Originally posted by frogstompExpansion or contraction. . . The hubble constant as Einstien termed it . The dynamics are still not properly understood. Contraction will lead us to an implosion, expansion the heat death of the universe. . .Some might say there will be an equillibrium. Unfortunately that is in La La land. . .
I must point out that your hypothesis is no more definitive that the other guy's. For instance what is the universe expanding into, and why?
As Bertrand Russell said "The saddest day of my life was when I heard of the heat death of the universe".
Originally posted by EAPOEWhy scientists look inward to explain expansion is a bit strange, since it forces them to waste time looking for a gossamer repelling force. Let me ask you this, How many big bangs could an infinite space hold? And if the answer is more than one , Why do you think we could see outside the one we're in?
Expansion or contraction. . . The hubble constant as Einstien termed it . The dynamics are still not properly understood. Contraction will lead us to an implosion, expansion the heat death of the universe. . .Some might say there will be an equillibrium. Unfortunately that is in La La land. . .
As Bertrand Russell said "The saddest day of my life was when I heard of the heat death of the universe".
2 edits
Originally posted by frogstompI do not understand why you say Scientists look in. . . Are you familiar with the Anthropic conjecture?
Why scientists look inward to explain expansion is a bit strange, since it forces them to waste time looking for a gossamer repelling force. Let me ask you this, How many big bangs could an infinite space hold? And if the answer is more than one , Why do you think we could see outside the one we're in?
Originally posted by EAPOEtha anthropic principle is not remotely what I'm suggesting here, even though it is a reasonable argument. I'm talking only about the dimensions of the universe and the possibility that we don't need a repelling force to explain expansion.
I do not understand why you say Scientists look in. . . Are you familiar with the Anthropic conjecture?
Originally posted by knightmeisterI will repeat: I do not believe that S from N is a valid concept.
Every time you invalidate my questions you subtley also invalidate the concept of S from N without realising it.
Be careful whitey , you'll end up sawing off the very branch you are sitting on ....better get off quick and go for an eternal , continuous universe instead....TIMBER!
However I also do not believe that finite time => the existence of a nothing state.
Nor do I believe that the non-existence of a nothing state (nice phrase that one) => an infinite time line.
You are not very clear what you mean by a continuous universe or eternity but the implication of both words is an infinite timeline.
Originally posted by knightmeisterAnd what is this 'observing' if not a measurement?
No I don't think so. The difference with matter , energy , quantum particles etc is that they are substantive. They objectively exist. matter and energy can be observed physically , they can be experimented on.
And just to correct your concepts here, they can not be measured accurately. Its called Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
You need to read a modern physics book. I think you will find that matter and energy are not as substantive as you think and that space and time are an essential ingredient in the mix.
Now, can you touch: gravity, electric fields, light? Do they therefore not exist?
Originally posted by frogstompIf you mean big bang big crunch big bang etc etc then no because it does present a need for the big bang or crunch to be intiated by something else first. You can't have a crunch without a bang and you can't have a bang without a crunch. If you say either one comes first you are still potentially left with the S from N problem. However , I find it more plausible than basic S from N because it suggests an eternal universe. I might have totally got the wrong idea of what you are saying though.
So you're not a believer in the Cyclic Universe ( the big brother of ekpyrotics)?
Originally posted by EAPOENothing will eventually be the state of the universe, apart from electromagnetic radiation and a myriad of subatomic particles fleetingly popping in and out of existence in the vacuum. EAPOE
Nothing will eventually be the state of the universe, apart from electromagnetic radiation and a myriad of subatomic particles fleetingly popping in and out of existence in the vacuum. All matter is unstable (albeit with very long half lives), ultimately decaying predominantly into gamma radiation. Followed in time by the heat death of the universe as the radi ...[text shortened]... atter spreads out across space at the speed of light.
Nil Desperandum. . . It could be worse.
Sorry , that's not nothing you are talking about there... it's something! Start again .
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou need to read a modern physics book. I think you will find that matter and energy are not as substantive as you think and that space and time are an essential ingredient in the mix. TWHITEHEAD
And what is this 'observing' if not a measurement?
And just to correct your concepts here, they can not be measured accurately. Its called Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
You need to read a modern physics book. I think you will find that matter and energy are not as substantive as you think and that space and time are an essential ingredient in the mix.
Now, can you touch: gravity, electric fields, light? Do they therefore not exist?
Hang on a minute ..are you saying that the more deeply we look into matter and energy the more likely we are to find something called space and time at it's core? Quantum Physics is a journey to find more about what lies at the heart of all reality. At the moment I thought we were at the stage of quantum particles like quarks , protons , gluons and the like. These are the essential ingredients of life (so far) that have been found. Maybe we should not be talking about space , time ,or matter or energy but rather quantum particles or quark-gluon plasma and the such like. I would vouch that a quantum particle is more of a substantive object than "time". Have they put time in an accelerator yet?
Originally posted by twhiteheadNow, can you touch: gravity, electric fields, light? Do they therefore not exist?TWHITHEAD
And what is this 'observing' if not a measurement?
And just to correct your concepts here, they can not be measured accurately. Its called Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.
You need to read a modern physics book. I think you will find that matter and energy are not as substantive as you think and that space and time are an essential ingredient in the mix.
Now, can you touch: gravity, electric fields, light? Do they therefore not exist?
The difference between light and time is that light can be touched (you can feel heat from it , be blinded by it, you can say what it's made of -protons- it can be bent and refracted ) Electric fields are the same. Gravity is more interesting because physics doesn't seem to know what constitutes it. But it obviously a force of some kind because it can be counteracted and has differing strength values according to mass.
Time seems different . How would you rationalise time as being more substantive and existent than beauty?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadRight , so let's get this clear.
I will repeat: I do [b]not believe that S from N is a valid concept.
However I also do not believe that finite time => the existence of a nothing state.
Nor do I believe that the non-existence of a nothing state (nice phrase that one) => an infinite time line.
You are not very clear what you mean by a continuous universe or eternity but the implication of both words is an infinite timeline.[/b]
1)You do not believe that something can come from absolutely nothing . That to you is an invalid idea.
2)Ok , then you must by implication believe that if a state of absolutely nothing was /is / could have (don't pick up on the language here , it's a philosophical statement) it would have no potential or possibility of somethingness. Therefore , from nothing , nothing can come.
3) Therefore (because we know the universe exists) it cannot come from nothing ..that's invalid....so must have "come from" a state of somethingness (whatever that may be) . But that somethingness must have also not come from nothing but must have also come from somethingness.... etc etc etc x 10000 trillion
3a) A potential way out here is to say that the universe is uncaused and infinite in itself and has no beginning but this still leads you to eternal continuous existence anyway bacause the universe has always been around in this model.
4) If you take 3 into infinite regress you are left with infinite somethingness or a chain of infinite somethingnesses which leads you to eternal somethingness anyway because this infinite regress can have no beginning by definition.
5) You can decide not to go down the infinite regress road and stop with something uncaused if you like . But this somethingness with which you stop must be eternal or continuous or infinite without beginning because if it's not your are back to 3 again.
6) You then get to the realisation that you have nowhere to go if you rule out S from Nothing. You can put off the inevitable but logically you can't get off the road to eternal continuous existence without reverting to S from N or some self contradictory logic like "the universe created itself" or "the universe doesn't exist".
It's basic logic.... A is either A or non A so once you rule out non A you are only left with A. It's like in chess when the best (or only) move available is to be found once you realise all the other moves don't work.
I can't see a 3rd option that is not self contradictory or so woolly it doesn't address the raw question itself.
A finite something has to have a beginning and a boundary ...but it can't have a beginning from nothing... that is invalid. Therefore , you are into infinity again and continuity. Eternity to me is something that has no beginning and is continuous requiring no cause.
So eternity is because there can be no state of nothing ever... because if there was we wouldn't be here.
Now however incredible this idea sounds it makes more sense than the S from N idea because one thing we do know for sure is that we exist.
What I don't get is how you create a 3rd option when there is none.