context. 'Nothing' can be a void - an absence of matter, an absence of quantities (I have no possessions, therefore I have 'nothing'), or an absolute absence of observable nature (no time or space).

Being more precise with your definitions means getting more precision out of your answers.


Who says it ever existed in the context of something that can't be created?

Athon

I think the question lies on the border of philosophy and empiricism.

What prompted this question was thinking about an often made statement that "something does not come from nothing" and why "nothing" is assumed to have some special status. I'm interested in arguments for "nothing" having this special status.

[Scott1972]

I probably should have started the thread by asking if there is any meaningful and generally accepted definition of "nothing".

Anyone care to give it a shot?

[thatguywhojuggles]

isn't nothing just the absence of something?

[fls]

I probably should have started the thread by asking if there is any meaningful and generally accepted definition of "nothing".

Anyone care to give it a shot?

"Perfect symmetry"? As soon as you have "something", symmetry is broken.

Linda

[ChaoticLimbs]

. .

[JEROME DA GNOME]

. .

Close to nothing but not quite. ;)

[athon]

I think the question lies on the border of philosophy and empiricism.

What prompted this question was thinking about an often made statement that "something does not come from nothing" and why "nothing" is assumed to have some special status. I'm interested in arguments for "nothing" having this special status.

If you're talking about the Big Bang theory, the issue might be not so much in the use of the word 'nothing' but in the word 'come from'. It insinuates causation, which requires time. What caused the causation isn't something which can be empirically validated. We can only speculate why time progressed from a singularity. That is not to say there was nothing from which the initial cause came, and you won't find an informed physicist who will concede to that. It is to say, however, that the rules we observe the universe to have at present weren't in effect prior to a given moment, hence causation in the sense we describe it wasn't in effect. There was no 'nothing' as in an absence...there simply were no observable rules to describe the situation, and no cause-effect relationships as we can describe them.

I asked on the year 10 exam I taught last semester 'What was before the Big Bang?'. The only correct answer I marked was 'There was no 'before' the Big Bang'. This is not the equivalent of 'nothing'.

Athon

[oglommi]

Why is "nothing" considered a natural state who's absence needs to be explained?

How is nothing defined? The absence of matter? If there is no matter does space and time still exist?

If such a thing cannot be created, why is it assumed to have ever existed?

In quantum physics there no such thing as "nothing" there is "nothing on average". Like my bank account has nothing on average. One day I have a 100 bucks and the next I have -100. Virtual particles spontaneously existing borrowing energy from the future.

At least that's what I've learned from the BBC series Atom about the atom.

[jmercer]

Seems like if you propose 'nothing' to exist, you have both.

TC, "nothing" is not the same as an absence of something.

(ETA: you can look at an area or a specific point and say "There is nothing in there" - but if you observe that area or point over time, eventually something WILL be there.)

[jmercer]

Yes, it is magic. I get it.

No, you don't. In reality, none of us here probably really "get it" - some rare individuals can probably visualize the concept, but to actually grasp it? It's like asking the proverbial flatlander to visualize not just a three-dimensional object - but a tesseract! Something difficult for three-dimensional beings to visualize, let alone a two-dimensional one.

The thing is, T'ai Chi, that whatever conditions were before time began, we don't even have the language (although perhaps there's a mathematical language that would work) to describe it. Very little in our existing universe comes even close to those conditions... and the things that do come close are likewise extremely difficult to envision or discuss.

The difficulties exist within ourselves, not within the theories.

[BenBurch]

...whatever conditions were before time began...

There is that word again.

Before.

There was no "before."

[PBTree]

Yeah Ben, so it all must have spontaneously generated.

Whichever part of the belief system you have, evolution or creation, "nothing" would have to have been before both of them.

Did the big "g" spontaneously generate, or is he infinite. Was there something before him/her, or was there nothing?

I like to think there was nothing, then there was something, saves the headache :)

[BenBurch]

I like to think there was nothing, then there was something, saves the headache :)

Except there is no "was." Time is a finite dimension. No event occurred before the first event because before is meaningless in that context.

[PBTree]

Except there is no "was." Time is a finite dimension. No event occurred before the first event because before is meaningless in that context.

Maybe so but unless someone can actually prove there was no "was" before the big bang, then we have to assume there wasn't and when you assume, you make an ass etc etc...

Whose to say that this isn't the x'tieth big bang we have had and time is also infinite? Not having a knowledge of what went before, doesn't mean there wasn't something.

:)

[athon]

Maybe so but unless someone can actually prove there was no "was" before the big bang, then we have to assume there wasn't and when you assume, you make an ass etc etc...

Whose to say that this isn't the x'tieth big bang we have had and time is also infinite? Not having a knowledge of what went before, doesn't mean there wasn't something.

:)

Time, however, has a precise meaning in physics, which relates to cause and effect. When this relationship breaks down, as it does in the singularity of the early Big Bang, the relationship does not exist. It is meaningless to refer to a prior period. Another way of saying it is that it would be equally meaningfull to say that what you refer to as 'before' the Big Bang could be happening currently in another universe.

It makes little sense if you consider time as a separate thing to space, where it happens regardless of all else. When you consider time is only a construct in relation to causation, it makes more sense.

(if I have this wrong, I'd love for a more knowledgeable mind to correct it for me)

Athon

[JEROME DA GNOME]

**************************NOTHING!!!************** ************

[JEROME DA GNOME]

**************************NOTHING!!!************** ************

Even so, there is something.:) It is just secret.

[Just thinking]

Why is "nothing" considered a natural state who's absence needs to be explained?

How is nothing defined? The absence of matter?

One possible answer may be the complete absence of motion --- without motion, I believe nothing can exist ... not even what we define as time.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

One possible answer may be the complete absence of motion --- without motion, I believe nothing can exist ... not even what we define as time.

Agreed. All things are moving at all time. Without motion there is no existence. Without existence there is no time.



Is time linear or circular?

[Just thinking]

Is time linear or circular?

It may not be anything of the kind ... it may not even exist, as most like to think. I think that visualizing time as a dimension (like one dimensional space) is more of a convenience, rather than a clear understanding. True, we can use it mathematically as we do spacial dimensions, but we can use mathematics in many more spacial dimensions than what actually exist just as easily.

I think time is nothing more than a convenient way to quantize and measure motion --- be it a day, hour or whatever. And since all motion is relative, is it any wonder that "time" should be just as relative?

Anyway ... that's just my 2 cents. ;)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I think time is nothing more than a convenient way to quantize and measure motion --- be it a day, hour or whatever. And since all motion is relative, is it any wonder that "time" should be just as relative?

Thank you for that thought! :cool: It is definitely meat to be masticated.

[drzeus99]

Thank you for that thought! :cool: It is definitely meat to be masticated.


I hope you weren't thinking about masticating in public ;)

[jmercer]

There is that word again.

Before.

There was no "before."

Except there is no "was." Time is a finite dimension. No event occurred before the first event because before is meaningless in that context.

I fully understand what you mean; the arrow of subjective time is intimately linked to the expansion of the cosmos. However, it's extremely difficult to discuss the conditions that led to the big bang without using an admittedly inaccurate qualifier like "before" or "pre", etc.

I should point out, however, that everything we "know" breaks down at the instant of the big bang. The conditions that existed outside of that event are by definition unknowable... so theoretically, anything is possible (albeit unlikely in the case of time) in that regard.

[this charming man]

I have not read all the posts, so I am not sure if this has been mentioned. I do not even know if this is relevant to the topic; however, if I am not mistaken, a photon has no mass; therefore, it has no matter, but a photon is something.

[Michael Redman]

Is time linear or circular?I believe it is asymptotic.

[BenBurch]

I believe it is asymptotic.

A definite possibility.

[sol invictus]

Time, however, has a precise meaning in physics, which relates to cause and effect. When this relationship breaks down, as it does in the singularity of the early Big Bang, the relationship does not exist. It is meaningless to refer to a prior period.

We have to be a little careful on this point. The precise statement is that the theories of physics we currently understand break down at the big bang. However this certainly doesn't mean there isn't a more complete theory, and that more complete theory might resolve the big bang singularity. What that resolution would look like is of course just a matter of guesswork, but one simple possibility is that before the big bang the universe was contracting. The big bang would be replaced by a "bounce", where the universe got small and then expanded again. That might happen over and over again (a cyclic universe) or just once, with the full evolution requiring infinite time.

I should stress that (despite many attempts and some premature publicity) there are no consistent theories which have this property.

A less intuitive possibility is that the geometrical description we use for the universe today breaks down, but is replaced by some other very different description which we can use to calculate some things with. That new description might not include time. There are some examples of theories like that, but we don't know if they're correct.

[ynot]

“Nothing” is a completely abstract concept that has no existence in reality. By definition, nothing can’t be something. A room that contains no furniture or fittings can be said to be “empty” and contain “nothing”. It is however (and always was and will be) completely full of something (just not furniture and fittings). To say “once upon a time there was no time” is ludicrous. To say that time “started” and there was no “before” requires an act of creation (something from nothing). Next step is a creator. To claim that a completely abstract concept represents reality is no better than “believers” claiming that fantasy represents reality.

[ynot]

No, there was no act of generation.
If there was no "before" how come there is an "after"? Where did "now" come from?

It just is.
Sounds like the "it is true" claim of beleivers. A completely meaningless statement.

Time is finite.
Do you have any proof to back this claim?


Stop thinking about causes.

Causes happen only in time.
Oh I get it . . . just have faith!

[Just thinking]

I have not read all the posts, so I am not sure if this has been mentioned. I do not even know if this is relevant to the topic; however, if I am not mistaken, a photon has no mass; therefore, it has no matter, but a photon is something.

A photon has no rest or at rest mass ... otherwise it does have a mass value.

[ynot]

“Something” has to have actual existence that is detectable/observable. For a thing to be detectable/observable it must be either matter, or something that interacts with matter (but it doesn't have to be matter).

[Just thinking]

If there was no "before" how come there is an "after"? Where did "now" come from?

This is one of the problems that arise from trying to express events (and all of reality) as existing along some one dimensional pathway we call time. Of course I can't be certain of my ideas, and they're not all that easy to fully explain, as I haven't worked out all the details, but I think that the way we view time may be ... quite incorrect. It may not even exist like we usually think of it --- and don't think I don't know how crazy that sounds --- but trying to explain events outside of "time" while defining "time" as we usually do gets one nowhere.

Sounds like the "it is true" claim of believers. A completely meaningless statement.

Unfortunately it comes out of too simplistic definitions.

Do you have any proof to back this claim?

Proof --- no. Relevant analogies, perhaps.

Oh I get it . . . just have faith!

No for me anyway.

[athon]

We have to be a little careful on this point. The precise statement is that the theories of physics we currently understand break down at the big bang. However this certainly doesn't mean there isn't a more complete theory, and that more complete theory might resolve the big bang singularity.

True. However to put weight into anything else would require evidence for that view. I'm prepared to say that 'before' with relevance to the Big Bang is meaningless until somebody can provide it with meaning.

What that resolution would look like is of course just a matter of guesswork, but one simple possibility is that before the big bang the universe was contracting. The big bang would be replaced by a "bounce", where the universe got small and then expanded again. That might happen over and over again (a cyclic universe) or just once, with the full evolution requiring infinite time.

This is still meaningless with reference to 'before'. It might be convenient to look at it as a sequence of bangs and crunches, however there is no reason to think that a big crunch led to a big bang. That would require a system of causation prior to the big bang, which according to current views there is no evidence on which to theorise this. Of course you can speculate...but such speculation would be equal to any other.

I should stress that (despite many attempts and some premature publicity) there are no consistent theories which have this property.

A less intuitive possibility is that the geometrical description we use for the universe today breaks down, but is replaced by some other very different description which we can use to calculate some things with. That new description might not include time. There are some examples of theories like that, but we don't know if they're correct.

Entirely possible and not a stupid speculation. Then again, we're free to speculate anything which continues to take into account current observations. Yet at this point, when people state there was 'nothing' before the big bang, they are incorrect. Current dominant theories agree that it is meaningless to state a 'before' the big bang.

Athon

[PBTree]

Time, however, has a precise meaning in physics, which relates to cause and effect. When this relationship breaks down, as it does in the singularity of the early Big Bang, the relationship does not exist. It is meaningless to refer to a prior period. Another way of saying it is that it would be equally meaningfull to say that what you refer to as 'before' the Big Bang could be happening currently in another universe.

It makes little sense if you consider time as a separate thing to space, where it happens regardless of all else. When you consider time is only a construct in relation to causation, it makes more sense.

(if I have this wrong, I'd love for a more knowledgeable mind to correct it for me)

Athon

Sounded very feasible.


“Nothing” is a completely abstract concept that has no existence in reality. By definition, nothing can’t be something. A room that contains no furniture or fittings can be said to be “empty” and contain “nothing”. It is however (and always was and will be) completely full of something (just not furniture and fittings). To say “once upon a time there was no time” is ludicrous. To say that time “started” and there was no “before” requires an act of creation (something from nothing). Next step is a creator. To claim that a completely abstract concept represents reality is no better than “believers” claiming that fantasy represents reality.


Sounds even more feasible.

I am none the wiser though.

[ynot]

I am none the wiser though.
You're also none the dumber. ;)

[PBTree]

You're also none the dumber. ;)

Hope the "old dark" is cold, I will be there Sunday.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I have not read all the posts, so I am not sure if this has been mentioned. I do not even know if this is relevant to the topic; however, if I am not mistaken, a photon has no mass; therefore, it has no matter, but a photon is something.

The thing is, that is a maybe. Good thought though.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I hope you weren't thinking about masticating in public ;)

Who does not masticate in public? :)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I believe it is asymptotic.

I did not know that word. Thanks! I very much enjoy the new.

asymptotic: a straight line associated with a curve such that as a point moves along an infinite branch of the curve the distance from the point to the line approaches zero and the slope of the curve at the point approaches the slope of the line


Would this be classified as eternal?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

“Nothing” is a completely abstract concept that has no existence in reality. By definition, nothing can’t be something. A room that contains no furniture or fittings can be said to be “empty” and contain “nothing”. It is however (and always was and will be) completely full of something (just not furniture and fittings). To say “once upon a time there was no time” is ludicrous. To say that time “started” and there was no “before” requires an act of creation (something from nothing). Next step is a creator. To claim that a completely abstract concept represents reality is no better than “believers” claiming that fantasy represents reality.


The argument here would be that time is the consequence of consciousness.

Time does not exist to something that is not conscious. Therefore time began with consciousness.

[ynot]

The argument here would be that time is the consequence of consciousness.

Time does not exist to something that is not conscious. Therefore time began with consciousness.
Consciousness is necessary for the awareness of time but not for the existence of time (or anything). Consciousness is a property of living things. For your statement to be correct the universe would have had to always contain some form of life. Is this what you are claiming?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Consciousness is necessary for the awareness of time but not for the existence of time (or anything). Consciousness is a property of living things. For your statement to be correct the universe would have had to always contain some form of life. Is this what you are claiming?


I am not sure I am claiming anything.

Without awareness of existence nothing exists. ???

[PBTree]

If the universe is expanding, then I assume there has to be an outer edge. Same thing if the universe collapses prior to another big bang (if that happens).

Does this make the universe a bubble and if so, what is outside the bubble. If we know it is expanding from the big bang, then do we know what it is expanding in. Is it nothing or something?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If the universe is expanding, then I assume there has to be an outer edge. Same thing if the universe collapses prior to another big bang (if that happens).

Does this make the universe a bubble and if so, what is outside the bubble. If we know it is expanding from the big bang, then do we know what it is expanding in. Is it nothing or something?

There can not be nothing. We currently perceive an expanding, that does not make it so.

My inclination is that there are no borders and there is not time.

[orpheus]

http://www.amazon.com/Nothingness-Science-Empty-Henning-Genz/dp/0738206105/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197948059&sr=8-1
Very good book on the topic.

[ynot]

I am not sure I am claiming anything.

Without awareness of existence nothing exists. ???
Without consciousness there is no awareness of anything, but I don’t see how this means there is no existence of anything. It’s a bit like claiming everything actually disappears when you close your eyes. :eye-poppi

[ynot]

There can not be nothing. We currently perceive an expanding, that does not make it so.

My inclination is that there are no borders and there is not time.
What are you drinking, and can I have some? :D

[BenBurch]

If the universe is expanding, then I assume there has to be an outer edge. Same thing if the universe collapses prior to another big bang (if that happens).

Does this make the universe a bubble and if so, what is outside the bubble. If we know it is expanding from the big bang, then do we know what it is expanding in. Is it nothing or something?

No, there is no outside. There is no bubble. Space is either unbounded and infinite or bounded and finite. But even if bounded and finite there is no "outside".

[Just thinking]

I am not sure I am claiming anything.

Without awareness of existence nothing exists. ???

Not so ... we have evidence that the universe (and Earth) did exist when nothing was aware of it --- at least nothing on Earth.

[Scott1972]

True. However to put weight into anything else would require evidence for that view. I'm prepared to say that 'before' with relevance to the Big Bang is meaningless until somebody can provide it with meaning.

This is what I was driving at. Please forgive my poorly phrased original question.

[Scott1972]

"Perfect symmetry"? As soon as you have "something", symmetry is broken.

Linda


Thank you. I will think more about it.

[ynot]

"Perfect symmetry"? As soon as you have "something", symmetry is broken.

Linda
How can you have a "perfect symmetry" of "nothing"? How can anything be attributed to "nothing"?

[Zarathustra]

“Nothing” is a completely abstract concept that has no existence in reality. By definition, nothing can’t be something. A room that contains no furniture or fittings can be said to be “empty” and contain “nothing”. It is however (and always was and will be) completely full of something (just not furniture and fittings). To say “once upon a time there was no time” is ludicrous. To say that time “started” and there was no “before” requires an act of creation (something from nothing). Next step is a creator. To claim that a completely abstract concept represents reality is no better than “believers” claiming that fantasy represents reality.


I am reminded of the old philosophical problem concerning the concept of nothing, in that if nothing, as a concept; being the absence of something -exists even if only as a an abstract concept, then can it not be seen as an object in this sense, so then in this context, nothing then becomes something? This of course is sort of predicated that there is an observer sitting outside of the nothing to make that assessment.



Consciousness is necessary for the awareness of time but not for the existence of time (or anything). Consciousness is a property of living things. For your statement to be correct the universe would have had to always contain some form of life. Is this what you are claiming?


I'm still not wholly convinced that consciousness as it is commonly thought of even exists, which can of course lead us down the whole path of: "If the sum total of the function of human consciousness is the processing of data based upon the biological function in the brain, and if time is conceived to us as a byproduct of that biological phenomenon, does it even exist?"

An oldie but goodie. (http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2007/03/01/daniel-dennetts-coincidental-response-to-rick-warrens-a-purpose-driven-life/)

[fls]

How can you have a "perfect symmetry" of "nothing"?

How can you not?

How can anything be attributed to "nothing"?

That's the problem. Which is why I thought it interesting to realize that "nothing" must have symmetry. There cannot be any way to tell one piece from another or one direction from another or it wouldn't be "nothing". So it is possible to attribute at least one characteristic to "nothing".

Linda

[Phytotherapist]

Fls - Can you explain how can Homeopathy be a "Perfect Symmetry"?

[fls]

Fls - Can you explain how can Homeopathy be a "Perfect Symmetry"?

How do you tell one homeopathic remedy from another?

Linda

[Acleron]

Fls - Can you explain how can Homeopathy be a "Perfect Symmetry"?

Can't resist this:

From which ever angle you view it, it still looks the same i.e. BS

[jmercer]

The argument here would be that time is the consequence of consciousness.

Time does not exist to something that is not conscious. Therefore time began with consciousness.

Consciousness is necessary for the awareness of time but not for the existence of time (or anything). Consciousness is a property of living things. For your statement to be correct the universe would have had to always contain some form of life. Is this what you are claiming?


I am not sure I am claiming anything.

Without awareness of existence nothing exists. ???

There can not be nothing. We currently perceive an expanding, that does not make it so.

My inclination is that there are no borders and there is not time.

Time exists independent of our perception of it. In fact, there are several "arrows of time", "subjective time" being only one of those. Essentially, the belief is that all the arrows of time are deeply and intimately linked with the process of universal entropy. This means that time passes whether or not there is an observer to note it. (An example of this is radioactive decay; continual subjective observation is not needed to see that time passes as the element decays. I believe this is the principle behind "atomic clocks", the most accurate (afaik) clocks in existence today.)

Regarding other comments concerning a sequence of big bangs/big crunches - current observations indicate that idea to be very, very unlikely. At the moment, there is observational evidence showing that the universe is expanding (at the most fundamental level, not the macro level) at an ever increasing rate.

Google "Big Rip (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_rip_030306.html)" for multiple articles of information on what this (speculatively) could mean for the end of the universe; however, regardless of whether the universe dies in a "big rip" or simply goes cold and keeps expanding, there will be no "crunch" at the end, assuming that the observations concerning the rate of expansion of the fabric of the cosmos is correct.

[Michael Redman]

Here's how I see it, and this is why I think of time as asymptotic:

I see the universe like a cross-section of a hollow sphere. The surface of the Earth, for example. And time is Latitude. We only see the latitude we're on (hence the cross section) and we're in the Northern Hemisphere, traveling South. When we look back in time (North) we see that the universe (the cross section at previous, more northern latitudes) was smaller. As we're traveling South, the universe is expanding. The farther away you look, the faster it appears to be expanding. No place appears to be the center. (Remember, we're only looking at the cross section, not the plane it's on.)

As we approach the Northernmost part of the sphere, the universe, including time, is collapsing into itself. At the North Pole, the entire thing compresses into a point. We are at the beginning of latitude, as well as space.

Time isn't a theoretical concept, moving linearly along the theoretical axis of the sphere, but a real component of the universe, moving with the rest of the universe along the real surface of the sphere, which is described by an asymptote that can never pass the upward limit.

So, asking, "what came before the beginning of time?" is as meaningless as asking, "what is to the North of the North Pole?"

[ynot]

How can you not?
Because you can't have anything of nothing.


That's the problem. Which is why I thought it interesting to realize that "nothing" must have symmetry. There cannot be any way to tell one piece from another or one direction from another or it wouldn't be "nothing". So it is possible to attribute at least one characteristic to "nothing".

Linda
Nothing can’t “have” anything, including symmetry. There can be no “piece” or “another“ of nothing. The only characteristic of nothing is that it’’s a completely abstract concept.

I guess you could apply an abstract characteristic to the abstract concept of nothing, but I don’t see that it would have to be symmetrical.

[ynot]

I am reminded of the old philosophical problem concerning the concept of nothing, in that if nothing, as a concept; being the absence of something -exists even if only as a an abstract concept, then can it not be seen as an object in this sense, so then in this context, nothing then becomes something? This of course is sort of predicated that there is an observer sitting outside of the nothing to make that assessment.
Nothing describes the lack of something. In other words, something in the abstract.

I'm still not wholly convinced that consciousness as it is commonly thought of even exists, which can of course lead us down the whole path of: "If the sum total of the function of human consciousness is the processing of data based upon the biological function in the brain, and if time is conceived to us as a byproduct of that biological phenomenon, does it even exist?"

An oldie but goodie. (http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2007/03/01/daniel-dennetts-coincidental-response-to-rick-warrens-a-purpose-driven-life/)
Everything is just a figment of my imagination. My imagination therefore is just a figment of itself. I don’t think so.

[jmercer]

Here's how I see it, and this is why I think of time as asymptotic:

I see the universe like a cross-section of a hollow sphere. The surface of the Earth, for example. And time is Latitude. We only see the latitude we're on (hence the cross section) and we're in the Northern Hemisphere, traveling South. When we look back in time (North) we see that the universe (the cross section at previous, more northern latitudes) was smaller. As we're traveling South, the universe is expanding. The farther away you look, the faster it appears to be expanding. No place appears to be the center. (Remember, we're only looking at the cross section, not the plane it's on.)

As we approach the Northernmost part of the sphere, the universe, including time, is collapsing into itself. At the North Pole, the entire thing compresses into a point. We are at the beginning of latitude, as well as space.

Time isn't a theoretical concept, moving linearly along the theoretical axis of the sphere, but a real component of the universe, moving with the rest of the universe along the real surface of the sphere, which is described by an asymptote that can never pass the upward limit.

So, asking, "what came before the beginning of time?" is as meaningless as asking, "what is to the North of the North Pole?"

What an excellent visual! Nominated!!!!

[Ron_Tomkins]

Aahhhh nothing like a discussion on the concept of nothing to trigger endless philosophical and linguistical debates.

[sol invictus]

What an excellent visual! Nominated!!!!

I thought you didn't like the idea of the universe re-collapsing? What happens with the line of latitude we're on gets to the equator? :)

[BenBurch]

I thought you didn't like the idea of the universe re-collapsing? What happens with the line of latitude we're on gets to the equator? :)

Even if he disagrees, that doesn't make it a less good explanation.

[jmercer]

Because you can't have anything of nothing.



Nothing can’t “have” anything, including symmetry. There can be no “piece” or “another“ of nothing. The only characteristic of nothing is that it’’s a completely abstract concept.

I guess you could apply an abstract characteristic to the abstract concept of nothing, but I don’t see that it would have to be symmetrical.


Nothing describes the lack of something. In other words, something in the abstract.


Everything is just a figment of my imagination. My imagination therefore is just a figment of itself. I don’t think so.


Ynot... I'm not sure you're correct on this, no offense. Nothing can either be the absence of everything - or it can represent two things that perfectly cancel each other out in a very short time.

Have you read Hawking's theory on "quantum foam" and how black holes can evaporate? As I understand it, many twinned "imaginary" quantum particles randomly appear and disappear in a VERY short period of time constantly throughout the entire universe (hence the "foam" in "quantum foam"), but since the net of the particles is equal, they are considered "imaginary" and disappear back into the foam.

However... this doesn't always happen near the Swarzchild (sp?) radius of a singularity;occasionally, the anti-particle will fall in while the "normal" particle will escape. The mass of the singularity is reduced, while the black hole appears to be radiating mass - or essentially, evaporating.

The point is, however, that when the particles self-annihilate, they remain "imaginary" - yet real. So there's nothing there, but it's not the same thing as a complete absence of anything.

I now officially have a headache. :p

[jmercer]

I thought you didn't like the idea of the universe re-collapsing? What happens with the line of latitude we're on gets to the equator? :)

The visual doesn't really have to do with the universe collapsing; it has to do with time stopping at whatever event is at the end. It's just a way to view the beginning and end of time, and why what happened "Before time began" - call it the South Pole - has no meaning, and why "What happens after time ends" - call that the North Pole - has no meaning, either.

South is south - nothing is more south of it. North is north - nothing is more north of it. There was no "time before time" at the beginning of the universe, and there will be no "time after time" when the universe ends. :)

[ynot]

Here's how I see it, and this is why I think of time as asymptotic:

I see the universe like a cross-section of a hollow sphere. The surface of the Earth, for example. And time is Latitude. We only see the latitude we're on (hence the cross section) and we're in the Northern Hemisphere, traveling South. When we look back in time (North) we see that the universe (the cross section at previous, more northern latitudes) was smaller. As we're traveling South, the universe is expanding. The farther away you look, the faster it appears to be expanding. No place appears to be the center. (Remember, we're only looking at the cross section, not the plane it's on.)

As we approach the Northernmost part of the sphere, the universe, including time, is collapsing into itself. At the North Pole, the entire thing compresses into a point. We are at the beginning of latitude, as well as space.

Time isn't a theoretical concept, moving linearly along the theoretical axis of the sphere, but a real component of the universe, moving with the rest of the universe along the real surface of the sphere, which is described by an asymptote that can never pass the upward limit.

So, asking, "what came before the beginning of time?" is as meaningless as asking, "what is to the North of the North Pole?"
North and South are parts of a closed abstract concept and have no actual existence. The positioning of abstract North and South points on a sphere is completely arbitrary, and each and every point on a sphere can be either North or South. The surface of a sphere, or any surface, is an abstract part of an apparent infinite universe. No 2D surface exists in isolation, and existence is never less than 3D. The universe is not a surface of a sphere and it’s a false and inadequate analogy to represent it as such.

Asking, "what came before the beginning of time?" is not as meaningless as asking, "what is to the North of the North Pole?"

[ynot]

Ynot... I'm not sure you're correct on this, no offense. Nothing can either be the absence of everything - or it can represent two things that perfectly cancel each other out in a very short time.

Have you read Hawking's theory on "quantum foam" and how black holes can evaporate? As I understand it, many twinned "imaginary" quantum particles randomly appear and disappear in a VERY short period of time constantly throughout the entire universe (hence the "foam" in "quantum foam"), but since the net of the particles is equal, they are considered "imaginary" and disappear back into the foam.

However... this doesn't always happen near the Swarzchild (sp?) radius of a singularity;occasionally, the anti-particle will fall in while the "normal" particle will escape. The mass of the singularity is reduced, while the black hole appears to be radiating mass - or essentially, evaporating.

The point is, however, that when the particles self-annihilate, they remain "imaginary" - yet real. So there's nothing there, but it's not the same thing as a complete absence of anything.

I now officially have a headache. :p
So things can completely disappear? If things can completely disappear, doesn’t it follow that things can completely appear? Isn’t this creation? ;)

[ynot]

What an excellent visual! Nominated!!!!
The excitement of confirmation bias? :D

[sol invictus]

Even if he disagrees, that doesn't make it a less good explanation.

I agree, it is good - and that sort of thing is, of course, how everyone visualizes such things. It's the only way.

If you want to make the analogy more exact, the north pole should not be smooth - there should be some kind of mountain with a sharp tip there, so there is a singularity at that latitude. Furthermore rather than a sphere, the space should be something more like a hyperboloid (the surface of revolution of a hyperbola) - that would make it correspond to the currently observed acceleration.

But an analogy doesn't prove anything, and so far as we know, the north pole is actually smoothly connected to another sphere by a thin tube, so that the latitude circles never shrink down to zero. That would be a bouncing universe :).

[Michael Redman]

I thought you didn't like the idea of the universe re-collapsing? What happens with the line of latitude we're on gets to the equator? :)Hey, you're not supposed to be looking ahead!

[BenBurch]

That would be a bouncing universe :).

And would be just as unsatisfying because then the question move from a single origin to none at all.

[sol invictus]

And would be just as unsatisfying because then the question move from a single origin to none at all.

Some find that very satisfying, since then there is no longer a question. Personally I'm not sure.

Still, I think it's fair to say that an eternal universe has historically been regarded as a more comfortable concept than one with a beginning.

[jmercer]

North and South are parts of a closed abstract concept and have no actual existence. The positioning of abstract North and South points on a sphere is completely arbitrary, and each and every point on a sphere can be either North or South. The surface of a sphere, or any surface, is an abstract part of an apparent infinite universe. No 2D surface exists in isolation, and existence is never less than 3D. The universe is not a surface of a sphere and it’s a false and inadequate analogy to represent it as such.

Asking, "what came before the beginning of time?" is not as meaningless as asking, "what is to the North of the North Pole?"

I fear I must disagree; let's say - for argument's sake, not that I think it's true - that the universe today is the result of a big bang that followed a big crunch.

Absolutely no information of any type can be passed from predecessor universe to antecedent cosmos; therefore, any "time" that existed in the predecessor is completely and utterly independent of the "time" that exists in this universe. So even in the case of the crunch/bang theory, there is no "time before time". You can't assign causality to a "previous big crunch" because that would imply that the two universes shared a common framework (a larger context) by which a "sequence of events" can be measured - in other words, a context that has it's own "time" in which the crunch/bang sequences can be linked.

There is absolutely no evidence that such a framework exists.

Still got a headache, I do. :D

[jmercer]

So things can completely disappear? If things can completely disappear, doesn’t it follow that things can completely appear? Isn’t this creation? ;)

No, because the net is essentially zero. No violation of thermodynamics occur in either case... because the net effect is zero (or nothing) in the case of self-annihilating particles.

It's also a net of zero in the case of a black hole, because the mass of the hole decreases in exact proportion to the increase of mass in the general universe.

Neat, huh? :)

[jmercer]

And would be just as unsatisfying because then the question move from a single origin to none at all.

Yep. Unsatisfying is one great word concerning this. :p

Regarding origins, however... one theory has the collision of two branes causing the event; others have a random occurrence of a different type at the quantum level setting it off.

One thing's for sure, it's not going to be easy to determine... even if it's possible at all. :)

[ynot]

I fear I must disagree; let's say - for argument's sake, not that I think it's true - that the universe today is the result of a big bang that followed a big crunch.

Absolutely no information of any type can be passed from predecessor universe to antecedent cosmos; therefore, any "time" that existed in the predecessor is completely and utterly independent of the "time" that exists in this universe. So even in the case of the crunch/bang theory, there is no "time before time". You can't assign causality to a "previous big crunch" because that would imply that the two universes shared a common framework (a larger context) by which a "sequence of events" can be measured - in other words, a context that has it's own "time" in which the crunch/bang sequences can be linked.

There is absolutely no evidence that such a framework exists.

Still got a headache, I do. :D
You justify your disagreement by arguing something that you think isn’t true! Can’t you do better than that?:D

Just because something is beyond our observation, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, or that we can assume it doesn’t exist. Existence doesn’t require observation. The best we can say is we don’t know and can never know. To say a thing “wasn’t” is a claim of knowing.

How's that headache?

[ynot]

No, because the net is essentially zero. No violation of thermodynamics occur in either case... because the net effect is zero (or nothing) in the case of self-annihilating particles.

It's also a net of zero in the case of a black hole, because the mass of the hole decreases in exact proportion to the increase of mass in the general universe.

Neat, huh? :)
I see . . . Now your trying to give me a headache.;)

What is “essentially zero“? Surely a thing either exists or not. If something becomes nothing (zero) it has completely disappeared and no longer has any form of existence.

How do you know these “self-annihilating particles“ haven‘t merely changed in to a form that we can‘t currently observe?

[jmercer]

I see . . . Now your trying to give me a headache.;)

What is “essentially zero“? Surely a thing either exists or not. If something becomes nothing (zero) it has completely disappeared and no longer has any form of existence.

How do you know these “self-annihilating particles“ haven‘t merely changed in to a form that we can‘t currently observe?


Because the net mass of the universe remains unchanged. :)

Regarding existence... they only become "real" if they're separated, and the only known thing that can do that is the radius I mentioned before. Quantum physics has to be one of the most confusing - yet oddly elegant - things I've ever encountered. :)

However - weird as it may be - they exist, even though there is "nothing" there.

[Michael Redman]

North and South are parts of a closed abstract concept and have no actual existence. The positioning of abstract North and South points on a sphere is completely arbitrary, and each and every point on a sphere can be either North or South. The surface of a sphere, or any surface, is an abstract part of an apparent infinite universe. No 2D surface exists in isolation, and existence is never less than 3D. The universe is not a surface of a sphere . . .

I never said otherwise. None of this addresses my point, however.

. . . and it’s a false and inadequate analogy to represent it as such.

I'm sure it's inadequate, but perhaps you can explain why it's false.

Asking, "what came before the beginning of time?" is not as meaningless as asking, "what is to the North of the North Pole?"

It seems to me that it is.

I'm fairly sure that time is not a scale of measure outside of and independent of the universe, as the question "what came before the beginning of time?" assumes it is.

Perhaps you can explain the meaning of the question.

[jmercer]

You justify your disagreement by arguing something that you think isn’t true! Can’t you do better than that?:D

Yes, but I figured I'd rather demonstrate why the question is still meaningless even if I'm wrong about the crunch/bang theory. :)


Just because something is beyond our observation, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, or that we can assume it doesn’t exist. Existence doesn’t require observation. The best we can say is we don’t know and can never know. To say a thing “wasn’t” is a claim of knowing.

Fair enough, but keep in mind that in order to even provisionally accept the possibility of something, there should be *some* evidence - or at least some kind of mathematical model - that justifies the consideration of existence. :)


How's that headache?


Still there. I get one whenever I try to explain and/or understand quantum physics. :p

[ynot]

Because the net mass of the universe remains unchanged. :)

Regarding existence... they only become "real" if they're separated, and the only known thing that can do that is the radius I mentioned before. Quantum physics has to be one of the most confusing - yet oddly elegant - things I've ever encountered. :)

However - weird as it may be - they exist, even though there is "nothing" there.
It’s possible to measure the net mass of the universe?!!!! Now that’s a neat trick!

To say that nothing can be something has to be the mother of all oxymorons.

When you say “nothing” do you mean actually nothing or theoretically nothing? And do you think there is any difference between the two?

[ynot]

I'm sure it's inadequate, but perhaps you can explain why it's false.
False because it doesn’t accurately represent what it purports to represent. It’s like abstractly looking at a black spot on a white dog and falsely concluding that the dog is black. I could have also said misleading.


I'm fairly sure that time is not a scale of measure outside of and independent of the universe, as the question "what came before the beginning of time?" assumes it is.

Perhaps you can explain the meaning of the question.
Not sure how this became a discussion about time. Surely the debate is - did the universe come from nothing (was created), or did it come from something that we can’t have any knowledge of (is infinite). My default assumption is the latter.

[jmercer]

It’s possible to measure the net mass of the universe?!!!! Now that’s a neat trick!

It's certainly been estimated in the past... but you don't need to know how much mass there is to accept a law of physics - such as the law of conservation. Matter and energy cannot simply "appear" or "disappear" inside of a closed system - which the universe is, as evidenced by the existence of entropy.

Matter can be transmuted into energy, which doesn't have any mass; theoretically, energy can be transmuted back into matter. All of this affects the net mass of the universe, but the bottom line is that the system is closed - new energy and new matter cannot be introduced or removed asymmetrically.


To say that nothing can be something has to be the mother of all oxymorons.

Hey! Leave my daughter out of this! ;)

More seriously, as I said at the start - nothing doesn't necessarily mean a complete absence of everything. At the minimum, the fabric of the universe exists everywhere, and it also contains the energy from the "echo" of the Big Bang. No space is utterly empty, really.

So in once sense, yes, it's empty - but not really, not when you look closely enough.


When you say “nothing” do you mean actually nothing or theoretically nothing? And do you think there is any difference between the two?


As I indicated just now, there is no such thing as "actually nothing" inside the boundaries of our universe. To repeat - remnants of the Big Bang exist to the boundaries of the universe; and if you accept super string theory, brane theory, or even accept the existence of "quantum foam", you realize that if you look down the scale low enough - to the Planck level, or even smaller - there is something everywhere.

I need a Tylenol. :D


(ETA: To clarify second comment)

[jmercer]

Not sure how this became a discussion about time. Surely the debate is - did the universe come from nothing (was created), or did it come from something that we can’t have any knowledge of (is infinite). My default assumption is the latter.


As I mentioned earlier - one theory has it that two branes randomly collided in an otherwise homogeneous quantum foam, causing an energy state change that triggered a sudden expansion of one (or both) branes.

There are other theories, too. :)

[ynot]

As I mentioned earlier - one theory has it that two branes randomly collided in an otherwise homogeneous quantum foam, causing an energy state change that triggered a sudden expansion of one (or both) branes.

There are other theories, too. :)
There are theories then there are fairies. Trick is to know which is which :D

I’m too busy for serious comment at present so hope to get back later.

[PBTree]

As I mentioned earlier - one theory has it that two branes randomly collided in an otherwise homogeneous quantum foam, causing an energy state change that triggered a sudden expansion of one (or both) branes.

There are other theories, too. :)

tks, now I have to try and work out what a brane and a planck are.

Are you trying to spread the headache :)

[Zarathustra]

Everything is just a figment of my imagination. My imagination therefore is just a figment of itself. I don’t think so.


Well put, and I understand how that statement might be unnerving. It is to me.
However due to certain laws of physics, I submit to you that we must first have a solid understanding of what consciousness is in order to dismiss the above statement, I suppose a good place to start would be looking at the measurable, biological aspects of what we consider consciousness, unless one is suggesting that consciousness is something other than physical process.

[ynot]

tks, now I have to try and work out what a brane and a planck are.
Thats easy . . . apparently I don't have a brane and I'm thick as a planck :D

[jmercer]

To any who are puzzled by Planck length and brane references... not to mention entropy, the arrows of time, the big bang and so forth - let me suggest a pretty decent book that explains this stuff without the math (a good thing, because *I* don't have the math!):

"The Fabric of the Cosmos (http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Cosmos-Space-Texture-Reality/dp/0375727205/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1198032128&sr=8-2)", by Brian Greene

I've also heard that "The Elegant Universe" by Greene is good as well, but I haven't read it. I will say that Fabric explains a lot of difficult concepts pretty well, especially relativity, branes, superstrings and so forth.

If nothing else, it will make sure we're all speaking of the same thing when we discuss the concepts. :)

[Matteo Martini]

Why is "nothing" considered a natural state who's absence needs to be explained?

How is nothing defined? The absence of matter? If there is no matter does space and time still exist?

If such a thing cannot be created, why is it assumed to have ever existed?

This appears to be a very serious question.
It is also the basic fundation of ( at least one sect of ) Zen Buddhism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative)
The Mu koan is as follows: A monk asked Zhaozhou, a Chinese Zen master (known as Jōshū in Japanese): "Has a dog Buddha-nature or not?", Zhaozhou answered: "Wú" (in Japanese, Mu).

[jmercer]

tks, now I have to try and work out what a brane and a planck are.

Are you trying to spread the headache :)

Yes, misery loves company. :p

However, to help you out...

Brane, otherwise known as p-brane (don't blame me!)... evolved from string theory. Basically, a string supposedly is a really tiny 1-dimensional item that vibrates, and the frequency of the vibration supposedly helps define the characteristics of whatever it's a part of.

P-branes (and D-branes, and O-branes, etc.) are n-dimensional strings - in other words, they have other dimensions than just the one. Here's a (sadly) technical page in a pdf (http://www.ams.org/notices/200502/what-is.pdf) that gives a sort of explanation. You can find something in Wiki, too, if you want.

And here's (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae281.cfm) a pretty good definition of a planck measurement, both for length and time.

Make sure you have plenty of painkiller handy. ;)

But once you read these - and if you read or listen to Greene's book, which gives a MUCH better explanation about branes, strings and planck measures - you'll understand why no location in the universe is - or can really be - truly empty. :)

[Michael Redman]

False because it doesn’t accurately represent what it purports to represent. It’s like abstractly looking at a black spot on a white dog and falsely concluding that the dog is black. I could have also said misleading.I'm not sure you understand what I'm getting at, but even if you do, I'm not sure you're qualified to make pass judgment. I'm fairly sure these things are not settled fact.

Not sure how this became a discussion about time. Surely the debate is - did the universe come from nothing (was created), or did it come from something that we can’t have any knowledge of (is infinite). My default assumption is the latter.


I don't believe that that is the debate.

I think the question, "where did the universe come from" is meaningless. The universe didn't "come", and there is no "from". Both those concepts assume something outside the universe. At least time, but possibly also something else. And there is no evidence for the existence of anything besides (or outside) the universe, time or otherwise.

[ynot]

Well put, and I understand how that statement might be unnerving. It is to me.
However due to certain laws of physics, I submit to you that we must first have a solid understanding of what consciousness is in order to dismiss the above statement, I suppose a good place to start would be looking at the measurable, biological aspects of what we consider consciousness, unless one is suggesting that consciousness is something other than physical process.
I think consciousness is pretty much a self-evident thing. In any case I don’t see that existence has anything to do with consciousness, other than being an awareness of it. Perhaps you’re talking about some form of paranormal cosmic consciousness?

[ynot]

I'm not sure you understand what I'm getting at, but even if you do, I'm not sure you're qualified to make pass judgment. I'm fairly sure these things are not settled fact.



I don't believe that that is the debate.

I think the question, "where did the universe come from" is meaningless. The universe didn't "come", and there is no "from". Both those concepts assume something outside the universe. At least time, but possibly also something else. And there is no evidence for the existence of anything besides (or outside) the universe, time or otherwise.
I don’t think it's so much that I don’t understand what you mean as I don’t agree with it or the analogy you use to explain it.

I’m not sure what qualifications you believe someone requires to “make pass judgment”, but I don’t agree that I do “make pass judgment. I’m merely expressing my thoughts and opinions.

The question, "where did the universe come from" is not one I’ve asked (I think you used it first in this thread) and I’ve only responded to those that have asked it. My default assumption is that the universe/time is infinite and didn’t come from anywhere. I take it you don’t believe in multi-verse/ brane theories?

[BenBurch]

Yep. Unsatisfying is one great word concerning this. :p

Regarding origins, however... one theory has the collision of two branes causing the event; others have a random occurrence of a different type at the quantum level setting it off.

One thing's for sure, it's not going to be easy to determine... even if it's possible at all. :)

If we're smart enough not to prove it to be unprovable, we'll have something to work on long after we have solved all other problems.

[Tumbleweed]

When you get down to the 10-40 level does empty space have mass? Can empty space be considered a form of matter/energy, and does nothingness mean the absence of all three? If empty space on a super micro level did have mass and was quantifiable as an atom is, rather than having infintely smaller division, would that explain dark matter? Can you divide space infinitely or is there a limit at which nothing becomes something?
Just musing around

[Matteo Martini]

You will not get " nothing " discussing about " nothing "

[jmercer]

This appears to be a very serious question.
It is also the basic fundation of ( at least one sect of ) Zen Buddhism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_(negative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu_%28negative))
The Mu koan is as follows: A monk asked Zhaozhou, a Chinese Zen master (known as Jōshū in Japanese): "Has a dog Buddha-nature or not?", Zhaozhou answered: "Wú" (in Japanese, Mu).

You will not get " nothing " discussing about " nothing "

Matteo... I enjoy philosophy, but I don't think you can mix it with science in a meaningful way. Philosophy asks "why", and science asks "how"... two different questions, both valid in their own way.

I would, however, turn to philosophy for questions of ethics, in example.

[jmercer]

When you get down to the 10-40 level does empty space have mass? Can empty space be considered a form of matter/energy, and does nothingness mean the absence of all three? If empty space on a super micro level did have mass and was quantifiable as an atom is, rather than having infintely smaller division, would that explain dark matter? Can you divide space infinitely or is there a limit at which nothing becomes something?
Just musing around

As I understand it, the current thinking is that mass is a characteristic of matter created by strings or branes; at the string and brane level, it doesn't exist. However, strings exist even when matter doesn't; and there is no place in the universe that does NOT have energy - at a minimum, left over from the Big Bang, but probably also from distant points of light such as remote galaxies, etc.

There's even serious speculation as to whether or not time is also a characteristic created by strings or branes, and if time exists at that level. It's possible that strings and branes are truly fundamental.

Regarding your other questions? I dunno. :D

You might PM Bad Astronomer, though.

[jmercer]

If we're smart enough not to prove it to be unprovable, we'll have something to work on long after we have solved all other problems.

No fear of that, IMHO - I don't think we're all that close to solving it or even completely understanding it. :D

[jmercer]

I think the question, "where did the universe come from" is meaningless. The universe didn't "come", and there is no "from". Both those concepts assume something outside the universe. At least time, but possibly also something else. And there is no evidence for the existence of anything besides (or outside) the universe, time or otherwise.

We can at least ask the question "What were the conditions that existed at the birth of the universe?", though. We can also ask "How did this happen?"


My default assumption is that the universe/time is infinite and didn’t come from anywhere. I take it you don’t believe in multi-verse/ brane theories?

Keep in mind that's only one possible interpretation of the MV/brane theories. :)

[plumjam]

Nothing to see here.

[hammegk]

Without consciousness there is no awareness of anything, but I don’t see how this means there is no existence of anything. It’s a bit like claiming everything actually disappears when you close your eyes. :eye-poppi

Or that we understand neither consciousness nor awareness.

See for example Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of quantum effects (or is that affects?). That is, at what level of reality are consciousness and awareness already present?

[Michael Redman]

My default assumption is that the universe/time is infinite and didn’t come from anywhere. I take it you don’t believe in multi-verse/ brane theories?

I don't know. I'm not clear on how they make a distinction between our universe and others, not whether that's a helpful distinction, even if those other universes do exists (or did).

I don't think that, whatever the real answer is, it is something we are likely to be able to understand.

But I tend to think the universe is finite.

My only point is all this is that people often talk about traveling back in time as if time were a line going back from our present position, and through the beginning of the universe, and then still further, infinitely, in the same line, beyond that. I think that's based on a false notion of what time is, and how it relates to the rest of the universe.

Even if there are other "universes", and ours is a product of them, I don't think that term "before" would be appropriate, because, assuming that those universes had time, there's no reason to think their time would be on the same line, or moving at the same direction, as ours. I don't think there's an absolute, infinite, inter-universal timeline.

[jmercer]

There are real serious problems with an infinite and eternal universe model. One issue is a demonstrable and verified fact - the universe is expanding and cooling.

If the universe "always existed", there are some pretty sticky questions that can't be answered - such as:

1) What started the universe expanding? And when?
2) If the universe is infinite AND has no boundaries, what does expanding really mean?
3) Why isn't the universe cold, if it's been expanding and cooling forever? (The only possible answer would be that energy and matter are being continually created - but there's no mechanism for that, and it's a violation of the law of conservation.)

For all intentions, these obstacles are insurmountable - which is why the boundless/endless universe model was pretty much killed dead when Hoyle demonstrated that the universe IS expanding.

I should hasten to add (lest some smart skeptic nail me on it) that our universe can be - and probably is - infinite, but with boundaries. :)

[Tumbleweed]

Can space be thought of as a catalyst or a byproduct of the events of the universe, rather than just a "medium" in which they occur. Is space itself the "ether" Einstein sought? Is it true that every infinitely small cube of space has something in it or are there completely empty cubes. If so what exactly is "in" those cubes, "strings" of some sort? What is the nature of space within the nucleus of an atom assuming space has a nature? Is it the same as the space on the outside? If a unit of space had an incredibly small "mass", would all those masses combined explain the existence of dark matter?
Can energy/matter be considered positive, "empty" space ( beyond the farthest vibrations of the Big Bang) be considered negative and hence the accelerating universe through the simple force of opposite charges attracting each other - as a nail moves towards a magnet it accelerates. Or is space created by the matter/energy passing through it

[jmercer]

Can space be thought of as a catalyst or a byproduct of the events of the universe, rather than just a "medium" in which they occur.

Not the "events" of the universe - but they can be thought of as byproducts of vibrating superstrings or branes. (Or maybe something else!)


Is space itself the "ether" Einstein sought?


Einstein didn't seek "the ether". In fact, his work destroyed the concept.

Is it true that every infinitely small cube of space has something in it or are there completely empty cubes. If so what exactly is "in" those cubes, "strings" of some sort?

Nothing is completely empty, although there can be locations where matter isn't present. Think of strings or branes as fabric that makes up the underlying reality that we exist in - in other words, think of physical space and time as effects that exist strictly because of this underlying fabric.


What is the nature of space within the nucleus of an atom assuming space has a nature? Is it the same as the space on the outside?

Yes, assuming that what you mean by "outside space" as "macro" space, as opposed to sub-atomic space. Size doesn't matter - it's strings (or branes) all the way down. :D


If a unit of space had an incredibly small "mass", would all those masses combined explain the existence of dark matter?

That would explain it, and that's one possibility that's being explored. Another possibility are previously-undetected (and unsuspected) particles.


Can energy/matter be considered positive, "empty" space ( beyond the farthest vibrations of the Big Bang) be considered negative and hence the accelerating universe through the simple force of opposite charges attracting each other - as a nail moves towards a magnet it accelerates.

Not very likely. The most likely model of the universe is that it is infinite, closed, and has a boundary - there is no "outside" for the universe to move towards. What's more likely is that there is an internal force driving the expansion.

You have to keep in mind that it's not just the boundary of the universe that's expanding - it's EVERYTHING in it, down to the fundamental particles of existence.



Or is space created by the matter/energy passing through it

No. Current thinking is that space and time exists as an effect of something more fundamental - whether it's strings, superstrings, branes or something else - our reality exists because of some underlying thing who's existence creates the universe around us. Matter and energy passing through space are all included in that. :)

[Molinaro]

“Nothing” is a completely abstract concept that has no existence in reality. By definition, nothing can’t be something. A room that contains no furniture or fittings can be said to be “empty” and contain “nothing”. It is however (and always was and will be) completely full of something (just not furniture and fittings). To say “once upon a time there was no time” is ludicrous. To say that time “started” and there was no “before” requires an act of creation (something from nothing). Next step is a creator. To claim that a completely abstract concept represents reality is no better than “believers” claiming that fantasy represents reality.


If you were standing at the north pole and were asked to point north would you? Or would you say that there is no north at the north pole? Now, by the definition of NSEW coordinates on a sphere, there is nothing miraculous about North being undefined at the north pole.

So, why do you have such a problem with being told that when at the big bang, there is no before. Time only flows forward, just like all directions are south at the North pole. And no, pointing up into the sky is not valid, since that is not a cardinal direction, as per the definition of cardinal directions.

Just like time only goes forward from the big bang, as per the definition of time.

You don't get to make up some other definition of time and then object to that definition. Stick to the real one please.

[hamelekim]

The hard part for most people is when you tell them that the question "what came before the Universe" is absolutely meaningless as time begins then, and there can be no "before."

How can something happen if there is no time? If there was no time then wouldn't everything be frozen in place? It would be like absolute zero with no molecules moving, no nothing. Maybe that entire line of reasoning only works within the framework of our universe.

I also disagree with your latter statement. What came before the Universe is an extremely important question and goes into the entire meaning of existence. The current theory of the multi-verse makes this question especially important. If you have infinite universes then how are they created, how are the laws that govern our universe created? These are fundamental questions that are not meaningless, in fact they are the most important questions an individual can ask. You can ask these questions about our own universe as well.

[Tumbleweed]

[quote=hamelekim;3260951]How can something happen if there is no time?

The other half of the equation is how can there be time if nothing is happening. Kind of like the carbon cycle or the chicken and the egg question in a way
And on the subject of time, does it exist to a light wave? In other words, do photons age? Is a light wave that reaches the earth from the sun to be considered 8 minutes old or as fresh a the nano second it first emanated . How about the strings within the photon that are assuming its velocity is a base, not something that messes up time. Do the strings age but not the photon?

[Tumbleweed]

Another thought about nothing. If space is nothing, then what is gravity warping? Dimensions but not space?

[jmercer]

Maybe that entire line of reasoning only works within the framework of our universe.



Exactly correct. Time and all of the phenomena associated with our universe didn't exist until the moment of creation. (Actually, it was some short time after the initial explosion that the laws we know came into effect.)

All of the laws of physics start breaking down the closer you get to that initial explosion.

[Zarathustra]

I think consciousness is pretty much a self-evident thing. In any case I don’t see that existence has anything to do with consciousness, other than being an awareness of it. Perhaps you’re talking about some form of paranormal cosmic consciousness?


I must humbly disagree, in that consciousness is not self-evident, though I'm not certain how you are using that definition here, -or are you referring to the reasoning along the lines of "I think, therefore I am?"

I would argue that consciousness in any form has not yet been completely defined in terms of scientific analysis of its process no more than it has been proven that Human beings are any more than the sum of our parts, which, as current consciousness research is showing, is more and more pointing to the latter.

You wrote:

Consciousness is a property of living things.


Unless I am misquoting you, since we have not completed the understanding, nature, and definition of our own Human consciousness, I submit that we cannot project such a (at this time) nebulous definition onto other organisms, and especially ones that may lack the specific organs which are generally observed to be part of the consciousness process.

Therefore, unless the meaning of the statement is being utilized as a metaphor with some relation to descriptors regarding perhaps properties of higher physics, I can only conclude that it was meant to be thought of in the metaphysical context, and if so, I feel I must point out that there is no such evidence that I am aware of as of yet to support this claim.

[jmercer]

[quote=hamelekim;3260951]How can something happen if there is no time?

The other half of the equation is how can there be time if nothing is happening. Kind of like the carbon cycle or the chicken and the egg question in a way
And on the subject of time, does it exist to a light wave? In other words, do photons age? Is a light wave that reaches the earth from the sun to be considered 8 minutes old or as fresh a the nano second it first emanated . How about the strings within the photon that are assuming its velocity is a base, not something that messes up time. Do the strings age but not the photon?

Tumbleweed, you really need to read a few books on the subject. I'm not being rude or anything, but some of your speculations and questions lead me to believe that you're not acquainted with some of the basic physics involved.

Another thought about nothing. If space is nothing, then what is gravity warping? Dimensions but not space?

As I have said repeatedly - to you, in fact - space is not nothing. Gravity can be viewed as warping space. That's why gravitational lenses exist.

[sol invictus]

Exactly correct. Time and all of the phenomena associated with our universe didn't exist until the moment of creation. (Actually, it was some short time after the initial explosion that the laws we know came into effect.)

All of the laws of physics start breaking down the closer you get to that initial explosion.

I really dislike this statement. All we can really say is that the known laws of physics break down. That does not imply that time ends, or that all the other phenomena we know begin there.

It's perfectly possible that the more complete laws, whatever they are, happily carry you through the singularity to the other side, and that the other side looks more or less normal. I've given an example in this thread of how that could happen. It's also perfectly possible they don't carry through, and that time does begin there - but we simply don't know.

[jmercer]

I also disagree with your latter statement. What came before the Universe is an extremely important question and goes into the entire meaning of existence.

I disagree with this on several levels. The conditions prevalent at the start of the universe are important; there is no "before" to discuss.

The current theory of the multi-verse makes this question especially important. If you have infinite universes then how are they created, how are the laws that govern our universe created? These are fundamental questions that are not meaningless, in fact they are the most important questions an individual can ask. You can ask these questions about our own universe as well.

If there are infinite universes, we will have no way of detecting them or getting any bit of information about them... therefore, they are irrelevant. As to the "how" of our physical laws, there are a number of good books on the subject.

[jmercer]

I really dislike this statement. All we can really say is that the known laws of physics break down. That does not imply that time ends, or that all the other phenomena we know begin there.

It's perfectly possible that the more complete laws, whatever they are, happily carry you through the singularity to the other side, and that the other side looks more or less normal. I've given an example in this thread of how that could happen. It's also perfectly possible they don't carry through, and that time does begin there - but we simply don't know.

I'll be perfectly happy to accept this - just as soon as someone provides an acceptable theory or some kind of evidence that it's true. Otherwise it's mere speculation, and nothing more. :)

At this moment, all the evidence and theories say otherwise.

[Tumbleweed]

I have read a number of books on relativity and am merely speculating in order to both clarify and eliminate possible ramifications of it. I use the twin metaphor as my base where one travels around in a spaceship takes his own odometer and speedometer readings and has his own clock. When he gets back, EVERYTHING is out of whack, timewise (trite, I know just like the tossing a ball on a moving train analogy) If I know that to be verifyably true, then what are the implications?
One, to me , is that if you were to leave the earth at the speed of light, time would stop for you. No time would pass on your journey while eons would pass back on
earth. Again, trite. Of course an object such as a rocket can't leave from a fixed point such as Earth at the speed of light, but light waves and the photons they are
made of do. So if you could pretend for a moment and ride along on that photon shot from earth, would you then age at all? Would not one heartbeat entail billions of earth years?If the twin analogy is true? And you can certainly exceed the speed of light mathematically by merely using equations, sticking in the appropriate numbers and plotting graphs. So what if you can't attain the speed of light physically by going from point A to point B. Simply treat it as an imaginary thing, such as the square root of minus one and hope it cancels out somewhere in the equation. I'm not certain, but I think that's how the concept of wormholes jelled
So I iterate, how old are the original light rays/ photons that originated after the Big Bang: no age at all or billions of years old - or both? I googled it along with why does light have frequency and got nowhere.Links would be welcome
When I say if space is nothing then what is it gravity warps, it doesn't mean that I think that space is nothing . In fact I don't. As I have already stated I think that space is indeed something and therefore it can be warped. I meant for my statement to be viewed as illogical so that the concept of space being nothing doesn't follow.
and no, I did not have a career in science, but, not to brag, I was pretty darned good in gifted level math, getting most of the highest grades. But like I said, I didn't carry it to a degree level and don't pretend to be a master, just a question asker

[Tumbleweed]

Frankly, I think the subject of consciouness is a little off subject, but since its already been brought up---
Are we not merely a group of cooperating cells that can be reduced to a zygote by going back in time? At what point was consciousness infused into your cells. Was it in the original zygote or "put in" at a later time? If so, how did it get in there? I'm not taking about the consciousness you wake up with that develops a personality in order to deal with the world. I mean the subconscious or the consciousness you sleep with. If you say you have concsiousness are you really implying that your cells do? Or is it communication between the cells themselves that is consciousness
Can one form of consciousness be defined as the ability of living things to respond to stimuli? Does consciousness require memory? How about senses?
Sorry, got carried away. It really belong in a philosphy thread

[Iamme]

This article may interest some of you:

http://www.hepl.harvard.edu/annual_reports/doe_reports_2005/1-Intro.pdf

[sol invictus]

I'll be perfectly happy to accept this - just as soon as someone provides an acceptable theory or some kind of evidence that it's true. Otherwise it's mere speculation, and nothing more. :)

At this moment, all the evidence and theories say otherwise.

That's not really correct. There is no evidence, and no theory, that says either possibility is more likely. All we really know is that our current theories are invalid close to the big bang, and therefore that something must replace them - but what that is, we have no idea.

So I would argue there is no evidence whatsoever that time began at the big bang. There is also no evidence against it.

[Schneibster]

Mmmmm. Interesting argument.

I think as far as hard evidence goes, I'd have to agree with sol. I think, however, that there may be some soft evidence that tends to bias at least me toward the idea that time began at the beginning of our universe, immediately prior to the Big Bang.

From what we know, it would appear that our best understanding of things just about requires a period of inflation immediately prior to the beginning of the hot Big Bang. What this basically means is that the three large spatial dimensions expanded to their current size, which is beyond our ability to measure and will remain so for the foreseeable future, if not actually infinite. If we think string physics might be involved, then we are talking about "small" dimensions undergoing this inflation; and since relativity allows us to convert space and time into one another, at least within limits, one has to wonder whether time might have been "curled up" like the three spatial dimensions, and what it might mean if time were a small dimension. Time might not even have the shape it does now; it might be circularly symmetric with the three dimensions that eventually became the three large spatial dimensions, and that would mean it wasn't actually a temporal dimension as we understand them to be.

So, with a couple great big ugly "if"s in the middle of it, IF inflation is really what happened and we find out for sure, and IF string theory or some other theory with extra "curled up" dimensions turns out to be right, then it seems likely that time as we know it now did indeed begin immediately prior to the Big Bang.

But that sure is a couple big "if"s.

[jmercer]

That's not really correct. There is no evidence, and no theory, that says either possibility is more likely. All we really know is that our current theories are invalid close to the big bang, and therefore that something must replace them - but what that is, we have no idea.

So I would argue there is no evidence whatsoever that time began at the big bang. There is also no evidence against it.

Ok - I can accept that there's no proof of time either did or did not begin at the big bang, and that all our current theories are lacking as we approach it. :)

I misread your original statement and didn't realize you were saying that any of the concepts are possible at the moment, because we don't have a really comprehensive theory - I thought you were just supporting one of the more wilder aspects of the possibilities. My bad, and I apologize.

[ynot]

There are real serious problems with an infinite and eternal universe model. One issue is a demonstrable and verified fact - the universe is expanding and cooling.

If the universe "always existed", there are some pretty sticky questions that can't be answered - such as:

1) What started the universe expanding? And when?
2) If the universe is infinite AND has no boundaries, what does expanding really mean?
3) Why isn't the universe cold, if it's been expanding and cooling forever? (The only possible answer would be that energy and matter are being continually created - but there's no mechanism for that, and it's a violation of the law of conservation.)

For all intentions, these obstacles are insurmountable - which is why the boundless/endless universe model was pretty much killed dead when Hoyle demonstrated that the universe IS expanding.

I should hasten to add (lest some smart skeptic nail me on it) that our universe can be - and probably is - infinite, but with boundaries. :)
Don’t have any “real” answers (or much time) but here is a quick “brainstorm”.

If not infinite, the universe is at least larger than we can currently observe. Perhaps our currently observable area of the universe is expanding but other areas are compressing. Perhaps energy is always distributed unevenly throughout the universe and it flows out of some areas and builds up in others, and peaks and troughs of energy are always being created on an infinite scale. A bit like a contiguously and continuously choppy sea. Perhaps the flow of energy throughout the universe is “frictionless” and this process can be infinite. Is there any evidence that the flow of energy is affected by friction? Perhaps like life, areas of the universe are constantly “dying” and being “reborn”.

Don’t see that a finite universe has any better answers to these questions.

[ynot]

I must humbly disagree, in that consciousness is not self-evident, though I'm not certain how you are using that definition here, -or are you referring to the reasoning along the lines of "I think, therefore I am?"

I would argue that consciousness in any form has not yet been completely defined in terms of scientific analysis of its process no more than it has been proven that Human beings are any more than the sum of our parts, which, as current consciousness research is showing, is more and more pointing to the latter.

You wrote:


Unless I am misquoting you, since we have not completed the understanding, nature, and definition of our own Human consciousness, I submit that we cannot project such a (at this time) nebulous definition onto other organisms, and especially ones that may lack the specific organs which are generally observed to be part of the consciousness process.

Therefore, unless the meaning of the statement is being utilized as a metaphor with some relation to descriptors regarding perhaps properties of higher physics, I can only conclude that it was meant to be thought of in the metaphysical context, and if so, I feel I must point out that there is no such evidence that I am aware of as of yet to support this claim.
This really belongs in another thread and is a bit of a de-rail of this one. However - Consciousness is self evident and is a property of living things in that living things act and react independently of just cause and effect. All living things are conscious of both their own existence and the existence of their environment. You can’t say this of a rock. Unless of course it is infinitely contemplating it’s own navel. ;)

Had to do that very quickly so it may not be quite what I was wanting to say.

[DrBaltar]

I doubt time even flows. The question of how fast does time flow is meaningless (i.e. how many seconds/second does time flow?). According to General Relativity, space-time can be seen as a static, 4 dimensional structure. In quantum mechanics, there is no time variable.

Why do we perceive time? Because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics: entropy increases. This is the reason that chemical reactions are a one way reaction. Which means that the chemical reactions that record memories in our brains can only occur in one direction, temporally. Since we cannot remember the future, we have the illusion that time flows.

[Zarathustra]

This really belongs in another thread and is a bit of a de-rail of this one. However - Consciousness is self evident and is a property of living things in that living things act and react independently of just cause and effect. All living things are conscious of both their own existence and the existence of their environment. You can’t say this of a rock. Unless of course it is infinitely contemplating it’s own navel. ;)

Had to do that very quickly so it may not be quite what I was wanting to say.


I think perhaps the confusion is the context.
Am I correct that by "consciousness" you were referring to phenomenal consciousness, such as a plant is conscious to its enviornment as it slowly grows toward the light?
If so, then I agree.

[Paulhoff]

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
Read and go nuts.

Paul

:) :) :)

[PBTree]

I doubt time even flows. The question of how fast does time flow is meaningless (i.e. how many seconds/second does time flow?). According to General Relativity, space-time can be seen as a static, 4 dimensional structure. In quantum mechanics, there is no time variable..

That makes just the best question: "how many seconds/second does a second travel?" :)

[QUOTE=DrBaltar;3264583]
Why do we perceive time? Because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics: entropy increases. This is the reason that chemical reactions are a one way reaction. Which means that the chemical reactions that record memories in our brains can only occur in one direction, temporally. Since we cannot remember the future, we have the illusion that time flows.[/QUOTE

As for this piece, you have forgotten our friend Sylvia. Her chemical reactions must be duplex because she can see and remember the future. ;)

She could also be the explanation for this thread, being a prime example of "worth nothing".

[BoogieWoogieWookie]

Nothing to see here.

Then move on an get out of the way.

But be very quiet. I'm trying to hear what all is going on here!

[BenBurch]

How can something happen if there is no time? If there was no time then wouldn't everything be frozen in place? It would be like absolute zero with no molecules moving, no nothing. Maybe that entire line of reasoning only works within the framework of our universe.

No, not frozen. No time means no existence. You are still thinking with time. Everything begins with event one. There was no everything to be "frozen" before because there was no "before" and "frozen" because it implies a lack of motion over time means something only to the observer who is traveling with time.


I also disagree with your latter statement. What came before the Universe is an extremely important question and goes into the entire meaning of existence. The current theory of the multi-verse makes this question especially important. If you have infinite universes then how are they created, how are the laws that govern our universe created? These are fundamental questions that are not meaningless, in fact they are the most important questions an individual can ask. You can ask these questions about our own universe as well.

Well, no, what came before isn't important or even meaningful if there was no before!

If there WAS a before then we are not talking about the first event any more!

A lot of the cosmological multiverse speculation is pure woo as far as I can determine, though I will admit that its been a long, long time since I worked for Fermilab and got to attend cosmology and HEP colloquia on a regular basis.

[DrBaltar]

BenBurch, could you take a look at what I wrote above about the flow of time being an illusion. What are your thoughts on that?

As for the multiverse speculation, I don't see how it can be anything but speculation. How could we possibly detect it?

[jmercer]

Don’t have any “real” answers (or much time) but here is a quick “brainstorm”.

If not infinite, the universe is at least larger than we can currently observe. Perhaps our currently observable area of the universe is expanding but other areas are compressing. Perhaps energy is always distributed unevenly throughout the universe and it flows out of some areas and builds up in others, and peaks and troughs of energy are always being created on an infinite scale. A bit like a contiguously and continuously choppy sea. Perhaps the flow of energy throughout the universe is “frictionless” and this process can be infinite. Is there any evidence that the flow of energy is affected by friction? Perhaps like life, areas of the universe are constantly “dying” and being “reborn”.

Don’t see that a finite universe has any better answers to these questions.

What's missing in this idea is entropy - "entropy rules".

I doubt time even flows. The question of how fast does time flow is meaningless (i.e. how many seconds/second does time flow?). According to General Relativity, space-time can be seen as a static, 4 dimensional structure. In quantum mechanics, there is no time variable.

Why do we perceive time? Because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics: entropy increases. This is the reason that chemical reactions are a one way reaction. Which means that the chemical reactions that record memories in our brains can only occur in one direction, temporally. Since we cannot remember the future, we have the illusion that time flows.

Thank you, DrBaltar. :)

Ynot, this is also why the universe can't be self-perpetuating in the sense of continuous creation of energy. Eventually, it's all going to even out, although there will be areas of higher order for quite some time to come. :)

[BenBurch]

BenBurch, could you take a look at what I wrote above about the flow of time being an illusion. What are your thoughts on that?

As for the multiverse speculation, I don't see how it can be anything but speculation. How could we possibly detect it?

Well, flowing or an illusion; No way to tell the difference between those two choices by experiment. We exist as creatures of time. (Existence itself is a creature of time.) So, unless physics find some way to distinguish between those alternatives, you can choose to believe you are right. :-)

[jmercer]

Well... the flow of time may be an illusion. Down below the planck level, time may not even exist.

OTOH, I think we need to be careful here, because the word "illusion" is kind of a loaded one... because it would imply (I think) that space (the traditional three dimensions) is an illusion as well, since time and space are inextricably linked - afaik.

[BenBurch]

Well... the flow of time may be an illusion. Down below the planck level, time may not even exist.

OTOH, I think we need to be careful here, because the word "illusion" is kind of a loaded one... because it would imply (I think) that space (the traditional three dimensions) is an illusion as well, since time and space are inextricably linked - afaik.

Good point. Our terminology limits the ways we can think about this problem.

[DrBaltar]

Well... the flow of time may be an illusion. Down below the planck level, time may not even exist.

OTOH, I think we need to be careful here, because the word "illusion" is kind of a loaded one... because it would imply (I think) that space (the traditional three dimensions) is an illusion as well, since time and space are inextricably linked - afaik.
I'm not saying that time does not exist. It is a non-spatial dimension in space-time. Its existence is validated by every special and general relativity experiment. I am saying that our perception that there are three dimensions in which things move and in which we perceive states of this 3D world in a sequence is an illusion. I am saying that the universe, along with us and everything in it are a static 4 dimensional structure.

[BoogieWoogieWookie]

I am saying that the universe, along with us and everything in it are a static 4 dimensional structure.

So, are you saying you believe in predestination? All events in the universe being fixed from beginning to end (if there is one)?

[DrBaltar]

So, are you saying you believe in predestination? All events in the universe being fixed from beginning to end (if there is one)?Well yes and no. I don't think we are 'destined' to do anything. That seems to suggest that there is a higher power that has decided that you will do and/or become certain things. But I believe in a deterministic universe. I have studied quantum mechanics, and I know QM says otherwise, but I'm with Einstein. The thought of a non-deterministic universe is just weird. Until we come up with the Theory of Everything, I cannot rule out the possibility that there are other factors (natural factors of course, not mystical) we don't yet know about that are playing into the dynamics of the universe.

[Paulhoff]

The thought of a non-deterministic universe is just weird.
A non-deterministic universe is anything but weird, I quess you don't like freedom.

Paul

:) :) :)

[DrBaltar]

At the risk of venturing into a free-will vs determinism discussion, I'll just briefly say that we are made up of regular physical matter that abides by natural physical laws. Because of this, any state following the current state follows from naturalistic physical laws. Whether QM is deterministic or not is immaterial since significant quantum effects that influence macroscopic dynamics are extremely rare, and can be ignored in consciousness. So for consciousness, the only kind of processes that occur are deterministic.

The brain is extremely complex and the interaction of the complex brain with a complex world has an inconceivable number of states, making it almost impossible to predict our behavior which is why it appears to that we are we have free will.

Chaotic systems may be impossible, or extremely difficult to predict but they are still deterministic.

[Paulhoff]

Chaotic systems may be impossible, or extremely difficult to predict but they are still deterministic.
So how do you get by Quantum Physics.

Paul

:) :) :)

[DrBaltar]

With a few exceptions, QM becomes deterministic at scales above atomic because of the increasingly astronomical odds against non-deterministic results happening at larger and larger scales. Yes, it's possible to walk through a wall by quantum tunneling, but you've got like one in a google chance of it happening. Can you name any QM processes that are important in brain function and are not deterministic?

[ynot]

What's missing in this idea is entropy - "entropy rules".

Ynot, this is also why the universe can't be self-perpetuating in the sense of continuous creation of energy. Eventually, it's all going to even out, although there will be areas of higher order for quite some time to come. :)
My “brainstorm” doesn’t require energy to be created, continuously otherwise. A universe that “starts” however does require the creation (start) of energy. My scenario suggests that energy has always been, and will always be unevenly distributed throughout an infinite universe, and a state of entropy will never be attained.

[DrBaltar]

My “brainstorm” doesn’t require energy to be created, continuously otherwise.
Try not eating, drinking or breathing long enough and there will be no brainstorms. ;)

[Paulhoff]

With a few exceptions, QM becomes deterministic at scales above atomic because of the increasingly astronomical odds against non-deterministic results happening at larger and larger scales. Yes, it's possible to walk through a wall by quantum tunneling, but you've got like one in a google chance of it happening. Can you name any QM processes that are important in brain function and are not deterministic?
Gee, I didn't know that what affects atoms has nothing to do with want affects everything else.

Paul

:) :) :)

[lenny]

Chaotic systems may be impossible, or extremely difficult to predict but they are still deterministic.

why do you distinguish the determinism in the equations from the the randomness (obs noise) in the measurement?

observed chaotic systems would have to be predicted by probability distributions, and once this is done they need not be impossible or extremely dificult to predict or even difficult!

[lenny]

Chaotic systems may be impossible, or extremely difficult to predict but they are still deterministic.

So how do you get by Quantum Physics.

Paul

:) :) :)

in general: you do not. you may get more useful laws of macroscopic physics, but by construction you do not see QM in things like Newton's Laws.

[lenny]

Can you name any QM processes that are important in brain function and are not deterministic?

vision? (one photon at a time)

large number statistics does not turn a stochastic process into a deterministic one. (and i once heard rumours that frog's can detect photons at small numbers, but have no evidence this was in fact observed.)

[Paulhoff]

in general: you do not. you may get more useful laws of macroscopic physics, but by construction you do not see QM in things like Newton's Laws.
The point is, there is no way to have a so-called god's eye view of the universe, so no one can say it is deterministic.

Paul

:) :) :)

[DrBaltar]

why do you distinguish the determinism in the equations from the the randomness (obs noise) in the measurement?

observed chaotic systems would have to be predicted by probability distributions, and once this is done they need not be impossible or extremely dificult to predict or even difficult!

To predict chaotic systems requires probability distributions. But it is physics that drives them in the real world.

[DrBaltar]

Can you name any QM processes that are important in brain function and are not deterministic?vision? (one photon at a time)
Although photons are governed by QM, I usually take in many many photons in at once, and as a large group, they behave to an extremely good approximation according to deterministic optics.

[Matteo Martini]

So, are you saying you believe in predestination? All events in the universe being fixed from beginning to end (if there is one)?

If all the events of the Universe are fixed from beginning to the end, you can we talk about " choosing " to believe in predestination at all?

[Matteo Martini]

why do you distinguish the determinism in the equations from the the randomness (obs noise) in the measurement?

observed chaotic systems would have to be predicted by probability distributions, and once this is done they need not be impossible or extremely dificult to predict or even difficult!

Gee, I didn't know that what affects atoms has nothing to do with want affects everything else.

Paul

:) :) :)

With a few exceptions, QM becomes deterministic at scales above atomic because of the increasingly astronomical odds against non-deterministic results happening at larger and larger scales. Yes, it's possible to walk through a wall by quantum tunneling, but you've got like one in a google chance of it happening. Can you name any QM processes that are important in brain function and are not deterministic?

The word " nothing " was used far before quantum mechanics and chaotic systems were formulated, so I guess has little ( nothing?? ) to do with them

[Paulhoff]

The word " nothing " was used far before quantum mechanics and chaotic systems were formulated, so I guess has little ( nothing?? ) to do with them
Nothing, what is between Bush's ears.

Next question

Paul

:) :) :)

[DrBaltar]

The point is, there is no way to have a so-called god's eye view of the universe, so no one can say it is deterministic.I agree with you that one can have a god's eye view of the universe. Please see the difference in what I am saying. I am not saying we will ever have enough information to simulate the universe and accurately predict every state past and future based on it's current state. I am saying that I believe the universe itself behaves deterministically (as opposed to probabilistically) based on the real laws of nature that we may or may not ever really know, and based on the true state of the universe in all its dimensions. Just because we'll never have the ability to capture the complete state of everything and predict future events doesn't mean the universe does not behave deterministically. But that's just my opinion and not something that is provable.

[DrBaltar]

What does Bush have to do with this? Let's get back to the topic.

[Paulhoff]

I agree with you that one can have a god's eye view of the universe. Please see the difference in what I am saying. I am not saying we will ever have enough information to simulate the universe and accurately predict every state past and future based on it's current state. I am saying that I believe the universe itself behaves deterministically (as opposed to probabilistically) based on the real laws of nature that we may or may not ever really know, and based on the true state of the universe in all its dimensions. Just because we'll never have the ability to capture the complete state of everything and predict future events doesn't mean the universe does not behave deterministically. But that's just my opinion and not something that is provable.
Yes, but with QM it still means it is not truly deterministic, so enjoy the ride. And Bush has a lot to do with it, since he has a handle in the money sent by the government on scientific research.

Paul

:) :) :)

[DrBaltar]

I'm not going to be pulled into a Bush thing with in this topic.

[lenny]

Just because we'll never have the ability to capture the complete state of everything and predict future events doesn't mean the universe does not behave deterministically.
agreed. the question is unanswerable. nice discussions by Mach, B Russell and john earman.
But that's just my opinion and not something that is provable.
we can prove that our current determinsitic models do NOT admit trajectories consistent with the observations... chaos is no excuse here

[lenny]

Although photons are governed by QM, I usually take in many many photons in at once, and as a large group, they behave to an extremely good approximation according to deterministic optics.

while i'd stick with "described" rather than "governed", my point was that they appear to interact one at a time, i do not see how appealing to large numbers can save you.

[lenny]

in general: you do not. you may get more useful laws of macroscopic physics, but by construction you do not see QM in things like Newton's Laws.

The point is, there is no way to have a so-called god's eye view of the universe, so no one can say it is deterministic.:)

agreed.

my point was that one does not normally expect to derive theories of microscopic systems from those of macroscopic system. (so one would not expect to "get Quantum Physics" from in a theory of chaotic dynamical systems)

[DrBaltar]

we can prove that our current determinsitic models do NOT admit trajectories consistent with the observations... chaos is no excuse here
Do you know the concept behind chaos theory?

[lenny]

The point is, there is no way to have a so-called god's eye view of the universe, so no one can say it is deterministic.

agreed, as Mach put it:

"11 There is no way of proving the correctness of the position 'determinism'
or 'indeterminism'. Only if science were complete of demonstrably impossible
could we decide such questions. These are presuppositions we bring to the
consideration of things..."

E Mach
Chapt XVI (pg 208) Knowledge and Error (1905)

[jmercer]

What's missing in this idea is entropy - "entropy rules".

Ynot, this is also why the universe can't be self-perpetuating in the sense of continuous creation of energy. Eventually, it's all going to even out, although there will be areas of higher order for quite some time to come. :)
My “brainstorm” doesn’t require energy to be created, continuously otherwise. A universe that “starts” however does require the creation (start) of energy. My scenario suggests that energy has always been, and will always be unevenly distributed throughout an infinite universe, and a state of entropy will never be attained.


It's a nice idea, but it doesn't square with existing observations. Entropy is an established fact, and is in operation throughout the observable universe... and we can see and measure a LOT Of the universe these days. So, even if a local demonstration of entropy could be considered by your idea as non-definitive, we can see entropy in action everywhere... and see no signs of "choppy constant energy" anywhere.

I'm not dismissing your idea so much as I'm saying that all the evidence available disagrees with the notion.

[BenBurch]

... but you've got like one in a google chance ...

"Googol" is the word you meant. :)

[BenBurch]

It requires no energy to start the universe. Because nothing started it. It existed at its first instant with all the mass-energy it would ever have.

[lenny]

we can prove that our current determinsitic models do NOT admit trajectories consistent with the observations... chaos is no excuse here

Do you know the concept behind chaos theory?

i'm not unfamiliar with them. why do you ask?

[DrBaltar]

while i'd stick with "described" rather than "governed", my point was that they appear to interact one at a time, i do not see how appealing to large numbers can save you.You are correct, but this determinism tangent was started when Paulhoff brought up free-will. And I challenged him, or anyone, to name a non-deterministic process that affects consciousness.

It may be true that non-deterministic QM describes the behavior of one photon at a time hitting the retina, but with regards to consciousness, it can be described very accurately using deterministic optics. The fact that ultimately, photons are quantum wave packets, is moot as far as consciousness goes because, as far as consciousness goes, light entering the eye behaves deterministically.

If you believe the non-deterministic aspects of light are significant to consciousness and free will, can you argue that if those non-deterministic aspects of light were removed, that we would lose our free will?

[Paulhoff]

I hate so-called "FREE-WILL", now are you talking about the religious or some other version of it.

Paul

:) :) :)

[lenny]

I hate so-called "FREE-WILL",

understood. but do you have any choice in the matter?

[DrBaltar]

i'm not unfamiliar with them [chaos theory]. why do you ask?

Because earlier you said:
we can prove that our current determinsitic models do NOT admit trajectories consistent with the observations... chaos is no excuse here

Chaos theory actually explains why deterministic models do not admit trajectories consistent with the observations.

According to chaos theory, complex systems, such as weather, involve mind boggling amounts of data, and the accuracy and quantity of this data is essential to accurately predicting what the weather will do. This is because some systems, such as weather, are very sensitive to every small perturbation.

This is what the 'butterfly effect' refers to: a hypothetical butterfly flaps its wings somewhere in the world, and starts a chain of reactions that eventually results in a hurricane across the world.

The thing is the difficulty in simulating chaotic systems doesn't change the fact that these systems do not do anything supernatural. They behave according to natural deterministic laws of nature. IF we had a computer with infinite accuracy and all the data required by the chaotic system, then the system could be accurately modeled. But we don't and never will. But the universe does make use of all this information and behaves deterministically.

[Paulhoff]

understood. but do you have any choice in the matter?
Nothing is free, all things have a cost.

Paul

:) :) :)

[lenny]

You are correct, but this determinism tangent was started when Paulhoff brought up free-will. And I challenged him, or anyone, to name a non-deterministic process that affects consciousness.

and i'd argue that i gave you one. even if i were to grant that one could describe that non-deterministic process by "deterministic optics" it still remains (under best available theory) a non-deterministic process that affects consciousness. in the frog case it can be a matter of life and death...

If you believe the non-deterministic aspects of light are significant to consciousness and free will, can you argue that if those non-deterministic aspects of light were removed, that we would lose our free will?

no. or at least i would not so argue.

but then introducing something truly stochastic hardly allows "free will" any more than something being truly deterministic. no?

[DrBaltar]

but then introducing something truly stochastic hardly allows "free will" any more than something being truly deterministic. no?
Well I was trying to say that the processes that consciousness operates by are what we would all agree are deterministic processes. Therefore consciousness is deterministic, and we really don't have free will. It's just that our consciousness is a chaotic system, and therefore hard to predict. And it appears that we have free will. Like rectal-extrapolation ;)

If we truly had free will, what process would allow that? I can't think of any unless you bring the supernatural into it.

[Paulhoff]

If we truly had free will, what process would allow that? I can't think of any unless you bring the supernatural into it.
And what does magic have to do with it.

Paul

:) :) :)

[lenny]

“Nothing” is a completely abstract concept that has no existence in reality. By definition, nothing can’t be something. A room that contains no furniture or fittings can be said to be “empty” and contain “nothing”.

you seem to have become biased from living in a very unusual place in the universe (on a solid planet at the bottom of a deep atmosphere).

one might argue the physical vacuum was really nothing, and even interplanetary space is mostly nothing...

then again i recall a very readable paper by TD Lee (? to the NY Academy of Science?) called ~ "Is the Physical Vacuum a Medium?", 20+ years ago, but a nice paper. it suggests one should not argue that the vacuum is not nothing.

[hammegk]

Re: "Free Will"

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0204021

We refine a QED-cavity model of microtubules (MTs), proposed earlier by two of the authors (N.E.M. and D.V.N.), and suggest mechanisms for the formation of biomolecular mesoscopic coherent and/or entangled quantum states, which may avoid decoherence for times comparable to biological characteristic times.
Anyone know any more about this?

[DrBaltar]

And what does magic have to do with it.
According to Webster, free will is the freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.

If there are no prior causes that caused us to make a choice, how then is the choice made?

[Iamme]

Don’t have any “real” answers (or much time) but here is a quick “brainstorm”.

If not infinite, the universe is at least larger than we can currently observe. Perhaps our currently observable area of the universe is expanding but other areas are compressing. Perhaps energy is always distributed unevenly throughout the universe and it flows out of some areas and builds up in others, and peaks and troughs of energy are always being created on an infinite scale. A bit like a contiguously and continuously choppy sea. Perhaps the flow of energy throughout the universe is “frictionless” and this process can be infinite. Is there any evidence that the flow of energy is affected by friction? Perhaps like life, areas of the universe are constantly “dying” and being “reborn”.

Don’t see that a finite universe has any better answers to these questions.

An abstract thinker. I like it. You never know. We know that atoms are in constant motion within it's own space and we know that magnetism is something where there is this generation of force as there seems to be a directional flow in and out of the poles, (or is it in and out from the poles to halfway between the poles? )endlessly. So I can see your theory as plausible.

What does Stephen Hawking think? And does he really have a clue?

[Paulhoff]

According to Webster, free will is the freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.

If there are no prior causes that caused us to make a choice, how then is the choice made?
It is called magical thinking.

Paul

:) :) :)

[jmercer]

According to Webster, free will is the freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention.

If there are no prior causes that caused us to make a choice, how then is the choice made?

It is called magical thinking.

Paul

:) :) :)

Not at all. :)

Would you like some examples of free will? Go into any casino, race-track or other gambling event, and watch people bet. Each bet is a free-will decision, not brought about anything other than a subjective belief that they'll "win this time", or "The odds are with me", and so forth.

Or chat with people who were once religious and have become atheists. Same thing - it was a free will decision. Others are exposed to the exact same information and stimuli, but still continue to believe - some, though, do not.

Want to exercise some free will yourself? Next time you're ordering a drink, pick two and flip a coin, and allow the coin toss to decide which one you'll choose. Choosing a random outcome is also an exercise in free will. :)

Nothing magical about it.

[Paulhoff]

Not at all. :)

Would you like some examples of free will? Go into any casino, race-track or other gambling event, and watch people bet. Each bet is a free-will decision, not brought about anything other than a subjective belief that they'll "win this time", or "The odds are with me", and so forth.

Or chat with people who were once religious and have become atheists. Same thing - it was a free will decision. Others are exposed to the exact same information and stimuli, but still continue to believe - some, though, do not.

Want to exercise some free will yourself? Next time you're ordering a drink, pick two and flip a coin, and allow the coin toss to decide which one you'll choose. Choosing a random outcome is also an exercise in free will. :)

Nothing magical about it.
Again, there is nothing FREE about anything you do.

Paul

:) :) :)

[DrBaltar]

Would you like some examples of free will? Go into any casino, race-track or other gambling event, and watch people bet. Each bet is a free-will decision, not brought about anything other than a subjective belief that they'll "win this time", or "The odds are with me", and so forth.Bets are usually made by an understanding, or misunderstanding of the odds involved, with some past experience in gambling mixed in as a guide.

Or chat with people who were once religious and have become atheists. Same thing - it was a free will decision. Others are exposed to the exact same information and stimuli, but still continue to believe - some, though, do not.My decision to become atheist was based on reason. It was a thought process over several years initiated by things people told me, things I watched, and books I read coupled with my application of logic which pointed out serious holes in christianity. It wasn't just a whim.

Want to exercise some free will yourself? Next time you're ordering a drink, pick two and flip a coin, and allow the coin toss to decide which one you'll choose. Choosing a random outcome is also an exercise in free will. :)Ok, I can't decide between two drinks, but I need to make a decision. What have I heard about that can help me with this choice? Oh, I've heard of flipping a coin to decide. I could use that method. Again, not just a whim. It's something I've heard of doing before.

Nothing magical about it.It sounds magical the way you describe it, and it would have to be if it were truly free will. On the contrary, we build up a vast array of experiences that we can draw from. The neural networks in our brain have billions of interconnections allowing us to combine pieces of past experiences and couple that with new information to produce "new" ideas. But every idea can be broken up and traced to their origins.

Read "Who's Live Would You Save? (http://discovermagazine.com/2004/apr/whose-life-would-you-save)". It's very illuminating.

[jmercer]

Bets are usually made by an understanding, or misunderstanding of the odds involved, with some past experience in gambling mixed in as a guide.

They are also made for the entertainment and fun involved; the adrenaline rush of the occasional win, and the social interactions surrounding the activity. However, regardless of how one decides to bet - or not - there is a decision made to do so.

In all frankness, I fail to see how making that decision based on logic, emotion, or any combination of the two invalidates the concept of free will, since gambling (unless one is addicted) is a completely voluntary activity.


My decision to become atheist was based on reason. It was a thought process over several years initiated by things people told me, things I watched, and books I read coupled with my application of logic which pointed out serious holes in christianity. It wasn't just a whim.

I apologize if it appeared I was trivializing or disrespecting the decision to become an atheist; I wasn't. I understand how profound and important such a decision is - and while I am a deist, I absolutely respect atheists and their positions on the subject of god.

Having said that... I don't see how the fact you used reason to reach your conclusion invalidates my statement about free will. There are enormous numbers of people who have had access to the same information and opportunities as you - yet who choose to continue to believe in whatever personal version of faith they may find attractive.

The point is that they not only have the freedom to choose, but exercise that freedom. Some choose to believe, and then change their minds later on... and sometimes change them back again.

If we were a slave to our experiences in this world and free will didn't exist, I would be hard-pressed to understand why anyone - let alone the majority of the world population - would choose to believe in a supernatural being.


Ok, I can't decide between two drinks, but I need to make a decision. What have I heard about that can help me with this choice? Oh, I've heard of flipping a coin to decide. I could use that method. Again, not just a whim. It's something I've heard of doing before.

Expressing free will doesn't require that you create a wholly new approach to decision-making. It merely requires that you decide how to make your decision - in the case of a coin-flip, you are leaving it to chance. That is a free-will decision.


It sounds magical the way you describe it, and it would have to be if it were truly free will. On the contrary, we build up a vast array of experiences that we can draw from. The neural networks in our brain have billions of interconnections allowing us to combine pieces of past experiences and couple that with new information to produce "new" ideas. But every idea can be broken up and traced to their origins.

Perhaps... but perhaps there is some randomness in how those networks operate, some aspect of chaos theory that contributes to creativity. :) And perhaps that is also where the seed of free will lies as well.


Read "Who's Live Would You Save? (http://discovermagazine.com/2004/apr/whose-life-would-you-save)". It's very illuminating.

I will - thanks for the recommendation. I'm always looking for new insights. :)

[Paulhoff]

Having said that... I don't see how the fact you used reason to reach your conclusion invalidates my statement about free will. There are enormous numbers of people who have had access to the same information and opportunities as you - yet who choose to continue to believe in whatever personal version of faith they may find attractive.

The same information, maybe, but we all have different baggage that we bring to the table, so our chooses will not always be the same.

Also I think that not believing in a so-called christian god is not a belief, it is based on the great lack of evidence that there is one.

Now about the word “Nothing”, that is a concept, like “Infinity”, it is of the mind and is not found in the real universe.

Paul

:) :) :)

[jmercer]

The same information, maybe, but we all have different baggage that we bring to the table, so our chooses will not always be the same.

I fully agree except I don't see how that invalidates the concept of free will. Different experiences (among other things) will enable people to make different choices; that doesn't mean their choices are predetermined.


Also I think that not believing in a so-called christian god is not a belief, it is based on the great lack of evidence that there is one.

I don't recall saying anything about a "christian god". God, goddesses, pantheons, Gaia, etc... there are as many possible supernatural beliefs as there are ways to express them.

That doesn't mean that these beliefs are valid; but it does mean that people are inherently capable of either believing them, or not believing them. Unless, of course, you're saying that those who believe have no choice in the matter?

Otherwise, I don't see how any of this precludes the existence of free will, as I said. :)


Now about the word “Nothing”, that is a concept, like “Infinity”, it is of the mind and is not found in the real universe.

Paul

:) :) :)

I'm totally in agreement with ya! :)

[DrBaltar]

In all frankness, I fail to see how making that decision based on logic, emotion, or any combination of the two invalidates the concept of free will, since gambling (unless one is addicted) is a completely voluntary activity.

Having said that... I don't see how the fact you used reason to reach your conclusion invalidates my statement about free will. There are enormous numbers of people who have had access to the same information and opportunities as you - yet who choose to continue to believe in whatever personal version of faith they may find attractive.It's not the same for everyone. The information isn't quite the same, and if it is it's presented in different ways. Plus everyone's environment is slightly to very different. And peoples brains are different and perceive and process the information differently.

And the fact that you use reason to reach a conclusion means that there were factors that went into your decision. Your decision was determined by those factors and is therefore deterministic. OTH, if it were a free-will decision, you could not trace the decision to anything. It would just happen.

If we were a slave to our experiences in this world and free will didn't exist, I would be hard-pressed to understand why anyone - let alone the majority of the world population - would choose to believe in a supernatural being.Not to diminish the religious experience, but I think it's peer pressure and each generation is brainwashed going back to times when we didn't have answers for why the sun comes up, or for how the weather works, etc.

Expressing free will doesn't require that you create a wholly new approach to decision-making. It merely requires that you decide how to make your decision - in the case of a coin-flip, you are leaving it to chance. That is a free-will decision.MRIs can trace how these decisions are made. The brain can sense all kinds of sensations from your body, but it cannot sense itself since that is where the processing is done in the first place. You are not always able to trace where your thoughts come from and they often seem to come from thin air. But MRIs can show where thoughts come from and how they are made. There is much more about that in the link to the article I posted.

Perhaps... but perhaps there is some randomness in how those networks operate, some aspect of chaos theory that contributes to creativity. And perhaps that is also where the seed of free will lies as well.Chaos theory is not random. It is deterministic.

See my earlier post on chaos (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3269242#post3269242).

[lenny]

[COLOR=black]Now about the word “Nothing”, that is a concept, like “Infinity”, it is of the mind and is not found in the real universe.:)

as are mathematics and science... but that does not limit our productive use of such concepts.

[Paulhoff]

as are mathematics and science... but that does not limit our productive use of such concepts.
"Paulhoff looks at what he wrote" nope I only made a point, nothing about not using them.

Paul

:) :) :)

Maybe after you read more of what I write, you'll know that I know.

[lenny]

It sounds magical the way you describe it, and it would have to be if it were truly free will.

being beyond today's science does not make something magical, does it? especially if we hold science merely describes (and does not govern).

"the problem of free will" is a problem for a Naive Realist (science governs everything, mathematics encodes science, dynamical systems are either deterministic or stochastic: in neither case is a decision truly free, but either pre-ordained or uncaused).

such beliefs tend to elevate science the science to Science The Religion, and there is no need for a skeptic to do that. i agree that there may have been a time a few hundred years ago, where society needed Science in order to get science started, but as individuals we do not need Science today; perhaps science can shed the few remaining vestigial religious words it still bandies about, like "Truth"?

being beyond science does not make something "super natural" merely "meta physical". whether or not it will remain beyond physics next week is unknown. would it matter to you if the concepts of science were incomplete, as in unable to describe everything we can see?

[DrBaltar]

being beyond today's science does not make something magical, does it? especially if we hold science merely describes (and does not govern).
But it's not beyond today's science. We have the technology, and we are tracing where thoughts come from (http://discovermagazine.com/2004/apr/whose-life-would-you-save).

such beliefs tend to elevate science the science to Science The Religion, and there is no need for a skeptic to do that. i agree that there may have been a time a few hundred years ago, where society needed Science in order to get science started, but as individuals we do not need Science today; perhaps science can shed the few remaining vestigial religious words it still bandies about, like "Truth"?Science is a method of understanding nature. There is a whole body of work on this website about the virtues of science that I will refer you too.

being beyond science does not make something "super natural" merely "meta physical". whether or not it will remain beyond physics next week is unknown. would it matter to you if the concepts of science were incomplete, as in unable to describe everything we can see?I'm not saying any of this is beyond science. But that's really besides the issue... Either our will is the product of natural laws (whether we know them or not) or they are not, in which case they are by definition supernatural.

[lenny]

Maybe after you read more of what I write, you'll know that I know.

i'd like too better understand what you believe, and while i admire your aim for the pithy, many of your posts read (to me) as merely terse. others i find informative and interesting.

[lenny]

I'm not saying any of this is beyond science. But that's really besides the issue... Either our will is the product of natural laws (whether we know them or not) or they are not, in which case they are by definition supernatural.

i do not understand your use of the word "natural", or the constraints you put on a law that allow it to be a "natural law". and while the word "supernatural" carries a lot of emotional baggage, defining it has "not what we currently think of as a natural law" has repeatedly failed to stand the test of time.

we have phenomena well described by science: i assume you call that natural.

then we have phenomena that are not, currently well described by science: how might one develop meaningful subcategories for phenomena of the second type empirically?

[lenny]

Chaos theory actually explains why deterministic models do not admit trajectories consistent with the observations.
not quite. given a perfect model of a (deterministic) chaotic system and noisy observations, we can never make accurate definitive (point) predictions, that is we cannot that say exactly what will happen.

after we have observed what does happen, however, the model will always admit a trajectory consistent with the equations of motion and the observational noise process.

if the model is just wrong, then the model is just wrong, and we do not need anything as fancy as "chaos" to explain our failure to get good forecasts!

According to chaos theory, complex systems, such as weather, involve mind boggling amounts of data, and the accuracy and quantity of this data is essential.

chaos is most commonly studied in simple mathematical systems with only a few degrees of freedom. usually one or three variables, perhaps sixty-ish. weather models have about 10^7. we cannot even prove that weather models are chaotic (i expect that they are, effectively chaotic; but the properties that define chaos as not well understood in of such systems).

[Paulhoff]

i'd like too better understand what you believe, and while i admire your aim for the pithy, many of your posts read (to me) as merely terse. others i find informative and interesting.
Yes, why use five words when you can use five thousand to say even less.

Paul

:) :) :)

[ynot]

It's a nice idea, but it doesn't square with existing observations. Entropy is an established fact, and is in operation throughout the observable universe... and we can see and measure a LOT Of the universe these days. So, even if a local demonstration of entropy could be considered by your idea as non-definitive, we can see entropy in action everywhere... and see no signs of "choppy constant energy" anywhere.

I'm not dismissing your idea so much as I'm saying that all the evidence available disagrees with the notion.
It’s not meant to “square with existing observations“. Existing observations are limited and I’m brainstorming about that which we can’t observe (and perhaps never will). How can you say “we can see and measure a LOT Of the universe” when we don‘t have any idea how big it is, or even that it has a definable size? Even if the universe is finite, we may be able to see and measure only a very small part of it. If it’s infinite, then an infinitely small part. “All the evidence available” is just that, available, not possible. As I said earlier, how do we know we’re not merely seeing and measuring “a black spot on a white dog”? To conclude that the universe is a particular tihng based on limited observations is no better than our ancestors concluding that the world was flat based on their limited observations.

[ynot]

It requires no energy to start the universe. Because nothing started it. It existed at its first instant with all the mass-energy it would ever have.
If the universe had a first instance then it had a start, and therefore mass-energy had a start. If it started from a “no before” then it came from nothing and was created.

[jmercer]

It’s not meant to “square with existing observations“.
ynot, the problem isn't just that your idea doesn't "square with existing observations".

The problem is that your idea doesn't square with existing observations AND there are absolutely no observations - not even an anomaly - that suggests your idea may have a basis in reality.

It's sheer speculation, with absolutely nothing observable or measurable supporting it whatsoever.


Existing observations are limited and I’m brainstorming about that which we can’t observe (and perhaps never will).

See above - there's a big difference between "brainstorming" and "fantasizing".


How can you say “we can see and measure a LOT Of the universe” when we don‘t have any idea how big it is, or even that it has a definable size?

Actually, we have a reasonably good estimate of the size of the universe (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html), one based on current information and findings backed up by a lot of data. Of course, since the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, the size changes moment to moment. However, Hubble and other scientific projects have seen pretty darned deeply into the reaches of the universe, and are peering more deeply every day.

Your argument is even weaker than the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" type of argument, because the laws of nature - as uncovered, tested and verified via physics - don't allow for your "choppy sea energy" idea, and your concept is fully subject to the laws of nature - no supernatural aspect is involved, nor can one be claimed.


Even if the universe is finite, we may be able to see and measure only a very small part of it. If it’s infinite, then an infinitely small part. “All the evidence available” is just that, available, not possible.

It's not just evidence. It's the laws of physics. And we have absolutely no reason to believe whatsoever that the laws change based on location. In fact, we have every reason TO believe that the laws of physics hold true throughout the universe, seen and unseen.

As I said earlier, how do we know we’re not merely seeing and measuring “a black spot on a white dog”? To conclude that the universe is a particular tihng based on limited observations is no better than our ancestors concluding that the world was flat based on their limited observations.

Your analogy doesn't work, just like your idea.

First of all, people have always been able to make all the necessary observations required to determine that our earth in a sphere, so your comment on "our ancestors concluding that the world was flat based on their limited observations" is incorrect in it's fundamental assumption - that "our ancestors" were only able to make limited observations leading to an erroneous conclusion.

Further, your conclusion is incorrect in historical fact as well. Aristotle (322-284 BC) argued that the earth is a sphere (http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htm). Eratosthenes (194-276 BC) even estimated (surprisingly accurately, too) the circumference of the earth. And there is a lot of evidence that even earlier than that, the Romans (who were sailors as well) understood that the world was round, too.

So over 2300 years ago - long before Christopher Columbus, Galileo and his telescope, the "scientific method" we employ today... in fact, roughly half-way through recorded history - informed people believed the earth was a sphere. (I say "informed" because even today some people apparently still believe the earth is flat.)

So at some point, yes - some people did believe the earth was flat... just as today, some people refuse to believe that man has landed on the moon. Of course, there are also people who fervently believe the world was created about 7,000 years ago, along with a fossil record dating back beyond that point by a God - whom, if He did such a thing - would have to be the greatest Con Being of all time. :)

Historical evidence indicates that most people in antiquity really didn't care about the shape of the world - not a surprise, given the times they lived in. But as always, the error in their beliefs was eventually revealed by reason, logic, mathematics and observation of the universe around us - including our own earth, which is clearly a part of the universe. (And hardly a unique part, either.)

Again - ideas without any supporting evidence are merely speculation. Interesting speculation, and clever - but unfortunately, without support. Might be a good plot device for a science-fiction novel, however.

[ynot]

ynot, the problem isn't just that your idea doesn't "square with existing observations".

The problem is that your idea doesn't square with existing observations AND there are absolutely no observations - not even an anomaly - that suggests your idea may have a basis in reality.

It's sheer speculation, with absolutely nothing observable or measurable supporting it whatsoever.



See above - there's a big difference between "brainstorming" and "fantasizing".



Actually, we have a reasonably good estimate of the size of the universe (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html), one based on current information and findings backed up by a lot of data. Of course, since the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, the size changes moment to moment. However, Hubble and other scientific projects have seen pretty darned deeply into the reaches of the universe, and are peering more deeply every day.

Your argument is even weaker than the "Invisible Pink Unicorn" type of argument, because the laws of nature - as uncovered, tested and verified via physics - don't allow for your "choppy sea energy" idea, and your concept is fully subject to the laws of nature - no supernatural aspect is involved, nor can one be claimed.



It's not just evidence. It's the laws of physics. And we have absolutely no reason to believe whatsoever that the laws change based on location. In fact, we have every reason TO believe that the laws of physics hold true throughout the universe, seen and unseen.



Your analogy doesn't work, just like your idea.

First of all, people have always been able to make all the necessary observations required to determine that our earth in a sphere, so your comment on "our ancestors concluding that the world was flat based on their limited observations" is incorrect in it's fundamental assumption - that "our ancestors" were only able to make limited observations leading to an erroneous conclusion.

Further, your conclusion is incorrect in historical fact as well. Aristotle (322-284 BC) argued that the earth is a sphere (http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htm). Eratosthenes (194-276 BC) even estimated (surprisingly accurately, too) the circumference of the earth. And there is a lot of evidence that even earlier than that, the Romans (who were sailors as well) understood that the world was round, too.

So over 2300 years ago - long before Christopher Columbus, Galileo and his telescope, the "scientific method" we employ today... in fact, roughly half-way through recorded history - informed people believed the earth was a sphere. (I say "informed" because even today some people apparently still believe the earth is flat.)

So at some point, yes - some people did believe the earth was flat... just as today, some people refuse to believe that man has landed on the moon. Of course, there are also people who fervently believe the world was created about 7,000 years ago, along with a fossil record dating back beyond that point by a God - whom, if He did such a thing - would have to be the greatest Con Being of all time. :)

Historical evidence indicates that most people in antiquity really didn't care about the shape of the world - not a surprise, given the times they lived in. But as always, the error in their beliefs was eventually revealed by reason, logic, mathematics and observation of the universe around us - including our own earth, which is clearly a part of the universe. (And hardly a unique part, either.)

Again - ideas without any supporting evidence are merely speculation. Interesting speculation, and clever - but unfortunately, without support. Might be a good plot device for a science-fiction novel, however.
Obviously it’s just speculation, but that doesn’t mean it’s complete fantasy. What I’m speculating doesn’t require new laws of physics. It only requires that known laws are applied differently in different areas at the same time. If a thing can expand it can also contract, and a thing can expand in one area while contracting in another. I’m merely speculating that perhaps we observe the universe from an area that’s expanding and other areas may be contracting (and independently expanding). That there’s no observable evidence to support this speculation doesn’t mean it‘s not possible in theory. Do you think that The Big Crunch Theory is also just fantasy?

That “the universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide” doesn‘t mean the universe actually is only 156 billion light-years wide. It only means that the current extent of our ability to observe it is 156 billion light-years wide. If we could travel 100 light years away from our current position we would be able to observe 100 light years worth of “new” universe in the direction of our travel, and 100 light years less in the direction we came from. Observation can confirm reality, but it doesn’t create it

[jmercer]

Obviously it’s just speculation, but that doesn’t mean it’s complete fantasy.

Well, I think that you'd get an argument from a scientist about that - since there's no evidence or mathematical theory in existence that supports it.

What I’m speculating doesn’t require new laws of physics. It only requires that known laws are applied differently in different areas at the same time.

Um... no. If the laws apply differently in different places, then they wouldn't be laws. And it would also mean that there's an undiscovered meta-principle at work - one for which there is no evidence.

Keep in mind that if you throw out entropy (required for your idea), everything changes. Cause may no longer necessarily follow effect - which means that fundamental chemical and atomic interactions won't work.

If the multiverse theory is true, then yes - there could be other universes where our laws are not the laws in effect. But the laws of physics are - by definition - universal in the truest sense of the word. Just take a look at where the laws break down - at (or very near) a singularity, and at (or very near) the moment of the big bang. In other words, only at points where conditions are so extreme that they are unmatched anywhere in "normal" spacetime... and even under those extreme conditions, nothing is predicted that even remotely resembles your idea.

If a thing can expand it can also contract, and a thing can expand in one area while contracting in another.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Some things expand and disperse, like energy (think heat, or light) - they cannot contract because the action of expansion is also one of dispersion. Likewise, there are also things that expand unevenly.

I’m merely speculating that perhaps we observe the universe from an area that’s expanding and other areas may be contracting (and independently expanding). That there’s no observable evidence to support this speculation doesn’t mean it‘s not possible in theory.

ynot... you can't call it a theory (in the sense of scientific theory, and since we're discussing science here, I assume that's the kind of theory you mean) without some kind of evidence or a mathematical model indicating it's possible. At the moment, none such exist. If you can produce some kind of observation that's been independently verified - or some mathematical theory that's been peer-reviewed and published - then I'll be perfectly willing to consider your idea theory.

Just thinking of it doesn't make it a scientific theory. It's merely speculation, and unfortunately, unfounded speculation at that.

In addition, as I've said countless times - current observations and existing theories do not support your idea at all.

Do you think that The Big Crunch Theory is also just fantasy?

The Big Crunch hypothesis is based on a mathematical model that is (or was, anyway) supported by a set of observations. It always outlined the factors that would determine whether or not it was correct, such as the amount of total matter in the universe and the rate of expansion; recent observations have disproven it, and unless new (and heretofore unseen) observations show up, it's pretty much a dead theory. The universe will either coast to a stop and die a cold death, or will ultimately self-destruct in a "big rip". Contraction, however, doesn't appear possible based on today's observations based on the newly discovered increasing rate of expansion and other recent observations (mentioned elsewhere in this thread).


That “the universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide” doesn‘t mean the universe actually is only 156 billion light-years wide. It only means that the current extent of our ability to observe it is 156 billion light-years wide. If we could travel 100 light years away from our current position we would be able to observe 100 light years worth of “new” universe in the direction of our travel, and 100 light years less in the direction we came from. Observation can confirm reality, but it doesn’t create it

That's why I said "estimate". And if I wanted to be naughty about it, I could point out that observation can determine reality - at least at a quantum level. :p

[sol invictus]

That “the universe is at least 156 billion light-years wide” doesn‘t mean the universe actually is only 156 billion light-years wide. It only means that the current extent of our ability to observe it is 156 billion light-years wide. If we could travel 100 light years away from our current position we would be able to observe 100 light years worth of “new” universe in the direction of our travel, and 100 light years less in the direction we came from.

Yes, of course. In all standard cosmological models the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales, meaning that every point is the same as every other point. There are no boundaries or edges. When cosmologists talk about the size of the universe, they are referring to the size of the patch of the universe we can observe.

If the universe is "closed", it means it has a finite spatial volume at any given time, but that volume is larger than the part we can currently see. It may or may not crunch in the future in this case. If it doesn't, the volume can grow without bound with time, so even in this case to say that the universe is finite is a little misleading.

If it's flat, it is infinite in spatial extent, and again we can only see a finte piece of it.

If it's open, it's even more infinite (that actually does mean something), and again we can only see part of it.

[ynot]

Well, I think that you'd get an argument from a scientist about that - since there's no evidence or mathematical theory in existence that supports it.



Um... no. If the laws apply differently in different places, then they wouldn't be laws. And it would also mean that there's an undiscovered meta-principle at work - one for which there is no evidence.

Keep in mind that if you throw out entropy (required for your idea), everything changes. Cause may no longer necessarily follow effect - which means that fundamental chemical and atomic interactions won't work.

If the multiverse theory is true, then yes - there could be other universes where our laws are not the laws in effect. But the laws of physics are - by definition - universal in the truest sense of the word. Just take a look at where the laws break down - at (or very near) a singularity, and at (or very near) the moment of the big bang. In other words, only at points where conditions are so extreme that they are unmatched anywhere in "normal" spacetime... and even under those extreme conditions, nothing is predicted that even remotely resembles your idea.



That doesn't necessarily follow. Some things expand and disperse, like energy (think heat, or light) - they cannot contract because the action of expansion is also one of dispersion. Likewise, there are also things that expand unevenly.



ynot... you can't call it a theory (in the sense of scientific theory, and since we're discussing science here, I assume that's the kind of theory you mean) without some kind of evidence or a mathematical model indicating it's possible. At the moment, none such exist. If you can produce some kind of observation that's been independently verified - or some mathematical theory that's been peer-reviewed and published - then I'll be perfectly willing to consider your idea theory.

Just thinking of it doesn't make it a scientific theory. It's merely speculation, and unfortunately, unfounded speculation at that.

In addition, as I've said countless times - current observations and existing theories do not support your idea at all.



The Big Crunch hypothesis is based on a mathematical model that is (or was, anyway) supported by a set of observations. It always outlined the factors that would determine whether or not it was correct, such as the amount of total matter in the universe and the rate of expansion; recent observations have disproven it, and unless new (and heretofore unseen) observations show up, it's pretty much a dead theory. The universe will either coast to a stop and die a cold death, or will ultimately self-destruct in a "big rip". Contraction, however, doesn't appear possible based on today's observations based on the newly discovered increasing rate of expansion and other recent observations (mentioned elsewhere in this thread).



That's why I said "estimate". And if I wanted to be naughty about it, I could point out that observation can determine reality - at least at a quantum level. :p
Thanks for your helpful and patient feedback. I’m happy to write it off as a wacky idea without wings. Darn! Why did I waste so much time writing a Nobel acceptance speech? :D

[jmercer]

Thanks for your helpful and patient feedback. I’m happy to write it off as a wacky idea without wings. Darn! Why did I waste so much time writing a Nobel acceptance speech? :D

:)

You're welcome. Nothing wrong with being creative in your thinking! :)

[DrBaltar]

i do not understand your use of the word "natural", or the constraints you put on a law that allow it to be a "natural law". and while the word "supernatural" carries a lot of emotional baggage, defining it has "not what we currently think of as a natural law" has repeatedly failed to stand the test of time.By natural, I mean in accordance to physical laws of the universe. And by physical laws, I mean the real deal: The Theory of Everything. I know we have not defined the TOE yet, but this is what I mean by natural laws. If an event follows 'natural laws', it is an effect of a cause. Supernatural occurrences do not follow anything allowed for with the TOE. They just happen. i.e. Moses parts the Red Sea with his staff.

Thoughts occurring via supernatural mechanisms would NOT be traceable with an MRI. They would NOT be based on anything previously known by the thinker. They would just happen. But they are traceable with an MRI, which shows that there are a chain of natural causes which culminates in a 'thought'.

[DrBaltar]

if the model is just wrong, then the model is just wrong, and we do not need anything as fancy as "chaos" to explain our failure to get good forecasts!Well yes, but is there any indication that any applicable models are wrong wrt consciousness? With the billions of neurons and even more interconnections and analog inputs, I wouldn't rule out that the system just might be complex enough for chaos theory to be applicable.

[DrBaltar]

How can you say “we can see and measure a LOT Of the universe” when we don‘t have any idea how big it is, or even that it has a definable size?The universe has a radius of 13.7 billion light years, plus or minus 137 million (see reference (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html)).

[DrBaltar]

Just take a look at where the laws break down - at (or very near) a singularityActually no. If you're talking about a black hole, it's true our current understanding of physics does not apply in the vicinity of a singularity, BUT... around the singularity is an event horizon where time stops. A black hole happens when a star collapses to within the event horizon. By definition, this can never happen since time stops at the event horizon. So when we see a black hole, what we're seeing is actually a star that has almost collapsed to the point of crossing the event horizon but hasn't done it yet. It's probably so redshifted it's hard to distinguish it from an actual black hole. But I think this point spares us from having to allow for singularities in our universe, except for maybe the big bang.

[Yllanes]

So when we see a black hole, what we're seeing is actually a star that has almost collapsed to the point of crossing the event horizon but hasn't done it yet. It's probably so redshifted it's hard to distinguish it from an actual black hole. But I think this point spares us from having to allow for singularities in our universe, except for maybe the big bang.

It doesn't spare us, because in the reference frame of the star the collapse takes only a fraction of a second.

[sol invictus]

It doesn't spare us, because in the reference frame of the star the collapse takes only a fraction of a second.

Correct, and furthermore the black hole will eventually evaporate even in our frame. For a solar mass black hole the time that will take is extremely long, but smaller (and shorter-lived) holes may have formed in the early universe, or even during very energetic collisions of particles if certain exotic theories are correct.

[jmercer]

Actually no. If you're talking about a black hole, it's true our current understanding of physics does not apply in the vicinity of a singularity, BUT... around the singularity is an event horizon where time stops. A black hole happens when a star collapses to within the event horizon. By definition, this can never happen since time stops at the event horizon. So when we see a black hole, what we're seeing is actually a star that has almost collapsed to the point of crossing the event horizon but hasn't done it yet. It's probably so redshifted it's hard to distinguish it from an actual black hole. But I think this point spares us from having to allow for singularities in our universe, except for maybe the big bang.

I was indeed speaking of physics near a singularity; however, it's my understanding that time truly stops at the singularity, and not at the Schwarzchild radius.

Let me clarify so my phrasing isn't so sloppy.

It's my understanding that from an outside observer's perspective, someone approaching the horizon would appear to slow down and take longer and longer to approach it. If the traveler continued to head toward the horizon, it would eventually appear to take infinitely long to the outside observer. However, from the frame of reference of the traveler, no such time dilation would take place - they would continue to approach the horizon, and then pass through it with no change in their local time. In fact, they would continue inward until tidal stresses broke them up... and when whatever remained finally reached the singularity itself, time would stop due to the nature of the conditions at the singularity itself.

Please advise if that's incorrect - thanks! :)

[DrBaltar]

It doesn't spare us, because in the reference frame of the star the collapse takes only a fraction of a second. But by then an infinite amount of time has passed for the rest of the universe. The show is over.

[DrBaltar]

I was indeed speaking of physics near a singularity; however, it's my understanding that time truly stops at the singularity, and not at the Schwarzchild radius.Ok, now I am remembering cases of a rotating and/or charged black hole in which the singularity is 'exposed' or not within an event horizon. Otherwise, it's the the Schwarzchild radius where time stops. I'll have to look at my references next week.

It's my understanding that from an outside observer's perspective, someone approaching the horizon would appear to slow down and take longer and longer to approach it. If the traveler continued to head toward the horizon, it would eventually appear to take infinitely long to the outside observer. However, from the frame of reference of the traveler, no such time dilation would take place - they would continue to approach the horizon, and then pass through it with no change in their local time. In fact, they would continue inward until tidal stresses broke them up... and when whatever remained finally reached the singularity itself, time would stop due to the nature of the conditions at the singularity itself.

The traveler entering the black hole would see the universe start to play forward at high speed. By the time he crosses the event horizon, the universe fast forwards all the way to the end. Unless the evaporation of the black hole and eventual explosion prevents this before the traveler actually reaches the event horizon, as Hawking predicts.

Once you do enter the event horizon, time and space switch roles. Before you enter, you have freedom of movement in space, but must temporally move forward into the future. Within the event horizon you have freedom of movement in time, but spatially, you must end up at the singularity.

[Yllanes]

But by then an infinite amount of time has passed for the rest of the universe. The show is over.

That's irrelevan, because the reference frame of the collapsing star is just as valid (perhaps even more so) than the proverbial 'asymptotic observer'. The star is made of real physical particles and they reach/form the singularity in a very short time.

[DrBaltar]

That's irrelevan, because the reference frame of the collapsing star is just as valid (perhaps even more so) than the proverbial 'asymptotic observer'. The star is made of real physical particles and they reach/form the singularity in a very short time.

Sure, the reference frame of a collapsed star is perfectly valid. It just takes place an infinite time from now. So as valid as it may be in its time, it is completely irrelevant as far as our universe goes.

[Yllanes]

Sure, the reference frame of a collapsed star is perfectly valid. It just takes place an infinite time from now. So as valid as it may be in its time, it is completely irrelevant as far as our universe goes.

The star is part of our universe.

[sol invictus]

But by then an infinite amount of time has passed for the rest of the universe. The show is over.

This is true only in classical physics. If you include quantum mechanics there is Hawking radiation, and the black hole evaporates in a fnite amount of time.

Black holes are not eternal - we've known that since the 1970's.

And even if they were eternal, as Yllanes keeps pointing out, we might still want to know what happens to someone that falls in.

[jmercer]

The traveler entering the black hole would see the universe start to play forward at high speed. By the time he crosses the event horizon, the universe fast forwards all the way to the end. Unless the evaporation of the black hole and eventual explosion prevents this before the traveler actually reaches the event horizon, as Hawking predicts.

Once you do enter the event horizon, time and space switch roles. Before you enter, you have freedom of movement in space, but must temporally move forward into the future. Within the event horizon you have freedom of movement in time, but spatially, you must end up at the singularity.

I'm going to have to do some more refresher reading and get back to this. I clearly remember examples in various physics texts of entering a theoretical event horizon described. IRRC, where a very large horizon exists - generated by something containing the mass of several large galaxies - I remember an explanation from a physics book indicating that the tidal stresses at or near a very large horizon such as that being very mild and possibly even unnoticeable as you approach and cross the horizon. Could be that I'm either mis-remembering or that concept has been dismissed... or maybe they were talking about rotating black holes. (Kerr holes)

Another thing that bothers me is that your description seems to clash with Hawking's evaporating black hole theory; as the two imaginary particles appear, one is described as just outside the horizon, and able to escape - while the other one is inside the horizon and trapped. The escaping (now real) particle gives the illusion that the horizon is radiating particles. According to Hawking, many times the "escaping" particle fails to escape - it has to emerge moving in exactly the right direction to eventually escape the gravity well. But where it does escape, the black hole should appear to be radiating.

Your description would lead me to the conclusion that we would never detect such radiation from a black hole until very near the end of the universe, because the particles wouldn't move far enough away to be detected until then. This doesn't seem to fit Hawking's view, from what I've read in his books and subsequent interviews. (He could easily be wrong or I could be misunderstanding his comments, of course.)

Thanks for the response!

(ETA: I see someone else already brought up the quantum aspect of evaporating holes. :))

[sol invictus]

I clearly remember examples in various physics texts of entering a theoretical event horizon described. IRRC, where a very large horizon exists - generated by something containing the mass of several large galaxies - I remember an explanation from a physics book indicating that the tidal stresses at or near a very large horizon such as that being very mild and possibly even unnoticeable as you approach and cross the horizon. Could be that I'm either mis-remembering or that concept has been dismissed... or maybe they were talking about rotating black holes. (Kerr holes)

You're remembering correctly. Nothing at all happens to an observer falling through the horizon of a large black hole. It is not true that the universe goes into "fast forward", at least not in any meaningful sense. The switching of time and space is an artifact of a bad choice of coordinates and means nothing to the observer. On the contrary, the observer will have absolutely no way of knowing that she has fallen through a horizon. The space is nearly flat at the horizon of a large BH, tidal stresses are very small, etc.

If the black hole is really huge, it could take millions of years to fall down to the singularity, so our observer could have children and grandchildren, and live out her life in blissful ignorance of the fact that her distant descendents are doomed to be torn apart at the singularity.

In fact, it is perfectly possible that the earth is at this moment passing through the event horizon of a big black hole. For example if a spherically symmetric shell of matter or radiation is collapsing on us right now, with the earth at the center, but won't hit us for 1,000,000 years, there is literally no way we could know about it. There are no gravitational effects at all - and yet we may already be inside the horizon of the black hole the radiation will form and be doomed.

[DrBaltar]

The star is part of our universe.

Not once they are a black hole. See this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_diagram). It explains how to read Penrose diagrams. Then look at the Penrose diagrams related to black holes.

[DrBaltar]

This is true only in classical physics. If you include quantum mechanics there is Hawking radiation, and the black hole evaporates in a fnite amount of time.

Black holes are not eternal - we've known that since the 1970's.

And even if they were eternal, as Yllanes keeps pointing out, we might still want to know what happens to someone that falls in.

Hawking radiation applies to a true black hole, where the entire star has collapsed within the event horizon. In reality, however, it takes an infinite amount of time for the star to collapse because at the event horizon time stops.

[sol invictus]

Hawking radiation applies to a true black hole, where the entire star has collapsed within the event horizon. In reality, however, it takes an infinite amount of time for the star to collapse because at the event horizon time stops.

That's just not correct. It takes an infinite amount of time for matter to reach a pre-existing horizon only if you use a particular set of coordinates which are singular at the horizon. The only thing that infinity really means is that signals from the collapsing matter take infinite time to escape, and become infinitely red-shifted, as the matter approaches a horizon. It's just a coordinate artifact. The physical time as measured by the collapsing matter is always finite. And even using the asymptotic coordinate, it still only takes a finite (and not particularly large) amount of time for something to get within one Planck length of the horizon, at which point no experiment you could possibly perform could determine whether it has actually crossed, or the horizon has gotten bigger, or what.

If you like conformal diagrams, take a look at the one here, which shows the formation (but not the evaporation) of a black hole by a collapsing shell of radiation.

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/000530.html

EDIT - here's a diagram showing the formation and evaporation:

http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2006/Fig1.jpg

As you can see, the black hole has both formed and evaporated by Hawking radiation in a finite amount of time.

[DrBaltar]

That's just not correct. It takes an infinite amount of time for matter to reach a pre-existing horizon only if you use a particular set of coordinates which are singular at the horizon. The only thing that infinity really means is that signals from the collapsing matter take infinite time to escape, and become infinitely red-shifted, as the matter approaches a horizon. It's just a coordinate artifact.
I am aware of the need to change coordinate systems to mathematically smooth out the region at the event horizon. This doesn't change the fact that times stops at the event horizon. The curvature is such that space becomes null-like (i.e. space becomes the 4D equivalent of coplanar with light 4-vectors) at the event horizon. Time must become dilated to the point that time effectively stops at the event horizon.

The physical time as measured by the collapsing matter is always finite. And even using the asymptotic coordinate, it still only takes a finite (and not particularly large) amount of time for something to get within one Planck length of the horizon, at which point no experiment you could possibly perform could determine whether it has actually crossed, or the horizon has gotten bigger, or what.I am not talking about the passage of time from the point of view of infalling matter. I'm talking about the length of time it takes a star to collapse as seen from an outside observer.

If you like conformal diagrams, take a look at the one here, which shows the formation (but not the evaporation) of a black hole by a collapsing shell of radiation.

http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/000530.html

EDIT - here's a diagram showing the formation and evaporation:

http://www.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2006/Fig1.jpg

As you can see, the black hole has both formed and evaporated by Hawking radiation in a finite amount of time.

I began reading the article you posted on the first link. It will take me some time to completely digest the information presented there. At first it piqued my interest when it says an infalling shell of radiation (I thought I can see a shell of radiation traveling away but not towards me - but anyway, for the sake of the thought experiment...) capable of forming a black hole around me will have already created an event horizon around me before it actually reaches me. After some thought though, I realized this could not be. Light traveling away from me would pass through the incoming shell of radiation because at that point, the shell would not have the required density to create an event horizon. At the surface of the sphere, the radiation would curve space, but without enough density AT the surface of the sphere it would not curve space to any relativistic degree. Inside the sphere, as the incoming sphere of radiation is approaching, there is much less energy density, so the curvature of space within the approaching sphere would return to near normal flat spacetime. Although it is true that an observer outside the sphere would feel a gravitational pull towards the observer in the center of the approaching sphere, but he would be well outside the Schwarzchild radius of the total mass of the sphere and would experience no relativistic effects.

Looking further into the article, I followed its link at the end, where it references a paper saying a number of dubious statements:
- when the star is collapsing it is absolutely unclear where the horizon is. This is false.
- he can't stand the idea that the role of space and time is somewhat reversed inside the black hole... This is an argument?
- General relativity is incorrect, and Chapline uses the paper of Gödel as well as another, older, less famous paper to argue that GR is wrong and Einstein could have known it. The number of scientific papers written in support general relativity and written about experiments supporting general relativity are so numerous they could form a black hole itself if stored in one location. He is committing heresy unless he has some extraordinary evidence against GR.

As for the rest, I'll have to read it when I have some time, but I don't have much confidence in the rest of the article with all the red flags I've seen so far.

[jmercer]

You're remembering correctly. Nothing at all happens to an observer falling through the horizon of a large black hole. It is not true that the universe goes into "fast forward", at least not in any meaningful sense. The switching of time and space is an artifact of a bad choice of coordinates and means nothing to the observer. On the contrary, the observer will have absolutely no way of knowing that she has fallen through a horizon. The space is nearly flat at the horizon of a large BH, tidal stresses are very small, etc.

If the black hole is really huge, it could take millions of years to fall down to the singularity, so our observer could have children and grandchildren, and live out her life in blissful ignorance of the fact that her distant descendents are doomed to be torn apart at the singularity.

Thanks, SI - I knew I wasn't THAT crazy. ;)


In fact, it is perfectly possible that the earth is at this moment passing through the event horizon of a big black hole. For example if a spherically symmetric shell of matter or radiation is collapsing on us right now, with the earth at the center, but won't hit us for 1,000,000 years, there is literally no way we could know about it. There are no gravitational effects at all - and yet we may already be inside the horizon of the black hole the radiation will form and be doomed.

Sounds like there shouldn't be any tidal effects, but I think we should see an lensing effect (or distortion) if we looked inward toward the singularity.

In fact... hmm... I think we would see a sort of "well of stars", fairly normal at the "top of the well", but appearing red-shifted and packed closer and closer together as we look "further down the well" toward the singularity... and at some point, nothing but absolute black at the "bottom of the well."

Another way to view it would be a broad ring of stars with empty blackness in the center of the ring... and stars closest to the center being red-shifted, with the stars furthest from the center appearing "normal" in terms of shift. I like the well analogy better because it's three-dimensional and allows for stars to appear parallel to us while "looking down the well."

Cool stuff, though, and thanks! :)

[sol invictus]

I am aware of the need to change coordinate systems to mathematically smooth out the region at the event horizon. This doesn't change the fact that times stops at the event horizon. The curvature is such that space becomes null-like (i.e. space becomes the 4D equivalent of coplanar with light 4-vectors) at the event horizon. Time must become dilated to the point that time effectively stops at the event horizon.

Again, this is purely a coordinate artifact. It has nothing to do with curvature. I can choose coordinates in pure flat space with exactly the same behavior - look up Rindler space if you don't believe me.


Looking further into the article, I followed its link at the end, where it references a paper saying a number of dubious statements:


Those are very dubious statements indeed. Which link did you follow?

Be aware that the blog post I linked to is about a very dubious talk the blogger attended, which he didn't believe for a moment.

[DrBaltar]

You're remembering correctly. Nothing at all happens to an observer falling through the horizon of a large black hole. It is not true that the universe goes into "fast forward", at least not in any meaningful sense. The switching of time and space is an artifact of a bad choice of coordinates and means nothing to the observer. On the contrary, the observer will have absolutely no way of knowing that she has fallen through a horizon. The space is nearly flat at the horizon of a large BH, tidal stresses are very small, etc.
I think you may have heard about the event horizons of extremely large black holes, like the ones found in the centers of galaxies. These are so large that the gravity gradient is small even at the event horizon. But for the 5-10 solar mass black holes this is not the case. The gravity gradient is so large you'd be ripped apart atom by atom.

[DrBaltar]

Again, this is purely a coordinate artifact. It has nothing to do with curvature. I can choose coordinates in pure flat space with exactly the same behavior - look up Rindler space if you don't believe me.Ok....


The Rindler horizon

The Rindler coordinate chart has a coordinate singularity at x = 0, where the metric tensor (expressed in the Rindler coordinates) has vanishing determinant. This happens because as x goes to 0 the acceleration of the Rindler observers diverges. As we can see from the figure illustrating the Rindler wedge, the locus x = 0 in the Rindler chart corresponds to the locus T^2=X^2, \; X > 0 in the Cartesian chart, which consists of two null half-planes, each ruled by a null geodesic congruence.

For the moment, we simply consider the Rindler horizon as the boundary of the Rindler coordinates. Later we will see that it is in fact analogous in some important respects, to the event horizon of a black hole.That tells me that there is a coordinate singularity in the Rindler space at what is analogous to the event horizon of a black hole.

Those are very dubious statements indeed. Which link did you follow?

Be aware that the blog post I linked to is about a very dubious talk the blogger attended, which he didn't believe for a moment.The article you linked to (http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/000530.html) discussed George Chapline, and says that he sat through Chapline's talk at Harvard, and says that it was the most surreal hour he ever spent. Is that a good thing or bad thing? Then refers us to Luboš's page (http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/03/chapline-black-holes-dont-exist.html) for more information at the bottom.

[Yllanes]

That tells me that there is a coordinate singularity in the Rindler space at what is analogous to the event horizon of a black hole.
Which means that you can change coordinates so that the singularity in the horizon disappears. And this in turn means that nothing especial happens at the horizon from the point of view of the falling observer.

[DrBaltar]

Which means that you can change coordinates so that the singularity in the horizon disappears. And this in turn means that nothing especial happens at the horizon from the point of view of the falling observer.

Yes, I already said that at the top of page 7 of this thread. Please note that there is a difference between what the traveler sees as he passes the event horizon, and what an outside observer sees as the traveler approaches the event horizon. In this thread I have been concentrating on what the outside observer sees because of my point that anyone outside the event horizon will NEVER see a black hole truly form since from the outside, it takes an infinite amount of time for a star to collapse into a black hole.

In the traveler's POV, he passes the event horizon as if it were just another waypoint. From the POV of an outside observer, he never reaches it.

Perhaps a Blackholes: The Facts sticky in this forum would be appropriate?

[Yllanes]

In this thread I have been concentrating on what the outside observer sees because of my point that anyone outside the event horizon will NEVER see a black hole truly form since from the outside, it takes an infinite amount of time for a star to collapse into a black hole.


You said more than that, you said that 'this point spares us from having to allow for singularities in our universe, except for maybe the big bang'. I and others disagree, because the collapse does take place for other observers.

[sol invictus]

That tells me that there is a coordinate singularity in the Rindler space at what is analogous to the event horizon of a black hole.

Right. And actually the black hole metric close to the horizon is the Rindler metric, as you can easily check.

The article you linked to (http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/000530.html) discussed George Chapline, and says that he sat through Chapline's talk at Harvard, and says that it was the most surreal hour he ever spent. Is that a good thing or bad thing?

Bad thing. Very bad thing. Their theory is total and complete nonsense from the very beginning. I think that's what he means by surreal.

Laughlin is a great example of what happens to already slightly crazy people after they win a Nobel prize.

[DrBaltar]

You said more than that, you said that 'this point spares us from having to allow for singularities in our universe, except for maybe the big bang'. I and others disagree, because the collapse does take place for other observers.

Here is a penrose diagram for flat spacetime:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Penrose.PNG


Below is a penrose diagram for a black hole.
http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/hamilton1/oh/penrose_Schwpar.gif
This shows that the region inside of the event horizon is separate from our universe. It is causally within our universe only in one direction, so in that respect it is different than anywhere else in our universe. If the black hole is rotating (the probable case), then there are inner and outer event horizons. According to Kerr's application of GR, this leads to an alternate universe, which is in no way causally related to our universe.
http://nrumiano.free.fr/Images/penrose_kerr_E.gif

ETA: you said "because the collapse does take place for other observers".
Given that time runs slower and slower for a clock with respect to the rest of the universe the further into a gravity well the clock goes, until time actually stops at the event horizon, can you explain how observers outside the event horizon can ever see the star completely collapse?